But we would be bombing the same group we've been supplying with weapons; Assad isn't responsible for the bombing, at least according to some UN inspectors, and actual survivors of the gas attack. But hey - our "intelligence" knows better than the people who were actually there, ya know.
Sounds alot like WMD with Bush huh, didn't he supposedly have solid "intelligence" they had those & once we were there on the ground they were no where to be found.
Here is what we do know. The rebels were caught smuggling chemical weapons across the Turkey border already. Which means we should have already known a possible chemical attack was going to happen eventually. We know the rebels are mainly controlled by insurgent groups even though Washington wants us to believe those insurgents are contained in the north away from the rebels. We know insurgent forces in the past have attacked villages & then posted videos claiming other forces against them killed innocents & they were victims. So why is it so hard for Obama and company to believe it could have been the rebels who attacked knowing it would draw in international assistance to achieve their goals. they have been begging us to get involved for about 2yrs now & they know the only way the US will act is if chemical/nuclear weapons get involved. Assad as bad a guy as he is had absolutely nothing to gain from using those weapons, he knows as well it would draw in unwanted attention to the situation. So one has to ask themselves after all the recent scandals, can you even trust what Washington presents as "solid evidence" anymore?