really offsets
let's talk a little bit about to what is happening on the latest in terms
love Syria I am yesterday
it was reported that I am
in the course love an interview John Kerry was asked if there were any steps
that Assad the Syrian President could take to avert
an american-led attack John carries response
quote sure he could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to
the international community in the next week
turn it over all fit without delay and allow
full and total accounting upon hearing that
apparently russians foreign minister
Sir J Lavrov I
said on Monday that it would urge Syria
to do just that and within hours I believe
I love rock have
was a had already either spoken to her came out and
announced that the Syrian Foreign Minister Walid all mom
I'll who is in talks in Moscow I had accepted
that deal which really
had not quite existed at that point this
happens all over the course love less than 24 hours
are or presumably
took place over the course %uh less than 24 hours
President Obama then said that
this proposal by Russia
which was building up on a hypothetical by
Secretary of State Kerry was a potentially
positive development in the meantime it was argued yesterday
the to congressional leaders that this development was a function
I love the United States beginning the process
or at least up creating a credible threat
I love attack on Syria which moved the russians
who had has a
before yesterday claim that Syria had no chemical weapons
I to basically look for
a means in which they could intercede I
and so much %uh this gets back to what we were talking about on Friday
which was that the only sorta positive way out of this
now understand to the said they were talking about a positive way out of this
all were simply talking about is I am
preventing US intervention at this point where
there has been no credible argument that our intervention would do any good
other then setting down some type
love marker for the future I got an email
I am from
a a member of the program who has been a long time
I am fan of the program
he said a I'm not opposed to acting against Syria in some form is a response
to the use a chemical weapons
it's not hard for me to say it I don't get what all this whaling is about I
also understand
why so flippin into missus dismissive about what decided
not flip it a dim a dismissive other
I am not just above the
chemical tax but I love everything aside is done
in dealing with this rebellion what started off as basically is peaceful
protests
it's not enough to point out hypocrisy says it's like you're saying that
because US committed atrocities against Africans we should not have fought world
war 2 I'm not sure I follow that
did not agree with iraq because there was no reason to be there please help me
understand why you're not able to see this point
well my point is is that I don't see what we are suppose it
supposedly going to achieve by intervening at this point
and it is not been clearly articulated in fact the administration has said
the perm Secretary of State Kerry
said that this attack would be unbelievably small
it is unclear what we are supposed to achieve I'm not saying that I would
agree with the purpose %uh love
unbelievably big attack but I don't understand what we are supposed to
achieve here
with an unbelievably small attack
what with the message that we are supposedly sending to Assad is that
if you use chemical weapons we're going to attack you in an unbelievably small
way
there's been no credible argument by the US government that we can deter him
I we can we can prevent we can degrade his ability to launch
a chemical attack you've already said they were not going to attack those a
caches I love love
chemical weapons because it would be obviously quite obviously very dangerous
for those people around there arm
there is no argument as far as I can tell a credible argument
that this would prevent a further attack
by Assad if he deems it necessary
nor that by not attacking
it would encourage a future attack we never attacked iraq
in the early nineties when they cast their own people
and short I love
uses have chemical weapons that we engaged in
there is not being a nother incident I love a nother country using them that
was at least %uh follow a farce
with all that said on Friday I also speculated about something that
there is at least some reporting me what are the questions I had
or headlight we would have liked to have seen
in the haze interview love secretary as state
carry was and how do we know
do we have evidence that this attack
was ordered by Assad
not that this attack words
perpetrated by the a Syrian Army
because I think the evidence there is
fairly conclusive but
that's a different thing than saying I
Jade Assad order this attack
in other words if the whole theory is we need to send a message to Assad
well is the message going to be effective if he never made that
active choice in the first place and on Friday night I believe it was your
Saturday
the Saturday the 7th Reuters
had a piece which was the first piece I'd seen
serve at least pursuing this question
no direct link to President Bashar all side or his inner circle has been
publicly demonstrated
and some US sources say intelligence experts are not sure whether Syrian
leader new the attack before was launched
always only informed about it afterward while US officials say Assad is
responsible for chemical weapons strike even if he did not directly order it
they've not been able to fully describe the chain of command for August 21
attack in the cooter area
Easter the Syrian capital it may be the case
that aside is
legally responsible obviously if anything it takes places regime
book were talking about legal technicalities of a sudden
when we're not following any legal authority and which to attack this
country
by what body this you know the
the same rules or laws that would say that the
that a Assad is responsible for what his regime does
are the ones that we would be flouting by not looking for any authorization to
launch this attack
which is problematic you can make that argument well that morley still
responsible but this isn't a question I love
of morality here this question over our tempted to do something
to change his future behavior
and that becomes a lot more convoluted
if it is unclear that Assad ordered this
and then I'll on Sunday
the Guardian reports that the
German press is reporting that German intelligence intercepted
a a series of phone calls
often operate a of a ship operated by their intelligence agency
and the intercepted communications suggest Assad
was not himself involved in last month attack or other instances when
government forces
have allegedly use chemical weapons now
does not mean that Assad is a good guy
it simply means that the justification in the rationale used
to support an attack on Syria
does not necessarily have any logical basis
it's very possible and it seems to me easy to imagine
that Assad is not a free a a full control
over his forces
and/or that it could be just you know
commanders told you've got to get
you gonna clear out this area right here
and pieces are well I'm not use chemical weapons do it like I say it's not a
situation where Assad has a donkey balls
and you need this little dog all too well
unlock the the basement where we keep the chemical weapons
just doesn't work that way but the point of all this is simply to say that the
the arguments on the efficacy
love what
John Kerry has called in unbelievably small attack
are I just have not been made
yes America it could've been another senior member I love the Assad regime
which
week we just don't know I am
so where it stands now is
essentially members of congress are being told that look
this this march 2 an attack
has already paid dividends insofar as it brought
the the Soviet Union to bring the syrians to the table
at least in terms of the excuse me Russia
I dated by self I Russia
to bring the Syrians I to some type of negotiating table
I am some ways
there's an argument out there that this strengthens the case up the
administration
to get this authorize Asian now our mind you
this was also the argument that the Bush administration used
but when it came to iraq right I mean I think this way
a Hillary Clinton said that she had voted for
we understood this as a point of leverage
not that they would actually use it
to get the iraqis a to give up their weapons of mass destruction
so the whole thing is a a bit of a mess unclear what happens next
I am my guess is
that there's gonna be an attempt by
the a Senate and then subsequently the house at the house is even got it
take a vote at this point
to a delay this vote
so that there could be some room to see if there could be some progress on this
now
make no mistake I don't know
then I would actually believe that the russians
or the syrians are going to deliver all
love Syria's chemical weapons I
or feel provide access to them or what but if the
agenda here was limited in so far as
preventing a nother chemical attack it seems
that this would do it
as well as unbelievably small
attack on Syria whatever that meets
and that has been the spose its stated goals
over anybody who has been in favor short have you know the John McCain's and
Lindsey Graham's course who want simply to occupy
another country somewhere in the region
and if that's the stated goals that stated goals again
this in no way is meant to
be dismiss above or diminish the horrible tragedy that's happening in
Syria
but the reality is is that we need
the country's gotta know its limitations and if we don't have any ability
to to in any way
stop this fighting I am
we don't have the ability to do it and just simply acting out of frustration
because we see arm
tremendous death and destruction and we want to do something about it
which I certainly inclined to want to do something about it
but if there is no good options there are no good options
that doesn't mean that there won't be good options down the road
that's just the situation we're in right now and
you know to some extent there's a certain amount love
of hubris even amongst those people who have good intentions here
there are times where there's just no good solutions
and acting for the sake of acting
so that we can feel some type of I'll
we have met some type of moral obligation but
the results I love that act end up creating more death and destruction
he's a simply unacceptable as far as I can tell