The Atlantic published the article UN Sources Say Syrian Rebels — Not Assad — Used Sarin Gas on May 5, 2013.

Plus how in the world would the rebels even get sarin gas? It doesn’t grow on trees, and though the government does have a bunch on hand, they’ve been guarding it heavily.

Perhaps my previous post Seymour Hersh Says Hillary Approved Sending Libya’s Sarin to Syrian Rebels provides the answer to this question. What did Hillary expect the Syrian rebels would do with the Sarin?

Hawaii News Now has a video interview on Facebook Gabbard Speaks on Syria

This is one heck of a wise woman. We need to be the media that broadcasts her message, because you know the corporate media won’t do the job. While the corporate media dollars are spent as the echo chamber for the war promoters, we have to be the chorus of voices that oppose them. Our only hope is that our numbers can outweigh their dollars.

You can also see this video outside the constraints of Facebook. The Hawaii News Now website has the same video posted as U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard speaks out against missile strike on Syria

The Washington Examiner has an article Tulsi Gabbard ‘skeptical’ Assad is behind Syria chemical attack that shows a CNN interview.

During an interview with CNN, the lawmaker from Hawaii criticized President Trump’s “reckless” missile strike against the airbase where defense officials believe the chemical attack originated. She asked: “Why should we just blindly follow this escalation of counter productive regime and sending American taxpayers’ dollars on these failed-regime-change wars that we have seen too often in Iraq and Libya and now continuing in Syria?”

She doesn’t even go so far as acknowledging the possibility that the gas attacks never happened. I have posted some critiques that claim that the Syrian Rebels may have manufactured this whole incident with fake photos and using people that they had kidnapped just two weeks before the “incident”.

The Hindustan Times has the article Tulsi Gabbard opposes US air strikes on Syria as ‘reckless’, ‘short-sighted’.

“If President Assad is indeed guilty of this horrible chemical attack on innocent civilians, I will be the first to call for his prosecution and execution by the International Criminal Court.” she said.

“However, because of our attack on Syria, this investigation may now not even be possible. And without such evidence, a successful prosecution will be much harder,” Gabbard, who is also a co-chair of the Congressional India Caucus said.

Tulsi Gabbard may be the lone voice of sanity in our Congress. Even Bernie Sanders has succumbed to the blind hysteria.

YouTube has a video they would like to suppress, but it still seems to be there – Evidence Suggests SYRIA GAS ATTACK Is False Flag

This seems to have some conflict somewhat with my prior post After U.S. Strikes Syria, Russian PM Says It’s ‘On The Verge Of A Military Clash’

On Wednesday, the Guardian reported, the Russian Defense Ministry claimed that the poison attack was the result of a Syrian airstrike hitting a “terrorist warehouse” full of “toxic substances.”

In all the confusion, it is going to take a while to sort this out, and we may never know what account of this incident is true, if any one of them is.

Since the corporate media is saturating us with the other side, I feel that someone has to counter it with other possible explanations.

I decided to look up the vote totals for the three most recent Presidential elections. I found the data on the 270 To Win web site.

The Hill has an article Sanders: Syria strikes could lead to Middle East quagmire.

“I’m deeply concerned that these strikes could lead to the United States once again being dragged back into the quagmire of long-term military engagement in the Middle East,” Sanders said in a statement.

I was thinking that this may be the most Sanders felt he could say in this climate of hysteria, but then I read on.

Sanders said Friday that Assad is a “war criminal” and the United States should work with the international community to help stop the years-long Syrian civil war.

“The US must work with all parties to reinforce longstanding international norms against the use of chemical weapons, to hold Russia and Syria to the 2013 deal to destroy these weapons and to see that violators are made accountable,” he said.

For me, this is too close an admission that Sanders is just as subject to being gulled by our oligarchs as most of the public seems to be. I think I have realized this for a while about Sanders. He doesn’t make as strong a connection about what the oligarchs are doing to the rest of us in this country and the policies that the oligarchs are foisting all over the world. In Syria, it may be a case of US oil interests fighting with Russian oil interests. The rest of us don’t come out as winners no matter which side carries the day.

Sanders certainly fails to make the connection in his public comments. I wonder if even in his mind does he fail to make the connection? I would find it hard to believe based on his earlier history as Burlington Mayor that he fails to understand.

Talking Point Memo has the article After U.S. Strikes Syria, Russian PM Says It’s ‘On The Verge Of A Military Clash’. The point in this article that caught my eye was.

On Wednesday, the Guardian reported, the Russian Defense Ministry claimed that the poison attack was the result of a Syrian airstrike hitting a “terrorist warehouse” full of “toxic substances.”

I had just heard this from someone at a lunch I just attended. If this were true, then it might not have been an al Qaeda false flag attack that triggered our retaliation against the wrong target. There are certainly going to be more twists in this story than I could ever imagine. One thing may be certain, we don’t have enough factual information to justify firing off dozens of missiles.

Consortium News has the article NYT Retreats on 2013 Syria-Sarin Claims. In analyzing the most recent gas attack, the article has this to say.

While it’s conceivable that Assad’s military is guilty – although why Assad would take this risk at this moment is hard to fathom – it’s also conceivable that Al Qaeda’s jihadists – finding themselves facing impending defeat – chose to stage a sarin attack even if that meant killing some innocent civilians.

Al Qaeda’s goal would be to draw in the U.S. or Israeli military against the Syrian government, creating space for a jihadist counteroffensive. And, as we should all recall, it’s not as if Al Qaeda hasn’t killed many innocent civilians before.

I don’t think Al Qaeda has to work very hard to draw in the U.S. or Israeli military against the Syrian government. These two governments have been itching to do this anyway. The US CIA has been overthrowing Syrian governments since 1949 at least.

As an aside, I was afraid that this article was going to report a New York Times story recanting their stories about the 2013 attack. That would be a real paradox for me since I don’t believe much of what the New York Times reports on foreign affairs, how could I believe a retraction? To my relief, The New York Times did not retreat by explicit statesent. The retreat comes from omitting the 2013 attack from their summary of all the evil things that Assad has done in Syria.