If a Bush official had said in 2002 that we're going in and saying there are WMDs even if there aren't any, it would have been on every front page of every paper for a week.
I have been saying all along that the real determining factor for intervention would not be chemical weapons, but the collapse of the Sunni rebel advance.
That's how it was in Libya where the intervention was not triggered by the phony genocide, but by Gaddafi 's gains. And that is what is pushing along the intervention now. Not the supposed use of chemical weapons, but the gains made by Assad.
This isn't about chemical weapons. It's about more Muslim Brotherhood regime change. And now there is the closest thing we'll get to an admission from the halls of Obama Inc.
The decision was ultimately driven by the discovery Assad used [chemical weapons] but there were a number of other factors in place that were also important,” conceded an administration official with direct knowledge of the deliberations. “Would we have made [the determination Assad had breached the red line] even if we didn’t have the evidence? Probably.”
Par for the course. The arrogance of the admission is a statement of confidence in the media. If a Bush official had said in 2002 that we're going in and saying there are WMDs even if there aren't any, it would have been on every front page of every paper for a week. There would have been calls for impeachment.
But Obama's people can openly admit that they were planning to lie the country into a war and it's buried.