Another source

[David Morris]

You need to edit.

I will never all read such ramblings.

David Morris

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 3:07 AM peterthooper at juno.com <peterthooper at juno.com>
wrote:

>
> https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/06/21/the-douma-gas-attack-whats-the-evidence-it-was-a-false-flag/
>
> So Counterpunch, right, author hearkens back to his machinist training as
> a young Trotskyist trying to radicalize the proletariat!
>
> Sez the canister found in the building looks legit. Gives plausible
> scenario for the implausibility of fakery.
>
> Doesn’t mention the goat. Nor Hersh.
>
> Gives bkgd on one of the OPCW folk - Bustani - who signed off on the
> report. Doesn’t sound like somebody who’d be into mongering:
>
> “ In 2002, Bustani was negotiating with Iraq [to] join the OPCW, thus
> allowing its inspectors full access to Iraq’s purported “chemical weapons
> arsenal”. If Bustani had succeeded, this would have impeded the Bush
> administration’s war plans, by removing one of their “weapons of mass
> destruction” pretexts. When John Bolton got wind of Bustani’s efforts, he
> demanded his resignation. In a phone conversation between the two men
> reported in The Intercept, Bolton is quoted:
>
> “You have 24 hours to leave the organization, and if you don’t comply with
> this decision by Washington, we have ways to retaliate against you.” After
> a moment’s pause, Bolton specified the consequences of not resigning: “We
> know where your kids live. You have two sons in New York.”
>
> Dayum!
>
> The article doesn’t list him as specifically the editor of the Douma
> report.
>
> But wait - if he was forced out in 2002, how’d he get in again to review
> this report?
>
> Wikipedia doesn’t have anything about him getting back in. Counterpunch
> sez
>
> “If the OPCW was a tool of American ambitions, it certainly has an odd
> history for a group. Among the four people serving on the committee
> overseeing such investigations is one José Bustani, ”
>
> But what committee? Who are the other 3?
> Did he just drop Bustani’s name so he could tell the cool story about
> Bolton’s perfidy?
>
> fact I see here he’s recently cast doubt on the report. (In a panel with a
> buncha retired military and a Wikileaks person)
>
> So never mind about that, for now.
>
> Counterpunch’s haymaker, though, was the notion that the quite small
> effect of the Tomahawks was not worth carrying out a false flag op for.
>
> Presumably anyone considering doing it would be up on that beforehand.
>
> Hard to dispute that.
> So motive: just wanting to make Assad look bad?
> Or Raytheon stockholder?
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Sad News For Meghan Markle And Prince Harry
> track.volutrk.com
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5db6a1971066f21963f33st04vuc
> --
> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>