Image 01 Image 03

U.S. Intel Report on Syria Chemical Weapons released, Kerry said evidence irrefutable

U.S. Intel Report on Syria Chemical Weapons released, Kerry said evidence irrefutable

Bombs away?

U.S. declassified report on Syrian use of chemical weapons. (Embedded at bottom of post.)

U.S. Government Assessment

A large body of independent sources indicates that a chemical weapons attack took place in the Damascus suburbs on August 21. In addition to U.S. intelligence information, there are accounts from international and Syrian medical personnel; videos; witness accounts; thousands of social media reports from at least 12 different locations in the Damascus area; journalist accounts; and reports from highly credible nongovernmental organizations….

We assess with high confidence that the Syrian government carried out the chemical weapons attack against opposition elements in the Damascus suburbs on August 21. We assess that the scenario in which the opposition executed the attack on August 21 is highly unlikely. The body of information used to make this assessment includes intelligence pertaining to the regime’s preparations for this attack and its means of delivery, multiple streams of intelligence about the attack itself and its effect, our post-attack observations, and the differences between the capabilities of the regime and the opposition. Our high confidence assessment is the strongest position that the U.S. Intelligence Community can take short of confirmation. We will continue to seek additional information to close gaps in our understanding of what took place.

Interesting that many people are interpreting the statement as “bombs away””

U.S. Intelligence Report on Syrian Use of Chemical Weapons


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



Not A Member of Any Organized Political | August 30, 2013 at 1:10 pm

Would you buy a used car from that man (Kerry)?


Henry Hawkins | August 30, 2013 at 1:23 pm

Knowing from where they were launched and where they landed is not the same as knowing which side launched them.

US Secretary of State John Kerry just informed the Syrian rebel coalition how to fool the US Secretary of State.


Do we really want to step into a dog fight where the Syrian Opposition is headed by Moaz al-Khatib, an Islamist Fascist and whose coalition consist of the Muslim Brotherhood?

What a bloody mess.

“What difference does it make?” — Sec. Hillary Clinton

    n.n in reply to kevino. | August 30, 2013 at 1:55 pm

    They support premeditated murder (i.e. elective abortion) of around one million Americans, and tens of millions more around the world, annually. They denigrate individual dignity. They devalue human life. They are fundamentally corrupt. They have zero credibility. I doubt that their concerns are humanitarian.

Did he set out a particular AIM? He said what we would not do. But, did he say what we want to accomplish?

Obama/Kerry need to earn their big boy panties. Kerry was a douche bag 40 years ago and he hasn’t changed.

Preponderance of circumstantial evidence. Is that sufficient grounds to declare war? And what if we provide Aid and Comfort to the terrorists that we have declared enemies of America and her people? We made that mistake when we armed a drug cartel in Mexico. Can we afford to be allies with our enemies again?

Speaking of war, our military action against Libya was undeclared, and its consequences, including four dead Americans, remains unanswered. It’s funny that we can launch an attack to depose a benign dictator, but cannot stop watching a video long enough to help our fellow Americans.

Anyway, this administration has zero credibility. Circumstantial evidence, even a preponderance of such, is insufficient to start a war. We were wrong in Libya. We were wrong in Egypt. We were wrong in Kosovo. We will be wrong in Syria.

Where did Syria get these alleged weapons?

    There is still a question of what chemicals were used, let alone if it was a weaponized variant. Their evidence is inferred from symptoms, which are apparently not fully consistent (or less potent) with the agents they claim were used.

    Syria: MSF statements should not be used to justify military actions

    Is there a credible source which has made an affirmative statement to the character, source, and consumer of these chemicals? Is there independent confirmation of each?

    Oh well. We attacked Serbia to save the criminals in Kosovo. So, why shouldn’t we attack Syria to save the terrorists of Al Quaeda and other Islamic fanatics.

    Obama has demonstrated repeatedly, in America and abroad, that he believes in the “guilty until proven innocent” principle. Let’s continue to follow the Obama doctrine. It’s already served us so well.

      MSF also stated that there were 332 deaths and more than 1000 injured.

      They did not give any indication about what chemical was used but their patients showed symptoms from the use of neurotoxic chemicals.

      They are the one organization that has been fair minded and they are not asking for any action.

    Flyover Conservative in reply to punfundit. | August 30, 2013 at 2:05 pm

    Shhhh. Don’t tell anybody, but there is this here road that runs from Iraq to Syria.

    My wild ass guess would be, from another with the name Hussein. BUT, HE is unavailable for comment.

As Rush points out almost daily, Obama can’t be seen as governing. Always having to be seen as fighting (his own policies).

When this thing goes sideways, he’ll claim somebody acted stupidly. Not him. Why, he was fighting powerful forces that tied his hands, and didn’t allow him to it his way, the right way, which would have been “the perfect way”.

    The “perfect way” would be to follow the Clinton doctrine, which states that diplomacy is to be conducted at the end of a cruise missile, then to wait until the response hit America and the succeeding administration. It could work for Obama, too. Actually, the Obama doctrine is the Clinton doctrine on steroids. It was already tested, successfully, in Libya. Although, the turnaround (i.e. response) by his allies didn’t quite wait for the next administration to accept responsibility and culpability.

Flyover Conservative | August 30, 2013 at 2:09 pm

So lets see:
-100,000+ Syrians killed with conventional arms. Ho hum. Tweedle de, tweedle dum.

-@400 children shown dead from chemical weapons use by “somebody”. Off with their heads.

-must be “Common Core” math at work where 400>100,000

    Not to mention the thousands confirmed killed, and at least one American killed, by the guns sold to arm a drug cartel in Mexico. For which they have yet to accept responsibility.

    Their motives are impure, which begs the question: Why are they interested in this conflict; and why did they sponsor this “civil war” with arming the “rebels”?

    MSF stated that all up there were 332 deaths. There were not 400 children dead or even 1300 dead.

    The figures were a lot lower than what is being claimed. The Syrian opposition is wildly exaggerating the numbers and Kerry is doing the same thing. I am not at all impressed with Kerry, just like I was totally unimpressed by Hillary Clinton in the same role.

Anybody else listen to Kerry’s whole speech?

Yes there was a lot of tough sounding bluster up front.

But what was that bit at the end about the need for negotiations?

Sounded like a blink to me.

    Miles in reply to ThomasD. | August 30, 2013 at 2:49 pm

    As Browndog posted. The Obummer MUST be provided ways to point his finger and blame any and everyone else possible if his actions blow up in his face.

    Kerry was simply following orders from Der Fuhrer.

      ThomasD in reply to Miles. | August 30, 2013 at 3:24 pm

      That’s not quite how it sounded to me.

      More like an aside to Assad that basically reads “if you string us along in some bogus ‘negotiations’ we’ll perpetually delay actually doing anything about all this mess.”

    Henry Hawkins in reply to ThomasD. | August 30, 2013 at 4:16 pm

    To minimize as much as is possible the costs of war, Kerry wants to negotiate surrender terms before we begin the attack. OUR surrender.

Kerry-Syria has used chemical weapons against civilians multiple times.

So, if red lines were black lines, it would like just like a document Eric Holder was forced to turn over to Darrell Issa.

Who really believes that these abortion loving fools have suddenly had an attack of conscience over a few hundred Syrian children being gassed? Obama is about to prove once again that he and his cadre of advisors are woefully ill-equipped to play on the world stage. They’re so far beyond embarrassing it is difficult to find adequate words to describe them. The next couple of years just can’t pass fast enough.

What’s the matter with all you skeptics? Do you think your government would lie to you?

    Observer in reply to creeper. | August 30, 2013 at 3:15 pm

    LOL. “The evidence is irrefutable” reminds me of “the science is settled” and “the reprehensible YouTube video was the only reason for the attack on the consulate” and “if you like your current coverage, you can keep your current coverage” and too many other lies to mention.

We also had indisputable evidence that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq used chemical weapons on its people.

I see to recall the left claiming this was not a sufficient reason for war at the time.

But apparently with a D in the Whitehouse suddenly all the arguments made from 2001-9 are no longer operative.

    ThomasD in reply to 18-1. | August 30, 2013 at 3:29 pm

    That’s why I have a hard time strongly opposing whatever futile and stupid gesture Obama chooses to launch at Assad.

    No matter what justification they attempt to contort out of the facts, given that Assad has never attempted to annex a neighbor, it will be a tacit approval of what we did in Iraq.

Why are they interested in this conflict; and why did they sponsor this “civil war” with arming the “rebels”?

Baathist Hussein was an upstanding member of the international community. Baathist Assad is an affront to dear leader.

It’s a good start, but why spend our money when they are doing so well at killing each other?

And by “our” money I mean “China’s”.

Will they admit that these chemical weapons are the same weapons Hussein sent to Syria before the Iraq invasion?

There is a compromise still available for Oblabla. Bomb both the rebels and the government.

PersonFromPorlock | August 30, 2013 at 3:24 pm

“Annie | August 30, 2013 at 3:12 pm

Will they admit that these chemical weapons are the same weapons Hussein sent to Syria before the Iraq invasion?”

Sure. Bush let it happen! /sark

Let’s step back from the type of weapons used for a moment. We’ll get to them later. Let’s deal with the lawful authority of the United States, or any other foreign power, to intervene in a civil war without the invitation, or acquiescence of the legal government of that country.

Under what conditions is a nation legally justified to intervene in the internal affairs of another sovereign nation? Usually, such action is restricted to acts of war against the external nation, its citizens, or the territory, citizens or property of its allies. In this case, none of those conditions exist. Another justification would be if the actions of nation directly impact, or are likely to directly impact, the external nation or its allies in an extreme manner. As this incident is limited to a few square blocks in a city that is well away from the nation’s borders, this circumstance is not viable. So, exactly what legal criteria exist for the forces of the United States of America to legally attack the country of Syria? Perhaps a violation of some treaty to which Syria is a signatory? I don’t know. But, I have not heard anyone suggest that such exists.

Remember, this is a civil war in which some indigenous people and a number of foreign persons are engaged in armed revolt against the legally recognized government of a sovereign nation. It might not be a very benign government, but it is the legal government, none the less. Would we have stood for it if England and France had invaded the United States during our civil war? Unlikely. So, why would we even suggest that we would do the same in Syria?

Now, to the weapons used. Deadly weapons are deadly weapons, period. Poison gas is no worse than dropping 100 tons of high explosives on the same area. The death toll would be about the same. So, what is the difference? A case might be made against the use of nuclear weapons, due to radioactive fall-out. But, otherwise dead is dead regardless of the means used to achieve that state. This is war and in a war weapons are used. And those weapons kill innocent people along with combatants. Just ask the inhabitants of Atlanta after Sherman’s troops marched through or the inhabitants of Dresden Germany or Tokyo Japan in WWII.

There should be a declaration of war against two actors, the regime and rebels, with judgments to be delayed pending an investigation. In the meantime, there should be an intervention on humanitarian grounds. Those who are or may become collateral damage should be evacuated. Anyone who opposes this humanitarian aid becomes a legitimate target. This can only be done with a ground force. The Clinton, and Obama doctrine, of launching cruise missiles from afar and dropping bombs from overhead, will not suffice to protect innocent lives, and is incapable of determining the guilt of each party, let alone accomplishing the stated goal: provide humanitarian aid and defense.

    n.n in reply to n.n. | August 30, 2013 at 4:16 pm

    Is America, rich and poor, left and right, young and old, prepared to fully commit to this action? Is the United Nations prepared to speak for a coalition of the willing to provide humanitarian aid and defense? Are other nations willing to participate, with lives and treasure, in a limited engagement pending a judgment and final sentence? Are we prepared to rebuild a nation, with the current or succeeding government?

Someone tell dufus, I mean Senator Kerry, to talk to Walid Shoebat who has VIDEO evidence of AQ rebels in Syria with chemical weapons.

Check it out here

So, let’s see … somebody in Syria uses one nasty sort of weapon or another to kill somebody else in Syria … and somehow this means that the US is supposed to drop some bombs on … well, somebody … in Syria.

It’s not totally obvious what American interest all this kabuki serves. Is there some actual treaty which obligates the US to make this response?

This would only concern the adults in the room if the US had some interest in driving Assad out. And, if it does, might it be worth waiting for a better excuse?

“The world has an obligation to make sure that we maintain the law against the use of chemical weapons,” Obama said from the White House’s oval office. “I have not made a final decision about the various actions that might be taken to help us enforce that goal. But, as I already said, I have had my military and our team look at a wide range of options.”

“During his State Department speech today, Secretary of State John Kerry grossly misrepresented the facts about the chemical attack at Ghouta near Damascus.

Kerry said evidence of Syrian complicity in the attack remains classified and will not be shared with the American people. (WHAT A SURPRISE!)

According to the international aid group Doctors Without Borders, however, 355 people were killed, not the wildly exaggerated figure cited by Kerry.

The organization, along with the Red Cross, is deeply concerned the Obama administration and other proponents of military action against Syria are misrepresenting data to make the case for military intervention.

On Friday, we reported the so-called rebels, in fact al-Qaeda mercenaries supported by the CIA and Saudi Arabia, were responsible for the chemical attack which Obama and the US government, including many members of Congress, have attributed to Bashar al-Assad without providing evidence.

“From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families… many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” writes Associated Press journalist Dale Gavlak.

Unsurprisingly, Kerry failed to mention US’s true position of funding the Syrian rebels …. (SHOCKING THAT A KNOW LIAR WOULD SAY THIS!)

From Reuters:

The timing and location of the reported chemical weapons use – just three days after the team of U.N. chemical experts checked in to a Damascus hotel a few km (miles) to the east at the start of their mission – was surprising.

“It would be very peculiar if it was the government to do this at the exact moment the international inspectors come into the country,” said Rolf Ekeus, a retired Swedish diplomat who headed a team of UN weapons inspectors in Iraq in the 1990s.

“At the least, it wouldn’t be very clever.”

Ekeus said the mandate of the U.N. team was limited to three sites but could be amended to investigate fresh claims – which would be simpler to verify than the other months-old cases.

“It is easier to do sampling and testing, and also to look at the victims, if there are sick people or even dead people (on the scene). It is easier to get to doctors and get to the place where the event happened.”

Charles Lister, an analyst at IHS Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgency Centre, also said it made little sense for the Syrian government to use chemical agents now.

“Nonetheless, the Ghouta region (where the attacks were reported) is well known for its opposition leanings. Jabhat al-Nusra has had a long-time presence there and the region has borne the brunt of sustained military pressure for months now,” he said, referring to a hardline Sunni Islamist rebel group allied to al Qaeda.

“While it is clearly impossible to confirm the chemical weapons claim, it is clear from videos uploaded by reliable accounts that a large number of people have died.”

[…] Syria is a sideshow – chemical weapons or not. Keep eyes and arms focused on Iran. Defend Israel. That’s what Americans should care about. […]

Oh, well if John Forbes Kerry says so then it MUST be true. Full speed ahead!

(He was in Vietnam, did you know?)

BannedbytheGuardian | August 30, 2013 at 8:10 pm

Mr & Mrs Beanz will fart in your general direction.

So there!

Kerry has a long history as a liar and a fool. Obama has a shorter history but may well have told more and bigger lies as a matter of record, not opinion. This may well be one lying and the other swearing by it. Powell claimed Bush deceived him with false intelligence reports but in fact those reports were compiled by Powell and given to Bush. Powell was the deceitful person on the team, he knew who leaked the information that Plame worked for the CIA and could have done his duty and informed Bush. Instead he covered for his subordinate,Armitrage, in the state dept. and allowed the prosecutor to trap Scooter Libbey in a matter that had nothing to do with the leak.

Like I’d believe anything Kerry says … riiiiggght. I smell a rat. I think we are being set up as fools if we get involved in Syria or any other ‘war’.

Whether or not poison gas was used against anyone is irrelevant. Syria is a client state of the Russians and has been for almost 50 years. If the Assad government was guilty of gassing its own citizens, still unproven by the way, we should be holding Russia’s feet to the fire via the UN.

Then there is the problem of Obama having failed to get the support of the UN, of Congress and today, of NATO as well.

Then there is the problem of the legality of teaching Assad a lesson by “re-establish[ing] the red line” for future reference. It is illegal under constitutional law to attack a sovereign nation for mere punitive reasons.

It is also illegal under the US Constitution to attack another sovereign nation that is not attacking us without Congressional approval.

Every US soldier took an oath to defend the constitution and is not under any obligation to obey unlawful orders from anyone. This military action would involve a multitude of unlawful orders from the top down. We should be witnessing a “Black Friday” as we did under Nixon. Will that happen? It should.

Why do we always allow the entrenched criminal class to frame the discussions for us? This is a very simple case of ILLEGAL! People under oath should be stopping this in its tracks.

    Illegal under the US Constitution? No, Congress can authorize war for whatever reason(s) it deems appropriate. The power is plenary.

    Under international law of war it is another story entirely. But that does involve the notion of proportionality, and given that the reported casualties of the CW attack are dwarfed by the overall civilian casualties of the conflict military action based solely on the use of such weapons – by a nation that HAS NOT signed onto any anti CW compacts – is highly questionable.

    Obama called before the Hague would certainly be sight though. Maybe he could get off by agreeing to surrender his Peace Prize.

Kerry is the absolute personification of the term ‘dumb ass.’

Lurch doesn’t know feces from shinola and he has no credibility. No one in the insane, commie, indonesian, koranimal mass murderers regime does. They should all be in jail waiting for their treason trials.

From Lurch’s testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 22, 1971:

“They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.”

Of course, Lurch didn’t see or do any of this either. He was, after all, a fast mover, having completed his two tours of duty in 4 months and 11 days.

The Honorable Mr. Ketchup has a credibility gap now, just as he had then.

and this makes it our business because?

I thought the “GO-TO-WAR” standard was “stockpiles” of WMD?
Has the UN reported “stockpiles” of WMD?
I too would like to know where Syria got it’s WMD? Could it be imported from Iraq from a few years back?