True to form, Joshua Landis finds yet more reason to lend the benefit of the doubt again to the Syrian Assad regime. Referring to the story of a Syrian that there were supposedly bribes in the Mehlis investigation, Landis offers up:
"Many readers have asked whether I believe Hussam's testimony. The question is not whether I believe him; rather, it is that all his testimony is now highly suspect, which has done great damage to the Mehlis investigation and his preliminary findings."
What damage? In the eyes of those who wish to see it? Give me a break. Hariri's people categorically deny it (of course not mentioned by NYT until paragraph 8), so it is "he-said, she-said" at best...far from 'highly-suspect' at this point. Hussam spoke on Syrian state TV, no less...not exactly the home of reasoned discourse.
Couched in 'intellectual reason', Landis always seems to find a way to (cautiously but consistently) tell us that the Syrian Assad regime isn't all that bad. This instance is no different.