The Red Line: Part Deux

#1,177
#1,177
"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 the full and total accounting (of it), but he isn't about to do it and it can't be done."

The State Department later said Kerry had been making a rhetorical argument about the impossibility of Assad turning over chemical weapons, which Assad denies his forces used in the August 21 poison gas attack.
Click to expand...
Kerry's point "was that this brutal dictator with a history of playing fast and loose with the facts can not be trusted to turn over chemical weapons, otherwise he would have done so long ago," Psaki said. "That's why the world faces this moment."
Click to expand...

just so we're all clear on what Kerry actually said and meant
 
#1,178
#1,178
lawgator1 said:
If an agreement is indeed in place whereby chemical weapons are taken over by the UN it will only be because Obama pressured them into doing it. And if it turns out to be a ploy, that will probably be the straw that allows Obama to strike.

Its a win-win for Obama.
Click to expand...

:post-4-1090547912:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#1,180
#1,180
utvolpj said:
just so we're all clear on what Kerry actually said and meant
Click to expand...

I love this theory - Kerry made an off the cuff remark and the Russians heard it and said "Hey that's a great idea! Let's call up Bashar and start working on this. We'll go ahead and go public with this plan today" (same day Kerry made these comments)

Maybe it's an elaborate game of good cop/bad cop that Barry and Vlad worked out years ago and the Snowden thing, and perceived bad blood was all just an act.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,181
#1,181
volinbham said:
I love this theory - Kerry made an off the cuff remark and the Russians heard it and said "Hey that's a great idea! Let's call up Bashar and start working on this. We'll go ahead and go public with this plan today" (same day Kerry made these comments)

Maybe it's an elaborate game of good cop/bad cop that Barry and Vlad worked out years ago and the Snowden thing, and perceived bad blood was all just an act.
Click to expand...

I just don't see how anyone can twist this info the plan being a US idea

Kerry- Well sure, he can turn them all over and we won't kill Syrians but that brutal dictator won't ever do it so we must strike.

Putin - Did you ask him?

Kerry - Well no but he won't go for it anyways so that's useless. Incoming!

Putin - well why don't I call him and see?

Kerry - Sure, knock yourself out Vlad *giggles*

Putin - Assad says he agrees. Keep your missiles in your pants for now

Dems - Nobel Peace Prize Winner Obama works out brilliant diplomatic solution! Hooray!
(meanwhile dozens more were killed by drones in Pakistan and Yemen)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,182
#1,182
volinbham said:
I love this theory - Kerry made an off the cuff remark and the Russians heard it and said "Hey that's a great idea! Let's call up Bashar and start working on this. We'll go ahead and go public with this plan today" (same day Kerry made these comments)

Maybe it's an elaborate game of good cop/bad cop that Barry and Vlad worked out years ago and the Snowden thing, and perceived bad blood was all just an act.
Click to expand...


Actually, I think that all such remarks, in this context and given the timing, were purposeful. But that's me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,183
#1,183
Well I have to retract my skepticism at least a bit - CNN is reporting that the whole idea did spring from Kerry's remark. If true it's ridiculous that Kerry said it as basically a joke indicating it was the only thing Syria could do and it was basically impossible.

If the plan came together as quickly as it did (1 day) where Syria is agreeing in principle it certainly calls into question our efforts at finding a diplomatic solution. Just last week our Congressional leaders refused to meet with Russian diplomats to seek non-military solutions.

It's like we didn't even try.
 
#1,185
#1,185
volinbham said:
You think Kerry planted that comment then pretended it was an absurd hypothetical? Holy crap.
Click to expand...


Well, its more that I would not be surprised if the idea was being floated at some level, either here internally, or perhaps at the G-20, and Kerry was implying such would be unlikely to work since its hard to see Assad agreeing to it, but lo and behold....

In either event, it all comes down to the fact that Obama's threat to attack has created this opportunity. If its fake, if its a ruse, then I would think that it would make it a little easier to get Congressional approval.

My guess is that we skeptically say okay and see what happens, and that in the meantime the resolutions are tabled pending verification.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,186
#1,186
lawgator1 said:
Well, its more that I would not be surprised if the idea was being floated at some level, either here internally, or perhaps at the G-20, and Kerry was implying such would be unlikely to work since its hard to see Assad agreeing to it, but lo and behold....

In either event, it all comes down to the fact that Obama's threat to attack has created this opportunity. If its fake, if its a ruse, then I would think that it would make it a little easier to get Congressional approval.

My guess is that we skeptically say okay and see what happens, and that in the meantime the resolutions are tabled pending verification.
Click to expand...

LOL at LawGator.

It's amateur hour in the WH. Now the WH is trying to jump in front of this to make it look like their idea.

If it weren't for the utter lack of support Obama and team had for this strike, the missiles would have already been flying.
 
#1,187
#1,187
volinbham said:
It's like we didn't even try.
Click to expand...

I wonder if that's truly the case. Obama's only accomplishment in 5 yrs was a military operation. I wonder if he sees that as a way to help strengthen his legacy is with war. Of course he ran against that but it's all he seems intent on doing. No clue why
 
#1,189
#1,189
So I wonder how this will change his speech tonight? For the last week it's been a full on assault from Team Obama and his political advisors and allies that we are morally obligated to take military action and diplomatic solutions are simply not possible.

Now we see how quickly a potential diplomatic option can come forward. What is the great rationale for military action now if all diplomatic options are not pursued?

To further complicate matters our stated objective (if you can call it that) was not to rid Assad of chemical weapons but instead to punish him for using them with hopes he wouldn't do it again. In Kerry's words our action will be unbelievably small.

Now an option is on the table that would not only deter Assad but actually ensure he didn't use CWs AND prevent them from getting into the hands of terrorists. If we don't let this fully play out (UN Security Council, negotiations, planning, etc) then we are the ones sacrificing the BIG WIN for a small gesture.

So what will he say? We prefer the Russian option but go ahead an authorize me for...for what?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,190
#1,190
volinbham said:
So I wonder how this will change his speech tonight? For the last week it's been a full on assault from Team Obama and his political advisors and allies that we are morally obligated to take military action and diplomatic solutions are simply not possible.

Now we see how quickly a potential diplomatic option can come forward. What is the great rationale for military action now if all diplomatic options are not pursued?

To further complicate matters our stated objective (if you can call it that) was not to rid Assad of chemical weapons but instead to punish him for using them with hopes he wouldn't do it again. In Kerry's words our action will be unbelievably small.

Now an option is on the table that would not only deter Assad but actually ensure he didn't use CWs AND prevent them from getting into the hands of terrorists. If we don't let this fully play out (UN Security Council, negotiations, planning, etc) then we are the ones sacrificing the BIG WIN for a small gesture.

So what will he say? We prefer the Russian option but go ahead an authorize me for...for what?
Click to expand...


I would think he will say that he is now wanting to give Assad x amount of time to comply or the USA will act. He will still seek congressional approval to strike if Assad does not comply.
 
#1,191
#1,191
volinbham said:
So I wonder how this will change his speech tonight? For the last week it's been a full on assault from Team Obama and his political advisors and allies that we are morally obligated to take military action and diplomatic solutions are simply not possible.

Now we see how quickly a potential diplomatic option can come forward. What is the great rationale for military action now if all diplomatic options are not pursued?

To further complicate matters our stated objective (if you can call it that) was not to rid Assad of chemical weapons but instead to punish him for using them with hopes he wouldn't do it again. In Kerry's words our action will be unbelievably small.

Now an option is on the table that would not only deter Assad but actually ensure he didn't use CWs AND prevent them from getting into the hands of terrorists. If we don't let this fully play out (UN Security Council, negotiations, planning, etc) then we are the ones sacrificing the BIG WIN for a small gesture.

So what will he say? We prefer the Russian option but go ahead an authorize me for...for what?
Click to expand...


I think it changes the speech in the following ways:

1) Less disclosure, more stays classified. No need to unveil some of what we have if no need to persuade at this point.

2) Obama says he has discussed with leadership in the Congress, including Boehner and McCain, and all are agreed to hold off on the resolution pending diplomatic solution.

3) Thanks Kerry and Putin for their efforts to put this together, but warns that it is acceptable only if there is full UN verification.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,193
#1,193
BHO has been cramming for his big speech all week like a school boy on the eve of finals.
I'll pop some corn and put the surround sound on so I can enjoy all the stammering in High Quality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,194
#1,194
“The only reason why we are seeing this proposal,” said White House spokesman Jay Carney, “is because of the U.S. threat of military action.”
Click to expand...

does he think world leaders have no outside access? There was never going to be a strike
 
#1,196
#1,196
Putin and Assad played the dummy for the dummy he is.

Obama looks like the weak, indecisive person he is on the international stage.

He threatened and cajouled, and Syria made no move to do his bidding.

He tried to bring in the Brits, but their parliment slapped him upside the head.

He sought UN approval and was rejected.

He soought NATO assistancer and they tabled it.

He attempted to bring together a coalition...but only France was willing to go along. The others said that yes, those Syrian chemcial weapons are a bad thing, but, uh...no, they’re not THAT bad and would not join him.

He then tried to pawn off his increasingly embarassing antics at foregn policy on the US Congress and it became apparent that they, and the American people were going to give him a backhand to the face.

Putin siezed the opportunity, made a single offer, and Syria accepted it. China backed it that same day. Now France is going to propose to the UN that this very deal be put to the UN Security council and they will vote unanimously in favor.

So...did Obama do this?

Pffft! Of course not.

Obama looks like the week, vascillating, scheming, stab-you-in-the-back individual he is.

Putin came out looking like a leader on the world stage here.

Do not get me wrong...Putin does not have US interests, or the free market, or principle based, morally founded liberty as his principle concern. But he is shrewd, and does know how to lead, and he does know how to handle the international stage, particularly when occupying it with someone like Obama.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,197
#1,197
It’s amazing to compare Obama and Bush here.

Obama could not get UN approval for an attack...Bush did.

Obama could not get a colaition together for his attack...Bush got over 40 nations to participate.

Obama was going to fail to get a resolution to use force from Congress...Bush got that resolution, twice.

Obama could not even act on his own “red line,” threat and never even got to the point of establishing a deadline...Bush set a deadline and then acted.

Obama has tried to blame everyone and shift responsibility, even claiming the he never said there was a “red line,” when the whole world heard him announce it...Bush took full responsibility for his actions.
 
#1,198
#1,198
Translation: Obama success once again getting under the skin of those who cannot stand him.

Go throw your temper tantrum somewhere else, VM.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top