Will Syria Be Obama's Iraq?

McCain and Lindsey Graham aren't the only obsessive war-mongers urging Obama to attack Syria. There are plenty-- and on both sides of the aisle. So far the President has been urging caution and insisting on getting to the bottom of the rumors being pushed out by practiced liars like McCain and Graham as though they were gospel. Like the "proof" that nerve gas was used. Perhaps it was... but who, exactly used it? Do we even know who the "good guys" and who the "bad guys" are in this conflict? It would be probably most prudent to assume that everyone involved wishes America ill. And now we're getting as many reports that the sarin gas used in the civil war there-- the "proof" McCain offered to demand the U.S. military go to war with Syria (and, probably, Iran) was fake-- just like all the proof that led us into the Iraq catastrophe was fake.

Testimony from victims of the conflict in Syria suggests rebels have used the nerve agent, sarin, a leading member of a UN commission of inquiry has said.

Carla Del Ponte told Swiss TV that there were "strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof."

Ms Del Ponte did not rule out the possibility that government forces might also have used chemical weapons.

Looks like the White House doesn't want to accept those findings, though. Jay Carney said the Obama administration is "highly skeptical" of suggestions that Syrian rebels used chemical weapons. The U.S. State Department added that Washington's position is that any use of chemical weapons in Syria likely would have originated with the government of President Bashar al-Assad.

With Israel trying to goad Syria into a war by bombing Damascus, Del Ponte's announcement was very inconvenient for the people who are most determined to get the U.S. embroiled in another war in the Middle East. "Lindsey referred to cruise missiles..."

Supporters of Syria's moderate opposition also dismissed del Ponte's remarks, pointing out that if the rebels had had access to chemical weapons they would have been tempted to use them much earlier against Assad's military bases.

President Obama is coming under growing pressure in Washington from Congress to take action in Syria, but continues to insist the evidence gathered by Britain and France is not conclusive. "We have seen in the not too distance past the consequences of acting before the facts were available," said Carney.

On Friday, UK defence secretary Philip Hammond admitted western intelligence services would probably have to wait for a further chemical attack before gathering enough information to trace it back to the government because the quality of earlier evidence had degraded over time.

Del Ponte's comments further complicate the diplomatic argument over what the west should do in Syria, following air strikes by Israel against Syrian military targets over the weekend, and with the prospect of a regional conflict growing.

...Defence experts in Washington said the strikes showed that US fears about Syrian air defences may need to be reassessed.

"Israel's success does indicate that the purely military risks in enforcing some form of no fly or no move zone are now more limited that when the fighting in Syria began," said Anthony Cordesman of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies. "At the same time, this does not mean that Syria could not put up a defence or that the US could simply rely on a few strikes or threats to either destroy Syria's air defence or intimidate it into complying with US demands."