All right, y'all, welcome to the Scott Horton Show.
I am the Director of the Libertarian Institute, Editorial Director of Antiwar.com, author of the book Fool's Errand, Time to End the War in Afghanistan, and I've recorded more than 5,000 interviews going back to 2003, all of which are available at scotthorton.org.
You can also sign up for the podcast feed.
The full archive is also available at youtube.com slash scotthorton show.
All right, you guys, first, real quick, before we get to the interview, I owe you guys an apology.
I am not doing a whole lot of shows right now because I'm focusing really hard on trying to get this book knocked out.
It's almost done.
Enough already.
I'm going to try to catch up and do some more interviews with you, or for you guys, next week.
But hey, at least I got Aaron Maté on the line, and he's got a good one for us.
Of course, Aaron Maté at the Grayzone Project, that's thegrayzone.com, he hosts the show Pushback, and also he writes great articles about stuff, like for example, debunking Russiagate, and also debunking the, well, not just debunking the Douma chemical attack of 2018, but also telling the true story about what happened behind the scenes in the fight inside the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons, who, of course, did the big report that blamed a chemical attack on the Syrian government for being the cause of the deaths there during that attack.
There's April of 2018, and this one is called, this is, I don't know, 10th follow-up on this story, OPCW executives praised whistleblower and criticized Syria cover-up leaks reveal.
Welcome back to the show.
How you doing, Aaron?
I'm good, Scott.
Thanks for having me.
Happy to have you here, man.
So, you know, it would have been nice if they had leaked all this stuff in the first place, but then again, as far as more and more leaks coming out, these are satisfying ones and important ones.
So take us back, first of all, and just tell us about what, at least, what did happen and what supposedly happened back in April of 2018 in Douma, Syria, real quick, just to catch everybody up.
Well, as you said, in April 2018, you have video footage coming out of Douma with a lot of dead bodies and a claim from the militants who controlled Douma at the time, Jaysh al-Islam and activists working there, including the White Helmets, that there was a chemical attack by the Syrian government.
And a week later, the U.S., Britain, and France bombed Syria based on that allegation.
And shortly after that, the OPCW sent a team in that got into Douma, which investigated the scene.
Immediately, there were reports from journalists like Robert Fisk, the late Robert Fisk, who just passed away, who interviewed a doctor in Douma saying that the people who came to the hospital were not treated for any chemical weapons, but in fact had suffered from dust inhalation.
And Fisk picked up indications that there was a staging going on because some White Helmets members just ran into the hospital and started screaming gas and started filming people all of a sudden and were filming people being hosed down.
So they sort of helped create a panic and then filmed it immediately as if that's what they wanted to capture on film, which was then put out to the world to help convince people that Syria was guilty.
About a year later, the OPCW put out a final report which said that there were reasonable grounds to believe that there was a chemical weapons attack and that the weapon was chlorine.
And they also strongly suggested that the chlorine was delivered by cylinders that came from aircraft.
And the inference of that is that that came from the Syrian government because they're the only ones which have aircraft capability.
Then a series of leaks began coming out showing that the OPCW investigators who actually went to Syria for the investigation had to reach something quite different, that they found no evidence that these cylinders were dropped from aircraft.
And they found strong indications that the whole thing was staged on the ground, which would make sense because what plausible reason would Syria have to knowingly trigger the red line, to basically do something that they knew would invite a U.S. military response, especially as they were about to recapture Douma from Jaysh al-Islam.
So that's what these leaks have shown, and they've shown that the team's initial report was basically censored, and that some unknown superiors at the OPCW tried to rush out a doctored report that made all sorts of false claims about evidence of a chlorine attack, which put the blame on the Syrian government.
That was thwarted, but that attempted fraud was never investigated or addressed.
And so what these latest leaks that I obtained show was that a top OPCW executive saw all this going on and expressed a lot of alarm and praised the inspector, whose name has now been doxed by Bellingcat, a NATO state funded outlet, that he was the one who protested the initial censorship.
These new leaks that I have show that a senior executive praised Whelan and said that you took all the steps required to defend your professional integrity and voiced alarm at the fact that facts were being censored and suppressed.
There's another email exchange where another senior official does something different, where he acknowledges to Whelan that the initial report was censored, but he says that it wasn't done at the behest of the director general, though he doesn't say at whose behest it did happen and he doesn't order an investigation into who did it.
He instead just says, you know, it wasn't done at the behest of the director general and you guys should work it out amongst yourselves, taking a very hands off approach.
We also show that the same official, whose name is Bob Fairweather, who is British, he sought the recall of an email from Whelan that complained about the censorship.
So instead of investigating the censorship, Fairweather essentially initiated another act of censorship by trying to have Whelan's email protest deleted.
And there are other damning leaks by that, but that's, you know, that's, it just contradicts the public picture that we've gotten of these rogue inspectors with incomplete information acting on their own.
It shows that behind the scenes there was acknowledgement and even alarm from a top official that the censorship was going on.
Yeah.
All right.
Well, I gotta tell you, I just love this story so much because first of all, hey, it's the third big sarin hoax of the Syria war.
So that's important.
And then I just like good investigative journalism about all sorts of foreign policy sort of topics.
But you know what?
I just, I don't think I ever even bothered to wish to have such a great window into the sausage being made in the politics inside the OPCW.
In fact, I think any good critic of the Syria war could have speculated that, man, I bet you there's some real shenanigans and pressure and politics going on inside that organization to have these people who debunked the case for Iraq war two going along with this nonsense and then blam boy, you tell us all about it, Aaron names and dates and everything.
As he said, it's not an anonymous official one anymore.
The bad guys named him, but the guys, you know, obviously a hero, but just this is the kind of story we ought to be able to read in the New York times, but never can.
And so we do have it at the gray zone.
So I just think that's so important that we get to see how this works.
And in fact, it's almost too simple, right?
Like, well, how it works is the guys write up a report and when the bosses don't like what it says, they rewrite it so that it says what it says.
So it says what they wanted to say, and that is what the Hawks in America and Britain wanted to say.
Right.
You know, just one thing.
So this, to be clear, this was not sarin.
This was chlorine.
Oh yeah.
No, I know.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, big fake sarin attack.
I mean, at first they said it was sarin anyway.
I don't know.
I mean, in this, in the doctored report, they don't say it was sarin.
I should be clear about that.
Yes.
Yes.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
It's true.
And and the US has launched a new weapon called the OPCW, which is just the exact opposite of what the OPCW is supposed to be, and it's especially sad because not too long ago, the US and Russia worked together with Syria to destroy Syria's chemical weapons arsenal.
And that was that was a huge achievement.
OPCW even won a Nobel Peace Prize for that.
And so now fast forward seven years later, now it's being used to justify warfare by the US on Syria.
It's it's pretty tragic.
Yeah.
It's a double-edged sword, that international law, I'll tell you what, when it comes to enforcement time.
So now, can we rewind a couple of weeks and talk about the scandal before this?
Because I think it was the scandal before that was the last time I interviewed you was you had written up this big story.
But the most recent kind of noteworthy thing going on in this story before this recent report is this tangle that you got in a few weeks ago with Elliot Higgins and the guys from Bellingcat, which you mentioned there.
And you said, as you said, a NATO front group, pseudo-private internet experts who always side with the hawks on everything in the world.
But there was like a real kind of thing here where they came out with, if I understood it right, they came out with what purported to be a memo that would totally throw cold water all over your source's story here and say that, in fact, they were wrong in their conclusion and the scientific evidence does say that there must have been a chemical attack there.
But then, and this didn't fool you for one heartbeat, you turn around and beat these guys mercilessly with it.
It was fun to watch, you know, from a Twitter point of view.
I don't log in, but I do look at Twitter occasionally.
So it was fun to see you humiliate them.
But it was also important, though, too, you know, the real story going on there.
So I was wondering if you could fill us in a little bit about that.
It's very important because it shows how desperate certain unknown people are.
I'm not even sure if they're actually with the OPCW.
They might just be intelligence agencies with, you know, the U.S., France or Britain or whoever who want to discredit these whistleblowers.
Because what the OPCW inspectors are doing is not just exposing a deception with their own organization, they're also just exposing a key hole in the massive propaganda narrative that allows for the U.S. government and its allies to wage this proxy war on Syria, to keep justifying sanctions on Syria by saying that we have to do this to stop this, you know, bloodthirsty dictator who uses chemical weapons against his own people.
You know, it's all part of this narrative that justifies, you know, spending billions of dollars on a proxy war and now crippling Syria with brutal sanctions because the U.S. and its allies lost the war.
So this exposing the Douma deception strikes at the heart of all that propaganda.
And it speaks to then why there's such a desperate effort to discredit the whistleblowers, which is what Bellingcat was used for here.
Why again?
I don't know who.
They say that it came from within the OPCW.
And certainly whoever did this had access to some OPCW information.
But I wouldn't even assume that it's being directed or driven by somebody inside the OPCW.
It could be even more sinister than that.
But basically, just to back up even a little bit more, in early October, Jose Bustani, who's the former head of the OPCW, he was the OPCW's first director general.
He was removed from his position because he stood in the way of the Iraq war.
And John Bolton personally threatened him and his children with harm unless he resigned and backed down from basically trying to facilitate inspections for Iraq and to actually bring Iraq into the Chemical Weapons Convention, which would have been great for world peace but would have made it very hard for the Bush administration to invade.
So Jose Bustani wanted to come testify at the U.N. Security Council in support of the OPCW inspectors because, you know, A, he's opposed to the political compromise of OPCW, and B, these inspectors are so veteran and so experienced that they actually worked with Bustani back when he was the OPCW's first director general, back during his tenure, which ended in, he was kicked out in 2002 or 2003.
So that's how experienced these OPCW whistleblowers are, that their tenure goes back to the very first head of the organization.
And instead of letting Bustani testify, the U.S. and its allies, Britain, France, Germany, they blocked him from speaking.
They wouldn't let the first director general of OPCW speak at the U.N., which is just like unprecedented.
When does that happen when you don't let the former head of a major international organization, let him even speak at a U.N. Security Council session?
And what does that say about your confidence in your own assertion that you're not even willing to let somebody talk if he's going to challenge them?
So that happened, and that was pretty embarrassing for anybody who saw it.
Of course, the news was suppressed in the U.S. media.
Barely anybody reported on it, except for us at The Grey Zone and a few others.
And then afterwards, that was followed up with this weird thing where Bellingcat comes out with this report that there was this letter sent to the key dissenting inspector who I mentioned before, Brendan Whelan, Dr. Brendan Whelan, who is known in OPCW documents as Inspector B, but his name is Brendan Whelan.
And Bellingcat basically said that this letter was sent to Whelan.
It disproves all of his claims.
And furthermore, they said the fact that he concealed it shows that he hid damning evidence that proved him wrong.
And it also said that if, though, Whelan did leak it to journalists, you know, including me and others, then if we hid it, then we've also taken part in the cover-up as well.
But there's a few problems with this.
First of all, as we showed at The Grey Zone, this letter was never actually sent to Whelan.
We got the letter that was actually sent to Whelan, and we published it.
And it contains none of the text that Bellingcat published.
So basically, what Bellingcat published was a fake.
It was a fraud.
And what's even funnier about that is that you look at the actual text and, you know, look, even if it was sent, it shows absolutely nothing.
And in fact, the text of it is ludicrous.
And we showed why.
And if the text was real at all, you can see why it wasn't sent, because it was so stupid.
First of all, it didn't address any of Whelan's concerns.
And second of all, it made ridiculous claims.
It made claims that are contradicted by the OPCW's final report.
This letter basically says that the OPCW has developed these new techniques that were able to detect chlorine gas in wood, and it detected this chemical called bornyl chloride, and that proved chlorine gas.
The thing is, there's no mention in the final report of any new techniques.
And furthermore, the report even acknowledges that the presence of this chemical, bornyl chlorine, isn't even proof of chlorine gas.
So basically, the letter's own claims are contradicted by the OPCW's final report, which makes sense, then, why this letter was never actually sent, even if it was ever real to begin with, because it's so ridiculous.
So Bellingcat just got embarrassed on multiple fronts.
They A, claimed a letter was sent, but that in fact wasn't, and B, they claimed vindication from something that is contradicted by the OPCW's own report.
So it was just humiliating for them.
And the funniest part is that Bellingcat was not the first outlet to try this.
I'm not sure if I've discussed this yet publicly, but I'll tell you now that in the summertime, somebody from the Huffington Post emailed somebody from WikiLeaks with a similar kind of claim, saying that, you know, we have this memo, it contradicts all of the whistleblower's claims, and did you receive this memo?
And if you, you know, and if you did receive it, then why didn't you publish it?
This reporter from the Huffington Post never did this story.
He just dropped it.
And then a few months later, it shows up at Bellingcat.
And the messages that the Huffington Post guy and Bellingcat wrote are very, very similar.
They use almost identical language in certain parts, which says to me that neither the Huffington Post guy or the Bellingcat guys wrote their own emails.
I think they just were taking direction from somebody else.
And you know, I come into this because the Bellingcat people wrote me, the Huffington Post people never wrote me, but Bellingcat did.
And they wrote me saying that, they asked me if I've seen this document, and they asked me is there a reason why the Grey Zone hasn't covered it.
And of course, I hadn't seen the document.
And I also just knew that no matter what it was, I knew it would be baseless.
I knew, because it's Bellingcat.
I know they don't have anything.
I know that the case that the inspectors have is just overwhelming.
You know, like you can't look at all those leaks and not see just how much fraud was taken, was undertaken to cover up the actual findings of the investigation.
So I knew that whatever Bellingcat had was ridiculous.
So basically, when I replied to Bellingcat, I was cagey.
I was like, you know, I'm not going to confirm or deny that I've seen this document, but I will say that I don't discuss things that I have not written about, and I have never written about this document.
So I wanted them to think that I was actually scared about what they had.
And I hope that that helped encourage them to publish it, because they did.
And they claimed that, you know, that this disproved the inspectors and blah, blah, blah.
Of course, when we produced the actual letter that the OPCW Director General sent to Whelan, you know, we showed that it looked nothing like what Bellingcat claimed was actually sent.
So it was- That's funny.
Good for you, man, for extra jerking them around an extra mile there.
Yeah.
But the funny thing is, then recently there was this long BBC podcast about the White Helmets, which is just like this, you know, it's this elaborate act of propaganda.
It's like 11 parts.
And you know, first of all, you know, like the BBC is funded by the same government that funded the White Helmets, along with many other Western governments and Gulf states.
And this podcast, you know, does its best to whitewash the White Helmets and its founder, this guy James LeMessurier, who's a, you know, former UK military intelligence officer.
But it makes a bunch of really ludicrous claims.
They didn't disclose that their own researcher actually worked for the British contractor, this company called ARC, that actually helped found the White Helmets.
So they didn't disclose that.
And then they made this whole extra episode about trying to attack the inspectors, even though the show is supposed to be about the White Helmets.
For some reason, they went out of their way to do a show trying to attack the whistleblowers.
And in that show, they recycled a lot of the same claims that Bellingcat tried to make in their fake letter, which just shows to me that, you know, that like this goes beyond the OPCW.
There's someone trying to use, you know, state funded outlets like the BBC and Bellingcat to attack the inspectors.
And, you know, I sent the BBC a whole bunch of questions about their quote unquote reporting, which they have not answered because they can't because it's so transparently ridiculous.
But well, you know, if you zoom out a little bit and just think about it, I mean, when was it that the whistleblowers were the, you know, crazy anti-war disinformation experts who were telling dastardly lies, trying to undermine a perfectly legitimate case for war?
Yeah.
That never happens.
That's not what's going on here, man.
It couldn't.
No, no, no.
It's clear if you read these letters they wrote internally.
And by the way, you know, you know, there's no evidence.
And I did want to let you get back to that, by the way, the executives say whatever you want right here.
But just the part about the bosses saying, no, you're a good chap and all that.
That stuff's really important, too.
Just to say that this whole thing became public when somebody from within the OPCW leaked a report that Ian Henderson, one of the inspectors, had written, which was suppressed.
And it basically ruled that instead, rather than having the cylinders and Duma being dropped from aircraft, his report found that actually it was most likely that they were manually placed.
But that was the most plausible explanation.
And that report was leaked by somebody inside the OPCW.
We don't know who.
And that's what made Ian Henderson's name public.
And that's what made this a public thing.
These people did not go public with their claims.
If you look at all the leaks, you see that Ian Henderson and before him Brendan Whelan, they wrote internal emails saying that, you know, our findings were excluded and they tried to go through the official channels.
It's the OPCW that has made this a public issue by attacking them and denigrating them.
And then whoever these unknown people are who are directing these attacks on the inspectors trying to impugn their credibility, which they just can't because the evidence is so overwhelming.
And, you know, in terms of their credibility, other leaks we've gotten show just that these inspectors were actually incredibly revered inside the organization.
You know, we got a, and this is also a new article, we got an appraisal written by another OPCW executive just before Whelan left the OPCW in September 2018.
And he says to him, I can say without fear of being unfair to others, that you have been the professional in the technical secretariat, that's where the inspectors are, that's where the inspections happen, that has contributed the most to the knowledge and understanding of chemical weapons chemistry applied to inspections.
You produced a lot of knowledge and unselfishly shared every bit of what you know with others enthusiastically.
I thank you very much for this.
So here you have effusive praise for one of the inspectors, Whelan, and we're supposed to believe that this highly regarded senior expert who's been with OPCW since its founding, who came back for a second tenure because his skills were so in demand, we're supposed to believe that he got all this wrong and spoke out because he was stubborn and rogue.
It just makes no sense.
And help me out, wasn't it a year ago, Aaron, that after he had come out and the other guy, there were two, A and B, had both kind of come forward and had been attacked by the war party, that then a third whistleblower came out, not to vouch for the particulars, but to vouch for these two men and say, don't you smear them.
These are the two most professional guys I know.
So earlier this year, the Gray Zone published comments from two other OPCW sources.
One of them spoke to just a general fear of intimidation of people and the biased way of doing the fact-finding missions like Zuma.
And the other one spoke to specifically what they called the abhorrent mistreatment of the inspectors and denounced the way that they were being treated because by that point, the inspectors were being attacked publicly.
So we have at least two other OPCW sources criticizing the treatment of the whistleblowers.
And we have also the OPCW's first director general, Jose Bustami, not just criticizing their mistreatment, but also vouching for their credibility, saying that these were outstanding inspectors that he worked with back when he was the OPCW's first chief.
So the idea that these are, you know, rogue guys with, you know, incomplete information, being stubborn, it's just, you know, it's just ridiculous, especially given all that, all the consequence that come with speaking the truth and standing up to, you know, a massive deception.
As the bosses talk about in the email, right?
The bosses say something about, man, you know, we're hesitant to look like we're taking Russia's side here, right?
That's right.
And so the first executive we talked about says, you know, praises Whelan for challenging the suppression, but then expresses misgivings about pressing this issue further because they say, we don't want to feed into the Russian narrative, which is just a complete acknowledgement that the OPCW has become subordinate to the pro-war narrative, because either you care about facts or you care about narrative.
And in this case, they don't want to feed the Russian narrative because that goes against the narrative that they've catered to, which is the Western one, which is, that's not how the OPCW should be run.
It should be impartial and not care about anybody's narrative, whether they're Russian or, or the American one, you know, and just to continue with this appraisal from the second director who writes about Whelan, this executive also wrote, I want to commend you as well for your character and strong values, which have stood firm at times when it would have been easier to simply let it go without fighting for what you believe was right.
Thank you for everything will be difficult to replace you now that your tenure is about to end.
So that was a clear tribute to the fact that Whelan had stood up to the censorship of his own investigation.
And it's another example of just the high level praise for the inspectors well before they were publicly attacked.
Hold on just one second.
Be right back.
So you're constantly buying things from amazon.com.
Well, that makes sense.
They bring it right to your house.
So what you do though, is click through from the link in the right hand margin at scotthorton.org and I'll get a little bit of a kickback from Amazon's end of the sale.
Won't cost you a thing.
Nice little way to help support the show.
Again, that's right there in the margin at scotthorton.org.
Hey, you want to know what industry is recession proof?
Yes, you're right.
Of course, pot.
Scott Horton here to tell you about Green Mill Supercritical Extractors, the SFE Pro and Super Producing Parallel Pro can be calibrated to produce all different types and qualities of cannabis crude oils for all different purposes.
These extractors are the most important part of your cannabis oil business.
For precision, versatility and efficiency.
GreenMillSupercritical.com Hey y'all, Scott here to tell you about Zippix Toothpicks.
They're full of nicotine is the thing about it.
Personally, I miss the stuff terribly and I'm really looking forward to getting back on it.
They'd be perfect for smokers and vapors who can't afford to stop working and go outside for a break all the time or for those traveling in planes, trains and buses and ferries and such.
It's the most affordable way to get your nicotine on the market and they taste great and come in all different flavors.
Use promo code Scott Horton and get 10% off Zippix Toothpicks at zippixtoothpicks.com All right now, you talked about how in the executives praise, you have one of the bosses saying congratulations for doing the right thing here and speaking out and arguing about this.
You have another one who concedes that, yeah, okay, it's true that you're being censored, but his only reaction to that was to try to get everybody else to delete their email that they had about that and censor further.
That's kind of funny.
Was there anything more in those statements from those bosses in terms of Waylon's vindication here?
What's the name of the other guy?
Is it Ferguson?
What do they say about him?
Ian Henderson.
Oh, Henderson.
I'm sorry.
Henderson.
Yeah.
These leaks that we published don't have much about Henderson because at this point it's with Waylon, there's two main letters that he wrote.
He was the first official to protest the censorship.
He wrote the initial report of the Duma team.
He was the chief author.
He submitted it for publication.
It was peer-reviewed by other members of the team.
No one raised any objections.
This is back in June 2018, a few months after the Duma incident.
He submitted it for peer review.
It was supposed to be published.
All of a sudden he discovered that instead of the team's report that he had authored, that there was this bogus report containing all sorts of unsupported conclusions and claims which strongly suggested things the team had not found, such as that there was evidence of a chlorine gas attack from cylinders.
When Waylon discovered this, he protested, and he also protested the fact that this was being rushed out for publication.
Basically behind their back, somebody had doctored the initial report, added new conclusions, and then was trying to rush it out for publication and basically give the public something that was the exact opposite of what the team had written.
He wrote the initial email of protest back in June 2018.
You have these emails with this director praising that email and saying that you took all the steps you could to support your own professionalism, and we hope that this will help the organization.
This executive was very supportive of that, even though they feared it would help the Russian narrative if the matter was pursued further.
Fast forward a year later, after the final report comes out, Waylon then wrote a letter to the OVCW director general, who is now a new director general than the one who had been in there during the early stages of the investigation.
Waylon's letter basically, after Waylon left the organization in September 2018, he left.
He was out.
He stayed out of it.
But then he saw this final report that completely contradicted what the team had found.
He wrote Waylon a letter expressing his concerns, and he again wrote this director to try to help him get the letter to the director general.
That's when this director again made more statements about their concerns about the final report.
They actually mentioned speaking to somebody else in the organization who also was concerned about it, but again, the same thing where they just didn't want to help the Russian narrative.
There was only so much that they'd be willing to do.
By the way, when it comes to the differences in the report, I mean, obviously you have the origin of the cylinders is a pretty big one, and yes, sir, we think that for some reason or another, there's good enough reason to think that there was some kind of chlorine attack that happened here.
I guess both of those are kind of, could contain multiple assertions within them, but I also wonder whether there's, so if there's anything there to really cover, or also any other major discrepancies between the two reports, meaningful ones.
Well, you know, it's funny.
The final report says that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a chlorine attack occurred and that the weapon, sorry, there are reasonable grounds to believe that a chemical weapons attack occurred and that the weapon was likely, likely contained chlorine, okay, which is speculation, right?
And the irony of that is that now we have these leaks that I published, which, you know, going back to Robert Fairweather, when he acknowledged the redaction of the initial report, he said, you know, in his response to Whelan, but this is back in June, 2018, he said that the report was not redacted at the behest of the director general.
But then he goes on to say, the only input that the director general had was to ask that the report did not speculate.
So back then there was this claim that we didn't want any speculation, this is back in June 2018.
Fast forward nearly a year later with the final report, speculation is exactly what they did.
They said there are reasonable grounds to believe that there's a chemical attack and that it was likely chlorine.
That's pure speculation.
And they couldn't say anything more than that because they knew that they had no evidence that there was an actual chemical attack with chlorine.
So they had to speculate.
So there's an irony there of him trying to claim that they didn't want speculation when that's exactly what the final product did nearly a year later.
And that's, you know, that it's a strange formula where, you know, they know they don't have evidence of an attack.
So again, they say that there's reasonable grounds to believe that there was one.
But you know what?
Just because there are reasonable grounds to believe that it happened, that doesn't mean there can't be reasonable grounds to believe that it didn't happen.
It's completely, it's very qualified and it's there for a reason.
It's to give the impression to the public that the Syrian government was guilty without having to be responsible for fully asserting it because they know they can't prove it.
Right.
Well, and I think that you've really cracked the mystery of why they smear these heroes for telling the truth, too.
They have no other argument to make.
Exactly.
And the thing is, you know, just to illustrate how they have no argument, if they were so confident in their claims, why haven't they met with the inspectors?
Why haven't they let them come and air their concerns in a transparent manner?
You know, if you believe in your science, if you believe in your methods, then then defend it and let the people who actually conducted the investigation, let them present what they found.
You know, and the reason they can't do that is because they know they can't defend it.
So the answer then is to come up with with lies about how, oh, you know, we listen to them and oh, they're just disgruntled employees.
Anything to avoid dealing with the actual facts.
That's what's going on here.
And but, you know, on the day we're talking, Scott, there was a session at the U.N. Security Council and it was interesting.
The Russian representative asked the director general a bunch of questions, including will you meet with the inspectors?
Will you let if you're so confident in your in your assertions, will you let them challenge them and present the facts and the data that was suppressed?
And what was interesting is Arias then objected to those questions being posed publicly.
He said those questions should be posed in a public in a private session, not publicly.
And we never got to see his answer.
So after after everyone spoke, after all the ambassadors spoke, they then went to private session.
So we the public can't even see Arias's answers to those very important questions of will you meet with the inspectors?
Well, the answer, of course, is no.
But that would be embarrassing to have on TV.
So absolutely.
Absolutely.
Yeah.
All right.
Another great one from Aaron Maté.
This one is OPCW executives praised whistleblower and criticized Syria cover up leaks reveal at the gray zone dot com.
Thank you very much, Aaron.
Appreciate it.
Thanks, Scott.
The Scott Horton Show, Antiwar Radio, can be heard on KPFK 90.7 FM in L.A.
APS Radio dot com, Antiwar dot com, Scott Horton dot org, and Libertarian Institute dot org.
