Anyone see Steve Clemons interviewed on Rachel tonight?

[Nancy Waterman]

There was a very interesting Steve Clemons interview on Rachel tonight. He says that he believes the claim of Assad using chemical weapons and that he generally tends to be skeptical of these kinds of things. He has been carefully investigating this in the past few days.

He thinks that Obama will do a very circumscribed hit to punish, not to go to war. He says there is a line between being involved in the war on the side of the rebels and being on the side of the global consensus against the use of chemical weapons. He thinks Obama is distinguishing between these two things and any strike would be to punish the use of chemical weapons so that Assad does not think he can do so again with impunity.

The interview is at the end of this video.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/vp/52852301#52852301

[KittyWampus]

1. Here is an analysis from Al Jazeera that is very insightful. And Steve Clemons is always a good read

Marwan Bishara's interview:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/08/2013823155635125544.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023540314

[kelliekat44]

3. Insightful but still no proof. And if we punish Asaad for fighting to save his regime (as did Saada

and others) does that mean than no regime can rule any country unless we agree?

[KittyWampus]

5. We haven't punished Assad for 2 years until the chemical weapons. So a smack down will probably

happen to assert some "boundaries". That's my prediction.

[Cha]

2. K&R.. Mahalo Nancy!

[cry baby]

4. Saw it! Very compelling comments by Mr. Clemons. nt

[moondust]

6. "signals intelligence"

Steve thinks the administration knows more about who did what than they are telling the public. He's probably right considering the NSA, Mossad, and other intelligence operations have had a couple years to monitor the conflict.

That fine line between "punishing the use of chemical weapons" and siding with the rebels in a civil war may be difficult to maintain despite the best intentions.

[DevonRex]

7. He made sense.

Thank you Nancy. We have to thread a tiny needle, given the regional issues and involvement of Russia.

[JayhawkSD]

8. Yes, the old "I trust my government" argument.

I trust my government because it knows things that I don't know. And it can't tell me those things because they are secret. They are secret because it the government revealed them then the enemy would know that the government knows them. And that would allow the enemy to figure out how we came by the reformation, that is to say it would "revel our sources." So we must be satisfied and not argue about what the government does. Loyalty, patriotism, mother and apple pie.

And, of course, we trust the government because the president is a Democrat. If the president was a Republican then that whole first paragraph would not be written and we would emphatically not trust our government. In that case secrecy would be a very bad thing, used only for the purpose of allowing the government to lie their asses off to us.

[JDPriestly]

9. I hope he is right!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

10. Here's the whole show...

Better to save to disk and then play. He starts about 11 minutes in.

http://msnbcpod.vo.llnwd.net/l1/video/podcast/pdv_maddow_netcast_m4v-08-26-2013-205351.m4v

[Douglas Carpenter]

11. I respect Steve Clemons and would consider his opinions. I only fear process

Okay, I don't think President Obama is any blood lusting warmonger. I alienated some of my friends of the left by earnestly supporting the nomination of Chuck Hagel - not because I thought Chuck Hagel was a dove or an anti-interventionist - but because I was convinced - and I hope I am right - that his brand of "only in America's national interest" philosophy was less dangerous and less likely to lead toward intractable situations than either Republican neoconservatism or Democratic "liberal internationalism," - both very dangerous and irresponsible philosophies - albeit neoconservativism is much worse. But as they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I fear that once American weaponry starts flying a chain of events could likely kick in take over any well thought out scenario. When the desired results are not achieved by limited strikes, what then? If the Syrian Baathist regime retaliates against the U.S. presence or against Israel or Saudi Arabia, what then? If the Baathist regime decides to double down and become even more belligerent, what then? When elements of the opposition feels emboldened by American intervention and engages in their won dangerous practices, what then? There are just too many variables.

[delrem]

12. Perfect! So long as the bombings get done, what matters the name given them?