There was an op-ed written today by Sen Grayson explaining what he is able to about the Syria, what evidence is available and much alluding to classified info.
Reading this I stand by my opinion that there's not enough upside to risking our butts in Syria nor that anything that's being suggested would actually do any good especially with some 8 pages of classified info about the negative aspects compared to just four pages of upside.
The most troubling of it all is this "Once we leave, we are not permitted to discuss the classified summary with the public, the media, our constituents or even
other members. Nor are we allowed to do anything to
verify the validity of the information that has been provided."
Here's a couple of excerpts:
THE documentary record regarding an attack on Syria consists of just two papers:
a four-page unclassified summary and a 12-page classified summary. The first enumerates only the evidence in favor of an attack. I'm not allowed to tell you what's in the classified summary, but you can draw your own conclusion.
On Thursday I asked the House Intelligence Committee staff whether there was any other documentation available, classified or unclassified. Their answer was "no."
The Syria chemical weapons summaries are based on several hundred underlying elements of intelligence information. The unclassified summary cites intercepted telephone calls, "social media" postings and the like, but not one of these is actually quoted or attached - not even clips from YouTube. (As to whether the classified summary is the same, I couldn't possibly comment, but again, draw your own conclusion.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/07/op...rify.html?_r=0