Syria President Assad both the President media blitz on Monday and the Tuesday night speech - with his own television interview for the American public with Charlie Rose....... He denies having anything to do with any alleged chemical weapon attack ( which he has doubts as to what occurred based on evidence produced to date , if an attack did occur he suggests the Rebels may be behind it. ) If there is conclusive proof Assad ordered the attack , that commanders under his direction and / or control received orders to deploy chemical weapons , now would be the time to come forward with hard evidence. Based on the commentary from Congress , the evidence produced to date is not compelling !

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-08/assad-interviewed-charlie-rose-highlights

( Assad preempts Obama's media blitz  with his Charlie rose interview. 0

Syria's President al-Assad Interviewed By Charlie Rose: Highlights

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/08/2013 12:52 -0400

• Middle East
 
• New York Times

inShare

 

Earlier today, Charlie Rose who traveled to Damascus previously, interviewed Syria's president al-Assad at the presidential palace. The interview will air in its entirety on PBS's "Charlie Rose" show on Monday night just as Obama's full media campaign to push for a Syrian war is peaking. In the interview, previewed by Rose on CBS's "Face The Nation" on Sunday morning, Assad denied that he had anything to do with the chemical weapons attack that took place on August 21, 2013 and that there was no evidence that he had "used chemical weapons against my own people". Rose also said the Syrian president would not confirm or deny that the regime has chemical weapons. When asked if Assad though there would be an attack, the president told him "I don't know."

Below is the Rose's "Face the Nation" preview as transcribed by Politico:

[Assad] denied that he had anything to do with the attack. He denied that he knew there was a chemical attack,notwithstanding what has been said and notwithstanding the videotape. He said there’s not enough evidence to make a conclusive judgment. He would not say even, even though I read him the lead paragraph of the New York Times today in the story  about their chemical weapons supply.And he said I cannot confirm or deny that we do have them.  He did however say that if in fact we do have them and I am not going to say yes or no, they are in centralized control and no one else has access to them.

He suggested as he has before that perhaps the rebels had something to do with it, he made some reference to Aleppo. The most important thing he said there has been no evidence that I used chemical weapons against my own people and that there is no evidence of that. And if in fact the administration had evidence of that they should show that evidence and make their case. I then obviously repeated the fact that Secretary Kerry is in the process of making the case and that in fact that information is being shown to members of congress as they begin to come back to Washington and consider an authorization for the President to make a military strike.

He said that he did not necessarily know whether there was going to be a military strike. He said that they were obviously as prepared as they could be for a strike. He said there would be, suggested that there would be, among people that are aligned with him some kind of retaliation if a strike was made that that would be,  what would be, that he would not even talk about the nature of the response. He had a message to the American people that it had not been a good experience for them to get involved in the Middle East in wars and conflicts in the Middle East, that the results had not been good and they should not get involved and that they should  communicate to their congress and to their leadership in Washington not to authorize a strike. [...]

Bob, that was the very first question I asked: Do you expect an attack? He said, I don’t know.He said we prepared as best we can. He did not say that he assumed there was going to be an attack in Syria because of the chemical weapons. I also pursued the question of whether there was anything  that he was prepared to do anything to stop the attack, for example to give up chemical weapons, if that would stop the attack. I also raised the question with him did he fear that if there was an attack, it would degrade his own military, and therefore make it more likely that it might tip the balance. He’s very, very concerned about that as an issue.

He talked about his father, and the lessons that he learned from his father, that war was ruthless, and that after Homma, his father went all out to destroy, at the time, the Muslim brotherhood. So he was calm, he knew the situation he was in, in fact, Damascus seemed relatively calm, the places that I was today but there is a clear sense that they are closely watching what is happening in Washington. I think the reason they did this interview today, we’ve been trying for a long time, but we did it today because they’re watching what happens in Washington.

 http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/09/classified-intelligence-doesnt-prove-anything.html
 ( unconvincing , unsubstantiated  stuff - even the classified report ? )

Congress Members Who Have Seen Classified Evidence About Syria Say It Fails to Prove Anything

Posted on September 7, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog

Classified Syria Intelligence Fails to Prove Assad Used Chemical Weapons

The administration’s public case for chemical weapons use by the Syrian government is extremelyweak, and former high-level intelligence officers say that publicly-available information proves that the Syrian government likely did not carry out the chemical weapons attacks.

The Obama administration claims that classified intelligence proves that it was the Assad government which carried out the attacks.

But numerous congressional members who have seen the classified intelligence information say that it is no better than the public war brief … and doesn’t prove anything.

Congressman Justin Amash said last week:

What I heard in Obama admn briefing actually makes me more skeptical of certain significant aspects of Pres’s case for attacking

He noted yesterday, after attending another classified briefing and reviewing more classified materials:

Attended another classified briefing on #Syria & reviewed add’l materials. Now more skeptical than ever. Can’t believe Pres is pushing war.

And today, Amash wrote:

If Americans could read classified docs, they’d be even more against #Syria action. Obama admn’s public statements are misleading at best.

Congressman Tom Harkin said:

I have just attended a classified Congressional briefing on Syria that quite franklyraised more questions than it answered. I found the evidence presented by Administration officials to be circumstantial.

Congressman Michael Burgess said:

Yes, I saw the classified documents. They were pretty thin.

Yahoo News reports:

New Hampshire Democratic Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, for instance, left Thursday’s classified hearing and said she was opposed to the effort “now so more than ever.”

“I think there’s a long way to go for the president to make the case,” she said after the briefing. “It does seem there is a high degree of concern and leaning no.”

Senator Joe Manchin announced he was voting “no” for a Syria strike right after hearing a classified intelligence brieifng.

Congressman Alan Grayson points out in the New York Times:

The documentary record regarding an attack on Syria consists of just two papers: a four-page unclassified summary and a 12-page classified summary. The first enumerates only the evidence in favor of an attack. I’m not allowed to tell you what’s in the classified summary, but you can draw your own conclusion. [I.e. it was no more impressive than the 4-page public version.]

On Thursday I asked the House Intelligence Committee staff whether there was any other documentation available, classified or unclassified. Their answer was “no.”

The Syria chemical weapons summaries are based on several hundred underlying elements of intelligence information. The unclassified summary cites intercepted telephone calls, “social media” postings and the like, but not one of these is actually quoted or attached — not even clips from YouTube. (As to whether the classified summary is the same, I couldn’t possibly comment, but again, draw your own conclusion.)

***

And yet we members are supposed to accept, without question, that the proponents of a strike on Syria have accurately depicted the underlying evidence, even though the proponents refuse to show any of it to us or to the American public.

In fact, even gaining access to just the classified summary involves a series of unreasonably high hurdles.

We have to descend into the bowels of the Capitol Visitors Center, to a room four levels underground. Per the instructions of the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, note-taking is not allowed.

Once we leave, we are not permitted to discuss the classified summary with the public, the media, our constituents or even other members. Nor are we allowed to do anything to verify the validity of the information that has been provided.

And this is just the classified summary. It is my understanding that the House Intelligence Committee made a formal request for the underlying intelligence reports several days ago. I haven’t heard an answer yet. And frankly, I don’t expect one.

***

By refusing to disclose the underlying data even to members of Congress, the administration is making it impossible for anyone to judge, independently, whether that statement is correct.

The rush to war based upon skewed intelligence is very similar to Iraq.

And another contradiction - why consider going to the UN Security Council  if you truly  feel they are paralyzed ? And how do you know they are paralyzed to making a hard decision on Syria , if you demand punitive actions before the UN chemical weapons inspectors complete their work and submit their report to the UN Security Council ?

Kerry says no decision yet on whether to seek U.N. Syria vote

Sunday, 8 September 2013

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry answers a question during a press conference at the United States Embassy in Paris, on September 8, 2013. (AFP)

• 

Al Arabiya

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Sunday that the United States will consider the possibility of returning to the United Nations Security Council before taking any action on Syria once a report by U.N. inspectors is finalized.

During a Paris-based news conference, Kerry said U.S. President Barack Obama has made no decision yet on the issue.

Kerry hinted that Arab states are seeking a tough response against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

After meeting key Arab ministers, he said they were leaning towards supporting a G-20 statement that called for a strong international response following an Aug. 21 chemical attack in Syria.

The meeting included ministers from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, following talks in Lithuania with European foreign ministers who blamed the attack in Syria on Assad but refused to endorse military action.

“All of us agreed - not one dissenter - that Assad's deplorable use of chemical weapons, which we know killed hundreds of innocent people... this crosses an international, global red line,” said Kerry alongside his Qatari counterpart Khaled al-Attiya.

Attiya said that Qatar is studying with its allies and the U.N. what could it possibly do to “protect Syrian people,” according to statements quoted by Reuters.

However the Qatari minister did not provide more details.

(With Reuters)