The White House released a 4-page document etting forth its case for use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government.
But as shown below, the case is extremely weak (government’s claim in quotes, followed by rebuttal evidence).
“A preliminary U.S. government assessment determined that 1,429 people were killed in the chemical weapons attack, including at least 426 children, though this assessment will certainly evolve as we obtain more information.“
But McClatchy notes:
Neither Kerry’s remarks nor the unclassified version of the U.S. intelligence he referenced explained how the U.S. reached a tally of 1,429, including 426 children. The only attribution was “a preliminary government assessment.”
Anthony Cordesman, a former senior defense official who’s now with the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, took aim at the death toll discrepancies in an essay published Sunday.
He criticized Kerry as being “sandbagged into using an absurdly over-precise number” of 1,429, and noted that the number didn’t agree with either the British assessment of “at least 350 fatalities” or other Syrian opposition sources, namely the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which has confirmed 502 dead, including about 100 children and “tens” of rebel fighters, and has demanded that Kerry provide the names of the victims included in the U.S. tally.
“President Obama was then forced to round off the number at ‘well over 1,000 people’ – creating a mix of contradictions over the most basic facts,” Cordesman wrote. He added that the blunder was reminiscent of “the mistakes the U.S. made in preparing Secretary (Colin) Powell’s speech to the U.N. on Iraq in 2003.”
An unclassified version of a French intelligence report on Syria that was released Monday hardly cleared things up; France confirmed only 281 fatalities, though it more broadly agreed with the United States that the regime had used chemical weapons in the Aug. 21 attack.
More
If only conservatives had performed such due diligence during the run up to Iraq. Hey, I disagree with going into Syria myself. I just find it funny that suddenly this side of the aisle is speaking sense only because their default position is to be against the pres. Actually I think BO has you fooled; he didn't want to go to war in the first place and is just using a bit of reverse psychology.
ReplyDeleteRest assured, O wants to go to war. He has to do something to get the head off of him on benghazi, irs, nsa........
ReplyDeleteNO NO NO to any war action in Syria...
ReplyDeletecall 202-224-3121 and tell your ELECTED OFFICIAL; ( in case they forgot they work for and are paid by THE PEOPLE),
NO war, NO Obama-Care, NO IMMIGRATION, NO AMNESTY, start to investigate Fast and Furious, Embassy incident with Stevens MURDER...
Facts are just meaningless bumps in the road for Barry & Kerry. They decided themselves for some reason Assad did it and thats all you need to know. Now they iwant to pound him with misisles, while the Muslims responsible for attack hide in their caves and laugh. But, its ALL ABOUT SENDING A MESSAGE. Oh Yeah, to whom?
ReplyDeleteLord, please stop this, I pray. Please.
ReplyDelete