The White House Report - TTG

“We have confidence in our assessment because we have signals intelligence and geospatial intelligence, laboratory analysis of physiological samples collected from multiple victims, as well as a significant body of credible open source reporting, that tells a clear and consistent story. We cannot publicly release all available intelligence on this attack due to the need to protect sources and methods, but the following includes an unclassified summary of the U.S. Intelligence Community's analysis of this attack.”

Oh, that’s slick… and a real crock. This report gives the impression that the White House has more classified evidence that can’t be exposed to protect sources and methods. That’s a reasonable impression. The IC report on the Russian attack on the 2016 election process made the same claim and suffered widespread skepticism by doing so. This is as it should be. Given the primacy of information operations and the all consuming desire to control the narrative, it’s difficult to take anybody, especially a government, at their word. If we are serious about protecting intelligence sources and methods, we must accept this conundrum as a way of life. I only accept the premise of the IC Russia report because of my ten plus years of experience with the subject matter, not because the IC said so in a report lacking any convincing evidence. But I recognize this White House report on the Syrian chemical attack of 4 April as a steaming pile of manure for precisely the same reason.

While the IC Russia report stated its classified evidence simply would not be exposed, the White House Syria report states what it used for evidence… mostly jihadi produced social media evidence. That’s fortunate because we can examine all this open source information with a critical eye. It is  curious that this is a White House report and not an IC report. Is the IC on board? I doubt it. Phil Giraldi said “that military and IC personnel intimately familiar with the available intelligence say that the narrative that Assad or Russia did it is a sham, instead endorsing the Russian narrative that Assad’s forces had bombed a storage facility.” There are few people I take at their word. Phil Giraldi is one of them. 

Of the sources cited by the White House report, only signals intelligence can be considered classified evidence. The bulk of its evidence is available for all to examine. Many have done so. I suggest we look at these and, if so inclined, do some digging ourselves.

The only new claim made by the White House report is that Syrian personnel formerly associated with SAA chemical weapons were present at Shayarat Airfield. Perhaps former SAA and SAAF chemical troops were at the airfield. These troops have undoubtedly been redeployed to other jobs throughout the Syrian forces after the Syrian chemical weapons and stores were destroyed. Was this the signals intelligence? Not too impressive. Recordings of the Syrian pilots over Khan Shaykhun would be a far more convincing piece of signals intelligence, but such evidence is not alluded to in the report.  

Geospatial intelligence is the fancy word for overhead photography and Google Maps/Google Earth. The lab analysis of blood, tissue and urine samples was provided by Turkey, the long time supporter of IS and the jihadis in Idlib. I consider that to be part of the jihadi information operation. Soil samples and debris from the suspected gas shell, which would provide much more definitive evidence, are mysteriously not available. 

Almost all other evidence is from local accounts, photos and videos provided by the Al Qaeda White Helmets and other jihadi sources. The report claims this local evidence can’t be faked. That’s a joke. A cursory review of videos and photos show unprotected “rescue workers” handling contaminated bodies with impunity, a dead child with a number on her forehead opening her eyes, an elderly man sitting on the ground having his keffiyah pulled off his head by what appears to be a film director. These are just little things that struck me. I was also struck by the many accounts of  a chlorine smell from the odorless sarin gas.

The White House report claims the rationale for a Syrian Air Force chemical attack is that Assad’s forces were in a dire military situation north of Homs. By the time of the Khan Shaykhun attack, the SAA already recaptured most of the territory lost to the jihadi Homs offensive and the Homs airport was no longer threatened. Any air attack on Khan Shaykhun, chemical or conventional, would have no military effect on the Homs front. This rationale attributed to the Syrian government by the White House is absolutely bogus. The White house report would be more believable if it claimed the gas attack was the result of a series of mistakes and miscalculations by Syrian personnel. 

The White House goes to great lengths to disparage the Russian explanation of a Syrian attack on a jihadi munitions manufacturing/storage facility. Much of this disparagement consists of dismissing the Russians as devious tricksters. Yes, the Russians are damned good at information warfare and active measures. I admire their skills and abilities at this craft. It is precisely because of this Russian expertise that I find the idea of a deliberate chemical attack perpetrated by their close ally to be ludicrous. What would be the devious objective of this attack? Surely these master tricksters would have a plan for this and would have implemented it by now. 

Perhaps the Russians will reveal some intelligence on the jihadi munitions storage/manufacturing facility at Khan Shaykhun. Maybe someone could do some geospatial intelligence analysis of this facility. I would find both, or either one, quite satisfying.

TTG

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/11/world/middleeast/document-Syria-Chemical-Weapons-Report-White-House.html

https://www.libertarianinstitute.org/scotthortonshow/4617-philip-giraldi-says-ic-military-doubt-assad-gas-narrative/

http://tass.com/world/939417

Comments

[turcopolier]

TTG

Great help, thanks. pl

[William R. Cumming]

Thanks TTG! Pics look like chlorine primary agent but could wrong.

[Old Microbiologist]

Semi-related to what the Russians were saying all along. Now it has apparently happened to the US coalition as well. Should this turn out to be true, and I do not put 100% confidence into Sputnik, but it is on many Russian sites, some of which are very credible, then I wonder how this will be spun?

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201704131052598995-coalition-daesh-chemical-weapons-syria/

[b]

Correcting: It is the Hama front where that defeated large al-Qaeda attack took place, not Homs.

The argument TTG makes fits the one I published yesterday. I can't believe that any "intelligence" agency signed of on such an assessment. It is illogical and contains zero acceptable "evidence". Some intern at the NSC must have written that after reading Bellingcat or similar disinfo sites.

Note that the White House paper says "the opposition" several times. It does not mention al-Qaeda once. But Khan Shaykhun is al-Qaeda territory. The Hama attack was by al-Qaeda forces under the personal direction of al-Qaeda in Syria leader al-Jolani. Pics of the planning sessions were published. But the White House says "opposition attack".

The inevitable conclusion: Al-Qaeda is no *officially* "the opposition" the White House supports.

[Yeah, Right]

"Soil samples and debris from the suspected gas shell, which would provide much more definitive evidence, are mysteriously not available"

This was the point that stood out most starkly for me on first read of that report.

Analysis of blood or tissue can tell you that sarin was the CW agent, but it can't tell you much about how that sarin was manufactured; body chemistry gets in the way.

A soil sample, on the other hand.......

I think it is pretty clear that the USA has no 1st-hand incriminating evidence at all. None. Zip. Zero.

As you state, the lab analysis of victims was supplied by Turkey, and it appears that there are no soil samples at all.

The USA therefore is way beyond "trust us", being more in the position of bleating "you can trust us because we trust them, ok?".

Which is pathetic, because the people they must trust in order to arrive at their conclusions are about as untrustworthy as it is possible to be.

It'd be laughable if it wasn't so serious.

[Degringolade]

This is becoming some kind of wierd.

Thanks everyone for all the hard work. Just to add to the fire, just saw this.

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201704131052598995-coalition-daesh-chemical-weapons-syria/

[Mikey]

CNN (Barbara Starr) reported last night "(CNN)The US military and intelligence community has intercepted communications featuring Syrian military and chemical experts talking about preparations for the sarin attack in Idlib last week, a senior US official tells CNN."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/12/politics/us-intelligence-syrian-chemical-weapons/index.html

[Degringolade]

Gentlemen and Ladies:

I am going for a long weekend of hiking and not paying any attention to the world events. Not because I am not interested, but I really cannot, for the life of me, figure out why or what or who.

I hope to catch up in a couple of days, after things played out a little bit.

I leave with the words of James Kunstler over at "Clusterfuck Nation"

"There are times in the course of events when a society cannot tell what the fuck is going on, or what to do about it, and this is one of those moments in history here in the USA. The quandaries of life on the home front — how to make a living, how to care for ourselves and loved ones — get shoved aside by misadventures in foreign lands with their own quandaries. One delusion leads to another until you enter a zero gravity of the mind. Case in point du jour: Syria."

[The Beaver]

@ Mikey

Wonder if the IC did detect the Syrian accent !

(just a joke with reference to Richard Engel of NBC who said that he was kidnapped by pro-Assad Shabiha)

NBC had to fess up three years after said event when NYT went after Engel:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/16/business/media/nbc-news-alters-account-of-correspondents-kidnapping-in-syria.html

[Yeah, Right]

A prediction: it will eventually be revealed that the intercepted communications contain not one single, solitary mention of the words "sarin" or "chemical weapons".

Indeed, I suspect that when those intercepts are finally declassified then we will see that the entire conversation amounted to a discussion between Syrian planners about
(a) the military necessity of bombing a suspected arms dump in that warehouse and
(b) the need to inform the RuAF so that they could pass that information to the USAF via the established deconfliction channels.

And when (if?) some intrepid reporter asks which of those recorded voices belonged to the "chemical expert" the answer will be a sheepish "err, umm, come to think of it we don't actually know the identity of any of the people in that conversation".

I may be wrong, but I suspect that I'm not.

[Mikey]

US spokesman denies strike, RU MOD No information, sending drone to investigate.

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/us-denies-syrian-claim-targeting-chemical-depot-deir-ezor/

[Seamus Padraig]

It'll probably be ignored by everyone but the alt-media. And if the MSM are confronted with it somehow, they will simply claim it is Russian propaganda.

[Old Microbiologist]

It is impossible to say. Without forensic analysis and a validated chain of custody any of the currently reported results are meaningless, especially coming from Turkey. That is the same thing as relying on the Ukrainian government to investigate the downing of MH-17 yet, this seems to be the pattern of US accusations. Biological samples are misleading and only environmental samples can be used to tell the actual composition and comparison to known standardized samples already validated then an accurate and verifiable analysis can be used to establish the who's and what's about it. But, using social media is preposterous yet what the US continuously does. Until we see real data from a valid laboratory I distrust anything my government is saying.

[b]

That CNN nonsense is based on a single "senior U.S. official" source, not an "administration official", not an "intelligence official".

"U.S. official" is press code for Congress members.

The translated CNN text is thereby: "John McCain phoned us up and told us to write ..."

[EEngineer]

If you want surreal, read Scott Adam's blog post "The North Korea Reframe".
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/159495094661/the-north-korea-reframe

I wouldn't be surprise if this is how Trump thinks he's playing the game. Unfortunately, I would imagine that the Russians and Chinese see this as a transparent form of propaganda. I worry that it has been so effective and so thoroughly internalized by the members of the Borg, and the general population of the US at large, that it will take a shocking military defeat to disabuse them of the notion that this is just a "reality video game". My fear is that would inflict a Pearl Harbor scale mental shock that could cascade into WW3.

I just don't see an off ramp on the highway to war. Russia and China seem to be playing for time to prepare for the eventual hostilities or for adult supervision to appear in the US. The Borg seem to be stomping on the gas...

[Lars]

A very good summation. Now it needs to be spread to the major news outlets. That may not be easy, since they have already bought the government's version. But maybe there could be a few cracks.

[Daniel Nicolas]

regarding "the opposition" - perhaps this is better for changing the narrative of Syria vs good rebels + bad terrorists that the previous administration and their media outlets tried to sell to the American people. With their ever changing branding decisions by the multitude of various opposition groups, I've since given up trying to keep up with what they call themselves. Syria and the world will be better when they decide that they'd rather have peace and a vote at the ballot box in a secular government vs a fight to the death for their dream of another islamic fascist state.

[Fred]

b

"U.S. official" is press code for Congress members"
I would say your decoder doesn't list enough departments of the federal government. There are neo-cons throughout that would be happy to be CNN sources.

[Valissa]

It's clear now... Trump has been assimilated.

Of course, this was always highly likely to occur. The president is the head of the US establishment, therefore no matter what is said during election season, the herding power of the establishment is strong due to it's overall immensity of power and influence.

In order for Trump to be more successful at achieving his initial goals based on his campaign promises (which involved challenging the establishment) there would have to have been a significant minority within the establishment who agreed with those goals. Some of us thought that might be the case, but given the incredible institutional resistance to those goals and in light of current events that does not seem to be the case.

This article has a fairly complete list of Trump's new positions versus his old ones. It mentions that Bannon opposed US action in Syria. Bannon probably is aware it was a false flag and probably would agree with TTG's most excellent reporting here. I know some here are rejoicing in his loss of influence, along with the MSM chorus, but the more his influence wanes and the more the liberal globalist faction gains power, the faster Trump becomes a version of Hillary.

The Daily 202: Trump’s lurch toward corporatism, globalism shows why Bannon’s marginalization matters https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/04/13/daily-202-trump-s-lurch-toward-corporatism-globalism-shows-why-bannon-s-marginalization-matters/58ef11ebe9b69b3a72331e7d/
In fact, the best way to understand all the shifts is that Bannon has lost his turf war with the president’s son-in-law and a coterie of super-rich New York bankers whose affirmation Trump yearns for. The former head of Breitbart News opposed intervention in Syria and privately sees these nods to Wall Street as a betrayal of the president’s core base of support that got him elected. To be sure: Every president flip-flops or “evolves,” as they always prefer to put it.

... The D.C. establishment is, for the most part, giddy about Trump selling out his core supporters. Many country club Republicans are celebrating what they believe is a move toward “the mainstream.” (Translation: embracing the business community’s agenda.)
---------------

When Obama similarly caved to the establishment following his election, some supporters described him as playing 11th dimensional chess in order to sneakily accomplish something the rest of the establishment didn't want. There is a similar meme using 12th dimensional chess, but that is used snarkily rather than earnestly.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/09/who-wrote-rules-12-dimensional-chess/311440/

Both Bush and Obama were eventually assimilated following their elections. Despite running on very different political platforms, and having very different personalities, they ended up following the same foreign policies as their predecessors.

Between the power of establishment groupthink and the immense bureaucratic inertia of a yuuuuge gov't bureaucracy and the normal human desire for the approval of one's group members I don't see how any one person or small group of people can bring significant change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_influence

[smoke]

FWIW On 8 Apr Robert Parry reported:
"...on Friday, a source told me that Pompeo had personally briefed Trump on April 6 about the CIA’s belief that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was likely not responsible for the lethal poison-gas incident in northern Syria two days earlier."

Parry says he regarded this information as dubious. But when the photo was issued of Trump and his advisors, reportedly gathered to decide attack on Homs base, Parry noted, as did NYT, that no one representing IC was shown. Does this add weight to his source's report? wonders Parry.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/08/where-was-cias-pompeo-on-syria/

More disingenuous excuses for confrontation. Must the struggle for control of the public narrative take precedence over any concern for facts or understanding?

[Mikey]

I read on a headchopper news website the other day that the headchoppers monitored the radio communications of Syrian warplanes. They claim to have intercepted the comms of the SU-22 that morning. I'm presuming this would be unencrypted VHF TACAIR comms.

[Babak Makkinejad]

Also the instruments have to have been identically calibrated.

[Babak Makkinejad]

not assimilated; rather, manipulated.

[wisedupearly]

If the Govt. is really serious about stopping WMD attacks why did it hit just about everything except the "sarin facility" which DOD said was there? Can't be because their stated reason "did not to release a cloud of toxic gas".
Binary weapon, lots of Govt. experts have just claimed that attack could not have been a Syrian bomb into rebel warehouse because precursors were not mixed. So one missile, just one, takes out the facility. If sarin is released, well, its a military base and the base would have the necessary CW gear as they are claimed to have known that Assad had used sarin. If they don't have the gear tough turkey. They knew they shouldn't have had the sarin. Base is pretty isolated not in major civilian area. So some soldiers die of the banned chemical they were not supposed to have. What better proof and what better deterrent can there be? Instead of Russian TV touring the base the CW suits would be out. And that lot of sarin would be gone. Point, no forceful demands that the sarin be bagged and tagged for destruction?
The weaknesses of the arguments being advanced are staggering. Its almost as if the Admin did not do it but suspects that someone / some group important in American life did. The coverup is usually what fails.

[WarrenPeese]

CNN:

The US military and intelligence community has intercepted communications featuring Syrian military and chemical experts talking about preparations for the sarin attack in Idlib last week, a senior US official tells CNN.

Both Mattis and Tillerson used the phrasing "no doubt". Given Trump's ealier reticence to get involved in Syria, why would they lie about it?