It's incredibly sad to see so many folks I viewed as allies giving in to an appeal to strike Syria

[bigtree]

. . . with the devastating force of our weapons.

I view it as a capitulation to every wrong instinct that the Bush administration exercised; every wrong instinct that most of us thought we had repudiated with the exit of Bush and our elevation of someone who claimed to understand the limitations, risks, and consequences of our nations use of military force abroad.

Now we have an entirely new set of justifications for authorizing the president to war against Syria which borrows on almost every one of Bush's imperialistic justifications for his own out-of-control military ambitions.

This will be a classic period of protest against an out-of-control White House working to manipulate Americans into supporting their dubious and dangerous military ambitions toward Syria. We'll be told that their every militaristic instinct is born out of their desire to address Syria's chemical weapons capability, but we won't see any abatement at all in their drive to war.

We didn't see one blip away from that militarism from President Obama tonight. We are now a nation being determinately driven to war by the man many of us convinced ourselves was above and beyond the type of reasoning which sees militarism as an indispensable part of our foreign policy.

The 'diplomacy' practiced toward Syria is nothing more than an ultimatum by this President- a coercion behind the devastating threat of our military arsenal. Even if Syria says they are in agreement with this cynical embrace of diplomacy by the WH, President Obama is determined to press ahead with seeking authorization to war.

We are undone, as progressives; as Americans; by this capitulation to military strikes. We will scarcely hope to restrain this administration as they prosecute their war and we will have lost every instinct or instigation away from the precipice that Bush took the nation to; that we hoped this President had pulled us back from.

[Old and In the Way]

1. I agree...we should stop diplomacy and let the chemical fogs drift where-ever.

So what if another 250K or 500K should die due to CW or other bombs? Who knows who is doing it? I mean, getting Assad to clean out his stockpile might not stop the use of CW, right? We'd learn nothing from that happening.

[bigtree]

2. agree with me? Not with that nonsense.

Diplomacy? I'm sure Assad is packing all of their chem weapons away, as we speak, for transport to Russia.

Let me know when they get there.

[Old and In the Way]

20. Assad has a verycompelling reason to liquidate his chemical weapons.

Either he has renegade military officers using the weapons or there are oppositional bad actors - AQ or Saudi Arabia proxies - that are using them. Either way, he's being fingered. He now has a good reason to get rid of them...he doesn't want to become a droned version of Saddam. By cooperating fully, he can buy some time and maybe rehab his image. The popular sentiment (if I can believe it) is that the majority still supports his secular government. I really don't think Obama, Putin, on the non-radical Islamic world wants to see a radical religious state overthrown another secular ME country.

So, I'm all for whatever 5-6 dimensional chess game Obama needs to play to clarify who is really using CW in Syria...and, oddly enough, I think Assad, Putin, and the rest of the world is OK with getting this sorted out.

[blm]

3. Let me ask you this - Had Clinton or Gore gotten an IWR vote and it put in

UN weapon inspectors in Iraq and the inspectors were reporting back that they had not found any WMDs and that military force would NOT be needed to disarm Iraq, would either of them launched a full-scale invasion of Iraq?

I don't think so.

And I believe Obama has every intention of making use of force a last resort.....for real.

[bigtree]

12. I'm concerned about any authorization for force; especially at this stage

There is no UN contingent of inspectors and peacekeepers, and, I don't believe that's what the President is asking for. His military strikes weren't about enforcement of some mandate for Syria to follow some diplomatic plan. They are still not connected to this diplomacy; except as a coercion. That's not a novelty . . . diplomacy behind a threat. It isn't really diplomacy, though. It's U.S. dominance based on the threat of the use of military force.

It would make more sense, in your equation, to go to the UN first and seek a resolution from them before asking us to give him military authority which could very well undermine UN diplomatic and humanitarian efforts.

In effect, the President is asking us to put his military posturing ahead of the UN effort; to supplant it, if the president deems it necessary to support whatever ambition they have in Syria. He's seeking military authority from Congress (mostly just an agreement with him, as he's decided he has that authority already) before a formal agreement is even in sight.

He's admitted that he sees this threat as a direct coercion; complete with an ultimatum. This isn't a UN effort. It's a U.S. president determined to war, making all sorts of justifications for that militarism. What hasn't been spelled out is what the President expects will be the direct results of the military strikes he want Congress to approve.

Are they about regime-change? Are they to send a message? Are they to directly degrade the arsenal? Are they to degrade Syria's military capability and advantage the resistance?

Much more here, blm, than a 'last resort'. The president says he wants the resolution in place if their latest diplomacy fails; something that I think they KNOW well will eventually happen. Syria will not likely meet their conditions to stand down from their military ambitions; especially if Congress gives them the green light to use that force at whatever point in this conflict that they decide deserves that response.

It's not a UN operation. If analogous to Iraq, it's the U.S. invading, occupying, installing a govt., behind the force of our military, and then, seeking UN approval and support for whatever America has autocratically decided for Syria. Obviously not invading and occupying, yet, but you get the picture of what can happen when we agree to let these Presidents drop our military into the middle of a civil war.

[blm]

13. Military strikes wiping out the ability to commit chemical attacks should be next if

diplomacy is no longer an option; without it, there is no future use of diplomacy for the true brutes.

[bigtree]

15. unilateral U.S. military action against Syria has no guarantee of ending chemical attacks there

I'm unconvinced that we can target our strikes in a way that doesn't have collateral effects which can undermine any moral high ground we may have had in pointing to the harm that's come to Syrians already.

Look around the globe and pick out every nation which has committed atrocities toward its inhabitants and convince me that we should lob missiles across their sovereign borders. It's a ridiculous proposition on its scale, and it's an absurd response to the Syrian abuses.

A military response (even a 'humanitarian' one) cannot be unilaterally executed by the U.S. in that country; in that region; without generating the type of resistance which escalates resistant violence; once again, against our own opportunistic and presumptuous use of force. it's a lesson we should have already learned about the limitations of our military forces in achieving these lofty goals of ours.

[Old and In the Way]

23. It's only unilateral because Russia/China are blocking UN action. nt

If you really think Obama = Bush, I really can't help you there...

[bigtree]

27. no, Obama doesn't equal Bush. That's a deflection of your own invention.

. . . more than just a few of the justifications used by Pres. Obama in his appeal for force authorization against Syria , and his own autocratic declaration that he has that authority, anyway, is recognizable to anyone who spent a decade opposing the Bush-era militarism.

[Old and In the Way]

35. OK - Obama = Bush

Lets impeach Obama for lying about the casus belli!

Wait...we can't because he's going to Congress with his request to stop the killing by chemical WMD, Biden isn't having secret meetings with Big Oil to divvy up Syrian oil fields, and Obama isn't disregarding U N on ground forces that can't locate WMD. Otherwise, theres no difference. Sad, I always thought you were smarter than this...

[bigtree]

39. the deflection's not working.

. . . neither are the Bush-era justifications for the use of our military forces across sovereign borders.

[Old and In the Way]

53. So, you're OK with 1000's dying from chemical WMD?

Hey, it's not like it's your family dying, right? What's the problem with Syria becoming a great labrotary for the MIC?

[bigtree]

58. you and the President have failed to demonstrate that military strikes would do anything at all

. . . to halt the prospect of chemical attacks.

I know, Saddam gassed his own people . . . oh, wait, I mean Assad.

[Old and In the Way]

63. So, do nothing = no more gassings? nt

Sounds like something Mitch McConnell would say...

[blm]

46. The difference is that I TRUST Obama to use it wisely as Bush never did.

That's why I voted for him.

He's not bloodthirsty, and not a ghoul. He has an enormous burden and, whether we like it or not, that burden DOES extend across the world. Obama didn't create the description of the US presidency as 'The most powerful person in the world'.... the world did.

[bigtree]

60. interesting

. . . how another AUMF gave Obama the ability to escalate Afghanistan's occupation and mission far beyond even Bush's intent; with catastrophic consequences far beyond what Bush effected under that mandate.

[blm]

72. 'far beyond Bush's intent'... Bush never INTENDED for us to EXIT Afghanistan

and completely IGNORED Afghanistan and BinLaden in order to focus US military in Iraq.

Bush wouldn't do what needed to be done to stabilize Afghanistan enough so we could ever leave.

Truly sorry you can't remember this.

[bigtree]

75. we're still there, blm

. . .and only one president escalated the occupation and mission there in a way that caused hundreds more casualties on both sides than even Bush had managed to lose.

I mention this as an example of how future presidents can stretch these mandates far beyond the intent and scope of their predecessor. I think that makes the assertion that we can trust this president to do the right thing sort of a thin thread.

Afghanistan, 'stabilized?'

Now, you're straying into fiction.

[blm]

83. That's baloney, big...there was no way we COULD leave without

bring stabilizing the country further first. Getting out IS the hardest part, and left to Bush with all his focus only on Iraq, Afghanistan would be bleeding both sides for decades to come.

I am not claiming that Afghanistan IS stabilized, but, it is on the road to an American troop exit. An exit that Bush pushed off on his successor, amongst many other colossal burdens.

[VanillaRhapsody]

48. google Agent Defense Weapons

[joshcryer]

4. Obama's effective 'ultimatum' is because Russia has been reticent on the issue.

Russia has been playing big bad, arming Syria while blocking sanctions the whole while. They have army interests in Syria, they have pipeline interests (Gazprom) in Syria, they are as much to blame as Saudi Arabia / Qatar funding the rebels.

What to be done? Turn a blind eye? I believe we'd be undone as progressives to turn a blind eye to atrocities around the world. But, then, we do so on a daily basis, so perhaps it is our character.

Your post ignores the years long diplomatic solution that has been pursued by the US.

[bigtree]

17. failed or stalled diplomacy doesn't automatically justify unilateral, U.S. military aggression

. . . especially with such dubious prospects of these military strikes planned actually doing ANYTHING to prevent the use of these chem weapons in Syria.

One failed course doesn't automatically legitimize another equally dubious one.

[joshcryer]

22. It justifies it as a way to force the hand of other countries.

Of course, actually striking would've been abhorrent, but I never considered that it was being used as a show of force to actually force a diplomatic solution. I have been of the opinion that Russia actually getting involved was highly unlikely.

If this approach was "equally dubious" then it wouldn't have worked and Russia wouldn't have signed on to get rid of the weapons and Syria wouldn't have said they will sign the Chemical Weapons Convention. This outcome is far beyond what I thought possible, politically.

[dionysus]

76. if a strike, as a last resort, had the net result of saving more lives than it cost (which is the

big question here) would you support it?

are you a pacifist or just an isolationist?

a lot of people seem not to care that Assad is killing people, but if we get involved we're suddenly warmongering mass murderers. that's kind of creepy.

no one is running around DU hoping for increased death.

[KoKo]

5. yes...that was what was kind of sad about the speech. The reality of it.

Having that sink in for us. Especially so young into his second term.

Perhaps he will learn from this experience and grow. I don't know what else to say about it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

50. were you listening to the same speech?

[woo me with science]

6. Thank you, bigtree.

I think it's important to say again that this is not just about one man. It's about a government now purchased and driven by powerful interests, the entrenched power of banks, corporations, and the MIC. After nearly five years of watching the continuation of the previous administration's relentlessly neocon, corporate direction, it should come as a shock to nobody that we're now being pushed to support a new war under Obama.

I am proud that Americans across party lines stood up and said, "No," so loudly and forcefully as to cause this delay. I hope with all my heart that we'll sustain this pushback in the face of manipulations yet to come.

Thank you very much for this eloquent, passionate post. It's important.

[VanillaRhapsody]

51. NO the hell you didn't...

You think Assad was listening to you? Because this was his decision...

The things you guys are saying is really enlightening to what you really think.....astonishing.

[truedelphi]

57. No Assad probably was not listening to any of us. But the fact remains that

Seventy two percent of all American voters did not want this war, and that indicates a gargantuan problem for Obama since it means that the House won't be voting for it.

[DontTreadOnMe]

77. SO when 90% of Americans were in favor of attacking Iraq...

which is it, the American polls on going to war are right or wrong?

Go back starting with Korea, and let's examine the "polls".

[Bluenorthwest]

78. That is very false, 90% never supported invading Iraq, just prior to the invasion

polling showed support between 47% and 60% and that support hinged on UN approval.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-16-poll-iraq_x.htm

It's like you just make up shit and post it.

[DontTreadOnMe]

79. You mean the Gallup poll that showed the majority of the population erroneously believed...

Iraq was responsible for the attacks of September 11?

Yeah.. c'mon -- show me some more "polls"

[Bluenorthwest]

81. If you have one that supports your absurd 90% assertion feel free to post it kiddo

You won't because you can't. I cited an actual poll because you were making up fictional polling results. You introduced the subject of polling, I simply brought facts and reality to the table.
You are dead wrong about public support of Iraq invasion, nowhere near 90% as you claimed with fireworks and brass band.

[woo me with science]

59. That was incoherent.

In an increasingly chaotic and frightening world, at least your posts are reliable on that account.

[truedelphi]

84. Well it is from Vanilla Rhapsody.

Not from Coherent Analyst.
Potpourri is a bit light on logic.

[2banon]

67. Very nicely stated woo me...

[AnotherMcIntosh]

7. Feinstein doesn't surprise me. But Al Franken?

Were we being sold a bill of goods of him being a liberal or something so to set him up as a potential presidential nominee?

[woo me with science]

8. He also voted for SOPA and PIPA.

That was when the bells went off for me.

[Jackpine Radical]

62. I've been following Franken's writing for some time

& his current positions are no surprise. He is NOT the reincarnation of Paul Wellstone.

[msanthrope]

14. Oh, wow....another Democrat you are disenchanted with! Quelle surprise! nt

[bobduca]

16. Oh Look, a typically nasty response from you

you definitely have the right username...

[msanthrope]

18. Ahem--the pro-RKBA, anti-Obama, disappointed in every Democrat contingent

aren't difficult to pick out. The added bonus is seeing who flocks to them.

[VanillaRhapsody]

52. gotta agree with ya there thrope...

I am checking off names in my head today too! They cannot backpedal fast enough....

[jsr]

70. Al Franken is a cheap opportunist.

[leftstreet]

9. DURec

[Zorra]

10. If you were in the President's position, what strategy would you have used to expedite

some attempt at a diplomatic solution to the problem of Assad using and possessing chemical weapons?

No snark intended.

I'm pleased that we are now at least discussing alternative solutions to violence; I myself saw no effective alternative, other than threats, to prevent Assad from using chemical weapons again.

I suppose we could have asked him nicely to stop, but he does not appear to be a nice man at all, and I don't believe that asking him to stop would have been effective. It is unfortunate that threats were used to bring about a diplomatic course of action, but what else could have been done under the circumstances?

The situation for human rights in Syria is considered exceptionally poor among international observers.[1][2] A state of emergency was in effect from 1963 until April 2011, giving security forces sweeping powers of arrest and detention.[2]

Syria is a Multi-party state without free elections. The authorities harass and imprison human rights activists and other critics of the government.[3] Freedom of expression, association, and assembly are strictly controlled.[2][3] Women and ethnic minorities face discrimination.[2][3] According to Human Rights Watch, President Bashar al-Assad failed to improve Syria’s human rights record in the first 10 years of his rule,[4] and Syria's human rights situation remained among the worst in the world.[5] According to Amnesty International, the government may be guilty of crimes against humanity based on "witness accounts of deaths in custody, torture and arbitrary detention," during the crackdown against the 2011 uprising.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Syria

[WilliamPitt]

11. "We are undone, as progressives"

What's this 'we' shit, bigtree? You got a mouse in your pocket?

[JaneyVee]

19. Huh? The Prez is making every correct decision, from going to congress to waiting

For UN results, to putting no boots on the ground.

[bigtree]

25. since when is a committment to keep our ground forces out of a civil war some bold act?

. . .this President has led with his militarism; only driven to this cynical embrace of diplomacy after they, themselves declared the diplomatic efforts 'exhausted'.

His answer to every question is to give him authority to strike Syria with the force of our weapons. I don't believe that's a 'correct' course of action.

[JaneyVee]

26. Doing nothing is unacceptable and creates a dangerous precedent.

[bigtree]

30. 'doing nothing' is a canard

. . . especially when military strikes have such a nebulous prospect for effecting any of the President's goals in Syria, and have the potential for actually exacerbating the conflict and humanitarian concerns there and doing little more than escalating the violence.

[JaneyVee]

36. Why are you thinking we would target people? Most likely target military supplies I.e.

Syrian fighter jets parked on runways, tank battalions, weapons sites. Especially if it will be limited, taking out civilians would quickly turn the tide against us. Bombing strictly military structures as mentioned above would garner broad coalition support.

[Skittles]

41. so why did he risk the rejection of the Brits?

[bigtree]

45. most folks know that most of Syria's arnaments and facilities are located so near residential areas

. . . so close, that even our generals admitted earlier on that even targeted strikes had the potential for collateral killings.


Syria moving troops, hiding weapons in residential neighborhoods

The main Western-backed opposition group says that during the buildup last week to what seemed like an imminent U.S. attack, the army moved troops as well as rocket launchers, artillery and other heavy weapons into residential neighborhoods in cities nationwide. Three Damascus residents, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals, confirmed such movements . . .

"The Syrian regime knows there are 30-40 potential targets for U.S. airstrikes, and they have had ample time to prepare," said Hisham Jaber, a retired Lebanese army general and director of the Middle East Center for Studies and Political Research in Beirut. "Half of them, if not more, have been evacuated, moved or camouflaged. This is the natural thing to do."

http://blog.al.com/wire/2013/09/syria_moving_troops_hiding_wea.html

[woo me with science]

47. Yes, they would target military installations,

in other words, "command and control." And by doing that, they risk disrupting the Syrian government's control over any weapons they *do* have.

At that point, they *create* a situation in which they can turn around and claim that "boots on the ground" are necessary after all, in order to secure the weapons.

And apparently a hell of a lot of "boots" would be needed to do that.

[JaneyVee]

49. Lets just stick to the facts on this important situation. Speculation is mostly

Counter productive.

[woo me with science]

56. *You* are the one who speculated about targeting military installations, and

your speculations have a lot of weight to them. Media outlets have extensively commented on command and control military installations as being the most likely site for strikes. Here is BBC, but I could easily google and provide you with 10 more:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23946071

The problem with targeting command and control is that you create a high risk of removing the Syrian government's control over any weapons it *does* have and creating a situation in which MIC can then turn around and claim that securing the weapons from the rebels with "boots on the ground" is necessary after all.

It is not speculation that securing chemical weapons in Syria would require a hell of a lot more than a few boots on the ground. The Pentagon has been aware of it for at least a year:

Pentagon knew since 2012 that 75,000 GROUND TROOPS needed to secure Syria's chemical weapons
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023601131#post18

[dkf]

31. Not really. Who is going to use chemical weapons against us because its "acceptable"?

That's a ridiculous argument.

[JaneyVee]

33. I said doing nothing is unacceptable.

[dkf]

34. Because what? It's going to become the norm?

Honestly that argument is ridiculous.

[JaneyVee]

38. Doing nothing will be the best case for others to make chemical weapons the norm.

[Skittles]

37. did you say the same thing about sweeping bush and cheney crimes under the rug?

[JaneyVee]

40. There was a 1% chance of Iraq having WMDs. 100% chance Syria does.

[Skittles]

43. I.....er....

oooooooookay then

[JaneyVee]

44. Sorry but you're incoherent.

[Skittles]

64. that is something you should be familiar with!

[morningfog]

71. He's taken it back from Congress.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

21. Part of it is the idea that the only borders that count are our own.

[bhikkhu]

24. A proportionate, effective response to enforce a universally accepted international law

after all other avenues failed; that's what I would support, if it came to that. Especially if the alternative were the tacit legalization of chemical warfare, through collective apathy.

Very fortunately, it seems, all other avenues have not failed after all. If it takes the willingness to use force to create a situation where force is not needed, that's fine with me.

[dkf]

29. Once you get involved in Syria, that's a pipe dream.

[bhikkhu]

66. We're involved in plenty of countries

involved can be a good thing.

The "don't get involved" argument is the same one that too many countries follow, and one reason the UN has been less than adequate and effective lately. Being involved, forging good relations with governments and people, can be the best antidote to war.

[dkf]

68. The ones like Syria are the bad ideas...Iraq, Libya...

Ugh.

[dkf]

28. Yes...this is the sad sad truth.

I had felt a sense of relief, but when I hear the President speak it feels like Iraq all over again.

I wonder if he would say these exact words if Sasha and Malia were older and in the military. Would he risk their lives for this cause? Or is he isolated from the reality of what he is proposing?

All this war is sickening.

[Snake Plissken]

32. I can't even believe we are actually considering starting another war in the Middle East.

We truly are a country of Jerry Springer contestants.

fucking morons of the highest order. It's not surprising the NSA is so easily taking away our freedoms, we are too fucking stupid to be allowed to keep them.

As W. C. Fields once said " It's immoral to allow a sucker to keep his money"

Well The conmen we elected in Washington are saying "It's immoral to allow a sucker to keep his or her freedom"

[truedelphi]

61. But it is not the people themselves who want this war.

Seventy two percent of us do not want this war, even if it is called something else.

It is the bought and paid for "public servants" who want it as part of their deal. So that they will be able to stand in front of a Corporate Podium, once they are out of office, and make 100,000 bucks per speech.

And the Di Feinstein types in the US Senate. Feinstein is notorious for her handing over insider information to her husband the war contractor, so that the couple can make another couple of hundred millions in profit.

[damnedifIknow]

42. To Syria and beyond.........

US Warns of North Korean Chemical Weapons Threat

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy James Miller said Tuesday that a retaliatory strike against the Syrian government would uphold the international norm that chemical weapons must not be used. Miller said he emphasized to his Chinese counterpart that lowering the threshold for chemical weapons use could put U.S. troops at risk and threaten global security.

China opposes strikes on Syria by the U.S. or its allies in response to an Aug. 21 chemical attack near Damascus that the U.S. says killed more than 1,400 people.

U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has warned that North Korea possesses a massive stockpile of chemical weapons that threatens South Korea and the 28,000 U.S. troops stationed there."

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/us-warns-north-korean-chemical-weapons-threat-20207599?.tsrc=tmobustoday

[Snake Plissken]

54. You knew it's wouldn't be long before the drama queen in North Korea got in on the act.

time to open the checkbook again, it's good thing we can alway find money for silly shit like this.

[blackspade]

55. Well said.

[DeSwiss]

65. I just hope she's still alive and safe....

[font size=1]Syria, two years ago at the outbreak of civil war[/font]

- K&R

''If you conscript a bunch of ordinary men or women, put them in uniform, take them to a distant country and tell them, “I want you to go over there and try your best to kill a bunch of people in different uniforms,” the majority who aren’t psychopaths won’t want to do it. We find that an alien thing to do. But if you ask them to kill a virtual enemy … well, that’s no problem. Nobody cares what happens to all those zombies in the shoot-’em-up games, because they’re not real.

If you get humans to kill a thousand or 10,000 virtual enemies, and then put them in a real combat situation, it is quite likely that they will become desensitized to the idea of killing, especially with countless virtual walk-throughs.

Technology is always a two-edged sword. It will bring in many benefits, but also many disasters. Because of the complexity of our situation, we cannot predict what things will be until they happen. It’s just part of our responsibility as people in the modern world to do our very, very best to deal with them, and think them through, as they occur.'' ~Alan Moore

[Precisely]

69. We were undone by Bush and Cheney and that didn't go away

Very eloquent, thank you.

[nashville_brook]

73. totally agree... except I'm not sure it's as dark for progressives

rather, i think you're seeing a loud contingent of folks who don't identify as progressive beating the war drums.

[orenbus]

80. whatever happened to those that saw through the bs...

[brush]

82. Consider this

I don't think the President wants to do the Syrian strike at all but being PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND COMMAMDER-IN-CHIEF OF EMPIRE and all that that entails, demands of continual war to quiet the corporate media war drummers and the congressional corporate puppets of the military industrial complex, plus of course, keeping MIC coffers full.

His flipping of the script to turn the decision over to Congress, IMHO, shows that he's trying to find a way out of intervention but he has to maintain the facade of being for it, same thing with Kerry and Rice — united front and all. And remember, his reputation for taking out the bad guys like Ben Ladin, Khaddaffi and to some degree Mubarak goes before him. So he has that going for him by keeping the pressure on Syria.

I also understand that he and Putin (who all the Obama haters are now giving credit for the idea) discussed the surrender of Syria's chem weapons not just at the recent G20 conference but during the 2012 G20 also. That's more evidence right there that he's been seeking a way other than war.

Kerry's mention of it in his presser was no accident (it just seemed that way to many, even some in the press).

The Russians and Syrians jumped at the chance to negotiate a surrender of the chem weapons.

Another way of putting it is, "they blinked."

That's how you use the power of the US without firing a shot.

And of course Assad also had what happened to Ben Ladin playing on his mind.

[woo me with science]

85. kick