Barack Obama did not tell the whole story when he tried to make the case that Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack near Damascus on 21 August. In the months before the attack, the American intelligence agencies produced a series of highly classified reports, citing evidence that the al-Nusra Front, a jihadi group affiliated with al-Qaida, had mastered the mechanics of creating sarin. When the attack occurred the administration cherry-picked intelligence to justify a strike against Assad.

While the Syrian regime continues the process of eliminating its chemical arsenal, the irony is that, after Assad’s stockpile of precursor agents is destroyed, al-Nusra and its Islamist allies could end up as the only faction inside Syria with access to the ingredients that can create sarin, a strategic weapon that would be unlike any other in the war zone. There may be more to negotiate (Adapted from an article by Seymour Hersh in the London Review of Books)

Seymour Hersh has an excellent reputation. He is careful to publish things that are reliably true.

So this raises an uncomfortable question: what can we believe in the media? So much is spun to further some agenda or other. All groups, party political or not, are at it, parsing this and emphasizing that. If you follow the news you can end up totally cynical, and this is neither fair nor attractive. But how, in 24 hour news cycles, do you determine the truth? Last night the head of the NSA flatly denied listening in to telephone conversations of American citizens without a FISA court order (now deemed unconstitutional by the DC Court of Appeals). I sat there thinking, “Do I believe this? If the capability exists some rogue operator will abuse it. They have the capability and we should know about it.”

Epicurus might say, “Suspecting everyone in sight of dishonesty is bad for you. Cynicism is an acid to the soul”. Let us smile and expect that the vast majority intend the best for the rest.