First broadcast June 29th, Inside Track #23 is now available for listening in the Mixcloud player below. This show featured Michael Fallon being compared to Bumble of Oliver Twist.
The show began with revelations of more Tory election cheating, courtesy of an undercover investigation by Channel 4 News. Secret footage clearly proves campaigning laws were broken, though the prospect of any action being taken looks, as ever, remote.
The Tory-DUP deal was concluded this week. The deal saw 1.5 billion UKP suddenly materialize, despite the never-ending Tory claims that magic money trees simply do not exist. There will, however, be no extra government funds for councils facing economic ruin over fixing cladding of the sort thought responsible for the Grenfell Tower fire.
Not content with entering a coalition with a political party with astonishingly close links to terrorist groups, the government is apparently also considering keeping MPs dispersed for as long as possible by adding an extra month to their summer holidays.
Fake News / Anti-Russia
Three CNN journalists resigned this week, after being caught red-handed producing a fake news story that sought to link a Trump associate to an ongoing investigation of a Russian bank. Trump understandably reacted with glee, tweeting, quite rightfully, ‘FAKE NEWS!‘ Glenn Greenwald covered the story, and used a wealth of evidence of previous anti-Russia stories that have fallen apart, to contextualize this latest scandal.
On a similar theme, we also noted a Guardian story regarding the recent cyber-attack on the UK Parliament, which was headlined: Cyber-attack on UK parliament: Russia is suspected culprit. The accompanying article, however, contained not a single piece of evidence of any Russian involvement whatsoever, the highlight being a security source’s comment: “The nature of cyber-attacks means it is notoriously difficult to attribute an incident to a specific actor.” Undeterred, the article then recycled past claims of Russia being linked to interference in various other events, all of them equally evidence-free.
On this week’s show we discussed the events of 4th April in Khan Sheikoun, Syria, and the aerial attack that left 89 people dead. Of interest here is a new article by Seymour Hersh, veteran investigative reporter, that draws upon US intelligence sources to cast significant doubt on the official narrative.
CNN, for example, in its reporting of the attack, produced an astonishing propaganda video and declared the events of April 4th to be, “a sarin attack on the town of Khan Sheikhoun, which evidence shows was launched by Syrian government forces”, while a later story claimed OCPW had ‘incontrovertible’ evidence that sarin, or a similar substance, was used.
Hersh claims that not only did US intelligence services know there were no chemical weapons used by the Syrians, this information was presented to, and dismissed, by Donald Trump. Forewarned of the incoming Tomahawk missiles, the spectacular images of US military might that generated a surge in Trump’s approval ratings were, according to one source, merely ‘a firework display’.
If one is wondering why such an important story is being ignored in the Western media, Jonathan Cook has two posts on that theme; the first looks at how Seymour Hersh has been rapidly pushed to the margins, while the second notes how Hersh’s revelations are being ignored, even as two spoilers that seek to trump his claims are given significant attention.
The first of these spoilers was the Sean Spicer statement that, “The United States has identified potential preparations for another chemical attack by the Assad regime that would likely result in the mass murder of civilians, including innocent children. The activities are similar to the preparations the regime made before its April 4, 2017 chemical weapons attack.” Spicer’s statement was greeted with disbelief by officials at the Pentagon and the State Department, who had no foreknowledge of its release.
The second spoiler was a ‘new’ story ‘confirming’ that the OCPW investigation (which was widely reported months back) found evidence of the use of sarin.
Meanwhile, Scott Ritter has brought his expertise to bear on the Khan Sheikoun attack, and in an excellent piece demonstrates, among other things, that the ‘chain of custody’ re samples collected from the scene was broken numerous times, thus rendering the OCPW findings that CNN declared ‘incontrovertible’, moot. His reasoning leads him to the conclusion that the most like explanations is that the White Helmets fabricated the samples to advance their anti-Assad agenda.
Perhaps the most worrying comment on this whole saga is this one, by Jonathan Cook, who notes that these latest US threats re Syrian chemical attacks, “… increase, rather than reduce, the chances of a new chemical weapons attack. Other, anti-Assad actors now have a strong incentive to use chemical weapons in false-flag operation to implicate Assad, knowing that the US has committed itself to intervention. On any reading, the US statements were reckless – or malicious – in the extreme and likely to bring about the exact opposite of what they were supposed to achieve.”