[Official] Do you support military strikes against Syria?

Because that would be a dumb way to negotiate. If you start with "give up your CBW or we will hit you", then Syria negotiates down from there and you probably get something less than that. If you start with "we're going to hit you", then Syria negotiates down to "we'll give up our CBW to avoid being hit".

You're assuming you know everything that is or was in play behind the scenes, and that's a silly starting point to work from. We can be pretty certain that none of us know that.

 

"Zero" innocent Syrian civilian casualties[/quote]

Except for those who will continue to be killed in the civil war, right? I mean, no one actually cares about them unless they are killed with CW, apparently.



Er, we were never going to go to war with Russia, don;t know where that came from. But as for Syria - assuming this deal actually happens, great.



If the deal actually happens then it will be a victory for everyone. It is simply disingenuous to pretend that this was all some master plan, or that Putin didn't bail everyone out. The incompetence on our side cannot be ignored and is simply further evidence that the people in charge don;t have a clue what they're doing. They nearly got us into a war because of it.[/QUOTE]

NOBODY is talking about going to war against Syria at the moment as diplomacy (for now) has prevailed regardless of who did what. That is a VICTORY.

 

Obama's hand waving and gesturing makes him look very defensive

 

It doesn't matter much who was better or stronger Putin or Obama. Innocent Syrians may still not be killed by our missiles. We may have hundreds of millions more for the needy in our country.

Regardless the GOP will say Obama screwed up

 

All you hear is f*** you f*** you I hate America. Thank you and have a good F****** night.

 

I don't need to assume anything. Kerry's own freaking words damn the idea that this was planned in any way. Since you apparently don;t read any of the links I post I will give you his own words. Yesterday:

SECRETARY KERRY: Sure. He could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week. Turn it over, all of it, without delay, and allow a full and total accounting for that. But he isn’t about to do it, and it can’t be done, obviously.

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

Note the bold. Just yesterday he stated his belief that Assad would never go for such a plan, and that it would be impossible to implement anyway. Is that indicative of some master plan brewing behind the scenes? I think not.

Report out today:

Kerry tells Russia his Syria comments were not meant as a proposal
Source: Reuters - Mon, 9 Sep 2013 08:12 PM

Sept 9 (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov his comments about Syria averting a U.S. military strike by turning over its chemical weapons within a week were rhetorical and not meant to be a proposal, a senior U.S. Official said on Monday.

Kerry also voiced "serious skepticism" when Lavrov offered to explore the idea, saying that the United States would take a look at any serious proposal, but this could not be a reason to slow the White House's efforts to secure congressional authorization to use force against Syria, the official told reporters traveling back from London with Kerry.

http://www.trust.org/item/20130909200515-5ncvm

So, yesterday he didn't think it could be done, and it comes out today that he told the Russian foreign minister that he was speaking rhetorically , and that it was not meant to be an actual proposal. Are we still thinking this was part of some master plan all along?

Here is national security advisor Tony Blinken confirming that Kerry was speaking hypothetically:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w_KBRJYQyY

It's a short video, watch it. He says they "literally just heard about this" and that they "haven't had a chance to look at it yet". It's NOT some master plan, major. It is painfully obvious. The administration itself is saying that it isn't. You and the other fanboys here wishing it were so does not make it so.

So... How long until someone comes along and says we're just trying to deny POTUS his day in the sun because he's black? I've got dibs on Chris Matthews to do it first. Or maybe CometsWin. :grin:

 

If the deal actually goes through, it will be a victory. It will be a great outcome.

So remind me, please... Where are Assad's CW right now? Oh, right, I forgot, he still has them...

It is very possible that this is just a delaying tactic. I hope not, but nothing is done yet. And our own administration apparently has severe reservations about how this will be implemented. As they should.

 

Game. Set. Match.

 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>We've come to a point where Americans give Putin credit for Obama's ideas cuz at least Putin is not black. <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Syria&amp;src=hash">#Syria</a></p>&mdash; John (@linnyitssn) <a href="https://twitter.com/linnyitssn/statuses/377267030522486784">September 10, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

If you wonder why some of us (the administration included) are still skeptical of this plan, read this. I know you guys never read anything I post here but this one is really very informative, you would be well served to actually read it. And it's not not exactly coming from a biased source, either.

There's Almost No Chance Russia's Plan for Syria's Chemical Weapons Will Work

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/09/10/theres_almost_no_chance_this_russian_plan_for_syrias_chemical_weapons_will_work

Like I said, Keep the cork in, it's not over yet.

 

Project much? Your bias prevents you from actually seeing incompetence when it is blatantly on display.

I sincerely hope that we do not fail in this one, because failure means involvement in an unnecessary war and the deaths of US citizens. I want us to succeed. In order for that to happen POTUS needs to make clear-headed choices and not rush us into a war that we don;t need to be involved in.

That's right, there isn't. Please tell that to your friends who think this was the plan all along.

And if it doesn't he at least gets to say that he tried a diplomatic tact first. Which is more than he was prepared to do as of yesterday morning.

BTW, what is the process for removing a Nobel Peace Prize from a winner? How many wars would one have to start to have one removed? Just thinking out loud... (and yes, I am kidding)

 

He gives a good speech. And the crackwhore down the street gives good head, I hear. Doesn't mean I want to marry her.

My favorite quote:

“I have therefore asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path”

He asked Reid to postpone the vote because he doesn't even have 51 votes right now in the Senate. It would be bad enough if it failed a House vote, but if it fails in the Senate that would be devastating. As it is now it sounds like it will be quite a chore to get to cloture.

They are stalling to try and get more votes. They are way, way behind in the House and according to reports out today they are even behind in the Dem-controlled Senate. If the Russian plan fails (and guys, face it, it is the Russian plan, not the Kerry plan or whatever) and POTUS ends up doing this then he will still need to get an AUMF. You don't ask for an AUMF and then go to war anyway when the Congress tells you "no".

At least we can slow down now and think about this before the missiles fly. In this instance I'm OK with a delaying tactic.

 

He is waiving at your mother.... and father.

 

Some good reading for everyone to ponder. Because I know you all like clicking on my links. :grin:

"We aren't trusting Assad, we're trusting the Russians"

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/dem-senator-to-msnbc-we-arent-trusting-assad-were-trusting-the-russians/

U.S. Decided Not to Horse-Trade With Russia on Assad

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324577304579057262691515176.html

Playing Chess with Putin

http://keller.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/playing-chess-with-putin/?smid=tw-share

Putin’s Power Play on Syria

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/10/putin-s-power-play-on-syria.html

The Syria Solution: Obama Got Played by Putin and Assad

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114655/obama-syria-policy-octopus-fighting-itself

Making Sense of Syria

http://blogs.wsj.com/peggynoonan/2013/09/10/making-sense-of-syria/

Russia’s Syria Calculus: Behind Moscow’s Plan to Avert U.S. Missile Strikes

http://world.time.com/2013/09/10/russias-syria-calculus-behind-moscows-plan-to-avert-u-s-missile-strikes/?xid=rss-topstories

Click the links. You might even learn something.

 

All I said was that it was something they discussed. You questioned that as ludicrous, I showed you a link. Now you are backpedaling. Plan? I never claimed it was all part of a master plan. But clearly Kerry knew of this discussion and was throwing something out there. Diplomacy is a funny thing. And the fact is, neither you nor I have any clue on what is going on behind the scenes.

So you can play the role of partisan and use what's on the surface to attack, but as for me, I prefer not to play the partisan game and instead focus on what's best for the country and the end result.

And that is if we can get a deal worked out. Whether you want to credit the Russians / attack Obama or vice versa is moot. I'm a patriot, and my aim isn't to see Obama trip up, or Bush for that matter, but to see a result that betters the world and the interests of the U.S. I'll leave the other stuff to folks like Bigtexxx who hates liberals so much he sees them as a bigger enemy than Al Qaeda.

 

this x1000. Thank you. I particularly liked all the posts about which order Kerry's comment was in versus Russia's proposal, etc, as if our publicly available data is exactly representative of back-channel communications.

 

Uh, what? You said it might be something that they discussed, and I agreed that it might have been discussed. That is not the part I said was ludicrous. What is ludicrous is you and others assuming that it WAS the plan all along. Especially based upon remarks I posted earlier from Kerry himself as well as other govt officials.

You are insinuating it was. Isn't that why we're talking about this? And isn't that the Narrative of the Day?

No, that is not clear at all. Judging from comments from Kerry himself (which I have posted twice now) and comments from other govt officials it was simply a hypothetical, off-the-cuff remark.

You really should read, other posts on this. You don't even have to go back far, it's on the last couple of pages. It's already been done.

Projecting much, are we?

If by "on the surface" you mean "Kerry's own words", then - Touche! Ya got me!

Really, this is fun. Kerry himself and numerous other admin officials have already said that this was not some master plan, that it was a hypothetical off-the-cuff remark that happened to get taken seriously today. They have already said that they first heard of this proposal by the Russians today . Really, again, click the links I provide, the answer is already there. But in case you are too lazy... I'll do it again. The video is only about a minute and a half long. Watch it.

Here is national security advisor Tony Blinken confirming that Kerry was speaking hypothetically:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w_KBRJYQyY

Nonsense. We wouldn't be talking about this if that were true.

If the deal is legit and Obama approves it then I will give him props for arriving at a very good conclusion to an ugly episode. Even if he did stumble into it, even if he did nearly get us into an unnecessary war, even if Putin had to basil him out. He will still get props from me for making the right decision.

Pat yourself on the back, then. We need more of those.

 

Oh, not you too, Bob? I thought you were better than that...