Skip to main content

View Diary: Kerry's speech was unconvincing and inaccurate (154 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  this is completely no true (4+ / 0-)

    it isn't an "interesting point" it is the CRITICAL point.  As I pointed out the OFFICIAL UN conclusion is that there is not adequate data either way to be conclusive.  Del Ponte herself has repeatedly conceded this point, and furthermore, she's the only member of this commission who takes this position.  So, here you are cherry picking quotes from one of the members, while ignoring the actual final report.  That's a little suspect.

    Also, the "Assad is winning" meme is a distortion entirely.  Yes, the army has won some recent battles, but I've not seen a single military analyst who things that Assad is capable of actually winning.  Furthermore, critically, the regime was losing ground in and around Damascus in this particular region because the bulk of the army was off attacking Homs.  So you are using an overall picture (that isn't really accurate) while ignoring the dyanmics at this particular location.  Further links can be found here.

    This notion that the regime had no motive is, frankly, pretty ignorant.  First, they had the clear motive of not losing the capital to the rebel advance, which would have been disastrous.  Second, the Assad regime's strategy to win entails crushing opposition and terrorizing the population into dropping its support for the rebels.  (I'd like to see actual evidence of any kind that support for the rebels, in the broad sense, is dropping.  NOte, Al Nusra is not the entirety of the opposition forces).

    So, when the actual facts are analyzed, most of these ideas just simply do not pan out.

    •  I'm not cherry picking (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fran1, protectspice

      I even referenced the UN position.

      It was you in your original comment that named del Ponte's position. I felt you somewhat misrepresented that position when you said:

      Del Ponte also was clear that there's no conclusive either way
      So I merely cited her own words to demonstrate that her position wasn't precisely clear at all.

      Now, as to the UN's final report, and whether or not it's merely interesting, or "CRITICAL", as you claim, is not known to me.

      I'm not privy to the actual evidence del Ponte acquired, or what political forces were involved not only in undermining her position, but in effectively silencing her since.

      If you think there wasn't immense political pressure on Ban and other UN officials to retract del Ponte's report and throw her under the bus, then we have nothing more to discuss.

      Is that what happened here? I don't know. But I have a bit of a bias for the fish swimming against the current. Everyone knows the major powers want an excuse to attack Syria. And a nice CW attack is all they need.

      Del Ponte would have done herself well by just going with the tide, and reporting what the State Sept. wnated her to.

      But she didn't. I think she has integrity and told the truth. Obviously, that's just a gut feeling, and so I won't base any hard conclusions on it. But I won't ignore it either.

      •  Take a look at the UN report then (0+ / 0-)

        the latest report from the commission is linked in my original comment.  It is the document I quote from.

        Also, the comment by DelPonte in an interview by Isabelle Kumar can be found here

        Isabelle Kumar, euronews:

        Back in May you caused some controversy with your statements when you said there was evidence that the rebels had been using chemical weapons, do you regret having said that?

        Carla del Ponte:

        No absolutely not and I confirm that, but of course there is not conclusive evidence. There are first elements of an investigation and so let’s see what will happen during the investigation but we have some elements, of course, otherwise I would not speak about it.

        Isabelle Kumar, euronews:

        But the evidence seems to show that the chemical weapons are used more by the regime than by the rebels.

        Carla del Ponte:

        I don’t know. Now it is time to wait and to have the final results of the investigation.

        Also, in the story reported by the BBC
        Note that the Commission of Inquiry itself quickly repudiated her remarks:
        Carla Del Ponte told Swiss TV that there were "strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof".

        Ms Del Ponte did not rule out the possibility that government forces might also have used chemical weapons.

        Later, the commission stressed that it had "not reached conclusive findings" as to their use by any parties.

        "As a result, the commission is not in a position to further comment on the allegations at this time," a statement added.

        The BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva says the statement was terse and shows that the UN was taken by surprise at Ms Del Ponte's remarks.

        The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria was established in August 2011 to examine alleged violations of human rights in the Syrian uprising. It is due to issue its latest report next month.

        The referenced report is the one I linked to above

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site