Why is this even relevant for deciding whether Assad really must go?
Syrian government forces may have carried out a chemical weapons attack close to Damascus without the personal permission of President Bashar al-Assad, Germany's Bild am Sonntag paper reported on Sunday, citing German intelligence.
Syrian brigade and division commanders had been asking the Presidential Palace to allow them to use chemical weapons for the last four-and-a-half months, according to radio messages intercepted by German spies, but permission had always been denied, the paper said.
America was condemned for Abu Ghraib when some soldiers committed acts of humiliation (not torture, as so many falsely believe) against Iraqi prisoners. America was condemned even though we arrested and punished those guilty of those crimes.
Why does Assad get off if he didn't sign the orders? Where are his troops arresting the guilty? Heck, he's a dictator so he could just have them shot right off without the formality of a trial.
I'd also like to note that if Assad's forces were truly winning over the summer, as our press has been saying (and contrary to my assessment), why would his commanders have been pestering Assad for permission to use chemical weapons in that time?
Also, Germany opposes taking part in military action. Perhaps if Kerry hadn't loudly proclaimed that Assad is the first to use chemical weapons since Hitler and Saddam, he'd have better luck in getting even nominal support. Hitler being a German dictator after all (and those weren't chemical weapons he used--the crime against humanity was the 6 million killed and not the use of poison gas to do it).
But I suppose it would have been inconvenient to have a list of one--Saddam--since he ruled Iraq and the official line in the liberal world is that the war against Saddam was wrong and not a precedent for Syria.
Also, you could add Egypt to that list for chemical weapons use if you don't mind rubbing Egypt's face in their use in the 1960s in Yemen.
Anyway, Assad runs the country. He knew his forces wanted to use chemical weapons. His forces used them. And even if Assad didn't do all he could to stop their use, he should be overthrown. Are those advancing this line of reasoning really holding Assad less responsible than they hold President Bush? (There are still people out there daydreaming about frog marching him into the Hague for justice, after all.)
