Skip to comments.Syria welcomes Russia's proposal for Damascus to put its chemical weapons under (intl control)..
Posted on 09/09/2013 8:44:44 AM PDT by maggief
click here to read article
Chad Pergram @ChadPergram 1h
Obama to Fox: There's a reason why I slowed this thing down to allow for a congressional debate..the threat was not..imminent to the US
Did you see Baier’s All Star panel? excellent.
Agreed with almost everything said.
Surprised, however, that Krauthammer said 0 chance Assad’s chem weapons will be removed-—repeated that several times. Did not think he would make such a bold prediction.
lol; re-spinning the spin.
So far, I only saw Blitzer and Chris Wallace interviews. Blitzer interview went smoothly, but Wallace interview was more hard-hitting and Obama’s scrambling to recast the narrative was more obvious.
They have to recast the old narrative while they are formulating the new narrative.
Sorry, missed Baier. I was away from my computer.
He had a 3-segment all-star panel discussion. Worth the watch if you find the video
RT @RT_com 2h
MORE: Obama discussed Russias chemical handover proposal with President Putin during G20 http://on.rt.com/q7dwxj
Obama: Russia plan on Syria arms may be ‘breakthrough’
Syria could complicate Obama’s decision on next Fed chairman
FIRST, THE WHITE HOUSE OUTFOXED THE MEDIA ON THIS ONE! SECOND, WEIRD TO STAND IN THIS PIC OR NOT WEIRD?
I think the media got out foxed by the White House each gets 7 minutes? That is really nuts. You cant get information about an important issue like war in 7 minutes. If the President gives a long answer to the first question, you are cooked
time is up! What the media should have done is asked to have the time combined 42 minutes and then pick out of a hat who did the interview from this group of 6 and let ALL NETWORKS use the interview like a pool interview.
Maggief: RE your “Obama discussed Russias chemical handover proposal with President Putin during G20” http://on.rt.com/q7dwxj
That was discussed by the Baier panel. I was looking for it and realized the subject was interwoven throughout the discussion of the All-Star panel. So.... it became a good reason to take some Cliff notes:
Hume: If this (getting Assad to remove chem weapons) is feasible, this changes everything. Reid cancelled Wed initial vote. Now put off til who knows when.
Krauthammer. Think Russians were play chess with a set of rank amateurs. That gaffe gave them the opening they wanted:
Two issues here: chems and Assad retaining power-—Iran/Hezbollah/Assad/Russia axis dominating the region.
Russia immediately saw that this enables them to keep Assad in power and retain their navel base and Assad’s air bases.
Russia gets everything they wanted and Obama saves face. That’s a high price to pay (for Obama) but he will seize it.
Liason: The IF is so huge. To even do this, experts say, you would have to have a ceasefire. Can barely do this in peacetime, let alone in midst of civil war.
I don’t see any prospect for this to actually happen
Tucker: The Adm’s policy in Syria is ad hoc. The Pres implied that this was all in the works, that at the G20 he and Pres Putin worked this out. That is ludicrous. They are making this up as they go along, and that’s obvious, I think
Second thing that is clear is that this strengthens Russia & humiliates the US. Putin is riding to Pres Obama’s rescue. He is entirely dependent upon the good will of Putin, who does not have our interests at heart.
Third thing that is obvious: America is weaker in the eyes of the world and that has real consequences....Weakness invites aggression...
Hume: I think Tucker is right as a practical matter, but as a domestic political matter...Syria blinked and sued for peace. Shows iny’l community acting together can accomplish great things....I can hear all the arguments in my head. They’re coming folks.
Krauthammer: Obama has changed the terms to make them open-ended. Secondly, if this was an American idea as Obama implies, which I don’t believe for a second, then why isn’t it the American Proposal. Once you call it the Russian Proposal, then we are passive. We have to wait for the Russians, in their good time, to produce a proposal. We will have a counter-proposal. It will go on ad infinitum.
The Russian objective here is either to dismantle the weapons, which I think the likelihood of that is prob 1 in a 100. When Libya agreed to give up its weapons...the plan took 8 years. When the civil war broke out, the inspections stopped entirely.
Russian obj is either to do it over a long period of time or tie us up and the momentum for any strike, any American involvement will dwindle to 0. Obama knows this, and he sees it as a way out of a bluff he made that he cannot carry out.
Baier: The Pres did 5 other interviews, one of them with PBS in which he was asked specifically about this idea and whether he had had conversations about this with Putin and he said, “I did have those conversations and this [proposal] is a continuation of conversations I have had with Putin for quite some time.
[Panelists burst out laughing]
Liason: Well we haven’t heard about them. We haven’t about this proposal at all....T he policy of the US is to get Assad to the negotiating table. Why shouldn’t that be a requirement of this new proposal?
Krauthammer: Because we have conceded that who runs Damascus it not at issue here. Obama said so. The only issue here is the weapons, which is exactly what the Russians and Assad, the Iranians and Hezbollah have demanded.
Baier: But that isn’t what the McCain amendment and the resolution on the Senate side says...
Krauthammer: McCain lost the election. He isn’t the president.
Hume: Not only that. It was Kerry this morning reacting to the reaction to the McCain/Graham amendment...who was saying, “This is going to be unbelievably small.” That was for the purpose of stopping the hemorrhage of Democrats that was occurring..
[my snip of note-taking]
Hume said, “My sense is now that the Pres’ speech tomorrow night is kind of meaningless.
Liason: Does Obama continue to arm the vetted, moderate opposition at industrial-strength levels?
Krauthammer: This is clearly a way to get Obama off the hook politically. The chances of these weapons being eliminated from Syria are less than the Cubs winning the World Series this year, and they are now mathematically eliminated....They are going to pretend this is a real option, which it isn’t
Tucker: The illusion of competence that surrounded this Adm has evaporated...We have 3 more years of this, and that’s bad for the country....(mentions Benghazi).
Liason: ...I don’t think Obama can pretend that the weapons have been turned over if they are not. There is an element of reality here and there is a civil war raging in that country and I don’t see how you do it.
LOL! She is right! Bernie Goldberg, media analyst, said Obama just kept repeating himself, saying the same things, eating up the time.
He also mentioned Wallace’s was the best, a little more challenging for Obama.
Great post! Thank you.
Slam and dunk. Putin has them on the rails.
“Krauthammer: Because we have conceded that who runs Damascus it not at issue here. Obama said so. The only issue here is the weapons, which is exactly what the Russians and Assad, the Iranians and Hezbollah have demanded.
Baier: But that isnt what the McCain amendment and the resolution on the Senate side says...
Krauthammer: McCain lost the election. He isnt the president.”
I haven’t read through this entire thread. What I want to know...’What is being done about the chemical weopons posessed by the Al Quida backed mersonary inspired opposition to Assad?
Ive been thinking about this all night...It doesnt make sense. Putin is very very quick to offer the INternational control of weapons IMMEDIATELY after Kerrys faux Paux?
The administration at first says its rhetorical, but then pundits spin this to sound like Obama got the Russians to do this.
ARE WE STUPID OR ARE WE STUPID? PUTIN MUST BE LAUGING HIS BUTT OFF ON OUR THINKING HE’S STUPID. HE KNOWS OBAMAS MOVES BEFORE OBAMA DOES. HE KNOWS THIS IS NOT ABOUT CHEMICAL WEAPONS JUST THE PRETENSE.
Lets think this through. WHy would Putin make this offer, unless his intelligence was clear that Obama is using the chemical weapons as a pretext to bomb Syria and support the MB.
Now the ball is back in Obamas court and there is no longer an issue. Game should be over, right?
WRONG. The Saudis, Obama etc want regime change in Syria. Its not about dying babies and chemical weapons. Its about regime change.
Boy, I would think Obama is fuming about this. He must back down, and if he does the Russians are even more into Syria as they are the ones who will offer to over see the stockpiles.
The Russians can take their time on this all they want.
BOTTOM LINE NOW IS THAT THE CONGRESS CANNOT BE DUPED INTO VOTING FOR BOMBING UNDER ANY CONTINGENCY. IN OTHER WORDS THIS SHOULD NOT CHANGE THE VOTE. BOEHNER SHOULD NOT CALL A VOTE ON THIS.
REad my last post. I agree with this. The Russians will promise they are being removed, but will stall on this. The weapons will never be removed.
PLUS who knows, inspection may find that they were Saddam’s
No...the man who linked the article is Ex Muslim...
From Google link to Frontpage article which read as follows.....it is the first link listed on Google here:
Reads as follows:
(Which appears the person who is linking to Frontpage article is the Ex-Muslim not Greenfield.)
The Myth of the Moderate Syrian Rebels | FrontPage Magazine
The Myth of the Moderate Syrian Rebels
1 day ago
Again I must stress, as Ex-Muslim, Daniel Greenfield has written an extremely accurate article about whats going on with the Muslim Jihadists
Caww: Now I see where you got Ex-Muslim.
The Ex-Muslim is Hass— one of the readers of Greenfield’s column who posted a comment on the article.
Daniel Greenfield is a columnist who writes for FrontPage.
He also writes columns for his own blog: http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/