I think Obama's positive words about peaceful Syrian solution may just be show

[bigtree]

. . . theater to provide cover for recalcitrant members of Congress who have indicated that they would be open to military action against Syria if there was more emphasis on a diplomatic solution. It's just trolling for votes in Congress for an ultimate resolution for a military strike.

It's an all or nothing proposition that Syria get rid of all of their chemical weapons; and it's just not going to happen. Assad has made clear that he sees that secret stockpile as the only counter his country has to Israel's secret nuclear arsenal. It's not going to happen.

[Kolesar]

1. Would you be so kind as to name those recalcitrant members of Congress?

I don't recall that condition the recalcitrant members of Congress stated. It's a big story. May have missed it

[bigtree]

6. I can't identify all of them but I read more than a few statements which seemed representative

one article from the WaPo (that's all you'll get from me, I'm just an hour or so before work):

here's my state's Van Hollen who is against the resolution as it stood, but appears open to some military action:

“You’ve got some members of Congress, particularly Republicans in the Senate, who would like to use this resolution to open the door to large scale U.S. intervention,” Van Hollen told me. “That would be a big mistake. So to the extent that the administration tries to placate those voices, they’re going to get a lot of resistance from those of us, like me, who believe the scope needs to be significantly narrowed.”

there is the possibility of consensus among Dems, even liberals, in favor of the general idea that the U.S. should respond with force to Assad. At the same time, however, Van Hollen’s comments cast doubt on whether it’s possible to draft a use-of-force resolution — let alone define the mission itself and its general goals — in a manner that can please enough people on both sides (liberal and hawkish skeptics) to pass Congress.


read: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/09/03/on-syria-obama-cant-take-liberals-and-dems-for-granted/


Senators Heitkamp and Manchin float diplomatic alternative to military strikes on Syria

The United States would give Syria 45 days to sign an international chemical weapons ban or face the wrath of American military might, under a draft resolution being circulated by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.). The alternative to a use-of-force resolution could forestall an immediate American strike and create an incentive for Assad not to use chemical weapons against his own people again. It may also provide a rallying point for lawmakers who are reluctant to either approve strikes or reject the use of force outright.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/9/6/81922/94482/foreignaffairs/Senators-Heitkamp-and-Manchin-float-diplomatic-alternative-to-military-strikes-on-Syria-


Congressman: 'Let diplomacy try before we have an imminent strike'
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/hardball/52966787/

[Schema Thing]

2. When and how did Assad "make clear that he sees....

....that secret stockpile as the only counter his country has to Israel's secret nuclear arsenal."?

[bigtree]

4. just saw him equate those on Charlie Rose

. . . in exactly the context that I used here.

[Schema Thing]

7. ah, so you think Assad's positive words about peaceful Syrian solution may just be show?

[bigtree]

8. I don't think he means the same thing as our President is demanding

. . . I'd expect the Assad I just listened to would expect Israel to rid themselves of nukes, as well.

He says his country, the people there who he says support him expect a defense of what they consider their own. He doesn't rule out any means of defense or however you'd characterize his military intentions, but he stopped short of including his own regime's use of chemical weaponry in that equation; instead, pointing to the possibility that the resistances forces might resort to those, as he claims they have on several occasions.

As I said, I interpret the President's acceptance of Russia's proposal as an all or nothing proposition; all the chem weapons, or no deal. Is that a realistic prospect to you?

[Schema Thing]

11. yes, I think that is very realistic

to expect of Assad.

[phleshdef]

15. Assad doesn't want to be next Gadhafi.

So yea, I think its a realistic prospect.

[NoOneMan]

3. You might be right.

This may definitely win Congress over, as they can pretend they aren't shouldering the responsibility to war. On the otherhand, why would Syria cooperate with the ruse? Maybe they are just running their game, calling a bluff, so they look like the victims of imperialism. Everyone is probably working their own angles

I remember the Iraq runup was long and had some twists and turns (in terms of public PR).

[ProSense]

5. Is Putin in on it?

Why is it so important to you to dismiss this opportunity?

I mean, you're not wondering if Russia and Syria are genuine in having Assad comply. Instead, you're trying to create a sinister motive behind the President's "positive words about peaceful Syrian solution ."

I don't get it?

"Assad has made clear that he sees that secret stockpile as the only counter his country has to Israel's secret nuclear arsenal. It's not going to happen. "

So holding Assad accountable isn't important, even via a peaceful solution? You appear to be justifying why Assad isn't going to give up his arsenal.

[bigtree]

9. Putin plays the politics. Is that a surprise?

I don't think it's a realistic prospect and I believe the WH should understand that already.

There's no risk for the president in calling Putin's bluff. It will solidify the administration's 'exhaustion' with diplomacy, and they can press closer to war.

Don't forget that I'm not convinced of ANY beneficial effect from U.S. military strikes on Syria; not toward their chemical weapon capability or action; nor, against anything Assad chooses to do; certainly not for the 'humanitarian reasons cited here. I think it's counterproductive and dangerously tilted toward an escalation of the conflict, not a resolution of anything.

[ProSense]

10. You're

"I don't think it's a realistic prospect and I believe the WH should understand that already. "

...basically saying diplomacy is a waste of time because Assad isn't going to comply.

[bigtree]

12. I'm saying that this is the state of the proposal offered, which isn't the end-all of diplomacy

. . . by any means.

Nor, is it an excuse to drop diplomacy and launch military strikes against Syria.

[ProSense]

13. Assad has to comply. It's that simple.

You're offered a justification as to why you don't expect him to comply.

[bigtree]

14. you believe Assad would give up his entire chemical arsenal?

Okay.

I think it's unrealistic and would run completely counter to what i just heard him say. Are you making like it's me defending Assad's weapons? Because, that would be an extremely slippery interpretation of what I've observed.

Assad just made clear on Charlie Rose that he views his country's arsenal as a defense against surrounding forces of opposition; including Israel. I heard him equate that capability of his with what he described as nuclear forces arrayed against him in Israel.

You believe that he's going to unilaterally disarm his nation. I don't.

[ProSense]

16. Like I said, you believe diplomacy is a waste of time because Assad will never comply.

The Charlie Rose interview was done before today's developments. Assad offered to turn over his arsenal. Now he has to comply.

He may very well have no intention of doing so, but that is the reason for the ultimatums.

[bigtree]

18. Well. Kerry doesn't even expect Assad to comply. He's said that diplomacy is exhausted

. . . he actually came to the EXACT conclusion that I raised here. Assad is not likely to comply with this proposal.

Here, from the AP:

Secretary of State John Kerry, who said in London that Assad could head off strikes against his military assets if he turns over "every single bit" of his chemical weapons arsenal by the end of this week.

But, Kerry also said he does not expect Assad to do that.

ProSense, KERRY is shooting down diplomacy, not me. It's Kerry and the President who are as cynical about the prospects of this proposal being accepted by Syria, as I am.

He gave them a 'week' to accept; or else.

The major difference between us, is my own insistence that this one proposal should not be the last word in diplomacy regarding Syria. In the administration's view, however, it appears they regard this offer as a final expression of their 'exhaustion' with diplomacy.

[ProSense]

19. No,

Well. Kerry doesn't even expect Assad to comply. He's said that diplomacy is exhausted

. . . he actually came to the EXACT conclusion that I raised here. Assad is not likely to comply with this proposal.

Here, from the AP:

Secretary of State John Kerry, who said in London that Assad could head off strikes against his military assets if he turns over "every single bit" of his chemical weapons arsenal by the end of this week.

But, Kerry also said he does not expect Assad to do that.

ProSense, KERRY is shooting down diplomacy, not me. It's Kerry and the President who are as cynical about the prospects of this proposal being accepted by Syria, as I am.

The major difference between us, is my own insistence that this one proposal should not be the last word in diplomacy regarding Syria. In the administration's view, however, it appears they regard this offer as a final expression of their 'exhaustion' with diplomacy.

...Kerry is not "shooting down diplomacy."

You posted a story that does not take into account the rest of today's developments, including the State Department's response.

The Obama administration is going to pursue this opportunity, and it's up to Assad to comply.

You admit that you don't believe Assad will comply, and the justification you gave is one that means he will not. Assad has to comply. The goal is to prevent another chemical attack.

Obama Puts Syria Strike On Pause As Possible Diplomatic Solution Emerges
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023632691

President Barack Obama on Syria and the Russian proposal.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023633079

[bigtree]

20. Kerry said he doesn't expect Assad to comply

. . . did he change that statement?

Your own statement implies that you believe he might not comply . . .

"Assad has to comply. The goal is to prevent another chemical attack."

Assad doesn't have to comply and will not likely unilaterally disarm.

The articles you cite don't refute the Secretary's doubts. Kerry is giving Assad a 'week' to comply with this ONE proposal, or else.

That ONE proposal isn't the end-all of diplomacy regarding Syria; it's an offer which the administration knows well that Syria will reject. Kerry said he expects that rejection, explicitly.

He gave Assad a 'week' to comply, or military action. I think he knows that's not going to happen.

[Cha]

21. Thank you, ProSense. I really appreciate you and your links. nm

[damnedifIknow]

17. Just not a fuzzy feeling about this

http://www.globalresearch.ca/pentagon-expands-war-plans-against-syria/5348908

Pentagon Expands War Plans Against Syria

[bigtree]

22. cynical

David Corn ‏@DavidCornDC 5m

Carney: "We need to make sure beforehand that the Syrians are serious and will actually follow through." http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/jay-carney-syria-96536.html#ixzz2eUqqAtlW …
View summary
David Corn ‏@DavidCornDC 5m

Carney: Obama is not changing his call for Congress to authorize a #Syria strike http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/jay-carney-syria-96536.html#ixzz2eUqNoADD …