A lot of people are suspicious of our intelligence on Syria's use of chemical weapons after the fiasco in Iraq based largely on the inaccurate intelligence on Iraq's WMD program. That suspicion is healthy, but not always reasonable.

I agree with those that think we have great capacity for stupidity, but there is a limit to that stupidity and I don't think we would risk making the same mistake twice on the world stage, so I suspect the intelligence that Assad's forces employed the nerve gas is probably pretty solid. Furthermore, SECSTATE Kerry made some good arguments IMO during the Congressional hearings today in the hour or so of the hearings I caught tonight on CSPAN. Most interestingly in my view is he said Iran and Russia also claimed to oppose the use of chemical weapons, which puts them in a difficult position to retaliate if we release intelligence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt Assad's forces conducted the attack. They can still act if they choose, but certainly puts them in a bad light internationally if they do, so how much do they really want to sacrifice for Assad? If they want influence in Syria when this is over, they probably need to find another champion other than Assad. It is still a gamble, but not an unreasonable one. Still a lot of questions on the day(s) after, but in reality no one can answer those questions with anything more than an educated guess. Is intervening the right thing to do? Probably. Is a limited strike the right way? Unknown.