An envoy said authorities traveled to Syria to address inconsistencies between an initial rundown of its chemical arms and removed stocks, Reuters reports.
The Western official said enforcers of an international chemical-arms ban began the visit last week, days before their agency announced it would look into claims that combatants have employed chlorine gas in the nation’s 3-year-old civil war.
Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government filed additional details earlier this month on the chemical-warfare inventory it reported last year to the Organization for the Prohibition for Chemical Weapons. The regime agreed to relinquish the materials last year, after sarin nerve gas killed hundreds of people on the edge of the Syrian capital and bolstered discussion of a possible foreign military intervention.
The anti-Assad Syrian National Coalition on Tuesday urged OPCW investigators to look for undeclared regime chemical arms, in addition to examining the chlorine claims.
The coalition noted Western intelligence indications that Assad may be concealing warfare chemicals from international authorities. Inspectors should visit sites operated by the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center, the rebel group added in an e-mailed statement.
An independent study by the London Telegraph links Assad’s regime to the alleged chlorine strikes, the newspaper reported on Tuesday. The government is not required to surrender any chlorine under an international chemical-arms treaty it joined last year, though the pact prohibits use of the toxic industrial material as a weapon.
Damascus has consistently blamed chemical attacks on its opponents.
Russia, an ally of Assad, on Wednesday affirmed the regime’s assertion that an alleged April chlorine attack in the town of Kfar Zeita was the work of the al-Nusra Front, al-Qaida-affiliated opposition group, ITAR-Tass reported.
“We expect that unbiased work of international experts will make it possible to find out what really happened and will expose those responsible,” the Russian foreign ministry stated.
What We're Following See More »
Paul Ryan told CNN today he's "not ready" to back Donald Trump at this time. "I'm not there right now," he said. Ryan said Trump needs to unify "all wings of the Republican Party and the conservative movement" and then run a campaign that will allow Americans to "have something that they're proud to support and proud to be a part of. And we've got a ways to go from here to there."
In The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin gives Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, the longread treatment. The scourge of corrupt New York pols, bad actors on Wall Street, and New York gang members, Bharara learned at the foot of Chuck Schumer, the famously limelight-hogging senator whom he served as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee staff. No surprise then, that after President Obama appointed him, Bharara "brought a media-friendly approach to what has historically been a closed and guarded institution. In professional background, Bharara resembles his predecessors; in style, he’s very different. His personality reflects his dual life in New York’s political and legal firmament. A longtime prosecutor, he sometimes acts like a budding pol; his rhetoric leans more toward the wisecrack than toward the jeremiad. He expresses himself in the orderly paragraphs of a former high-school debater, but with deft comic timing and a gift for shtick."
President Obama has announced another round of commutations of prison sentences. Most of the 58 individuals named are incarcerated for possessions with intent to distribute controlled substances. The prisoners will be released between later this year and 2018.
The Daily Beast has unearthed a piece that Donald Trump wrote for Gear magazine in 2000, which anticipates his 2016 sales pitch quite well. "Perhaps it's time for a dealmaker who can get the leaders of Congress to the table, forge consensus, and strike compromise," he writes. Oddly, he opens by defending his reputation as a womanizer: "The hypocrites argue that a man who loves and appreciates beautiful women (and does so legally and openly) shouldn't become a national leader? Is there something wrong with appreciating beautiful women? Don't we want people in public office who show signs of life?"