Commentary from Scott Creighton
Briefly: Below is the full transcript of the report promised us by the Obama administration outlining their “evidence” that Bashar al-Assad is responsible for the use of chemical weapons on his own population on Aug. 21 2013. Three things stood out to me when I read it:
- There is no solid evidence mentioned to substantiate any of the claims made in the report or by various administration officials. None at all. What they call “human intelligence” is simply “an activist said”. Anyone remember “Curveball’s” human intelligence prior to our illegal invasion of Iraq?
- The 100 or so videos we now understand to have been made by a single U.S. backed NGO make up the sum total of the Obama administration’s “evidence”. I wrote about that this morning before this report came out.
- At the heart of their conclusion rests the statement… “We assess the Syrian opposition does not have the capability to fabricate all of the videos”… ? Does that mean they “access” the regime change NGOs they are paying in Syria have the capability to “fabricate” some of them? How many? Which ones?
Another thing to notice is the fact that the Obama administration themselves admit the videos were all shot in the same 12 locations and they claim they were made “generally around the time and locations of the bombings”
“At least 12 locations are portrayed in the publicly available videos, and a sampling of those videos confirmed that some were shot at the general times and locations described in the footage.”
“Generally”? What exactly does that mean?
Is “the day before” and “around the block” considered “generally” in the same time frame and location of the chemical weapons attacks?
That’s pretty loose language for a legal document crafted to gin-up support for the use of weapons of mass destruction. You would think they might want to be a little more concrete than “generally”
The point is, a 12 location shoot is nothing to the average film crew.
Most modern commercials require more than that.
It’s quite ridiculous to suggest these videos couldn’t have been fabricated for that reason alone.
They would require no lighting, no stagecraft, no sets or fake blood. Costumes are whatever the “activists” chose to wear and the cameras are either consumer grade low-end off-the-shelf variety or cell phones.
And there is really no script either, just set the scene and improvise with a general idea of where the “money shot victim” is placed (little girl wearing a “hello Kitty” shirt to tug at the heart strings of Middle Class American moms) and a rough idea of how the “scene” is to play out. There’s really not that much too it.
In short, that argument makes no sense at all and when you consider the fact that there is no other “evidence”, a lot hinges on the administration’s interpretation of these videos. Which makes this argument the key pivotal point to all of this. And it’s wrong.
Even if you grant them all the rest without debate, obviously these videos could have been produced by the same group and according to the writer from Foreign Policy, they were.