dagblog - Comments for "Syria chemical weapons attack not ordered by Assad, says German press"

LOL Great Rolling Stone

rmrd0000 — Mon, 09 Sep 2013 18:06:43 +0000

In reply to Game, set, match. Lavrov:

LOL

Great Rolling Stone reference.

if this pans out, hopefully we turn attention to the refugees.

Game, set, match. Lavrov:

artappraiser — Mon, 09 Sep 2013 17:03:45 +0000

In reply to Syria's answer: OK, sure, why

Game, set, match. Lavrov: over to you, U.S. Congress.

Made me think of these lyrics:

Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game?

Syria's answer: OK, sure, why

artappraiser — Mon, 09 Sep 2013 16:50:55 +0000

In reply to Russia calls on Syria to give

Syria's answer: OK, sure, why not, thanks for asking, Russia, and fuck you, America:

Syria 'Welcomed' Russian Proposal to Destroy Its Chemical Weapons
Russian FM Suggests International Control and Destruction of Toxic Arsenal
By Kirit Radia and Nick Schifrin, ABC News, MOSCOW, Sept. 9, 2013

Syria today "welcomed" an offer by Russia to put its chemical weapons arsenal under international control so that they could eventually be destroyed.

Syria's statement came very quickly after the proposal was made by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in what he said was an attempt to avoid a U.S.-led strike on Syria.

"We call on the Syrian leadership not only agree on a statement of storage of chemical weapons under international control, but also its subsequent destruction, as well as about the full accession to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons," Lavrov said in a statement to reporters.

"We will immediately join the work with Damascus if establishing international control over chemical weapons in that country helps prevent attacks," the statement continued.

Syria's Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem, who met with Lavrov in Moscow earlier in the day, responded almost immediately.

"The Syrian Arab Republic welcomed the Russian initiative, based on the concerns of the Russian leadership for the lives of our citizens and the security of our country," Muallem told reporters, according to Russia's Interfax news agency.

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."

Lavrov's comments came after Secretary of State John Kerry suggested earlier in the day that if Syria gave up its chemical weapons by the end of the week an attack could be avoided.

"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 a full and total accounting," Kerry told reporters during a press conference in London with his British counterpart [.....]

That was fast.

Russia calls on Syria to give

artappraiser — Mon, 09 Sep 2013 16:36:22 +0000

In reply to Syria chemical weapons attack not ordered by Assad, says German press

Russia calls on Syria to give up control of its chemical weapons
By Doug Staglin, USA Today, 12:21 p.m. EDT September 9, 2013

The Russian foreign minister says Moscow will push Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control.Russia has urged Syria to put its chemical weapons under international control, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters Monday.

"We have passed our offer to (Syrian Foreign Minister Walid) Al-Muallem and hope to receive [a] fast and positive answer," Sergey Lavrov said, according to RT.com, the Russian news agency, and the Associated Press.

Lavrov said Monday that if such a move would help avert a possible U.S. strike on Syria, Russia will start work "immediately" to persuade Syria to give up the control of its chemical arsenals.

Lavrov told reporters that Russia would urge Syria to concentrate its chemical weapons in certain areas under international oversight and then dismantle them [....]

For me so far looks like an

artappraiser — Mon, 09 Sep 2013 15:42:41 +0000

In reply to I'm pretty much in agreement

For me so far looks like an enormous #Obamafail, which gets worse every day. And when I go back and review past foreign policy where benefit of doubt was given, and use this new light (like Egypt,) it makes it even more depressing. And I think of the promise squandered, of what could have been done by someone with more talent a this. It's not like he wasn't received by the world with enormous positive attitude upon inauguration, quite the opposite, there was too little skepticism.

Then rumors of the Pentagon being very unhappy about this all makes it even more depressing, get creeps about LBJ dejas vus allover again decades of animosity between CIC and military.

I look at the whole picture, and start to see the professor trying to do the community organizer thing in foreign policy, promoting leading from behind. I am almost reminded of Occupy Wall Street theory of leadership.

But then I decided I've got to try to stop that sophistic thinking until all cards are played. I'll wait until he gives his speech to the public and U.N. report is in, see what they do. Try not to prejudge, watch for signs something else is going on instead of what I am prone to conclude.

(That's only if Kerry doesn't resign beforehand in frustration with the role he's been asked to play. )

P.S. I do agree with Maeillo that the one good thing that comes out of this so far is a precedent set with going to Congress for approval. Unfortunately, it's being done with a president that is lousy dealing with Congress. I'm way past the stage where he gets any further Mulligan's on that from me, I've concluded. I don't buy the excuse any longer that he's got a more difficult Congress than any other president. No way, that's just B.S., it's his lack of talent at leading. Clinton dealt with an impeachment trial, for crying out loud, and there are plenty of other examples. Executives were not meant to do "community organizing," and lead from behind, that's not what the executive role is.

Kerry says 3 people control

artappraiser — Mon, 09 Sep 2013 15:02:15 +0000

In reply to Syria chemical weapons attack not ordered by Assad, says German press

Kerry says 3 people control the chemical weapons and gives example of Assad lying about weapons. Note inference that Obama himself is the one making the decision to hold backfurther intel from public:

Kerry Says Syria Should Hand Over All Chemical Arms
By Michael R. Gordon, New York Times, September 9/10, 2013

LONDON —

[....] Mr. Kerry’s remarks were the latest in a war of words between the Syrian leader and the Obama administration. [....]

Mr. Kerry said that Mr. Assad’s claims that he was not responsible for the chemical attack on Aug. 21 that provoked an international crisis over whether to launch punitive military strikes were not credible because Syria’s arsenal of poison gas is tightly controlled.

Mr. Kerry said that three senior officials in the Syrian government have had control over the nation’s chemical weapons stocks and their use: Mr. Assad, his brother Maher and a senior general.

Mr. Kerry said that “high level” members of the government gave the instructions to use chemical weapons in the Aug. 21 attack near Damascus “with the results going directly to President Assad.”

When asked if the White House would consider making public additional intelligence to counter Mr. Assad’s claims that he had nothing to do with the attack, like physical samples that documented the use of sarin gas produced by the Syrian government, Mr. Kerry said that he did not know what President Obama would decide.

But he asserted that the Obama administration had already made available copious amounts of intelligence, and that the case against Mr. Assad was airtight.

In a discussion on Sunday with Charlie Rose, an American television interviewer, Mr. Assad asserted that Mr. Kerry had lied about the intelligence, drawing an analogy to the presentation that Colin Powell made to the United Nations about Iraq in 2003. Mr. Kerry appeared unruffled by that allegation and recalled that his own experience in dealing with Mr. Assad as a senator had convinced him that the Syrian leader could not be trusted.

In early 2009, Mr. Kerry met with Mr. Assad in Damascus to explore the possibility of improving relations between the United States and Syria. Mr. Kerry said that he confronted Mr. Assad about intelligence confirming that Syria had transferred Scud missiles to Hezbollah.

Mr. Kerry said that Mr. Assad had “denied it to my face,” adding, “This is a man without credibility.” [....]

Schieffer expresses the idea

Anonymous LULU — Mon, 09 Sep 2013 09:14:30 +0000

In reply to I'm pretty much in agreement

Schieffer expresses the idea of a need for the U.S. to be believed when it threatens with its military. [His statement assumes Assad’s guilt] So now, even if Obama’s threat was not smart in this case, and even if following through on the threat in this particular case will not do any ‘good’, the follow through on the threat is still important so that future threats will be affective.
Andrew Bacevich has some thoughts on the whole damned mess that are worth considering.

A debate over the Syrian AUMF should encourage members of Congress -- if they’ve got the guts -- to survey this entire record of U.S. military activities in the Greater Middle East going back to 1980. To do so means almost unavoidably confronting this simple question: How are we doing? To state the matter directly, all these years later, given all the ordnance expended, all the toing-and-froing of U.S. forces, and all the lives lost or shattered along the way, is mission accomplishment anywhere in sight? Or have U.S. troops -- the objects of such putative love and admiration on the part of the American people -- been engaged over the past 30-plus years in a fool’s errand? How members cast their votes on the Syrian AUMF will signal their answer -- and by extension the nation’s answer -- to that question.

To okay an attack on Syria will, in effect, reaffirm the Carter Doctrine and put a stamp of congressional approval on the policies that got us where we are today. A majority vote in favor of the Syrian AUMF will sustain and probably deepen Washington’s insistence that the resort to violence represents the best way to advance U.S. interests in the Islamic world.”

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175744/tomgram%3A_andrew_bacevich%2C_dra...

Assad, master of the

jollyroger — Mon, 09 Sep 2013 08:34:55 +0000

In reply to And that he hasn't done

Assad, master of the provocative silence...perhaps he doesn't want to expose himself to the risk of embarrassment.? should he at some future time find it expedient to use gas...

And that he hasn't done

artappraiser — Mon, 09 Sep 2013 07:59:33 +0000

In reply to if true ( and it is my second

And that he hasn't done something like that publicly says what? It's just a rhetorical question to provoke thought.

I did read an op-ed early on that impressed me with a similar argument early on, don't remember who it was. If I recall correctly, the writer was against U.S. intervention because of all the murk surrounding. The part that impressed me was that he said, though, that he didn't buy that Assad wasn't capable of doing it, because, he said, Assad hadn't said a word against what happened. No mutterings of sympathy for the victims, much less outrage, etc. Just that he didn't do it. So even if he didn't do it, he hasn't come out against anyone else using such weapons on civilians. At the same time, he made sure the U.N. inspectors were treated well. Just all very curious.

Should say I dunno what is in the Charlie Rose interview, so what I am suggesting here could have changed.

Germany backs G20 statement

artappraiser — Mon, 09 Sep 2013 07:32:37 +0000

In reply to Syria chemical weapons attack not ordered by Assad, says German press

Germany backs G20 statement on Syria a day late
Reuters, Sept. 7, 2013

Germany said on Saturday it would sign a Group of 20 statement that calls for a strong international response to Syria's alleged gas attack, agreeing a day after other European powers because it wanted to ensure unity within the European Union.

The absence of Germany's signature on Friday's statement, which falls short of supporting a military strike on Syria, sparked criticism at home that Chancellor Angela Merkel was abandoning Germany's allies to avoid alienating voters [....]