General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhite House Document “Proving” Syria’s Guilt Doesn’t Pass Smell Test
I think there was actually an attack, but it really isn't clear who was responsible
http://www.nationofchange.org/white-house-document-proving-syria-s-guilt-doesn-t-pass-smell-test-1378215253
The first section of the report is devoted to trying to make the case that poison gas, and specifically Sarin, was used in a suburb of Damascus. No actual evidence is presented, though certainly there is evidence available -- specifically the reports of physicians working in Syria with Doctors Without Borders. Why those doctors are not identified is never explained, but perhaps it is because to do so would make the lack of identifiable sources for the rest of the argument all the more blatant. In any event, it is probable that Sarin was used and that a considerable number of people were killed or injured by the chemical, but that is no casus belli, since it is not at all clear who is responsible for the release of the deadly chemical--the Syrian government, the rebels, or, as retired Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Bush Secretary of State Colin Powell has suggested, Israel.
In the proof of use section of the precis, the White House writes: A large body of independent sources indicates that a chemical weapons attack took place in the Damascus suburbs on August 21.
Not one of those independent sources is identified. Yet on the basis of this vague assertion, the document goes on to say: We assess with high confidence that the Syrian government carried out the chemical weapons attack against opposition elements in the Damascus suburbs on August 21. We assess that the scenario in which the opposition executed the attack on August 21 is highly unlikely. Lest anyone think that this falls a good deal short of proof or certainty or, to use a phrase from the Bush-era campaign for an invasion of Iraq over non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction, a slam dunk, the White House goes on to say: Our high confidence assessment is the strongest position that the U.S. Intelligence Community can take short of confirmation.
Actually, what they are saying here is that they do not have confirmation. The rest of the section is just obfuscatory verbiage.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)And why does the White House say "short of confirmation." Because they aren't sure who is responsible, perhaps?
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)They just have assessments. The assessments are probably accurate, or at least, reflecting a good chunk of reality, but they couldn't take said assessments to the UN, because it's just an educated guess.
In that vein the report, as I said when it came out, read like something intelligence interns came up with.
edit: I'm not ruling out assessment reports, I'm just saying, release the evidence that brings the assessment to light, if it's good evidence, then the assessment is increasingly credible, even if there's not direct proof.
They won't release that data because the intelligence community thinks it's all powerful or something.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Not to mention indirect support of "Christians to Beirut; Alawites to the grave."
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)With what results?
See, the UN officials who collected their own samples are saying that it will take them a while to test them. That's because it takes a while to test these things. it's not CSI, you can't run a green scanner over something and get a result instantly.
Also, a nation banging the drums to war, suddenly "discovering" evidence, after the banging begins, to support its cause for war, evidence that we can't see or know about other than "it exists, trust us"? I don't give a damn what nation it is, or who's running it, that's just not an acceptable course of events.
Celebrandil
(294 posts)The UN samples were collected on site and sent to labs in Sweden (FOI, Umeå) and Finland for analysis. The analysis is expected to be completed in two weeks. Given the effects it's most likely Sarin gas or some gas with much similar properties. The most interesting questions is: who did it?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)MindMover
(5,016 posts)there own to avoid intelligence from blaming the butcher .... that is the real story ... I heard it from one of those ministers in Egypt ...
Actually they accidentally mishandled it and it was in the midst of 1400 or so bystanders when it dropped out of crazy larry's hands
iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)was shot on a movie lot and 911 was an inside job.
seriously ?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Dude references reports from people among hte rebels citing that Saudi Arabia provided the weapons, and you accuse him of Holocaust denial.
You know when you make a rhetorical leap across a chasm THAT wide, it kinda demonstrates you just never had a good argument to work with.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)They are openly for intervention.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)again.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)DontTreadOnMe
(2,442 posts)The far left is going off the edge ... again. Facts don't matter anymore... and it doesn't "matter" how you die.
War crimes don't matter either... isolationist Libertarianism is on the rise! If I start seeing the Left denying global warming, then the Apocalypse has arrived.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Use your own words, please.
DontTreadOnMe
(2,442 posts)You are one!
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I was merely curious about what sort of characterization you had in your head. Sounds like some Sean Hannity bullshit, right up to your apparent dependence on it as an insult. And it appears you predicate it on opposition to military action in Syria.
That takes me back.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)They are more like, "inquiring... information based...
In fact, this thread invites the information you may have had, but didn't demonstrate very well.
MindMover
(5,016 posts)and they do not appreciate being called isolationists, they are now non-interventionists ....
I call them ..
""
I can post images, too.
grillo7
(284 posts)There's nothing irrational about wanting to follow the rule of law and not hastily jump in with essentially vigilante action. I'm all for a UN approved intervention with a careful review and verification of facts. Look how far the shoot-from-the-hip GWB style of foreign policy got us...
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Under International law, the only justifications for launching a military attack on another country are self-defense and acting in accord with a decision to do so reached by the United Nations Security Council. Attacking for any other reason is aggression, plain and simple.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Russia wouldn't be able to veto everything if there was concrete proof. Audio or video of the orders, video of Assad's men shooting the rockets, after loading them with Sarin gas, etc.
This is why the White House's stupid release is damaging. It proves to Russia and to Syria that "we got nothing."
Scuba
(53,475 posts)We have children without food, sick without healthcare, veterans without housing and allegedly can't afford to rectify any of that. How can we possibly think we can help in Syria when our track record has been one of failure for 50 years?