Skip to main content

View Diary: Operation Accidental Diplomacy (88 comments)

Comment Preferences

    •  I have also read that this was discussed (13+ / 0-)

      as early as June 2012 at a previous meeting. Clearly there had been a lot of back and forth.

    •  lol (0+ / 0-)

      you just can't help yourself

      Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

      by greenbastard on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 07:40:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Me and my facts and evidence. I just can't help it (13+ / 0-)

        Go on, do that internet forced laughter thing some more.

        It's very convincing.

        Art is the handmaid of human good.

        by joe from Lowell on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 07:41:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Meh, I have no desire to play this game with you (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PSzymeczek

          again.

          Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

          by greenbastard on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 07:41:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Lol to meh. Any poses left in your arsenal? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            reginahny, Radiowalla, Tony Situ

            BTW, none of this changes the reality that the diplomatic solution was being pursued long before Kerry's press conference.

            Art is the handmaid of human good.

            by joe from Lowell on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 07:44:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  nor does it chance the fact that the President (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Choco8, mickT

              was selling war.

              again, just for fun, your fact that discussions were going on is only proof of that discussions were going on.

              What you have repeatedly tried to claim, that your facts do not support, nor do I see anywhere else, is that, this is what they meant to do all along. They were only selling war as part of this brilliant plan for this super-secret diplomatic move.

              It's ridiculous. And I don't think you'll change your mind.

              If you can provide some sort of evidence, like I said last time, that supports your claim, bring it on. I'm open. I'll admit I'm wrong.

              But all you've proven is that they talked about it. Not any kind of plan, or agreement was reached, or that shows this was the plan all along.

              The President was selling a war, that no one was buying.

              So yes, at first I laughed when I saw you pushing this narrative again. Then when it seemed you wanted

              Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

              by greenbastard on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 07:51:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I think you have me mixed up with someone else. (8+ / 0-)

                I've never claimed that the threat of force was a ruse. Of course he was selling war. He was doing both.

                The threat of force needn't be a ruse in order to help along a diplomatic outcome. In fact, the more credible the threat, the more effective it is as a motivator for the other side to cut a deal.

                The idea that the only two options here are "gaffe" and "this was the plan all along" is all yours. It has nothing to do with me, and it certainly has nothing to do with an administration and foreign policy apparatus that can walk and chew gum at the same time.

                Art is the handmaid of human good.

                by joe from Lowell on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 07:57:29 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I don't think (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                greenbell, aliasalias

                that the threats of war were manipulations for this diplomatic angle. I think the diplomatic angle has been - is being - set up for the purpose of selling war. Now, Obama gets to set terms that the US administration will insist are more than fair, but are yet impossible for Syria to meet, even if willing. When that happens - when Syria can't organize and produce all its chemical weapons on the demanded timeframe, the American public and Congress will not be resistant to war anymore. I think this is just a tactic to give us all time and reason to get on board with bombing Syria.

                I have no evidence of this. Only time will tell if my intuition is correct.

                •  That's kind of what I was thinking (0+ / 0-)

                  ...and Kerry is already acting like the drunk cowboy shooting at the Assad's feet:

                  "Dance Faster!"

                •  Not only do you provde no evidence, you don't even (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Radiowalla, joe from Lowell

                  bother to provide a motive for your theory?

                  So what's the motive?  War just for war's sake?  What can you point to in the President's history that indicates that he would be for war just for the sake of it, or just for the glory of it, or just for the fun of it, or whatever?

                  IMO, he would only be for a war if there was a legit reason.  If there's a way to get the CW without war, such that merely the threat of war is enough to get things moving, then he'd do that.  

                  You say he's putting forth impossible demands as pretext for war, but you fail to say what the motive is.

              •  It's in Kerry's remark. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                joe from Lowell

                Kerry finished his offhand remark by saying they won't do it and it's impossible.  I don't think that was just cynicism.  It seems far more likely that he was echoing Russian cynicism in order to challenge that cynicism.  The media took up this challenge and Russia had no choice but to respond with a favorable attempt to agree.  Now Putin is trying to backwalk that attempt but I don't think it'll work.  If war breaks out it'll be Putin's fault.

                "When you think about the money spent/on defense by the government/& the weapons of destruction we've built/we're so sure that we need/then you think of the millions that money could feed/How long?" J Browne

                by rainmanjr on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 01:36:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Paneta said that "it absolutely (0+ / 0-)

                was the threat of the attack that caused Putin to act."

                He said they have been talking with the Russians for almost 30 months to get them to intervene, at least to allow the UN to start sanctions.

                They were only selling war as part of this brilliant plan for this super-secret diplomatic move.
                That's your strawman. The President was making it absolutely clear that he was planning a limited attack with no boots on the ground. That's not war. And he was not trying to sell it. He was planning to do it if Putin/Assad didn't do what he, Obama had demanded.

                Kerry's "slip" contained a deadline.

                No agreement had been reached. Obama didn't want an agreement. He wanted action.

                Now comes the push to move the action along.

                I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... *I'm asking you to believe in yours.* Barack Obama

                by samddobermann on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 07:39:23 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  it does when you're barack obama (9+ / 0-)

      the guy who only ever succeeds due to mere luck. also too, has 'had everything in life handed to him'.

      anyone born after the McDLT has no business stomping around acting punk rock

      by chopper on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 07:42:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Just curious (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joe from Lowell, gooderservice

      if anyone has a link/info where I can read why the g20 conference proposal was shot down and by which player involved?

      Thanks in advance!

      "These are established professionals that have a liberal bent, but ultimately most of them if pushed will choose professional preservation over cause, such is the mentality of most business professionals" -BoA/HBGary/CoC

      by LieparDestin on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 07:51:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It wasn't shot down. That was just a few days... (5+ / 0-)

        before Kerry's statement, which would suggest it was still a work in progress.

        And neither side is talking about what was said at the G20, or about any inside-baseball stuff regarding the deal at all.

        Art is the handmaid of human good.

        by joe from Lowell on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 07:59:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          joe from Lowell

          I thought I had seen a story that had mentioned some of the stuff that had gone on in the room but am not able to find it at the moment now (damn work!).

          "These are established professionals that have a liberal bent, but ultimately most of them if pushed will choose professional preservation over cause, such is the mentality of most business professionals" -BoA/HBGary/CoC

          by LieparDestin on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 08:01:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Kerry's statement was a rebuff to Putin (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          joe from Lowell

          As I said earlier, I think it's likely that Kerry was appearing to be making an offhand comment because it was the best way to put Putin's private responses for the idea into the public sphere.  He was issuing a challenge and, unless Putin is able to meet that challenge, makes any Russian response to a strike completely Russia's fault.  We, after all, tried to avert that strike.  I think the level of diplomacy this team is showing is astounding and brilliant.

          "When you think about the money spent/on defense by the government/& the weapons of destruction we've built/we're so sure that we need/then you think of the millions that money could feed/How long?" J Browne

          by rainmanjr on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 01:41:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Just curious if anyone has a link to the story (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LieparDestin

        reporting that Congress was definitely going to pass the bill for Obama to bomb Syria.

        •  I 2nd (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gooderservice

          the request for that link. Last I had read is there was nowhere near the votes needed?

          "These are established professionals that have a liberal bent, but ultimately most of them if pushed will choose professional preservation over cause, such is the mentality of most business professionals" -BoA/HBGary/CoC

          by LieparDestin on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 12:34:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's the last I read, too. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            aliasalias, Bisbonian

            I also watched Kerry respond to the reporter's question, I just didn't read the response.

            Unless Kerry is a very good actor and communicator, which I don't believe he is (i.e., 2003-2004 campaign), with the way he said it, the way he walked it back all at the same time, I'd bet big bucks that it was accidental that he said those words at that specific time.

            I also believe based on what I've read, it wasn't a unique idea, that the idea had been floated for weeks, months or a year, but that it was not planned to be brought forth by Kerry at that particular moment in a press conference.

            •  Nonsense. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              joe from Lowell

              This is not the kind of thing that's accidental.  Kerry and Obama had crafted the release to be done in this manner and Kerry delivered it.  This was a response to Putin's private dismissal of the plan as being impossible.

              "When you think about the money spent/on defense by the government/& the weapons of destruction we've built/we're so sure that we need/then you think of the millions that money could feed/How long?" J Browne

              by rainmanjr on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 01:44:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I'd add further that the idea that Kerry (0+ / 0-)

            brought up was just way too important to be part of an everyday press conference.  What if that reporter or no reporters ever asked that specific question?  Then what?

            •  I'll have to (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gooderservice

              find footage/transcripts of those events, I don't remember who asked the question? Was it 'friendly' reporter?

              "These are established professionals that have a liberal bent, but ultimately most of them if pushed will choose professional preservation over cause, such is the mentality of most business professionals" -BoA/HBGary/CoC

              by LieparDestin on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 12:57:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  lol, we're on the same wavelength, I believe. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LieparDestin

                As I was typing out my reply to you, I was wondering the same thing.  

                I don't know.  I'll try to find out.  I saw it on CBS This Morning, I think, and the reporter had a ramp-up and then the question.

              •  Here is the transcript of the entire question and (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LieparDestin

                answer: (My bolding)

                MODERATOR: Margaret Brennan from CBS.

                QUESTION: Thank you. Mr. Secretary, in that CBS interview that you just referenced, Bashar al-Assad said that the presentation that you’ve made reminds him, quote, his words, “of the big lie that Colin Powell said in front of the world about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” He says you personally have presented no evidence of a chemical weapons attack, just your confidence and your convictions. And he disputes the argument you just laid out, his argument saying his government relies on reality, not social media, and says Russian intelligence contradicts this false evidence. What is your response?

                And secondly, is there anything at this point that his government could do or offer that would stop an attack?

                SECRETARY KERRY: Sure. He could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week. Turn it over, all of it, without delay, and allow a full and total accounting for that. But he isn’t about to do it, and it can’t be done, obviously.

                But with respect to the credibility issue, look, I just answered that. I just gave you real evidence, evidence that, as a former prosecutor in the United States, I could tell you I can take into a courtroom and get admitted. And I believe this man – I mean, I’ve personally tried people who have gone away for long prison sentences or for life for less evidence than we have of this. So I’m confident about the state of the evidence.

                You can go to whitehouse.gov, read the unclassified report, and make your own judgments. What does he offer? Words that are contradicted by facts. And he doesn’t have a very strong record with respect to this question of credibility, because I personally visited him once at the instruction of the White House to confront him on his transfer of Scud missiles to Hezbollah, which we knew had taken place and had all kinds of facts, and he sat there and simply denied it to my face, notwithstanding the evidence I presented and what we showed him.

                So this is a man who has just killed, through his regime, over 1,000 of his own citizens. Over 100,000, or about 100,000, have been murdered over the course of the last months. He sent Scud missiles into schools. He sends airplanes to napalm children. Everybody has seen that. This is a man without credibility. And so I will happily stand anywhere in the world with the evidence that we have against his words and his deception and his acts.

                And here is the video from CBS This Morning:
                Sure. He could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week. Turn it over, all of it, without delay, and allow a full and total accounting for that. But he isn’t about to do it, and it can’t be done, obviously.
                •  Seems like a set up ? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  gooderservice, joe from Lowell

                  he laid out what was probably already agreed with Russia but was throwing in some qualifiers 'out 'in the next week' and 'and it cant be done, obviously'.

                  Thanks!

                  "These are established professionals that have a liberal bent, but ultimately most of them if pushed will choose professional preservation over cause, such is the mentality of most business professionals" -BoA/HBGary/CoC

                  by LieparDestin on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 01:40:31 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  The odds were zero (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              joe from Lowell

              Are you telling me that Kerry wouldn't have stayed until someone asked how we could avert a strike?  That was the question of the day.  Nobody asking it would be like your kid not asking if there wasn't a way to avoid school on a test day.  Someone was going to ask.  In the unlikely event nobody had then he would have tossed it out in some other manner.

              "When you think about the money spent/on defense by the government/& the weapons of destruction we've built/we're so sure that we need/then you think of the millions that money could feed/How long?" J Browne

              by rainmanjr on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 01:47:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, it wasn't the question of the day. (0+ / 0-)
                Are you telling me that Kerry wouldn't have stayed until someone asked how we could avert a strike?  That was the question of the day.
                If it were the "question of the day," it would have been asked repeatedly once Obama's "red line" had been crossed and he wanted to bomb Syria, then had to get Congressional approval, which he wasn't going to get.

                And during all the Congressional hearings when Congress wasn't even back in session yet, did you ever hear anyone ask those testifying:  

                Is there anything at this point that his government could do or offer that would stop an attack?
                If so, I would really appreciate a link to that.  
                •  Lack of the question doesn't mean... (0+ / 0-)

                  that it wasn't the question that everyone was actually wondering.  The Sen hearing was more focused on the authorization for a strike and not the inevitability of it so it didn't get asked.  Moreover, reporters are sometimes told to ask certain questions as a way to do them a favor (give a scoop) while advancing the political goal.  If she wasn't directed this way then Kerry was planning to put it out in some other manner.

                  "When you think about the money spent/on defense by the government/& the weapons of destruction we've built/we're so sure that we need/then you think of the millions that money could feed/How long?" J Browne

                  by rainmanjr on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 02:21:24 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  No story because no vote but (0+ / 0-)

          it was only sent to Congress to give Putin a little more time to cave in.

          I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... *I'm asking you to believe in yours.* Barack Obama

          by samddobermann on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 05:53:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  It is about the chemical weapons and only that (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      reginahny, joe from Lowell, rainmanjr

      Civil wars are nothing new and the US ignoring them isn't unusual. And when it comes to Syria there was never much we could really do anyway.  It is a mess and all the likely results are a mess.   However there is one problem that is in our interest to solve and that is the chemical weapons and what happens to them.  Should it look like Al Qaeda or a similar group was going to prevail and have access to them, then we would have to intervene or the Israelis would.   The Russians have the same problem, there are lots of these players who are just as likely to hand these weapons over to Russian's enemies as ours.

      There is a script being played out here.  It has no doubt changed since the original red line comment, but it is not as ad-hoc as the MSM is making it out to be.  The whole sequence with Kerry and the Russians happened too fast for it not to have been pre-planned.  

      Obama has always gone for results and rarely seems to worry about what is being said about how he gets there.  Getting rid of Syria's chemical weapons would be a significant success.  Getting rid of them without firing a shot, even more so and if in the process he sets a precedent where future presidents fell they have to go to Congress before going off on new military adventures, well that would be another mission accomplished.

      The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones! - John Maynard Keynes

      by Do Something on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 08:06:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  BINGO. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joe from Lowell

        No more calls, please, we have a winner.  You are exactly right, Do Something, and that's why I have full faith in what's going on.  The point about success without firing a shot is particularly important.  It will immediately change the Obama dynamic in the USA.  The world is already impressed with him.  I think Putin would rather have a strong but rational strategized to work with as well.  Achieving this solution is a win-win for everyone so I'm betting it gets done but Putin will try to get a consolation prize about those consequences for not abiding by the resolution.  

        "When you think about the money spent/on defense by the government/& the weapons of destruction we've built/we're so sure that we need/then you think of the millions that money could feed/How long?" J Browne

        by rainmanjr on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 01:55:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks Joe (6+ / 0-)

      It's more than tiresome that despite it being posted all over the internet some people still don't understand the sequence of events and why that was important.  I didn't read your link but presume it also mentions that the Tues. night by Obama speech wasn't scheduled until Obama had met with Putin on Friday.

      I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

      by Satya1 on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 08:26:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And how is this connected to "peaceful ideas?" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rainmanjr, joe from Lowell

      This whole implausible notion of the Syrian regime "giving away" one of the world's largest collections of chemical weapons would not even have been floated WITHOUT THE THREAT OF US BOMBING.

      When anything "peaceful" flows from the crime family controlling Syria (which has been bombing and assassinating people around them for decades) wake me up.

      The current "situation" is a desperate military TACTIC by Syria's military junta and Russia in the face of an imminent threat by the US military.  It has nothing to do with "peaceful ideas."

      There IS mass murder and crimes being perpetrated against the people of Syria every day, and there won't be any peace until the Assad regime is history.

      People in America can look away and tacitly support these fascists, and pretend they are "being peaceful," but they are simply pretending.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site