Let me state first of all, that I do hold out the possibility that it is not "deja vu all over again" with respect to a strike on Syria due to evidence of chemical weapon use to be identical to the selling of the Iraq invasion because of the threat of WMDs reaching our shores in...oh however long they said it would take...in that old omelette of mushroom clouds, cooked up by Conolezza Rice.
That said I have been puzzled by the manner in which the "evidence" of a sarin attack is described. The key phrase is "signatures of sarin." I have asked in this forum and others if anyone could be more specific about what constitutes a signature of sarin, because I am not a scientist. Haven't gotten any bites on those inquiries, so I did a web search with the question "Is the chemical signature of sarin unique?"
From my understanding of the following article, it would appear the answer is no. The "signature" includes many organophosphates, from sarin and other chemical weapons, to common insecticides:
The signature of organophosphates
I'm not saying there shouldn't be consternation if Assad was mowing his citizens down with high doses of Raid.
But I think that this "signature" stuff needs to be examined, because it falls short of absolute evidence.
I know that one of the most sadly ridiculous elements in the pre-Iraq invasion phase, was that this explosive (pardon the pun) intelligence was delivered by an agent known as "Curveball."
Kerry talks about "independent" verification, but we know not who this independent agent is. Israel? If so, one must conclude that they would be the least impartial player.
There has been a lot of comments in the ether about Obama's back-tracking on the red-line, the perception of a "weakened" president, by trying to include Congress in the decision. As I have said elsewhere, I do not think the problem in the US is a weak president, but an imperial president with a feckless Congress.
Lastly, I think Obama's dilemma is having to talk softly while carrying a big dick-this is a reference to Teddy Roosevelt's rumination on diplomacy vs. force: "talk softly and carry a big stick" (The reason I will not edit out my comments completely, is because of the comments that follow this. If I had merely said that Putin and the head of the Egyptian military were engaging in big-dickishness, I doubt many would be upset. But because I made a suggestion that Obama was pulling back towards acknowledging he should engage Congress vs battling the perception that it was weak to consider democratic dialogue, I'm immediately relegated to the racist pile. Like I said, I was first thinking about him as our president, not as a black man. I have acknowledged that could unleash unpleasant connotations. I don't know what else you want me to do. And sadly, the point of the diary was to examine if "signature of sarin" was absolute proof of it's use. I cited a discussion by a scientist that pointed out there was not a unique chemical signature for sarin, but the chemical signature was shared my many organopshates in a range form chemical weapons to common insecticides. No commenters have addressed the main issue)
There are so many players on the world stage today who seem to be all about big-dickishness. Putin. Netanyahu. The leader of the Egyptian army, etc. For all the hopefulness surrounding the fall of the USSR, The Arab Spring, it appears that this is not what democracy looks like. Diplomacy is for sissies.
And to end with a John Kerry impassioned quote from 2002:
" "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002. "