from what I read, I do not feel too comfortable.

I do think there is little doubt that chemical weapons were used, but there are two questions remaining:

a/ Who used them? I hope they have more proof that Bush had before stating without doubt it is Syria. It is not as if the other side was unable to do that either. (In addition, I remember the incubators in Kuwait in 1992. False flags exist).

b/ What should the government do? I have no sympathy for Assad which is a despicable person (and has been way before the American media decided he is)? However, after the mess in Egypt and Iraq, is there really something the US or even a coalition can do? What will be the side effects?

So, seeing the government going toward war this way leaves me very uncomfortable.

ADDED: Well, after having read the threads on GD, I feel so tired of people who have exactly ZERO empathy level and think life goes through slogans. "No more war": this is definitively something I can subscribe to, but it is not what those people mean. They mean: let's stay withing our borders and F*ck the rest of the world, because there are wars on the world right now, including in Syria. How do they propose to stop it? It is a difficult situation, but the libertarian wing of the Democratic Party is starting to look way too much like the libertarian wing of the Republican Party; " f*ck the people. It is not about me, so I can stand on my white horse and spew libertarian BS). Or do they have a way to stop all wars.

Sorry, this may not be the right place, but I feel both worried and disappointed by where this seems to be going and by the idiocy of those who should care.

...and what happened there. This situation is complicated and any solution is not simple. The US needs to respond in a way that is in line with our values. And the country is, unfortunately, divided on what those are. I am heartened that John Kerry...and his values... will be heard on this.

I agree GD posts lack empathy. I also think there is a lack of complex information. The responses remind me of Bush rhetoric...black or white, no shades of grey. No nuance. Looking at simple solutions...none of which are right.

And that scares me.

Assad is despicable, yes, but he is head of a secular government. Women have equal rights there. What will happen with our intervention? Who will fill the vacuum if Assad is removed? Just who is this rebel movement comprised of? We saw what happened in Egypt. What began as a democratic movement turned into a power grab. First by the Muslim Brotherhood, then by the military. We still don't know what is going to ultimately shape the rebuilding of Iraq. Will it be hardline Islamists or more secular leaders?

As I said, I'm concerned and conflicted. If Assad used chemical weapons, that is against the Geneva convention and needs to be dealt with. But are we ready to take a side with the devil we don't know?

Ugh. What a mess.

And yes, this new libertarian bent of the younger Democrats is worrying. When Ron Paul is becoming a hero for people on the left, that is a problem.

who come from syria . they are in the US right now but they have family there and visit regularly. they all support Assad . even early on when people started to protest they were telling me they supported Assad.

like you say about Egypt, once the muslim brother gained power women , the coptic christians andother minorites started to have it tougher.

none of this means it's ok what Assad did. i don't know why people can't discuss these things as they are without having to make it into something it's not.

I excerpted these three paragraphs, but read the entire article. (I have always liked Atkins with whom I share concerns about poverty and a certain lack of interest for civil libertarian issues, but I think he postulates clearly where we stand, stuck between two positions that are both really bad and unable, for political and international reasons, to find a different way.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-world-has-failed-syria-by.html

...
So quite predictably, most of the places where people power overwhelmed the dictators, the second most powerful organized element of society, the religious conservative Islamists, stepped in to take their place. In Egypt, the military brutally took power back. So much for people power.

In Libya, Syria and Bahrain, the dictators wouldn't go so quietly. Massacres ensued. Greater massacres were promised. Liberals in the West told themselves that if they closed their eyes, did nothing and murmured phrases like "blowback," the bloodshed would not be on their hands. Conservatives in the West couldn't wait to drop a bunch of bombs, show the world how big and tough they were hiding behind their keyboards and drones, and install a new set of puppet regimes. Almost no one was thinking through how to solve this problem long term.
...
And so we stand on the brink in Syria. The dictator is massacring his own people. It may or may not be that the latest gas attack atrocity was committed by Assad, but that's almost irrelevant. Western doves want to do nothing and watch the bloodshed continue. Western hawks want to drop lots of bombs, probably making the situation worse and opening the door for Islamists to take power--at which point they'll push for more drone attacks.

But it also begs the question: what can be done?

Let me add Atkins's post from yesterday, which is also quite interesting.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2013/08/john-mccain-itching-to-lob-more-bombs.html

I appreciate people who can articulate a thought that is not just black and white.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-march-to-war-in-syria-is-just.html

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/08/26/kerry-beats-the-war-drums/

I think you all know my views on this topic. I am simply not a humanitarian interventionist, but obviously this is a horrible situation. I just am unsure that Assad's enemies are much better (or would be much better if they had access to the arsenal he has). I also don't think we have much credibility in the region given Iraq (Obama has not been able to repair the damage to our reputation, unfortunately). Tough, tough choice for the President.

Edited to add: Kerry is being attacked for his diplomatic overtures to Assad a few years ago. Look, this is political fair game -- we did it to McCain regarding the nice things he said about Qaddafi in the past. But it strikes me as petty given Assad's recent actions are nothing like how he was before.

...will read tonight. Just wanted to agree that attacks on McCain and Kerry are similar. Timing seems to be the key. This seems a horrible time to be undermining our SOS. Do you remember the context/timing of Dems attacks on McCain?

http://m.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/08/the-2-year-old-zombie-tweet-about-libya-now-stalking-john-mccain/243963/

I would post it on GD, but I doubt it will be useful.

This said, it is a good speech, a speech full of indignation, but that remains silent on what the response will be. This gives me some hope they have not made a decision.

I think there was some Q&A after. Does anybody have a transcript of what was said, as he may have said something more forceful.


http://www.cfr.org/syria/secretary-kerrys-remarks-syria-august-2013/p31279

It seems clear the media wants war and that their friends want war, but I cannot see in this speech any clear direction. Hopefully, Obama will do the right thing.

make decisions based on what people say on the internet, especially when most of them are conspiracy theory types.

conspiracy theorists going on about skull on bones on the internet is not worth a response.

as for Kerry's speech it was about the chemical attack which took place.

being on DU for enough years to see that the "progressives" supported John Edwards i can see through the bs of many of them.

when Hillary was pushing for involvement in Syria early on , they are ones to talk .

but this is one reason it's hard to take a lot of this seriously.

i am opposed to an iraq type invasion . i think we need to wait to see what the UN says, there are many things we need to wait for and questions we need to ask.

but a lot of this is just the usual drama.

i think a lot of these people will be upset if there is no Iraq type war because they love to be outraged and play victim.

For years, when frustrated with long term DUers who I otherwise respect taking shots at Kerry or worshipping at the foot of Ed Snowden, I have sometimes used DU to google their user name and John Edwards Or Ralph Nader -- and that is who they supported in far more than random frequency.

It is also strange to hear people surprised that he would speak emotionally or passionately on anything. Yet this is something they would never say of Bill Clinton - yet, on issues that warrant it - especially war and veterans that is how Kerry has sounded since 1971.

On this, I worry if there really is anything -attacking or not attacking - that could be done by the US to make life better in Syria now. I don't like those who say that because Obama said red line, we need to do something -- unless there is reason to believe that it would at minimum not make things worse. I also think, as I have seconded guessed how we got to this point - that the mistake I make is assuming that we have a big impact - even when our actions are limited. I suspect that we really don't. Still, it is frustrating that there seems no way to end the suffering.

The same blame goes to Obama and others.

he was speaking to the Syrian leader and Russian leader too. It was important that he got the US government's points across forcefully.

In addition, it was ginned up by the neocons media who want to push to war.

Actually, we are probably stuck here because Obama drew a red line and now his credibility forces him to do something, even if they all know it is a bad idea. If you think Biden and Kerry's speeches were not vetted by the WH, you are certainly wrong.

So, wake up. Stop saying nonsense you have read somewhere..

Sorry if I lack patience with you, but there are serious issues on the table and it seems they got stuck in their own internal rhetoric saying there was a red line, but not ready to act accordingly.

What Obama is proposing wont accomplish anything (and I am not proposing that we send troops there, this would be absolutely stupid).

And no, there is no peaceful way to solve the crisis. So, really, there are a few questions that need to be asked, and no,I do not have the answers, just the questions:

- How many dead people before the Western nations decide to intervene. Asking because, as bad as the situation in Syria is, there are areas of Africa that are a lot worse and people are not calling to do anything?
- What constitute an act worth intervening? I think the major error that Obama has made here is to draw a red line. I understand there are international laws and that these laws prohibit chemical weapons, but the truth is that these laws are largely antiquated and that we have weapons at our disposal that will now allow to kill a lot more people. With planes, we have had these tools for a very long time and we have used them again and again. Does 2000 people killed really make a difference when there were already about 100,000 killed.


-More difficult: Western governments have encouraged the Middle East to look for democracy. When it turns against them because they are opposed to brutal dictators (and let be clear, whether Al Quaeda is responsible for this latest attack or whether Assad is, Assad is a brutal dictator and responsible for many of the Syrian death), is it moral for those who pushed these revolts to sit there and do nothing?
As you can see, the ethics side pushes me to intervention.

However, there are other issues at play here, and many of them have to do with unintended consequences. It is dramatically unclear that any action short of having boots on the ground would do anything. I hear that the administration is considering limited strikes. It is unclear how it will affect Syria. Can we avoid killing more civilians? If we do nothing, on the other hand, does this mean we do not care about the Syrian people. Those are thought provoking questions and they are worth asking, rather than rehashing the same old complaints.

For the rest, WTF care. Some idiots will go back to the IWR. So what.
He did not come across as " let's bomb there". At least not in the speech. Read it. BTW, explain to me what peaceful options? I think the premise of the speech is flawed (see my previous point), but I do not see how any reasonable person would not see it as balanced, which is probably why it gets so much flack. Neither side felt comfortable with it.
No, the Syrian people have done nothing to us. This is beside the point. I guess your point is that we should let themselves kill each other. For the record, do you think Clinton should have intervened in Rwanda before he did? Did the Rwandan people do something to us?

For the rest, I do not think there are many people who criticize Kerry who think Obama is not behind Kerry. There may be a few deluded people, but they just come out as stupid.
One last point. As wisteria says, it may be just a way to try to get at the Syrian govt. The point is that diplomacy cannot work if you have no leverage and, when it comes to Syria, there is none if we take the military action off the table.

So, really, Kerry is not the problem here. Rice could have made the same speech. Powers too. Something tells me that, left to themselves, both of them would have been less restrained because they believe in humanitarian interventionism a lot more than Kerry does. It may indeed be why Kerry was chosen for the speech which clearly was not for the crowd but for some people.

The real question is whether we can reform foreign policy or whether we have to live under the premises created by the Clinton crowd and the neo-cons: preach democracy without taking care of the consequences (read Atkins downthread).

I hadn't thought of what it meant for Obama to have Kerry, not Rice or Powers give this speech. It really may be Obama signalling that a person known to favor diplomacy over any other reaction sends a stronger signal and one harder to ignore.

What interests me is what is going to happen? Are we really going to war (even in a very limited sense) because our president declared something is a red line?

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2013/08/punishing-few-based-on-unknown-to.html

Intervention in this situation is somewhat perplexing. After watching tens of thousands of Syrians die in a brutal civil war, the United States seems determined to use bombs on a rogue faction of an oppressive regime based on murky intelligence in order not to alter the course of the civil war, but to defend the narrow principle that it's OK to kill people with bombs but not with poisonous gas. That doesn't sound like a great idea.

Either it's worth taking a side in the Syrian civil war, or it isn't. Either it's worth the blood and treasure to end the conflict and hold the war criminals to account, or it isn't. Bombing a country to prove a point about observing internationally sanctioned methods of killing seems unjustifiable. If the United States is less intent on saving lives in Syria than on proving to the United Nations how much we care about observing international war crimes law, we would do better to begin by delivering Dick Cheney to the Hague, instead.

If you feel like it, and this is very OT, I would be interested in your views in what Coates wrote about Obama's speech yesterday: http://www.theatlantic.com/ta-nehisi-coates/

and a good one. We shall see how this all plays out.




As far as Obama's MOW50 speech the other day, where to begin?

Will say that it was an excellent commemorating speech. It doesn't come close to MLK and "I Have A Dream," but it was received very well by the crowd. It is true that since he took office, black unemployment is still high (latinos are not far behind), there are deep flaws in the justice system (see Trayvon Martin), like women's rights, voting rights have also suffered a serious setback (see Voter ID laws), and racism is still alive and well. Just to name some few.

With that in mind, the question is what can be done about all this? It called organizing, knowing the issues, understanding laws, and registering to vote (in 2014). Like Roland Martin asks (and I don't always agree with him, but he gave people something to think about), how can you turn a moment into a movement? It also involves putting ego and personal things aside for the greater good. That too has been a challenge since Obama has been in office. It was when he was then-Senator/candidate Obama.

Too many people think that voting every four years in a presidential election solves everything. It doesn't. Local and state elections matter just as much as the federal ones. Turnout is one of the biggest challenges Dems face going into every midterms or off-years like this one.


Coates and others noted one criticism of Obama's speech was that it didn't offer any specifics on what he and his team plan to do address all of the above and more. To be fair, he has Syria, sequester, a gridlock Congress to deal with. Hopefully, he will offer more in the future.

He also has to pick a new HSS. If he were to pick NYC Chief Kelly, it would go against everything he spoke about racial profiling. It was a bad political idea to publicly praise him while SAF was being argued. (fortunately it was ruled unconstitutional).


Progress has been made, but we still have a long way to go.


Peace out.