The Obama Administration has repeatedly insisted that it has undeniable, absolute proof of the Assad government’s guilt in the use of chemical weapons, but when it comes down to it, the public case never seems to amount to more than just noting that Syria has chemical weapons and then reiterating the claim.
Experts say the case that they have laid out is extremely weak, however much officials have embraced it as flawless, and have warned against the US launching a war on such a flimsy pretext.
The only reason the whole allegation hasn’t been dismissed out of hand is the administration’s repeated claims that they have better, secret intelligence that they’re just not showing anyone, or occasionally are letting already pro-war Congressmen get a glimpse of.
With a Congressional vote looming in a little over a week, the administration will continue to float the secret evidence as a way of trying to coax Congressmen on board, but so long as that evidence remains hidden from the general public, it’s viability must inevitably remain in serious doubt.
Antiwar.com urges all readers to contact their Congressmen and urge them to vote against attacking Syria. Click here for contract information.
6 thoughts on “Experts: US Evidence Against Syria Extremely Weak”
Secret 'evidence' is also the bluff used in their other Star Chambers.
Many in Congress appear to be swallowing whole, the narrative coming from the corporate media and US government that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons.
If we are to avoid the proposed attack on Syria, we must make our Congressmen and staff aware of the considerable doubt as to who is and who is not using chemical weapons in Syria. Here are some relevant links:
On evidence the UN has gathered that some Syrian opposition groups may have used chemical weapons, and lack of evidence against the government.
On the Turkish arrest of al-Nusra terrorists in possession of chemical agents in May, 2013. Several Turkish newspapers reported that sarin was found. This was later disputed by Turkish authorities (but not that chemical agents were found), but it's important to note the Turkish
government supports the rebels and would be quite embarrassed by reports that sarin was found:
On eyewitness allegations that the August 21 incident was caused by the rebels, with indications the chemical weapons were provided to the rebels by the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan:
There is not "shot across the bow" limited engagement here. With the first shot, Obama will be committed to an open ended war. The rebels will continue to create chemical weapons incidents, forcing Obama to continue to respond and expand our involvement.
Please try to disseminate this information as widely as possible. It is literally a matter of life and death, certainly for thousands of Syrian collateral victims, but given the risks inherent in war for many others as well.
The administration's case is even weaker than this article suggests. According to the examiner.com, which as far as I know is considered a mainstream news organization, not a radical fringe outfit, the rebels have admitted that they themselves caused the disaster, by mishandling chemical weapons supplied to them by a Saudi prince. Why is no one, including Antiwar.com, talking about this article that would seem to debunk the entire case for war? Please read this, and tell me if I'm crazy for feeling crazy that no one seems to be paying attention: http://www.examiner.com/article/syrian-rebels-adm…
The links in Bill Rood's excellent letter do not work.
Thanks for the compliment.
People should also be mindful of the 1995 release of sarin in the Tokyo subways by Aum Shinrikyo, which calls in question the assumption that well organized terrorist groups like al-Nusra have no access to chemical weapons.
Specific problems with the evidence offered make it even worse.
The preparations said to prove involvement happened at a base that does preparation and training full time, not within range of the attack. How do we know exercises at a training base three days before this are related to what happened somewhere else?
The intercepts said to prove involvement only give one side to the conversation, and that is the side that asks questions, not the side that answers the questions. What were the answers? "We did not do it?"
Who had this conversation? It was not a top regime official, and it was with someone who was not at the scene. How does one know, and who does the other speak for? If the regime official did NOT know, but was asking after the fact, doesn't that prove the regime did NOT authorize this?
If this was an unauthorized use of chemicals, then does not bombing them make the control issue worse?
All the motive is with the rebels. They are absolutely ruthless, cutting throats, eating raw hearts and lungs from executed prisoners, making and posting videos of children cutting throats of bound prisoners, killing Christians and even Muslim children who say the wrong things. They certainly WOULD use chemicals to blame it on Assad. How can we just assume they would not?
They have all sorts of former regime soldiers, and they have captured many bases with everything on them. We said the chemical weapons were spread over at least 20 bases. Of course they COULD have captured some. They are not hard to use, and they have former regime people to use other captured weapons of some considerable complexity, artillery, mortars, rockets, and tanks. They could have. How can we just assume they can't?
Comments are closed.