If we see reports of chemical attack in Syria.
It's not Assad..

Because it would not make sense.

 A lot of things in Syria, and global wartime conventions don't make sense.  They don't abide by our armchair, safe at home logic.

 Assad could use a chemical method of distribution under the guise of ISIS or Rebel personnel.  Rebel distribution could come under the guise of Syrian military.  Both options no matter how much sense could happen and that's why people who are actually over there don't use armchair logic.  I watched the border along Turkey blow up when I was out there and a lot of things happened that didn't make sense, that could have had "severe and immediate" consequences if you went through Congress, but none of those consequences materialized.

 Personally I don't think Assad is as afraid of US intervention as most people in the US think he is.  There's a lot of logistic leverage that exists among other things.  

Not knowing, exactly who is who.
(My Crystal Ball is Broken)

I believe the Rebels did it,
Made it look like Assad did it.
To garner the US’s Support.

 Its great we don't have to be over, or even listen to the people there to know exactly what's going on these days.

 If its ridiculous to rush to judgement when the media releases information why is it not ridiculous to rush to judgement prior to an event even happening?

 Why did we need facts from the actual area to prove Assad wasn't involved once, but not again?

 I assume when the media releases information pointing to a chemical attack by Assad we should look at the facts presented by people who are there.  Look at actual medical reports, lab results, videos, listen to personnel on the ground, send in inspection teams.

 But for the next event no need.  Assad didn't do it because it doesn't make sense.  No facts needed, no need to listen to anyone there, no need for video footage or lab results or an investigation.

"WE are meddling in the country and have no business being there."

 I agree.  I also think its easier, way easier, to say we are going to invade 4 separate countries than it is to actually do it by a landslide.

 I do not agree that because Assad didn't use chemical weapons one time, means he will not ever and that we can conclusively say he will not because it makes no sense logically from where we sit, safe at home.

 I feel it would make equal sense for Assad, who has considerable resources there, to stage a rebel chemical attack.  Why is it unreasonable for Rebels to stage Syrian Army attacks but not the other way around?  If Assad has the resources to commit an act then that act must be considered reasonable, any other logic on the battlefield gets you killed.

 Is it possible that Assad can use chemical weapons?

 Is it possible that Assad can make it look like Rebels used them, just like the Rebels did when they used stolen Syrian Army supplies?

 If either of those are yes, then nobody that's in that actual environment will say that Assad will not use chemical weapons.  If its possible, then its an option, that's it.  No amount of politics across at home, no amount of pre-incident indicators, no amount of compiled evidence from past events, no amount of US threats changes that.

 Assad can use chemical weapons.  It would be an absolute tactical atrocity to pull chemical weapons protocols from the region because Assad doesn't want the US there.  That is what you would do if we knew Assad will not use those weapons.