http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d28...920dcb7e30b258
Aug. 29, 2013 6:54 AM ET
AP sources: Intelligence on weapons no 'slam dunk'
By KIMBERLY DOZIER and MATT APUZZOBy KIMBERLY DOZIER and MATT APUZZO, Associated Press
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.
President Barack Obama declared unequivocally Wednesday that the Syrian government was responsible, while laying the groundwork for an expected U.S. military strike.
"We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out," Obama said in an interview with "NewsHour" on PBS. "And if that's so, then there need to be international consequences."
However, multiple U.S. officials used the phrase "not a slam dunk" to describe the intelligence picture — a reference to then-CIA Director George Tenet's insistence in 2002 that U.S. intelligence showing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was a "slam dunk" — intelligence that turned out to be wrong.
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.
ok, i know 'benghazi' has become the go-to phrase when people want to criticize...but i can't help but wonder why there were so many contortions to avoid calling that occurrence what it was , terrorism...then there's egypt, it's a coup, but the admin won't call it one, and we all know why.
so, now we have a case that isn't a 'slam dunk', and obama 'declared unequivocally Wednesday that the Syrian government was responsible'.
i hate inconsistency. this makes no sense. and the more that comes out about the supposed chemical attack, the more unhappy i become. now it's a hundred people? yesterday it was 1000.
i think everyone here knows i'm a history fanatic....
ww1 went on for several years before we entered. several times in the preceding years we had reason to enter, but held off. and for good reason.
same with ww2, had gone on in europe since 1939 and germany invading poland.
but now, we've become so impatient, so anxious to throw our weight around. and to what end?