The evidence of chemical attack seems compelling – but remember - there’s a propaganda war on
Some time last year I asked one of my Friends on Facebook why he didn't seem to care about the atrocities committed in Syria, and was told that they were scare stories, like those about Iraqis taking babies from incubators in Kuwait in 1991.
When the SWP supported Iraq in that war, they were under no illusions and didn't try to create illusions about Saddam ( Hussein, as Anne Robinson insisted a contestant add in a recent Weakest Link re-run). Yes he'd used chemical weapons, yes he'd run a torture state, but in that war he was the lesser evil.
Those who claim they are opposing the struggle to remove Assad because it is some imperial enterprise to remove him, don't seem to be prepared to adopt such an approach. They won't say they support him, but deny the significance of any of his actions, and so tend to enter the world of the conspiracy theorist, where only a version of events that fits the theory is important.
Cockburn says here:
"In June, the US said it has conclusive evidence for the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government and would therefore give aid to the rebels."
They didn't, and even Cockburn's link is to an Indie editorial that says:
"The sombre warning delivered to Congress by General Martin Dempsey, the Pentagon’s top uniformed officer, about the risks of increased involvement in Syria’s terrible civil war is a measure of how attitudes have changed in the US."
Back in May he told us:
"Syria has no reason to use chemical weapons."
and
"Not surprisingly, this has made the public everywhere in the world dubious about stories about the possession or use of WMD being used to hoodwink them into supporting another war."
But there was no attempt to drag us into a war this time, quite the opposite.