"A Great New Book" —Larry Kudlow, CNBCGet it on AmazonExplore the Book
The White House admits it has no hard evidence that the Syrian government launched the alleged chemical weapons attack.
Instead, White House chief of staff Denis McDonough told the Associated Press “a common sense test” implicates the Syrian government.
Well, no, it doesn’t. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Chemical weapons attacks are signs of desperation. But Assad’s forces have recently gained the upper hand against rebels according to numerous sources.
In fact, the US was considering jumping into the Syrian civil war back in July when the tide began to turn. From July 18, 2013:
The U.S. is considering the use of military force in Syria, the country’s top general said Thursday.
Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he has provided President Barack Obama with options for military strikes in Syria, where the civil war has cost at least 93,000 lives.
Why would Assad risk US intervention by launching a chemical attack when he’s winning?
Answer: he wouldn’t. Or it doesn’t seem likely.
Common sense says he’d want to keep the US out of it.
On the other hand, a desperate rebel force might launch a chemical attack—even a false flag attack—in order push the US or the UN to action.
In Obama’s White House, common sense is as foreign as fiscal responsibility and Constitutional restraint.