Begin email from JB, with whom I had been discussing Assad:
This should answer question re Assad being a war criminal. Plenty of damning evidence.
McCain and Graham are senators, not country dictators, and any of their opinions require support by a majority of Senators to lead to actions. Further, you may disagree with their views on strategy and tactics, but both are veterans with views that should at least be considered.
But there the Breitbart linked above reports on McCain and supports the accusations that McCain has supported terrorists and terrorist sympathizers:
Patrick Poole, an esteemed national security reporter and expert on radical Islam for PJ Media, has reported that the Free Syrian Army’s commanders have admitted in public to working alongside ISIS. [McCain has supported the Free Syrian Army—Don Hank]
Earlier JB had said that the only sites that asserted that McCain had met with terrorists were fake news sites.
The problem for JB and other dogs wagged by the tail in the White House is that Breitbart has been embraced by Trump. So, since Trump has named a Breitbart operative to his inner circle, pretending this is fake news is claiming that Trump has been duped.
Rogers–McCain’s communications director–went on the record to multiple media outlets to say he didn’t know who he was meeting with.
So McCain didn’t know these fighters that he supported wholeheartedly with your cash but he insists that they were not members of terrorist groups. Sure. Well, then, if he didn’t know them, he could naturally vouch for their not being terrorists, couldn’t he?
So my question for JB and his ilk is: in view of the above, why should McCain’s views “be considered,” even though he is a veteran – particularly since most veterans don’t trust McCain. After all, they are veterans too and should their views not be considered?
Here I quote from the article linked to by JB:
Tuesday’s chemical attack that killed at least 86 people, including 27 children, is the latest in a series of atrocities linked to the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad.
“Linked to” is pregnant with meaning. Yet it means little, because JB apparently has not asked himself WHO did the “linking.” The answer to that question is: the same people who linked Trump to the Kremlin and who linked Russia to a document leak that was said, by Craig Murray, the leaker to Wikileaks, to have come from a disgruntled Bernie Sanders voter. This linker was the CIA and its puppets, about 17 “intelligence” agencies in all, none of whom would dare to disagree with their lying boss. Why do I call the CIA a liar? Because this same Wikileaks exposed another info dump showing that the CIA has software that can simulate a Russian “hack” even when there is no hack. This special software inserts Russian-looking code into documents and pretends they are Russian hacks. But of course, the CIA said they never use this software. And many Trump bots believe this rot now that Trump sides with these characters. Voters sided with Trump for the right reasons but are now mesmerized by his personality and following him for the wrong reasons.
The United Nations previously accused his government of committing war crimes against the Syrian people during a brutal six-year-long civil war that continues without end.
Yes, the UN did accuse Assad and Russia of crimes in Syria, as documented here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/03/01/un-details-assad-and-putin-s-war-cirimes-in-aleppo.html
But what JB and others forgot is that the US-backed Iraqi forces were also accused of horrific crimes, so if Assad is to be tried for crimes, how about the US and its ally? Oh dear, we aren’t supposed to think like this, are we JB?
Here are other actions Assad has been accused of taking that have triggered global condemnation:
In 2013, Assad’s military launched a nerve gas attack in the suburbs of Damascus that killed hundreds of people.
But this allegation is competently rebutted by this report:
On December 13,  UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon signed identical letters to the UN General Assembly and Security Council, stating:
“I have the honour to convey herewith the final report of the United Nations Mission to investigate allegations of the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic”
The letter of transmittal was signed by Professor Ake Sellstrom, Head of Mission, and Dr. Maurizio Barbeschi, signing for the WHO component.
On page 21 of this 85 page report is stated:
“Khan al Asal, 19 March 2013: 111. The United Nations Mission collected credible information that corroborates the allegations that chemical weapons were used in Khan al Asal on 19 March 2013 against soldiers and civilians.”
“Jobar, 24 August 2013: 113. The United Nations Mission collected evidence consistent with the probable use of chemical weapons in Jobar on 24 August on a relatively small scale against soldiers…”
Emphasis mine. No rational person would suggest that Assad would kill his own soldiers. So where did these chemical weapons come from? Read on.
Page 114, this assessment is based on the following:
According to Seymour Hersh, December 19 (published in The London Review of Books),
“Already by late May, the senior (US) intelligence consultant told me, the CIA had briefed the Obama administration on al-Nusra and its work with sarin, and had sent alarming reports that another Sunni fundamentalist group active in Syria, al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI), also understood the science of producing sarin. At the time, al-Nusra was operating in areas close to Damascus, including Eastern Ghouta. An intelligence document issued in mid-summer dealt extensively with Ziyaad Tarriq Ahmed, a chemical weapons expert formerly of the Iraqi military, who was said to have moved into Syria and to be operating in Eastern Ghouta. The consultant told me that Tariq had been identified ‘as an al-Nusra guy with a track record of making mustard gas in Iraq and someone who is implicated in making and using sarin.’ He is regarded as a high-profile target by the American military.”
This would support the Russian Ambassador’s claim, following the Security Council consultations of December 17, 2013 that: “Why would the Syrian government use chemical weapons on August 21? To cross the red line drawn by Washington and invite a missile strike upon itself? Why would the opposition use chemical weapons? Exactly because of the red line. To provoke foreign military intervention in the Syrian conflict…The Russian team’s analysis concluded that ‘home-made’ sarin was used near Aleppo on March 19. It stated that the Sarin was likely delivered by a crudely made missile. The team also named the particular opposition group most likely behind the attack. At the time, the Syrian government immediately requested an international investigation of the March 19 incident, but then the United Kingdom and France all of a sudden recalled a Homs case, that had not bothered them for 3 preceding months, while the US started insisting on the need to investigate ‘all incidents.’ Why did those who accused the Syrian government of this act do their utmost to derail or at least delay such investigation?” The dragging UN probe was interfered with by the tragic events in Ghouta on August 21. “As our experts concluded, sarin used on August 21 was of approximately the same type as the one used on March 19, though of a slightly better quality. It means that over a few months, opposition chemists somewhat improved the quality of their product.”
More from JB-linked article:
Under international pressure, he agreed to a plan to destroy his chemical weapons stockpiles. Since then, however, his regime has been linked [again, by whom? Don] to attacks using chlorine, which is more easily made from industrial sources. Most countries ban the storage or use of chemical weapons. Nerve gas is suspected in this week’s attack.
Assad’s military has regularly used these improvised explosives against rebels. But the regime has used them in cities where their destruction is indiscriminate. The bombs are packed with explosives and shrapnel that cause wide areas of damage and commonly are dropped from helicopters. The Syrian Network for Human Rights said in a report that the Syrian regime helicopters dropped nearly 13,000 barrel bombs in 2016, killing hundreds of civilians, including children.
The implication of the above is that US bombs do not kill civilians, but in fact, the US is accused by the British monitoring group Airwars of killiing 1500 civilians in March alone.
Just as I thought I was finished with this commentary, this came in: