I usually avoid engaging in this kind of post, because everything is so polarizing. But this just has to be discussed and I hope for some intelligent and non-flippant answers.
Here is the link to the CNN Story:
US intelligence intercepted communications between Syrian military and chemical experts - CNNPolitics.com
So, for me, the only question is what was the motive?
I've only heard things like that Assad is just insane - which he is most certainly not.
Here is my "rational" analysis. I am not a partisan at all.
Assad/Syria aren't crazy or stupid. They are also advised by Russia and Putin, and say what you want about Putin being a bad guy, there is simply no argument that he is anything but very sharp, and he acts rationally in his and his country's interests.
Who stood to lose:
1) Assad would have known that there is no strategic value to using banned weapons agains civilians (unless it was deliberately done to provoke a US response). He had just, just, just won the war. The US had just announced that he would remain in power in Syria. Just about the only thing that could possibly draw the US and allies back in to Syria would be an event like this.
2) Russia would have given huge odds on the response to such a weapon by the US, and Russia above all, wants the US out of Syria for it's own military and strategic reasons. I can conceive of no reason that Putin would want to kill 60 random people in exchange for giving them much more US presence in the country.
Who stood to gain:
3) ISIS, al queda and the other "rebels" who were fighting to overthrow Assad had lost Syria. Syrian and Russian forces were cleaning up the remaining hold-outs and the US indicated that it would be winding down. Obviously they would be thrilled to do whatever they could to get the US forces engaged against the Syrian army. It is their only real chance of reversing their defeat. Some of the groups at a minimum, have shown their total disregard for human life if it is in the interest of their movement.
4) The US industrial-military complex. An overused term to the extend that I think some people roll their eyes. But don't forget that the Trump budget, that was widely criticized, included an unprecedentedly massive increase in military spending. Hundreds of billions of dollars stand to be made (and in the minds of many who are in that complex, the world will be hundreds of billions of dollars safer, so it isn't all about "greed" but also fear and honest belief).
With the motives so heavily one-sided, it concerns me very much that there isn't much more evidence to support the conclusion that there is Zero Doubt that this act was carried out by Assad.
To me, it seems much more likely to have been planned by forces that are very capable of planning things much more elaborate than this.
With thousands of "top minds" trying to figure out how to do vile and horrid things to, among many others, the western powers, why wouldn't we assume that this was a terrorist frame-up as the first and most likely scenario? Just a single radio intercept of two supposed Syrian's talking about a chemical weapons attack? It strikes me that this is the kind of "evidence" that would obviously be a part of any plan to frame Assad and Russia. I would be shocked if they don't turn up other, similarly trivial-to-forge evidence planted by anyone who would be clever enough to pull of the chemical attack in the first place.
I wish I could have the faith of some of you who are totally polarized and see your side as completely and always right. But I lack faith in any entity or side right now. So I'm looking at things objectively, and this whole Syria situation does not add up. Very obviously, something is not what we are being told that it is...