AP SOURCES: Intelligence On Syria Chemical Weapons No 'Slam Dunk'

[FarCenter]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The intelligence linking Syrian President Bashar Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack that killed at least 100 people is no "slam dunk," with questions remaining about who actually controls some of Syria's chemical weapons stores and doubts about whether Assad himself ordered the strike, U.S. intelligence officials say.

President Barack Obama declared unequivocally Wednesday that the Syrian government was responsible, while laying the groundwork for an expected U.S. military strike.

"We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out," Obama said in an interview with "NewsHour" on PBS. "And if that's so, then there need to be international consequences."

However, multiple U.S. officials used the phrase "not a slam dunk" to describe the intelligence picture — a reference to then-CIA Director George Tenet's insistence in 2002 that U.S. intelligence showing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was a "slam dunk" — intelligence that turned out to be wrong.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/intelligence-on-syria-chemical-weapons-2013-8

[CJCRANE]

1. Is this situation like the Cuban Missile Crisis?

Is this a situation where negotiating behind the scenes and achieving rapprochement is the statesmanlike thing to do?

[Yo_Mama]

2. If the Assad admin did strike their own population with chem weapons then no

But it is not clear that the Assad admin DID. The "cui bono" question suggests that it could have been rebel sympathizers within the administration. It would neither be historically unprecedented or all that unlikely that agencies officially within the military actually were agents either for another power or rebel sympathizers and thus used these weapons in a deliberate provocation.

If they did, bombing Assad is not going to have any good effect. It's more likely to provoke another such use than anything else.

This is a civil war and usually loyalties are complicated.

There is also huge money to be made here - this news has made a lot of oil speculators a huge amount of money. It's not impossible that there was a money motive.

[CJCRANE]

3. I was thinking more in the sense of the US and Russia facing off against each other

with a third country in the middle with problematic weapons.

(I agree that bombing Syria won't achieve anything).

[pampango]

4. The wording seems to me to say that, while Syrian forces did it, it is no "slam dunk" that Assad

personally ordered the attack.

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.

[FarCenter]

5. Nukes have "permissive action links" that keep field troops from using them; chemical weapons don't

And the Free Syrian Army includes many defectors from the Syrian Army, so the idea that the rebel forces don't have the expertise to use captured chemical weapons is bogus.

[pampango]

6. I agree although I believe the "no slam dunk" reference in the OP pertained to Assad's personal

responsibility rather than the possibility that the rebels were guilty.

If the regime has lost control do some chemical weapons, they should acknowledge that now (perhaps they have and I missed it) rather than waiting until after their use.

[uponit7771]

7. +1, also "discussing the strike" != "discussing their direct involvement in ordering the strike of

...of CW on Syrians"

The proof isn't direct and niether is that statement.

I don't like the US media now doing the same thing they did during the Bush admin