In a court of justice, past crimes (or the crimes of others, or in other times) are not a major factor, if entered into consideration at all in determining guilt or innocence.

So, why would the past escapades of the CIA, George Bush, Assad's father, bankers and oil deals in other times and areas be a major factor to consider in this case?

That is a real logical puzzler for me. It seems like a very illogical and skewed approach to getting closer to determining who used the chemical weapons on civilians in Syria. IMO, If one can set those aside the course is open to get closer to the most likely candidates. Unfortunately, many of the most "level-headed thinkers on mudcat seem to be stuck in that directionless mire.