False flag incoming?

In mid-June, Russia Today had warned of a possible false-flag attack by NATO-backed militants operating under the cover of the so-called “Free Syrian Army” employing chemical weapons pilfered from devastated, militant-overrun Libya. The aim of the operation would be to create a justifiable impetus for overt Western military intervention, citing the use of chemical weapons against civilian populations as the most extreme attempt yet to manufacture otherwise nonexistent consensus for a repeat of NATO’s operations in Libya.
  In, “WARNING: Possible NATO-FSA False Flag Attack in Syria,” it was explained how NATO’s militant proxies possessed not only the means and capabilities of carrying out such an attack, but the motivation and precedents of doing so – with the FSA already admittedly carrying out a deadly, nationwide terrorist bombing campaign killing scores of civilians per attack.  The dissemination of Libyan weapons into the hands of militants operating in Syria has also been confirmed by governments and international media on numerous occasions, as has the fact that Libyan militants themselves (and here) have joined NATO’s covert operations to overthrow the government of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

(False Flag Alert: US Claims Syria “Moving Nerve Gas Out of Storage”)

According to Obama's latest theatrics the answer is: Maybe. One thing seems almost certain in an uncertain world, it's unlikely that Assad or the Syrian army itself would use WMDs in order to provide a suicidal pretext to be bombed to smithereens. There again, maybe they can be framed as suicide bombers in the end. What was the American "national security" interest being protected in Syria again? Oh, that's right. We're bombing people to promote "democracy" and protect their human rights now. At least this time it may be about protecting them from WMDs instead of us, though. I.e. the theatrics of it all will be more caring and compassionate than Bush's framework, which will probably help with the single woman vote. It's interesting how Obama recedes deep into the background of the media matrix when it comes to anything but a war on women, though. Indeed, the obviously chivalrous fellow who will save women from a war on them always seems to be hiding in their skirts (Hillary, Susan, Candy? That last one was the worst.) to skirt the issue of war in reality. Meanwhile, the "intelligence community" can't tell what's going on in Libya on their own embassy but supposedly they will be able to tell what is going on in Syria. It's not so much that they don't know what's going on. It's that they can't tell. After all, they're often almost as corrupt as the journalists that they take a leak on... I mean leak to.