Syrial Liar

(hat tip to Steven Goddard)

Truth is truth, regardless of the source. Falsehoods remain lies, even if told by someone you trust. I am in the odd position here of seeing an article that contains very likely true information, but the source is a known serial liar. Seymour Hersh has made his career from sensationalizing stories as political attacks. He did this in Abu Ghraib (which I wrote about here), turning evidence from one night’s evil stupidity, already being used to prosecute a small group of idiot jailers, into an “exposé” attack on George W. Bush. Not disclosed by Hersh; he’d gotten these “exclusive” photos from his buddy who was the group’s defense attorney, and who saw the possibility of turning this already-being-fixed problem into an international scandal that could harm Americans around the world.  It did, of course, and resulted in the deaths of many over Hersh’s falsehoods. He didn’t care; he got his story.

The New Story

Now comes this new story about Obama, lying about Syria. It goes into considerable detail, but the essence is that the White House omitted things that it knew about the terrorists and chemical weapons, fabricated details, and pretended that information they acquired much later or indirectly had been obtained in real time:

One high-level intelligence officer, in an email to a colleague, called the administration’s assurances of Assad’s responsibility a ‘ruse’. The attack ‘was not the result of the current regime’, he wrote. A former senior intelligence official told me that the Obama administration had altered the available information – in terms of its timing and sequence – to enable the president and his advisers to make intelligence retrieved days after the attack look as if it had been picked up and analysed in real time, as the attack was happening. The distortion, he said, reminded him of the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, when the Johnson administration reversed the sequence of National Security Agency intercepts to justify one of the early bombings of North Vietnam. The same official said there was immense frustration inside the military and intelligence bureaucracy: ‘The guys are throwing their hands in the air and saying, “How can we help this guy” – Obama – “when he and his cronies in the White House make up the intelligence as they go along?”’

The complaints focus on what Washington did not have: any advance warning from the assumed source of the attack.

This sounds just like Obama, from his pattern of obvious falsehoods on so many other topics. The problem is, it also sounds just like Seymour Hersh.  Parts of it match what I have seen from other sources, but the parts I would like more details on have no sources linked here.

I am seeking further details.

Obama has a Rolling Stone

Amusingly, Obama described himself in the recent Matthews interview as Sisyphus:

You recognize that you’re just part of the sweep of history and your job really is to push the boulder up the hill a little bit before somebody pushes it up a little further and the task never stops at perfecting our union.

I had to smile at this. Sisyphus was punished with the eternal task of rolling the boulder up the hill only to watch it roll back down again because he was being punished for being a deceitful ruler.

As a punishment for his trickery, King Sisyphus was made to roll a huge boulder up a steep hill. Before he could reach the top, however, the massive stone would always roll back down, forcing him to begin again.[7] The maddening nature of the punishment was reserved for King Sisyphus due to his hubristic belief that his cleverness surpassed that of Zeus himself.

Perhaps President Obama did not think through this metaphor, but it is very often that the examples he picks, the choices he makes, and the people he surrounds himself with are worth examining more closely.

As are the stories he tells, in his hubristic belief that nobody checks them.

===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle