Although Obama claims to be certain enough to consider an attack, the intelligence services are not so sure. They call it 'no slam dunk' referring to the certainty claimed by the CIA about the (never found) weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
The intelligence outline prepared for congress is thick with caveats. and details the gaps in American knowledge.
In addition, an intercept of Syrian military officials discussing the strike was among low-level staff, with no direct evidence tying the attack back to an Assad insider or even a senior Syrian commander, the officials said.
So while Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that links between the attack and the Assad government are "undeniable," U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain that the suspected chemical attack was carried out on Assad's orders, or even completely sure it was carried out by government forces, the officials said.
ABC also reports that the US intelligence lost track of chemical weapons locations. They could be anywhere, even in hands of rebels. Bombing could incidentally hit storage locations.
See also the discussion under New Diplomacy: Fire the Tomahawks First, Facts Will Follow
https://plus.google.com/u/0/112352920206354603958/posts/YQHTE3NH4eX
More on the US intelligence can be found at http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/ap-sources-intelligence-weapons-slam-dunk-20102965
I am sure that Assad bought those mobile labs on a truck that somehow vanished from Iraq! 😉
+Stephen Geraci Why would they let inspectors in? Most countries don't like foreigners snooping around.
They only did so to show goodwill.
this is not our problem. When 500,000 were hacked to death in Rwanda by machetes; the US didn't even bat an eye. 100+ people are gassed in Syria all of a sudden we are concerned! Not to 100,000 were killed in Syria prior to this.
I think Dennis Kucinich says it best; by attacking the Syrian governement we will be acting as al Qaeda's air force.
+Chris Merenda But those Syrians died because the USA is funding the jihadi rebels.
+Christopher DH I would like to see us cease our involvement in the entire region. The people there don't want us there, and the American public doesn't want to be there either. I feel the US is partly to blame for much of the problems in the Middle East. At some point we need to stop meddling.
+Chris Merenda Amen, but google "Petrodollar" and suddently you understand why we are there…
+sooty bitz this is all controlled by Israel and they could be the guilty party
It might be helpful if I expand on the 'why not let inspectors in earlier'. Syria is one of the few countries not bounded by the Chemical Weapons Convention so they don't have to let inspectors in.
+Christopher DH I know, we are hooked on the oil crack pipe over there. If we could come together and tap into our own natural resources and ramp up on green energy, maybe we could leave that region.
+Chris Merenda there are too many organisations that profit from the oil. They do not want anything different. Alternative energy sources are harder to control and centralize for profit than conventional ones.
+Stephen Geraci I have the largest respect for human life. Dying from traditional guns and bombs is just as painful and horrible.
Bombing Syria will certainly cause new death and wounded. I completely agree that all attacks on innocent civilians should stop, but bombing these same people based on a 'whoever the hell is doing it' won't help.
I understand your agitation +Stephen Geraci but the reality unfortunately is that having your limbs torn apart and laying there for days dying because there are no functioning hospitals is just as cruel
Bombing people to spare them from a chemical attack is not the solution.
“The one thing we should learn is you can’t get a little bit pregnant,” said retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, who was at the helm of U.S. Central Command when the Pentagon launched cruise missiles at suspected terrorist sites in Afghanistan and weapons facilities in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. “If you do a one-and-done and say you’re going to repeat it if unacceptable things happen, you might find these people keep doing unacceptable things. It will suck you in.”
+Marco Tedaldi – that's why we need to tap into are natural resources here which it is now estimated to be more than what Saudi Arabi is sitting on. Also if Obama would approve the Keystone pipeline from Canada, that would help.
The problem with chemical weapons and the reason that countries broadly banned their use after World War I wasn't because they were effective at killing. By the end of the war, they were not. They were banned because of their effects on the living. Any weapon that does not kill but instead leaves a person alive, wishing they were not, is a simply evil. I'd put landmines, IEDs, and nuclear/radiological weapons in the same class for that reason, but the fact is chemical weapons are banned.
Don't get me wrong. I don't want military intervention in Syria. But the use of chemical weapons is a line that civil nations have agreed not to cross. I want a solution that doesn't involve killing even more people, but it can't be ignored.
Sounds just like before Cheney broke the CIA's balls, after he'd been beating on them to "find some evidence of WMDs" for weeks.
Fuck you Obama
Nobody wants to ignore the use of chemicals, but we can't fight one illegality with another.
Attacking a nation without its consent or based on self-defense is strictly forbidden. That principle is ranked even higher than the ban on chemical weapons.
The new 'humanitarian war' theory is highly controversial and a vast majority of countries reject the opinion. In a different world – read if the US wouldn't be that powerful – other nations would be allowed to attack the US if 'humanitarian' principles were to sanction military action.
Meanwhile Germany has spoken out against a military intervention while in the UK legal experts back my view that it would be completely illegal.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/29/syria-legal-doubt-british-intervention
An excellent summary of the known information regarding Syria is found at http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/08/events-are-moving-quickly-in-syria-heres-what-you-need-to-know/
ya but that's all he makes is mistakes
Reminds me of the music video of "Amurka – Make No Mistake" http://amurka.com/en/gall_clips.htm which came after the whole Iraq "they got weapons of mass destruction" mistake.
From Rear Admiral Chris Parry, former commander of the UK’s amphibious task group
I was concerned about the continued uncertainty surrounding the causes and culpability with regard to the chemical incident in Eastern Damascus. The Prime Minister was strong on assertion, passion and emotional engagement and short on actual hard evidence confirming a ‘smoking gun’. He spoke of ‘evidence of chemical-filled rockets’, for which no direct linkage has been produced. The debate and argument are scarcely complete without the report from the team of UN observers currently in country.
Secondly, there was no attempt to articulate a strategy within which any military strike would take place. How would military action in any way mitigate the circumstances in Syria? I would be concerned about a one step at a time approach – one that did not consider what was likely to happen next and in future. What constitutes mission success?
Finally, the stated purpose of strikes on Syria is to deter and disrupt future use of similar weapons.
If the rebels were responsible and the regime gets the blame, we are likely to see another chemical attack very soon. If it was the regime, my worry would be that members of the Assad regime would now attempt to use as many chemical weapons as they can before the US and its allies gear up for further decisive action against the regime. There was no discussion about the possibility that the regime might have already been deterred from
(further) chemical use by the imminent prospect of attack by the US and its allies.
Obama is puppet of the Jews.
Double standards: what about drugs which is used by tonnes in USA by citizenship, and government allow such state of chemical poison of their people. Obama – puppet.
Is the world a more stable place, or less stable place, since Obama has been president? Explain.
How has the US been a Leader since Obama has taken Office?
If this was GWB, how would your answers change?
Fact is, Obama is worse than GWB, as unlikely as that seemed possible 6 years ago. But he has a (D) after his name, so we get "vote present" by the ruling class.
Before we blame 'big oil', stop and consider how any of us would put food on our tables if oil prices were not maintained at incredibly low prices…
It's a system fraught with evil and our daily excesses rely on it. Salvation for the innocence in the Middle East would require enormous sacrifice from all of us. We are all guilty.
Antiquities are being sold for weapons, who's buying the antiquities and who's selling them weapons? Reminds me of the last iraq war, Baghdad museum, all sumerian artifacs were stolen, by who and where are they now ? These artifacs show the true history of our exsistence and wars will be fought over it. One more thing on August 14th, 300 soldiers including CIA agents went into Syria and surprise surprise there's been a chemical attack. Manipulation is the governments best tactic, also dividing opinion as the saying goes "Divide and Conquer". I respect that over people have got their opinion's, but that is mine and the real enemy is making alot of money out of blood letting.
It's ironic that the WMD's Bush said were in Iraq and transported to Syria the left said weren't real. Now they are all for attacking Syria for WMD's that probably came from Iraq.
Barack Obama is the worst President ever. He hasn't done anything that could be considered even remotely successful.
Guess he should do what your favorite president did……
biggest mistake was you getting elected asshole
Update: Fast action on Syria blocked by hastily assembled parliaments https://plus.google.com/u/0/112352920206354603958/posts/VaQCztfS9Hn
Obama the son of pig
+paul davis israel has nothing to do with this, this is mooseslime vs christian syrians
Our Presidents have devolved into the most viciously militant liars over these last two administrations. Bush was bad, and Obama seems determined to be even worse.
Read a post I made yesterday from the new yorker in reference to Syria. It is a good debate over the matter.
+Eli Fennell agreed. He seems so niave on foreign policy. The is the man that was supposed to heal the planet and make the world like us again.
+Chris Merenda In my experience, with politicians, the bigger the promise the bigger the lie.
hi
Update: Fast action on Syria blocked by hastily assembled parliaments https://plus.google.com/u/0/112352920206354603958/posts/VaQCztfS9Hn
no wander