if the Assad regime did. I have not seen sufficient evidence to come to a conclusion on that.

about who gave the orders and what is the real position of the government are the norm - even during normal times. During times of a civil war it gets infinitely more confusing. It appears that that chemical weapons were used. It is quite plausible that someone in the Syrian government and military ordered their use. I would tend to doubt that President Bashar al-Assad personally ordered their use. I find it unlikely that he would put himself in that position. Whether this was done under the cover of plausible deniability or genuinely done without his approval - I don't think there is any way of knowing at least at this time.

that mean he's lost control of the Syrian military?

Not a good thing when officers go rouge.

That is pretty hardcore to keep this up.

I'm saying the facts of the attack are not all established. But you knew that.

So your argument is that we can't believe anything the US Government says. On any subject? Or just foreign policy?

Bryant

repeatedly using them.

and have access to information that I will never see. I trust their judgment even though I wish they had reached a different conclusion.

They both also urge caution in authorizing any kind of punishment or retaliation in response to this, until it is fully discussed and voted on in congress. I believe they will vote not to authorize, not because they do not think Assad's forces were not responsible but because reacting blindly will make a terrible situation worse.

Intelligence can be manufactured and manipulated. Intelligence is political cover. They aren't lying like Kerry or Obama or Hagel, but they are being manipulated.

I don't believe that everyone who does not agree with me is either lying or being manipulated. Neither of them were predisposed to believe that Assad's forces were guilty. Nor will either of them approve of military action in response, IMHO. They are both non-interventionists at heart. I have a higher opinion of their intelligence and intellectual honesty than you do.

I do respect that they do not put policy first and evidence second. As non-interventionists it would be easy for them to reject or discredit any evidence that muddled the case for not striking Syria.

Unlike most republicans they do not adopt a policy (in this case, non-intervention) then reject or discredit any evidence that seems to be inconsistent with that policy. Republicans always do exactly that. If a study or research shows their policy is flawed they deny the evidence or discredit the source. (global warming is a hoax, lower taxes for the rich create jobs, immigration reform is bad for the country, etc.)

I don't view ours or France's government as reliable to what is happening in Syria.

I think anyone who is pushing for military strikes without giving any proof has an agenda and not should be taken seriously.

It simply isn't believable that only rebel areas were hit (12 or so), and none of Assad's.