...where is it?
Sarin was found in rockets recovered at the site of the attack, and in at least 85 percent of blood samples and at least 91 percent of urine samples tested, according to the UN inspectors.
All right, let's see the photos and analysis on the rocket casings that were recovered so we have a means of figuring out who fired them.
This "report" does nothing to advance our knowledge on the matter; we knew that Sarin was used immediately after the attack, as the symptoms, injuries and causes of death leave little to the imagination.
What we do not have proof of is who fired the rockets.
Q: Benghazi is one of those issues where we on the right look at Americans on the other side of the partisan divide and wonder whether we're from the same planet.
Don't they care that our ambassador and his team were sent to a facility with ludicrously insufficient security?
A: Well, sure. But when you're working in the midst of a civil war, operating out of a mission building adjacent to a Central Intelligence Agency facility in a land known to be thick with jihadists, there is a limit to how safe one can be. Benghazi was not a safe place. Perhaps, in retrospect, no diplomats should've been there at all. But people -- and governments -- take risks to advance their interests. And intelligence and the security bureaucracies that wield it sometimes fail, with tragic result.
Benghazi has almost-nothing to do with the fact that there is risk when you have people working in the middle of a civil war.
It has everything to do with exactly what the CIA was doing over there, whether we were arming terrorists (or those that upon any reasonable sort of inquiry would conclude were likely either terrorists or affiliated with them) and what we were -- and are -- providing to them.
The usual argument is that such "operations" are and should remain "classified" to "protect people." Uh huh. Protect exactly who? And further, it's our tax dollars being spent there -- not some mythical resource -- never mind the blood that got spent as well.
I wish I could tell you that I am surprised by the games this administration has played in refusing to get to the bottom of this issue, or that I'm surprised that Congress refuses to do its actual job and only holds half-hearted "hearings", ala what Issa has proclaimed all over social media.
But I'm not.
See, The United States has a long and sordid history of thinking that it can "help" this side or that of some conflict and wind up in a better place for it (and so will the people being "helped.") History, however, shows that a huge percentage of these "interventions" and "adventures" turn out very badly -- and not just for the US, but also for the other nations involved.
This doesn't mean that we should never intervene. There are clearly times that I believe we should, although many of those are times that we didn't.
But it does mean that when we are going to intervene we should be doing so with the blessing and debate that runs through the people paying for it in treasure, blood and consequences for our nation, which means the electorate itself.
This is particularly true when there is no Declaration of War on our part -- in other words, we the people, through our representatives, have not designated some group of folks an "enemy" through our deliberative process.
But in today's world we have designated "Al Qaida" as enemy, albeit through a somewhat-back door method. Nonetheless the designation is there, as is the formal state of emergency declared after 9/11 and which persists to this day.
I may be a bit old school on this but I find it very hard to argue that providing material aid and comfort to a declared enemy of the United States, when that declaration is in the form of said state of emergency that is operative at the present time would not constitute an act of Treason.
It is for this reason that the nation deserves answers on Benghazi. This is not about who we helped or didn't in a civil war, or whether it's dangerous to have people in the middle of same.
It is about whether our administration provided weapons to a sworn enemy of the United States -- and if so, who did it and under who's authority was it done.
The simple fact of the matter is that those people -- all of them -- must be identified and stand trial.
Gaining traction is a push to compel the Assad regime to turn over its chemical weapons.
The idea caught fire unexpectedly on Monday after Secretary of State John Kerry made an off-hand comment that Syria could resolve the stand-off by relinquishing its chemical weapons within a week. Kerry claimed that Assad "isn't about to do it" -- and an aide suggested the secretary was not being serious.
But within hours, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow would push Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control.
The latest newsflash is that Syria's foreign minister has said yes.
Now here's the problem. Obama can't take the deal. If he does when (not if) there is another chemical attack he's proved to have been lying about who used the chems the last time and his entire administration's credibility on the foreign policy stage is irretrievably demolished.
And Rice now says that only "regime change" will do -- in other words we're now trying to reserve the right to veto foreign heads of state.
Good luck with that one Barry. Bush got away with it in Iraq only because Saddam had previously invaded another nation and there was a cease-fire with terms that he violated in force at the time. Syria has invaded nobody.
The problem for the regime -- the Obama regime -- is that Assad probably isn't the one who used the chems. At least we know with a reasonable degree of certainty that the earlier attack was effectively an IED, which makes no sense in the context of an organized state military force -- but makes plenty of sense when it comes to a bunch of insurgents.
And that, my friends, is why Obama is going to order that our military fire on Syria anyway.
Whether that order is lawful or not.
The report itself was not released. But the statement drew a pointed comparison between what it said was the scientific detail of the report and the far shorter intelligence summaries that the United States, Britain and France have released to justify their assertion that the Syrian government launched chemical weapons against Damascus suburbs on Aug. 21. The longest of those summaries, by the French, ran nine pages. Each relies primarily on circumstantial evidence to make its case, and they disagree with one another on some details, including the number of people who died in the attack.
Specifically, the Russians claim to have evidence that:
There are various reports about whether this particular set of data came from the attack in August, or an earlier one in March. McClatchy believes this is from March. I'm not so sure. But it doesn't really matter, does it, if it establishes that the rebels use chemical weapons, irrespective of when they used them.
After all, the premise behind us bombing Assad is that he used them against the rebels. If the Rebels used them either instead of Assad or both sides used them then exactly what justification do we have for getting involved in this at all?
Never mind that if we attack WE WILL STILL BE ACTING AS AL-QAIDA'S AIR FORCE.
This is, at this point, a claim and I've not seen the actual report. It may be fabricated. But if we hit Syria's government and it's not then we're conducting fire missions on behalf of an entity that used chemical weapons.
Still sleeping well and watching "Dancing With The Stars" America?
I knew they had a problem over there. I had no idea it was this bad:
Chinese are developing the metabolic disease at a lower body mass index than Americans, the researchers found, meaning that changes in diet and physical activity stoked by rapid economic development are resulting in an earlier onset of the obesity-linked disease. The epidemic will worsen with 40 percent of 18-to-29-year-olds on the verge of developing diabetes, which increases the risk of stroke, heart attack and kidney failure.
Forty percent of 18-29 year olds are insulin-resistant?!
It's actually worse than that:
The added criteria may have partly contributed to the increased prevalence, Guang and colleagues wrote. The scientists estimate half of adults in China, or 493.4 million people, have higher-than-normal blood glucose levels, which put them in a pre-diabetic state.
Anyone who thinks you can eat a diet full of rice and other similar "fast carbs" and then add to that animal products and processed foods in any sort of quantity and that this is "all ok" is simply nuts.
There appear to be two paths one can take when it comes to diet and body mass, both of which are reasonably stable -- you can eat a "peasant" diet that is high carbohydrate but has almost no animal protein, fat and refined sugars in it or you can eat a high-fat, moderate-protein and carb-restricted diet.
What you can't do is try to get cute and blend the two together.
What this ultimately means is that the sort of refined garbage that constitutes "first world" food is pretty-much a slow poison in that your body is incapable of adjusting to it successfully. Oh sure, you'll get energy from it, but you also will damage and ultimately destroy your body's ability to regulate blood sugar and then you're screwed.
The usual solution to this is so-called "western medicine" (in other words, reach for the pill bottle) but that's like arguing that one should patronize prosthetic makers after willingly sticking one's hand in the garbage disposal.
How about not chopping off your hand in the first place?
Folks, the evidence is that hydrogenated (that is, "shelf-stable") and other processed oils along with refined grains and sugars are slow poisons. When they are used as a means of making food taste good after natural, animal-based fats have been removed you get hammered twice.
This is the legacy of agribusiness and the so-called "western miracle" when it comes to food "production" and "distribution." The so-called "miracle" of "modern" food production is in fact a loaded .45 pointed at your head and you're tickling the trigger.
If you're not willing to eat like a peasant (and most people in the western world are not; it's a very bland and highly-restricted diet) then you have to instead eat like someone who has both the time and wherewithall to prepare your food -- you can't take the shortcuts, buy it in a box or can that some jackass has removed all the animal fats from and then slapped a "heart-healthy" label on it while cranking the package full of refined grains, sugars and frankensteined vegetable oils.
China was supposed to be the "Asian Tiger" that was going to take over the world.
In point of fact it appears that China is instead turning into the land of the fat slob that will economically collapse by their own hand in a sea of self-imposed slow, miserable death as they go blind and watch their extremities turn black with gangrene.
Where We Are, Where We're Heading (2013) - The annual 2013 Ticker
The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.
NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.
The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.
Looking for "The Best of Market Ticker"? Check out Ticker Classics.
Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.
The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.
Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.