Wait, Our Intelligence Agencies Aren't Sure Assad Launched the Chemical Attack?

Morning Jolt . . . with Jim Geraghty August 29, 2013 Wait, Our Intelligence Agencies Aren't Sure Assad Launched the Chemical Attack? Boy . . .  this seems like a really big deal, doesn't it? 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." … A report by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence outlining that evidence against Syria is thick with caveats. Last night we learned former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld doesn't think we should strike Syria. Attention, Democrats: our president is considering unilateral strikes against a Baathist dictator in the Middle East with a small coaltion and no U.N. authorization over WMDs, starting a war . . . that Donald Rumsfeld opposes. The Washington Post's liberal columnist, Eugene Robinson, supports it. It's like everyone in U.S. politics from 2003 just decided to trade uniforms and play for the opposing team simultaneously. Have Cindy Sheehan, the Dixie Chicks, and Janeane Garofalo called for air strikes yet? When does Michael Moore unveil his pro-war film? When do AEI, Halliburton, and Toby Keith attend an anti-war rally? Breaking News: Americans Hate Each Other Less Than Ever Before. Really. Regarding yesterday's festivities making the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington and Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech . . . We could dwell on the fact that Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, currently the only African-American in the Senate, wasn't invited. Nor was the only African-American on the Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas. We could dwell on President Bill Clinton bringing up Obamacare and assault weapons. Or President Carter bringing up "stand your ground" laws, echoing a convenient narrative about a law not actually invoked in the George Zimmerman trial. Or President Obama lamenting a lack of economic opportunity, more than four years after he and his party passed a stimulus promising precisely that. Or Chris Matthews insisting, yet again, that all Obama critics are motivated by racial hatred. But instead, examine this chart from Gallup, asking people how they think relationships between blacks and whites are: Ultimately, we're pretty positive. The percent saying "bad" never gets above 36 among whites and 39 among blacks, and is in the 30s most of the time. Overwhelmingly, the most common response, among all groups, is "pretty good" -- between 47 and 61 percent. And this covers pre-9/11, Katrina, Obama's election, and today. The constant sniping of "You're racist!" and "No, YOU'RE racist!" you see on your Twitter feed, Facebook comments section, blog comments section, and so on isn't reflective of how most Americans feel about each other. Every day, we get up, we walk out the door and go to our jobs -- well, those of us with jobs in this economy -- and we go about our business and interact with each other and, most of the time, almost everybody gets along. This is the moment you can call me a ludicrously naïve optimist, but if you look around the world, you don't find that many examples of diverse, multicultural communities living in relative harmony. Second, let me turn your attention to this letter to the editor in the Washington Post: On Saturday, I decided to get a bite of lunch at a local restaurant and happened on this scene: A dozen or so preschoolers, black and white, were seated around a table wearing party hats, while their parents and siblings mingled through the restaurant for a birthday party. How likely would you have been to see that 50 years ago? I would have been much rarer than it is today, if found at all. Martin Luther King Jr.'s children reached adulthood in a world that was closer to King's dream than the reality of his younger years, and his grandchildren live in a world even closer to that dream. His great-grandchildren will live in an even better one. Our kids will get this right, or closer to the ideal, than we have so far. (About 7 percent of babies born in 2009 were classified as biracial on their Census forms.) Finally, Cameron Gray asked . . . just what is Bill Clinton's right hand doing in this picture? What Should We Do in Syria? If We're Going to Strike, Strike the Right Way. Push is coming to shove on Syria. The Editors: After Assad's last chemical attack, President Obama said he would arm more moderate elements among the rebels, but didn't follow through. We should have covert forces on the ground arming, training, and advising the rebels with whom we can work, so we aren't leaving the field to Arab governments with their own interests in influencing the nature of the rebellion. Ramesh disagrees: This is not a military action that we are undertaking to defend ourselves from attack or to protect a core interest. The congressional power to declare war, if it is not to be a dead letter, has to apply here. And it seems to me exceedingly unlikely that Congress would vote to commit us in Syria, because the public manifestly opposes it. This is a war with no clear objective, thus no strategy to attain it, no legal basis, and no public support. I dissent. Speaker of the House John Boehner: [Mr. President,] I respectfully request that you, as our country's commander-in-chief, personally make the case to the American people and Congress for how potential military action will secure American national security interests, preserve America's credibility, deter the future use of chemical weapons, and, critically, be a part of our broader policy and strategy. In addition, it is essential you address on what basis any use of force would be legally justified and how the justification comports with the exclusive authority of Congressional authorization under Article I of the Constitution. A congressional resolution authorizing force would force the wishy-washy to come off the fence. What would I recommend to the president? The world -- meaning everybody, in every country, in peaceful places and in tense, brink-of-war places -- needs dire, lethal consequences for using chemical weapons. Without those consequences, the temptation for other regimes and leaders will be too great. And as bad as bullets and bombs are, we do not want our kids growing up in a world where sarin, VX, and mustard gas become commonplace weapons of war. So, if we are certain that Assad's regime used the chemical weapons . . . "If [the rebels] have overrun an arms dump which had some of the agent, if a defector brought a limited amount with him, then it would explain why some of the signs and symptoms showed less toxicity than we expected," said [Gwyn Winfield, the editorial director of CBRNe World, a magazine that covers biological and chemical weapons for the industry]. "That is a lot of 'ifs,' though." . . . and if we are certain that Assad authorized or ordered the use of chemical weapons (see above and below) . . . U.S. intelligence officials were able to confirm that chemical weapons were used in Syria last week in part because they intercepted panicked phone calls in which a Syrian defense official demanded an explanation for the attack from an official in a chemical weapons unit, according to a new report. . . . then it is in the national-security interest for the United States to ensure that Assad pays a heavy price for using those weapons. Of course, a good president isn't afraid to go to Congress, making the case for his preferred course of military action, and a good president isn't afraid to go to the American public to make the same case. A really good president isn't afraid to do something that he knows is right, even though it might make him less popular. Going to Congress and making the case to the nation would hopefully resolve Ramesh's concerns about the lack of a legal basis and public support. (And if Congress refuses to authorize military force, the president shouldn't pursue it. The War Powers Act doesn't allow a president to use force absent authorization from Congress unless there is a "national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces" -- a threshold Syria simply does not meet.) Presuming Congress signed on, I would urge the president and the Pentagon to look for something that mattered to Assad personally and bomb the crap out of it. Someplace like, say, this: Somewhere in there he's got a Rolls-Royce or Ferrari he adores. The palace overlooks the city of Damascus -- seeing the palace of the glorious, untouchable leader reduced to a pile of smoking rubble would indeed send a signal to everyone around the globe. ADDENDA: Time for Pennsylvania Republicans to find a new gubernatorial nominee: "The August 2013 Franklin & Marshall College Poll of Pennsylvania registered voters finds a majority (62%) believes the state is "off on the wrong track" and only one in five (20%) believes Governor Tom Corbett has performed sufficiently well to deserve re-election." NRO Digest — August 29, 2013 Today on National Review Online . . . THE EDITORS: We should help those Syrian rebels with whom we can work. The Ground Game in Syria. VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: The administration hasn't articulated any goals for strikes on Syria. What Is the Syria Plan? RAMESH PONNURU: A "medium-sized" strike that leaves Assad in power is still an empty threat. A Dissent on Syria. ELIANA JOHNSON: Newark's mayor invented a street character for dramatic effect. Cory Booker's Imaginary Friend. CHARLES C. W. COOKE: When it comes to the Second Amendment, the Left doesn't even understand what it's getting wrong. Pride of Ignorance on Firearms. ANDREW STILES: The GOP is abandoning the high ground on immigration. The Morality of Immigration. SLIDESHOW: Strike on Syria. To read more, visit www.nationalreview.com Why not forward this to a friend? Encourage them to sign up for NR's great free newsletters here. Save 75%... Subscribe to National Review magazine today and get 75% off the newsstand price. Click here for the print edition or here for the digital. National Review also makes a great gift! Click here to send a full-year of NR Digital or here to send the print edition to family, friends, and fellow conservatives. Follow Tweet Listen Send National Review, Inc. Manage your National Review subscriptions. We respect your right to privacy. View our policy. This email was sent by: National Review, Inc. 215 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor New York, NY 10016