As a result of various reports today which allege that U.S. spies are certain Assad used chemical weapons because of intercepted communications, we received email about our report, Evidence: Syrian Rebels used Chemical Weapons (not Assad). To be clear, at the time we posted that article, all the evidence we could find implicated the rebels; we stand by that.

Before we get to the substance of these new reports, we’d also like to make clear that we didn’t assert Assad hadn’t used chemical weapons, only that – unlike the rebels – there was no evidence we could find that he had. Here is an excerpt from our post:

…evidence of rebels using chemical weapons is available; evidence Assad’s regime has used them is not.

As we have maintained as recently as this week and since as far back as March, all of the evidence we’ve seen of chemical weapons use in Syria has pointed to the rebels being the source. The chemical weapons attack that is suddenly drawing so much attention allegedly occurred on August 21st. That this is the first time the Obama administration is expressing indignation would indicate the rebels were indeed responsible before (when the Obama administration remained silent or hinted that fault lied with the Assad regime).

CIA Director Brennan: Muslim Brotherhood-friendly

Now, let’s take a look at these new claims, which seem to focus on intercepted communications by U.S. spies (John Brennan’s CIA).

Via Foreign Policy:

Last Wednesday, in the hours after a horrific chemical attack east of Damascus, an official at the Syrian Ministry of Defense exchanged panicked phone calls with a leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people. Those conversations were overheard by U.S. intelligence services, The Cable has learned. And that is the major reason why American officials now say they’re certain that the attacks were the work of the Bashar al-Assad regime — and why the U.S. military is likely to attack that regime in a matter of days.

But the intercept raises questions about culpability for the chemical massacre, even as it answers others: Was the attack on Aug. 21 the work of a Syrian officer overstepping his bounds? Or was the strike explicitly directed by senior members of the Assad regime? “It’s unclear where control lies,” one U.S. intelligence official told The Cable. “Is there just some sort of general blessing to use these things? Or are there explicit orders for each attack?” {emphasis ours}

Why the “panicked” call? Perhaps getting to the bottom of that before launching attacks would be “prudent” (to quote a former president).

Check out the next paragraph:

Nor are U.S. analysts sure of the Syrian military’s rationale for launching the strike — if it had a rationale at all. Perhaps it was a lone general putting a long-standing battle plan in motion; perhaps it was a miscalculation by the Assad government. Whatever the reason, the attack has triggered worldwide outrage, and put the Obama administration on the brink of launching a strike of its own in Syria. “We don’t know exactly why it happened,” the intelligence official added. “We just know it was pretty fucking stupid.”

It’s important to consider where this information is coming from – the CIA. This past February, in an article written by Steven Emerson that appeared on the Fox News website, the terrorism expert wrote about why John Brennan was the wrong man for the job of directing the intelligence agency:

Brennan’s White House tenure shows a disturbing tendency to engage with Islamist groups which often are hostile to American anti-terrorism policies at home and abroad. Those meetings confer legitimacy upon the groups as representatives of all Muslim Americans, despite research indicating that the community is far too diverse to have any one group represent its concerns.

A Feb. 13, 2010 speech Brennan gave at the New York University School of Law serves as an example.

It was organized by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a group founded by Muslim Brotherhood members in the United States, some of whom remain active with the organization. And, although it denied any Brotherhood connection in 2007, exhibits in evidence in a Hamas-support trial show ISNA’s “intimate relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood.” {emphasis ours}

Here is the video of Brennan’s speech on February 13, 2010 at NYU. It’s worth underscoring that this event was sponsored by the ISNA, a group that supports the Syrian rebels today:

Who is it that the Syrian rebels are fighting for? That would be the Muslim Brotherhood.

Consider that just last month, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) convened what it called a “broad-based working group” to figure out how best to support the Syrian people rebels. This would be the same group Brennan adores. At least four Muslim Brotherhood groups in America were represented by top leadership – ISNA, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). Here is a photo from that meeting:

L to R: Haris Tarin (Executive Director of MPAC in Washington, DC), unknown, Salam al-Marayati (MPAC Executive DIrector), Mohammed Magid (ISNA President), Nihad Awad (CAIR Executive Director), Naeem Baig (ICNA President), unknown

Even a UN envoy is still not ready to declare the weapons were launched by the Assad regime.

Via ABC News:

The U.N.’s special envoy to Syria announced today that evidence suggests a “chemical substance” was used to kill hundreds of people in Syria last week, but the U.N. pleaded for more time before the U.S. and allies launch a retaliatory strike against the Syrian regime.

The announcement comes as the U.S., France and Britain gear up for a military strike on the Syrian regime.

Speaking to reporters in Geneva, special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi said, “With what has happened on the 21st of August last week, it does seem that some kind of substance was used that killed a lot of people: hundreds, definitely more than a hundred, some people say 300, some people say 600, maybe 1,000, maybe more than 1,000 people.”

But Brahimi did not place the blame on the regime or the opposition. He also added, “International law says that any U.S.-led military action must be taken after” agreement in the U.N. Security Council.

Seriously, shouldn’t we be suspicious of anything the Obama administration says, especially when it comes out of an agency headed by a guy with blatant Muslim Brotherhood sympathies?

After all, didn’t this administration spend two weeks blaming Benghazi on a video?