Thanks for the response. I, too, thought it was fishy from the start that the Assad regime was responsible for the attack. If foreign intervention was the most likely way the Regime could fail, why on earth would they go ahead and do the exact thing that the President had said would lead to it? That being said the evidence seems pretty conclusive. According to the intelligence report released before the congressional hearing, they apparently have aerial photographs of the Syrian army setting up the artillery for the attack in the days before it was carried out. It also states that they have ELINT that indicates a junior officer carried out the attack without consulting his superiors. Secondly I’d like to ask you what it is you think the administration would have to gain from this attack. If they are pushing for a strike on the basis of inconclusive evidence, there must be something behind it. It seems to me that if there were strong evidence implicating the rebels it would be a way for the Administration to get out of the corner they’ve backed themselves into. I understand that there will be retaliation. We can expect rockets firing into Israel. The worse case scenarios would be either a gross miscalculation from the Iranians or Syria or overly heavy handed retaliation by the Israelis for said rocket attacks. These possibilities are unlikely but in the event that they did happen they could, I agree, lead to a much broader conflict. When it comes down it I think that if we don’t strike we will lose credibility not only among our enemies, but among our allies. International norms violators will be emboldened by the international community’s inaction and states like Israel and Saudi Arabia will see us as unreliable and begin to act independently on issues that actually do concern our interests.