Why is that an "uh-oh?" (I have not fully carpe-ed the opportunity that is this diem. The essence of life moves slowly through my veins.)
Let's think this out.
Umm, attribution is important. The US says it was the government, the Rooskis say "You no can prove." This means it was the government but not Assad personally. Government=Assad, duh. No, the US has personalized this, they have used "the government" sometimes but "Assad" other times. They clearly assumed the wmd attacks were authorized by Assad even if implicitly. This report says wmd use was explicitly refused for four and one half months and used recently without authorization by Assad. That's a diff. Should it make an operational diff? Later, it's too early for operational diffs.
Let's think this out.
Umm, attribution is important. The US says it was the government, the Rooskis say "You no can prove." This means it was the government but not Assad personally. Government=Assad, duh. No, the US has personalized this, they have used "the government" sometimes but "Assad" other times. They clearly assumed the wmd attacks were authorized by Assad even if implicitly. This report says wmd use was explicitly refused for four and one half months and used recently without authorization by Assad. That's a diff. Should it make an operational diff? Later, it's too early for operational diffs.