WH: Very Little Doubt Assad behind Chem Weapon Attack

[cthulu2016]

This "Senior Administration Official" shit really annoys me. Yes... someone seriously senior, and speaking for the administration, like the PRESS SECRETARY (ahem) or maybe Susan Rice, but with the pointless ass-covering of not for attribution. When ABC uses "The WH says..." they mean the Press Secretary or higher, and stating an official view. I reject the idea that "The White House says" stuff that is not for attribution to the person saying it. Like if it turns out to be horse-shit we can blame the White House itself... the building? I objected when Ari Fleisher did this. I still object to the practice.

Anyway...

Senior Administration Official: ‘Very Little Doubt’ Assad Regime Behind Alleged Chemical Attack

The White House says there is “very little doubt” that the Assad regime is responsible for the alleged chemical attack in Syria that is said to have taken place earlier this week.

“Based on the reported number of victims, reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured, witness accounts, and other facts,” a senior administration official tells ABC News, “There is very little doubt at this point that a chemical weapon was used by the Syrian regime against civilians in this incident. We are continuing to assess the facts so the President can make an informed decision about how to respond to this indiscriminate use of chemical weapons.”

White House officials also point out the attack was on rebel-held territory and apparently done using rockets that the rebels do not possess.

After reports that Syria’s regime will allow UN inspectors to access the site of the attack, the senior administration official suggested the move may be too late, after “the regime’s persistent shelling” has “significantly corrupted” evidence in the area...

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/08/senior-administration-official-very-little-doubt-assad-regime-behind-alleged-chemical-attack/

[leveymg]

1. Those rockets are homemade things with little range and less accuracy. Why not use chemical shells?

This, as usual, makes no sense. What makes the WH so sure that rockets were used as the means of delivery if the evidence has all been destroyed by artillery fire?



Curiouser and curiouser, flimsier and flimsier. More and more evident that someone in the WH simply has decided to go to war, regardless.

The Bush 4 Administration is really taking shape. Or, are we now enjoying Bush 5?

[KittyWampus]

2. Going to war has a pretty specific meaning.

[leveymg]

3. That technically hasn't happened since December 1941, if that's what you mean.

Probably will be close enough for gov't work.

[cthulu2016]

6. It does indeed. Dropping bombs on another nation is going to war.

It always has been and always will be.

The bombed nation's government can say it was somehow with their aquiessense, as in Yemen or Pakistan.

But there is no F'ing ambiguity as to whether launching cruise missles at "a few hard targets" is "going to war."

It is. International law is hardly ambiguous on this point.


As a thought experiemnt, let Assad bomb the Pentagon and see whether doing so would constitute "going to war."

[leveymg]

7. It may not be a thought experiment, and might be entirely permissable under the rules of war.

But, nobody seems to be taking that possibility into their calculus that I've heard. Do we even call it "terrorism" when it happens, or is that also a quaint notion?

[cthulu2016]

8. There was some incredulity here about the idea

that we could nuke Hiroshima, since that implied that Saddam Hussein would have been within his rights to nuke America when we invaded Iraq.

I was flabbergasted.

OF COURSE he would. How could that even be a question? When you go to war against another nation that nation is allowed to try to win.

One of many reasons to not always be going to war with people. You might eventually attack one with military resources.

[cthulu2016]

4. The evidence means less than the press notification, to me.

The British government seems to be leaking like a sieve about diplomatic and tactical preparations for some attack while our own is intent on the Monday morning headline being "Assad did it." (They could have just as easily made the Monday headlines, "Still investigating.&quot

Personally, I have no strong reason to think Assad's forces did not do it, or did it.

But, leaving that aside, there is evidence that we are going to launch some Tomahawks at something or another. (After trying to get Russia to not veto a security council resolution, for form's sake.)

[leveymg]

5. In other words, Mission Accomplished.

Or, a fait accompli - take your pick. Is the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln available for the official announcement?

[msongs]

9. ...says the drone killers nt

[bowens43]

10. WH seems eager to unleash the dogs of war....

meet the new boss....