White House Says "Multiple" Sources on Syria Chemical Weapons; Colin Powell Had Multiple Sources for Iraq Claims, Too

Here we go again...


eat your heart out, literally
screen cap

The White House has announced it is now confident the Syrian government used chemical weapons in the civil war that's engulfed that country for the last three years. A statement from the White House insists the determination is based on "multiple, independent streams of information." The Bush Administration's insistence about the case for a war in Iraq was similarly framed. Colin Powell backed his statements in his now infamous 2003 speech to the United Nations this way: "Ladies and gentlemen, these are not assertions. These are facts, corroborated by many sources, some of them sources of the intelligence services of other countries." Despite the apparent confidence, behind the scenes Powell wasn't so sure. Eventually he was upset about being fed fabricated evidence.

Now, deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes says contingencies for a no-fly zone over Syria have been drawn up, though a decision hasn't been made. A no-fly zone, Rhodes admits, would come with "great and open-ended costs".

Bill Clinton, another fan of serial intervention, earlier this week said Barack Obama would be a "total fool" not to escalate U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war.

Get ready for more intervention by reading previous Reason on intervention in Syria:

If Syria is a Proxy War, What's the U.S. Interest?

Why is America Intervening in Syria Now?

The Situation in Syria Presents an Unwelcome Setting for Intervention

U.S. Military Intervention in Syria is a Really Bad Idea

America Needs to Stay Out of Syria

And, lest we forget: Western Intervention in Syria's Already Started

NEXT: Stem Cell Discovery Could Help Regrow Fingers

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.




      1. At least Obama cleared the low bar of not lying us into a multi-trillion dollar war! And don’t you wingnuts say Libya, a cost-effective and successful campaign is the same. ChristFAG!



        1. its almost like we should have the war to complete the transformation of progressives ‘greatest hope’ into a slightly-tan GWB. perfection, really.

          1. It would nicely close the circle. Bush started out his Presidency getting us into big wars, Obama can finish his up the same way. And the American people will be left trying to figure out how the hell we got where we are and who can get us out.

  2. Finally, Obama gets a real war to demonstrate his greatness as a leader.

  3. The White House has announced it is now confident the Syrian government used chemical weapons in the civil war that’s engulfed that country for the last three years.

    Um…why would I give a shit what the fuck they do in Syria? Howz aboutz we let em work it out on their own?

    1. As the Dad of the USA it’s Obama’s call. Us kids just need to sit down, shut up and do as we’re told.

      1. All good sons die for their father.

    2. We must have a war so that the population gets all patriotic and supports the President in times of war.

      Good that this is already Obama’s second term.

      1. Because the next guy has to be better.

        1. I expect that the next president will be another professional liar scumbag.

  4. It ticks me off that the administration is going to waste tax dollars, and probably American lives, to get involved in a fight that we have all but no interest in. To pretend that the administration can interpret the political dynamic of a civil war in the middle east well enough to read what the outcome will be for any action we could take strikes me as far-fetched.

    How long has it been since we interfered in some other Arabic nation’s internal conflict based on the existence of WMD’s? Can’t we at least space these things out to once a generation or so?

  5. Helping the likes of al-Qaeda topple Syria’s dictator. What could possibly go wrong!!

  6. While I don’t think we should help al-Qaeda in Syria, one of the things that came out of Wikileaks was that chemical weapons were actually found in Iraq. Not in great numbers, but still……..g-results/

    1. A bunch of gassed dead Kurds found chemical weapons in Iraq.

  7. The Iraq evidence was fabricated? I thought it was just terrible intelligence.

    1. The claim that there were “many sources, some of them sources of the intelligence services of other countries” was fabricated. There was only one source, “curveball”.

    2. Bogus photos of WMD labs.

      People thought Iraq was about the anthrax attack.

      Here’s a poll taken six months after we invaded Iraq:…..iraq_x.htm

      People forget what they thought and when they thought it; somehow, the way the way most people remember it, they were always right on the facts from the very beginning.

      But there were no mobile WMD labs. The photos Colin Powell showed us were bogus. There was no yellowcake in Niger. What they told us and what they showed us was bogus.

      They fabricated all those “noble lies”. It’s a Leo Strauss thing.

  8. So, do laws about material support for terrorist groups exclude public officials? Like, if POTUS orders arms to be shipped to a group that happens to include Al Qaeda, can some bold troublemakers carry out a citizen’s arrest and press charges?

  9. I didn’t know Chris Broussard was a White House spokesman…..OURCES.jpg

  10. Once we start arguing with the Obama Administration about whether Assad used WMD, we start losing the argument. He has the intelligence community under his control, and he more or less controls the MSM to disseminate that information in a way that’s in his own best interests.

    With those tools, we have no hope of winning that argument with the general public.

    Our best bet is to question whether Assad using WMD makes our intervention a foregone conclusion. The determining factor in whether we intervene should always be whether it’s in our best interests to do so–not whether so and so used WMD.

    It is entirely possible both that Assad could have used WMD and that it is still not in the best interests of the United States to intervene.

    If we suddenly found huge troves of Saddam’s hidden chemical and biological weapons, some $3.5 trillion and 40,000 American casualties later, that wouldn’t necessarily mean that it was suddenly in our best interests to bomb, invade, and occupy Iraq all along.

    The only general rule that makes war automatic is if it’s a war of self-defense. If Assad attacked us, that would be one thing. Otherwise, we should never go to war unless it’s in our best interests to do so–regardless of whether Assad used WMD.

    1. I have not yet figured out the political reason for that desire to get involved in yet another Middle East mess.

      My leading candidates are:
      [ ] Israel
      [ ] Distraction from the current scandals
      [ ] Pay off defense contractors for past
      and future campaign contributions

      1. Hat trick

      2. Maybe add in: Despite all other economic intervention, the economy still sucks, so take a page from the Progressive playbook that believes that WWII was what got us out of the Great Depression. Massive public spending prpgram bolstered by “suppprt our troops” rhetoric.

        1. The economy is just fine. Some slackers don’t want to work but if you can’t find a job you don’t have any credentials.

          Corporate profits are well past all time highs – up 30% from 2007. Inflation is dead, energy prices are low, and production is higher than ever.

          1. The economy is just fine


            Some slackers don’t want to work

            How dare the lazy kulak scum embarrass The Leader before the rest of the world.

            but if you can’t find a job you don’t have any credentials.

            Keep huffing that magic fairy dust, shriek. The myth of the golden bachelor degree ticket is over.

            energy prices are low, and production is higher than ever.

            Either you’re lying, stupid, or both.

  11. So, let me get this straight. ~93,000 dead from bombs and bullets, let’s wait and see. 150 dead from gas, OMFG we must do something!

    Yeah, I’m a wee bit skeptical that now is the special time when we need to intervene. I’m perfectly content to sit back and let them slug it out.

  12. Look, I get it. It’s only okay to invade a country full of brown people when your guy is in the White House. Not BOOOOOOOOOOOOSH.

  13. “Colin Powell Had Multiple Sources for Iraq Claims, Too”

    Oh Snap!

  14. The United States’s intervention in Syria is based on “multiple, independent streams of information,” all right. There are streams of information about an IRS scandal, an AP phone record scandal, and, of course a massive NSA scandal. Plenty of streams of information to form the basis for a distracting military intervention halfway across the world.

  15. lol, like we will jsut take their word for it lol

  16. Yes, Iraq=Syria. They are EXACTLY alike. A trillion plus dollars and 250,000 US troop invasion coming up.

    The fucking lengths some people will go to elevate the Bushpigs.

    1. Who used this as an excuse to defend Bush? You’re the one here who constantly engages in tu quoque arguments.

    2. How are the internal disputes and wars of Syria any business of the United States?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.