What Kerry did and didn't say:

[cali]

<snip>

One thing Kerry didn’t say was that the U.S. government would wait for the weapons inspectors to complete their work and issue a factual report before raining down bombs on Syrian targets. He all but dismissed the U.N. investigation, saying that it wouldn’t determine who had fired the chemical weapons but merely confirm that they had been used. “By the definition of their own mandate, the U.N. can’t tell us anything that we haven’t shared with you this afternoon or that we don’t already know,” Kerry insisted.

The actual evidence, which is presumably classified, wasn’t published in the report. Also conspicuously lacking was any direct evidence showing that Assad himself, or the people in his immediate circle, ordered the attack. What the document says is that the U.S. has intercepted evidence “that leads us to assess that Syrian chemical weapons personnel—including personnel assessed to be associated with the SSRC”—the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center, an arm of the Ministry of Defense that manages Syria’s chemical-weapons program—“were preparing chemical munitions prior to the attack”:

Syrian chemical weapons personnel were operating in the Damascus suburb of Adra from Sunday, August 18 until early in the morning on Wednesday, August 21 near an area that the regime uses to mix chemical weapons, including sarin. On August 21, a Syrian regime element prepared for a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus area, including through the utilization of gas masks. Our intelligence sources in the Damascus area did not detect any indications in the days prior to the attack that opposition affiliates were planning to use chemical weapons.

Having made the moral case for striking at Assad’s regime and military forces, Kerry moved on to the broader, strategic rationale for U.S. action, which appears to be what is really driving the Administration’s thinking: protecting the credibility of the U.S. government at a time when it faces other acute problems in the Middle East and possible nuclear showdowns with Iran and North Korea. “Our choice today has great consequences,” Kerry said, and he went on:

<snip>

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/08/john-kerrys-case-for-bombing-syria.html?mbid=gnep&google_editors_picks=true

[GeorgeGist]

1. This is when Secret Courts like FISA ...

are invaluable.





































If necessary?

[whatchamacallit]

2. The marginalizing of inspectors and the verification process is chilling in its similarity to BushCo

Simply put, fuck that!

[ProSense]

3. Here is what Kerry said:

<...>

And we know what they did next. I personally called the foreign minister of Syria, and I said to him, “If, as you say, your nation has nothing to hide then let the United Nations in immediately and give the inspectors the unfettered access, so they have the opportunity to tell your story.”

Instead, for four days, they shelled the neighborhood in order to destroy evidence, bombarding block after black at a rate four times higher than they had over the previous 10 days. And, when the U.N. inspectors finally gained access, that access -- as we now know -- was restricted and controlled.

<...>

So now that we know what we know, the question we must all be asking is: What will we do? Let me emphasize, President Obama, we in the United States, we believe in the United Nations. And we have great respect for the brave inspectors who endured regime gunfire and obstructions to their investigation.

But as Ban Ki-moon, the secretary general, has said again and again, the U.N. investigation will not affirm who used these chemical weapons. That is not the mandate of the U.N. investigation. They will only affirm whether such weapons were used. By the definition of their own mandate, the U.N. can’t tell us anything that we haven’t shared with you this afternoon or that we don’t already know.

<...>

Full transcript of Secretary of State John Kerry's remarks on Syria
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023563815

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

4. Well then. Let the inspectors finish their inspection and submit their report.

But as Ban Ki-moon, the secretary general, has said again and again, the U.N. investigation will not affirm who used these chemical weapons. That is not the mandate of the U.N. investigation. They will only affirm whether such weapons were used.

Fools rush in.


Why is it the responsibility of the USA to attack Syria?

[upi402]

5. what you fail to understand is

We need to kill some shit, and we need to kill it NOW!!!!!!!!!!

But seriously, I would hate to be in Obama's shoes.

"Never again" rings in my ears from WW2 gassing of the Jews on one hand.
and...
"Never again" rings in my ears from the Iraq bullshit.

BBC said the US is stuck. We can't get anyone to agree to bomb with us, and we look inept and ineffectual - especially so if we don't bomb after Obama said we should.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

7. The USA should just keep its head down and arm the rebels as much as possible and

give them logistics support.

Don't get involved beyond that.

[cali]

8. hi daneel. why do you think the U.S. should arm the rebels "as much as possible"?

How does it do that while ensuring that it doesn't arm AQ and related others?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

9. Hi Cali. It's a tough call, and to many as unpopular as a US military strike.

I have never been a fan of Dictators, and I like theocracy even less, but there has to be somebody that we can deal with amongst the rebels.

I can only hope that AQ doesn't become a recipient of any weapons.

If Assad is overthrown there is no guarantee that AQ won't take over.


There is no win/win, but there is a definite lose/lose if Assad remains in power.

[leftstreet]

6. Why didn't the UK wait for Kerry's speech before voting?

Off topic, I know, but this whole thing seems bizarre