It is on the front page of the Times... Go read it. At this point based on the evidence it is clear that Assad's regime is behind the gas attacks. Trying to claim that it is some type of 'false flag' operation that the rebels did is absurd. In regards to your comments about the interests of the U.S. - you are quite correct.
Please link to the evidence. Just so you understand, editorials and he said she said crap isn't "evidence".
If you google "Where is the evidence that assad launched a chemical weapons attack" you get these results. Not one shows any link to anything a court could call "evidence" outside of hearsay. https://www.google.com/#q=where+is+the+evidence+that+assad+launched+chemical+weapon+attacks&safe=off Lots of stuff indicating (again, circumstantial evidence) that Assad might have had no involvement at all. So I ask again, if the evidence is clear and substantiates an attack on a foreign country, where is it?
Why don't you post your evidence that the Assad regime did not perform the gas attack or that the gas attack did not happen. See the World Intelligence Reports column on the right of this article. Nearly all the leading western nations have released national intelligence reports clearly stating the Assad regime is responsible for the gas attacks. http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...-over-barack-obamas-decision-to-strike-syria/
Because I don't have to support my theory. Only the side that wants to launch an attack has to support it's theory. Why don't we launch an attack on Bermuda! Please show me the evidence they didn't launch a chemical attack on their people. Honestly now. It is the person accusing the crime that has to show the proof. The column to the right (showing the US's assessment, France's assessment and the UK's) points to a number of independent groups that confirmed a chemical attack was launched. But none of them can say who did it. Shame, that, because that would be a credible source - someone who is independent. The rest is "high confidence" youtube videos given from the rebels. Riiight. And if the UK was so sure of it, why did it back out of military support, and then later admit it had actually allowed the selling of ingredients that allowed the Syrians to manufacture these agents in the first place? Again, if the evidence was conclusive, it would be everywhere in a clear and easy to show manner. Like when Saddam used them. It's not, and we're supposed to take the word of this administration that has shown it has repeatedly lied about a whole host of things. Sorry, but I'm not a sheep.
"President Vladimir Putin of Russia should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize." Maybe Obama could just give Putin his peace price. He isn't using it. Question to all the Obama lovers: Why didn't Obama think of this?
Like Pat Buchanan said last night. Kerry fumbled into the endzone. The only question is will Obama try to take credit for Puntin picking it up? Difficult to see how any unbiased person sees this as anything other than stunning incompetence by the Obama administration. No doubt the storyline is being produced right now. Obama, the great saviour and peacemaker, sent out Kerry to bait Putin and all is right in the world again. Sadly, there are millions who will believe that.
Kerry was essentially asked to brainstorm, and out popped a good idea. That's often how it works. Let the russkies take the credit if they need it, but it was an American idea first.