John Kerry Rejects Bashar Assad's 30-Day Deadline For Submitting Chemical Weapons Data

[Tx4obama]

Source: AP via HuffPo

Updated: 09/12/2013 9:12 pm EDT
GENEVA -- U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is rejecting Syrian President Bashar Assad's suggestion Thursday that he begin submitting data on his chemical weapons arsenal one month after signing an international chemical weapons ban.

Speaking at a news conference with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Kerry noted that Assad said a 30-day lead time would be standard.

"There is nothing standard about this process," Kerry said, because Assad has used his chemical weapons.

"The words of the Syrian regime in our judgment are simply not enough."

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/12/john-kerry-bashar-assad_n_3915267.html

---

Additional article below

Sep 12, 9:01 PM EDT

Kerry talks tough in Syria encounter with Russia

GENEVA (AP) -- Striking a tough tone, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry opened swiftly convened talks with Russia on Syria's chemical weapons Thursday by bluntly rejecting a Syrian pledge to begin a "standard process" by turning over information rather than weapons - and nothing immediately.

That won't do, Kerry declared at an opening news conference, a stone-faced Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at his side. "The words of the Syrian regime in our judgment are simply not enough."

"This is not a game," Kerry said of the latest developments in a series that has rapidly gone from deadly chemical attacks to threats of retaliatory U.S. air strikes to Syrian agreement with a Russian plan to turn over the weapons and, finally, to the crucial matter of working out the difficult details.

"We believe there is nothing standard about this process at this moment because of the way the regime has behaved," Kerry declared. And he kept alive the threat of U.S. military action, saying the turnover of weapons must be complete, verifiable and timely - "and finally, there ought to consequences if it doesn't take place."

-snip-

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_UNITED_STATES_SYRIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-09-12-21-01-48

[riderinthestorm]

1. Of course he did...

Gotta get that war on...

[classysassy]

9. Peace zero profits, War billions of dollars profit zero blood from the wealthy

Return the draft. Let the wealthy earn their bloody money by sending their kids off to war.

[840high]

12. Correct.

[arewenotdemo]

16. Kerry wants war!

Nothing else will do.

[karynnj]

60. No he doesn't - listen to the google hang out

where he says that Syria giving up its weapons is far better. Also consider that Assad burned Kerry and Obama once before. In 2009, Obama initiated contact with Assad with the intent of re-establishing relations. Kerry met with him many times and the US did send an ambassador. What they were asking is that Assad not help Iran arm Hezbollah. Kerry speaks of Assad lying to his face saying they did not send SCUD missiles to Hezzbollah - which they did.

Note that Kerry did not say "NO" and leave for home. That is Syria's first offer. Do you accept the first low ball offer when you sold a home?

If you think of it, this is jostling for position in the negotiations. Russia wants to be seen as the serious good guy working for the overall good of the world, the US wants to be seen as an advocate of an "international norm" and Assad in his comments wants to be seen as a good guy voluntarily giving up his weapons. All are not 100% true. The US and Russia both have not been innocent with regards to the mess in Syria. (I am really disturbed that we raised the expectations of the rebels, encouraged them to rebel and supported them in some way for at least 4 years or so. I not like this when Carter supported the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan or Reagan supported the Contras. )

This will affect how strong we will be in the negotiations. Note that BOTH Lavrov and Kerry have suggested that the chemical weapon issue resolution be followed by the Geneva 2 negotiations that Kerry and Lavrov called for reviving earlier this year. Listen to the last question on this goodle hang out - http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/09/announcing-a-live-google-hangout-with-john-kerry/?_r=1 (If limited for time start at 30 minutes in when the second to last question is asked because it to some degree informs the last question. ) These are high stakes.

[Kelvin Mace]

78. If Kerry didn't want war

why did he consult the worst war monger/criminal in American history?

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/11/kissinger_really_stop_taking_this_man_seriously/

[karynnj]

80. Because he is also someone who was a very successful diplomat

The fact is that he has testified before the SFRC many times - called by many chairs and other members.

[grahamhgreen]

18. War yeeeha! Gonna make us some money!

[Tigress DEM]

26. 30 more days to USE those weapons. I'd say NO too. nt

[avaistheone1]

34. I heard that the text of the treaty gives Syria a full 30 days to begin to comply

with the articles of the treaty. The U.S. signed the treaty 20 years ago, and hasn't fully fulfilled its obligations, and isn't projected to for another 10 years. Even with those 30 days, Syria would still beat the United States to complete fulfillment of the treaty's obligations by 6 years.

[Nihil]

42. Your point will probably fade away and gather dust ...

... before it is ever addressed by the cheerleaders and warmongers around here ...

> The U.S. signed the treaty 20 years ago, and hasn't fully fulfilled its obligations,
> and isn't projected to for another 10 years.
> Even with those 30 days, Syria would still beat the United States to complete
> fulfillment of the treaty's obligations by 6 years.

Thank you for trying.

[Celefin]

50. And what would happen if he used them?

And what would happen if he declared them wrongly because the haste needed to comply?

Can you spell cruise missile?

Assad is not going to commit an epic stupidity like a CW strike now.
Kerry just came back from getting advice from Kissinger and wants his war on. First important action: move goalposts.
There never was talk about a specific deadline to declare the weapons... now there suddenly is.

All the toys of war are in place and they will not be removed if there is any chance of using them.

[MADem]

2. The Syrians know what they've got. They learned logistics from the French.

The French Foreign Legion didn't get their reputation by not knowing how many beans and bullets they had on hand.

It's never a good idea to give anyone thirty days to cook the books and hide shit.

[Skip Intro]

3. "...because Assad has used his chemical weapons." Huffpo reports as fact?

In your snip, Kerry says, in quotes placed there by HuffPo, "There is nothing standard about this process," and follows with the line - because Assad has used his chemical weapons - without quotation marks.

Does that come across to anyone else as HuffPo reporting as fact that Assad used chemical weapons? Or that they may be doing their part to blur the lines? Or did Kerry really say that, and they just forgot the quotation marks?

Whether Assad used chem weapons is an unanswered question, isn't it?

[arewenotdemo]

17. We've all seen the videos, haven't we?

Just because Obama hasn't shown us the intel that CLEARLY and UNDENIABLY links the attack to Assad doesn't mean we shouldn't go to war based on his accusations!

[grahamhgreen]

23. Not after being lied to about the same thing in Iraq! You're too smart to fall for it again.

[cstanleytech]

28. Actually there is one large difference there werent hundreds dead in Iraq

by WMDs at the time to support the administrations claims as well as the fact that the Syrian government has admitted to having WMDs.

[quakerboy]

38. No there were thousands dead of WMD's in Iraq

The incident we know of with Saddam gassing people was a little further back in time, but the same dictator who ordered it was still in power when GWB decided to invade. And while the WMD Saddam had used on his people may have gotten old and gone bad by the time we got to our misadventure in Iraq, Rumsfeld and Cheney still had the invoices from selling the WMD to saddam, so they knew he had had them.

[karynnj]

59. That event was in the wake of the end of the first Gulf war - in 1991 Eleven years before 2002 when

the IWR was voted on.

The impact of that is that EVERY Senator - including Feingold and Kennedy all referenced that Saddam was an evil person (using similar, but different words). In the case for those voting no, they argued that, while most argued for the need for UN inspectors and (in some cases) continuing the sanctions (which had their own problems and which the world was at the point of letting expire), they though it premature to give authority for war. They were right.

[quakerboy]

82. They were right

And they are still right. Even if some of them now disagree with themselves.

[Bluenorthwest]

44. Iraq gassed thousands of Kurds and Iranians. The US under Reagan sent Rumsfeld

to shake Saddam's hand a few weeks later. Obama, he of the red lines, praises Reagan, who basically assisted Saddam's use of chemical weapons. Transformative shouted the Kurdish children as they died, 'he's transformative in ways Bill Clinton was not' they gasped.

[karynnj]

63. Obama did not praise THAT action of Reagan

In fact, he did not praise Reagan - he said he was a transformative President - and angered Hillary supporters by saying that Clinton wasn't. The point was an intellectual one. The fact is the election of Reagan - and the defeat of 10 very good liberal Democratic Senators, including McGovern, Frank Church, Magnason, Birch Bayh, Cutler, and Gaylord Nelson - led to a sea change in the direction of American government.

That Obama raised this is a function of the strange dynamics of 2008 due to the wife of a previous President running. Usually every nominee praises all past Presidents of their party - as long as they are reasonably popular within the party - which Bill Clinton was. However, Hillary's supporters were crediting her with most of the positive actions of the Clinton presidency - and it is hard to argue that she was not involved. This meant that to some degree ANYONE running against her had to point out the negatives that are usually behind the curtain. That is why we heard about NAFTA etc.

What Obama spoke of was the idea that there were transformitive leaders, who actually change the direction the country is going in. The two cited were FDR and Reagan. It is undeniable that FDR radically changed US economic and social welfare policies and that we were then in a mostly progressive/liberal period - that even Republican Presidents, Eisenhower and Nixon could not really move in a Republican direction - until 1980. In January 1981, you had a Republican, who was proudly conservative, elected able to point to a decent size margin AND the change of the Senate. (we still held the House - but the Republicans gained 35 seats.) No one here can argue that Reagan did not stop the liberal era and start a conservative one. C

Here, the point he made was that Clinton - like Eisenhower and Nixon - could not turn the tide against the move to a more conservative country. Things Bill Clinton had always boasted about - like reforming welfare - back this up. I think the response could have been that he slowed the movement from what it would have been under Bush and that it was not the quality of the President that determined if the tide could turn.

Now, about 5 years later, many here would question whether Obama has been a transformative President himself. Like Reagan, he came in with huge gains in the House and Senate and a decent margin. The case for him having been a transformative President is - You could point to major changes on social issues - look at DADT and gay marriage. You could point to what will likely be his signature accomplishment - ACA. You could point to Dodd/Frank which adds regulation rather than takes them away. Depending how this term goes, he may have turned the tide - the question may be if people buy the ideas enough that the momentum will continue in that direction. The case against - can easily be seen on at least half the threads in DU on Obama at any point in time.

Another real question is whether it is the President or the time that determines whether a President can be transformative. 2008, like the FDR years, was a point where it was obvious that change was needed. It might be that by 1980, for many Americans (few here) we had accommodated so much change that they were for a swing back to the past.To understand why consider the speed of REAL social change since the 1940s - whether you think of women, minorities, or the view of what government's role there is enormous change. Taken over the entire 1940s to today, the change on social issues is where we have won - however, it looks like they have won on regulation of financial institutions and the distribution of income.

[arewenotdemo]

68. "In arguments with some of my friends on the left.....

Because he opposed the Iraq War, and sometimes critiqued the Clintons as too cautious when running against Hillary in 2008, some commentators depicted Obama’s victory as a rejection of Clintonism. But to read The Audacity of Hope—Obama’s most detailed exposition of his political outlook—is to be reminded how much of a Clintonian Obama actually is. At Clintonism’s core was the conviction that to revive their party, Democrats must first acknowledge what Reagan got right.

Obama, in describing his own political evolution, does that again and again: “as disturbed as I might have been by Ronald Reagan’s election … I understood his appeal” (page 31). “Reagan’s central insight … contained a good deal of truth” (page 157). “In arguments with some of my friends on the left, I would find myself in the curious position of defending aspects of Reagan’s worldview” (page 289).

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/12/the-rise-of-the-new-new-left.html

[karynnj]

70. I don't disagree with much of anything you wrote

I was trying to explain the intellectual argument that was raised in 2008.

My own view is hinted at:

- I think that FDR was transformative. He HAD to change the country because things were so bad - and in the first 100 days he tried everything his team could think of - and very major pieces of legislation that changed the country enormously were passed.

- That it may be the mood of the country that allows the President to create change. I thought the argument simplistic in 2008 and still do. I think in 1980, what you had was a country that wanted to get back to the past - to a time they thought better and easier to understand. This was after a period of enormous change. If anything, 1980 was not a call for change, but a call to stop changing. It was not just Reagan - many of the Senators who lost were institutions in their states and nationally. Whether you credit Reagan the person or President with this swing back is questionable.

- In 2008, Obama was using this as a way to argue for electing him over Hillary - without having to take positions that were very different at all from hers. In fact, there is a good case to make for saying both ran on the Kerry 2004 platform with Iraq replaced by a variation of Kerry/Feingold. Obama was claiming that he - and and of himself - was a vote for change. Implicitly in that argument - by saying BILL Clinton was not transformative - he was implicitly saying that Hillary would not be either. (Not to mention, there was no way she could answer it by arguing that, unlike her husband, she would be transformative. She could neither concede Bill wasn't nor was it productive to get into that argument directly. Instead - her team trivialized the argument saying Obama was a Reagan fan - which he then handled - leaving completely unopposed by any one I heard the original (real) allegation that Bill Clinton was not transformative.

It was pretty nasty politics - either side - and as I said - a direct result of a spouse of a former President running. (If HRC runs in 2016, at least there will be a Democratic President in between and the Clinton years will be further away. )

[arewenotdemo]

31. I'm with you, grahamhgreen.

Just trying to point out the insanity and blood-lust at work here.

Guess I need to use the sarcasm thingy.

[karynnj]

61. It is highly likely, but based on circumstantial evidence

Ask yourself, if the rebels had done this, what the regime's response should have been. My guess is that they get their media out covering the aftermath as soon as it reasonably safe and condemned the people who did this and pledged to use whatever they could to help those neighborhoods through the tragedy. I would bet that had rebels done it and Assad responded like this, many of the more moderate rebels would - especially if Assad offered amnesty or clemency for rebels not linked to atrocities - have set down their arms.

Instead - they said nothing publicly and heavily shelled those very suburbs for 4 days!

There is supposed to be a UN report that the US is waiting for - in fact, Kerry hinted that they would wait for that in the same London weekend.

[another_liberal]

4. "Of course . . . "

Secretary Kerry then added, "Of course if the President of Syria did do it in a month, that would be fine." After a short pause, he continued, "Assad can't be allowed more than four weeks . . . give or take a couple of days."

[Tx4obama]

7. Pretty tricky how you forgot to mention that THAT was NOT what he said today.

And you gave NO context or link for what he said in those past quotes.

[another_liberal]

11. (sigh)

https://www.google.com/search?q=parody+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US fficial&client=firefox-a

[mike_c]

5. following Kissinger's advice, no doubt....

Kissinger is an expert at stalling progress and undermining peace. Kerry is learning at the feet of a master war criminal.

[arewenotdemo]

19. They've pushed the left to the point where we don't even blink

when we see Kerry go to Kissinger for advice.

Just one big "piss off" from Obama.

We won't forget this.

[truebrit71]

64. Indeed....

....

[karynnj]

65. Did you read Assad's full comments - if so would you allow him to dictate

the conditions? Knowing personally - as Kerry does - that Assad in the past lied straight to his face. The point here is that it is a negotiation. Note what was NOT said - "I'm returning home and advising Obama that it won't work. Instead - Kerry spoke of being guardedly optimistic - as reported by Greenwald's paper - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/12/john-kerry-syria-chemical-weapons-surrender

As to stalling - Kerry is most definitely not stalling - Assad is.

As to Kissinger, seeing that he negotiated with Putin - it seems only prudent that Kerry speak candidly with him on the experience. That does not mean Kerry condones everything Kissinger ever did - his history is a direct counter to that.

[mike_c]

66. for pity's sake, you're rehabilitating one of the most awful war criminals still alive....

Kissinger should be interviewed with a cattle prod in his cell at The Hague, not consulted like a real human in comfort at the White House.

[karynnj]

69. I am not rehabilitating Kissinger - the world is not all black and white

There are many unforgivable things he did - including things that should be tried as war crimes. However, that does not mean that he was a failure at diplomacy or had no insight. He is both evil -- and a skillful diplomat. His skill does not excuse the evil he did, but if he offered to speak to Kerry - it likely was worth listening to - even if Kerry ends up rejecting everything he says.

You are also ignoring that Kerry has been interested in diplomacy since he was a school child and he himself may - though few admit it - might be one of the most capable diplomats the US ever had. He also has been willing to listen to everyone and to develop any contacts he can. That is why he tried diplomacy with Assad - in spite of knowing he would be trashed by Republicans and a fair number of Democrat Kerry's own history is one of a far more moral man than Kissinger.

[davidpdx]

6. The next move will be to only allow inspectors in Syria for 30 days

Oophs, times up..

[durablend]

8. You mean 30 minutes

Whoops...you guys better get going....bombs-a-comin'

[davidpdx]

10. No, that's off the table

But I wouldn't put it past Russia and Syria to renege on their promises.

[zeemike]

13. Well now we know why he had to visit Dr. Strangelove

Er I mean Dr. Kissinger.

Henry our war plans have been foiled...what should I do?

[avaistheone1]

24. I bet Dr Strangelove told Johnny to put the screws to them.

Probably told Johnny to put their heads in a vise so they would not be motivated to negotiate.

[karynnj]

72. Not likely - here are the public comments of Lavrov and Kerry today

they are working on set up of Geneva 2 as well as the chemical weapons piece - where they both seem at least somewhat guardedly optimistic (the SD comment before this link was - #SecKerry: We are committed to work together in hopes that efforts pay off & bring peace, stability. Remarks: http://go.usa.gov/D8AT #Syria


This is from the State Department:

Joint Statements After Trilat


Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and UN Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi
UN Offices
Geneva, Switzerland
September 13, 2013
Share on facebookShare on twitter Share
SECRETARY KERRY: Let me just say to everybody that we will not – we will each make a very brief statement. We’ll not be taking questions at this time. And we apologize for that, but we need to get back to the conversations that we’re having on the issue of chemical weapons.

First of all, Foreign Minister Lavrov and I both want to thank Lakhdar Brahimi and the United Nations for their invitation to have a discussion today about the question of the Geneva 2 conference. As everybody knows, the principal reason that Foreign Minister Lavrov and I are here are to have discussions with respect to the initiative to gain control of and remove and destroy the chemical weapons in Syria. That is our principal mission here in Geneva. And I think we would both agree that we had constructive conversations regarding that, but those conversations are continuing and both of us want to get back to them now.

We came here this morning at the invitation of the Special Representative for the Geneva 2 and Syria negotiations in order to discuss where those negotiations are and how we can advance them. I will say on behalf of the United States that President Obama is deeply committed to a negotiated solution with respect to Syria, and we know that Russia is likewise. We are working hard to find the common ground to be able to make that happen and we discussed some of the homework that we both need to do. I’m not going to go into it in any detail today. We both agreed to do that homework and meet again in New York around the time of the UN General Assembly, around the 28th, in order to see if it is possible then to find a date for that conference, much of which will obviously depend on the capacity to have success here in the next day, hours, days, on the subject of the chemical weapons.

Both of us – Sergey Lavrov and I, our countries, our presidents – are deeply concerned about the death toll and destruction, the acts on both sides, all sides that are creating more and more refugees, more and more of the humanitarian catastrophe. And we are committed to try to work together, beginning with this initiative on the chemical weapons, in hopes that those efforts could pay off and bring peace and stability to a war-torn part of the world. And we’re very appreciative for Lakhdar Brahimi hosting us today in an effort to try to advance this initiative.

Sergey.

FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, we had a very useful meeting with Lakhdar Brahimi. As you know, as John said just now, we are here basically to discuss the issue of chemical weapons in Syria. Now that the Assad government joined the Chemical Weapons Convention, we have to engage our professionals together with the Chemical Weapons Prohibition Organization, as we agreed with the United Nations, to design a road which would make sure that this issue is resolved quickly, professionally, as soon as practical.

But we are very glad to Lakhdar Brahimi for inviting us on this occasion to discuss a longer-term goal for Syria, namely the preparation for the conference which is called Geneva 2. Russia, the Russian President from very beginning of the Syrian conflict, have been promoting a peaceful resolution. We have firmly supported the Arab League initiative, their being observers, and we supported Kofi Annan’s initiative, the UN observers, and we were one of the initiators of convening Geneva 1. Last year here, we adopted the Geneva communique, resolved major – almost all major players, including all P-5 countries for the region, Arab League, Turkey, European Union, United Nations. And it is very unfortunate that for a long period the Geneva communique was basically abandoned and we were not able to have endorsement of this very important document in the Security Council, as is as adopted.

Thanks to John, who after becoming Secretary of State in spite of his huge workload on Arab-Israeli conflict understood the importance of moving on Syria and doing something about this. And I am very grateful for him for coming to Moscow on May 7th this year when we launched the Russian-American initiative to convene a Geneva conference to implement fully the Geneva communique, which means that the Syrian parties must reach mutual consent on the transitional governing organ which would command full executive authority. And the communique also says that all groups of Syrian society must be represented.

And we discussed these aspects and other aspects of the preparatory work today with Lakhdar Brahimi and his team. We are very grateful to Lakhdar for his insight, for the suggestions which he made and which we will be entertaining as we move forward parallel with the work on chemical weapons. We agreed to meet in New York in the margins of the General Assembly and see where we are and what the Syrian parties think about it and do about it. And we hope that we will be able to be a bit more specific when we meet with you in New York.

SPECIAL ENVOY BRAHIMI: Thank you very much indeed, both of you, first of all, for coming to talk to us in the Palais de Nation in Geneva. We look forward to the work you are doing on chemical weapons in Syria. It is extremely important in itself and for itself, but it is also extremely important for us who are working with you on trying to bring together the Geneva 2 conference successfully.

Our discussions today, as you have both said now, have been useful. And we are not going to retain you much longer; you have other business to do. Thank you again very, very much indeed for being here.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thanks, Lakhdar.

FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, sir.

SPECIAL ENVOY BRAHIMI: Thank you very much.

**** posted in its entirety as the SD has a facebook and twitter link to share it

[L0oniX]

14. So John Kerry is the POTUS now? pffft

[arewenotdemo]

32. I think that when the "principals" meet, Kerry booms that overbearing, utterly

obnoxious voice of his over everyone, and Obama's spine decalcifies.

I think Kerry is running the show. And that scares me.

[karynnj]

74. Kerry's voice is likely just as it was in Senate hearings and when people met with him as Senator

Find any hearing - marking up a bill - his voice is not loud, pleasant and you would find that compared to most Senators in his grilling people he asks more, shorter questions, drilling in from the answer given,

[daleo]

15. He won't take yes for an answer

Man, this gets old.

[grahamhgreen]

20. Because Kerry is not negotiating, he eliminating all options but one.

[avaistheone1]

22. Honestly I think Kerry wants his damn war.

He is coming off as a piss poor negotiator.

[DallasNE]

37. I Think He Is Telling Syria

To stop watching Fox News because that doesn't represent America's position or values.

[karynnj]

67. Because he did not rapidly accept Assad's first proposal?

Note he did not say he was returning to DC or cutting off the negotiations. He also says that he is guardedly optimistic. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/12/john-kerry-syria-chemical-weapons-surrender

On something I do more about, is that it would be a "piss poor negotiator" who was willing to accept the first low ball offer on their house. (Note I say this as the person, who took herself out of negotiations, because I knew I would appear to eager - and my husband was far better.)

As to whether he wants peace, listen to the google hang out - a slightly over 30 minute Q&A. If you are limited for time, listen starting at 30 minutes in - to the last two questions.

Not to mention, you may not want to underestimate the man who did what every foreign policy expert said was impossible - restarted talks between the Israelis and Palestinians.

[mia]

21. Kerry and Obama know that

toast always lands butter-side down. Even still, I believe that they care more about mankind than most politicians.

[last1standing]

25. I think Obama and Kerry are smart enough to know that going to war now would make us pariahs.

So I'll assume this is standard negotiations and not try to micro-manage things from my desk. If it becomes apparent that the US is going down the road toward war again, then I'll scream bloody murder.

[DallasNE]

36. Who Will You Scream Bloody Murder At?

Will it be people like McConnell, Fischer and Ryan who, after the Russian proposal came to light, cut the negotiations off at the knees by announcing they will vote no on the resolution for air strikes and take the stick off of the table. That is so unbelievably reckless it takes my breath away.

But somehow I expect you will direct your ire at Kerry and Obama by not bothering to evaluate cause and effect and understanding why we are where we are. I'm hoping I'm wrong though.

[karynnj]

75. Not to mention - Kerry is STILL in the negotiations

- something the article fails to mention. In case, you did not see it - Lavrov and Kerry are taking the opportunity to also work on Geneva two at the same time. Here are their statements and thatof the UN adviser - http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=594108

Note that Kerry's words here are far far from the DU imaginary Kerry comments - and far closer to the person he has been his whole life :

Both of us – Sergey Lavrov and I, our countries, our presidents – are deeply concerned about the death toll and destruction, the acts on both sides, all sides that are creating more and more refugees, more and more of the humanitarian catastrophe. And we are committed to try to work together, beginning with this initiative on the chemical weapons, in hopes that those efforts could pay off and bring peace and stability to a war-torn part of the world. And we’re very appreciative for Lakhdar Brahimi hosting us today in an effort to try to advance this initiative.

[SamKnause]

27. Kerry rejects

Following the advice of that 'upstanding citizen' Henry Kissinger perhaps ?????

The world is in constant turmoil because of world governments.

The government of the U.S. plays a major role in the constant upheavals.

The majority of politicians are liars, con artist, and warmongers.

They do the bidding of corporations, CEOs, war profiteers and their MIC brass.

[Nihil]

43. +1 (n/t)

[karynnj]

76. No - Kerry rejects the first offer of the mass murder Assad

He did however stay in the negotiations and they seem promising:


Note that Kerry's words here are far far from the DU imaginary Kerry comments - and far closer to the person he has been his whole life :

Both of us – Sergey Lavrov and I, our countries, our presidents – are deeply concerned about the death toll and destruction, the acts on both sides, all sides that are creating more and more refugees, more and more of the humanitarian catastrophe. And we are committed to try to work together, beginning with this initiative on the chemical weapons, in hopes that those efforts could pay off and bring peace and stability to a war-torn part of the world. And we’re very appreciative for Lakhdar Brahimi hosting us today in an effort to try to advance this initiative.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=594108

Sounds like the Kerry I have heard for years - not Kissinger. (First of all, where Kissinger is all realpolitic, Kerry is motivated by the morality as well.

[arewenotdemo]

81. When, exactly, did Assad become a "mass murderer"?

I'm assuming that it wasn't before Kerry complimented him on his generosity in 2011.

Why do you dismiss entirely the words of Obama advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski?

Brzezinski: I can't engage either in psychoanalysis or any kind of historical revisionism. He obviously has a difficult problem on his hands, and there is a mysterious aspect to all of this. Just consider the timing. In late 2011 there are outbreaks in Syria produced by a drought and abetted by two well-known autocracies in the Middle East: Qatar and Saudi Arabia. He all of a sudden announces that Assad has to go, without, apparently, any real preparation for making that happen. Then in the spring of 2012, the election year here, the CIA under General Petraeus, according to The New York Times of March 24th of this year, a very revealing article, mounts a large-scale effort to assist the Qataris and the Saudis and link them somehow with the Turks in that effort. Was this a strategic position? Why did we all of a sudden decide that Syria had to be destabilized and its government overthrown?

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/brzezinski-the-syria-crisis-8636

Seeing as how Qatar has intimate military ties with the United States, and is now the location of the U.S. Central Command’s Forward Headquarters and the Combined Air Operations Center, do you actually believe that it began a covert war against Syria in 2011 without the blessing of the Obama Administration?

Assad has been responding the way any American president would if the U.S. was the target of a foreign-orchestrated armed rebellion. He has been defending Syria from a terrorist insurgency backed by the good old USA and its regional allies.

And Obama pushing the videos without disclosing the actual intelligence that implicates Assad should set off all kinds of alarms .

[karynnj]

83. There was a UN report this week of 8 massacres that they attributed to the Assad regime

This does NOT include the August attack - though Ban Ki-Moon spoke of that today and spoke of Assad's crimes against humanity referencing the report not the August attack. (For completeness, they verified a massacre by the AQ linked opponents as well)


It wasn't before Kerry's comments which happened before the response became violent - he thanked him for being "generous with his time" - which is a bit different. The fact is that Kerry tried to work with Assad in 2009 and 2010 - until the administration decided that was not the way too go - mostly because Assad was caught in a lie - he told Kerry that he didn't facilitate Hezbolah getting SCUDS when he did. I believe from what I have read that Petraeus, Clinton, Gates and Dempsey all backed this covert action. From a NYT account, Obama cut back what they wanted to do - but clearly did something. In addition, Hillary let the Geneva 2 process to get a political solution drop -- which had to have Obama's approval.

However in May of this year, Obama obviously OK'd Kerry working with Lavrov to restart Geneva 2.

Note that Brzezinski is questioning the actions of 2010 and 2011. I don't know exactly what the US did as it is covert. I am no more in favor of that then I was the covert actions to aid the Contras --- or the Carter/Brzezinski initiated supporting the Mujahadim. Your clip is interesting as it may show that Brzezinski learned or it may be that he is questing the geopolitical logic, not the whole idea of these types of covert activities.

[cstanleytech]

29. I see alot of kerry bashing but few here appear to be asking why Syria just doesnt turn the weapons

over to Russia and be done with it.

[Celefin]

51. Just turn over?

You need international approval to have Russian troops on the ground.
You need an exact inventory to make sure no CW remain.
You need logistics planning for multiple sites and transport routes of highly dangerous ordinance.
You need security from rebels who will be hell bent on sabotaging the operation.
You need a double back upped com system.
You need UN inspectors.

No, you don't just 'turn them over'. If only it was that easy.
Just the inventory of all CW at multiple sites in varying conditions will be quite the task to complete in 30 days.
Kerry knows this and aims to set impossible deadlines.

[arewenotdemo]

58. Nicely stated!

You know, when pondering why Kerry seems to be the biggest hawk this side of McCain, it seems obvious to me that he feels personally betrayed by Assad. I think Kerry really thought that he was going to be able to woo Assad away from Iran, and when he failed to do so he felt humiliated.

Kerry has met with Assad on numerous occasions and once lauded Assad in 2011 as being a “very generous” man, according to the Weekly Standard.

“Well, I personally believe that — I mean, this is my belief, okay?” Kerry said. “But President Assad has been very generous with me in terms of the discussions we have had. And when I last went to — the last several trips to Syria — I asked President Assad to do certain things to build the relationship with the United States and sort of show the good faith that would help us to move the process forward.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/28/john-kerry-wasnt-always-so-harsh-to-syrian-president-assad/

[cstanleytech]

77. Exactly why do you need international approval for the russian troops if said

troops are invited for the explicit purpose and only the explicit purpose of going in, securing and transporting the weapons and getting out of the country with them?

[Celefin]

79. Because they may very well have to shoot at various rebel factions

That may even be legal under this scenario but I wouldn't count on international approval.
Putin will not commit his troops if he can't be sure Russia's image comes out of this real shiny. He's a chess player on his own right after all and needs an image boost after the Olympic/LGBT disaster.
All the other points cannot be argued in my opinion.

[madrchsod]

30. i did`t know john kerry was the president of the united states

i guess i was in a coma and just woke up.

what year is this?

[JI7]

33. pretty sure Obama has given him permission to reject any bs offers

[DallasNE]

35. This Is Exactly What I Expected Would Happen

Last edited Fri Sep 13, 2013, 04:51 PM - Edit history (1)

Assad has been embolden by the comments in recent days from the likes of Mitch McConnell, Deb Fischer and Paul Ryan announcing they will vote no on military action even though military action is on hold while these talks go on. For the life of me I don't know why any of these people decided to come out now and behead the negotiations as we are seeing is happening right now.

What Republicans are causing is military action down the road to show we mean business and this is all so unnecessary if only Republicans could have closed ranks while the negotiations to get the chemical weapons out of Syria and destroyed under the auspices of the UN are ongoing. There is plenty of time for criticism for mistakes along the way after this is over and done with. I am absolutely livid with the loose lips coming out of Washington as those loose lips will certainly contribute to more death and destruction than had they simply said nothing at this time.

[Sunlei]

49. all it's going to take is just one of the people with access to that stuff to launch it.

That is what the war mongers and war profiteers want. That's why they drag their feet in hopes of a major attack.

[blm]

55. Some deliberately ignore that aspect so they can post their rants -

their pre-determined rants.

[quakerboy]

39. I wonder how many weapons we are talking about?

I mean.. If its 50 bombs, then theres no excuse for delays. Do it and be done.

If there are thousands scattered in a country in the middle of a war, I can see where one might need a bit of time to safely collect and hand them over.

And I would really rather see it done in an orderly fashion than rushed and have one, or a dozen, disappear into the hands of, say, Al Quaida, because we rushed the process.

[Tx4obama]

40. I think no one knows for sure. Below excerpts from older articles

June 5, 2013

-snip-

... a Syrian chemist who said he had helped design Assad’s wartime chemical weapons program told Al Jazeera that the sarin attacks in March and April were intended to “incapacitate rebels and force them out of strategic areas, while keeping the deaths among their ranks limited.” He claimed that Syria’s chemical stockpile included 700 tons of sarin, plus what he described as 3,000 bombs capable of being filled with deadly chemicals, and more than 100 chemical warheads for Scud missiles, suggesting that the warheads had already been readied for use.

-snip-

http://world.time.com/2013/06/05/would-syrias-assad-even-want-to-use-chemical-weapons/

April 23, 2013

-snip-

Brun said that in Syria today there are over 1,000 tons of chemical weapons, including sarin and VX, both of which can be deployed from artillery rounds and long-range ballistic missiles.

-snip-

http://www.timesofisrael.com/assad-used-nerve-gas-in-syria-idf-analyst-confirms/

[Bluenorthwest]

46. The US says there are sites all around the country, says if any military was to

go take them, it would take 70,000 fighting troops on the ground along with support for them. That indicates a large amount is thought to exist.

[Sunlei]

48. He has the amassed the largest stockpiles in the world. bought many tons of the needed ingredients

over the past couple years. Not to use on his own country, (the large use 8/2013 was probably his own military over doing that attack), but to use as an all out attack on some neighbor country he hates.

[ConcernedCanuk]

41. OK Kerry - let the USA submit THEIR list of chemical weapons data.

.
.
.

And why is Kerry even pushing this agenda without a UN resolution?

Oh - War!,

silly me.

CC

[karynnj]

73. They are working with the UN -

In fact, they were with a UN envoy today working on Geneva 2 - which is beyond getting rid of chemical weapons.

Link to full statement by Kerry, Lavrov, and the UN envoy. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=594108

[Sunlei]

45. 30 days is to long, he didn't even sign the ban yet. It could give him months.

Does Assad still have control over his military on the ground? Or did many defect and steal whatever they can take with them?

Order a stop fire and turn the crap over to the International forces today.

[Little Star]

52. Except yesterday, September 12th, 2013....

on The Situation Room news broke that that the country is now a "full member" of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Here ya go: http://situationroom.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/12/syria-signs-chemical-weapons-ban/

I heard about this last night.

[Sunlei]

53. good, now the international people need to start today before only one of assads military starts ww3

[Celefin]

54. If only it were that easy.

By signing the CW convention you agree to destroy all your CW - that means you have to declare an exact inventory so that you can show when you are done. The US and Russia did that long ago and that's why we know that Russia has already destroyed its stockpiles and the US isn't quite there yet, owing to the much larger stockpile.

That's why you need to declare them first. And making that inventory under the eyes of international inspectors is not an easy task for multiple sites all over the country. some under rebel control who have NO incentive to be helpful. There hope on US missile strikes rests on Assad being unable to satisfy US demands.

Also, if military forces defected and stole the stuff, that makes them part of the rebels by definition.

[Sunlei]

56. I know what you mean. I don't think Assad even has control of his military anymore.

That's why he moved his family, friends families everyone close to him out of the country. Some of his military with the $means defected.

The longer this takes the higher the odds one person with access will use it because they don't want to lose it.

[Celefin]

57. Exactly. All it takes is one guy with the proverbial matchstick.

Then every remaining semblance of order disintegrates.
The proposed Russian operation is literally the last hope, no matter how daunting the task.

[tavernier]

47. What's that old saying?

With friends like this, Kerry doesn't need any enemies.

[treestar]

62. Wouldn't it be "caving" not to talk tough?

I've learned from DU that on negotiations, you have to start way out there.

[karynnj]

71. Here are Kerry's and Lavrov's statements from today

Interesting news is that they are working on set up of Geneva 2 as well as the chemical weapons piece - where they both seem at least somewhat guardedly optimistic (the SD comment before this link was - #SecKerry: We are committed to work together in hopes that efforts pay off & bring peace, stability. Remarks: http://go.usa.gov/D8AT #Syria


This is from the State Department:

Joint Statements After Trilat


Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and UN Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi
UN Offices
Geneva, Switzerland
September 13, 2013
Share on facebookShare on twitter Share
SECRETARY KERRY: Let me just say to everybody that we will not – we will each make a very brief statement. We’ll not be taking questions at this time. And we apologize for that, but we need to get back to the conversations that we’re having on the issue of chemical weapons.

First of all, Foreign Minister Lavrov and I both want to thank Lakhdar Brahimi and the United Nations for their invitation to have a discussion today about the question of the Geneva 2 conference. As everybody knows, the principal reason that Foreign Minister Lavrov and I are here are to have discussions with respect to the initiative to gain control of and remove and destroy the chemical weapons in Syria. That is our principal mission here in Geneva. And I think we would both agree that we had constructive conversations regarding that, but those conversations are continuing and both of us want to get back to them now.

We came here this morning at the invitation of the Special Representative for the Geneva 2 and Syria negotiations in order to discuss where those negotiations are and how we can advance them. I will say on behalf of the United States that President Obama is deeply committed to a negotiated solution with respect to Syria, and we know that Russia is likewise. We are working hard to find the common ground to be able to make that happen and we discussed some of the homework that we both need to do. I’m not going to go into it in any detail today. We both agreed to do that homework and meet again in New York around the time of the UN General Assembly, around the 28th, in order to see if it is possible then to find a date for that conference, much of which will obviously depend on the capacity to have success here in the next day, hours, days, on the subject of the chemical weapons.

Both of us – Sergey Lavrov and I, our countries, our presidents – are deeply concerned about the death toll and destruction, the acts on both sides, all sides that are creating more and more refugees, more and more of the humanitarian catastrophe. And we are committed to try to work together, beginning with this initiative on the chemical weapons, in hopes that those efforts could pay off and bring peace and stability to a war-torn part of the world. And we’re very appreciative for Lakhdar Brahimi hosting us today in an effort to try to advance this initiative.

Sergey.

FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, we had a very useful meeting with Lakhdar Brahimi. As you know, as John said just now, we are here basically to discuss the issue of chemical weapons in Syria. Now that the Assad government joined the Chemical Weapons Convention, we have to engage our professionals together with the Chemical Weapons Prohibition Organization, as we agreed with the United Nations, to design a road which would make sure that this issue is resolved quickly, professionally, as soon as practical.

But we are very glad to Lakhdar Brahimi for inviting us on this occasion to discuss a longer-term goal for Syria, namely the preparation for the conference which is called Geneva 2. Russia, the Russian President from very beginning of the Syrian conflict, have been promoting a peaceful resolution. We have firmly supported the Arab League initiative, their being observers, and we supported Kofi Annan’s initiative, the UN observers, and we were one of the initiators of convening Geneva 1. Last year here, we adopted the Geneva communique, resolved major – almost all major players, including all P-5 countries for the region, Arab League, Turkey, European Union, United Nations. And it is very unfortunate that for a long period the Geneva communique was basically abandoned and we were not able to have endorsement of this very important document in the Security Council, as is as adopted.

Thanks to John, who after becoming Secretary of State in spite of his huge workload on Arab-Israeli conflict understood the importance of moving on Syria and doing something about this. And I am very grateful for him for coming to Moscow on May 7th this year when we launched the Russian-American initiative to convene a Geneva conference to implement fully the Geneva communique, which means that the Syrian parties must reach mutual consent on the transitional governing organ which would command full executive authority. And the communique also says that all groups of Syrian society must be represented.

And we discussed these aspects and other aspects of the preparatory work today with Lakhdar Brahimi and his team. We are very grateful to Lakhdar for his insight, for the suggestions which he made and which we will be entertaining as we move forward parallel with the work on chemical weapons. We agreed to meet in New York in the margins of the General Assembly and see where we are and what the Syrian parties think about it and do about it. And we hope that we will be able to be a bit more specific when we meet with you in New York.

SPECIAL ENVOY BRAHIMI: Thank you very much indeed, both of you, first of all, for coming to talk to us in the Palais de Nation in Geneva. We look forward to the work you are doing on chemical weapons in Syria. It is extremely important in itself and for itself, but it is also extremely important for us who are working with you on trying to bring together the Geneva 2 conference successfully.

Our discussions today, as you have both said now, have been useful. And we are not going to retain you much longer; you have other business to do. Thank you again very, very much indeed for being here.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thanks, Lakhdar.

FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, sir.

SPECIAL ENVOY BRAHIMI: Thank you very much.

**** posted in its entirety as the SD has a facebook and twitter link to share it
My user name is no longer true, I should now be karenVT