White House: Irrefutable Assad link to gas attack lacking, but passes ‘common-sense test’
Source: Washington Post
WASHINGTON — The White House asserted Sunday that a “common-sense test” dictates the Syrian government is responsible for a chemical weapons attack that President Barack Obama says demands a U.S. military response. But Obama’s top aide says the administration lacks “irrefutable, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence” that skeptical Americans, including lawmakers who will start voting on military action this week, are seeking.
“This is not a court of law. And intelligence does not work that way,” White House chief of staff Denis McDonough said during his five-network public relations blitz Sunday to build support for limited strikes against Syrian President Bashar Assad.
“The common-sense test says he is responsible for this. He should be held to account,” McDonough said of the Syrian leader who for two years has resisted calls from inside and outside his country to step down.
Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-working-to-rally-lawmakers-american-public-behind-obamas-push-for-syrian-strike/2013/09/08/66cfb932-1868-11e3-80ac-96205cacb45a_story.html
Great, now decisions of war and peace are to be decided based upon 'common sense'. What's next? "Go with the gut?" Thanks to MorningFog for launching a thread in GD about this.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023624242
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)'nuff said.
At least explains why none of it has been published.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)vast majority of mankind save for a few Saudi and Kuwaiti torturers and decadent princes disagrees.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)kill me now.
madamesilverspurs
(15,808 posts)when Charles Manson claimed innocence because he hadn't been at the scene of the murder. .
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)Last edited Mon Sep 9, 2013, 12:22 AM - Edit history (1)
say we had 'irrefutable proof'?
WTF?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)What Kerry was in effect saying is, "we have irrefutable proofiness", which is why they have released no proof at all, proof they may or may not have is quite irrelevant when compared to the common sense of people like McCain and the entire reunion cast of the Iraq war victory and humanitarian campaign PNAC social club. Those resources are more valuable than the reports they have from "spitball" or whomever it is that is the current supplier of whatever "proof" they might have.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)Rebellious Republican
(5,029 posts)absolutely correct. So let the court of law in this case decide, you know, the UN!
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)Rebellious Republican
(5,029 posts)Silly me, and I thought we bombed ourselves out of the stone age. 
Beer Swiller
(44 posts)
reACTIONary
(5,774 posts)... it even lacks common sense!
Rebellious Republican
(5,029 posts)What do you base your assertions on? Other than an knee jerk emotional response.
reACTIONary
(5,774 posts)... is true. It is not a court of law. It is a political forum for debate and diplomacy.
The idea that it "lacks common sense" is, of course, my opinion, but it is a considered opinion and not a "knee jerk emotional response."
frylock
(34,825 posts)any Realist living in the Realtity-based Real World can see that it passes the Common Sense test.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)reACTIONary
(5,774 posts)... to be a forgotten virtue.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)The Obama Administration has officially announced that it has jumped the shark is eligible for disability benefits having lost its f-cking mind in one bite above the neck.
This is a reversal to the Dubya days of brainless foreign policy and bombing without real proof.
NO THANK YOU, MR PRESIDENT.
reACTIONary
(5,774 posts)...common sense on our side, let's ARREST al Assad, and hall his ass into court! Then we could prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt!
All it would take is a few hundred tomahawk missiles, a no fly zone, boots on the ground, and... oh, wait... gee, we couldn't do that!
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)...then HE should clamp down on the monsters who DID order the attack. He's already a piece of shit who has butchered his own people. We get that. BUT, if the "red line" as defined by the international community was crossed by others under his command, then he should SAY SO, to prevent the destruction of his nation by international actors.
ASSad, STOP being an ASS!
Better yet, LISTEN to what the rebels want. Be a LEADER, not a dickish dictator like your father!
Sand Wind
(1,573 posts)Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)listen to them?
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)the trifecta of 'means, motive and opportunity'?
To wit, exactly what would have been Assad's motive? The rebels' motive(s) speak for themselves.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts) 
christx30
(6,241 posts)But he did not have the motive. His forces outnumber the rebels. There's no reason why he would launch a chemical attack against the rebel suburbs. There's nothing in it for him except for international condemnation. Obama's red line. And I think it's strange that this was exactly the thing that Obama talked about. Not bombing the cities to hell. Not crushing people with tanks. Not radiological or bacteriological attacks. But a chemical weapon attack. And all of a sudden, the US and a few other actors are all up in his face. The rest of the world could give a rip. Kill 100's of thousands of people with guns and bombs? No problem. Using Sarin and suddenly you're hitler. And now the US is rushing into another Iraq. But there was nothing in it for Assad to use chemicals. I think it was the rebels.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)it is passing exceeding strange that on the very day the U.N. CBW inspectors were due in Syria to investigate allegations that the rebels used CBW in May, Assaid just happens to let 'em rip.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)intense rocket and artillery assault of the two-and-a-half year war against rebel held areas on the outskirts of Damascus. He was defending Damascus and his base of power with everything available while much of his army was tied down in fighting in other cities far away. His motive would have been to kill people and eliminate all resistance in West Ghuota.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)arewenotdemo
(2,364 posts)Vladimir offers to give back the Super Bowl ring if Obomba gives back the Peace Prize.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)
a “common-sense test” 
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Conceived in deepest neoconland. Planned by true-believing second-raters. Incompetently and reluctantly executed by those who should have known better.
A devastating blow to Obama's Presidency and legacy. A shame - we had such high expectations for him as a peacemaker,and he ended up a hostage/accomplice to this fucked up conspiracy pushed by Hillary Clinton, David Petraeus and a cell of neocon leave-behinds.
Deeply fucked up.
arewenotdemo
(2,364 posts)She was the R2P cover girl for regime change in Libya, and now in Syria.
That Obama could not see through her charade is hard to believe.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)unity on overall strategy within the Administration than the splits on tactics might indicate. My personal opinion is that Samantha Rice is the truest of true believers and will throw herself onto the sword again, as she did for the Libyan fiasco. Indeed, this debacle is closely linked to that one, as most of the opposition's weapons and foreign fighters are reportedly Libyan sourced.
arewenotdemo
(2,364 posts)http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/brzezinski-the-syria-crisis-8636
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)as an accpetable quid pro quo for using the mujaheddin to bring down the USSR. His sang froid could give Stalin a run for his money. (Stalin: "The death of one person is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic."
arewenotdemo
(2,364 posts)Consider what the opposition to this incredibly foolish intervention would be if the American people actually knew the true history of the conflict.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)they expect us to believe this crap??? WTH??? These bastards don't think we have any intelligence! What freaking hubris!
phantom power
(25,966 posts)
durablend
(7,464 posts)Just like Obama is *nothing* like Bush...
Uncle Joe
(58,421 posts)it was in their harbor and it blew up.
Thanks for the thread, HardTimes.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)or does "common sense" just mean "if you object, the GOP will impeach me and THEN THE EARTH WILL HAVE TWO NEW HITLERS INSTEAD OF JUST ONE WAAAAAGH!"
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)No evidence, they just know!
indepat
(20,899 posts)RW PNAC wet dream? 
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
Unknown Beatle
(2,672 posts)that they're out of their fucking minds if they really think this will persuade the US populace into war.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)to experience regularly during the Bush Junta this morning when I read this.
I drafted a GBCW flame-out post and then thought to hold my tongue to give the House a chance to weigh in. There need to be some very high-level resignations in this administration starting like yesterday and going as high as WH Chief of Staff, imho.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)
And that's al lI have to say about this.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)expertise), but these graphics are so perfect my wife asked me to save a couple of them to our desktop for her future use 
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)applied to politician it was having a "credibility gap" and IMO that's what's happening now, some folks in Washington are suffering a credibility gap
Divernan
(15,480 posts)When scuba diving in the Bahamas, I had the humbling and awe-inspiring experience of diving down about 120 feet to where the ocean floor fell away into the Abyss.
Tongue-Of-The-Ocean (the abyss).
One of the most dramatic features on New Providence Island is the Tongue-Of-The-Ocean which is a deep oceanic trench that is 120 miles long, and 24 miles wide, with depths reaching 6,000 feet. The Tongue spans the gap between New Providence and Andros Island and comes to with-in a half a mile of shore on the southwest side of New Providence. Imagine the Grand Canyon, filled with water, and within a 1/2 mile of a pristine beach
Obama has gone over the edge of a political abyss, taking an apparently willing Kerry and a shrinking cadre of true believers along. That they continue to argue for acts of war against Syria smacks of rapture of the deep, i.e., nitrogen narcosis. (Jacques-Yves Cousteau in 1953 famously described it as "l’ivresse des grandes profondeurs" or the "rapture of the deep".) It's a frightening thing to see - once saw a diver get down to the agreed upon maximum dive depth of 120 feet, wave happily at us all and keep on going down. Our courageous dive master caught up with her at about 150 feet and got her safely back with a slow ascent and 2 safety stops,
Here are the symptoms. I bold-faced ones evidenced, IMHO, by Obama/Kerry & their supporters.
100-165 feet
Delayed response to visual and auditory stimuli
Reasoning and immediate memory affected more than motor coordination
Calculation errors and wrong choices
Idea fixation
Over-confidence and sense of well-being
Laughter and loquacity (in hyperbaric chambers) which may be overcome by self-control
Anxiety (common in cold murky water)
165-230 feet
Sleepiness, impaired judgment, confusion
Hallucinations
Severe delay in response to signals, instructions and other stimuli
Occasional dizziness
Uncontrolled laughter, hysteria (in chamber)
Terror in some
230-300 feet
Poor concentration and mental confusion
Stupefaction with some decrease in dexterity and judgment
Loss of memory, increased excitability
300 + feet
Hallucinations
Increased intensity of vision and hearing
Sense of impending blackout, euphoria, dizziness, levitation, manic or depressive states
Disorganization of the sense of time, changes in facial appearance
Unconsciousness, Death
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)writing and use of metaphor-conceit.
My sincerest compliments!
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)"that statement is now inoperative."
To demonstrate my bi-partisan bona fides, also remembering Westmoreland's assurances that he was starting "to see the light at the end of the tunnel" (Tan Son Nhut, November, 1967).
daleo
(21,317 posts)Now, that doesn't pass the standard of common sense.
reACTIONary
(5,774 posts)...system of justice and a common authority to administer the rule of law, indeed, without law itself, the standards of a criminal justice system do not apply. National security and national interest cannot be pursued by the standards of our criminal justice system.
daleo
(21,317 posts)When individual countries attack others, based on their leaders' notions of common sense, you end up with nothing more than might makes right. When it comes to self-defence, that's a different matter.
reACTIONary
(5,774 posts)... the UN is not, and was not set up as, a sovereign power with legislative powers and the authority to administer and enforce justice. It is a useful institution, but it is NOT a world government. Without a true world government the strict standards of a criminal justice system do not and cannot apply. Until then, common sense and a willingness to act in our own national security and interest will have to suffice.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)1. Self-defense against attack.
2. In compliance with a decision by the U.N. Security Council that military action is required.
Making war on any other grounds is aggression, plain and simple.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)reACTIONary
(5,774 posts)... "common sense", in this case, is being used to infer that the al-Assad regime was behind the gas attacks. That is a factual matter, not a matter of interest. As to whether or it is in our interest and in the interest of justice to attack, that is debatable and is being debated. It should not be debated without reference to the fact of the gas attacks and the common sense conclusion as to who was responsible.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)to the madding crowd and if it were common sense, DU would be on board. Right now, I'd estimate opposition here mirrors that around the globe.
reACTIONary
(5,774 posts)... I'm glad to be a part of it, and to share what little wisdom I can bring.
A statement of fact such as "the Syrian regime launched the gas attacks" and a statement of interest "our people need 'living space'" are in two epistemologically different classes. Needs, desires and interests are established and verified differently from empirical facts about physical actions. Confusing the two isn't helpful, and in fact may amount to a slander or a smear, as when insinuations of Nazism are being made.
A better comparison is with the responsibility for the sinking of the Maine.
Whatever we conclude should or should not be done about it, it is just common sense that the Syrian regime launched a massive gas attack against its own people.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)must take issue with your characterization of the phrase "the Syrian regime launched the gas attacks" as a "statement of fact." It is no such thing, being a mere assertion lacking evidence or proof. Indeed, its non-factual basis no doubt explains why the WH Chief of Staff felt compelled to defend it as 'common sense.'
I would argue that "the Syrian regime launched the gas attacks" occupies roughly the same epistemological space as "We need lebensraum," i.e., assertion\opinion masquerading as fact.
What makes this doubly annoying and utterly demolishes the adminsitration's case for use of military force is that, not five days earlier, Kerry said there was 'irrefutable proof'. Turns out there is no such thing, nor that 'common sense' implies anything other than what the person deploying it wishes it to imply.
reACTIONary
(5,774 posts)... the fact of the gas attacks themselves and the attribution of them to the Syrian regime do not lack evidence or proof. There is a great deal of evidence for both and, as he said, its as good as it gets.
Statements about needs, desires, interests are subjectively valid (e.g. "we need the space to live" and can be taken or rejected as one will. Statements about what did and did not happen and the agency thereof just do not fall into the same category.
I, personally, do believe that the Syrian regime is responsible for gassing its own people.
reACTIONary
(5,774 posts)... the UN is a diplomatic institution, not an institution of justice for a people, let alone for the world's peoples. Diplomacy is all well and good, but it does not decide for a people what is or is not in the best national interest or security. If it were a world government, acting with the consent of the governed, and in accordance with a unified system of justice, it would be a different story. But it isn't. We should not let it limit our actions on behalf of our system of justice, on behalf of our national security, or in pursuit of our national interest.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)What I quoted is now international law, and we are very quick to hold other nations to the letter of it. We have recently ignored that law, yes, but it is yet to be seen what future price we will pay for having done so.
reACTIONary
(5,774 posts)... and you are right, the UN charter is a treaty signed by the United States. Article 51 Chapter VII provides for the right of countries to engage in self-defence, including collective self-defence, against an armed attack. And, as a collective right, it is the right of any government to join in the defense of its allies or friends to protect their or its own vital interests. This is an ancient and well established practice.
We have further interpreted this right of self defense to be valid even for peoples who do not (yet) constitute a sovereign State and are not members of the United Nations. It is part of our American heritage that we respect the legal right of a people, even the duty to themselves, who are subject to an unjust, tyrannical regime to rebel against that oppression. And since this is a collective right to self-defense, it is the right of the United States, to participate in their collective defense.
In this view, we have the right to participate in the collective self-defense of the people of Syria in rebellion against their tyrannical and oppressive regime.
The Syrian regime can, of course, bring this matter to the attention of the UN Security Council. Then the shoe will be on the other foot. Not only Russia has veto power in the Security Council.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)No creative "interpretation" of international law gives us a legal right to interfere militarily in its internal affairs, barring a decision by the U.N. Security Council to authorize such an interference.
reACTIONary
(5,774 posts)...for quite some time. Its reasonable, and as a principle member of the security council, our view does, and should, carry weight. You may disagree; I don't.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Because if we do, we become an outlaw nation which just happens to have enough military power to do what it wants. That is the very worst example we could set for future superpowers.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)See? Look...it rises there in the east and goes down over there in the west.
It's undeniable that the earth is the center of the universe.
daleo
(21,317 posts)Common sense also said rocks can't fall from the sky and that witches could cast spells.
GeorgeGist
(25,323 posts)HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)another_liberal
(8,821 posts)"I do believe Assad gassed his own people! I do believe Assad gassed his own people! I do believe . . ."
cstanleytech
(26,319 posts)especially since didnt the area that got hit get pounded by Syrian artillery later on afterwards?
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)The evidence required to take this country into war should be, "Damn hard to get."
We need to set that bar very high indeed!
cstanleytech
(26,319 posts)HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)'common sense' is another person's total bullshit.
With apologies to Thomas Paine.
cstanleytech
(26,319 posts)again like they did about their support in regards to Iraq having WMDs most likely.
reACTIONary
(5,774 posts)... the Syrian port of Tartus is the only refueling station the Russian Navy has outside the boundaries of the former Soviet Union. Right on the Mediterranean, where it counts.
It isn't in their national interest to be "on board" and the common sense facts be dammed.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)
NV Whino
(20,886 posts)I don't find that a reasonable argument.
SamKnause
(13,110 posts)The entire world knows if you are looking for common sense DC would be the last place you would find any.
No sense, no facts DC.
House lawmakers scheduled 126 working days for the year 2013.
They are not interested in solving this country's problems.
They caused this country's problems by allowing corporations to purchase their votes and influence.
DC is a corrupt cesspool run by Wall Street, the MIC brass, corrupt politicians and global corporations.
Common sense does not enter into the equation.
Money is all that matters to the common sense crowd.
AnnieBW
(10,458 posts)Is a couple of Syrian army guys who are guarding the chemical weapons to smuggle out a vial or three and hand it over to the Al Qaeda guys. AQ uses the chemical weapons to kill a few hundred civilians and blame it on Assad (whom they hate). The Great Satan gets involved, and we get dragged in to another war in the Middle East.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)existed 'irrefutable proof' that the Syrian govenrment had gassed its own people?
Pterodactyl
(1,687 posts)deutsey
(20,166 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)To be perfectly honest, I remain unconvinced that a military strike is a wise option. With that said, though, we cannot underestimate the lengths that some dictators will go to to prevent their crimes from being revealed......
Mz Pip
(27,453 posts)Yours, mine, the man in the moon?
My common sense tells me that this will not end well if we take military action. Common sense tells me it will escalate and get worse.
I remember when Rummy was asked how long the Iraq war would last. "6 days, 6 weeks, 6 months," was his reply. I guess he was relying on his common sense and look how we'll that all worked out.
Won't be fooled again.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)said.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)