AP sources: Intelligence on weapons no 'slam dunk'

[BainsBane]

Source: AP

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. . .

A report by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence outlining that evidence against Syria is thick with caveats. It builds a case that Assad's forces are most likely responsible while outlining gaps in the U.S. intelligence picture. Relevant congressional committees were to be briefed on that evidence by teleconference call on Thursday, U.S. officials and congressional aides said.

The complicated intelligence picture raises questions about the White House's full-steam-ahead approach to the Aug. 21 attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb, with worries that the attack could be tied to al-Qaida-backed rebels later. Administration officials said Wednesday that neither the U.N. Security Council, which is deciding whether to weigh in, or allies' concerns would affect their plans.

Intelligence officials say they could not pinpoint the exact locations of Assad's supplies of chemical weapons, and Assad could have moved them in recent days as U.S. rhetoric builds. That lack of certainty means a possible series of U.S. cruise missile strikes aimed at crippling Assad's military infrastructure could hit newly hidden supplies of chemical weapons, accidentally triggering a deadly chemical attack.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/ap-sources-intelligence-weapons-no-slam-dunk-070731192.html

[Summer Hathaway]

1. Slam dunk?

Always nice to see phrases associated with the W Admin being given new life here on a 'Democratic' website.

I'm sure it makes some people feel right at home.

[BainsBane]

2. Amazingly, I didn't write the story

And since this is LBN, I can't change the title.

If you don't like the fact that evidence supporting a US military action isn't overwhelming, you'll just have to cope.

[NealK]

4. Yeah, that news sure is disappointing for the chickenhawks.

And as for the chemical weapons, they're in the area around Damascus and east, west, south, and north somewhat.

[David__77]

3. Time to call off this wrong-headed plan now.

It's not as if US intelligence hasn't been terribly wrong in the past. And further, even if it was right, this is not the way to achieve any desirable outcome.

[joshcryer]

13. Obama has an opportunity with Russia moving military assets.

Call upon the UN to do something, say he, as an ethical leader needs the UN to act, then wipe his hands of it. Win win.

[DCBob]

5. I suspect the WH is going to back down on attacking Syria.

especially considering the UK and France are also having second thoughts. I don't believe the US will go it alone on this.

[BainsBane]

7. It looks increasingly difficult for them to justify action

When even the UK is backing out.

[deutsey]

8. CBS This Morning was pounding the war drums today

They had a former general on saying that, after Obama's red line comment, the US had to strike now or else we'd look weak.

[John2]

10. What former General

is this, and do you have his name? I think if this was a criminal case in the United States, you would listen to evidence from both sides without giving one or the other such a Blank Check. That is especially given the past history of the United States, Britain,Israel, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States when it comes to intelligence. France is a new comer to the equation because of the change in their Government. Even their former President condemns the present Government which hasn't been played much in the Western media.

It is the same trick. You demonize the person that you want to attack to gather public opinion, it was justified. The Syrian side has made claims with their own evidence where these chemical weapons are coming from but that information has been clouded with ignorance by some U.N. sources because of the influence certain countries have in the U.N. They can't get unanimous consent because unlike Iraq and Libya, Syria apparently has staunch allies herself in the U.N.

I will continue to disbelieve my own Government, because they have presented either weak or no evidence and much of it looks manufactured by the so called rebels which includes nefarious characters known for propaganda. This includes groups like Al Nusra, the Brother Muslim Hood, Al Qaeda and the Taliban, whom would all like to bring down the secularist Government of Syria with the help of the West.

I don't trust the U.S. Arab Allies either in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey. Saudi Arabia and Qatar especially believe they can buy anybody or anything they want to influence their power in the Middle East. They don't care about human rights which is a joke. Then you have the Mossad and the Likud Government of Israel whom are very good at espionage and dis information. They even committed acts against the United States and was never punished. They have considerable influence in the United States, the Administration and Congress. And people want to give them a blank check when it comes to intelligence gathering?

I don't believe Petraeus's or the now present CIA director, they have no information Al Qaeda can't produce or have no access to chemical weapons. Ask them specific questions on the mysterious substance, insurgents or Al Qaeda in Iraq used when Petraeus put down the surge in Iraq several years ago. Then consider the recent reports about the present Iraqi Government capturing insurgents with possession of sarin gas. You also add that to reports from Russian intelligence and the Syrian Army about Turkey and Saudi Arabia providing access to rebels secretly to frame the Syrian Army. In a real Court of Law, both sides get to present evidence. One side has been explicit so far in their media and the other sides is based on faith. I choose the side that has been more explicit.

[deutsey]

12. Sorry, I missed that

I was filling out a bill and getting ready to take my son to school. I just remember being irked when I heard him say we had to strike or else look weak.

It might be on CBS This Morning's website. I looked, but my work computer blocks some videos. If they do rush transcripts, I wasn't able to find it.

[proverbialwisdom]

15. More, although Wexler appeared more the target of the general's ire than the Obama administration.

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/daily-rundown/52873395/

VIDEO: Daily Rundown | August 29, 2013
International support wavers for Syria strike

The Daily Rundown's Chuck Todd talks with NBC’s Richard Engel, Army General Barry McCaffrey and former Rep. Robert Wexler about the U.S. and international response to Syria and whether or not reaction would be effective.

http://freebeacon.com/gen-mccaffrey-blasts-obama-admin-on-syria/

Gen. McCaffrey Blasts Obama Admin On Syria
‘This is some of the most confused muddled political thinking we have seen in 25 years’

BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
August 29, 2013 10:06 am

Ret. Gen. Barry McCaffrey appeared on The Daily Rundown Thursday and expressed his displeasure with the Obama administrations lack of strategy in dealing with the ongoing Syrian crisis:

CHUCK TODD: General, I want to bring you in, by outlining how minimal it’s going to be, that it’s a shot across the bow, essentially, you know, don’t do this again, Bashar al Assad. Does that make the idea of a military strike seem less useful because civilians could get killed and it wasn’t designed to do anything other than be a shot across the bow?

GENERAL BARRY MCCAFFREY: This is some of the most confused muddled political thinking we have seen in 25 years. We told Assad we’re not going after you, we’re not going to try and affect the outcome of the war. We will not go after your chemical weapon storage sites. And we think this limited strike will send a message to you. What happens when he escalates? What happens when he detonates chemical weapons during the strike and says it was caused by the U.S. tomahawk missiles? What happens when he uses chemicals three days later on the civilian population? We are not thinking clearly about a political objective and the military measures required to achieve that objective.

[daleo]

16. The invasion of Iraq was "confused muddled thinking"

He was part of that fiasco, if I recall correctly, so he hardly has room to talk.

[bemildred]

20. MCCAFFREY is a war criminal.

His opinion isn't worth a bucket of warm spit.

[winter is coming]

11. I hope you're right. n/t

[pampango]

14. I have not seen that France is having second thoughts.

The UK definitely seems to be having big second thoughts at least in terms of immediate support for any action.

Longer term the Labour leader, Ed Milliband, "does not rule out Labour backing military action if there is no UN vote in favour. It will depend on factors, including the level of international support." (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/29/syria-crisis-iran-says-all-efforts-must-be-made-to-prevent-military-action-live)

Obama should, at the least, continue to show restraint until the UN inspectors' report is issued, debated and voted on.

[madville]

17. French President said today

That France wants to see a political solution.

[leveymg]

19. That's a switch. Hollande has been among the most hawkish pushing this war.

Another report by Reuters have him shaking hands with the head of the Syrian opposition and on the phone last night with Merkel issuing another sternly-worded letter: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/29/us-syria-crisis-germany-idUSBRE97S0II20130829

(Reuters) - German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande agreed in a phone call there must be a reaction to the poison gas attack in Syria that violated human rights, Merkel's spokesman said in a statement on Thursday.

"They hope for a quick end to the U.N.'s investigation mission and an immediate report to the U.N. Security Council so that it can fulfill its responsibility with regards to this monstrous crime," the statement read

The French have a particular bug up their backsides about Syria - a former colonial holding.

But this stands out at the end of the same article - the German people are just as against military response as we are. If not more so.

Just four weeks before elections in which Merkel hopes to win a third term, she faces a balancing act in how to respond to pictures of the chemical weapons attack, as German voters overwhelmingly oppose military action there.

[DCBob]

18. I think so according to this article..

LONDON — U.S. efforts to forge an international coalition to support a military strike on Syria faced fresh uncertainty Thursday, as British Prime Minister David Cameron confronted a political fight in Parliament over military action and France called for a delay until U.N. inspectors finish their work on the ground.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/britain-france-seek-more-time-to-weigh-military-strike-on-syria/2013/08/29/0546a5ae-10b1-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_story.html

[Ganja Ninja]

6. When it comes to the Middle East the only thing crazier than crazy conspiracy theories is ..

taking anything at face value.

[Laelth]

9. Refreshing honesty. Good. k&r n/t

-Laelth

[blackspade]

21. Never get involved in a land war in Asia.....

Or in our case the Middle East.

[davidpdx]

22. I think the question is who used them, not if they were used

I've seen plenty of footage of children twitching on the ground to believe it happened. I also think the number of dead is being falsely reported as well.