The Atlantic has the article Your Labor Day Syria Reader, Part 1: Stevenson and Lofgren.

Here are two of the items from Mike Lofgren that are quoted in the article.

1. The administration’s declassified intelligence summary of the chemical weapons incident  reads like a White House lawyer’s advocacy brief rather than a neutral assessment of evidence. Some of it is just circular reasoning, asserting as fact that which ought to be proven. Also, it uses up a paragraph refuting a hypothetical which was never a significant issue: no serious person, to my knowledge, ever asserted that a gas attack never happened….  Otherwise, the paper says, in effect, “we have the intelligence back-up, but you, the public can’t see it. Trust us.” That really worked out well in the past, didn’t it?
.
.
.
4. Many have criticized Obama’s “red lines” statement as poor policymaking, like writing a post-dated check and not worrying whether someone would cash it. Obama was buying time, while simultaneously narrowing his future options. His domestic negotiations proceed exactly like that: he accepted the sequester he didn’t want to buy time for the debt limit increase. Obama negotiated with himself on the fiscal cliff deal, and thereby retained the vast majority of the Bush tax cuts when they would have expired anyway.

This article is the one I promised to search for in my previous post Your Labor Day Syria Reader, Part 2: William Polk.