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 fee.
The full archive is also available at youtube.com slash scotthorton show.
All right, you guys, introducing Aaron Maté.
He is a regular writer at the Grayzone.
That's the grayzone.com and he hosts the podcast there, Pushback.
Welcome back to the show.
How you doing, Aaron?
Hey, Scott.
How are you?
I'm doing great.
Appreciate you joining us here today.
So, the first thing I want to ask you about is something that you're essentially the editor of.
You didn't write it.
It's OPCW whistleblowers, OPCW insiders slam compromised new Syria chemical weapons probe.
And this is not about Douma.
This is at a place called, I'm not sure I'll let you pronounce it, a different attack from March of 2017.
So just before the Khan Sheikhoun fake attack, which I don't know if we got any whistleblowers on that one yet, but these people wrote this scathing report for your website here.
It's quite remarkable.
Tell us about it, please.
You know, I can't say too much about it.
What I can say is that it was written by a team of OPCW insiders.
I can't really detail exactly what that means.
But what I can say is that the piece was written by people who represent the views of a small group of current and former OPCW officials.
And the message from them is that there is dissension inside the ranks and there is deep skepticism about the OPCW being politicized.
I mean, we saw that most starkly with the Douma leaks, which I'm sure we'll talk about.
But now these people are also coming out and saying that the same politicization is being applied to this other investigation as well.
And that was, as you say, this probe of an alleged chemical weapons attack in the Syrian town of Latamana in March 2017.
And what's interesting about that report, it was done by this, it's the first report of this newly formed team at the OPCW called the Investigation and Identification Team.
And it was established ostensibly to identify alleged perpetrators of chemical weapons attacks in Syria.
But what these OPCW insiders write in their op-ed is that basically it was set up with the sole aim of blaming any chemical weapons attack on the Syrian government so that the U.S. and other Western powers, the ones who helped set up this new team and pushed it through, can blame Syria for chemical weapons attacks and pursue their proxy war and sanctions against Syria further.
And so this op-ed just goes through the reasons to be skeptical about this latest report.
It's interesting, when you look at the media reports about this IIT report, everybody took it as the OPCW saying that this investigation has found conclusively that the Assad government carried out this chemical weapons attack of both sarin and chlorine in this town in March 2017.
When you actually read the report, all it says is that there are, quote, reasonable grounds to believe, unquote, that a chemical attack occurred, which is far different from saying a chemical attack occurred and it was a Syrian government.
All they're saying is that it's reasonable to believe that the Syrian government was responsible.
But as these OPCW insiders point out, because that language is actually so tentative and so ambiguous, that it also means that you can't rule out that there are reasonable grounds to believe that it wasn't the Syrian government, that it wasn't the Syrian government.
And so even the way that this report has been taken by the media doesn't even accurately represent what the report says.
And of course, these OPCWs then give up plenty of other reasons to question even the case for even believing that there might be reasonable grounds to think that the Syrian government did it.
And people can read more of it at TheGreyZone.com.
Well, and look, the deal is that if you had written this thing, it would have been great.
But the fact that this was written by insiders at the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons and just the attitude behind it, again, it's an absolutely scathing report the way that they criticize the official story here, such as it is, and they completely dismantle it with prejudice.
You can tell.
So can you talk a little bit about what are their arguments in here?
Well, I mean, the most, I mean, first of all, what they do is they enter actually the political realm, which is something that, you know, in a normal OPCW report, you wouldn't do.
In this case, they looked at the political question of motive.
So what motive would the Syrian government, after having been told that this red line by the U.S., what motive would they have to drop chemical weapons into basically an empty field, which is what allegedly happened here?
If we're supposed to believe the official narrative that this was a Syrian chemical weapons attack in this town, then what we have to believe is that the Syrian government dropped sarin and chlorine into basically an empty space.
And so why would they do that there after they've been told of this red line, and not in the many instances before when, you know, you have instances like when the Syrian militants were closing in on Latakia and threatening to carry out, you know, mass murder?
There was no chemical weapons use then, and all these other cases where, you know, even the Syrian government has lost areas, no chemical weapons use is there.
So why all of a sudden would they decide to use it now on this empty field, especially now that they're working with Russia?
And this would also basically require Russia's cooperation, essentially, because they're sharing military bases with Russia now, too, because now we're talking about 2017, well after Russia has entered the war.
So even from a point of view of motive, it doesn't make sense.
And then they get into some of the other technical stuff, which I will leave to them to summarize, because it's complicated and it requires a careful reading to understand.
They get into, you know, the composition of bombs and things that technically I'm not very well versed in, so I won't try.
But they basically just make the case for why the idea that this was a Syrian government attack is so implausible.
Well, and a couple of points are general enough that I think that they could be paraphrased, where they're just saying the chain of custody of the so-called evidence here is completely suspect and the people who wrote the report sat in Turkey and received it at the hands of these NGOs who are all tied to the opposition.
There's no objective source for any of the information about this attack in the first place.
So if that was the chain of custody at any criminal trial in America, it would get thrown right out.
So that's a pretty obvious one.
That's a very good point.
And thanks for pointing it out.
They point out that the OPCW IIT investigation says that they maintained chain of custody, quote, after the receipt of the items, unquote.
So basically, after you get, you know, these samples, and by the way, you don't even get them right after the alleged incident.
You get them over the course of a year, slowly coming in and into Turkey.
And you're saying that you only confirm the chain of custody, you can only vouch for the chain of custody after you've gotten custody, which basically is totally meaningless.
And yes, as you say, by those standards, in this case, there is no court that would ever accept this stuff as evidence.
Yeah.
You know, and they talk about, in there too, he talks about, you know, these small little bits of shrapnel, little pieces of metal that they brought.
And they said, well, how come you didn't bring the rest of it?
Why don't we just have these little pieces instead of the actual container?
And they had a plausible explanation for the container too, that the Syrians, when they gave up all their chemical weapons after the big fake attack of 2013, that they kept some of the containers to fill them with conventional explosives.
So if you had pieces of those, that would make sense, since they were dropping regular, you know, conventional explosive bombs in the same form by that time, since they'd gotten rid of all their chemical weapons and had some left over.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, now, that claim requires relying on the Syrian government's account.
And you know, so that has to be noted.
But look, this is where I get to the other cases as well.
You have so many doubts now have been raised about Ghouta.
I mean, Ted Postol has done some of the definitive work on that, showing that the rocket ranges that were alleged against the Syrian government were actually implausible, and that it's far more likely that the rockets that delivered the chemical weapons in that incident actually came from militant controlled territory.
And then we have the just preponderance of evidence in the Douma case, which shows how the OPCW superiors intervened to suppress all the evidence that the inspectors collected on the ground, excluded their findings, and excluded the key inspectors who carried out the investigation from the process and basically doctored all their evidence.
So you have just a series of questionable, in one case, in the case of Douma, just just completely scandalous investigations.
And now, you know, the fact that you're seeing people close to the OPCW now feeling compelled to publicly directly challenge what it comes out with and basically say it's been compromised.
It just speaks to it's a huge scandal that deserves a lot of scrutiny and certainly a lot more attention.
Hey, guys, just real quick, if you listen to the interviews only feed at the Institute or at Scott Horton dot org, I just want to make sure you know that I do a Q&A show from time to time at Scott Horton dot org slash show the old whole show feed.
And so if you like that kind of thing, check that out there.
Hey, guys, here's how to support this show.
You can donate in various amounts at Scott Horton dot org slash donate.
We've got some great kickbacks for you there.
Stop Amazon dot com by way of my link at Scott Horton dot org.
Leave a good review for the show at iTunes and Stitcher.
Tell a friend.
Oh, yeah.
And by my books, Fool's Errand, Time to End the War in Afghanistan and the Great Ron Paul, the Scott Horton Show interviews 2004 through 2019.
And thanks.
Hey, guys, check out Listen and Think audiobooks.
Listen and think dot com.
And of course, on audible dot com.
And they feature my book, Fool's Errand, Time to End the War in Afghanistan, as well as brand new out inside Syria by our friend Reese Ehrlich and a lot of other great books, mostly by libertarians there.
Reese might be one exception, but essentially they're all libertarian audiobooks.
And here's how you can get a lifetime subscription to listen and think audiobooks.
Donate $100 to the Scott Horton Show at Scott Horton dot org slash donate.
Well, and so, yeah, now remind us a little bit about that, because never even mind the case of the Douma attack, the case of the politics of the Douma attack and the whistleblowing and the difference, I guess it was right about a year ago this started, but all the different leaks and all of the fighting back and forth from some named and some unnamed whistleblowers out of the OPCW in the case of the Douma attack is really interesting in its own right.
It sort of could be its own story, even if it was about something less consequential.
Right.
So the Douma attack allegedly happens in April 2018.
A few weeks later, the OPCW inspection team gets on the ground.
They go to the sites.
They take the cylinders.
They tag them.
They take the measurements at the locations.
They put out an interim report in July 2018.
That's pretty inconclusive.
It doesn't really say too much, basically says we need to do some more investigation.
Less than a year later, March 1st, 2019, they put out a final report, and that's when they say that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a chemical weapon, that a chemical weapon attack took place and that the chemical weapon was chlorine.
And the inference of their finding, although they don't directly say it, is that the chlorine attack was carried out by the Syrian government because that is the only party with aircraft.
So, and then it's taken by the media, by the U.S. government as being validation for the U.S. government airstrikes that Trump ordered shortly after the alleged Douma attack.
But then, in May of 2019, an engineering report surfaces on the internet.
It's leaked to a group of British academics called the Working Group, who by that point had been raising questions about some flawed or questionable language inside the final report.
They were already pointing out some inconsistencies.
And basically, this engineering assessment is attributed to an OPCW staff member named Ian Henderson.
And it actually argues, based on a detailed study of the Douma location where the cylinders were found, and based on the measurements that were taken there, that actually there's a much higher likelihood that the cylinders found there were not dropped from the sky, but were, quote, manually placed.
And in saying that, if you're saying that it's manually placed, you're basically saying that the attack was staged.
And so that sets off a huge controversy.
The OPCW announces an investigation into the leak.
But then we get more leaks from WikiLeaks, and now we learn of a second OPCW expert, like Ian Henderson, who has written letters to the OPCW leadership right after that final report gets released in March 2019, basically voicing his objection and saying that so much critical evidence, not just Ian Henderson's study, but a lot more, including toxicology and chemical samples from the scene, showing that chlorine was found basically at trace levels, so basically at a meaningless level, and in fact, and that the chlorine that was found could be found in basically everyday household chemicals, like bleach products and so on.
So now we have two OPCW inspectors saying that all their evidence, saying that their evidence was excluded, and we have no explanation for it.
And then we get more and more leaks showing that these inspectors were minimized from the process, that even though they were the ones on the ground in Syria collecting the evidence, and actually one of them was tasked with writing the first draft of the report because he was the most senior investigator and most experienced, we see that they've been excluded from the process and that the OPCW leadership has basically installed a very small team called the so-called core team to basically take charge of writing the report.
And it's these people who are basically leaving out all the evidence that these inspectors found and putting in some disingenuous language.
In terms of Ian Henderson's report, we never get an explanation as to why his findings are excluded.
We only learn that the OPCW then consults three unnamed outside experts.
We have no idea who they are, and we can't even see their work except for a few fragments of it in the final report to judge for ourselves whether they're accurate or not, whereas we now have Ian Henderson's full detailed study where he makes the case for why the cylinders were likely manually placed.
So we have no way even to, we have no explanation as to why Henderson's report was excluded, and we have no way even to compare it to the reports that were relied on for the OPCW's final conclusions.
Yep.
And the same question of motive remains.
Why in the world would Assad do that when the only thing it could accomplish is get him in trouble and nothing else?
Oh, yeah.
Oh, yeah.
I mean, well, look, it's, you know, with, you know, Khan Sheikhoun happened right after Trump had been talking about, and the Trump administration had been talking about, you know, regime change no longer being a priority for the U.S.
Right after that, Khan Sheikhoun happens.
And there've been all sorts of questions raised about that.
And maybe one day we'll hear more even from within the OPCW ranks.
I definitely would not rule that out.
But the motive there never, ever made sense.
And then you have that, and Trump, you know, responded to that allegation of Khan Sheikhoun with bombings.
He bombs Syria.
One year later, a similar thing.
Assad is about to take back Douma on the outskirts of Damascus.
He's about to win.
And all of a sudden we get this allegation, again, from militants on the ground in Douma.
The group that controlled it at the time was Jaysh al-Islam, which is heavily backed by Saudi Arabia.
They now accuse Assad of a new chemical weapons attack.
And that, again, leads to a Trump administration strike.
So it just, from a point of view, forgetting all the evidence, even of motive, why would Assad do the one thing that could trigger, that he knows will trigger a U.S. military response?
You know, it makes no sense.
Yeah.
Well, which is funny, because none of his motives make any sense, as according to the Americans here, and their line against him this whole time, that, well, all he wanted to do was get up in the morning and kill every last man, woman, and child in his country.
But luckily, the plucky, moderate rebels were there to resist him and try to stop him from doing that.
It doesn't matter that none of that ever made any sense whatsoever.
They had a narrative, and they're sticking with it, which is fine.
But you know, what's funny is, this one that they're debunking here in this piece is one that I didn't even hear of, which I guess maybe goes to what you were saying about how, if it even happened at all, it was a bomb dropped out in the middle of an empty field somewhere, and there were no real consequences of it to report on.
Do you even think there was an attack at all at this point, or what was it there?
No, I have no reason to doubt that something happened.
I mean, there was some militant activity around there, and this is a crazy proxy war, so there's bombings all over the place.
It wouldn't be hard to take an attack that happens and pretend that it was a chemical weapons attack if you're the militants on the ground.
It is interesting, though, that the reason why it hasn't gotten very much attention is because there were no even casualties.
And also, by the way, the hospital records, there are no available hospital records.
And that's possibly just because maybe it's a war, and you don't have records for everything, or there just weren't any actual casualties, which seems to be the case.
So look, it's very sketchy, and it's funny.
It's interesting to me that they chose this one first and not Douma.
And I think the reason is, even though the IIT is mandated to investigate Douma, I don't see how they can do that now.
I don't see how they can put their name, anybody can put their name on a report that carries out the OPCW's function now, which is basically to lend credibility to warmongering with Syria and to justify the U.S. strikes that took place in response to the Douma allegations.
But how can they put, anybody seriously put their name on that without taking on the evidence that was excluded from the initial Douma reports from the OPCW?
It's just, anybody with any credibility, I just can't do it.
I think the best they could do is say that the evidence is inconclusive.
But given now that all the evidence has come out, the engineering report and the toxicology and the chemical samples, I mean, they're going to have to grapple with that, especially because Ian Henderson, before the OPCW started trying to paint him falsely as this rogue actor who acted on his own without permission, he was even asked to submit his report to the IIT for their consideration.
So they actually have to consider his report now.
So for them to come out and weigh in on Douma means they'll have to basically refute his engineering.
And he, being an experienced engineer at the OPCW, I mean, he's been with them since its inception in 1997.
And him having taken the measurements at the scene in Douma and literally got on his, got down on all fours and crawled around and took the measurements, it's going to be very hard for them to take on his findings and dismiss them.
So I think the fact that they did this one first, where there's no countervailing evidence available and it's something people hadn't even heard of, that strikes me as possibly being a deliberate choice.
We should say also, the dissension within the ranks is not just confirmed to being with these two whistleblowers we know about, Ian Henderson and his colleague, who was also a senior member of the OPCW team.
At the Grayzone, we've published now two separate notes from other whistleblowers at the OPCW, people expressing serious discomfort with how the OPCW is being run, and both of them expressing just strong objections to how the Douma investigators were treated.
So just to show that this is an organization, and now with this piece we published about the IAT report, there is major dissension inside the ranks, and I suspect we're going to hear more about it as things unfold.
Great.
Well, we'll be keeping our eyes on the Grayzone about that.
And now listen, let me ask you a couple things about some Russiagate updates here.
First of all, we've known all along, since I'm not sure when, I think 2017 or at least 2018, that Mike Flynn, in fact, had colluded with a foreign government, or two, even, during the election campaign season, and then during even the run-up to the inauguration there in the transition period.
And now, apparently, there's even a little bit more information coming out about a possible collusion between the Trump campaign and a foreign power.
Russia?
Not Russia, but Israel.
And that was made known to us pretty clearly when Michael Flynn was indicted.
Just the problem is the media ignored the Israel part of Michael Flynn's indictment, where basically he confirmed that at Israel's request, the Trump transition team tried to intervene to undermine a UN Security Council vote that condemned Israeli settlement building in the occupied territories.
The vote was taken in December 2016, just one month after Trump's victory.
And the Trump transition, including Michael Flynn, tried very hard to get another country to veto that vote, to vote against it, because the Obama administration, for pretty much the first time, was not going to veto a UN resolution criticizing Israel.
It wasn't going to vote for it, but it was going to abstain, which meant that unless somebody else intervened, it would be approved.
And so, the Israeli government asked the Trump transition to intervene, and they tried.
And Michael Flynn helped carry that out when he called the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak.
And one of the things that they discussed was Flynn trying to convince him to vote against this, but the Russian government declined.
So we've known about this for a long time.
It's all gotten completely ignored because we're not supposed to care about possible Israeli collusion.
We're only supposed to care about this non-existent Russian collusion, which occupied everybody for three years until the fantasy collapsed.
And now- Yeah, too bad Kislyak didn't hear about it.
He would have known that it was his job to give Flynn his marching orders, not to decline a request from Flynn.
Exactly.
And then there's more documents that have come out recently with Roger Stone, where in his case, he was in contact with some prominent Israeli figures.
I don't think we know exactly who yet, but it's- and Roger Stone is relaying some offers of assistance from some prominent Israelis to help out the Trump campaign.
Although, you know, Roger Stone is a pretty big blowhard, so it's hard for me to take anything he says seriously.
I mean, for example, he was claiming for a long time that he had a secret back channel to WikiLeaks.
And that was, of course, a complete fabrication, too.
But you know, look, certainly the fact that the Trump transition tried to undermine the outgoing administration's policy at the request of the Israeli government and donors like Sheldon Adelson shows that certainly there was a close tie between the Trump circle and Israel.
And it's just funny that, unfortunately, because blanket support for the Israeli government is bipartisan, even though we've known about this forever, it just, you know, it doesn't register.
We don't see it covered on MSNBC.
There's liberal groups called the Moscow Project, but there's no- which is formed to investigate Trump-Russia contacts, but there's no Tel Aviv Project, which is formed to investigate or scrutinize Trump-Israeli contact.
And that's just because, you know, the policy of blind support for Israel is pretty much bipartisan.
And whereas this Russia thing was a completely partisan and baseless scam that consumed our attention for three years.
And now we're just- the only information we're learning now is just getting more of a window to the extent of the scam.
And in the Michael Flynn case, we've had new documents this week, you know, that strongly point to what has been pretty apparent all along, is that he was just set up by the FBI agents who interviewed him because they wanted to get him fired.
And that's an interesting question as to why they did.
I suspect it might even have something to do with Syria, because, you know, as you've covered extensively on your show, it was Flynn's agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, that came out with that report very early on in the Syria proxy war, basically saying that, you know, the people who were the strongest fighting forces inside Syria and who we were supporting, or talking about supporting, were the Salafi militia, were Al Qaeda and ISIS.
And so, you know, there is antagonism towards Michael Flynn inside the national security state.
And I've always wondered whether the fact that he was calling out what the U.S. was doing in Syria, I've always wondered whether that was a factor.
Yeah.
I mean, it wasn't that he was such a hawk on Iran, which he is, because they're all hawks on Iran, too.
It didn't seem to bother him that much.
So it's not like he was going to be able to, you know, single-handedly undo the Iran deal or something like that.
And that ended up happening anyway under his replacement, John Bolton.
So yeah, yeah.
So yeah, I think you're right.
It probably was about Syria.
And now one more thing here about the collusion is the new report about Christopher Steele and his meeting with Clinton campaign officials and whether this amounted to collusion.
Obviously, Christopher Steele was a Brit, not an American.
I don't know if that counts or not.
But then I want to ask you, too, about this whole, oh no, the Russian collusion was really for Hillary and they were trying to sabotage Trump's spin that's going on around here lately.
Which seemed to have been attached to these new revelations here about the Clinton lawyers meeting with Steele.
Oh, so you're saying that the allegation is that, in fact, that there was a Russian disinformation campaign trying to undermine Trump rather than Clinton.
Yes.
Yeah.
I mean, you know, whether this is Russian disinformation, I don't know.
I mean, I suspect that, I mean, the odds of the Russian government trying to get involved one way or the other, you know, I don't see what motive they would have had to try to hurt Trump.
I mean, Trump was trying to, Trump was calling for better ties with Russia.
So I don't see the Russian government having an interest in trying to undermine him.
And at that point, it was, I mean, everybody believed that Hillary was going to win anyway.
So I don't give that allegation much weight.
I mean, what I do know is that the fact that Steele was meeting with Clinton and DNC people just shows the extent to which the Clinton camp and the DNC had a role in basically every facet of the Russiagate scam.
They had a major role in the collusion aspect and that it was Christopher Steele who first generated these allegations.
And Christopher Steele says that some of the things he included in his report actually came from the Clinton DNC people he met with.
So he says that this one DNC attorney, last name of Sussman, gave him the idea, which he included in his dossier, that there was some secret communication between the Trump campaign and this Russian bank, Alpha Bank.
And then this led to all these crazy theories that that was the way the Trump administration and Russia conspired by speaking over the servers.
There was a major article in The New Yorker and in Slate and of course, endlessly on MSNBC and CNN.
And it turns out that this idea comes from a Clinton campaign lawyer and Steele just puts that in his dossier as somehow being a serious allegation or a serious theory.
And so it just underscores that in basically pretty much every aspect of the Russia scam, you have a major DNC Clinton camp role in the collusion piece of this.
You have the Steele dossier and all that stuff and how that was used in the FBI's investigation to get surveillance warrants on Carter Page at minimum, as we already know.
And then you have even in the Russian hacking application, who does that come from?
CrowdStrike.
Who are they?
Who's the DNC contractor?
Even the, you know, all the fear mongering about Russian social media trolls, that comes from, according to the Washington Post, veterans of the Obama and Clinton camps who after the election came up with this theory that Russian social media trolls had used sophisticated propaganda to sway voters in key states.
And that's what helped elect Trump.
And they shared those findings with the Senate, or they shared their theories with the Senate Intelligence Committee.
And the Senate Intelligence Committee chair, Mark Warner, then flew out to Facebook and shared that idea with Facebook.
And not long after that, Facebook, after initially concluding that these Russian social media pages were just basically juvenile clickbait commercial operations, then they came out with these findings, basically lending credence to the theories of the Obama and Clinton operatives.
So on all the key aspects of the Russia scam, collusion, the hacking, social media, you have a major partisan role.
And it's, you know, if we had a minimally serious media, all of this would have been laughed at a long time ago.
But yet, look what happened.
It consumed our U.S. media and politics for over three years.
Yeah, it's really kind of amazing, and yet also typical.
Shocking, but not surprising, as they say.
For sure.
And especially, I love the one about the Alpha Bank, where it turned out that it was just a spam bot for the Trump hotels, or whatever it was.
Yeah, it was marketing.
It was sending out marketing emails, and using the same server.
But yet, if you go back, on every aspect of this thing, there's hours and hours of cable news footage of serious people, supposedly, taking all this with sober, very serious concern as if all this means something, when really, it's all fantasy.
It's all complete fantasy.
Yep.
Well, and now they're doing the same thing to China, as well.
They just had this story last week, Trump is in hock to China, tens of millions of dollars.
Oops.
And then they retracted it, because that wasn't true.
Yeah, they said that Trump owes the Bank of China tens of millions.
And then they came out a week later and said, oops, we made a mistake.
We forgot to call the Bank of China.
And when we did, they told us that he once owed us this, but that the loan was passed on to someone else.
So it's not even us anymore that holds this loan.
So yes, the sloppy reporting definitely continues.
And I think they'd even sold it, the Chinese bank had sold the debt off back in 2012.
So four years before he even ran.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Typical.
All right.
Well, listen, I sure appreciate all your great journalism, man.
You do a great job.
I love your show and all your articles, and really appreciate your time on the show again, Aaron.
Scott, thank you.
Thanks for having me back.
All right, you guys.
That is Aaron Maté.
He is at The Grayzone Project.
That is thegrayzone.com.
And first of all, you got to read this thing by the OPCW whistleblowers.
It's something else here.
Exclusive, OPCW Insider Slam Compromised New Syria Chemical Weapons Probe.
And then also check out Aaron's show.
He's got a brand new interview with Noam Chomsky up there on pushback.
And all of that is available for you at thegrayzone.com.
