Syria updates - September 10 , 2013....Syria agrees to Russia proposal to handover its chemical arsenal to international control - this being done to thwart US military strikes......US military action apparently averted for now , however , the battle to debunk the basis for US intervention continues as russia leads the effort to refute Syria Rebel claims concerning the alleged August 21 , 2013 attack !

Obama's " gone in fifteen minutes " speech and the GOP response......

GOP Responds: Obama's "Rudderless Diplomacy Has Embarrassed America"

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/10/2013 22:23 -0400

inShare

Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Reince Priebus released the following statement following the president’s address to the nation on Syria:

“The administration’s handling of the U.S. response to Syria has been so haphazard it’s disappointed even the president’s most ardent supporters,” said Chairman Priebus.“This rudderless diplomacy has embarrassed America on the world stage. For a president who campaigned on building American credibility abroad, the lack of leadership coming from the Oval Office is astounding.”

http://twitchy.com/2013/09/10/should-have-been-cancelled-objective-of-presidents-speech-remains-a-mystery/

( punditry comments.... )

  

John Podhoretz @jpodhoretz

This may be the most bizarre speech ever delivered, since we know he's making a case for military action he's not going to take.

9:11 PM - 10 Sep 2013

Ross Douthat        ✔ @DouthatNYT

This speech should have been cancelled. If you don't have a clear action to announce or a clear proposal to put forward, wait. Just wait.

9:15 PM - 10 Sep 2013

Jake Tapper        ✔ @jaketapper

A speech to a public that doesn't want to go to war by a president who doesn't want to go to war.

9:28 PM - 10 Sep 2013

and alleged  details on Obama deal with Putin....


http://www.debka.com/article/23267/Obama-promised-Putin-not-to-strike-Syria-after-scrapping-its-chemical-arsenal-Russian-arms-for-Assad

President Barack Obama’s two climb-downs on a US strike against Syria over its use of chemical weapons are turning out to be part of a deal which he forged secretly with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Obama is presenting it as a US-Russian accord for stripping Bashar Assad of his chemical arsenal, while Putin is using it as an expedient for saving the Assad regime in Damascus. Both are ready to sacrifice the Syrian rebel movement to their détente.

DEBKAfile’s intelligence sources disclose that Moscow is pushing for more than a US pledge to back off using force against Syria, demanding that Washington also refrain from diplomatic action against the Assad regime.

The result was a major battle which forced the UN Security Council’s closed-door emergency session scheduled for Tuesday night, Sept. 10 to be postponed without a new date.

The French wanted to table a tough, binding resolution placing Syria’s chemical weapons under international control and a timetable for their destruction spelt out - with “extremely serious” consequences for violations including a military option.

Washington warned it would not fall for “stalling tactics.”

Moscow balked, insisting on a declaration – not a binding resolution - in support of international control for the chemical stockpiles – and no sanctions for violations. China and Iran backed the Russian motion.

Addressing a Russian TV Arab broadcast Tuesday, Putin said he had urged Syria to hand over its chemical weapons for them to be destroyed. He added that the handover plan would only work if the US renounced the use of force.

Our sources disclose that in another part of his deal with the Russian president, Obama did not object to Moscow providing the Syrian army with a fresh supply of advanced weapons in substantial quantities to compensate Assad for giving up his chemical arsenal.

Friday, Sept. Moscow announced that the Nikolai Filchenko landing craft heading for the eastern Mediterranean would stop off at the Black Sea port of Novorossiisk to pick up a “special cargo” for Syria. This vessel, say our sources, was to carry the first shipment of the fresh arms supplies Moscow was sending Bashar Assad.

Putin Wins Again As Obama Puts Attack On Hold

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/10/2013 21:27 -0400

• Afghanistan
 
• China
 
• Crude
 
• Fail
 
• France
 
• Iran
 
• Iraq
• Israel
 
• Middle East
 
• national security
 
• Turkey
 
• United Kingdom

inShare

Starting just 1 minute late, the President gave a stirring apologetically conjured images of WWI and WWII and stuck to the line that "we know" Assad was responsible for killing his own people with Sarin. Then moved to fear-mongery over what Iran might do, adding that he was up for strikes. But, in giving Congress the hot potato he knew decision would be difficult. The US military does not do 'pin pricks' and a "targeted" strike will send a message to Assad. While recognizing the need for a diplomatic solution, Obama made it clear that those efforts would follow a military strike. But then, after all the angry banter, he then backed down and said, will work for peaceful solution byputting the strike on hold and will bring a resolution to UN. Ending on a more thoughtful note, he warned Republican and Democrat lawmakers to rethink their opposition to the strikes should they be needed.

Summation of President Obama's Speech

*OBAMA SAYS SYRIA IN MIDST OF `BRUTAL CIVIL WAR'
*OBAMA SAYS HE HAS `RESISTED CALLS FOR MILITARY ACTION'
*OBAMA SAYS USE OF CHEMCIAL WEAPONS CHANGED SITUATION IN SYRIA
*OBAMA SAYS CHEMCIAL ATTACK VIOLATED `BASIC RULES' OF WORLD
*OBAMA SAYS `WE KNOW THE ASSAD REGIME' RESPONSIBLE FOR ATTACK
*OBAMA SAYS DICTATORS DEPEND ON WORLD TO `LOOK THE OTHER WAY'
*OBAMA SAYS CHEMCIAL ATTACK IN SYRIA DANGER TO U.S. SECURITY
*OBAMA SAYS FAILURE TO ACT WOULD `EMBOLDEN' IRAN
*OBAMA SAYS HE HAS AUTHORITY TO ORDER MILITARY STRIKES
*OBAMA SAYS HE KNOWS ANY MILITARY ACTION WILL NOT BE POPULAR
*OBAMA SAYS HE WILL NOT PUT U.S. TROOPS INTO SYRIA
*OBAMA SAYS HE WILL NOT PURSUE LONG AIR CAMPAIGN
*OBAMA SAYS MILITARY STRIKE WILL BE `TARGETED'
*OBAMA SAYS `EVEN LIMITED STRIKE' WILLSEND MESSAGE TO ASSAD
*OBAMA SAYS DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS WOULD FOLLOW MILITARY STRIKE
*OBAMA SAYS HE WOULD PREFER PEACEFUL SOLUTION
*OBAMA SAYS HE'S SEEING `ENCOURAGING SIGNS' ON SYRIA
*OBAMA SAYS `TOO EARLY TO TELL' IF RUSSIA PROPOSAL WILL SUCCEED
*OBAMA SAYS HE'S ASKED CONGRESS TO POSTPONE VOTE ON STRIKE
*OBAMA CALLS FOR PAUSE IN AUTHORIZING MILITARY STRIKES ON SYRIA
*OBAMA SAYS WORKING ON TO BRING RESOLUTION TO UN ON SYRIA
*OBAMA SAYS U.S. MILITARY WILL KEEP PRESSURE ON ASSAD
*OBAMA SAYS U.S. CAN ACT `WITH MODEST EFFORT AND RISK'

Pre-Obama: S&P 1680.75, 10Y 2.9625%, JPY 100.25, Gold $1365.50, WTI $107.08

Initial reaction positive - risk-on...

Post: S&P +2.5, 10Y +0.5bps, JPY +0.25, Gold -$5, WTI -$0.20

but quickly that is fading back to unch - in everything but WTI Crude...

The Obama Wordcloud sends a clear message

Full transcript:

My fellow Americans, tonight I want to talk to you about Syria, why it matters and where we go from here. Over the past two years, what began as a series of peaceful protests against the repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad has turned into a brutal civil war. Over a hundred thousand people have been killed. Millions have fled the country. In that time, America has worked with allies to provide humanitarian support, to help the moderate opposition and to shape a political settlement.

But I have resisted calls for military actionbecause we cannot resolve someone else's civil war through force, particularly after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The situation profoundly changed, though, on August 21st, when Assad's government gassed to death over a thousand people, including hundreds of children. The images from this massacre are sickening, men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas, others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath, a father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk. On that terrible night, the world saw in gruesome detail the terrible nature of chemical weapons and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off limits, a crime against humanity and a violation of the laws of war.

This was not always the case. In World War I, American GIs were among the many thousands killed by deadly gas in the trenches of Europe. In World War II, the Nazis used gas to inflict the horror of the Holocaust. Because these weapons can kill on a mass scale, with no distinction between soldier and infant, the civilized world has spent a century working to ban them. And in 1997, the United States Senate overwhelmingly approved an international agreement prohibiting the use of chemical weapons, now joined by 189 government that represent 98 percent of humanity.

On August 21st, these basic rules were violated, along with our sense of common humanity.

No one disputes that chemical weapons were used in Syria. The world saw thousands of videos, cellphone pictures and social media accounts from the attack. And humanitarian organizations told stories of hospitals packed with people who had symptoms of poison gas.

Moreover, we know the Assad regime was responsible. In the days leading up to August 21st, we know that Assad's chemical weapons personnel prepared for an attack near an area they where they mix sarin gas. They distributed gas masks to their troops. Then they fired rockets from a regime-controlled area into 11 neighborhoods that the regime has been trying to wipe clear of opposition forces.

Shortly after those rockets landed, the gas spread, and hospitals filled with the dying and the wounded. We know senior figures in Assad's military machine reviewed the results of the attack. And the regime increased their shelling of the same neighborhoods in the days that followed. We've also studied samples of blood and hair from people at the site that tested positive for sarin.

When dictators commit atrocities, they depend upon the world to look the other day until those horrifying pictures fade from memory. But these things happened. The facts cannot be denied.

The question now is what the United States of America and the international community is prepared to do about it, because what happened to those people, to those children, is not only a violation of international law, it's also a danger to our security.

Let me explain why. If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons.

As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas and using them. Over time our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield, and it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons and to use them to attack civilians.

If fighting spills beyond Syria's borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan and Israel.

And a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction and embolden Assad's ally, Iran, which must decide whether to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon or to take a more peaceful path.

This is not a world we should accept. This is what's at stake. And that is why, after careful deliberation, I determined that 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. The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime's ability to use them and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use. That's my judgment as commander in chief.

But I'm also the president of the world's oldest constitutional democracy. So even though I possessed the authority to order military strikes, I believed it was right, in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security, to take this debate to Congress. I believe our democracy is stronger when the president acts with the support of Congress, and I believe that America acts more effectively abroad when we stand together.

This is especially true after a decade that put more and more war-making power in the hands of the president, and more and more burdens on the shoulders of our troops, while sidelining the people's representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force.

Now, I know that after the terrible toll of Iraq and Afghanistan, the idea of any military action, no matter how limited, is not going to be popular. After all, I've spent four and a half years working to end wars, not to start them. Our troops are out of Iraq, our troops are coming home from Afghanistan, and I know Americans want all of us in Washington, especially me, to concentrate on the task of building our nation here at home, putting people back to work, educating our kids, growing our middle class. It's no wonder, then, that you're asking hard questions. So let me answer some of the most important questions that I've heard from members of Congress and that I've read in letters that you've sent to me.

First, many of you have asked: Won't this put us on a slippery slope to another war? One man wrote to me that we are still recovering from our involvement in Iraq. A veteran put it more bluntly: This nation is sick and tired of war.

My answer is simple. 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.

Others have asked whether it's worth acting if we don't take out Assad. As some members of Congress have said, there's no point in simply doing a pinprick strike in Syria.

Let me make something clear: The United States military doesn't do pinpricks.

Even a limited strike will send a message to Assad that no other nation can deliver. I don't think we should remove another dictator with force. We learned from Iraq that doing so makes us responsible for all that comes next. But a targeted strike can make Assad or any other dictator think twice before using chemical weapons.

Other questions involve the dangers of retaliation. We don't dismiss any threats, but the Assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military. Any other -- any other retaliation they might seek is in line with threats that we face every day. Neither Assad nor his allies have any interest in escalation that would lead to his demise. And our ally Israel can defend itself with overwhelming force, as well as the unshakable support of the United States of America.

Many of you have asked a broader question:Why should we get involved at all in a place that's so complicated and where, as one person wrote to me, those who come after Assad may be enemies of human rights? It's true that some of Assad's opponents are extremists. But al-Qaida will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed to death. The majority of the Syrian people and the Syrian opposition we work with just want to live in peace, with dignity and freedom. And the day after any military action, we would redouble our efforts to achieve a political solution that strengthens those who reject the forces of tyranny and extremism.

Finally, many of you have asked, why not leave this to other countries or seek solutions short of force? As several people wrote to me, we should not be the world's policemen. 

I agree. And I have a deeply held preference for peaceful solutions. Over the last two years, my administration has tried diplomacy and sanctions, warnings and negotiations, but chemical weapons were still used by the Assad regime.

However, over the last few days, we've seen some encouraging signs, 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. 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.

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.

I have therefore asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path. I'm sending Secretary of State John Kerry to meet his Russian counterpart on Thursday, and I will continue my own discussions with President Putin.

I've spoken to the leaders of two of our closest allies -- France and the United Kingdom -- and we will work together in consultation with Russia and China to put forward a resolution at the U.N. Security Council requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons and to ultimately destroy them under international control.

We'll also give U.N. inspectors the opportunity to report their findings about what happened on August 21st, and we will continue to rally support from allies from Europe to the Americas, from Asia to the Middle East, who agree on the need for action.

Meanwhile, I've ordered our military to maintain their current posture to keep the pressure on Assad and to be in a position to respond if diplomacy fails. And tonight I give thanks, again, to our military and their families for their incredible strength and sacrifices.

My fellow Americans, for nearly seven decades, the United States has been the anchor of global security. This has meant doing more than forging international agreements; it has meant enforcing them. The burdens of leadership are often heavy, but the world's a better place because we have borne them.

And so to my friends on the right, I ask you to reconcile your commitment to America's military might with the failure to act when a cause is so plainly just.

To my friends on the left, I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain and going still on a cold hospital floor, for sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough.

Indeed, I'd ask every member of Congress and those of you watching at home tonight to view those videos of the attack, and then ask, what kind of world will we live in if the United States of America sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas and we choose to look the other way?

Franklin Roosevelt once said, "Our national determination to keep free of foreign wars and foreign entanglements cannot prevent us from feeling deep concern when ideas and principles that we have cherished are challenged."

Our ideals and principles, as well as our national security, are at stake in Syria, along with our leadership of a world where we seek to ensure that the worst weapons will never be used.

America is not the world's policeman.Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong, but when with modest effort and risk we can stop children from being gassed to death and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act.

That's what makes America different.That's what makes us exceptional. With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/10/report-obamas-syria-speech-tonight-to-last-just-15-minutes/

( I bet a lot of his speech planned earlier - before the revelations of the past twenty four hours , is lying on the cutting room floor ! this could have been the halftime show during monday night footbal if just 15 minutes !  )

Report: Obama’s Syria speech tonight to last just 15 minutes

POSTED AT 6:41 PM ON SEPTEMBER 10, 2013 BY ALLAHPUNDIT

Unbelievably small:

mark seibel @markseibel

Obama's #syria speech tonight will be just 15 minutes.

5:35 PM - 10 Sep 2013

You know he’s in a bad spot when a guy who enjoys the sound of his own voice as much as O does wants to keep things brief so that he can put this behind him. Also, what’s left to say? If he could go back in time and erase the “red line” comment to spare himself from all this, he would and literally everyone knows it. If he could get away with canceling tonight’s speech entirely without losing face, he’d do that too. Better to keep his mouth shut about Syria as much as possible going forward before he says something so stupid that even the Russians can’t rescue him from it.

As Ed’s noting on Twitter, the takeaway line from his Rose Garden address 10 days ago was, “After careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets.” Ten days of embarrassment later, it’s come to this:

President Barack Obama will tell the nation Tuesday night that he is pursuing a last-minute Russian proposal to remove chemical weapons from Syria, and will argue that military force may be necessary, a senior administration official told NBC News…

On Tuesday, Russia added a wrinkle of complication: President Vladimir Putin said that a proposal for Syria to hand over its weapons would not work unless the United States and its allies promise not to use force.

In his address, Obama will tell the nation that a military option must stay on the table, the senior administration official told NBC News. That appeared to be a response to Putin’s statement.

At this point, I half-expect the speech to be interrupted by a transmission of Putin from the Kremlin. Ed suggests this message as a focus for O instead:

Ed Morrissey @EdMorrissey

I'm glad I asked Congress to authorize military action, because I finally got to meet some of them. #ObamasBigReveal

6:00 PM - 10 Sep 2013

Good point. By all accounts, Obama and his staff have done more outreach on the Hill lately to round up votes than they’ve done in ages. They failed miserably, but even so — on a night when the commander-in-chief will surrender what’s left of his credibility to Russia, reassuring Americans that our two parties can still engage in “dialogue” is a nice consolation prize.

Exit question: Is there any way O can convince conservatives to support his misadventure in Syria? Exit answer: Maybe.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-10/obama-approval-rating-near-record-lows

Obama Approval Rating Near Record Lows

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/10/2013 19:56 -0400

inShare

With an hour until yet another "most important speech of his Presidency", we thought it useful to reflect on the nation's support. While we already know the nation's "representatives" were absolutely not behind him on the Syria vote, it appears the people themselves - poor lowly serfs though they are - are not approving in general. In fact, Obama's approval rating is practically at all-time lows - and consequently disapproval near all-time highs. Will a 'we-are-strong-but-diplomacy-won' speech help tonight? Or will Obama press the 'Strike' and risk a further collapse in his approval (with 63% of Americans against getting involved in Syria)?

Chart: RealClearPolitics

The big question, of course, is - do the American people BFTD? or will all the Syria distractions be removed and we get back to NSA scandals?

evening updates - pre- speech !

http://rt.com/news/syria-crisis-live-updates-047/

20:19 GMT: A total of 33 countries have now signed a joint statement on Syria condemning the chemical attack on August 21 and blaming the Syrian government for it, the White House said. Eight more countries voiced their support of the “efforts undertaken by the United States and other countries to reinforce the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.”

20:07 GMT: US Secretary of State John Kerry will meet Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Geneva to discuss Syria's chemical weapons on Thursday, US officials told Reuters. Lavrov is expected to share Russia’s proposals on securing Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles under international control for review by the US administration. 

19:14 GMT: The Russian Foreign Ministry said that Secretary of State John Kerry and Minister Sergey Lavrov have agreed on a possible bilateral meeting soon to discuss initiative on Syria’s chemical weapons.

“The two have agreed to work together, including the possibility of holding a bilateral meeting in the coming days to discuss concrete ways of fulfilling the initiative of putting Syrian chemical weapons under international control,” the Foreign Ministry said following a phone call between Lavrov and Kerry. 

Russia’s proposal to remove Syrian chemical weapons is expected to be formally sent to the US later on Tuesday, John Kerry said after the call. 

19:03 GMT: UN Security Council closed-door meeting called by Russia has been canceled, according to the Council's current president Australia's Ambassador to the UN, Gary Quinlan.

18:45 GMT: President Obama has reportedly called on the US Senate to postpone the vote on possible military actions in Syria until the diplomatic solution is discussed, according Politico newspaper which cited a source from the closed-door meeting. 

18:43 GMT: John Kerry said that any Syria weapons deal must be struck in a binding UN Security Council resolution. 

17:20 GMT: Barack Obama and Francois Hollande have refused to rule out the possibility of a military strike against Syria, following a telephone conversation.

"The heads of state highlighted their preference for a diplomatic solution but they also underlined the importance of keeping all options open," said a statement from Hollande's press office. 

and....





http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-10/us-position-syria-devolves-total-chaos

US Position On Syria Devolves Into Total Chaos - With Constant Updates

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/10/2013 11:06 -0400

• France
 
• headlines

inShare2

1453ET: EMERGENCY U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL MEETING ON SYRIA CANCELED AFTER RUSSIA WITHDRAWS REQUEST - COUNCIL PRESIDENT

we suspect the reason is:

The Associated Press        ✔ @AP

BREAKING: Kerry says Syria should "go further" than declaring chemical weapons, signing treaty

2:49 PM - 10 Sep 2013

1440ET: Kerry says any Syria weapons deal must be struck in bind UN Security Council resolution (Which Russia now opposes)

1430ET: UPDATE

• U.S. SUPPLIES HAVE NOT BEEN REACHING SYRIAN OPPOSITION AS RAPIDLY AS HOPED, BUT SOME ITEMS ARE NOW GETTING THERE - KERRY
• *KERRY: `FIRM BARRIER' BLOCKS AID FROM RADICAL SYRIAN REBELS
• Kerry asks for complete open access to Syrian Chemical sites in Syria

So another negotiation chip we pre-suppose

And even more constant updates:

• U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL MAY DELAY SYRIA SESSION, OFFICIALS SAY
• U.S. SUPPLIES HAVE NOT BEEN REACHING SYRIAN OPPOSITION AS RAPIDLY AS HOPED, BUT SOME ITEMS ARE NOW GETTING THERE - KERRY
• OFFICIALS CITE DISPUTE BETWEEN RUSSIA, FRANCE OVER SYRIA
• IRANIAN PRESIDENT HASSAN ROUHANI SAYS TIME FOR RESOLVING NUCLEAR DISPUTE "WILL NOT BE UNLIMITED" - LIVE INTERVIEW ON STATE TV
• SYRIA ABANDONING CHEMICAL WEAPONS WOULD BE `GOOD STEP': PUTIN
• SYRIA SHOULD DISARM AND JOIN CHEM WEAPONS TREATY, PUTIN SAYS

Additionally, Syria adds it is ready to disclose the locations of its chemical weapons

Update, or this is how chaos becomes total Bazooko circus:

• SYRIAN OPPOSITION SAYS U.S. ‘INACTIONS IS NOT AN OPTION’.

Time for more cannibalism false flagy YouTube clips then...

* * *

From the need to teach Syria (and all global chemical weapons using despots) a lesson they won't forget to losing 'allies' to bluffing Russia to deal-or-no-deal, strike request or no strike request, the bluster from the US administration has now devolved into total chaos. As the following headlines from the last week attest to - it seems no one knows what is really occurring. So do we want the ability to strike but but not use it? We have to strike to teach them a lesson but a political solution is preferable? We would like congressional approval but don't need it. Everything has changed and yet nothing has changed?

• *OBAMA SAYS WORLD SHOULDN'T `FIND REASON NOT TO ACT' ON SYRIA
• *OBAMA SAYS WORLD NEEDS TO MAKE `TOUGH CHOICES' ON THREATS
• *OBAMA SAYS FAILURE TO RESPOND SENDS SIGNAL TO `ROGUE NATIONS'
• *OBAMA SAYS USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS THREAT TO GLOBAL PEACE
• *OBAMA SAYS HE'S `NOT ITCHING' FOR MILITARY ACTION IN SYRIA
• *OBAMA BELIEVES ACTION MUST BE TAKEN ON SYRIA, CARNEY SAYS
• *KERRY SAYS OBAMA'S FIRST PRIORITY IS DIPLOMACY ON SYRIA
• *OBAMA WANTS SYRIA THREAT OF FORCE ON THE TABLE, KERRY SAYS
• *KERRY SAYS THREAT MORE EFFECTIVE IF CONGRESS STANDS WITH OBAMA
• *KERRY SAYS CAN'T AFFORD `EVERYDAY USE' OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS
• *KERRY SAYS OBAMA SEEKING CONGRESS VOTE WAS `GUT' DECISION
• *KERRY SAYS SYRIA CONFLICT REQUIRES POLITICAL SOLUTION
• *SYRIA HAS `VERY THREATENING' STOCK OF CHEMICAL ARMS, KERRY SAYS
• *KERRY SAYS PROPOSAL MUST BE REAL, VERIFIABLE, NOT DELAY TACTIC
• *KERRY SAYS `WHAT ASSAD HAS DONE DIRECTLY EFFECTS' U.S. SECURITY
• *NOTHING HAS CHANGED ON AUTHORIZATION REQUEST, KERRY SAYS
• OBAMA ADMINISTRATION STILL SEEKING CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF FORCE IN SYRIA DESPITE CHANCE OF DIPLOMATIC DEAL -KERRY
• OBAMA SAID TO AGREE TO UN DISCUSSION ON RUSSIA SYRIA PLAN: AP
• OBAMA MAY WANT TO TALK TO CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP ABOUT 'WHEN AND HOW' CONGRESS ACTS - KERRY SAYS
• PROPOSED U.S. MILITARY ACTION AGAINST SYRIA NOT DESIGNED TO TOPPLE
  ASSAD, BUT WOULD DEGRADE HIS MILITARY AND FORCE HIM TO NEGOTIATE -KERRY

See - clear as day what the US 'strategy' is...




US strategy has been forcing an attack on syria , as detailed below...



Interestingly Clapper was not on board with cherry picking by the Obama Administration ! No wonder support for the War resolution fell after the various classified briefings....

Obama’s Case for Syria Didn’t Reflect Intel Consensus

by Gareth Porter, September 10, 2013

Print This | Share This

Contrary to the general impression in Congress and the news media, the Syria chemical warfare intelligence summary released by the Barack Obama administration Aug. 30 did not represent an intelligence community assessment, an IPS analysis and interviews with former intelligence officials reveals.

The evidence indicates that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper culled intelligence analyses from various agencies and by the White House itself, but that the White House itself had the final say in the contents of the document.

Leading members of Congress to believe that the document was an intelligence community assessment and thus represents a credible picture of the intelligence on the alleged chemical attack of Aug. 21 has been a central element in the Obama administration’s case for war in Syria.

That part of the strategy, at least, has been successful. Despite strong opposition in Congress to the proposed military strike in Syria, no one in either chamber has yet challenged the administration’s characterization of the intelligence. But the administration is vulnerable to the charge that it has put out an intelligence document that does not fully and accurately reflect the views of intelligence analysts.

Former intelligence officials told IPS that that the paper does not represent a genuine intelligence community assessment but rather one reflecting a predominantly Obama administration influence.

In essence, the White House selected those elements of the intelligence community assessments that supported the administration’s policy of planning a strike against the Syrian government force and omitted those that didn’t.

In a radical departure from normal practice involving summaries or excerpts of intelligence documents that are made public, the Syria chemical weapons intelligence summary document was not released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence but by the White House Office of the Press Secretary.

It was titled “Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013.” The first sentence begins, “The United States government assesses,” and the second sentence begins, “We assess”.

The introductory paragraph refers to the main body of the text as a summary of “the intelligence community’s analysis” of the issue, rather than as an “intelligence community assessment”, which would have been used had the entire intelligence community endorsed the document.

A former senior intelligence official who asked not to be identified told IPS in an e-mail Friday that the language used by the White House “means that this is not an intelligence community document”.

The former senior official, who held dozens of security classifications over a decades-long intelligence career, said he had “never seen a document about an international crisis at any classification described/slugged as a U.S. government assessment.”

The document further indicates that the administration “decided on a position and cherry-picked the intelligence to fit it,” he said. “The result is not a balanced assessment of the intelligence.”

Greg Thielmann, whose last position before retiring from the State Department was director of the Strategic, Proliferation and Military Affairs Office in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, told IPS he has never seen a government document labeled “Government Assessment” either.

“If it’s an intelligence assessment,” Thielmann said, “why didn’t they label it as such?”

Former National Intelligence Officer Paul Pillar, who has participated in drafting national intelligence estimates, said the intelligence assessment summary released by the White House “is evidently an administration document, and the working master copy may have been in someone’s computer at the White House or National Security Council.”

Pillar suggested that senior intelligence officials might have signed off on the administration paper, but that the White House may have drafted its own paper to “avoid attention to analytic differences within the intelligence community.”

Comparable intelligence community assessments in the past, he observed – including the 2002 Iraq WMD estimate – include indications of differences in assessment among elements of the community.

An unnamed “senior administration official” briefing the news media on the intelligence paper on Aug. 30 said that the paper was “fully vetted within the intelligence community,” and that, ”All members of the intelligence community participated in its development.”

But that statement fell far short of asserting that all the elements of the intelligence community had approved the paper in question, or even that it had gone through anything resembling consultations between the primary drafters and other analysts, and opportunities for agencies to register dissent that typically accompany intelligence community assessments.

The same “senior administration official” indicated that DNI Clapper had “approved” submissions from various agencies for what the official called “the process”. The anonymous speaker did not explain further to journalists what that process preceding the issuance of the White House paper had involved.

However, an Associated Press story on Aug. 29 referred to “a report by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence outlining the evidence against Syria”, citing two intelligence officials and two other administration officials as sources.

That article suggests that the administration had originally planned for the report on intelligence to be issued by Clapper rather than the White House, apparently after reaching agreement with the White House on the contents of the paper.

But Clapper’s name was not on the final document issued by the White House, and the document is nowhere to be found on the ODNI website. All previous intelligence community assessments were posted on that site.

The issuance of the document by the White House rather than by Clapper, as had been apparently planned, points to a refusal by Clapper to put his name on the document as revised by the White House.

Clapper’s refusal to endorse it – presumably because it was too obviously an exercise in “cherry picking” intelligence to support a decision for war – would explain why the document had to be issued by the White House.

Efforts by IPS to get a comment from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence suggest strongly that Clapper is embarrassed by the way the Obama White House misrepresented the Aug. 30 document.

An e-mail query by IPS to the media relations staff of ODNI requesting clarification of the status of the Aug. 30 document in relation to the intelligence community was never answered.

In follow-up phone calls, ODNI personnel said someone would respond to the query. After failing to respond for two days, despite promising that someone would call back, however, ODNI’s media relations office apparently decided to refuse any further contact with IPS on the subject.

A clear indication that the White House, rather than Clapper, had the final say on the content of the document is that it includes a statement that a “preliminary US government assessment determined that 1,429 people were killed in the chemical weapons attack, including at least 426 children.”

That figure, for which no source was indicated, was several times larger than the estimates given by British and French intelligence.

The document issued by the White House cites intelligence that is either obviously ambiguous at best or is of doubtful authenticity, or both, as firm evidence that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack.

It claims that Syrian chemical weapons specialists were preparing for such an attack merely on the basis of signals intelligence indicating the presence of one or more individuals in a particular location. The same intelligence had been regarded prior to Aug. 21 as indicating nothing out of the ordinary, as was reported by CBS news Aug. 23.

The paper also cites a purported intercept by US intelligence of conversations between Syrian officials in which a “senior official” supposedly “confirmed” that the government had carried out the chemical weapons attack.

But the evidence appears to indicate that the alleged intercept was actually passed on to the United States by Israeli intelligence. US intelligence officials have long been doubtful about intelligence from Israeli sources that is clearly in line with Israeli interests.

Opponents of the proposed US strike against Syria could argue that the Obama administration’s presentation of the intelligence supporting war is far more politicized than the flawed 2002 Iraq WMD estimate that the George W. Bush administration cited as part of the justification for the invasion of Iraq.

and....

U.N. Inspection a Figleaf To Justify Air Strike on Syria

by Thalif Deen, September 10, 2013

Print This | Share This

The United Nations, which has remained deadlocked over Syria, is in danger of being craftily exploited to justify the impending air strike on Damascus.

The threat of double vetoes by Russia and China against an attack on Syria has shifted the focus to the UN team of inspectors whose report on the chemical weapons attack may be released either later this week or next week.

But the conclusions of the report are predictable – within the team’s limited mandate, as laid out by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. The team is expected to only confirm the use of chemical weapons in Syria and leave unanswered the more important question of who used those weapons.

The Syrian government and rebel forces are blaming each other, with no positive proof on either side.

But the administration of President Barack Obama has repeatedly said the UN evaluation is “irrelevant” – and it knows more about the chemical weapons attack than the United Nations does and hopes to.

Still, European governments, and particularly France, have said they would not endorse a military strike until the UN report is released. French President Francois Hollande was quoted as saying last week his government would not act militarily before the UN inspectors presented their findings on the Aug. 12 attack in Syria.

According to one published report, the UN findings “would enable European governments to tell their constituents that there has been UN involvement before military action, and it would not appear to tie the Americans’ hands.”

Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, told IPS many of those governments prefer to support the United States and will use the “fig leaf of the UN inspections” and its conclusion – assuming it states chemical weapons are used – to give that support.

“The claim will be that the UN is involved and somehow that means it’s a legal attack. Nothing could be further from the truth or law,” he said.

Without Security Council approval, an attack violates the UN Charter and is utterly lawless.

“Let’s hope for once that governments, including my own, listen to people they purportedly represent. [That] would be a major breakthrough in the struggle for a more democratic world,” said Ratner, who is also president of the Berlin-based European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights.

He said most of Europe, particularly its population, like that of the United States is reluctant or opposed to bombing of Syria.

Meanwhile, reports surfaced Monday that Russia, backing a demand from the United States, was urging Syria to give up its chemical weapons and put them under international control and then destroy them.

Such a move could also possibly prevent a U.S. military attack on Syria.

“We have given our proposal to Syria’s Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem and are counting on a fast and, I hope, positive response,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters.

Asked for his comments, UN Secretary-general Ban Ki-moon told reporters Monday, “I have already been considering certain proposals that I could make to the Security Council when I present the investigation team’s report.

“I am considering urging the Security Council to demand the immediate transfer of Syria’s chemical weapons and chemical precursor stocks to places inside Syria where they can be safely stored and destroyed.

“And I urge again [that] Syria should become party to the OPCW [Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons]“, which bans the production, use and distribution of chemical weapons, he added.

Pressed about a timeline for such a transfer, Ban said if and when Syria agrees to the proposal, “I am sure that the international community will [take] very swift action to make sure these chemical weapons stocks will be stored safely and will be destroyed. I do not have any doubt and worry about that.”

But first and foremost, he noted, Syria must agree positively to this.

Asked about the punishment for the use of chemical weapons, either by the Syrian government or the rebels, Ban said there will be an “accountability process” making sure that nobody commits such horrendous use of chemical weapons and gets away with it.

“So I believe that even with this, accountability should be pursued in accordance with what had happened, in accordance with the investigative team’s report,” Ban said.

Ratner told IPS it’s hard to believe people and governments are accepting anything the US says on this topic.

“Even assuming the UN inspectors conclude chemical weapons were used on Aug. 21 – and we do not yet know – where is the proof that Assad ordered them used?” he said. So far, he noted, the US has offered the world no proof – except what it calls “common sense”.

“So the US and European countries should bomb another country and kill people based on common sense. Common sense makes no sense,” Ratner concluded.

Republican Offers To Vote For Syrian Strikes If Obama Returns Nobel Peace Prize

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/10/2013 - 18:51

According to the latest whip count on Syria attack proposal in the House, 237 reps oppose a such a strike and 169 are undecided with just 27 are for. While this number guarantees that no vote will ever come to pass, and humiliate Obama, who if anything will revoke the punt to Congress from September 1 and unilaterally engage in strikes to appease assorted Saudi/Qatari interests, all that would take for the 27 Yay votes to become 28, would be for Obama to return the Nobel Peace Prize.According to The Hill, a Republican lawmaker said he'll vote to authorize military action against Syria if President Obama returns his Nobel Peace Prize. The line between reality and an alternative Onionesque universe is thin, but this is not a joke.

US multi-pedaling ( forward / sideways / backwards ) o the russia - Syria chemical weapon proposal a result of GOP pushback ( think McCain and other GOP / Dem hawks ) and Arab hawks and Syria rebel outrage at Obama / Kerry moves !


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-10/syrias-al-qaeda-backed-opposition-rejects-appeasement-plan-people-grow-resentful

Syria's Al Qaeda-Backed "Opposition" Rejects Appeasement Plan; People Grow Resentful

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/10/2013 15:06 -0400

inShare

In a not-so-shocking turn of events, the Syrian 'opposition' is disappointed by the apparent shift in the US administration's warmongery.

As Bloomberg reports, Najib Ghadbian, special representative of the Syrian opposition coalition, explained that they "definitely want this strike; we're using the words and decisive and strategic," adding that the strike "is a necessary step" to make the Assad regime agree to a political solution.

In a separate discussion, Farah Al-Atassi - a Syran coalition member - said Russia's proposal to isolate and destroy Syria's chemical weapons was not sincere. Oh, but of course, they concluded that, "we definitely want it to lead to a democratic solution." In the meantime, Syrian people's resentment grows,"Why is there silence?" Abu Abdu asks. "Is it because we're Muslims? Is our blood cheaper than yours?"

However, as The BBC reports, the people in Syria are growing resentful of the American promises and lack of action:

While some Syrians inside the country welcome the idea of military intervention, many are critical of what they say has been indifference to their plight for the last two-and-a-half years

...

If America decides to put its plans to attack on hold, which is looking increasingly likely, it will only make that anger worse, highlighting fundamental differences between the view on the ground and that in Western capitals.

...

"Why is there silence?" Abu Abdu asks. "Is it because we're Muslims? Is our blood cheaper than yours?"

...

"Before this strike they'd shell us with missiles and artillery, for no reason, there are only civilians here," he says.

"But in the last few days it just got heavier. I think it's because of American statements about strikes on Syria and the regime wants to prove it's still strong and won't surrender."

...

Abu Mohammed, a commander with Ahrar al-Sham, one of the largest rebel groups in the north, says he wants the West to attack President Assad.

"Wherever they strike, we will strike. In fact we're already doing this but it will make our mission easier and quicker."

...

Syrians have starkly different views on their future and the role, if any, for the outside world. One thing most do agree on though is the need to end the bloodshed.

Many of those in the north whose lives have been forever altered by this war desperately want help from the outside world. But after two-and-a-half years of war and appalling suffering, they have given up hope it will ever come.

And GCC as well as Syrians - Rebels and otherwise deride US follies ....

Last Update: Wednesday, 11 September 2013 KSA 01:14 - GMT 22:14

Syrian rebel commander slams ‘dirty deal’ on Syria’s chemical weapons

Wednesday, 11 September 2013

Colonel Abdul Jabbar al-Oqaidi, a senior commander in the Free Syrian Army, said removing chemical weapons from the Syrian regime serves Israel more than Syrian people. (Al Arabiya)

• 

Al Arabiya

A Syrian rebel commander criticized on Tuesday a Russian plan for Syria to surrender its chemical weapons to avoid a Western military attack as a “dirty deal” and an “international maneuver.”

“What is happening is an attempt to save Obama from a tree he climbed, after that Russia left him there and took the ladder,” Colonel Abdul Jabbar al-Oqaidi, a senior commander in the Free Syrian Army, said an interview with Al Arabiya.

Taking chemical weapons from President Bashar al-Assad “would serve Israel, not the Syrian people,” he said.

“All of this shouting in the international community is because of the chemical weapons and not because of Assad’s atrocities against his people using tanks and rocket launchers,” he added.

Col. Oqaidi urged Syrians to unite around the rebel army and not rely on international support to overthrow the Assad’s regime from power.

He rejected any political solution to the crisis before Assad’s departure, saying that a special security body would be formed to fill in an anticipated security vacuum after Assad’s ouster.

He blamed the political arm of the Syrian revolution for the lack of coordination with the military arm, questioning the legitimacy of political leaders, who, he said, “represent the countries that nominated them, not the Syrian people.”

The rebel commander played down the existence of foreign fighters in Syria, saying their total number does not exceed 2,000, while the FSA has about 200,000 fighters. He said Syrian Islamist fighters are about 10,000 members.

Last Update: Tuesday, 10 September 2013 KSA 22:37 - GMT 19:37

Obama strike threat is butt of syrian jokes

Tuesday, 10 September 2013

U.S. President Barack Obama leaves the Senate Democratic policy luncheon after meeting with Senate Democrats at the Capitol Sept. 10, 2013 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. (Reuters)

• 

AFP, Damascus

A Syrian caricature shows U.S. President Barack Obama smile and pluck the petals of a daisy, as he wonders, “Should I bomb? Or shouldn’t I bomb?”

As Obama delays a strike against President Bashar al-Assad’s regime thought imminent just over a week ago, Syrians on both sides of their civil war are resorting to black humour, sharing jokes and cartoons via mobile phone and the Internet.

After saying he had the authority to act on his own to strike Syria for its deadly use of chemical weapons near Damascus on August 21, Obama then referred the matter to Congress for a vote.

Now, with the prospects of a quick congressional vote diminishing and Obama cautiously welcoming a Russian initiative that would see Assad hand over his chemical arsenal, an imminent decision by the president is even less likely.

That apparent hesitation to act has given both pro- and anti-Assad Syrians a field day.

One Syrian posted a picture of Obama on Facebook with a biting caption that reads: “When Congress gives me the green light to strike, I will ask my wife Michelle and my in-laws. If they say it’s alright, I’ll go ahead!”

Meanwhile, an Assad opponent said on the Internet he wants to “sue Barack Obama for spreading false information and for breaching the peace,” 10 days after announcements were made of what seemed to be an imminent strike.

Another joke making the rounds on anti-regime Facebook pages was much darker, more than two years into a conflict that has left more than 100,000 dead.

“Mr President, you are right. We should wait another three years until the Syrian people are extinct,” it read.

Cartoons mocking Obama’s “indecision” made the rounds, with one depicting the U.S. president as Walt Disney’s Mickey Mouse.

Another joke makes fun of the U.S. secretary of state, calling on Syrians to sign up for an imagined mobile phone service called John “Kerry, inform me at any cost” of when a strike would take place.

Some shared a joke about a man using unconventional means to propose to his fiancée: “Honey, let’s wait till after the strike. We’ll see what happens then.”

Others told of a man who tried to convince his wife they needed to find a new home before the strike, while she replied: “Let’s wait. Rent will be cheaper afterwards.”

While the regime appeared not to have put in place any exceptional measures ahead of a possible, some commentators mocked the panic stirred in neighbouring countries.

“The Israelis have distributed gas masks, the Jordanians are on alert, the Turks are deploying anti-aircraft missiles day and night, the Lebanese are nervous, the Iraqis are lost and the Egyptians are following up on our news more than their own...

“Are we sure there’s a strike against Syria?” quipped one Facebook user.

Another imagined Syrians gathering, as they would to watch a football match, around “giant screens in public places, to watch the military strike live”.

“An evening with shisha and drinks,” the Internet surfer joked.

The football theme ran through other jokes, as a cartoon mocking the idea that Obama’s strike would hit sensitive targets showed players covering their groins with their hands.

“Hide them well. We want to continue having children,” the caption reads.

With some 60 percent of Americans opposed to a strike, according to a survey published on Monday, Obama has placed both the United States’ and his own credibility at stake over the matter.

Last Update: Tuesday, 10 September 2013 KSA 20:26 - GMT 17:26

Gulf states: Russian proposal on Syria will not stop bloodshed

Tuesday, 10 September 2013

Bahrain's Foreign Minister Sheikh Khaled bin Ahmed al-Khalifa addressing a news conference in Jeddah. (Al Arabiya)

• 

Al Arabiya

A Russian proposal for Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control to avoid a Western strike would not stop bloodshed, the Gulf Arab states said on Tuesday.

“We've heard of the initiative ... It's all about chemical weapons but doesn't stop the spilling of the blood of the Syrian people,” Bahrain's Foreign Minister Sheikh Khaled bin Ahmed al-Khalifa told a news conference in Jeddah.

Bahrain holds the presidency of the Sunni Muslim-led Gulf Cooperation Council, a main backer of rebels fighting to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Its foreign minister said the GCC states were ready to deal with any threat against them based on their support for the rebels, according to Reuters.

The Russian proposal, accepted by Damascus, aims to prevent the United States launching an attack on Syria to punish it for a chemical weapons attack that killed hundreds of civilians.

In an address at the start of the meeting, Khalifa called for “appropriate deterrent measures against those who committed this crime” and said the chemical attack required “the United Nations and the international community, represented by the Security Council, to shoulder its responsibility.”

The Gulf Arab states have been among the strongest proponents of intervention against Assad, who is backed by Shi'ite Iran, their main rival for influence in the region.

The United States has accused Assad of responsibility for last month's attack on Damascus suburbs. He denies any links. 

Russia and Syria government commentary ....

http://rt.com/news/syria-join-chemical-weapons-convention-675/

( can you see the trap forming - if syria must sign the chemical weapon convention- then what about Israel ? )

Syria said it would sign the Chemical Weapons Convention, following Russia’s proposal that it hands over its chemical weapons to international supervisors. Damascus pledged to open its storage sites and provide full disclosure of its stocks immediately.

Follow RT's Live Updates 

“We fully support Russia’s initiative concerning chemical weapons in Syria, and we are ready to cooperate. As a part of the plan, we intend to join the Chemical Weapons Convention,” Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem said in an interview with Lebanon-based Al-Maydeen TV.

“We are ready to fulfill our obligations in compliance with this treaty, including through the provision of information about our chemical weapons. We will open our storage sites, and cease production. We are ready to open these facilities to Russia, other countries and the United Nations.”

He added: “We intend to give up chemical weapons altogether.” 

The statement comes less than 24 hours after Moscow called for Damascus to hand over control over its chemical arsenal to the international community to avert a retaliatory strike by the US. Washington claims that the Assad government used chemical weapons against civilians in a Damascus suburb on August 21, killing more than 1,400 people. President Assad denies the allegation.

On Monday, US Secretary of State John Kerry said that direct action could be avoided if the Syrian government handed over “every single bit" of his chemical weapon stock within a week. Shortly afterward, Russia made a formal proposal to Damascus.

Vladimir Putin has said that he first discussed the idea with Barack Obama during the G20 meeting of the world’s biggest economies last week. In a series of TV interviews of US networks, Obama welcomed the proposal as a “possible breakthrough”, but US officials say it must not be used as a “stalling tactic” by the Assad regime.

As part of that plan, Syria would have to become a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention. Damascus had already agreed to Moscow's proposal in principle earlier on Tuesday.

Alongside North Korea, Egypt and Israel, Syria is one of only seven countries not to have joined the treaty, adopted in 1993.

Since then more than half of the world’s chemical weapons stockpile has been destroyed under the terms of the treaty by over 180 countries.

The UN Security Council will convene to discuss a statement based on Moscow’s plan in the near future.

While all members of the Council are likely to support the chemical weapons handover, there are likely to be crucial disagreements on whether the final document will assign blame for the August 21 chemical incident on Assad’s forces, and whether the door will still be open to future military intervention against his government.

Kerry and Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov have also scheduled a meeting to discuss the chemical disarmament. 

and.....

http://rt.com/news/putin-syria-chemical-weapons-669/

Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Syria’s chemical arms handover will only work if the US and its allies renounce the use of force against Damascus.

Follow RT's Live Updates 

"Of course, all of this will only mean anything if the United States and other nations supporting it tell us that they're giving up their plan to use force against Syria. You can’t really ask Syria, or any other country, to disarm unilaterally while military action against it is being contemplated," President Putin said on Tuesday.

President Putin said that the matter of bringing Syria’s chemical weapons under international control has long been a subject of discussion by experts and politicians. 

Putin confirmed that he and President Barack Obama had “indeed discussed” such a possibility on the sidelines of the G20 summit in St. Petersburg last week.

It was agreed, Putin said, “to instruct Secretary of State [John Kerry] and Foreign Minister [Sergey Lavrov] to work together and see if they can achieve some progress in this regard."

President Putin’s comments came shortly after the Syrian government said it would agree to place its chemical weapons arsenal under international control. 

On Tuesday, Britain, France and the US said they would table a resolution on Syrian chemical weapons to the UN Security Council later in the day.

An emergency closed-door meeting at the Security Council is scheduled to take place at 4:00pm EST (20:00 GMT), the UN press office said.

"If this is a serious proposal, then we should act accordingly and I think a UN Security Council resolution is a good idea," British Prime Minister David Cameron said.

However, the US and France said they would not rule out any possible reaction to the use of chemical weapons in Syria, Interfax cited the Elysee Palace as saying in a statement.

According to the news agency, “the presidents of France and the US reiterated that they would prefer a diplomatic solution, but they have also expressed willingness to retain any other options to neutralize the Syrian chemical weapons arsenal.” 

Russia’s Foreign Ministry will propose a draft statement by the chairman of the UN Security Council, supporting the initiative to transfer Syria’s chemical weapons to international control.

The issue was discussed during a phone conversation between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and his French counterpart, Laurent Fabius.

“[Lavrov] said that Russia, on its part, is submitting a draft statement for the UN Security Council’s chairman, welcoming the… initiative and calling on the UN Secretary General, the general director of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and all the interested parties to make efforts to facilitate the implementation of this proposal,” the ministry’s statement said. 

At the same time, Syria said it was ready to completely give up chemical weapons and sign the Chemical Weapons Convention.

“We are ready to show sites with chemical arsenals to Russia’s representatives, as well as representatives of other states and the UN,” Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem told Lebanon-based Al-Mayadeen TV. 

Despite voicing “some serious skepticism,” Western countries supported Russia's proposal, stressing the importance of Assad fulfilling the agreement and surrendering the weapons stockpiles.

Britain said it would like Russia and Syria to show that the proposal to President Bashar Assad is“serious and genuine.”

In Washington, the White House echoed the UK statement, saying it wanted to verify that Syria was serious in its intentions.

Earlier, the French government said that the handover of Syria’s chemical weapons to international control should be closely scrutinized. France said it would table a draft resolution to the UN Security Council calling on Syria to give up its stockpiles of chemical arms, threatening "extremely serious"consequences if Syria violates its conditions.

Obama’s administration, which last week was firmly insisting on military intervention following the Aug.21 chemical weapons attack, has now changed its position.

In response to Russia’s proposal, Obama said he was willing to “absolutely” put on pause a military strike on Syria if Assad accepts the offer.

The US Senate was initially scheduled to vote on whether to authorize “limited military actions,” but a Senate Democratic leadership aide said it was now not known if the Senate would vote this week on Syria.

"We want to give the president a chance to make his case," the aide said, adding that following President Obama’s speech Tuesday night, Senate leaders would review the situation. 

http://www.juancole.com/2013/09/congress-embarrassing-themselves.html

How Putin Saved Obama, Congress and the European Union from Further Embarrassing themselves on Syria

Posted on 09/10/2013 by Juan Cole

Secretary of State John Kerry was asked at a press conference in London Monday morning if there was anything that could forestall a US missile attack on Damascus, and he replied off the cuff that Syria could surrender its chemical weapons stockpile to the international community within a week.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov pounced on Kerry’s comment, abruptly announcing that Russia would see what it could do. Lavrov said, “If the establishment of international control over chemical weapons in that country would allow avoiding strikes, we will immediately start working with Damascus . . . We are calling on the Syrian leadership to not only agree on placing chemical weapons storage sites under international control, but also on its subsequent destruction and fully joining the treaty on prohibition of chemical weapons,”

Syria’s portly Foreign Minister Walid Muallim clearly knows how to chow down while the meal is still hot, and he wasted no time embracing Lavrov’s suggestion. Muallim said, “The Syrian leadership welcomes the Russian initiative because of its own eagerness to preserve the lives of Syrian citizens and ensure the security of the country, and given our confidence in the desire of the Russian leadership to prevent an attack on our country.”

Senate majority leader Harry Reid immediately postponed a vote on a Syria attack by his body that had been scheduled for Wednesday.

The indications were that President Obama might well not get 60 votes in the Senate for his attack on Damascus, and Reid must have exhaled a big sigh of relief. As for the House of Representatives, the likelihood of it voting to allow Obama to fire cruise missiles at Syrian targets is between slim and none.

To that extent, Putin’s suggestion (and it was his; Lavrov doesn’t have an independent power base and does as the president tells him) functions to save Obama a lot of trouble.

He can now possibly avoid the most embarrassing defeat in congress of a president on a major international issue since that body told Woodrow Wilson where he could stick his League of Nations.

Likewise, Putin’s proposal ironically helped soothe troubled waters in the European Union. German Chancellor Angela Merkel was by all accounts absolutely furious at Spain, Britain and France for issuing a statement at the G20 meeting in Moscow supportive of President Obama’s condemnation of Syria for chemical weapons use (though they did not back a military attack on Syria). Merkel reprimanded Spain in particular for not waiting for a joint European Union statement. (For Spain to defy Germany at this point in time is rather like a deeply indebted gambler being rude to the casino owner). Spain for its part only talked a good game, going on to say that Spanish law forbade the Spanish military from in any way being involved with the US assault on Damascus, since it is not in self-defense.. It is not clear what Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy was supporting at the G20, if he thinks military action so illegal that Spain has to avoid having anything to do with it. And, of course, the British Parliament had rebuked Prime Minister David Cameron for considering joining the US in air strikes on Syria.

Putin’s gambit is irresistible to the West, even if it amounts to nothing. After all, it will take time to amount to nothing, and with the passage of time the urgency of military action (already low) will dissipate irrevocably.

The Russian initiative is not attractive because it seems practical or likely to be swiftly implemented but because it allows everyone involved to save face. Obama can look statesmanlike. He is already taking credit for Putin’s move, saying it would not have come about without his own saber-rattling.

The US Congress might be able to avoid the uncomfortable position of agreeing that Syria is guilty of chemical weapons use but declining to do anything about it.

And, the European Union was desperately looking for some step that could avoid further friction within the deeply divided organization.

All this is good news for Western politicians and bad news for the Syrian rebels, who are denouncing the Russian initiative as mendacious. They had hoped that the US would degrade some key regime capabilities, especially the bombing of airports that the regime uses to resupply its troops. Of course, even before the Putin Plan, it was increasingly unlikely that Obama would gain authorization for such a step, in any case.

The one good thing about this development is that it strengthens Russia’s position with the Baath government of Bashar al-Assad and may lend new energy to Moscow’s determination to broker a compromise between the rebels and the regime.

Without a US or Western bombing campaign, the Syrian regime is likely just strong enough to hold on for years. The rebels’ advance of last spring has stalled and in some places been reversed. Some sort of negotiation now seems likely. While in my view the two sides are not yet desperate or exhausted enough to make that sort of agreement the Lebanese acquiesced in at Taif in 1989, they may be able to take small steps toward that eventual outcome, which increasingly seems the most plausible one.

 0Retweet 4Share 5Google +1 0StumbleUpon0Printer Friendly

http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2013/09/ot-us-secretary-of-state-john-kerrys.html

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2013

(OT) US Secretary of State John Kerry's Own Goal on Syria, and Obama Takes Credit for Possible "Political Solution"

Now the Obama administration is busy taking credit for possible political solutions on Syria, after Russia made good use of Secretary Kerry's blunder, aka "hypothetical" remark, during a press briefing in London on Monday, and Syria, the UN, and a host of political leaders around the world (including UK's Cameron) warm up to the Russian proposal of putting Syria's chemical weapons under international supervision.

Even the GOP duo McCain and Graham, who have been staunch supporters of President Obama's policies and initiatives, say "the proposal should be given a chance".

Harry Reid has delayed the procedural vote in the US Senate due to this new development (aka he doesn't have enough vote to pass the resolution).

From Washington Post (9/9/2013; emphasis is mine):

(Original title of the article as seen on the browser bar: Syria says it 'welcomes' Russia proposal on chemical weapons)

(Current article title is all about Obama) Obama sees potential ‘breakthrough’ in Russia’s Syria proposal

Russia and Syria embraced Secretary of State John F. Kerry’s suggestion Monday that the Syrian government could avert a U.S. attack by placing its chemical weapons under international control, upending the Obama administration’s efforts to sharpen its case for military action.

...

The timing of the new proposal was awkward and its apparent genesis perhaps more so.

It began when Kerry was asked early Monday whether Assad could avoid a U.S. attack.

“Sure. He could turn over every bit of his weapons to the international community within the next week, without delay,” Kerry responded with a shrug. “But he isn’t about to.”

As Kerry flew back to Washington to help lobby lawmakers, he received a midair call from Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who said he had heard the secretary’s remarks and was about to make a public announcement.

The statement in Moscow came before Kerry landed.

“We are calling on the Syrian authorities [to] not only agree on putting chemical weapons storages under international control but also for its further destruction and then joining the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons,” Lavrov said, adding, “We have passed our offer to [Syrian Foreign Minister] Walid al-Moualem and hope to receive a fast and positive answer.”

Moualem, who was in Moscow meeting with Lavrov, followed with a statement that his government “welcomes Russia’s initiative, based on the Syrian government’s care about the lives of our people and security of our country.”

Although Syrian President Bashar al-Assad denies having a stockpile of the widely banned weapons, the idea of international control also quickly gained traction among diplomats and at least some senior Democrats whose support Obama seeks for a show of force.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) was the first senior lawmaker to voice support for the Russian proposal.

“I think if the U.N. would accept the responsibility of maintaining these facilities, seeing that they’re secure, and that Syria would announce that it is giving up any chemical weapons programs or delivery system vehicles that may have been armed, then I think we’ve got something,” Feinstein said.

The Russian announcement was met with approval by international backers and critics of a U.S. strike. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who has said a U.S. attack on Syria would be illegal without U.N. approval, signaled support, as did British Prime Minister David Cameron.

French Foreign Minister Laurant Fabius, whose government had said it would join an American attack and who two days ago stood at Kerry’s side in Paris to pledge an all-out effort to build public support, said it was worth testing. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has been wary of a strike, welcomed the idea.

Republican Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) said the proposal came only because Assad feels the threat of military force and that Congress should continue considering Obama’s request for legislative backing.But the two said the proposal should be given a chance — and a test of its sincerity — by being committed to writing in a U.N. Security Council resolution.

“We should not trust, and we must verify,” the pair said in a joint statement.

A senior State Department official said Kerry warned Lavrov that the United States was “not going to play games.”

Current and former Obama administration officials scrambled Monday to say the proposal should not derail plans for a punitive strike. They suggested it was a delaying tactic after more than two years of diplomatic efforts with Syria and its ally Russia, albeit one spurred by the prospect that a U.S. military attack is imminent.

“It’s very important to note that it’s clear that this proposal comes in the context of the threat of U.S. action and the pressure that the president is exerting,” deputy national security adviser Tony Blinken said at the White House. “So it’s even more important that we don’t take the pressure off and that Congress give the president the authority he’s requested.”

(Full article at the link)

Senator John McCain's initial reaction to Secretary Kerry's own goal was, "unbelievably unhelpful".

http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-weapons-russia-656/

Damascus accepts Russian chemical weapons proposal for intl control – Syria FM

Published time: September 10, 2013 11:09

Get short URL

Share on tumblr

The Syrian government agrees to Russia’s proposal to hand its chemical arsenal over to international control in a bid to avert a possible strike by the US-led coalition, Interfax reported citing the Syrian Foreign Minister.

“Yesterday [Monday] we held a round of very fruitful negotiations with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and he put forward an initiative regarding chemical weapons. Already in the evening we accepted Russia’s initiative,” Walid Muallem said. 

He stressed that the agreement is designed to “pull the rug from under the feet of American aggression.” 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-10/syria-latest-full-event-update

Syria Latest: Full Event Update

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/10/2013 07:23 -0400

• ABC News
 
• France
 
• President Obama

inShare

All the latest news, some of which outright conflicting, in the rapidly changing Syrian melodrama:

• Syria accepts Russian proposal to put Chemical weapons under international control - Interfax quoting Syria's foreign minister Muallem
• France to Introduce Resolution Aimed at Dismantling Syria's Chemical Arsenal
• France to push Russian proposal on Syrian chemical weapons at U.N. Security Council
• President Obama said on ABC News a U.S. attack “absolutely” would be put on hold if Syria followed through on Russian bid to get Syria to surrender chemical weapons
• Majority in House now don’t favor Syria military strike
• Russia urges Syria to give up its chemical weapons stockpile
• Obama questions whether Syrian President al-Assad would yield control of weapons
• A comment by Kerry that aides said was rhetorical led to Russia proposal
• Germany’s Merkel, France’s Fabius say Russian proposal “interesting”
• State Dept spokeswoman Marie Harf says in briefing plan to remove weapons may be stall tactic by Russia, Syria
• Pew Research Center-USA Today poll found proportion of Americans against U.S. strike at 63% from 48% over past week
• New York-based Human Rights Watch said Syrian government is likely culprit in the chemical attack
• Hillary Clinton urges Congress to back President Obama on Syria, calls senators on behalf of White House
• White House adviser Ben Rhodes says he “feels  strongly” Congress will back Syria action
• Susan Rice says U.S. has exhausted other warning measures for Syria

As the rush to bomb syria temporarily waylaid , the battle to debunk the basis for US bombing proceeds.....

http://rt.com/news/experts-un-syria-chemical-649/

Footage and photos of the alleged chemical attack in Syria, which the US cites as the reason for a planned military intervention, had been fabricated in advance, speakers told a UN human rights conference in Geneva.

Follow RT's Live Updates

Members of the conference were presented accounts of international experts, Syrian public figures and Russian news reporters covering the Syrian conflict, which back Russia’s opposition to the US plans, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement. 

The speakers argued that the suspected sarin gas attack near Damascus on August 21 was likely a provocation of the rebel forces and that a military action against the President Bashar Assad government will likely result in civilian casualties and a humanitarian catastrophe affecting the entire region. 

The possible attack by US military without a UN Security Council mandate would violate international law and should be prevented by the United Nations, some of the speakers said.

Evidence for the Russian case, including numerous eyewitness reports and results of investigations of the chemical weapon incident by activists, was handed over to a UN commission of experts probing the Syrian crisis, the ministry said.

The Obama administration voiced an intention to use military force in Syria after reports of mass deaths in Eastern Houla, a neighborhood of Damascus, which killed more than 1,400 people according to US estimates. Washington says the deaths was due to a chemical weapons attack of the Syrian army on rebel forces and says it plans to use force to prevent such incidents in the future.

A view shows bodies of people activists say were killed by nerve gas in Damascus' suburbs of Zamalka August 21, 2013.(Reuters / Hadi Almonajed)

Russia is convinced that the chemical incident was a provocation by rebel forces, which staged a false flag attack to drag the US into the conflict and capitalize on the damage that the Syrian army is likely to sustain in the American intervention.

An increasing number of reports is backing Russia’s position, with local witnesses, US and British formerintelligence professionals and Europeans recently released from rebel captivity all speaking for a provocation scenario.

In the latest development this week a possible way to de-escalate the tension was voiced, which would involve the Assad government handing over control of his chemical arsenal to the international community. The plan was backed by Russia, China and Syria's main ally Iran, while Syria said it will review it.

Mixed signals over the plan came from the US. The US State Department initially said Secretary of State John Kerry, who initially voiced a possible disarmament, saw it as a rhetorical move and didn’t expect Bashar Assad to actually disarm. But later President Obama said such a move from Damascus would make him put the military action plan on pause.

Meanwhile RT learned that Syrian rebels might be planning a chemical weapons attack in Israel. The possible attack would be carried out from the territory supposedly controlled by the Syrian government and would trigger another round of escalation, leaving little hope of defusing the tension.

and.......

http://rt.com/news/chemical-weapons-rebels-captives-632/

Two Europeans who were abducted and held hostage for several months in Syria claim they overheard an exchange between their captors which proves that rebels were behind the recent chemical attack.

Follow RT's LIVE UPDATES for the latest on Syria 

In a number of interviews to European news outlets, the former hostages - Belgian teacher Pierre Piccinin and Italian journalist Domenico Quiric - said they overheard an English-language Skype conversation between their captors and other men which suggested it was rebel forces, not the government, that used chemical weapons on Syria’s civilian population in an August 21 attack near Damascus.

“It is a moral duty to say this. The government of Bashar al-Assad did not use sarin gas or other types of gas in the outskirts of Damascus,” Piccinin said during an interview with Belgium's RTL radio station.

Piccinin stressed that while being held captive, he and fellow prisoner Quirico were secluded from the outside world and had no idea that chemical weapons were deployed. But the conversation which both men overheard suggested that the use of the weapons was a strategic move by the opposition, aimed at getting the West to intervene.

"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,” Quirico told Italy’s La Stampa. "We were unaware of everything that was going on during our detention in Syria, and therefore also with the gas attack in Damascus."  

While stating that the rebels most likely exaggerated the accident’s death toll, the Italian journalist stressed that he could not vouch whether “the conversation was based on real facts." However, he said that one of the three people in the alleged conversation identified himself as a Free Syrian Army general, La Stampa reported.

Based on what both men have learned, Peccinin told RTL that it would be “insane and suicidal for the West to support these people.”

“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," Piccinin added.

Belgian national Pierre Piccinin (L) disembark from the airplane on September 9, 2013 at Ciampino military airport in Rome (AFP Photo)

Quirico seems to agree with Peccini’s assessment. 

“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-Qaeda," Quirico said, as quoted by Italy’s Quotidiano Nazionale. 

The 62-year-old La Stampa journalist believes that radical Islamic groups operating in Syria to topple Assad “want to create a caliphate and extend it to the entire Middle East and North Africa.”

In a number of news appearances, both Quirico and Piccinin shared stories of how they were subjected to two mock executions, beaten, and starved during their five-month captivity.

"These have been very tough months. We were beaten on a daily basis, we suffered two mock executions," Quirico told reporters upon his arrival in Rome, AFP reported.

Italian journalist Domenico Quirico disembark from the airplane on September 9, 2013 at Ciampino military airport in Rome (AFP Photo)

"There was sometimes real violence...humiliation, bullying, mock executions...Domenico faced two mock executions, with a revolver," Piccinin told RTL.

Both men were kidnapped in Syria last April by a group of armed men in pickup trucks who were believed to be from Free Syrian Army. 

According to Piccinin, the captors soon transferred them over to the Abu Ammar brigade, a rebel group"more bandit than Islamist."

"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," Piccinin said.

Both men tried to escape twice but their attempts were unsuccessful, prompting the rebel group to punish them for their actions. 

The Italian government announced on Sunday that both men had been freed after Rome intensified negotiations with the rebels for the release of the prisoners ahead of an anticipated US strike on Syria.

Another 13 journalists are still believed to be missing in Syria, according to Reporters Without Borders.