Monday, April 30, 2018

Dr. Eowyn: George W. Bush considered using false flag to justify invasion of Iraq

The next time someone heaps scorn on you, making fun of your suspicions about the U.S. or nay government by calling you a “conspiracy theorist,” do the following:
  1. Remind them that the CIA invented the label “conspiracy theorist” to attack and discredit those who question the official narrative of the Kennedy assassination.
  2. Show them this post.
The term “false flag” has its origins in naval warfare where a flag other than the belligerent’s true battle flag is used as a ruse de guerre or pretext for war. As the term is used in contemporary America, a “false flag” incident is some traumatic event that is contrived and manipulated by the authorities to achieve some covert agenda. The public is given an untruthful version of the event by government and/or the media. The intended result is a “rallying around the flag” effect, wherein an inflamed and duped populace rally in support of the government’s or the deep state’s secret agenda.
Admittedly, it is difficult for the ordinary American to think the U.S. government can stoop so low as to instigate false flags, for that would mean our government is in the hands of people so diabolical, calling them psychopaths does not begin to describe what they are. That is a frightening thought.
But it is a thought not entirely alien to our Founding Fathers who instituted a polity based on a view of human nature as inherently self-interested instead of benevolent, and of government as a necessary evil that must be constrained and delimited. To quote James Madison in The Federalist Papers:
“What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external or internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
For his part, Thomas Jefferson, in his 1787 letter to Edward Carrington, vividly described what government would be if unchecked and unsupervised. He warned that “if once” the people “become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, Judges, and Governors, shall all become wolves.
Even with checks and balances in place, the history of the United States is riddled with actual and planned false flags and conspiracies. As an example, the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, in which the U.S.S. Maine and U.S.S. Turner Joy reportedly were fired on without provocation by the North Vietnamese, was a false flag of the Lyndon Johnson Administration. Congress took the bait and passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that, by pre-approving the president’s military actions, gave Johnson a free ticket to wage war in Vietnam. It turned out no Vietnamese boats were even in the gulf at the time of the alleged attack.
Then there was Operation Northwoods of the Kennedy Administration, a false flag of such scope and devious audacity, it takes your breath away.
Proposed by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff and approved by the head of every branch of the U.S. armed forces, Operation Northwoods called for the CIA or other government operatives to undertake acts of terrorism against U.S. military and civilian targets in Guantanamo Bay, Miami, other Florida cities, and even in Washington, D.C. Proposed acts included sinking U.S. ships, having fake Cuban MIGs attack a United States Air Force aircraft, hijacking and shooting down a chartered civil airliner, and gunning down civilians in the streets. The attacks would be blamed on the Fidel Castro government, which would be used as pretexts for a “military intervention” against Cuba.
Thankfully, President Kennedy rejected the proposals. A year and 8 months later, on November 22, 1963, he was assassinated.
Few of us know that in January 2003 before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, President George W. Bush had toyed with the idea of a similar false flag to justify the invasion.
Don Van Natta Jr. reports for the New York Times, March 27, 2016, that Bush’s proposal is described in a 5-page confidential memo written by David Manning, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair’s chief foreign policy adviserat the time.
The memo chronicles a private two-hour meeting of Bush and Blair in the Oval Office on January 31, 2003. Five days after the meeting, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was scheduled to appear before the United Nations to present evidence that Iraq posed a threat to world security by hiding unconventional “weapons of mass destruction” (WMDs), although UN inspectors, led by Hans Blix, had spent six weeks in Iraq hunting with no success for those WMDs.
Stamped “extremely sensitive,” the memorandum, which was circulated among a handful of Blair’s most senior aides, had not been made public. However, several highlights from the memo were first published in January in the book Lawless World, by British lawyer and international law professor Philippe Sands. In early February, Channel 4 in London broadcast several excerpts from the memo. Since then, The New York Times has reviewed the memo in its entirety. Two senior British officials have confirmed the authenticity of the memo, but declined to talk further about it, citing Britain’s Official Secrets Act, which makes it illegal to divulge classified information.
According to the memo, at the time of the meeting, the United States and Britain had been pressing for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, which they would fail to obtain. Bush had issued a public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein: Disarm or face war. But behind closed doors, Bush was certain that war was inevitable. During the January 31 meeting, he made clear to Blair that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second UN resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons. Bush had even penciled in March 10th as the start date for the military campaign when the bombing would begin.
Bush and Blair candidly expressed their doubts that chemical, biological or nuclear weapons would be found in Iraq in the coming weeks. The two envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Bush predicted and Blair agreed that it was “unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups”, which turned out to be woefully wrong. In fact, former officers of Saddam Hussein’s defeated army would become leaders of ISIS. (See Blowback: ISIS leaders are former officers of Saddam Hussein’s army”)
According to the memo, Bush and Blair both acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any WMDs before the planned invasion, Bush talked about three ways to provoke a confrontation.
As described in the memo:
  1. “The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach” — which could then be used to justify invading Iraq.
  2. “The U.S. might be able to bring out a defector who could give a public presentation about Saddam’s W.M.D.”
  3. A proposal to assassinate Saddam Hussein.
Bush was accompanied at the meeting by Condoleezza Rice, who was then the national security adviser; Dan Fried, a senior aide to Rice; and Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff. Accompanying Tony Blair were David Manning; Jonathan Powell, Blair’s chief of staff; and Matthew Rycroft, a foreign policy aide and the author of the Downing Street memo of July 2002, which shows that some senior British officials had been concerned that the United States was determined to invade Iraq, and that the “intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” by the Bush administration to fit its desire to go to war.
Despite intense lobbying by the United States and Britain, a second United Nations resolution was not obtained. On March 19, 2003, nine days after the target date set by President Bush in the secret meeting with Blair, the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq began, dubbed Operation Iraqi Freedom, consisting of 21 days of major combat operations.
Coalition military casualties were 4,491 for the United States, and 179 for the UK. Estimates on the number of Iraqi civilian casualties range from 3,200 to 7,500.
Many U.S. veterans of the Iraq War have reported a range of serious health issues, including tumors, daily blood in urine and stool, sexual dysfunction, migraines, frequent muscle spasms, and other symptoms similar to the debilitating symptoms of “Gulf War syndrome” reported by many veterans of the 1991 Gulf War, which some believe is related to the U.S.’s use of radioactive depleted uranium.


    Nowadays it is more important to disarm the people than to lead them to war; more important to use for our advantage the passions which have burst into flames than to quench their fire; more important to catch up and interpret the ideas of others to suit ourselves than to eradicate them – Protocol 5

    The Anti-Gun Agenda has succeeded in getting their deceitful “Red Flag” Gun law on the books in at least 7 States and up to 22 States have the bill in legislation; Seattle has already used the bill to “Seize” guns.
    The Anti-Gun Agenda in America is not about making the country safer and more peaceful; that is an axiom –  for if it were the intention, the agenda would be to arm and educated Americans about the laws of nature, self-responsibility and the penultimate importance of critical thinking.
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.

    It is self-responsibility which empowers individuals to seek and enjoy a safe and rewarding life experience, it is the behavior of a demented controller that would encourage an individual to look toward ‘authorities’ for care and outcomes of their life experience.
“We shall create an intensified centralisation of government in order to grip in our hands all the forces of the community. We shall regulate mechanically all the actions of the political life of our subjects by new laws. These laws will withdraw one by one all the indulgences and liberties which have been permitted by the goyim, and our Kingdom will be distinguished by a despotism of such magnificent proportions as to wipe out any goyim who oppose us by deed or word” Protocol 5 (emphasis by author)
    It is exactly this tactic a malevolent and deceitful ‘protector’, who preys on the logic, reason, and compassion of an individual, would use to further indenture and enslave or even eradicate people.
    The anti-gun movement is not about empowering the individual and the reduction of violent crime, this is easily seen with simple application of logic. America is already well-armed and until recently peaceful nation; and in-fact the rise in gun violence in the United States did not begin until after the first act to restrict guns in 1968.
    Screen Shot 2018-04-29 at 9.47.56 AM

    Increases in gun related HOMICIDE have receded back to nearly 1950s levels in direct proportion to recent increases in gun ownership and conceal carry permits issued in America.
    In fact, America is so armed and secure, with the accompanying peacefulness, the Anti-Gun Agenda must CREATE gun crime in order to promote their hostile and venomous attempt to disarm Americans.  Using these fabricated, instigated or ‘provocateured’ events, the enemy controlled mainstream propaganda media, squeal endlessly about the need to disarm Americans.  Further psychological operational support is given to validate the fabricated events by enlisting weak of mind and strongly emotional political clients, particularly those already being sold the story they are victims of this culture which allows people to own weapons.
    Screen Shot 2018-04-29 at 10.31.31 AM.png
    In order to use these political, (and faked events,) the mainstream media refers to these ‘shootings’ in emotion filled, psychologically crafted for maximum impact, sound bites which offer solutions to the trauma based pain being felt by the public at large, as a new package of MORE gun control law (laws do not stop violent crime.)  It is never pointed out by the mainstream media that all of these staged mass shooting events are done in the environment of a Gun Free Zone.
    Faked School Shootings
    The Sandy Hook School Shooting was entirely staged, it was a two day FEMA drill with participants wearing lanyards and food and refreshments served.
    Recently, Florida Atlantic University Professor James Tracy was FIRED from a tenured teaching position for blogging on his own time about his questions concerning the Sandy Hook Shooting.  Recently, on the radio show, the attorney for Tracy, representing him in a lawsuit against the school for violating his rights to free speech and six other counts of conspiracy to fire Tracy for his political beliefs, explained how the court and Judge Robin Rosenberg (Jewish) prevented Tracy from presenting evidence and offering expert witness testimony in the case. 
    According to an article by
This had the effect of putting Tracy on trial (although he was the plaintiff and not the defendant), judged not by his actual peers but by a jury composed of members of the public who did not understand the full implications of the case—because much of the evidence was suppressed. Neither did they understand the implications of tenure, as they were not academics themselves. This upended the complaint and trashed many months of hard work by Tracy and his lawyers— work detailed in the 90 legal documents posted at the James Tracy Legal Defense Fund website. source

    More recent, the school shooting at Parkland has been determined to also have been staged and the events fabricated.  Because the event was staged in a school, a Gun Free Zone, even Sheriff Deputies, who were not privy to the information the event was being staged, WERE NOT ALLOWED TO ENTER THE SCHOOL to offer protection to students. Detailed information on the How and Why the Parkland shooting was staged is available here in a video called “The Parkland Puzzle: How the Pieces Fit Together.”
    The Sandy Hook FEMA Drill School Shooting has been fully exposed in a book edited by James Fetzer, PhD and Mike Palecek called NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK, which was banned on Amazon after initially being sold by Amazon (and is still not available at Amazon as of this writing).
    Many other staged shootings have been perpetrated against the American public including but not limited to these shootings; all used to promote disarming Americans.
    The Orlando Night Club Shooting
    The San Bernardino Shooting
    The Las Vegas Massacre
“If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414, 1989

    What would be the motivation of the corporate media when it deliberately refuses to investigate or even publicize something as important as the NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK, scholarly studies by 13 researchers including six current or retired Ph.D. college professors? One of the important conclusions of this group was the revelation the school had been abandoned by 2008.
    What would be the motivation of to ban the book NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK? After all, Amazon has books on every taboo and even degenerate topics known to man.  You can find books about “Satanism and Witchcraft”, books on the topic of pedophilia, or the discredited lies of Al Gore in “An Inconvenient Truth.”  You can find any number of books claiming Oswald did not kill President Kennedy or the oldest son of Queen Victoria, Prince Albert (Eddie) the Duke of Clarence and Avondale was the infamous “Jack the Ripper”, but not a book claiming NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK?”
    Why would a Federal Judge refuse to allow James Tracy to present any of his own evidence in a case which involved his livelihood? Tracy’s case was reduced to just defending himself against the claim the school had fired him because he failed to turn in some paperwork. Why couldn’t Tracy explain his case and the reasons why he believed he was fired and offer expert witness testimony to back this claim?
    Critical Thinking and its Ominous Conclusions
    The Disarm America Gun Agenda is oblivious to facts and will not be discouraged by the fact America is already peaceful, except for the violence of false flag, trauma causing, psychological operations being conducted by operatives working toward creating a new political landscape in America and Europe and then the world.
    From the facts above, it can be deduced that American Governments including the Federal Governments and State governments like Florida, Connecticut, Maryland, California and most other states have been USURPED.
To Seize and Hold a thing you have no right to Seize and Hold.  -Blacks Law Dictionary.

    Here is the chain of events.
    Governments are under the control of Hostile agents seeking to undermine the United States Constitution and remove the weapons of the masses for purposes, history shows, will be clearly nefarious.
    Using the tools of a controlled media and the money supply of criminal central banking cartels, the enemy of Americans, has created faked and fabricated events to present the illusion guns are not for protection, sport, hunting and training, but are rather dangerous implements for which the public at large should reject in order to be safe.
    When evidence of these staged and false flag events emerges, the enemy uses the tools of government, including a rigged court system, intimidation and authoritarian decree to silence and remove those discovering their crimes.
    Because the mainstream media has also been usurped and is now only for agenda propaganda and the promotion of a political reality, those who should be able to use this fourth estate to educate and enlighten the people as to malicious and evil nature of this agenda, are ridiculed and this information does not even get a mention, more less an investigation.
    This reasoning leads to the conclusion the so-called “Red Flag” laws, are no more than wolves in sheep clothing. These laws are backdoor methods permitting police or family and likely others associated with an individual, to petition the court to have weapons removed. Remember the police are the protectors of the political system, not the people, and it is the political systems which will command the police to remove weapons they deem are in the hands of someone dangerous.
    Examples given in articles about how the ‘Red Flag’ law will be used are lunatic fringe examples – typical of any invasive and life restricting law. The original income tax was introduced as only affecting the very wealthy.
“Proponents argued that the 16th amendment to the U.S. Constitution would force the so-called ‘robber barons’ to pay taxes. It was not supposed to provide a mechanism for Washington to reach into most Americans’ pockets.” – Raymond J. Keating, “Original Intent and the Income Tax,” The Freeman, Feb. 1, 1996
The laws [Red Flag]  allow family members or law enforcement to seek a court order to temporarily restrict people’s access to firearms when they show “red flags” that they are a danger to themselves or others. source (emphasis by the author)
    All loses of Liberty in America have started with baby steps.
    The most chilling concern about the latest “Law” (the Constitution is the highest law in the land, it states ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’) is that it was created under the pretense of school shootings that were maliciously and without empathy-for-the-deceived, faked by the same people looking to disarm the public.
    This psychologically deceptively named “Red Flag” law was created after a trauma-based mind control act of terrorism was unleashed on the public by criminals in the Florida state government, the criminal Sheriff, Scot Israel of Broward county, with accomplices in the Federal Government, the Secret Service, the Parkland district School system, mainstream media (CNN) and elsewhere. Note: two Broward County Sheriffs have died, suddenly and at young ages, at least one of which began questioning the Parkland shooting event.
    If these laws were created after an act of domestic terrorism, aimed at the people by the government for purposes of creating of preventing events like this — shouldn’t this be a RED FLAG for Americans? What are the implications for the motivations of a gang of thugs who would use extremely traumatic and emotionally harming faked events to remove your weapons?
    History Explains
    The Meadow Mountain Massacre is an example of what happens when men voluntarily disarm to be friendly, respectful, and good citizens. It was 1857 when the Baker-Fancher emigrant (settlers) wagon stopped for rest at Mountain Meadows Utah on the land of Mormon farmers. The settlers asked to remain on the property for a period of time to replenish their food supplies and rest their animals.  The Mormon acquiesced to their request, with the stipulation the 120+ people must surrender their weapons;  (Disarming.)
    Next, members of the Mormon farmers and the Utah Territorial Militia dressed up as Indians (False Flag) and killed them all.  There is an interesting movie about this modern day disarm-to-be slaughtered event in American history called “September Dawn: Mountain Meadows Massacre” see the trailer here.
    The Real Red Flag: The Usurped government and its controllers plan to do you harm in the future. This law and the others, which will follow, are baby-steps toward Bolshevism, who flew the blood stained Red Flag shown above.
    It is quite possible that in the very near future, just writing comments such as this will cause the ‘Red Flag’ law to be directed toward authors like me. It is time to stop accepting any more attempts to disarm Americans.
    London has the highest murder rate in Europe, higher than New York City and London is totally disarmed.
    Guns in the hands of the people always reduce murder rates.
    Guns in the hands of the people always keep tyranny and despotism at bay.
    Despots disarm; Tyranny disarms; Genocidal lunatics disarm.
Moreover, the art of directing masses and individuals by means of cleverly manipulated theory and verbiage, by regulations of life in common and all sorts of other tricks, in all of which, the goyim understand nothing, belongs likewise to the specialists of our Administrative brain. Protocol 5

Our State, Marching along the path of peaceful conquest, has the right to replace the horrors of war by less noticeable and more satisfactory sentences of death, necessary to maintain the terror which tends to produce blind submission. Protocol 1 - The Basic Doctrine.

    Source of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion: Waters Flowing Eastward: The War Against the Kingship of Christ, Mme. Paquila de Shishmareff (L. Fry), 1931
Jack Mullen is a consulting radio station engineer, CEO of a resource management corporation, website developer and student of the emerging disruptive Block Chain Technology. Jack is voracious reader and a contributing writer for Activist Post and full time writer for

Former UN Weapons Inspector: Syrian Gas Attack Story Raises Serious Questions

Former UN Weapons Inspector: Syrian Gas Attack Story Raises Serious Questions

Scott Ritter is arguably the most experienced American weapons inspector and in this interview with Dennis J. Bernstein he levels a frank assessment of U.S. government assertions about chemical weapons use.
Ritter: "They just make it up."

Ritter was one of the groundbreakers in developing on-site inspection techniques and methodologies. With this unique experience behind him, Ritter was asked in 1991, at the end of the Gulf War, to join the United Nations Special Commission, which was tasked by the Security Council to oversee the disarmament of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. From 1991 to 1998, Ritter served as a chief weapons inspector and led a number of teams into Iraq.
According to Ritter, in the following Flashpoints Radio interview with Dennis Bernstein conducted on April 23rd, US, British and French claims that the Syrian Government used chemical weapons against civilians last month appear to be totally bogus.
Dennis Bernstein: You have been speaking out recently about the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Could you outline your case?
Scott Ritter: There are a lot of similarities between the Syrian case and the Iraqi case. Both countries possess weapons of mass destruction. Syria had a very large chemical weapons program.
In 2013 there was an incident in a suburb of Damascus called Ghouta, the same suburb where the current controversy is taking place. The allegations were that the Syrian government used sarin nerve agent against the civilian population. The Syrian government denied that, but as a result of that incident the international community got together and compelled Syria into signing the Chemical Weapons Convention, declaring the totality of its chemical weapons holdings, and opening itself to be disarmed by inspections of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Russia was chosen to be the guarantor of Syria’s compliance. The bottom line is that Syria had the weapons but was verified by 2016 as being in 100% compliance. The totality of Syria’s chemical weapons program was eliminated.
At the same time that this disarmament process was taking place, Syria was being engulfed in a civil war which has resulted in a humanitarian crisis. Over a half million people have died. It is a war that pits the Syrian government against a variety of anti-regime forces, many of which are Islamic in nature: the Islamic State, Al Nusra, Al Qaeda. Some of these Islamic factions have been in the vicinity of Ghouta since 2012.
Earlier this year, the Syrian government initiated an offensive to liberate that area of these factions. It was very heavy fighting, thousands of civilians were killed, with massive aerial bombardment. Government forces were prevailing and by April 6 it looked as if the militants were preparing to surrender.
Suddenly the allegations come out that there was this chemical weapons attack. It wasn’t a massive chemical weapons attack, it was dropping one or two so-called “barrel bombs,” improvised devices that contained chlorine gas canisters. According to the militants, between 40 and 70 people were killed and up to 500 people were made ill. The United States and other nations picked up on this, saying that this was proof positive that Syria has been lying about its chemical weapons program and that Russia has been behind Syria’s retention of chemical weapons. This is the case the US made to launch its missile strike [on April 14].
There are a lot of problems with this scenario. Again, why would the Syrian government, at the moment of victory, use a pinprick chemical attack with zero military value? It added nothing to the military campaign and invited the wrath of the West at a critical time, when the rebels were begging for Western intervention.
Many, including the Russian government, believe that this was a staged event. There has been no hard evidence put forward by anyone that an attack took place. Shortly after allegations of the attack came out, the entire town of Douma was taken over by the Syrian Army while the rebels were evacuated.
The places that were alleged to have been attacked were inspected by Russian chemical weapons specialists, who found zero trace of any chemicals weapons activity. The same inspectors who oversaw the disarmament of Syria were mobilized to return to Syria and do an investigation. They were supposed to start their work this past weekend [April 21-22]. They arrived in Damascus the day after the missile strikes occurred but they still haven’t been out to the sites. The United States, France and Great Britain have all admitted that the only evidence they have used to justify this attack were the photographs and videotapes sent to them by the rebel forces.
I have great concern about the United States carrying out an attack on a sovereign nation based on no hard evidence. The longer we wait, the longer it takes to get inspectors onto the site, the more claims we are going to get that the Russians have sanitized it. I believe that the last thing the United States wanted was inspectors to get on-site and carry out a forensic investigation that would have found that a chemical attack did not in fact take place.
DB: It is sort of like cleaning up a police crime scene before you check for evidence.
SR: The United States didn’t actually bomb the site that was attacked. They bombed three other facilities. One was in the suburbs of Damascus, a major metropolitan area. The generals said that they believed there were quantities of nerve agent there. So, in a building in a densely populated area where we believe nerve agent is stored, what do we do? We blow it up! If there had in fact been nerve agent there, it would have resulted in hundreds or even thousands of deaths. That fact that nobody died is the clearest evidence yet that there was no nerve agent there. The United States is just winging it, making it up.
One of the tragedies is that we can no longer trust our military, our intelligence services, our politicians. They will manufacture whatever narrative they need to justify an action that they deem to be politically expedient.
DB: Isn’t it also the case that there were problems with the allegations concerning Syria using chemical weapons in 2013 and then again in 2015? I believe The New York Times had to retract their 2013 story.
SR: They put out a story about thousands of people dying, claiming that it was definitely done by the Syrian government. It turned out later that the number of deaths was far lower and that the weapons systems used were probably in the possession of the rebels. It was a case of the rebels staging a chemical attack in order to get the world to intervene on their behalf.
A similar scenario unfolded last year when the Syrian government dropped two or three bombs on a village and suddenly there were reports that there was sarin nerve agent and chlorine gas wafting through the village, killing scores of people. Videotapes were taken of dead and dying and suffering people which prompted Trump to intervene. Inspectors never went to the site. Instead they relied upon evidence collected by the rebels.
As a weapons inspector, I can tell you that chain of custody of any samples that are to be used in the investigation is an absolute. You have to be at the site when it is collected, it has to be certified to be in your possession until the laboratory. Any break in the chain of custody makes that evidence useless for a legitimate investigation. So we have evidence collected by the rebels. They videotaped themselves carrying out the inspection, wearing training suits that would not have protected them at all from chemical weapons! Like almost everything having to do with these rebels, this was a staged event, an act of theater.
DB: Who has been supporting this particular group of rebels?
SR:  On the one hand, we have the actual fighters, the Army of Islam, a Saudi-backed fundamentalist group who are extraordinarily brutal. Embedded within the fighters are a variety of Western-trained and Western-funded NGOs such as the White Helmets and the Syrian-American Medical Society. But their primary focus isn’t rescue, in the case of the White Helmets, or medical care in the case of the Syrian-American Medical Society, but rather anti-regime propaganda. Many of the reports that came out of Douma originated with these two NGO’s.
DB: You mentioned “chain of custody.” That’s what was most ridiculous about sending in inspectors. The first thing you would want to do is establish chain of custody and nail down the crime scene.
SR: I was a participant in the Gulf War and we spent the bulk of that war conducting a massive aerial campaign against Iraq. I was one of the people who helped come up with the target list that was used to attack. Each target had to have a purpose.
Let’s look what happened in Syria [on April 14].  We bombed three targets, a research facility in Damascus and two bunker facilities in western Syria. It was claimed that all three targets were involved with a Syrian chemical weapons program. But the Syria weapons program was verified to be disarmed. So what chemical weapons program are we talking about? Then US officials said that one of these sites stored sarin nerve agent and chemical production equipment. That is a very specific statement. Now, if Syria was verified to be disarmed last year, with all this material eliminated, what are they talking about? What evidence do they have that any of this material exists? They just make it up.  
If I had been a member of that inspections team, I would have been able to tell you with 100% certainty what took place at that site. It wasn’t that long ago that the allegations took place, there are very good forensic techniques that can be applied. We would be able to reverse engineer that site and tell you exactly what happened when. Let’s say an inspection team had gone in and we found that there was sarin nerve agent. Now, the US government can say, there is not supposed to be any sarin nerve agent in Syria, therefore we can state that the Syrians have a covert sarin nerve agent capability. But still you don’t know where it is, so now you have to say we assess that it could be in this bunker.
We bombed empty buildings. We didn’t degrade Syria’s chemical weapons capability. They got rid of it. We were among the nations that certified that they had been disarmed. We just created this phantom threat out of nothing so that we could attack Syria and our president could be seen as being presidential, as being the commander in chief at a time when his credibility was being attacked on the home front.
DB: Amazing. That helps clarify the situation. Of course, it also leaves us terrified because we are so far away from the truth.
SR: As an American citizen who happens to be empowered with knowledge about how weapons inspections work, how decisions are made regarding war, I am disillusioned beyond belief.
This isn’t the first time we have been lied to by the president. But we have been lied to by military officers who are supposed to be above that. Three top Marine Corps officers stood before the American people and told bald-faced lies about what was going on. We have been lied to by Congress, who are supposed to be the people’s representatives who provide a check against executive overreach. And we have been lied to by the corporate media, a bunch of paid mouthpieces who repeat what the government tells them without question.
So Donald Trump can say there are chemical weapons in Syria, the generals parrot his words, the Congress nods its head dumbly, and the mass media repeats it over and over again to the American public.
DB: Are you worried that we might end up in a shooting war with Russia at this point?
SR: A week ago I was very worried. If I am going to give kudos to Jim Mattis it will be because he took the desire of Trump and Bolton to create a major crisis with Russia over the allegations of Syrian chemical weapons use and was able to water that down into putting on a show for the American people. We warned the Russians in advance, there were no casualties, we blew up three empty buildings. We spent a quarter of a billion dollars of taxpayer money and we got to pat ourselves on the back and tell everybody how great we are. But we avoided a needless confrontation with the Russians and I am a lot calmer today about the potential of a shooting war with Russia than I was a week ago.

In the 1980’s, Scott Ritter was a commissioned officer in the United States Marine Corps, specializing in intelligence. In 1987, Ritter was assigned to the On-Site Inspection Agency, which was put together to go into the Soviet Union and oversee the implementation of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This was the first time that on-site inspection had been used as part of a disarmament verification process.