Why won't the President share with us his proof it was Assad?

[another_liberal]

Why won't he just release the proof Assad's forces carried out the attacks? Why must we, at this late date, still just take his and his generals' word for it. Surely it makes no sense to keep that proof hidden now.

Why just tell us over and over again to "look at the videos," and, "think of the children?" I've seen all of the sickening videos. Seeing them again won't change the fact that I need to see why he is so damn sure Assad is who we should be threatening to attack!

I am very disappointed. This speech was a waste of time. We learned nothing new and nothing at all important.

[JoePhilly]

1. Clearly, he hates America.

[another_liberal]

4. Is this really a time to be flippant?

The President had an excellent chance tonight to come clean with us, and he let it pass by. He wants us to trust him, why then won't he trust us?

[ellisonz]

26. +1

[Junkdrawer]

2. It was the bombs are away speech with a "but now we need to wait for a maybe peace" ending....

Hurried rewrite

[another_liberal]

24. There's been more than one rewrite over the last several days.

I think we can be certain about that much.

[Tx4obama]

3. It was not a waste of time. There are millions of Americans that don't know anything about ...

... what is going on.

President Obama was addressing ALL of America not just the political junkies.

Not everyone reads 'everything' about 'everything' like us folks on DU

[winter is coming]

6. Syria's been all over the news for days.

Anyone who doesn't know anything about this mess doesn't want to know about it, and likely changed the channel.

[narnian60]

7. +100 nt

[another_liberal]

8. He could have annouced he was releasing his evidence so independent experts could verify it.

Wouldn't that have may his case stronger?

[Tx4obama]

14. The test results will be released when the U.N. report comes out in about a week.

They will be able to tell by the tests that the 'gas' is the same mixture as what Assad has.

[another_liberal]

23. The rebels have bragged about seizing sarin gas munitions from Assad's stockpiles.

Showing it was made by Syria won't prove who used it on Damascus.

[JustAnotherGen]

52. +1

And I think the same appeal could be made to Putin since he seems to be some folks at DU honesty hero right now.

[krawhitham]

5. Why do you think he is lying?

[another_liberal]

11. Did I say he was lying?

What I said was I want to see the proof.

Would you vote to convict someone of murder without seeing the evidence he was guilty? You do realize that if we attack Syria people will die as a result, right?

[maddezmom]

9. An honest question....would it change your mind about striking?

I also doubt that people who think he is lying or faking the evidence would believe anything the admin put out anyway.

I am on the fence about striking and definitely not unless there full congressional approval and I hope Putin will be successful getting Assad to follow through with the new diplomatic proposals on the table.

[another_liberal]

16. Let independent experts confirm the evidence.

What would be wrong with that. The President should have done it long ago.

As to whether I would support an attack: If our evidence is good enough to justify an attack, World opinion will force the UN Security Council to vote for one. In that case, yes, I would be behind us leading a coalition to remove Assad from power.

[maddezmom]

20. Who gets to pick the experts?

And how do we define experts? I don't see this happening because no one would want to give up their classified info. Tonight Obama said the UN would be releases their results, so I guess we can start there. Only problem is their mandate is only if chemical weapons were used not who used them because it was blocked by Russia and I believe China.

[another_liberal]

22. I'm not talking about a commission.

Let the World see. Let us hear from those who have the knowledge to evaluate this proof. We will then see a consensus emerge rather quickly about its believability.

Putin has to answer to World public opinion too, as do the leaders of China. If it can really be proven Assad ordered the gas to be used, they will soon find it very hard to block action by the UNSC

[Marr]

35. If the claim were proven false or unsupported, wouldn't it change *your* mind about striking?

I'm not saying I think it is, mind you-- and I would be against US involvement no matter who had conducted the gas attack. But it is, no matter how you slice it, an enormous claim and really ought to be documented for the people being asked to support military action in response.

If that unequivocal claim turned out not to be so unequivocal after all (let alone flat wrong), I would think it would make just about anyone hesitant to support military action.

[maddezmom]

38. Sure, but I am of the mind it was Assad

From everything I have read and heard.

[Marr]

41. I understand.

I can honestly say I have no opinion. It wouldn't surprise me if it was in fact Assad, and it wouldn't surprise me if it was the rebels. Or anyone else, for that matter.

But the administration has claimed unequivocally that it was Assad, and if they really expect the nation to support military action in response to it, they owe us evidence. I mean, it's only been a handful of years since Bush's ridiculous lies took us to war.

Politicians have a tendency to speak very confidently about things they have no reason to be confident about, and we're talking the most serious enterprise a nation can undertake. They owe us proof. Claims alone don't cut it-- especially when they're based on evidence that they just 'can't show us'.

[Whisp]

10. When was the last time you learned nothing?

it's okay, you don't have to answer.

[another_liberal]

19. Nothing to answer.

(Not a pun.)

[DURHAM D]

12. What form do you think that "proof" is in?

An entry in Assad's diary? A Flip video Mrs. Assad took when he issued the order over the phone to his brother? Assad writing his name on a mortar with a Sharpie? What do you need?

Even if offered all of the above I sincerely doubt that would do it for you.

[another_liberal]

17. It should be released to international experts in its given forms.

We should only act with the support of the World, as expressed by the UNSC, behind our intervention. That will require proof, not just asking for trust.

[DURHAM D]

25. "International experts"

And who exactly would that be?

You are silly.

[another_liberal]

27. Those people who have knowledge of the formats in which our evidence exists.

Let the World see our evidence and soon a consensus will emerge among those who understand such materials as to whether it is indeed conclusive or not.

[former9thward]

33. There are tens of thousands of people in the world who are experts in this field.

The only one silly here is you.

[treestar]

13. There are videos on the internet

there are newspaper reports.

He can't share it if it's classified.

Honestly, when was any other President not believed about what he concluded from reviewing intelligence?

[another_liberal]

18. Declassify it.

Problem solved.

[treestar]

74. And let anyone see it, including Assad

This is what there is a problem realizing. That is not being kept from you. It's being kept from the likes of Assad.

[another_liberal]

75. I think Assad already knows . . .

That is not really anything to be concerned about. I think Assad already knows if he ordered the gas attack or not.

[whatchamacallit]

31. Yes, who needs official evidence when we have YouTube?

ffs

[Marr]

36. When arguing that military action be taken in response to the classified intelligence?

Really?

[avaistheone1]

46. These youtube videos don't prove anything.

We can't verify who is responsible. We can't even verify how many were killed...(estimated between 200 people and 1400 people)

When President Kennedy spoke to American public during the Cuban Missile Crisis he displayed U-2 flight photographs that provided positive proof of what the United States had for months suspected: that the Soviet Union was installing medium-range nuclear weapons in Cuba, capable of striking major U.S. cities and killing tens of millions of Americans within minutes. With the October 14 photographs, the United States caught the Soviet Union building offensive nuclear missile bases in its backyard.


In contrast Obama has not provided any proof whatsoever.

CNN explicitly stated the videos were “hard to watch, but do not prove who was behind the attack.” The Washington Post, in its coverage, also acknowledged, “The videos do not make clear who used the chemical weapons.”
The evidence that Assad ordered his own people to be gassed on August 21 is not as airtight as the Obama administration would like the public believe, as officials appear on news programs while media replay these videos on television. A German newspaper has recently reported that, according to German intelligence, “Syrian brigade and division commanders had been asking the Presidential Palace to allow them to use chemical weapons for the last four-and-a-half months.” However, “Permission had always been denied,” which raises questions about whether the August 21 attack was ordered by Assad or committed by rogue commanders.

As the Associated Press wrote in a September 8 report, “The US government insists it has the intelligence to prove it, but the American public has yet to see a single piece of concrete evidence—no satellite imagery, no transcripts of Syrian military communications—connecting the government of President Bashar Assad to the alleged chemical weapons attack last month that killed hundreds of people.”.

AP further reported that the Obama administration has said its “assessment is based mainly on satellite and signal intelligence, including indications in the three days prior to the attack that the regime was preparing to use poisonous gas.” But, “Multiple requests to view that satellite imagery have been denied, though the administration produced copious amounts of satellite imagery earlier in the war to show the results of the Syrian regime’s military onslaught.”

http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/09/08/obama-deploys-visceral-videos-of-alleged-chemical-attack-victims-to-manipulate-grow-support-for-syria-war/

[choie]

57. Ummm....ever hear of Bush?

He wasn't believed by many people. Poor Obama- people just won't believe him...waaaaahhhh!

[Motown_Johnny]

15. Let the UN report come out...

The gaps can be filled in after that. There is no reason to go further then they have already.

[another_liberal]

21. Yes . . .

But the President says he is already convinced enough to commit our military to attack another sovereign country. Americans need to know why he is.

[Cleita]

28. The MIC must have its blood profits.

We have to stand firm against any further military intervention by us. I hope the international community takes over the responsibility for making the Syrians go to the peace table. Apparently, we aren't able to. We have been sold to the company store.

[Avalux]

29. Is Assad admitting he has chem weapons proof enough for you?

Because that's what he did today, and agreed to turn them over.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

40. Sorry, but no.

He has chemical weapons. We already knew that.

al-Assad having the capability does not prove that he ordered the strike(s) in question. Videos show that elements of the rebels have rudimentary chemical weapon capability -- these videos do not prove that they perpetrated the strike(s) in question.

Who ordered the strike(s) -- THAT is what we ask proof for and, if you don't do the same, you are a fool.

[LittleBlue]

30. It's unbelievable to see those on DU attacking the OP

for requesting proof.

10 years ago in 2003, we demanded proof from Bush. Why do we demand less today? I don't recall any progressives being against the demand for proof.

[Junkdrawer]

32. Tells me Obama's word is the strongest proof they have....

and if you still think Obama's word is something you can bet your kid's life on....

[Hell Hath No Fury]

34. Damned straight we should demand proof.

We've been down this road before -- have we learned NOTHING???

Yeah, there are some horrific video of people suffering from what appears to be some sort of neurotoxin. Those videos do NOT tell us who perpetrated the attack.

Until I see the evidence they are depending on to make the claim it was al-Assad, I ain't buying.

[Marr]

39. Exactly.

Well said.

[Abukhatar]

37. yeah let's reveal the evidence...

so our enemies can determine our capabilities.

[Hissyspit]

47. Cop-out. Nt

[another_liberal]

48. You're prepared to go to war without even knowing we're attacking the right side?

That just floors me. Our "enemies" (whoever you think they are) already know more about our "capabilities" than the American people do, and that is just fine with you?

[madrchsod]

42. simple google search should answer your question

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/09/201515/intercepts-caught-assad-rejecting.html



some things are not black or white.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

43. Wow.

I had not seen this report -- more reasons all evidence for responsibility for the attack in question MUST be shared with the American people.

[madrchsod]

44. pretty hard to do in the time allotted or...

try to explain diplomatic nuances to average attention span of the american people

[another_liberal]

50. Thanks for that link, madrchsod.

I had heard rumors of this information, but had not yet seen it. Stunning.

[Roland99]

60. Hmm...only links to that article are from like NewsMax and Examiner.com

And the Bild is, to quote Wiki:

Bild has been described as "notorious for its mix of gossip, inflammatory language, and sensationalism" and as having a huge influence on German politicians.[2] Its nearest English-language stylistic and journalistic equivalent is often considered to be the British national newspaper The Sun, the second highest selling European tabloid newspaper, with which it shares a degree of rivalry.[3][4][5]

According to Der Spiegel, Bild is a newspaper that flies just under the nonsense threshold of American and British tabloids. For the German desperate, it's a daily dose of high-resolution soft porn.[6]

According to The Guardian, for 28 years Bild had topless girls featuring on its first page; the paper published more than 5,000 topless pictures.[7]

[piratefish08]

49. Youtube isn't enough proof for you?

I think the Whitehouse plans on putting together an "Assad Sucks" facebook page.

That should put the argument to rest.

[another_liberal]

51. "Dead and dying children, just look at them!"

"Horrible pictures of dying children! Horrible pictures! Dead children! We're going to war because of the pictures!"

"Now get back to work. That will be all for now."

[Shankapotomus]

53. Because it might reveal

sensitive information about how we get our intelligence about Syria, perhaps?

Just to clarify, my answering this question does not mean I am for military strikes on Syria. I'm not.

[another_liberal]

55. More important than our President having the American people behind him.

That argument can be made in regard to any half-assed information our government acquires. I doubt we are the ones who collected the "proof" President Obama alludes to anyway. How could protecting some dubiously valuable snooping source be more important than our President having the American people behind him as he prepares to take us into war? If he really wants Congress and the people to support strikes on Syria, the President needs to let us see his evidence.

[FarPoint]

54. Assad knows what he did.....

there is no getting around it....he knows exactly what he did and he knows WE KNOW. I think your question is absurd actually...what do you want, an invite to the Whitehouse? They have revealed all they can without exposing covert operations.

[another_liberal]

58. The President does not have America's support, nor does he have the World's.

If he wants to gain our support and that of our representatives in Congress, he will have to show us clearly why he is so certain Assad ordered the gas attacks in Damascus.

If he does not share his evidence with the World at large, he will never get the UNSC to approve his strikes on Syria.

It is as simple as that.

[Niceguy1]

56. migjt divulge

Sources/ methods or disclose that we have access to an info stream? I am willing to take potus' s word .

[another_liberal]

62. I've seen my country taken to war on the basis of misinformation too many times.

Screw a bunch of "sources/methods," this is most likely Israeli intelligence we're talking about anyway. My position is simple, I've seen my country taken to war on the basis of misinformation too many times.

There is little doubt that if the President wants support more than a small minority of the American people, he is going to have to share with us the evidence which has convinced him President Assad ordered the gas attacks in Damascus.

Taking our country into war can never again be justified on "Gut Feeling" alone (or mere "trust&quot .

[QC]

59. In the words of a popular evangelical hymn, we must "Trust and Obey."

[another_liberal]

64. Sheep who obey . . .

Happy sheep are sheep who obey.

[Sunlei]

61. because our high leadership is not going to share with the entire WORLD our intelligence tactics.

go ahead and become president or someone with top security clearance if you can't accept the thousands of independent reports that came flooding in the instant thousands of people became victims a pesticide chemical.

[another_liberal]

63. What I might do or not do is beside the point entirely.

If the man who is currently President wants widespread support from Americans, not to mention the World, he will have to do better than, "You can trust me." He will have to present his evidence that Assad ordered the gas attacks in Damascus.

[Sunlei]

65. for you maybe, so?

and I edit to place in. That thousands were hit by some kind of chemical pesticide by someone happened.

I don't care who did it, except that banned action can't happen again. The buck stops at Assad it's his country.

[another_liberal]

66. So, by that reasoning . . .

So, by that same reasoning would you consider President Obama responsible for the Sandy Hook massacre? "It's his country."

To me, your logic seems a little weak.

[Sunlei]

71. no of course not.

What Syria did is a violation of international humanitarian law, which absolutely prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons.

[another_liberal]

72. Someone violated international humanitarian law, yes.

I have yet to see any proof it was the Syrian government who did so.

[Sunlei]

73. you probably won't see it either, doubt the rebels can hide those semi truck rocket launchers.

Long as Assad passes over the stuff if he still has enough control over his military people. That's probably the best case outcome the world can expect.

[etherealtruth]

67. What difference does it really make

I believe it was very likely Assad ... i also believe that military intervention (read killing more Syrians) will not make the situation better.

I stressed the word "military" because I do hope for political intervention

[another_liberal]

68. At first I too thought it was most likely Assad who ordered the attack.

I could not, however, get rid of the nagging doubt: Why would he have done that? It did not make any sense for him to have done so. Add to that the fact there certainly are other forces who would profit mightily from an American air assault. I couldn't buy Assad's certain guilt anymore, not without real proof.

I do agree it is now time to leave the air strike option behind, and to give political intervention our full support.

[etherealtruth]

69. Why would the opposition kill so many in their own enclave?

... again, I do not believe there is a military solution here (as appalled as I am )

[another_liberal]

70. To blame it on Assad, and trigger an American assault.

Human life is really cheap to both sides of that civil war.

[darkangel218]

76. The rebels couldnt have done it.

They lack the capabilities.

[another_liberal]

77. I'm not so sure about that.

The rebel forces have rocket launchers, they staged a short-range rocket attack on Assad's own neighborhood in Damascus just a week or two before the gas attack. They boasted they have nerve gas munitions seized from Assad's stockpiles at bases they captured. They also had in their ranks defectors who were trained in the use of chemical weapons while still in the Syrian army. Add to that the fact they have even expressed a willingness to use their chemical weapons, citing, of course, the claim that Assad has used them first as their justification.

In other words: The Rebels had the chemical weapons; they had the delivery systems; they had the experienced personnel and they had the openly stated intention. What more in the way of "capabilities" is required?

[darkangel218]

78. Oh yah?

Read this post. Written by a military vet who worked with NBC weapons.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1022552