Skip to main content

View Diary: Abbreviated pundit roundup: A diplomatic proposal to avoid military strikes (137 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The President would only get credit if (6+ / 0-)

    it was his idea to sequester the chemical weapons all along.

    It wasn't; his idea all along was to bomb.

    If it works out, Vladimir Putin should get the credit, based on the opportunity presented by Kerry's gaffe.

    "Toutes les guerres sont civiles, car c'est toujours l'homme contre l'homme... (All wars are civil wars, because it's always brother against brother...)" - Francois Fenelon (1651-1715)

    by Superskepticalman on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 04:42:56 AM PDT

    •  We may never know (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nowhere Man, Stude Dude, bdop4

      what was in his head and what was in his heart.

      But, I would be happy to see more peace and less war.  Of course, the jury is still out on that ...

    •  Absent the saber-rattling, Russia doesn't do this. (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blw, I love OCD, mstep, reginahny, Juliann, Chas 981

      Credible diplomacy is backed by the threat of credible force.

      Putin felt the need to protect his client; that is the only reason Russia would step in.

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 05:10:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And the US has stepped in plenty of times to (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hoghead99, koNko, tb mare, sfarnell

        protect its clients, i.e. Israel.

        Furthermore, Russia's diplomatic initiative is backed up with credible force: (1) the Assad regime is winning the civil war for now - not helped by AQ-backed fighters occupying/oppressing ancient Christian communities heretofore removed from the fighting, and (2) the Russian capacity and resolve to reinforce its client.

        Flailing about not so smartly, the Americans have neither going for their diplomacy: (1) Susan Rice has declared diplomatic efforts "have not succeeded", (2) the US is reluctant to arm any rebels lest US arms fall into AQ hands, and (3) there is absolutely no plan or clue from the Administration as to what force will do to or about anything.

        IOW, there's no credible American diplomacy offered and no credible American force projected. The bluff's been called. Eleventieth-dimensionalist chess indeed.

        "Toutes les guerres sont civiles, car c'est toujours l'homme contre l'homme... (All wars are civil wars, because it's always brother against brother...)" - Francois Fenelon (1651-1715)

        by Superskepticalman on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 05:21:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's what patrons do: protect their clients. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          I love OCD, bdop4

          Which is another way of saying, absent the credible threat to the client (Assad), the patron (Russia) doesn't step in.

          And no, Assad wasn't winning. He was in early August, but the entry of the American-trained and equipped forces across the Jordan border in the middle of the month turned things around on the Damascus front. That's why the regime forces panicked and used chemical weapons.

          If "the bluff has been called" means that the primary backer of Syria has stopped running interference for their chemical massacre and is now working to take care of the Obama administration's primary goal in Syria (eliminating chemical warfare), then by all means, I hope Putin keeps calling bluffs for the rest of the decade.

          Art is the handmaid of human good.

          by joe from Lowell on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 05:33:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  So what will motivate the USA (3+ / 0-)

        To turn over it's chemical weapons to the UN?

        In 1997 the US agreed to decommission the 31,000 tonnes of sarin, VX, mustard gas and other agents it possessed within 10 years. In 2007 it requested the maximum extension of the deadline permitted by the Chemical Weapons Convention – five years. Again it failed to keep its promise, and in 2012 it claimed they would be gone by 2021.
        Do other nations have to threaten to bomb it before it turns over these weapons?

        And dude, don't even try to argue the US has not used chemical and nuclear weapons. Don't make a fool of yourself.

        •  The ones we're destroying with UN supervision? (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          I love OCD, mstep, cdreid, StevenW, franklyn

          Why would the UN want the US to turn over our weapons instead of continuing to destroy them?

          Oh, I see...you're just shouting about RANDOM BAD STUFF 'BOUT AMERICA. Sorry the end of Assad's chemical warfare spree has you so upset. Nice priorities you got there.

          Art is the handmaid of human good.

          by joe from Lowell on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 05:46:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ah. Losing it. Badly. n/t (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            petral, koNko

            "Toutes les guerres sont civiles, car c'est toujours l'homme contre l'homme... (All wars are civil wars, because it's always brother against brother...)" - Francois Fenelon (1651-1715)

            by Superskepticalman on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 05:51:02 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  No, the one you have failed to destroy (0+ / 0-)

            For decades, and while barring the UN from setting foot in the US to inspect the work.

            Maybe you need to get the facts.

            And I have to add, the US has killed far more people with chemical weapons than Syria and is the only country to have used nuclear weapons, and twice in one week because there were two different bombs to test.

            But I have no doubt in your revisionist world that was all good.

    •  You're assuming it was a "gaffe" (8+ / 0-)

      I suspect years from now we will find it was something somewhat less than Kerry "freelancing"

      When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

      by Egalitare on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 05:49:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Kerry's performance as SecState puts the 2004 (0+ / 0-)

        presidential election in a new perspective.

        "Toutes les guerres sont civiles, car c'est toujours l'homme contre l'homme... (All wars are civil wars, because it's always brother against brother...)" - Francois Fenelon (1651-1715)

        by Superskepticalman on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 05:55:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It may also put the election of 2008 (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mstep

          in a different perspective.  Have we seen an inept Kerry in recent weeks?  Or a "loyal" and compliant Kerry willing to carry out the positions and instructions of the administration?

          •  Both. n/t (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Heart of the Rockies

            "Toutes les guerres sont civiles, car c'est toujours l'homme contre l'homme... (All wars are civil wars, because it's always brother against brother...)" - Francois Fenelon (1651-1715)

            by Superskepticalman on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 06:25:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This conversation is bizarre. (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SuzieQ4624, bdop4, Juliann, SeanF, timkens

              It appears that the administration is going to get its core foreign policy goal in Syria - the elimination of the Syrian chemical warfare problem - carried out by Russia, at the expense of its client, Syria, without firing a shot.

              And you two are arguing about whether the Secretary of State is incompetent.

              Just truly bizarre.

              Art is the handmaid of human good.

              by joe from Lowell on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 06:46:01 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You mistake a discussion for an argument. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Superskepticalman

                This tells us quite a bit about your approach.

              •  Still flailing about I see. (0+ / 0-)

                Syria won't "lose" in this; Russia will ensure that its client has what it needs in its civil war. And with its C4I intact.

                Obama looks weak regardless of how this turns out. Didn't have to turn out this way.

                "Toutes les guerres sont civiles, car c'est toujours l'homme contre l'homme... (All wars are civil wars, because it's always brother against brother...)" - Francois Fenelon (1651-1715)

                by Superskepticalman on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 06:53:37 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Syria losing its chemical arsenal isn't losing? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bdop4, SeanF

                  That's funny, its chemical arsenal has been the cornerstone of its power for the past two decades, and was recently used in a last-ditch effort to stop FSA advances.

                  Russia will continue to supply the regime, it's true, just as the Gulf states, Turkey, and the US will continue to back up the rebels. All that changes from three weeks ago is Syria losing its gas bombs.

                  But Obama looks weak, because he can't possibly ever succeed at anything, because that would make you have a sad.

                  Uh huh.

                  BTW, the way you feel the need to lead off with a bitchy slogan - now THAT is a sign of weakness. If you thought your arguments were good enough, you wouldn't feel the need to do that.

                  Art is the handmaid of human good.

                  by joe from Lowell on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 07:06:22 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Weakness ... right .... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    joe from Lowell

                    Quoting Tommy Christopher (on Mediaite):

                    Even on MSNBC, the sundry liberal hosts who have been peddling the Iraq comparison to oppose the President have been characterizing the (Accidental?) Kerry Doctrine as a “way out” for the President, or as an “opportunity” that has simply fallen, like manna, from Heaven.

                    This is a bit like calling a royal flush a “way out” of a poker game. If Assad actually does turn over all of his chemical weapons to the United Nations, that result will exceed the wildest dreams of even the most deluded “Obot.”

      •  Agree (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Juliann

        Everyone seemed to think Obama and company blundered into a congressional showdown over Syria with no backup plan in case Congress said "NO". But maybe something like this was the backup plan.

        You will not be punished for your anger. You will be punished by your anger.

        by mstep on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 06:36:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Being stuck on the side of the road with a flat (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sfarnell

          tire and relying on the kindness of strangers is also a backup plan. But only after you're already stuck.

          "Toutes les guerres sont civiles, car c'est toujours l'homme contre l'homme... (All wars are civil wars, because it's always brother against brother...)" - Francois Fenelon (1651-1715)

          by Superskepticalman on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 06:51:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  US was so caught up by the Right saying "The (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      petral, mstep, Superskepticalman

      President must look bad", the Left saying "Maybe we should appease  the Right" and the President going out on a limb so far he feared backtracking that it took another International Leader like Russia to solve the situation. Putin was in the position to just study the facts and step in to prevent another war. He didn't have to deal with internal politics to come to a decision.

      The Syria Situation is an example of how deep US is entangled in negative politics to the point we are shut-down.

    •  LOL (nt) (0+ / 0-)
    •  Credit? (0+ / 0-)

      Credit is a non-issue.

      Results are the issue.

      If this works, who cares who gets credit?

      It's better to be lucky than good.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (136)
  • Community (67)
  • Bernie Sanders (49)
  • Elections (36)
  • Hillary Clinton (29)
  • 2016 (28)
  • Culture (28)
  • Climate Change (27)
  • Science (24)
  • Civil Rights (24)
  • Environment (24)
  • Law (20)
  • Media (20)
  • Labor (19)
  • Republicans (18)
  • Spam (17)
  • Barack Obama (17)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (17)
  • International (15)
  • White House (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site