http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/09/10/white-house-mum-on-rebel-chem-weapons-use.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-kerrys-not-so-clear-sailing-on-syria/2013/09/10/142fe5da-1a52-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html
Kerry seemed to accept that the chemical weapons deal that he proposed yesterday is going to advance, but appeared unhappy about it, saying that Congress needs to move forward with the war vote and the US “won’t wait for very long” on the conflict.
Trying to figure out where the president standson the chemical weapons disarmament deal is virtually impossible at this point, since every new speech changes it markedly, but the president is clear in his “calls” for the Congressional delay of the war vote.
Though mentioned as something to be pursued at the UN, the chemical weapons deal was only mentioned some 10 minutes into the brief speech, after reiterating his case for war and promising “no boots on the ground.”
White House Mum on Rebel Chem Weapons Use
While wrestling with the case for a punitive attack on Syria over the alleged use of sarin gas against civilians, the White House is not commenting on a widely circulated report that the gas was released by rebels.
The report, based on interviews with residents and rebels in Ghouta, a Damascus suburb where hundreds have allegedly died from sarin exposure on Aug. 21, quoted locals who said the chemical was released accidentally by rebels who acquired it from Saudi Arabia.
The father of one rebel said his son and 12 others died inside a tunnel they were using to store weapons, including some described as "tube-like" and others looking like a "huge gas bottle." The story appeared in MintPress News on Aug. 29, a Minnesota-based online operation whose staff includes veterans of The Associated Press, BBC News, The Guardian, National Public Radio and The Huffington Post.
The news report contradicts the narrative currently being laid out by Obama administration in an official assessment, not only in terms of who was responsible for the sarin deaths, but in the number of casualties.
MintPress' reports the deaths at "more than 355" -- the figure arrived at by Doctors Without Borders, which treated victims of gas exposure at three hospitals in Damascus. The U.S. assessment, laid out in a 4-page unclassified brief released Aug. 30, claims that 1,429 people were killed … including at least 426 children. British intelligence reports a death toll of "at least 350," while the French put the number at 281, according to multiple press reports.
Yahya Ababneh, the MintPress News reporter who was in Syria, told Military.com that rebels he interviewed said they moved the tube- and bottle-like weapons "every day from [one] place to another place." One man told him he carried the weapons to one location but did not move them again.
The U.S. assessment is being touted principally by Secretary of State John Kerry, who spent much of last Tuesday afternoon arguing the case for action against Syria before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The U.S. maintains that the rebels do not have the ability to manufacture and deliver chemical weapons.
The President's call for strikes on Syria comes 10 years after another Congress approved military action against Iraq that was built on weak and even contrived evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
Then, there were also reports contradicting the Bush administration narrative, including a Newsweek story based on a UN debriefing of a former Iraqi military leader who revealed all Iraqi WMD were destroyed after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Another was the public denial by former Ambassador Joe Wilson that he found evidence that Hussein was trying to acquire "yellow cake," or uranium, from Niger -- a claim made by the administration.
Lawmakers and much of the media ignored claims that contradicted the administration, and Congress authorized Bush to go into Iraq, where ultimately no weapons of mass destruction were found.
The MintPress News article is not the first to report that rebels have used chemical weapons. In July, Russian investigators provided the UN with a 100-page report that purportedly contains evidence of rebel use of chemical weapons in an area of Aleppo the previous March that killed 26 people.
The UN confirmed receiving the report, but has not released it, according to a Sept. 5 story by McClatchy News Service, which quoted the Russians as saying the work was done at Russian laboratories of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and followed United Nations investigation standards.
In May, when the UN sent an earlier team in to Syria to investigate alleged use of chemical weapons, a senior diplomat with the group said investigators found no evidence that the Assad regime used chemical weapons, but collected testimony indicating some rebels have.
Also in May, several Turkish newspapers reported the arrests of a dozen members of the al-Nusra Front, an al-Qaida-linked Syrian group, who were in possession of more than 4 pounds of sarin. A Turkish state official denied the group possessed sarin, according to a May 30 Reuters report.
Kerry, in Senate testimony on Tuesday, dismissed claims of rebel use of chemical weapons as not credible, and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee subsequently approved the administration's call for congressional support of a strike against Syrian government targets.
The White House offered no comment on the MintPress Report from Ghouta.
National Security Staff spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan said in an email to Military.com that the administration "laid out a very clear case for why it is our high confidence assessment that the Assad regime was responsible for the use of chemical weapons in Syria on August 21."
But even lawmakers usually strongly on the side of the administration say otherwise.
Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., wrote in a New York Times op-ed column on Sunday that he is skeptical of the U.S. claims. He said the classified version of the report that the U.S. has released is only 12 pages long, and that there is no other information -- classified or unclassified -- to back it up.
"The unclassified summary cites intercepted telephone calls, ‘social media' postings and the like, but not one of these is actually quoted or attached -- not even clips from YouTube," he wrote.
Grayson said the White House is not willing to share critical intelligence with Congress, even when asking for its backing to launch an attack.
"My position is simple: if the administration wants me to vote for war, on this occasion or on any other, then I need to know all the facts. And I'm not the only one who feels that way," Grayson said.
Rebels interviewed by the MintPress News reporter claimed the weapons were funneled to them under the authority of Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, head of the Saudi intelligence service.
A female rebel fighter, identified only as "K" in the story, said the rebels were not told "what these arms were or how to use them. We didn't know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons."
The Saudi origin of the weapons, as claimed by rebels in the MintPress News story, would itself prove a problem for the U.S. -- especially since Prince Bandar bin Sultan, a member of the Saudi royal family and head of its intelligence service -- is the one alleged to have authorized giving the weapons to the rebels.
Ababneh, who has been reporting from the Middle East for four years, expressed confidence that the people he interviewed were being straight with him about what they did and saw.
The Saudi origin of the weapons, as claimed by rebels in the MintPress News story, would itself prove a problem for the U.S. -- especially since Prince Bandar bin Sultan, a member of the Saudi royal family and head of its intelligence service -- is the one alleged to have authorized giving the weapons to the rebels.
Ababneh, who has been reporting from the Middle East for four years, expressed confidence that the people he interviewed were being straight with him about what they did and saw.
"They are working there, they talk as they complain. They did not prepare their words," he told Military.com.
Even as the U.S. launches its full-court press to get Congress to back a Syria attack, the UN continues to work to confirm whether chemical weapons were used at Ghouta. The UN's investigation into the Ghouta attack is intended only to determine if such weapons were used, not to point a finger at who used them, according to a statement by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
That was not the case earlier this year, when the UN's Commission of Inquiry on Syria went to that country to look into previous allegations of chemical weapons use. Then, Commission member Carla del Ponte, a Swiss national and former chief prosecutor of two UN international criminal law tribunals, said evidence pointed to use of chemical weapons by rebels.
"And we have no indication at all that the government, the … Syrian government, had used chemical weapons," she told the BBC in May.
At 9 p.m. Tuesday, President Obama, in his address to the nation, said that he had “asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force.”
This contradicted what his secretary of state, John Kerry, had said in testimony to Congress just 11 hours earlier. “We’re not asking Congress not to vote,” Kerry told the House Armed Services Committee. “I’m not asking [for] delay,” he added later.
Kerry can be forgiven for being at odds with the president. The president, in the space of his 16-minute address, was often at odds with himself. He spent the first 12 minutes arguing for the merits of striking Syria — and then delivered the news that he was putting military action on hold.
He promised that it would be “a limited strike” without troops on the ground or a long air campaign, yet he argued that it was the sort of blow that “no other nation can deliver.” He argued that “we should not be the world’s policeman” while also saying that because of our “belief in freedom and dignity for all people,” we cannot “look the other way.” He asserted that what Bashar al-Assad did is “a danger to our security” while also saying that “the Assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military.”
These are not all contradictions; the president was trying to thread a needle and outlined a highly nuanced and frequently shifting policy. But nuance can sound a lot like a muddle.
Ten days ago, Obama was on the verge of sending U.S. missiles into Syria to punish Assad for using chemical weapons. Then he said he wanted Congress to authorize such a mission in advance. Then it began to appear that Congress would reject the Syria attackand cripple Obama’s credibility. Finally, the president was offered a lifeline by the very regime he was planning to attack, whenSyria agreed to a Russian plan to surrender its chemical weapons.
The administration’s frequent shifts convey the feeling that it is a spectator observing world affairs. Russia is drafting a proposal.France is taking a different proposal to the United Nations. And the people’s House has returned to its previously scheduled program: holding votes undoing Obamacare.
It may turn out that the Russian proposal gives Obama, and the United States, a face-saving way out of an unwanted conflict. It may even be that the possibility of a U.S. attack spurred the Russians and Syrians to act. But it feels as if the ship of state is bobbing like a cork in international waters. This was to be the week the president rallied lawmakers and the public around military action. But in a series of TV interviews Monday and in Tuesday night’s address, he instead explained why any such action is on hold.
Obama’s leadership, particularly in his second term, can most charitably be described as subtle. But he is so subtle that he sometimes appears to be a bystander. He left immigration up to Congress, which put the issue on ice. Congress also buried gun control and efforts to replace the sequester. Obama, meantime, has been reacting to events — Egypt, the National Security Agency revelations — rather than shaping them. He launched a fresh push to sell Americans on the merits of Obamacare — yet more than 4 in 10 remain unaware that the law is still on the books.
The potential agreement on Syria came about by happenstance, when a reporter asked Kerry on Monday whether Assad could do anything to avoid an attack. “Sure,” Kerry said. “He could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week.”
State Department officials quickly said Kerry wasn’t floating a proposal. But after Russia and Syria embraced the disarmament idea, administration officials on Tuesday were taking credit for the “outline” Kerry offered.
Obama joined in Tuesday night, saying the Russian proposal came in part from “constrictive talks that I had” with Vladimir Putin. Obama said, “This initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force.”
Yet moments earlier, Obama told Americans that he decided “it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike.”
Which one is it? Ask again in a couple of days.
and....
http://rt.com/usa/obama-address-us-syria-687/
Addressing the nation, the US president has asked Congress to postpone a vote on military action in Syria as diplomacy is pursued to put chemical weapons beyond the regime's reach, but called on the military to maintain pressure on the Syrian government.
In his speech the US president has reiterated that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad government’s alleged use of chemical weapons with a limited military action.
However, since over the last few days there have been a number of “encouraging signs” that the crisis could be resolved politically – “in part because of the credible threat of US military action” – the US President has asked the leaders of Congress to “postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path.”
Obama spoke of the Russian proposal to put Syria’s chemical weapons under international control as one of the reasons he was delaying a “limited strike” on Syria.
“It’s too early to tell whether this offer will succeed, and any agreement must verify that the Assad regime keeps its commitments, but this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because Russia is one of Assad’s strongest allies,” Obama said.
Obama has pledged to continue discussions on the Syrian issue with President Vladimir Putin, while Secretary of State John Kerry will meet his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov in Geneva on Thursday.
France and the United Kingdom, two of the US’s closest allies, the President said, will also work together in consultation with Russia and China to put forward a resolution at the UN Security Council.
“We’ll also give UN inspectors the opportunity to report their findings about what happened on August 21st,” Obama added.
However, at the beginning of his speech the President made it clear that the US has no doubts that the Syrian government was responsible for the deadly chemical attack.
“No one disputes that chemical weapons were used in Syria… Moreover, we know the Assad regime was responsible,” he said, reiterating vague details of the attack outlined in the excerpts of the US intelligence report declassified earlier this month.
'Pursuing the diplomatic path'
Russia proposed placing Syria’s chemical weapons under international monitoring and eventually destroying them if all parties agree to denounce military action. China and Iran have endorsed the idea, which has appeared to gain traction since it was first proposed Monday while other members of the UN Security Council have expressed doubt over how the chemical weapons could be safely moved out of an active war zone.
Moscow is planning to propose a UN draft resolution supporting its initiative. However, a closed door meeting of the UN Security Council initially asked for by Russia on Tuesday was postponed at Russia’s request.
Meanwhile, France was reportedly ready to table its own draft that would allow military action against Syria if the Assad government is considered uncooperative.
“It was extremely well played by the Russians, but we didn’t want someone else to go to the UN with a resolution that was weak,” a French diplomatic source told Reuters.
An initial French draft UN Security Council resolution demanded that Syria make a complete declaration of its chemical weapons program within 15 days and immediately open all related sites to UN inspectors or otherwise face “further necessary measures” under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
US lawmakers admitted their reluctance but pledged to examine the Russian idea closely. Obama asked Congress to delay voting on whether to authorize a military strike in response to the proposal.
Obama’s comments follow Syria’s Foreign Minister Walid Muallem’s admission that Syria would be open to turning over their chemical weapons to international control. Then, on Tuesday, Syria announced it would be willing to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention, revealing all details of the chemical program.
“We will open our storage sites, and cease production,” Muallem told Lebanon’s al-Maydeen TV. “We are ready to open these facilities to Russia, other countries and the United Nations. We intend to give up chemical weapons altogether.”
US Secretary of State John Kerry was joined at the Capitol building earlier in the day by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey. The trio testified before the House Armed Services Committee and questioned on the Russian proposal, which Kerry said he regarded with a hesitant optimism while asking Congress to approve the military strike no matter what.
“But make no mistake about why this is now even on the table,” he said. “They say nothing focuses the mind like the prospect of a hanging.”
Hagel informed the committee that the earliest a strike against Syria could take place at this time is now in mid-October.
and you tell the the quest for blood lust has not ended despite the Putin smooth move after Kerry gaffe on chemical weapon surrender ....... the reactions show War is still the desired outcome .
Kerry Still Pushing for Syria War, Says US Won’t Wait Long
Claims Syria Will 'Become Afghanistan' Without Strikes
by Jason Ditz, September 10, 2013
Though President Obama is now talking up a delayed war vote, Secretary of State John Kerry seems undeterred in his quest to attack Syria, and spent another day pushing the war to everyone who would listen.
Kerry seemed to accept that the chemical weapons deal that he proposed yesterday is going to advance, but appeared unhappy about it, saying that Congress needs to move forward with the war vote and the US “won’t wait for very long” on the conflict.
Kerry also insisted that Syria’s promise to declare its stockpiles and sign the Chemical Weapons Convention didn’t go nearly far enough, and warned that without a war Syria would become like Afghanistan.
He argued that the US strikes were vital and that the US needed to increase aid to the rebels, declaring that if Assad wins Syria could give rise to terrorist groups “worse” than al-Qaeda.
Despite Obama’s Claims, War Vote Delay Is a Defeat
President Claims to Support Delay After the Fact
by Jason Ditz, September 10, 2013
After a solid week of defeats on the Syrian War, President Obama is doing some dramatic revisionism in an attempt to portray the situation, as it presently exists, as his carefully orchestrated victory as opposed to the rebuke that it was.
Trying to figure out where the president standson the chemical weapons disarmament deal is virtually impossible at this point, since every new speech changes it markedly, but the president is clear in his “calls” for the Congressional delay of the war vote.
Calls ends up in irony quotes here because he only started advocating the delay a day after the Senate had already announced that it was taking the vote off the schedule indefinitely, and nearly a week after it became apparent that he was going to lose the House vote.
Opposition to the Syrian War has been so broad and so decisive that Congress dares not agree to the war, and the Senate has simply shelved the bill instead of forcing its hawkish leadership to face an embarrassing defeat. The House hasn’t delayed officially yet but is clearly headed for the same defeat, only even more dramatic.
The administration continues to push the idea of Congress authorizing war and it’s clear that’s their ideal. Since it’s not going to happen, they’re now tasked with trying to portray not getting the vote at all as their idea.
Obama Speech Still Pushes Idea of Syria War
Downplays Disarmament Deal But Says Will Work With UN
by Jason Ditz, September 10, 2013
After carving out four distinct positions yesterday on the Syrian chemical weapons disarmament deal, President Obama appeared to backtrack to number 3 today during his primetime address, making it very much an afterthought in a speech that appeared to mostly go back to last week’s arguments for attacking Syria.
Though mentioned as something to be pursued at the UN, the chemical weapons deal was only mentioned some 10 minutes into the brief speech, after reiterating his case for war and promising “no boots on the ground.”
The lack of new arguments is conspicuous, particularly with President Obama promising that after tonight’s speech Americans would “want to attack Syria,” and then rehashing arguments that have an overwhelming majority of Americans opposed to the war.
The president capped off the speech by claiming that he is now supporting a Congressional delay of the votes authorizing the war, though of course those delays already came simply because he didn’t have the votes.
No comments:
Post a Comment