I came here for insight on Syria... and nothing..

[Pauly]

Did anyone read Putin's op-ed in the NYT yesterday? Pretty groundbreaking (as far as a world leader making his case to Americans), and whoever wrote it for him is a pretty good writer. The last paragraph wasn't the best, but other than that it was well-put at the least.

[johnnya24]

Did anyone read Putin's op-ed in the NYT yesterday? Pretty groundbreaking (as far as a world leader making his case to Americans), and whoever wrote it for him is a pretty good writer. The last paragraph wasn't the best, but other than that it was well-put at the least.

I think it demonstrates how dangerously out of sync American foreign policy has become over the last 13 years. It's also surreal that Vlad Putin becomes the international voice of reason.

[Moonlight J]

A reply to Putin's script

http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/12/dispatches-what-putin-didn-t-tell-american-people

[johnnya24]

A reply to Putin's script

http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/12/d...merican-people

The HRW is strongly rumoured to be a CIA front.

(among the internets that is)

[ironfist]

Reading the article on the surface, it's very rational and thoughtful and makes sense. Unfortunately, it was written by Putin. Putin is a hypocrite like any other politician. He admonishes the US not to go against the UN, while at the same time he unilaterally decided to strike Georgia and continues to occupy what's internationally considered Georgian territory. Not to mention that he also backs the breakaway Transnistria in Moldova. So it's ok for Putin to disregard the UN, but the US should. I'm not saying the US should go into Syria at all - I'm completely opposed to any involvement. But I don't think we should be applauding Putin either. And then he ends the article with "we must not forget that God created us equal." That is completely laughable considering his treatment of gays in his own country.

[The Feral Slasher]

Did anyone read Putin's op-ed in the NYT yesterday? Pretty groundbreaking (as far as a world leader making his case to Americans), and whoever wrote it for him is a pretty good writer. The last paragraph wasn't the best, but other than that it was well-put at the least.

Sounds like something Barack Obama would have written in 2007 or 2008.

[Bob Kohm]

I think it demonstrates how dangerously out of sync American foreign policy has become over the last 13 years. It's also surreal that Vlad Putin becomes the international voice of reason.

Actually more surreal that people would buy that, lol.

[johnnya24]

Actually more surreal that people would buy that, lol.

Hence the word surreal.

As someone said, the US were playing checkers and the Russians were playing chess. It's not checkmate yet, but that letter was a clever bit of brinkmanship. Makes the US look completely amateurish, which in fairness, they did a fine job of all by themselves.

I think the Russians have cleverly realized that public opinion in the US is far away from the whims and desires of the Government and their backers. Putin was trying to make their position more difficult.

[Lucky]

I dunno. Any chance the administration the got what they really wanted?

[nots]

I dunno. Any chance the administration the got what they really wanted?

You have to squint really hard to think this is how the Obama Administration wanted to play the hand to get this result.
More likely, Putin got what he really wanted--

[DMT]

This is obviously giving him much more credit than he deserves, and will be completely off-base if he orders the strikes in spite of Congress denying authorization, but what if Obama agreed to let Congress vote because he decided not to launch the attacks? He couldn't have possibly thought the American public would support him, and therefore recognized that the House would be a tough sell, especially with so many Republicans voting against anything he requests. After the British Parliament voted no, the USA's most important ally had abandoned him and he grasped the parallels with Iraq. Is it possible he finally looked in the mirror and saw W's eyes staring back?

I'm now mostly convinced that this is what happened. This sounds almost step-by-step what happened with Cheney and Iraq and I think Obama jumped on the political hand grenade rather than completely morph into Dubya2. Seymour Hersh's latest:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/2013/12/08/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin

Barack Obama did not tell the whole story this autumn when he tried to make the case that Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack near Damascus on 21 August. In some instances, he omitted important intelligence, and in others he presented assumptions as facts. Most significant, he failed to acknowledge something known to the US intelligence community: that the Syrian army is not the only party in the country’s civil war with access to sarin, the nerve agent that a UN study concluded – without assessing responsibility – had been used in the rocket attack. In the months before the attack, the American intelligence agencies produced a series of highly classified reports, culminating in a formal Operations Order – a planning document that precedes a ground invasion – citing evidence that the al-Nusra Front, a jihadi group affiliated with al-Qaida, had mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of manufacturing it in quantity. When the attack occurred al-Nusra should have been a suspect, but the administration cherry-picked intelligence to justify a strike against Assad.

The irony is that this was most likely written as an indictment of Obama when in fact it shows just how much pressure he was up against before he ultimately stood down.

[johnnya24]

Sorry, can't agree with that for an instant. He and Kerry knowingly lied to encourage congress and the population to approve a war. His lies, if successful, would have meant the direct deaths of many innocent civilians, and set in motion a series of events that would have seen all manner of humanitarian catastrophes. That is murder. According to the Nuremberg Trials, that kind of offensive is regarded as the worst kind of crime against humanity.

Obama doesn't get a pass on that because deep down he might have felt bad. He chose to lie. He knew the consequences and still he chose to lie. Obama is your Tony Blair.

We all knew they were lying in order to justify intervention. This was obvious. It was 50/50 at best who committed this atrocity. Looking back, it was reassuring to see that the public are not buying this BS anymore ... the NSA revelations had something to do with that IMO.. The fact that the desire to "find the truth" of this event has evaporated since intervention was blocked tells you all you need to know. One second the entire press machine is employed to sell intervention, intervention is blocked, then nada ... focus shifts to Miley's twerking. This was almost certainly a rebel attack designed to lure the West into the conflict.

I want to know: where is the inquest into Obama, Kerry, Cameron, Hague's promises to intervene if another chemical weapon attack occurred? Have we such short memories that they get a pass?

They spent a year basically telling the Rebels, "if another major chemical attack happens, we'll intervene and win your war for you" ... just like Libya. Given that the Rebels had prior history using chemical weapons, another attack was almost certain given the rhetoric. These guys eat peoples hearts and post the evidence on TV, they wouldn't balk for a second about using chemicals to win their war. Civil wars are bloody, desperate affairs ... history shows anything goes in civil wars.

Obama, Cameron et al instigated that chemical attack. If you were going to be VERY VERY generous, you would call it amateurish, and pathetic statesmanship. Obama made his bed, and decided to lie in it rather than admit the error of his statesmanship (which would be to admit culpability in the chemical weapon attack). He chose the possibility of murder over public embarrassment, or admitting the possibility that his actions may have caused this event. The Brits were different. Cameron and Hague were especially desperate for a war to call their own ... they missed out on all the 2000's fun. They are disgusting.

These "statesmen" were responsible for instigating the deaths of 300 people. Thank god intervention didn't happen, because then every desperate regime / rebel group would be using the "chemical weapon gambit" as a last ditch hail mary.

It sucks that we have to choose between "bad" and "worse". But that shouldn't be a justification for letting the "bad" away with things ... just because the other side will be "worse".

[senorsheep]

The leadership vacuum in this country is depressing. The apathy amongst the citizenry that allows it is even more depressing.

[DMT]

If Obama really wanted to launch strikes, no one could have stopped him. He didn't need to see how the public felt nor approval of Congress; that ship (i.e. check) sailed long ago. So, while you make valid points, that doesn't change the fact that the death toll could have been tens of thousands higher.

There were plenty of the American public who didn't believe Bush's lies for a minute. But since the protests were coming from the left we were marginalized. This time around, a large percentage of Democrats weren't willing to support a war of choice simply because it was their guy.

[johnnya24]

If Obama really wanted to launch strikes, no one could have stopped him. He didn't need to see how the public felt nor approval of Congress; that ship (i.e. check) sailed long ago. So, while you make valid points, that doesn't change the fact that the death toll could have been tens of thousands higher.

There were plenty of the American public who didn't believe Bush's lies for a minute. But since the protests were coming from the left we were marginalized. This time around, a large percentage of Democrats weren't willing to support a war of choice simply because it was their guy.

The argument was full of holes, and Obama didn't have a strong enough mandate to launch a unilateral strike. There was strong bipartisan clamoring for Congress to be consulted. Sure there was tepid support from the French, but they were on very shaky ground as far as public support also.

If the British hadn't got defeated in Parliament, then I think there was reasonable chance that Obama could have by-passed Congress. There would also have been a greater chance that they could sell it to congress. But it wasn't just that they didn't have the British support, it was that the British argument was publicly defeated (it was humiliating for Cameron and Hague in particular) ... and it was the same argument that Kerry/Obama presented. The thing to note about the defeat in Parliament, most of it came from the right. It was a backbench Conservative rebellion that defeated intervention. The "left" (Labour) simply argued for an empty "wait and see what the inspectors say" policy ... the left were just grandstanding, they weren't opposing intervention. In fact Tony Blair's old Labour cronies were demanding intervention. The British rejection possibly emboldened opponents to stick to their guns rather than falling behind party lines.

Seems like it was the first time the Hawks had been shot down in decades.

Bottom line. Obama, Kerry, Cameron, Hague et al knowingly lied in order to convince congress and the public to go to war. Part of it was covering their own arses because if the Rebels did it, then they were in large part responsible for instigating the attack. The attack was too big to be ignored (although we seem to have done that since then). These SOB's almost rained down bombs, in part, just to save face. It makes me sick to recall Hague and Kerry's bare faced lies.

Sure Obama could have been a monster and unilaterally attacked. But should we really be crediting someone for not being a tyrannical monster? We've fallen pretty far if that's what we're saying.