Kerry: Syria Should Do More Than Declare Weapons

[Bosonic]

Source: AP

Secretary of State John Kerry says Syria must do more than just declare its chemical weapons stockpiles and sign the international treaty that bans them if it wants a Russian-led effort to avert U.S. military strikes to work.

Just minutes after Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime announced Tuesday that it would take those steps, Kerry said he hoped that it would "go further" in the interests of peace. He said the Syrian government must "live up to what they said just said they would do" and then cooperate with Russia "to work out a formula by which those weapons could be transferred to international control and destroyed."

He said the regime should also enter a genuine dialogue with the opposition. Kerry's comments came during an online Google+ hangout.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/kerry-syria-declare-weapons-20215378

[David__77]

1. Yeah, the terrorists aren't interested in "dialogue," they will only accept unconditional surrender.

Perhaps Kerry should tell them they need to start talking as well.

[Iliyah]

2. Wouldn't that be wonderful to have all

parties come together?

Miracles can happen. Although I feel for the International representatives. They must "try" and get an agreement to leave them alone while they are there by all parties.

[avaistheone1]

3. More conditions eh?

Does the White House really want war or what?

[sharp_stick]

4. Are you new at this?

With those negotiating skills I'm glad you aren't the Secretary of State or for that matter even my real estate lawyer.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

15. Why are you being snarky?

It's a legitimate question. After all, the chemical weapons were the issue, right? So, now Assad has acquiesced and Kerry feels the need to move the goal posts. What's wrong with asking that question?

[sharp_stick]

17. Not really

The original Russian offer was to allow the International Community to take and destroy Syria's chemical weapons. Today Syria offered to declare the existence of the weapons but forgot to mention the destruction of them.

Kerry's comment was just a reminder of that. As long as they're talking there is hope.

[karynnj]

25. The problem is the reporter is not very good

Last edited Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:56 PM - Edit history (1)

Kerry was NOT at that point speaking of what is needed for the US to avert a strike. (He answered that earlier - and it was all related to the chemical weapons. It was a final question asked about what he would wish to say to their FM. He answered first that he hoped they would deal with the Chemical weapons. He then said, that he hoped they would take the path then toward the Geneva 2 peace talks (the talks that Lavrov and Kerry have been pushing for) to get to peace.



Here is a video link - https://plus.google.com/u/0/events/crns7bqaccuvuehb44vdsrsmp8o The statement in question was the last question.

[arewenotdemo]

7. Good question.

Especially considering Obama has waged a covert war against Syria for the last two years.....

[pasto76]

20. go ahead and provide documentation for that conspiracy theory

[arewenotdemo]

27. I imagine that Obama didn't take down Qaddafi's regime, either.

Under the pretense of R2P and the U.N. resolution.

Heilbrunn: Here we are five years into the Obama administration, and you’re stating that the West is engaging in “mass propaganda.” Is Obama being drawn into Syria because he’s too weak to resist the status quo? What happened to President Obama that brought us here?

Brzezinski: I can’t engage either in psychoanalysis or any kind of historical revisionism. He obviously has a difficult problem on his hands, and there is a mysterious aspect to all of this. Just consider the timing. In late 2011 there are outbreaks in Syria produced by a drought and abetted by two well-known autocracies in the Middle East: Qatar and Saudi Arabia. He all of a sudden announces that Assad has to go—without, apparently, any real preparation for making that happen. Then in the spring of 2012, the election year here, the CIA under General Petraeus, according to The New York Times of March 24th of this year, a very revealing article, mounts a large-scale effort to assist the Qataris and the Saudis and link them somehow with the Turks in that effort. Was this a strategic position? Why did we all of a sudden decide that Syria had to be destabilized and its government overthrown? Had it ever been explained to the American people?

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/brzezinski-the-syria-crisis-8636

[Turborama]

18. Nothing more, just the original conditions being reiterated...

"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 the full and total accounting (of it)"

[karynnj]

24. No stupid reporter

Last edited Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:55 PM - Edit history (1)

I watched the google hangout and that was NOT what Kerry said. The only mention of that was in the last question and that was what he would say to the FM of Syria. After he spoke of the chemical weapons. He then spoke of how he hoped the Syrians would use this moment to move towards the Geneva 2 talks - and hopefully Syria could find peace.

I hope that the live conference will become available - the link had the live feed that - as it is over - does not work.

Here is a video link - https://plus.google.com/u/0/events/crns7bqaccuvuehb44vdsrsmp8o The statement in question was the last question.

[another_liberal]

5. Either the Syrian regime enters into a genuine dialogue with the nearly defeated rebels . . .

Or we will sure as hell waste no time bombing Assad's ass back into the Stone Age!

It is, of course, entirely their decision to make. No pressure.

[Quantess]

6. What a nag. (no text)

[grahamhgreen]

8. This is the worry, they will increase demands until they claim to have no options but to bomb.

[avaistheone1]

9. At this point and time it looks that way.

Seems like the administration keeps moving the goal post.

[arewenotdemo]

10. That wouldn't surprise me.

In the least.

Though Hanging Judge John may urge Obama not to use force, if Assad will only step down and walk directly to the gallows.

[dipsydoodle]

11. Its the insurgents who have rejected dialogue

by refusing to attend the projected Geneva 11 meeting.

[another_liberal]

14. We expect Assad should agree to surrender . . .

If that is what it will take to open "a genuine dialogue."

[last1standing]

12. This is called "moving the goalposts."

He seems to be working very hard to pull defeat from the jaws of victory.

[another_liberal]

13. Well said.

That is exactly what it looks like.

[arewenotdemo]

21. I swear to God, Kerry won't be happy until he gets HIS war.

Probably thinking very hard about making the case for war with Iran as we speak.

[karynnj]

26. No he isn't - this reporter is awful and likely didn't bother to watch

Last edited Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:56 PM - Edit history (1)

the 30 minute google hangout. Kerry did not include working on Geneva 2 as required to avert a strike. He was asked what he hoped Syria would do - and he answered with both the chemical weapons stuff AND working for a political solution at Geneva 2.

Here is a video link - https://plus.google.com/u/0/events/crns7bqaccuvuehb44vdsrsmp8o The statement in question was the last question.

[Alamuti Lotus]

16. Oh good, I was wondering how long until the goals were moved back again

And of course, the great vomitor of arrogance didn't take long to oblige. Take heed, oh senseless ones--you might get your bombing raids yet! I know there were some worried keyboard warriors in these parts for the last day or two.

[karynnj]

23. They weren't moved - I watched it and that was NOT a condition to avoid the strike.

I assume that the video will be available - I watched it as a google hangout

[MyNameGoesHere]

19. a genuine dialogue with the opposition

Yes much like you did Mr. Kerry?

[karynnj]

22. I watched the google hang out and this is not really correct

Last edited Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:57 PM - Edit history (1)

Kerry was asked what he would say to the Syrian FM. He spoke first of the chemical weapons issue. He then transitioned and spoke of how Syria could then use this moment to start the Geneva 2 political process and bring peace to Syria.

It was NOT said as a condition of avoiding a strike. It was in response to earlier questions on the devastation and horror of the civil war itself - even before the chemical weapons.

Here is a video link - https://plus.google.com/u/0/events/crns7bqaccuvuehb44vdsrsmp8o The statement in question was the last question.