The bullshit attributed to Putin in the NYT probably weren't even his own words...
If they were, they were words inspired by the hatred pounded into his head while he was being indoctrinated into the KGB. How hard is it to understand that?
Putin is a fingernail-puller who's been trained not only to lie, but to do it with a straight face even under the duress of torture. People on both sides of the debate lap his words up as if they're his own. They're not. Someone else wrote them. He only signed off on their transmission to the NYT. Write them? Give me a break.
There will be no handing over of chemical weapons to anyone when it comes to Syria. They're now distributed too far and wide. There is no law, no safe haven, no place in Syria from which to operate for any peaceful body to not only account for them, but to deliver them to peaceful hands. Not happenin'.
There is no peaceful end to this chemical weapon situation other than to wait it out until what has been mixed has outlived its useful shelf life. To think otherwise is to tempt fate and risk a conflagration.
President Obama has probably played this in just the right way, in SPITE of some of the things John Kerry has said. A "credible" military threat doesn't square with a military strike that's so small as to defy belief that it ever happened (to use Kerry's words, "unbelievably small"
.
I am now leaning toward the belief that President Obama may have played this so subtly that it works out just right. Only time will tell though.
All cards on the table: I am still FIRMLY, CONCRETELY OPPOSED to any kind of military action absent a Security Council resolution authorizing, seeking, DEMANDING a military solution (on the part of the United States) to al-Assad's foray into the world of chemical warfare.
= new reply since forum marked as read
