Meanwhile, both Obama's State Department and Kerry spend the next 48 hours trying to "walk back" Kerry's UN-savvy mistake. All to no avail. Both the Russians and the Syrians seize upon the notion of a monitored surrender of WMD's. Both Putin and Asad know that by doing so, Obama is hamstrung in his desire to attack Syria and his unwavering support the Al Qaida backed rebels in Syria.
As for the WMD's? Oh yes.....those. Those are Saddam's old stockpiles. the same ones that everyone was saying were proven not to be in Iraq. Well hell no they weren't in Iraq. Not after we gave Saddam weeks to move them in advance of the America invasion. And guess what? While the world is pissing and poo pooing the wonders of the Russian agreement and Syria's compromise? they will move them again. My bet is they go to Iran this time. Some place that will really use them.
Maybe there is such a thing as divine intervention in the face of partisan, bureaucratic, novice bungling by the Obama white house. Anything that keeps American military forces out of Syria works for me. Even Obama's idiocy or John Kerry's mistakes.But in the long run, all that has occurred is time has been bought before the final conflagration. America will see these weapons again and next time they will be used on our troops.
By Anne Gearan, Karen DeYoung and Will Englund,Russia and Syria embraced Secretary of State John F. Kerry’s suggestion Monday that the Syrian government could avert a U.S. attack by placing its chemical weapons under international control, upending the Obama administration’s efforts to sharpen its case for military action.
U.S. officials said Kerry’s comment, made in response to a question at a news conference in London, was not intended to be a diplomatic opening. But Kerry’s Russian and Syrian counterparts quickly followed up, and the idea drew immediate interest internationally and from top Democrats in Washington.
By the end of the day, President Obama conceded that the idea of monitoring and ultimately destroying Syria’s arsenal “could potentially be a significant breakthrough.” The Senate postponed a vote scheduled for Wednesday on whether to back a proposed punitive strike.
“I think you have to take it with a grain of salt, initially,” Obama said in an interview with NBC that was among several he gave Monday in pursuit of public backing for a military strike in response to an alleged Aug. 21 gas attack on Syrian civilians.
“We are going to run this to ground,” Obama said. “We’re going to make sure that we see how serious these proposals are.”
The president plans to address the nation Tuesday evening in a speech originally planned to be the capstone of a newly focused moral and political case to rally a skeptical public and reluctant lawmakers.
The timing of the new proposal was awkward and its apparent genesis perhaps more so.
It began when Kerry was asked early Monday whether Assad could avoid a U.S. attack.
“Sure. He could turn over every bit of his weapons to the international community within the next week, without delay,” Kerry responded with a shrug. “But he isn’t about to.”