US officials boost Ed Miliband’s call for more evidence – they say current evidence “not a slam dunk”

It’s looking increasingly like Ed Miliband is doing the right thing by waiting for concrete evidence on Syrian government use of chemical weapons – as US officials have reportedly said the evidence the Obama administration is using is “not a slam dunk”. The AP reports:

“multiple U.S. officials used the phrase “not a slam dunk” to describe the intelligence picture – a reference to then-CIA Director George Tenet’s insistence in 2002 that U.S. intelligence showing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was a “slam dunk” – intelligence that turned out to be wrong.

A report by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence outlining that evidence against Syria includes a few key caveats – including acknowledging that the U.S. intelligence community no longer has the certainty it did six months ago of where the regime’s chemical weapons are stored, nor does it have proof Assad ordered chemical weapons use, according to two intelligence officials and two more U.S. officials.”

A US official conceded to AP that “there is no proof listed in the report tying Assad personally to ordering the attack”.

More evidence is needed. Ed Miliband was right…

Update: And the New York Times reports:

“American officials said Wednesday there was no “smoking gun” that directly links President Bashar al-Assad to the attack, and they tried to lower expectations about the public intelligence presentation. They said it will not contain specific electronic intercepts of communications between Syrian commanders or detailed reporting from spies and sources on the ground.”

Whilst Bloomberg says:

“Speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified intelligence, the three officials said intercepted Syrian communications provide no ironclad evidence that Assad or members of his inner circle ordered the attack. Two of them said the intercepts indicate that he didn’t know about it in advance and demanded that his subordinates explain what had happened.

While the officials said Assad’s communications could be deliberate deception to evade responsibility for the attack, they added that using chemical weapons at a time when the regime’s forces were regaining the upper hand made no military or political sense. The messages leave open the possibility that a lower-ranking official could have ordered the attack, which they said appears to have been launched by the Syrian Army’s Fourth Armored Division, commanded by Assad’s brother Maher.”