Today, as covered by nearly everyone, Secretary of State John Kerry said:
“The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity. By any standard, it is inexcusable. And despite the excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured, it is undeniable.”
Mr. Kerry alleges that the Assad regime destroyed evidence:
“Instead, for five days, the Syrian regime refused to allow the U.N. investigators access to the site of the attack that would allegedly exonerate them,” Mr. Kerry said. “Instead, it attacked the area further, shelling it and systematically destroying evidence.”
Evidence, of course, is forthcoming. Until then, just trust us.
In the coming days, officials said, the nation’s intelligence agencies will disclose information to bolster their case that chemical weapons were used by Mr. Assad’s forces. The information could include so-called signals intelligence — intercepted radio or telephone calls between Syrian military commanders.
Meanwhile, Walid Shoebat, who claims to be a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood, presents some kind of evidence that it was the rebels that used the chemical weapons, not Assad. Was Shoebat a member of the Muslim Brotherhood? Confirmation is needed, but how rigorous would the confirmation need to be for it to be accepted as fact? Would it matter if he were? As for the evidence he presents, how good is it? Is it merely circumstantial? Taken out of context? Entirely fabricated? Who should judge?
Meanwhile, Russia, likely to veto any UN Security Council measures against Assad, claims that there is no evidence that Assad did use chemical weapons.
Meanwhile, Assad denies using chemical weapons.
The drums are beating for war, and all too many, some perhaps with dubious motives, are eager to get the jump on Assad. How about we wait until the UN inspectors actually have a chance to report on the evidence, if any is found?
Meanwhile, speaking of obscenities committed with chemical weapons:
“They are tantamount to an official American admission of complicity in some of the most gruesome chemical weapons attacks ever launched.”
“The declassified CIA documents show that Casey and other top officials were repeatedly informed about Iraq’s chemical attacks and its plans for launching more. “If the Iraqis produce or acquire large new supplies of mustard agent, they almost certainly would use it against Iranian troops and towns near the border,” the CIA said in a top secret document.But it was the express policy of Reagan to ensure an Iraqi victory in the war, whatever the cost.”
Surprising no one, Mr. Kerry didn’t mention this bit of our history.
Image credit: US Army Materiel Command http://www.flickr.com/photos/armymaterielcommand/877765649/sizes/m/in/photostream/. Licenced under Creative Commons http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en.
Categories: History, Politics/Law/Government, United States, War/Security, World
wmd’s are ok when we agree with them (israel’s nuclear capability, iraq in the iranian war) and not ok when we don’t (iraq the second time around, n. korea, and syria.) why do you liberals have such trouble keeping track of this? we conservatives have been very consistent about this. our interests (in this case selling war equipment) = good. not in our interests = bad. sheesh. how hard is it?
You just knew that the U.S. would find some pretext for intervening in Syria. If this won’t do, they’ll find something else. War is what we do, it’s who we are. And this comes along at a time when the government needs a distraction from NSA surveillance, another “just trust us” controversy.