Kerry: Evidence of chemical weapons strike in Syria 'undeniable'

[Teh One Who Knocks]

FOX News


http://i.imgur.com/6VaBhvh.jpg

Secretary of State John Kerry, leaving no doubt where the U.S. stands on allegations of a chemical weapons attack last week in Syria, said Monday that the evidence of such an attack is "undeniable."

"What is before us today is real, and it is compelling," Kerry said.

The secretary of State addressed the allegations from State Department headquarters. He pointed a finger squarely at the Assad regime, sharply questioning any suggestion that the weapons could have been deployed by the opposition, or that the attack could have been staged. He called the strike a "moral obscenity" and accused the Syrian government of trying to destroy the evidence.

In Damascus Tuesday, the state-run Syrian Arab News Agency issued a statement Tuesday accusing Kerry of citing "fabricated" evidence and saying that the Secretary of State's insisted on "jumping over" the work of U.N. inspectors, showing that the U.S. intended to exploit events. Also, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallim said that the Assad government was not obstructing the work of the inspectors, but later announced that a second day of inspections would be pushed back to Wednesday instead of Tuesday. Al-Muallim cited disputes between groups of rebels as the reason for the postponement.

Earlier, U.N. spokesman Farhan Haq told the Associated Press the inspection team planned to go out again Tuesday to do more sampling, and activists said the team was expected in the eastern suburbs of Zamalka and Ein Tarma. On Monday, the investigators visited the site of the alleged chemical weapons attack -- they were earlier fired upon by unidentified snipers. The attackers struck one of the vehicles; the Assad regime accuses rebels of being behind the attack, while the rebels say government allies were responsible.

Kerry's comments drew the United States one step closer to possible military action. Kerry reiterated that President Obama is weighing the situation and will make an "informed decision" on how to respond in the coming days. But the secretary said the world must stand up to make sure such an attack never happens again.

The images from last week's attack, he said, "should shock the conscience of the world."

On Tuesday, British Prime Minister David Cameron said the alleged chemical attacks were "absolutely abhorrent" and added that Britain was considering a "proportionate response." Cameron was expected to announce Tuesday whether he would recall Parliament earlier than scheduled to discuss a response to the events in Syria. A spokesman for the Prime Minister told reporters it was "reasonable to assume" that British forces were making contingency plans in the event of military action, but stressed that no such decision had been taken yet.

Also Tuesday, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu told reporters that the actions of the Assad regime were "a crime against humanity and ... should not go answered. Today, it is clear the international community is faced with a test."

The State Department said late Monday it is canceling a meeting between Undersecretary Wendy Sherman and U.S. Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford with their Russian counterparts because of ongoing consultations about U.S. response to the alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria.

A senior State Department spokesman told Fox News the meeting will be rescheduled.

Leading members of Congress are starting to press the administration to consult with them first before any possible response.

"Using chemical weapons against innocent civilians is unacceptable. No regime can be allowed to do so with impunity," said. Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. "I expect the Commander in Chief would consult with Congress in the days ahead as he considers the options available to him. Drawing red lines before you know what you are willing to do to back them up is folly, but now that American credibility is on the line, the president cannot fail to act decisively."

Kerry's comments indicate the U.S. is not waiting for a U.N. finding to proceed. He noted the team will likely not issue a finding on who was responsible for the strike.

At this stage, the U.S. is looking for international support from its allies before pursuing any particular course of action. Obama spoke over the weekend with the leaders of France and Great Britain. Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron, though, is facing pressure to win approval from Parliament before proceeding with any military plan.

While the U.S. and its allies deliberate, the Navy has sent four warships into the eastern Mediterranean Sea. According to senior U.S. defense officials, the four Destroyers are in position and would be capable of launching a missile strike at a moment's notice.

Onboard each ship are up to roughly 90 Tomahawk missiles. U.S. military officials said the Pentagon is in a "watch-and-wait mode," and the decision rests with Obama. One official suggested it is unlikely the U.S. will launch any strike while U.N. inspectors remain on the ground, for fear they could be taken hostage.

[RBP]

I am questioning the definitions. We are going to war because we don't like the type of weapon used? We stayed out when they were just murdering with guns, but because they used chemicals suddenly it's our issue?

[Muddy]

Not our problem. When will we ever learn?

[perrhaps]

Time for our President to draw another line in the sand?

[Richard Cranium]

Time for our President to draw another line in the sand?

http://giffiles.alphacoders.com/251/251.gif

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Time for our President to draw another line in the sand?

http://i.imgur.com/Cg222Oj.jpg

[Teh One Who Knocks]

http://i.imgur.com/mJ464AO.jpg

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Here's the problem (IMHO) with Syria and the corner that The Glorious Leader has painted the United States into...we have very little credibility left in the world and what little bit that is left diminishes more and more every day because The Glorious Leader spews bullshit out of his mouth with no intent of backing it up. He's the one who "drew the line in the sand" concerning the chemical weapons use in Syria. Now there is undeniable proof that it was used. He MUST do something now or his words are just yet another empty threat that won't get followed thru on, just like all his other empty threats against the DPRK and Iran.

Why would Iran or the DPRK stop trying to develop their nuclear weapons program when they know for a fact that any threat made by the United States and Our Glorious Leader will never be backed up? Do you think either Bush or even Clinton would have let Iran just keep the drone we lost so that they could reverse engineer it and learn our technical secrets? What did the Glorious Leader do? "Could you pretty please with sugar on top give us our drone back, we promise to be nice about it if you do." FFS. And now we have this ever moving line in the sand that he has issued to Iran, the DPRK, and now Syria.

I agree with Muddy, it's not our problem, but because The Glorious Leader couldn't keep his big fucking mouth shut, he made it our problem and now he has to do something about it or our (the USA's) standing in the world will be as meaningless as Bermuda's (although come to think about it, Bermuda may already have more credibility than the United States now).

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Olivier Knox, Yahoo! News


http://i.imgur.com/0GTJPN2.jpg

In 2007, two Democratic presidential candidates came out forcefully against unleashing America’s military might without explicit authorization from Congress. Today, Vice President Joe Biden and President Barack Obama see things in a different light.

Six years ago, Biden vowed to impeach President George W. Bush if the Republican bombed Iran without first getting congressional approval.

"The president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach," Biden said at the time.

Meanwhile, Obama flatly told the Boston Globe in 2007 that no president can use military force absent an “actual or imminent threat to the nation” without getting Congress's approval.

The Libya intervention stretched Obama’s commitment to the breaking point. The Politifact organization that rates politicians’ claims for accuracy ruled that his decision to commit American forces to that effort was a “full flop” from his previous position. But the question seems to turn on what constitutes an “actual” threat.

The looming U.S. response to Syria’s alleged massacre of civilians with chemical weapons threatens to expose some of the same tensions.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday that Obama “absolutely” still holds by his answer to the Boston Globe. Left unchecked, Carney said, Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons poses an actual threat to U.S. national security.

“Allowing the use of chemical weapons on a significant scale to take place without a response would present a significant challenge to or threat to the United States' national security interests,” Carney said.

And Biden made clear in a rousing speech to the American Legion that the time for action is now.

“There is no doubt who is responsible for this heinous use of chemical weapons in Syria: The Syrian regime,” the vice president said. “The president believes -- and I believe -- that those who use chemical weapons against defenseless men, women and children should and must be held accountable.”

He did not, however, mention Congress.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

JULIE PACE - The Associated Press


WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. officials are still grappling with how to design a military strike to deter future chemical weapons attacks in Syria and trying to assess how President Bashar Assad would respond, two senior officials said Wednesday, as the Obama administration insisted the Syrian government must be punished.

U.S. intelligence agencies are preparing a report laying out the evidence against Assad's government in last week's chemical weapons attacks on civilians. The classified version would be sent to key members of Congress and a declassified version would be released publicly. The White House says it's already convinced, however, and is planning a possible military response while rounding up support from international partners.

"If there is action taken, it must be clearly defined what the objective is and why" and based on "clear facts," said one of the senior administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss internal deliberations publicly.

The official said the administration is considering more than a single set of military strikes and "the options are not limited just to one day" of assault.

In broad terms, the U.S. and international objective in striking Syria would be to damage the Syrian government's military and weapons to make it difficult to wage chemical attacks, and to make Assad think twice about using such weapons in the future. Such a strike likely would be led by low-flying cruise missiles fired from any of four U.S. Navy destroyers off Syria's coast.

The manner and timing of Syria's response are among the so-called "next day" questions that the administration is still thinking through as it prepares a possible military action. No additional U.S. defensive weapons have been deployed in the region in anticipation of Syria reprisals, the official said. The U.S. already has Patriot anti-missile batteries in Jordan and Turkey.

The other senior U.S. official said the administration has determined it can contain any potential Syrian military response in the event that President Barack Obama orders a U.S. attack.

Both officials were granted anonymity in order to discuss internal deliberations on complex questions that surround crafting a response to the Aug. 21 attack in which hundreds of Syrian civilians were killed.

In Congress, which is in summer recess, members from both parties have expressed reservations about a rush toward launching a military action without congressional approval. On Wednesday, Washington Rep. Adam Smith, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, cautioned that an attack might be ineffective and draw the United States into the Syrian civil war.

"Simply lashing out with military force under the banner of 'doing something' will not secure our interests in Syria," Smith said in a statement.

The administration in recent days has made clear it believes it must take punitive action against Syria for its alleged use of chemical weapons, which are banned by international convention. But the senior officials' comments Wednesday made clear that questions about using military force in this circumstance are still being worked out.

The officials said diplomatic and legal issues also are still being discussed internally.

"If any action is taken it will not be taken until all these pieces are in place: the legal issues, the international piece, the consequences thought through, the facts and everything that needs to be tied together," the first senior official said.

The official did not go into detail. Questions may include to what degree military strikes would prevent Assad from using poison gas in the future, and how to respond if he does.

The administration also is concerned that if Assad is not punished, dictatorial leaders of other nations in possession of chemical weapons, like North Korea, might see the failure to act as a sign that they, too, could get away with using the weapons.

In Israel, a close U.S. ally in the Middle East, the military and citizens were preparing for what officials said was a slim possibility of a retaliatory attack by Syria after a U.S. strike.

Administration officials have said Assad's actions posed a direct threat to U.S. national security, providing Obama with a potential legal justification for launching a strike without authorization from the United Nations or Congress. However, officials did not detail how the U.S. was directly threatened by an attack contained within Syria's borders. Nor have they yet presented concrete proof that Assad was responsible.

Assad has denied using chemical weapons, calling the allegations "preposterous."

"Allowing the use of chemical weapons on a significant scale to take place without a response would present a significant challenge to, threat to the United States' national security," White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday.

The U.S. and its international partners were unlikely to undertake military action before Thursday. That's when British Prime Minister David Cameron will convene an emergency meeting of Parliament, where lawmakers are expected to vote on a motion clearing the way for a British response to the alleged chemical weapons attack.

The prime minister's office said Wednesday that it will put forward a resolution to the U.N. Security Council condemning the Syrian government for the alleged chemical attack.

Obama and Cameron spoke Tuesday, their second known conversation since the weekend. A Cameron spokesman said the two leaders agreed that a chemical attack had taken place, and that the Assad regime was responsible.

Also Tuesday, Vice President Joe Biden became the highest-ranking U.S. official to charge that Assad's government fired chemical weapons last week near Damascus.

"There's no doubt who is responsible for this heinous use of chemical weapons in Syria: the Syrian regime," Biden said.

Ahead of any strike, the U.S. also planned to release additional intelligence it said would directly link Assad to the attack in the Damascus suburbs. Syrian activists said hundreds of people were killed in the attack. A U.S. official said the intelligence report was expected to include "signals intelligence" — information gathered from intercepted communications.

Even before releasing that information, U.S. officials said Assad was culpable in the attack, based on witness reports, information on the number of victims and the symptoms of those killed or injured, and intelligence showing the Syrian government has not lost control of its chemical weapons stockpiles.

[Hal-9000]

"U.S. officials are still grappling with how to design a military strike to deter future chemical weapons attacks in Syria...."


simple - issue a notice telling anyone who wants to leave may do so anytime within the next 48 hours, then carpet bomb Syria off the map :thumbsup:

[Loser]

I know republicans have been looking for a reason big enough to impeach obummer.

A strike without congress's consent may be it.

[DemonGeminiX]

But what if they've already given consent? They never announce that consent was given before the fireworks start.

[Loser]

Top republican officials have called for Obama to reconvene early from break to decide on a course of action. Which could only mean he hasn't consulted with congress at all.

[Richard Cranium]

Kerry: It Would Be Bad If We Let the President Look Like a Weakling

Secretary of State Kerry gave his justification for the use of force in Syria today. Kerry spoke for about 19 minutes. If you want to understand what the administration is really saying, have a close look at how Kerry divided his time.

Kerry spent 8 1/2 minutes arguing that we know for certain Syria's government was behind the attack concluding "these are facts." Nearly half his speech was simply about establishing what happened and who did it.
Kerry then spent 2 minutes arguing that chemical weapons are historically off limits and are bad news for people in the region.
At 10 1/2 minutes in, Kerry shifts gears toward some rationale for responding to Syria. "What we chose to do or not do matters in real ways to our own security," Kerry argued. But he made no attempt to claim there was danger of an imminent attack on the US, only that failure to respond to Syria would embolden other outlaw nations, including Iran and North Korea. "It matters if the world speaks out in condemnation and then nothing happens" This part of the speech lasts a total of 3 1/2 minutes.
At 14 minutes in, Kerry turns to the question of international partners claiming "many friends stand ready to respond." He lists a handful of Middle East groups who have condemned the use of chemical weapons but does not spell out what they are prepared to actually do about it. This takes up another 90 seconds.
At 15 1/2 minutes Kerry argues that the UN "cannot galvanize" the world to act. He goes on to suggest that history will judge us harshly if "we turn a blind eye" to the Assad regime.
Finally, 18 1/2 minutes into the speech, Kerry reaffirms the administration's commitment to negotiations (after the military strike?) saying, "we know there is no ultimate military solution."

Kerry's speech amounted to the claim that we must back a strike because failing to do so would make President Obama look weak. Is this a justification candidate Obama would have backed when George W. Bush was President?

Not addressed in the speech is President Obama's radical 180 turnabout on the use of force without congressional approval. Not offered was any claim that there is any imminent threat to America, as there was from Iran in 2007. Not offered was any evidence that a strike now will prevent further use of chemical weapons in the future.

Recall that Obama campaigned against the surge and wanted to pull troops out of Iraq when we were losing the war there. Even after the surge was seen to have worked, Obama refused to say he was wrong. Instead he made criticism of the surge disappear from his website and claimed he had always said it would work.

Was Obama concerned about how his "cut and run" strategy might look to the rest of the outlaw nations of the world in 2007? He was not. He continued to claim that direct negotiations could cure all ills. Once again he has been proven wrong and once again he refuses to admit it.

It's outrageous that President Obama thinks he can sell the very arguments he would have pounced upon a few years ago. And that's not an assumption, that's a fact on the record.

[Richard Cranium]

State Department Denied Syrian Requests for Gas Masks



Jen Rubin at the Washington Post highlights another inexplicable bungle to add to the list of our semi-involvement in Syria. As reported by Josh Rogin, Syrian rebels wanted gas masks and were told no:

despite more than a year of requests to the U.S. government, the Obama administration did not send any gas masks or chemical-weapons protection gear to opposition-controlled areas.

“Almost three months ago, we received intelligence information that the regime forces may use chemical weapons in Homs,” said Abo Saleem, the directing commission secretary of the Council of Homs Province and a member of the political bureau of the Revolutionary Council of Homs, in an interview with The Daily Beast. “I forward the information to the State Department telling them we are afraid of the use of chemical weapons by the regime and we need gas masks and some training to prepare for such an attack. I got no response. Two weeks after that, the regime used chemical weapons in the old city of Homs, as we were expecting. We sent the State Department reports, but nothing happened.”

This incident happened three months ago but the article makes clear that requests for masks began at least a year ago, during the tenure of Secretary of State Clinton. Why would we choose not to give protection to the side we're backing in the fight? Here's the excuse offered by an unnamed administration official:

“The provision of protective gear for the opposition sounds like an easy idea, but we need consider the potential for misuse as well,” the official said. “Such equipment requires proper training to be effective, and we need to be careful about how and to whom we provide it.

What exactly is the potential for the misuse of a gas mask?

When the State Dept. refused to send additional security to Libya the excuse was that they had no "actionable intelligence" warning of an attack of the magnitude that took place on 9/11. It's hard to see how that excuse could hold up in the midst of a war which has already claimed 100,000 lives.

[Richard Cranium]

In 1971, John Kerry was at the center of one of the great anti-war demonstrations in American history. His testimony before Congress was a crucial element in turning public opinion against the war in Vietnam.

On Friday afternoon, Kerry was again giving a much-watched public speech in Washington, D.C. But the one-time “winter soldier” who was willing to straight-talk Congress about the bloody quagmire in Southeast Asia has changed his tune about America’s role in international conflicts.


Here’s three side-by-side comparisons of Kerry in 1971 vs. Kerry in 2013:




In 1971, Kerry said America’s involvement in Vietnam was never about national security:

“In our opinion, and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam, nothing which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart.”




In 2013, Kerry said America’s involvement in Syria was about national security:

“It matters deeply to the credibility and the future interests of the United States of America and our allies…. And make no mistake, in an increasingly complicated world of sectarian and religious extremist violence, what we choose to do or not do matters in real ways to our own security.”




In 1971, Kerry said America lost its sense of morality by bombing villages in Vietnam:

“We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum.”




In 2013, Kerry said America must bomb villages in Syria, because of our sense of morality:

“It is also profoundly about who we are. We are the United States of America. We are the country that has tried, not always successfully, but always tried to honor a set of universal values around which we have organized our lives and our aspirations.


“This crime against conscience, this crime against humanity, this crime against the most fundamental principles of international community, against the norm of the international community, this matters to us.

“And it matters to who we are. And it matters to leadership and to our credibility in the world.”




In 1971, Kerry said America should stay out of internal civil wars in other nations – no matter how bad they might be – because history shows that is the right thing to do.

“The war will continue. So what I am saying is that yes, there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America, and we can’t go around — President Kennedy said this, many times. He said that the United States simply can’t right every wrong, that we can’t solve the problems of the other 94 percent of mankind. We didn’t go into East Pakistan; we didn’t go into Czechoslovakia. Why then should we feel that we now have the power to solve the internal political struggles of this country?

We have to let them solve their problems while we solve ours and help other people in an altruistic fashion commensurate with our capability. But we have extended that capacity; we have exhausted that capacity, Senator. So I think the question is really moot.”




In 2013, Kerry said America must intervene in what he admits is an internal civil war in another nation, because history shows that is the right thing to do:

“But fatigue does not absolve us of our responsibility. Just longing for peace does not necessarily bring it about. And history would judge us all extraordinarily harshly if we turned a blind eye to a dictator’s wanton use of weapons of mass destruction against all warnings, against all common understanding of decency, these things we do know.

“We also know that we have a president that does what he says that he will do. And he has said, very clearly, that whatever decision he makes in Syria it will bear no resemblance to Afghanistan, Iraq or even Libya. It will not involve any boots on the ground. It will not be open ended. And it will not assume responsibility for a civil war that is already well underway.”

[KevinD]

Kerry is and always has been in my mind a blue blooded traitor. There are several other politicians and celebrities from that era that I lump into the same category.

[Richard Cranium]

On Meet the Press on Sunday, Secretary of State John Kerry explained President Obama’s sudden shift in favor of seeking Congressional approval for military action against the Assad regime in Syria. Obama, said Kerry, figured that the United States would have “greater moral authority and greater strength” with Congressional approval, and would demonstrate to the world that the country was “united.” He continued: “He didn't think it was worthwhile acting and having the Syrians and a whole bunch of other folks looking at the United States arguing about whether or not it was legitimate or should he have done it or should he have moved faster.”

Kerry then said that Obama didn’t decide to go to Congress because of low levels of support for action against Syria. He dodged the question as to whether Congress would vote yes on authorization to use force: “We don’t contemplate that Congress is going to vote no.” On ABC, he said, “We are not going to lose this vote.”

[deebakes]

i don't want to go to war with yet another country :sad:

[Richard Cranium]

Secretary of State John Kerry struggled to defend President Obama’s plan for Syria when he appeared on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.

On Saturday, Obama said he would seek Congressional approval for military strikes on Syria. Wallace asked Kerry why Obama decided not to call back Congress to debate on Syria. Lawmakers will not reconvene until September 9 from their August recess. Kerry could not provide a simple answer and instead repeated talking points when Wallace pressured him for an answer:

So, this case is going to build stronger and stronger, and the president believes that the United States of America for a decision like this is stronger when you have the time to be able to have the support of the United States Congress and obviously the support of the American people through them.

To make matters worse, Obama’s speech completely contradicted Kerry’s Friday speech where he said action should be taken now against Syria. Wallace told Kerry it appears that Obama's plan of action was the direction from the beginning and nothing like the points Kerry made on Friday. Kerry responded by reminding that the President can throw out the advice of his advisers entirely:

And as you know, Chris, and I think, you know, I've certainly learned as a new member of the cabinet, no decision is made until the president of the United States makes the decision. You know, staff can advise; people can weigh in, but everybody knows that ultimately no decision is made until the president makes it. The president made this decision. I believe it's the right decision. I think we are stronger. The president believes very, very much that America will show the best face of our democracy and a great strength, and we will show a unity of purpose in the conviction of the Congress and the president that we need to do this.


Kerry insisted America’s credibility is on the line and he hopes Congress will vote with Obama.

America's credibility is on the line here, and I expect the Congress of the United States to do what is right and to stand up and be counted, and I think that the Assad regime needs to recognize that they have refocused the energy of the American people on him, on his regime, on his lack of legitimacy to govern, and on the ways we will support the opposition in order to see that the people of Syria can choose their future in an appropriate way.

Kerry stated that tests from hair and blood samples prove sarin gas was used against civilians in the August 21 attack. The chemical weapons attack killed 1,400 people, including almost 500 children.




So Bengazi, IRS & NSA targeting of Americans were clearly all up to O'Bama.