http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2013/09/11/pro-rebel-syria-researcher-fired-for-false-doctoral-claim/

( Suspect source of Intel fired..... )

Pro-rebel Syria researcher fired for false doctoral claim

POSTED AT 12:17 PM ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 BY ED MORRISSEY

Elizabeth O’Bagy has been cited by the Obama administration, Senator John McCain, and John Kerry as a key resource for their claim that the Syrian rebel forces are mostly moderates and not Sunni extremists affiliated with al-Qaeda. They’re going to have to find another source for that argument after the think tank that employs O’Bagy abruptly fired her today for faking her doctorate:

A young researcher whose opinions on Syria were cited by both Senator McCain and Secretary of State John Kerry in congressional testimony last week has been fired from the Institute for the Study of War for allegedly faking her academic credentials.

The institute issued a statement on its website concerning the researcher, Elizabeth O’Bagy:

The Institute for the Study of War has learned and confirmed that, contrary to her representations, Ms. Elizabeth O’Bagy does not in fact have a Ph.D. degree from Georgetown University. ISW has accordingly terminated Ms. O’Bagy’s employment, effective immediately.

O’Bagy and her op-ed drew scrutiny last week when the Wall Street Journal failed to disclose O’Bagy’s ties to an advocacy group backing the Syrian opposition and lobbying the US government to intervene in Syria. The Journal was forced to post a clarification that “in addition to her role at the Institute for the Study of War, Ms. O’Bagy is affiliated with the Syrian Emergency Task Force, a nonprofit operating as a 501(c)(3) pending IRS approval that subcontracts with the U.S. and British governments to provide aid to the Syrian opposition.”

O’Bagy also was reluctant to disclose her affiliation with the Syrian Emergency Task Force, which is an advocacy group for the rebels. She later claimed her research for ISW was separate from the SETF, but her abrupt dismissal is liable to raise a lot more questions about the quality of analysis that’s driving the Obama administration’s push to arm and support the rebels.

Speaking of additional reasons to question motives of the Rebels and suspect intel generally....When You Tube videos are cited as evidence of chemical attacks by a certain party and on a certain date , someone needs to debrief these gentleman - who say , not so fast ....

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/15496841-hostages-piccinin-quirico-heard-syrian-rebels-say-assad-not-responsible-for-chemical-attack

Freed hostages heard Syrian rebels say Assad not responsible for chemical attack

Damascus : Syria | Sep 10, 2013 at 2:39 AM PDT

BY JOHNTHOMAS DIDYMUS

2 1

1 of 27

Syrian rebels during the Battle of Allepo

Two Europeans, a Belgian writer, Pierre Piccinin, and an Italian journalist, Domenico Quirico, released Sunday after they were held hostage by Syrian rebels for five months in Syria, have said they eavesdropped on a conversation in which their rebel captors said the chemical attack in the Ghouta outskirts of Damascus was carried out by rebel forces.

According to the men, during a Skype conversation conducted in the English language, they overheard their captors deny that President Bashar Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack.

The rebels said it was Syrian opposition forces and not Syrian government troops who fired chemical weapons-armed rockets that killed civilians on Aug. 21.

Piccinin and Quirico were kidnapped in April last year by a group of Free Syrian Army gunmen. Piccinin identified their captors as members of the Farouq Brigade.

The men were freed Sunday after the Italian authorities negotiated their release.

Quirico, 62, told the Italian La Stampa newspaper that he and his companion Piccinnin, listened to the conversation between three individuals through a closed door. He said that although the men denied that Assad forces were responsible for the attack, they gave no evidence during the conversation to back up the assertion.

According to Quirico, they could not tell whether the men were only repeating a rumor or a fact that they had firsthand knowledge of.

He said, "I have no evidence to confirm this theory and I do not know who these people were or if they are reliable."

He said, however, that one of the men involved in the conversation identified himself as a Free Syrian Army general. He also said that from what they heard it was likely that the rebels exaggerated the death toll from the attack.

Piccinin, however, appeared convinced that the rebels had carried out the attack. During an interview with the Belgian radio station RTL, he said, “It is a moral duty to say this. The government of Bashar Assad did not use sarin gas or other types of gas in the outskirts of Damascus."

According to Piccinin, he and Quirico were held in isolation from the outside world and had no information about the chemical weapons incident in Damascus. Therefore, at the time they listened to the conversation between the rebels they were not aware of the full significance of what they overheard. But they could understand from the conversation that opposition forces had deployed chemical weapons as a strategy to get the West to intervene.

Quirico told La Stampa, "In this conversation, they said that the gas attack on two neighborhoods of Damascus was launched by the rebels as a provocation to lead the West to intervene militarily. We were unaware of everything that was going on during our detention in Syria, and therefore also with the gas attack in Damascus."

Piccinin told RTL that based on what they heard and learned during captivity it would be “insane and suicidal for the West to support these people.”

He said, “It pains me to say it because I've been a fierce supporter of the Free Syrian Army in its rightful fight for democracy since 2012."

Echoing Piccinin's feelings, Quirico told the Italian newspaper Quotidiano Nazionale, "I am extremely surprised that the United States could think about intervening, knowing very well how the Syrian revolution has become international jihadism – in other words al-Qaida."

He said it appears that the jihadists in Syria have a plan to "create a caliphate and extend it to the entire Middle East and North Africa.”

The men told harrowing stories of their experience in captivity. They were beaten regularly, starved and subjected to mock executions.

Piccinin said, "We were moved around a lot...it was not always the same group that held us, there were very violent groups, very anti-West and some anti-Christian."

He said they learned a lot during captivity, but he would not give details until Quirico and his newspaper La Stampa have made a decision in consultation with the Italian government whether to publish the information.

The information given by the men contradicts the claim by US Secretary of State John Kerry that the US government has conclusive evidence that Syrian government troops carried out the chemical weapons attack.

and....

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/11/reviews-in-for-obama-speech-incoherent-disingenuous-nothing-new/

Reviews in for Obama speech: “Incoherent,” “disingenuous,” “nothing new”

POSTED AT 10:41 AM ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 BY ED MORRISSEY

Earlier today, I wrote a review of President Obama’s speech, which was hardly complimentary. Other reviews make it look positively warm in comparison. Take for instance this long and pointed criticism from John Harris at Politico, which frames the speech as coming from two different Obamas and then concludes with by calling the entire effort “disingenuous”:

Two weeks of zig-zag foreign policy by President Barack Obama — marching to war one moment, clinging desperately to diplomacy the next — culminated Tuesday night, appropriately enough, in a zig-zag address to the nation that did little to clarify what will come next in the Syria crisis but shined a glaring hot light on the debate in the president’s own mind. …

Zag finished the sentence with a jeering reminder: “But chemical weapons were still used by the Assad regime.”

Zig noted that recent diplomatic activity is at least tentatively promising, thanks to “constructive talks that I had with President Putin. The Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons. The Assad regime has now admitting that it has these weapons and even said they’d join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits their use.”

This led to perhaps the most disingenuous line uttered by either Zig or Zag in the 16-minute speech, with the president claiming that he had asked Congress to postpone the vote that he earlier requested authorizing use of military force in Syria in order to let the latest diplomatic moves play out. But just a minute earlier he had asserted that a main reason diplomacy was gaining traction was because of the “credible threat of U.S. military action.” Presumably, any further diplomacy would be even more effective if Congress sent a message that it was giving Obama all options to act if the talks fail. The more plausible rationale for congressional delay is that the administration would lose the vote if it took place now.

The Associated Press knocked out the key strut undergirding his call to action:

OBAMA: “We know the Assad regime was responsible…. The facts cannot be denied.”

THE FACTS: The Obama administration has not laid out proof Assad was behind the attack.

The administration has cited satellite imagery and communications intercepts, backed by social media and intelligence reports from sources in Syria, as the basis for blaming the Assad government. But the only evidence the administration has made public is a collection of videos it has verified of the victims. The videos do not demonstrate who launched the attacks.

Administration officials have not shared the satellite imagery they say shows rockets and artillery fire leaving government-held areas and landing in 12 rebel-held neighborhoods outside Damascus where chemical attacks were reported. Nor have they shared transcripts of the Syrian officials allegedly warning units to ready gas masks or discussing how to handle U.N. investigators after it happened.

The White House has declined to explain where it came up with the figure of at least 1,429 dead, including 400 children — a figure far higher than estimates by nongovernmental agencies such as the British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which has counted only victims identified by name, with a current total of 502. In his remarks, Obama more generally accused Assad’s forces of gassing to death “over 1,000 people, including hundreds of children.”

That’s actually what many Americans would have expected last night — an accounting of the proof that the administration claims to have. Even an explanation of how the proof was assembled and how it relates directly to the Syrian military would have been helpful, especially with Obama making a public case for military action on prime time. Members of Congress have been briefed on the proof, but those briefings are convincing more lawmakers to oppose military action than support it, which may be why the White House hasn’t bothered to share more of the evidence with the public.

Reason TV’s Nick Gillespie offers four reasons why the speech failed:

The invocation of American exceptionalism caused gales of snark and criticism on Twitter last night in real time, and is a point I forgot to include in my own remarks.

Dana Milbank tried to be more charitable, but still noted that the course of American diplomacy most resembles a cork bobbing in the water:

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. …

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.

The Telegraph’s Nile Gardiner called the speech “an incoherent mess,” and suggested that Obama has surpassed Jimmy Carter as the most feckless US President in foreign policy:

Billed as a game-changer on Syria, the President’s White House addresslanded with a thud that could be heard as far away as Damascus. Barack Obama has a huge credibility problem on Syria and on foreign policy in general, and Tuesday night’s speech will do nothing to help that. As Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer put it on Fox News, it was “one of the most odd presidential speeches ever delivered,” with no clear-cut strategy laid out, while urging Congress to delay a vote on the use of force against Assad’s regime.

In effect, Obama farmed out US foreign policy in the Middle East yet again to the Russians, appealing for time to consider the Russian proposal for securing Syria’s chemical weapons, a ruse described accurately by the Telegraph’s Con Coughlin as “a massive red herring.”He also used his address to take swipes at the Bush Administration over the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which it should be noted, were waged with the backing of Congress and the American people, as well as large international coalitions on a scale that the Obama administration can only dream of. …

In essence, and this was amply displayed tonight, Barack Obama has no big picture strategy on Syria, or the wider Middle East, and is bereft of a clear game plan. His speech was also a sea of contradictions. He talked about deploying American military might but has no intention of delivering a decisive blow. He paid lip service to the ideal of American exceptionalism, but is happy to kowtow to Moscow. He urged Congress to support his approach, but wants them to wait before they vote. For these were the words of an exceptionally weak and indecisive president, one who seems to be making up policy on the hoof, as he stumbles and bumbles along on the world stage, with his hapless Secretary of State in tow.

How different to the halcyon days of Ronald Reagan, a man who led the world’s superpower with strength and conviction. The Gipper knew the meaning of American leadership, especially at times of crisis. Unfortunately President Obama can only dream of holding a candle to Reagan’s achievements, and at present is even outperforming Jimmy Carter as the most feeble US president of modern times.

Jimmy Carter says, Not so fast …

The only way to be assured that Syrian chemical weapons will not be used in the future is not through a military strike but through a successful international effort.

Regardless of the postponed congressional vote regarding the use of military force, other actions should be taken to address the situation in Syria, including an urgent effort to convene without conditions the long-delayed peace conference the United States and Russia announced in May. A resolution in the U.N. General Assembly to condemn any further use of chemical weapons, regardless of perpetrator, would be approved overwhelmingly, and the United States should support Russia’s proposal that Syria’s chemical weapons be placed under U.N. control. A military strike by the United States is undesirable and will become unnecessary if this alternative proposal is strongly supported by the U.N. Security Council.

If fully implemented in dozens of sites throughout Syria, this effort to secure the chemical weapons would amount to a cease-fire, with a large U.N. peacekeeping force deployed. In the best of circumstances, this could lead to convening the Geneva peace conference, perhaps including Iran, that could end the conflict.

Some have predicted catastrophic consequences to the credibility of President Obama and our country if Congress were to reject his request for approval of military action against the Assad regime in Syria. These dire predictions are exaggerated.

Hey, at least Carter’s coherent. Maureen Dowd complains that it’s amateur hour at the White House, but Obama’s current predicament is the fault of … guess who?

Now, when it is clear Obama can’t convince Congress, the American public, his own wife, the world, Liz Cheney or even Donald “Shock and Awe” Rumsfeld to bomb Syria — just a teensy-weensy bit — Pooty-Poot (as W. called him) rides, shirtless, to the rescue, offering him a face-saving way out? If it were a movie, we’d know it was a trick. We can’t trust the soulless Putin — his Botox has given the former K.G.B. officer even more of a poker face — or the heartless Bashar al-Assad. By Tuesday, Putin the Peacemaker was already setting conditions.

Just as Obama and Kerry — with assists from Hillary and some senators — were huffing and puffing that it was their military threat that led to the breakthrough, Putin moved to neuter them, saying they’d have to drop their military threat before any deal could proceed. The administration’s saber-rattling felt more like knees rattling. Oh, for the good old days when Obama was leading from behind. Now these guys are leading by slip-of-the-tongue.

Amateur hour started when Obama dithered on Syria and failed to explain the stakes there. It escalated last August with a slip by the methodical wordsmith about “a red line for us” — which the president and Kerry later tried to blur as the world’s red line, except the world was averting its eyes.

Obama’s flip-flopping, ambivalent leadership led him to the exact place he never wanted to be: unilateral instead of unified. Once again, as with gun control and other issues, he had not done the groundwork necessary to line up support. The bumbling approach climaxed with two off-the-cuff remarks by Kerry, hitting a rough patch in the role of a lifetime, during a London press conference Monday; he offered to forgo an attack if Assad turned over “every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community” and promised, if they did strike, that it would be an “unbelievably small” effort.

So it’s Obama’s fault, right? After all, he’s been in office for four-plus years and quarterbacked the surge in Afghanistan. Not really, Dowd argues, because that darned George W. Bush ruined interventionism for everyone:

Obama cried over the children of Newtown. He is stricken, as he said in his address Tuesday, by “images of children writhing in pain and going still on a cold hospital floor” from “poison gas.” He thought — or thought he thought — that avenging the gassing was the right thing to do. But W., once more haunting his successor’s presidency, drained credibility, coffers and compassion.

While most Americans shudder at the news that 400 children have been killed by a monster, they recoil at the Middle East now; they’ve had it with Shiites vs. Sunnis, with Alawites and all the ancient hatreds. Kerry can bluster that “we’re not waiting for long” for Assad to cough up the weapons, but it will be hard for him to back it up, given that a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll indicates that Joe Sixpack is now a peacenik; in 2005, 60 percent of Republicans agreed with W. that America should foster democracy in the world; now only 19 percent of Republicans believe it.

Well, Dowd wrote a passably realistic half of a column, which is half more than we usually see.

Some mockery is in order here......

http://www.michellesmirror.com/2013/09/obamas-syria-speech-red-queens.html

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Obama’s Syria Speech: The Red Queen’s Commentary

“The Red Queen shook her head. "You may call it 'nonsense' if you like," she said, "but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!” ― Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass

I did take notes during Big Guy’s Syrian argument/rebuttal last night. I must apologize, as they are a little sketchy; I figured that, as usual, I’d have a full hour of repetition in order to fill in the details. How did I know that he was going to wrap up the much-hyped contrapuntal speech on Syria in a mere 15 minutes? Let’s just say it was historic.

If the eyes are indeed windows to the soul, these black holes are a little spooky. (Can I say that?)

From what sounded more like a self-refuting argument than a presidential address, I have extracted the following “highlights.”

First, BO made a strong case for doing something (le petite military strike – PMS) – which he no longer has any intention of doing.

Beware of tiny men with tiny bombs

Then he made a strong case for why Assad had to go - just not now, and not by our hand.

He appealed to our emotions by eliciting visceral images of gassed victims, making the compelling case that chemical weapons are barbaric, cannot be tolerated and requires us to take an “unbelievably small” military action (PMS) – which we’re no longer planning to do.

“I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo. This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective, deterring the use of chemical weapons and degrading Assad’s capabilities.”

Next, he made the case that America is not the world’s policeman, before proceeding to explain why we need to be.

Then he told us all to chill; we need to give diplomacy a chance - which has always been his preferred course of action. It’s just that some damn fool drew a red line in the sand.

In part because of the credible threat of U.S. military action, as well as constructive talks that I had with President Putin, the Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons.

“Nyet!”

And finally, he told Congress to stand down, as we need more time to ~~dither~~ negotiate with the dictator and terrorists. Still, he reiterated that Congress must act to bless his evolving plans; butt put them on pause while he and his Really Big Brains can figure out our next move.

Choose your game

Okay then, Global Thermonuclear War it is!

Oh no! Not chess!! We’ve already seen how that turns out.

“It's a great huge game of chess that's being played—all over the world—if this is the world at all, you know. Oh, what fun it is! How I wish I was one of them! I wouldn't mind being a Pawn, if only I might join—though of course I should like to be a Queen, best.”

Oh yes, it’s good to be queen!

And I believe srdem65 promised us a report on Big Guy’s makeup, so I won’t comment on that.

In Memoriam: 9/11/01

Never forget

Why we fight.

American security: It isn’t a game, Mr. President.

The Obamas and the Bidens commemorate 9-11-01 on the East Lawn, 9-11-13:

Purple? Really? In remembrance? That must be a new fashion trend I’m unaware of.(h/t Zombie Dachshund

And if Syria is being ordered to isolate , store and destroy their chemical weapons and sign onto the chemical weapons decree - why not Israel as well ?

http://rt.com/news/israel-chemical-weapons-sarin-714/

Israel stockpiled chemical weapons decades ago – CIA document

Published time: September 11, 2013 19:29

Get short URL

Israeli soldiers (AFP Photo / Menahem Kahana)

Share on tumblr

Mission Unaccomplished: US Provides Syria Status Update

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/11/2013 14:02 -0400

Iraq

While the Syria conflict appears headed into the sunset, the state department reminds once again that it wants more:

U.S., RUSSIA AGREE END GOAL FOR SYRIA IS POLITICAL ACCORD:PSAKI
RUSSIA PLAN FOR SYRIA MORE 'IDEAS' THAN 'LENGTHY PACKET': PSAKI
U.S. HAS LARGER SYRIA STRATGY BEYOND CHEMICAL ARMS: PSAKI

And the punchline:

WE STILL FEEL ASSAD NEEDS TO BE REMOVED FROM POWER: PSAKI

The last was added just in case anyone is confused that the Syrian campaign was even remotely about chemical weapons. Of course, should said weapons be contained, it will be enough to spin a "diplomatic victory" and promptly forget this whole episode at least until the next false flags strikes some time over the next few weeks through months. Maybe something like this:

DEATH TOLL FROM BOMBING OUTSIDE SHI'ITE MOSQUE IN BAGHDAD RISES TO 33 - POLICE, MEDICS

Recall: The Next Hot Zone - Iraq?

Russia continues to apply pressure.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

A Plea for Caution From Russia

What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria

By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN

Published: September 11, 2013 50 Comments

FACEBOOK
TWITTER
GOOGLE+
SAVE
E-MAIL
SHARE
PRINT
REPRINTS

MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

Enlarge This Image

Oliver Munday

U.N. Rights Panel Cites Evidence of War Crimes by Both Sides in Syria(September 12, 2013)

Connect With Us on Twitter

For Op-Ed, follow@nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow@andyrNYT.

Readers’ Comments

Share your thoughts.

Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.

The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy inSyria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.

Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.

No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.

If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-11/meanwhile-what-putin-doing

Meanwhile, This Is What Putin Is Doing...

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/11/2013 13:19 -0400

Belgium

Bulgaria

France

For the last few days we have been bombarded with words that appear 'peaceful' and problem-solving from Russia with love. Of course, 'no change' benefits mother Russia the most as his government's gas revenues (and political power) will continue to flow from Europe (a quarter of Russian government income comes from being Europe's gas supplier). So it will come as no surprise that amid the Mother Theresa acts, The Telegraph reports that Putin is readying delivery of more S-300 air-defense missile systems to Iran and will continue to discuss "working together in the nuclear energy spehere." Combine that with experts' views that Russia's plan to dismantle Syria's stockpiles of mustard gas, sarin, VX nerve agents is a long shot; initially "sounding attractive, but very quickly, operational problems could derail obtaining international control, much less actually destroying the arsenal." It would appear, despite all the chatter, that Putin is increasing his power-base in the region.

Iran-Aid (via The Telegraph),

President Hassan Rouhani is set to meet Putin on the sidelines of a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation held in Kyrgyzstan on Friday, in the newly-elected centrist cleric's first meeting with a major world leader. The Kommersant business daily reported Wednesday that Putin will offer to supply Iran S-300 air defence missile systems as well as build a second reactor at the Bushehr nuclear plant.

The S-300 offer would be a particularly contentious development given it would essentially revive a contract for similar missile systems that Russia cancelled in 2010 after heavy Israeli and US pressure. Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov told Kommersant that Putin and Rowhani were expected to discuss "working together in the nuclear energy sphere" and "questions of military technical cooperation" at the summit in Bishkek.

Chemical Weapons Decomissioning ain't gonna happen (via WSJ). Of course, the practicalities of dismantling and storing these weapons is hugely problematic.

Carrying out Russia's plan to dismantle Syria's stockpiles of mustard gas and sarin and VX nerve agents is viewed as a long shot by many diplomats, top experts and current and former U.S. officials.

"The Russian proposal sounds attractive, but very quickly, operational problems could derail obtaining international control, much less actually destroying the arsenal," said Amy Smithson, an expert on chemical weapons at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Washington, D.C.

...

Syria's chemical-weapons arsenal has been developed and stored in at least eight sites across the Arab country. Many of the missiles and artillery pieces are believed to have been moved since civil war broke out in 2011, according to current and former U.S. officials.

...

A U.S. official cast doubt about how any deal to strip Mr. Assad of his weapons could be verified. "That is a problem," the official said. "How verifiable does it need to be? Getting 50% or 60% of the chemical weapons is not good enough. We would have to get 90% to 95%."

...

Mr. Assad's arsenal is significantly larger than Col. Gadhafi's was. And many experts don't believe the Syrian leader intends to give up his weapons, in part, because his government is still at war.

"The Libyans basically decided to show us everything," said Ms. DeSutter. "I can't believe this will be the case with the Syrians."

and by way of background - why Putin will defend this side of the game... (via Golem XIV's blog),

European Energy dependence

Europe needs gas. Russia has it. Only Norway provides more gas to Europe (35% versus 34%). As Europe continues to rely more heavily on gas, as it will especially if Germany does phase out its nuclear reactors, then Russia will, unless something changes, become the number one supplier. Europe also depends on Russia for 27% of its oil imports, 24% of its coal imports, 30% of its Uranium imports and Russia is the third largest supplier of Europe’s electricity imports. (Figures are from Congressional Report – Europe’s Energy Security. Many thanks to reader Pamela Law for bringing it to my attention.) It is clear, Europe is dependent on Russia to keep the lights on.

That dependence and power is not, however, spread evenly. To understand who is dependent we need to see who imports how much and who from.

Using figures from 2012, Germany is the largest gas importer in Europe at 3065 billion cubic feet annually. Next is Italy with 2359 billion, then Britain with 1734, France with 1600 , then Spain with 1225 and Belgium with 1084 (half of which it uses itself and half it re-exports).

But this only gives you a partial picture because not all this gas comes from Russia. The chart below while a little confusing does give a clear general picture of who is dependent on Russia.

The lighter the colour the less reliant the country is upon Russia. The darker the colour therefore, the more power Russia has, potentially.

Spain, for example, though reliant on gas imports does not get its gas from Russia. Neither does Britain (at least not directly). While Austria, though its imports are small in volume, depends very heavily on Russia.

In fact the whole central block of Europe, from Greece and Cyprus in the South up to Germany and Belgium in the North depend on Russia. Austria is the most dependent of the ‘core’ nations. Austria’s weakness and Russia’s power were recently made very clear. Until recently Austria was going to be the European terminus of the newest Russian gas pipeline project – the Southstream. Southstream which is now under construction will run under the Black Sea into Bulgaria, pumping 2.2 Trillion Cubic feet of gas per year. To be the European terminus would have brought money and certain power to Austria. However, when the Russian gas giant, Gazprom’s purchase of a 50% stake in a the Central European Gas Hub (CEGH), which is in Austria, was blocked by the European Commission, Russia changed the terminus from Austria to Italy. Italy has traditionally had closer relations with Russia on energy. Divide and rule.

So much for the vulnerable.What about the powerful?

Germany is Europe’s paymaster and arguably its most powerful nation. However Germany also relies on Russia for 35% of its gas imports and is Russia’s largest client.

Russia has considerable power over Europe and has every reason to make sure it stays that way. No surprise therefore, that

Russia has not been idle when it comes to protecting its share of the European Natural Gas Market. Moscow, including the state controlled company Gazprom, has attempted to stymie, European-backed alternatives to pipelines it controls by proposing competing pipeline projects and attempting to co-opt European companies by offering them stakes in those and other projects.

It’s worth noting that Russia gets not only political power but also massive income from this arrangement. In 2011 Gas exports generated at least half of all Russian government revenue and half of that came from exports to Europe. Thus a full quarter of all Russia’s government income comes from being Europe’s gas supplier.

European nations have responded to this situation in different ways. Spain is lucky, it already imports most of its gas by pipeline from Algeria, so Russia has little leverage over Spain from gas sales at least. You might have thought Spain would join the US coalition against Syria and Russia. But then again Spain has little in the way of an armed force, so maybe not. Italy has a pipeline from Libya but hopes to remain the terminus for Russia’s South Stream pipeline. So no surprise Italy didn’t join the ‘bomb Syria’ chorus. Italy’s main energy concern recently has been to make sure that in a post Gaddafi Libya, Italy is still a preferred customer.

The UK has chosen to invest in LNG (Liquified Natuiral Gas as opposed to merely CNG, Compressed Natural Gas - the Russian pipeline variety). Britain is Europe’s leading importer of LNG, which you would have thought, might have given it considerable freedom from Russia. Must have been a surprise all round that GB didn’t join the USA.

France relies on Russian gas nearly as much as Italy does. However, unlike Italy, France has also been building LNG capacity like Britain. The largest supplier of LNG to Europe is Qatar.

For its part Germany has decided to get closer to Russia rather than diversity its supply. Germany supported the building of the Nord Stream pipeline which connects Germany directly to Russia via a pipeline under the Baltic. This direct connection means Germany is reliant on no third party’s relations with Russia. But those in Europe downstream do rely on Germany. This can only add to Germany’s pre-eminence.

Putting this together it seems clear to me we have most of Europe already considerably captured by their energy dependence upon Russia. Germany is not going to anger Russia because of Nord Stream and neither is Italy, because of South Stream.

Read more here

http://rt.com/news/russia-moskva-cruiser-mediterranean-720/

Russia’s ‘carrier-killer’ Moskva enters Mediterranean

Published time: September 11, 2013 15:18
Edited time: September 11, 2013 18:11

Get short URL

Missile cruiser "Moskva" (RIA Novosti/Vitaliy Ankov)

Share on tumblr

Catharsis Ours

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Pro-rebel Syria researcher fired for false doctoral claim

POSTED AT 12:17 PM ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 BY ED MORRISSEY

Freed hostages heard Syrian rebels say Assad not responsible for chemical attack

Reviews in for Obama speech: “Incoherent,” “disingenuous,” “nothing new”

POSTED AT 10:41 AM ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 BY ED MORRISSEY

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Obama’s Syria Speech: The Red Queen’s Commentary

Israel stockpiled chemical weapons decades ago – CIA document

Mission Unaccomplished: US Provides Syria Status Update

Russia continues to apply pressure.....

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

A Plea for Caution From Russia

What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria

By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN

Published: September 11, 2013 50 Comments

Oliver Munday

Related

U.N. Rights Panel Cites Evidence of War Crimes by Both Sides in Syria(September 12, 2013)

Connect With Us on Twitter

Readers’ Comments

Meanwhile, This Is What Putin Is Doing...

Russia’s ‘carrier-killer’ Moskva enters Mediterranean

No comments:

Post a Comment