Kerry says Syria should hand over chemical weapons; Russia calls on Syria to do so; Syria says ok to Russia

By artappraiser on Mon, 09/09/2013 - 1:14pm |

This link will take you to those news items posted as comments on the last thread.

Thought I should start a new thread on topic for further updates and/or discussion, because this is definitely a "developing" and not a finished story.

URL:

http://dagblog.com/link/syria-chemical-weapons-attack-not-ordered-assad-says-german-press-17409#comment-183645

Add new comment
3127 reads

Comments

The Guardian:

Russia calls on Syria to hand over chemical weapons
By Julian Borger and Patrick Wintour, 9 September 2013 12.45 EDT

• Assad regime urged to put weapons under international control
• Gambit follows Kerry's 'end-of-week' offer to avert strikes
• Syria welcomes Russian proposal

The New York Times:

Responding To Kerry, Russia Urges Syria to Cede Arsenal

By Michael R. Gordon and Steven Lee Myers, Sept. 9, 11:49 am ET

[....] While there is no indication that Mr. Kerry was searching for a political settlement to the Syrian crisis, the reactions appeared to represent the first possible point of agreement over how to address the chemical weapons issue that has grown out of the Syrian conflict, now well into its third year.

Asked if there were steps the Syrian president could take to avert an American-led attack, Mr. Kerry said, “Sure, he could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week — turn it over, all of it, without delay and allow the full and total accounting.” [....]

Mr. Lavrov appeared at a previously unscheduled briefing only hours after Mr. Kerry made his statement in London. Although Mr. Kerry appeared to treat the idea that Syria would give up its stockpile as improbable, Mr. Lavrov seized on it as a possible compromise that Russia was prepared to propose to the Syrians.

“We don’t know whether Syria will agree with this, but if the establishment of international control over chemical weapons in the country will prevent attacks, then we will immediately begin work with Damascus,” Mr. Lavrov said at the Foreign Ministry. “And we call on the Syrian leadership to not only agree to setting the chemical weapons storage sites under international control, but also to their subsequent destruction.”

Earlier, before Mr. Kerry had spoken in London, and during a joint appearance at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, both Mr. Lavrov and Mr. Moallem excoriated the United States for rushing to launch military strikes.

But the shift in tone between Mr. Lavrov’s two appearances was striking. Mr. Lavrov said he made the proposal to put Syria’s weapons under international control directly to Mr. Moallem, who remained in Moscow.

Mr. Moallem said later in a statement that his government welcomed the Russian proposal, Russia’s Interfax News Agency reported, in what appeared to be the first acknowledgment by the Syrian government that it even possesses chemical weapons. The Syrian government historically has neither confirmed nor denied possessing such weapons.

Mr. Lavrov went into more detail than Mr. Kerry’s suggestion — which Mr. Kerry’s own spokeswoman described as a rhetorical exercise rather than a proposal.

Mr. Lavrov said Russia was proposing that Syria join the international Convention on Chemical Weapons, which bars the manufacture, stockpiling and use of poison gas [....]

The Times has live updates here, including wire reports:

http://projects.nytimes.com/live-dashboard/syria

It's just happening too fast, reporters need time to compile decent full stories.

by artappraiser on Mon, 09/09/2013 - 1:37pm

Here is the Kerry/Hague press conference transcript & video, just up:

http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2013/09/213956.htm

if you want to judge for yourself whether Kerry actually intended this to happen, or was being sarcastic and negative and got checkmated by Lavrov.

Not matter the case, as I posted on the other thread, Syria is clearly using it as a chance to say "fuck you, America" at the same time.

by artappraiser on Mon, 09/09/2013 - 1:44pm

Don't see how you get to the FU conclusion.

If this were to happen, it strikes me as a very good outcome and one, seemingly, proposed by Kerry.

by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 09/09/2013 - 1:49pm

from the link (ABC News)

Muallem said Syria agreed to the move because of its "trust in the wisdom of the Russian leadership, which is trying to prevent the American aggression against our people."

That means: Russia is trying to save us from the bully imperialist warmongering Amerika. Russia is the one you can trust to make peace in the world, not the U.S.A.

How does this help our reputation in the world community to have third world countries think this? That it's so simple for Russia to solve the problem? But we (& the U.K.) have to threaten force to the point of self-immolation and not get any result?

Throw into this mix that Russia has offered Snowden asylum, whose revelations have hurt the U.S. reputation worldwide.

I know exactly what you are saying and suggesting, that it was Machiavellian on our part. I've suggested it myself on other threads. But it still doesn't put us in a good place as far as reputation. It's the same old military bully thing that's going to be the main takeaway.

People who don't know all the other aggravating things that Putin does in our relations with him will naturally see it this way: why couldn't the U.S. have worked hand in hand with Russia in the first place? It looks like it's the U.S. that is the problem. We look like the bully that can't work with others.

By doing this, Russia has further whitewashed how it has blocked the Security Council from doing anything about Syria for the last two years. They have not been a peacemaker, but have aided Assad's side.

Sure, if it keeps us from action, it's a good thing. But it far from solves our international incompetence problem.

by artappraiser on Mon, 09/09/2013 - 2:08pm

How does this help our reputation in the world community to have third world countries think this?

But don't you think that the world, let alone most third world countries, know that Syria isn't just your average "third world country"?

Put another way, our not having any leverage over Syria, especially as we're not willing to invade--but maybe, even, if we were--is not a disgrace, but in fact the expected thing?

• We draw a red line over something most people think is important: chemical warfare.

• Russia isn't willing to do squat and keeps the UN impotent.

• We go to the brink of sending in missiles. No one knows if Obama will do it.

• Obama bows to popular pressure and the higher principle of congressional debate --but still reserves the right to send in missiles.

• Kerry, showing flexibility and US creativity, suggests that if Syria is willing to geld itself, the US would back down. Hey, why not???

• Russia jumps at the US suggestion and says to Syria: "Yes, dear ally, let us help you geld yourself so that our mutual opponent won't bomb you."

• The US insists that the UN must be in full control of Syria's chemical weapons.

• Russia agrees.

Okay, so some of that scenario is not yet and may never be. But Russia suggesting to Syria that it disarm (in effect) strikes me as a win for the US.

by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 09/09/2013 - 3:31pm

Amen

by rmrd0000 on Mon, 09/09/2013 - 4:04pm

As I've said elsewhere, I tire of the American obsession with "how does this or that diplomatic development affect the our image?" The rest of the world doesn't care; your image -- especially in the Middle East -- has been in the toilet for more than a decade. Some of us think the important question is how many people are going to have their lives brutally cut short to satisfy American hubris and claim to "credibility." Obama at least had the sense to call the Russian move "a potentially positive development." And even Congress backed off on taking what might prove to be a premature vote.

by acanuck on Mon, 09/09/2013 - 10:28pm

Guardian Live Blog here, 7:22 BST says State Dept. retracted Kerry's statement, calling it "rhetorical and hypothetical":

Summary

Here's a summary of where things stand:

• The White House says it is taking a "hard look" at a Russian proposal for Syrian president Bashar Assad to place his chemical weapons arsenal under international control and then destroy them.

• However Obama administration officials said that the proposal amounts so far only to talk, that Damascus and Moscow have a dismal track record and that the proposal may be a "stalling tactic."

• Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov made the proposal, subsequently welcomed by the Syrian foreign minister, after US secretary of state John Kerry said Monday morning that Assad could resolve the crisis by surrendering control of "every single bit" of his arsenal to the international community by the end of the week.

• The US state department soon retracted Kerry's statement, calling it a "rhetorical argument" [sic]. A spokeswoman later called Kerry's remarks "rhetorical and hypothetical." [.....]

by artappraiser on Mon, 09/09/2013 - 3:05pm

More on the State Dept. retraction, what they emailed to reporters via Guardian Live Blog 5:09 pm BST

Let's look again at the US state department retraction of John Kerry's statement that Assad could resolve the crisis by surrendering control of "every single bit" of his arsenal to the international community by the end of the week.

The state department emailed reporters:

Secretary Kerry was making a rhetorical argument about the impossibility and unlikelihood of Assad turning over chemical weapons he has denied he used.

His (Kerry's) point was that this brutal dictator with a history of playing fast and loose with the facts cannot be trusted to turn over chemical weapons, otherwise he would have done so long ago. That's why the world faces this moment.

Now Moscow and Damascus appear to have taken Kerry up on an offer he never really made.

The official US line on any concessions Assad promises to make on chemical weapons – when Kerry isn't thinking out loud – is that any such concessions, including renewed access by UN inspectors, are "too late to be credible."

(thx @RayaJalabi)

by artappraiser on Mon, 09/09/2013 - 3:38pm

Video of the Kerry Remark Russia Seized Upon in Game of Diplomatic Chess

By Robert Mackey, The Lede @ nytimes.com, Sept. 9, last updated 2:30 pm

[....]

After Mr. Kerry’s remark was greeted with enthusiasm by Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, the State Department suggested that it was not a proposal at all, but simply a “rhetorical” device employed by the secretary, as Hannah Allam of McClatchy Newspapers reported from Washington:

State Dept: We'll take a look at what the Russians have said...The secretary was not making a proposal, it was a rhetorical statement
— Hannah Allam (@HannahAllam) September 9, 2013

As our colleagues Michael R. Gordon and Steven Lee Myers report, although “there is no indication that Mr. Kerry was searching for a political settlement to the Syrian crisis,” his Russian and Syrian counterparts quickly seized upon the remark to suggest that putting chemical weapons — which Syria has threatened to use but never officially acknowledged having — under international control could offer a way out of the crisis.

[.....]

As Syrian opposition activists reacted with despair, suggesting that Syria might be able to use international inspections of its weapons to delay any action for weeks or months, the Russian move was described by observers of Arab and Russian politics as a brilliant blocking move in a game of diplomatic chess [.....]

by artappraiser on Mon, 09/09/2013 - 3:20pm

US says it will consider proposal for Syria to surrender chemical weapons, with skepticism
By Matthew Lee | Associated Press | 1 hour, 25 minutes ago

The State Department said Monday it would take a "hard look" at a proposal for Syria to surrender its chemical weapons to international control to avoid a military strike, but voiced skepticism that Syria would carry out such a plan.

State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said the U.S. would consider the proposal floated by the foreign ministers of Russia and Syria with "serious skepticism" because it might be a stalling tactic. She said Syria had consistently refused to destroy its chemical weapons in the past.

[....]

Even as the White House continued to build its case for action, with Obama taping six television network interviews late Monday and administration officials briefing more members of Congress as they returned from summer recess, administration officials sought to put the onus for the startling diplomatic maneuver on Russia, with administration spokesmen saying the White House would "take a hard look" at Russia's proposal.

U.S. officials in Washington initially said they were surprised by Kerry's comments, which came at a news conference with British Foreign Secretary William Hague and in response to a question about what, if anything, Assad could do to stop the U.S. from punishing it for the use of chemical weapons.

In a speech on Monday, Obama's national security adviser Susan Rice reiterated that the president had decided it is in U.S. interests to carry out limited strikes and still planned to make his case for a congressional authorization of military force to the nation in a Tuesday night television address.

by artappraiser on Mon, 09/09/2013 - 3:28pm

Ban Ki-moon lends traction to chem weapons handover idea by saying he was considering proposing it as a way to break #UN deadlock. #Syria
— Nick Bryant (@NickBryantNY) September 9, 2013

by artappraiser on Mon, 09/09/2013 - 3:30pm

A report of how Clinton during her speech said she had just spoken to the President, and it's interesting to see how she couched her words when she addressed the "fluid situation in the last few hours":

http://www.theguardian.com/global/middle-east-live/2013/sep/09/syria-cri...

by artappraiser on Mon, 09/09/2013 - 3:49pm

Kerry Gaffes, But Maybe It's the Good Kind of Gaffe | Mother Jones

So was Kerry's statement a gaffe? In normal terms, sure. You don't toss out stuff like this without thinking about it, and most likely all it does is give Russia and Syria a handy excuse to play games for a while longer. However, in any terms more sophisticated than those of a five-year-old, it wasn't really much of a gaffe. Kerry's meaning was perfectly plain.

Still, what if the Russians aren't playing games, but are seizing an unanticipated opportunity? It's possible that for all their bluster, the Russians would actually like a way out of this that saves some face. It's also possible, if you believe the latest reports in Bild am Sonntag, that Assad never wanted last month's chemical attack to go forward in the first place. His generals did it without his go-ahead. So maybe he'd just as soon be rid of the stuff.

I doubt it. But it's at least an intriguing thought. If all of this ended up with some kind of UN inspection force taking control of Syria's chemical arsenal, that would be a pretty good outcome for everyone. And it would make Kerry's statement sort of the opposite of a Kinsley gaffe. Instead of a politician accidentally telling the truth, it would end up being a politician accidentally solving a real problem.

by EmmaZahn on Mon, 09/09/2013 - 4:38pm

The Atlantic has all six of the president's TV interviews (with the evening's version of his Syria policy--who knows what tomorrow will bring?) summed up in a short piece with links to all the transcripts and videos:

President Obama Steps Back from Bombing Syria — Six Times

For those who may have missed it, the article also says As the president's interviews ran, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pulled his planned vote on Syria, set for Wednesday.

by artappraiser on Tue, 09/10/2013 - 5:46am

I am a little confused here.Putin was stating that it would back Syria if the US attacked.Russia said that Syria had not used chemical weapons. Now Russia is willing to accept responsibility for Syria's chemical weapons. Is Obama supposed to take the position that he will bomb Syria no matter what or should he actually analyze whether Russia is making a valid offer?

Would the chemical weapons be leaving if there had been no threat of physical force? Given the Snowden experience should Obama have expected Russia to reign in Assad just because Obama asked them diplomatically?

Should Obama have said nothing about the use of chemical weapons?

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 09/10/2013 - 9:50am

Russia said that Syria had not used chemical weapons.

That may be their honest belief or it may just be the position they are taking so as to defend Assad's regime. My guess, based on the confusingly different information I have seen and my own guesses about the various players is that it is as likely as any other conclusion that some element of both sides in the conflict have used chemical weapons. Some of the opposition is surely capable both operationally and psychically to do so and the same is true of some elements of the government forces. Any large group of people contains some number of psychopaths who will use any means to gain their desired aims and the percentage is probably very close to the same in any culture. Assad may have signed off on a CW attack or it may have been a rogue operative within his military. The leader of the opposition group which we support is a former Syrian general who defected and who claims to have allies still well placed within the Syrian army. How the U.S, should respond given the different possibilities is confusing for sure.

Now Russia is willing to accept responsibility for Syria's chemical weapons.

That looks to me like a very big commitment for Putin to make. It puts his credibility on the line for a long time if his offer is accepted. Putin would not take it lightly if Assad were to punk him by getting caught using CW's tomorrow or using or hiding CW's after an agreement was reached. That would also mean [probably] large numbers of Russian troops stationed in strategic spots within Syria which makes a punitive strike in the future a very different gamble. Maybe it was a bluff that he expected there was no chance of the U.S. accepting but will end up being serendipitous. Maybe it was a considered bluff from Russia's point of view but a mistake if accepted equal to Kerry's gaff, though leading to the same unexpected possibility which is better than an escalation of the violence, IMO.

Is Obama supposed to take the position that he will bomb Syria no matter what or should he actually analyze whether Russia is making a valid offer?

My answer is an emphatic 'no'. Edited for clarity to say no to bombing no matter what but yes to analyzing the Russian offer.

Would the chemical weapons be leaving if there had been no threat of physical force?

I do not see any reason to think so but I also do not think that Obama or Kerry get any credit for creating this possible turn of events made possible by a Kerry gaff. I am encouraged while not confident that that gaff may accidentally lead to our actions going in a better direction than another bombing campaign.

by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 09/10/2013 - 1:32pm

The Russians are saying that Putin and Obama discussed this plan at G-20.Kerry and the Russian SOS were instructed to move forward with the plan. Was Kerry's statement a gaffe?

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 09/10/2013 - 2:51pm

The common perception from every thing I have read is that Kerry's statement was a gaff. His quick attempt to walk it back after Russia's offer would seem to add weight to that conclusion.

by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 09/10/2013 - 4:54pm

Here is Bloomberg's view of the gaffe. A gaffe means that the thought that something that averts lobbing missiles is a bad thing and dishonors the country. A rhetorical proposal is something different.

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 09/10/2013 - 6:04pm

If Kerry's statement wasn't a gaffe but was planned, then the State Dept.'s email to reporters trying to walk it back was a gaffe.

I agree with what I saw political pundit John Heilmann say on TV about that: that it's important for history to know that what happened wasn't intended.

It's a lesson about serendipity, how you can't always control how diplomatic interaction works out, and for that reason it's often wise to talk more before doing something. What happened verifies that Obama's decision to wait for and seek approval from Congress and in that interim to talk about it more internationally, was the right way to go.

I do buy that it wouldn't have happened in this case without threat of military action. And I don't mean the "red line" statement, I mean the more developed plan of action. But if you're going to be the country that does the threatening in situations like this where you use it to get everyone else to do something anything, to let off that "we didn't really mean it, just bluffing" is to degrade the ability to ever use that gambit again. You can't play that both ways.

by artappraiser on Tue, 09/10/2013 - 5:49pm

We are still early in the negotiating stage, but it seems that without the threat of force nothing would have happened. In your scenario of keeping the threat of force as an option rather than a bluff, then after suggesting a out, you go back to keeping the threat as an option.

The rapidity with Russia responded and Syria accepted suggests that some prior discussions had taken place between the two countries.that this was in the pipeline. If a rogue unit did the chemical attack, Assad realized he did not control the weapons.

We are getting into the messy sausage making process where each country flexes its muscles to get the best deal that it can. Russia probably gets an oil deal.

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 09/10/2013 - 6:17pm

You are reading criticism into the Atlantic article where I see none. Unless you think it's criticism to report that he has stepped back from bombing right away.

by artappraiser on Tue, 09/10/2013 - 5:23pm

I don't want to be too hopeful about peace breaking out in Syria but this rhetorical blunder could have a very positive effect. It is satisfying that the US Warmongers have been checked by their own arrogance evident in Kerry's off the cuff statement. Russia and Syria appear to be the adults while the US and their French minions must at least appear to consider this diplomatic path while making childish belligerent noises from their new position at the back of the class. This development also leaves the Syrian Rebels and the KSA exposed to scrutiny for their refusal to join peace talks. If this peaceful resolution prevails and is not sabotaged by the US the reporter who asked that simple question must be nominated for a Peace Prize.

by Peter (not verified) on Tue, 09/10/2013 - 11:31am

Putin initially stated that Syria did not use chemical weapons and that Russia would back Syria in the event of an attack. If there were no threat, would Putin have done anything?

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 09/10/2013 - 11:50am

Putin and anyone who has been following this drama closely has serious doubts about who used these chemicals, we don't even know what chemicals were used . The threat Putin is trying to avoid is an escalation of the conflict not the use of CWs. The only real threat Assad's CWs represent is to Israel and the possibility of the extremist rebels getting them and using them around the ME and elsewhere.

by Peter (not verified) on Tue, 09/10/2013 - 1:57pm

Do you include US embassies in the threat target window along with Israel?

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 09/10/2013 - 2:41pm

Obama

More JFK than GWB

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 09/10/2013 - 4:39pm

Progressive Democrat Barbara Lee believes that Syria is responsible for the chemical attack despite being against military action.

Human Rights Watch posts that Syria is the likely culprit in the attack.

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 09/10/2013 - 4:45pm

US, Russia clash over terms of deal on Syria chemical weapons - live updates, The Guardian

Live• Putin says UN resolution must not allow use of force
• Kerry says US needs 'full resolution' including force
• Moallem says Syria will declare chemical arsenal

[....]

• It was a second day of accelerated diplomatic activity. However a proposed new UN resolution appeared to be in danger of premature death. The resolution would require Syrian president Bashar Assad to turn his chemical weapons arsenal over to international control. An impromptu security council meeting called by Russia to discuss it was abruptly canceled.

• At the heart of the disagreement over the resolution is the question of whether it would be binding, authorizing the use of force in case of noncompliance. US secretary of state John Kerry insisted that it must be. Russian president Vladimir Putin insisted the opposite.

[....]

by artappraiser on Tue, 09/10/2013 - 6:09pm

This means: Obama needs use of force permission from Congress more now than he ever did before; he needs it in his toolkit.

by artappraiser on Tue, 09/10/2013 - 6:12pm

Russia made the offer to take the weapons. Obama can let them twist in the wind by merely stating he is waiting for Congress to make a decision.Reid has halted the play clock. If Russia cannot get anything done in the interim, it will be seen as an empty offer.

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 09/10/2013 - 6:20pm

You need to read more carefully rmrd. the Russians are brokering this deal but the UN will take control of these CWs and destroy them. The UN has to deal with this with the likes of France and the US throwing up roadblocks while they attempt to poison the well. While all of this diplomacy is happening the USG is planning to push a new AUMF in congress hiding it behind the fig-leaf of accepting the Syrian overture.

by Peter (not verified) on Tue, 09/10/2013 - 7:43pm

What specific roadblocks?

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 09/10/2013 - 8:25pm

Since Obama confirms that he and Putin talked about a diplomatic solution, it is hard to still regard Kerry's statement as a gaffe. It is very likely that he was instructed to say it.

by Aaron Carine on Tue, 09/10/2013 - 7:59pm

Thank you.

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 09/10/2013 - 8:26pm

Kerry's off the cuff statement wasn't a gaffe it was arrogant bluster that came back to slap him in his horse- face. Didn't you notice the retractions and spin that immediately came from the State Department? This was a public answer to a direct question not a discussion in private by Heads of State. The Frogs are already caring water for Obama by trying to control the agenda at the UN and Russia has rejected their meddling. The only way these CWs can be secured by the UN is if there is a cease-fire in Syria and the US and its minions do not want Peace to break out.

by Peter (not verified) on Tue, 09/10/2013 - 8:40pm

Obama said he accepted the Russian proposal, which was basically the same proposal that came from Kerry(although Kerry didn't phrase it as a proposal). They haven't really retracted it if they say they're all for it.

by Aaron Carine on Tue, 09/10/2013 - 9:06pm

Frogs?

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 09/10/2013 - 9:11pm

He is referring to the French.

by moat on Tue, 09/10/2013 - 9:28pm

Isn't that equivalent to nigger?

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 09/10/2013 - 9:46pm

This is getting absurd! Of course they talked about a diplomatic solution. They talked about it and they disagreed vehemently and everything was looking grim!:

“We hear each other and understand the arguments,” Mr. Putin said. “We simply don’t agree with them. I don’t agree with his arguments and he doesn’t agree with mine, but we hear and try to analyze.”

Anyone who thinks that this was planned sounds to me like they didn't follow what went on the last few days in any detail and is just making stuff up.

Kerry was giving a press conference beating the drum for the attack! |It happened like Kevin Drum says, a politician accidentally solving a problem. Kerry's whatever-you-want-to-call-it sarcastic reply (if semantics are a problem for you, and you don't want to use "gaffe," then don't, big deal) in response to a question from a reporter (was she in on this plan, too? working for which side?) caused a light bulb to go off in Lavrov's brain. That's what happened! Watch the frigging video! Read the chronology of how it went after that! How the State Dept. quickly put out a clarification directly to the reporters, wanting to make sure it was not misread. How Lavrov pounced on it shortly thereafter, only because he had happened to be meeting and talking with Al-Muallem and both were paying attention to Kerry's drum beating at the very same time. And how Syria responded quickly back saying they would do so because they trust Russia and not that warmongering America! When just hours before they were denying that they had any chemical weapons at all!

What is it that makes people think all leaders are so fucking competent that nothing can happen by serendipity, that they all have total control of what happens and have planned everything in advance, are like gods. No, even better than gods, because the Greek Gods had a hard time with fate as well. But with world leaders, it always has to be a brilliant conspiracy; because if they aren't brilliant strategery and conspiracy plotters at all moments, then we don't have daddies in the world?

All the players admit that this is a wonderful gift of serendipity to pull back from rapid acceleration in opposite directions (even if Syria's doing it as a stall, it is still so for them,) I really don't get why it's so very important to prove it was planned. (Not the least of which because you aren't going to find that proof, unless this is a massive conspiracy of a scale we have never seen before and all the parties involved are superb actors far better than those who win Academy Awards.)

by artappraiser on Tue, 09/10/2013 - 9:15pm

I'm confused by the characterization of the United States as warmongering compared to Russia. Instead of cooperating with the United States in an effort to halt Syria's civil war, Russia stepped on the brakes...hard. Russia shipped anti ship missiles.As long as Syria has Russian backing, he has little incentive to broker and end to the fighting. Many of us look at Russia's role in Syria and are reluctant to grant Putin and Russia hero status. If the US is a warmonger, we are just one of many. Without the US, chemical weapons would not be on the table.I openly admit that I find Obama more trustworthy than Putin.

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 09/10/2013 - 9:34pm

I must blush to admit I didn't know of Putin's statement, but there is the possibility that he wasn't being candid about what was said.

by Aaron Carine on Tue, 09/10/2013 - 9:46pm

Syria changed its tune on chemical weapons("we don't have them", "we do have them") because they were offered a way out. It doesn't demonstrate that this deal wasn't talked about between Obama and Putin. For politicians to keep secrets doesn't require any massive conspiracy; it is pretty standard practice.

by Aaron Carine on Tue, 09/10/2013 - 9:53pm

The speech is in. What might turn out to be the most important thing he said, as quietly as possible, were the several muted statements about degrading Assad's military. And the assertion that the U.S. military 'Doesn't do pinpricks".

Reminds of General Keenes [sp?] BBC interview.

by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 09/10/2013 - 9:49pm

Another observation with the thought in mind that nothing about such a presentation means nothing. In the view of the speech there was not a single U.S. flag in sight.

by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 09/10/2013 - 10:10pm

No flags = very interesting. While I often argue the administration is being stoopid on messaging, this kind of trivial stuff is not the type of thing they forget. Not with Obama's history and domestic enemies--go back to the whole flag pin thing early on in his first run for president. There was a U.S. flag on left of podium (viewer's left) as he walked up (and something of navy field on the right) but cropped out after. They had plenty of time to plan this one, even the camera cropping. Maybe they were considering international effect?

by artappraiser on Tue, 09/10/2013 - 11:24pm

No TV here so I watched the video. Neither flag was cropped out, both where visible the whole time. I wonder if all channels had the same cropping.

by ocean-kat on Wed, 09/11/2013 - 1:22am

Thanks. See, even I fall for the idea of "'they' got total control" sometimes.

by artappraiser on Wed, 09/11/2013 - 2:49am

He jumped on the pinprick thing in one of the interviews last night, in response to an interviewer; I saw that clip replayed before the speech. He didn't like him/her using the word, like it was offensive, he said firmly that "the U.S. military does not do pinpricks." That he also put it in the speech means it was really was important to him.

I suspect that is twofold:

1) Not General Keene but the current Pentagon. Many behind the scenes grumblings about what they have been asked to plan for. (Not so subtle from General Dempsey.) Back to like LBJ times, CIC setting up impossible or no clear goals, not being allowed to win the best way they know how, all those old Vietnam/Iraq II bogeymen.

(General Keene was speaking from what he heard from McCain; since that McCain/Obama meeting, McCain hasn't exactly been a 100% happy camper, so whatever McCain told Keene that Obama said, I doubt it is reality. Did Obama tell the truth to McCain or just play games with him? Did McCain misunderstand? Why does it even matter any more? Things have changed. The Senate can limit what they will do. So now just listen to McCain if you want to know what will make him happy, no need any longer for the Keene intermediaries!)

Obama has always really cared a lot about his relationship with the military, he's no Bill Clinton in that regard.

2) He's going to continue to do an an "all cards are on the table" threat until there's a more complete done deal on Putin taking full responsibility for no more chem weapons attacks. It is also a direct response to all Assad's "bring it on" blather about his military being better fighters than ours (and #1 applies here, too; he often seems to take it as a personal insult when the military is insulted.)

by artappraiser on Tue, 09/10/2013 - 10:58pm

Just now on MSNBC, Chris Hayes claimed the pinprick comment was actually a direct rebuff to John McCain, and even played a clip of McCain saying at a hearing that "pinprick" use of missiles does not/will not work.

by artappraiser on Tue, 09/10/2013 - 11:08pm

McCain says at a hearing that "pinprick" use of missiles does not/will not work and Obama says it won't be a pinprick. McCain winks.

Regarding what you say above, I see another interpretation as just as likely. McCains deal to give support for the Congressional approval was for the Syrian army to be degraded so that the opposition would win. McCain gets an agreement and it is passed on accurately but in almost dog-whistle fashion and intent through someone to the BBC. No such play for exposure in the U.S. media. From there everyone continues to play it politically. McCain still making noise because he is McCain and so that the part he likes he will get credit for. As his part he begrudgingly, in his public posture, says Obama's authorization to bomb must be allowed for the good of the country. But, like you say, everything changed. Things didn't play out as expected. If Obama can't bomb at all then he can't bomb everything McCain wants bombed. McCain will be against any diplomatic solution.
But everything that's changed so far is just the possibilities. The old probability, that we would bomb, is still very possible.

He's going to continue to do an an "all cards are on the table" threat until there's a more complete done deal on Putin taking full responsibility for no more chem weapons attacks.

Putin taking responsibility seems like the best possibility for control of the CW's to happen. I think the way to judge Obama's actions on this issue, going forward, is by judging whether he works to make that happen or if he throws up roadblocks or if he fails to try hard to tear down roadblocks put up by others he could possibly influence.

by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 09/11/2013 - 12:06am

McCain winks and then he looks down and he smiles tightly as he bets big and draws to an open ended straight. Nothings is real. He has nothing to lose. He hits it. Wide smile. Then chance, or chaos, beats him with a heart flush. He just grits his teeth and rings up new chips and keeps on playing. It is a fucking game. To him.

He can afford to play as long as he wants. He pretends, so that some will believe, that it means something when he wins.

by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 09/11/2013 - 12:42am

Following the timeline of events, Putin denied that a chemical weapons attack occurred.It is remarkable to see him as the peacemaker in Syria Russia put up roadblocks to peace negotiations earlier in the year.

by rmrd0000 on Wed, 09/11/2013 - 9:12am

In the News

Russia plays weak hand in Palestine
Russia plays weak hand in Palestine

submitted by PeraclesPlease 9 months ago

The intra-Palestinian meeting in Moscow has precedent

Russia's hosted such meetings in the past, most recently Feb 2019

Russia has long lamented the US' "monopolization" of the peace process & tried to carve out a niche for itself: mediating among the disunited Palestinians/2
— Hanna Notte (@HannaNotte) February 29, 2024

Read the article at https://twitter.com/HannaNotte/status/1763116222256701787

Add new comment
Mother Jones is Reaching out to Alternative Party Voters
Mother Jones is Reaching out to Alternative Party Voters

submitted by HSG 10 months ago

Here's what I told them: https://halginsberg.com/vote-for-jill-stein-again/

Read the article at https://halginsberg.com/vote-for-jill-stein-again/

2 comments

Add new comment
Controversial Brazil law curbing Indigenous rights comes...
Controversial Brazil law curbing Indigenous rights comes into force

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

Controversial Brazil law curbing Indigenous rights comes into force https://t.co/pCoDg05irX
— Gareth Harris (@garethharr) December 28, 2023

Read the article at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/28/brazil-law-indigenous-land-rights-claim-time-marker?CMP=share_btn_tw

1 comment

Add new comment
Security Alert: U.S. Embassy Port-au-Prince, Haiti (...
Security Alert: U.S. Embassy Port-au-Prince, Haiti (December 25, 2023)

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

Location: U.S. Embassy and residential compounds

Events: Heavy gunfire is occuring around the area of the U.S. Embassy and residential compounds adjacent to the Trutier area of Tabarre. All Embassy personnel have been instructed to remain indoors and shelter-in-place until further notice. All others should avoid the area.

Actions to take:

Avoid the area;

Avoid demonstrations and any large gatherings of people;

Do not attempt to drive through roadblocks; and

If you encounter a roadblock, turn around and get to a safe area.

Read the article at https://ht.usembassy.gov/security-alert-u-s-embassy-port-au-prince-haiti-december-25-2023/

3 comments

Add new comment
Pakistan Is Creating the World’s Next Refugee Crisis
Pakistan Is Creating the World’s Next Refugee Crisis

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

By The Editorial Board @ Bloomberg.com, December 8, 2023

A mass expulsion of Afghan migrants could destabilize the region and fuel radicalization. The West should pressure Islamabad to change course.

Read the article at https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-12-08/pakistan-s-expulsion-of-afghan-refugees-risks-another-crisis

6 comments

Add new comment
Internet shut down in Chad
Internet shut down in Chad

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

All eyes on #Chad right now
Chad has two internet trunks coming into the country: One from the Red Sea via Sudan; the other from Cameroon. Not possible for the totality of the country's internet network to be shut unless done centrally. A lot of rumors swirling; few facts. https://t.co/N6bDJZ2ixO

Read the article at https://x.com/_hudsonc/status/1732891968709992511?s=20

2 comments

Add new comment
[Economy] where Joe's success falls short
[Economy] where Joe's success falls short

submitted by PeraclesPlease 1 year ago

Read the article at

3 comments

Add new comment
[CRIME News] 3 loss-prevention employees in Macy’s across...
[CRIME News] 3 loss-prevention employees in Macy’s across the street from Philadelphia City Hall stabbed

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

BREAKING: Three loss prevention employees in Macy’s across the street from Philadelphia City Hall stabbed, one of them has died from stab wounds, @PhillyPolice sources tell me. Police converged on the store as the three workers were rushed to Jefferson Hospital. pic.twitter.com/4U1eKycL4W

Read the article at https://x.com/KeeleyFox29/status/1731713272942940365?s=20

38 comments

Add new comment
Former U.S. Ambassador Arrested, Charged With Working As...
Former U.S. Ambassador Arrested, Charged With Working As Secret Agent For Cuba

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

Former US Ambassador Arrested, Charged With Working As Secret Agent For Cuba https://t.co/LDwo4ZJI1K
— HuffPost (@HuffPost) December 4, 2023

Read the article at https://www.huffpost.com/entry/manuel-rocha-ambassador-arrested-cuba_n_656d1e2ae4b028b0f3d07478

Add new comment
[War in Israel, Chapter II] UNRWA under scrutiny
[War in Israel, Chapter II] UNRWA under scrutiny

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

[Chapter I news is HERE, Oct. 7 til today]

You don’t get it.
It’s not about an UNRWA teacher who held an Israeli kid hostage in his house.
It’s all about how for 75 years you have destroyed the future of generations of Palestinians, including my family.
My cousins in Arab countries are still not citizens - not even the… https://t.co/nv6anubGhc
— George Deek (@GeorgeDeek) December 2, 2023

Note 'Community Notes' attached to UNWRA's statement.

Read the article at https://x.com/GeorgeDeek/status/1731020551328579863?s=20

58 comments

Add new comment
Maduro, Under Pressure, Holds Vote to Annex Territory From...
Maduro, Under Pressure, Holds Vote to Annex Territory From a Neighbor

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

Imperialism for me but not for thee?

It's wild that Venezuela is now holding a vote on whether 2/3 of Guyana actually belongs to them! Analysts suggest that Modoru may want military action to pump up his sinking popularity.

Could we have a war in South America?!?

"The people who live in Essequibo are largely… pic.twitter.com/QvMEjkkgwy

Read the article at https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/03/world/americas/maduro-vote-essequibo-guyana.html

6 comments

Add new comment
[Where is the GOP headed?] Divisions leave Florida’s House...
[Where is the GOP headed?] Divisions leave Florida’s House Republicans powerless

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

The lack of a cohesive delegation has allowed attention-seeking lawmakers to act on their own.

McCarthy: “You have [Rep. Matt] Gaetz, who belongs in jail…”

Gaetz: “Tough words from a guy who sucker punches people in the back. The only assault I committed was against Kevin’s fragile ego.”https://t.co/LctPuz6Pcf

Read the article at https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/29/divisions-leave-floridas-house-republicans-powerless-00129200

10 comments

Add new comment
‘She got so mad at me’: book on the ‘Squad’ details AOC-...
‘She got so mad at me’: book on the ‘Squad’ details AOC-Pelosi clashes

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

By Martinn Pengelly in Washington DC for TheGuardian.com, Nov. 30

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tells Ryan Grim life in Congress ‘completely transformed’ after Democratic leader stepped down

Read the article at https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/nov/30/squad-book-aoc-nancy-pelosi?CMP=share_btn_tw

15 comments

Add new comment
US health insurers Humana, Cigna in talks to merge -source
US health insurers Humana, Cigna in talks to merge -source

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

@ Reuters, Nov. 29

Read the article at https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/us-health-insurers-humana-cigna-talks-merge-wsj-2023-11-29/

3 comments

Add new comment
Central Africa’s dinosaur regimes and the art of coup-...
Central Africa’s dinosaur regimes and the art of coup-proofing

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

"Both the AU and the intl community place more weight on whether elections are held than whether they are free and fair. Sanctions/expulsions occur when there is a coup but not necessarily when elections are rigged or if an “institutional coup” occurs." https://t.co/m9dNimJP0D
— Cameron Hudson (@_hudsonc) November 28, 2023

Read the article at https://africanarguments.org/2023/11/central-africas-dinosaur-regimes-and-the-art-of-coup-proofing/

Add new comment

From the Readers

Creative corner

From the Dagbloggers

Hits of the Day