Wednesday, September 04, 2013 5:19:29 AM
How the Syria Debate Is Splitting Both Parties
Supporters of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad gather in Damascus.
Factions of Republicans and Democrats are on either side of the intervention debate -- but for very different reasons.
Sep 3 2013
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/09/how-the-syria-debate-is-splitting-both-parties/279301/ [with comments]
--
A Progressive Perspective: Why Congress Should Approve the President's Request to Punish the Use of Chemical Weapons
09/02/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/a-progressive-perspective_b_3854243.html [with comments]
--
GOP’s sabotage fetish: Can an honest Syria debate occur?
John McCain addresses the media as Lindsey Graham listens, on possible military action against Syria, in Washington September 2, 2013.
Obama was right to bring a vote to Congress before intervening in Syria. But a worst-case scenario could greet him
Sep 3, 2013
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/03/gops_sabotage_fetish_can_an_honest_syria_debate_occur/ [with comments]
--
Drawing a Line on Syria, U.S. Keeps Eye on Iran Policy
Iran's foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, with Marzieh Afkham, ministry spokeswoman.
Abedin Taherkenareh/European Pressphoto Agency
By ROBERT F. WORTH
Published: September 2, 2013
WASHINGTON — As the Obama administration makes a case for punitive airstrikes on the Syrian government, its strongest card in the view of some supporters of a military response may be the need to send a message to another country: Iran. If the United States does not enforce its self-imposed “red line” on Syria’s use of chemical weapons, this thinking goes, Iran will smell weakness and press ahead more boldly in its quest for nuclear weapons.
But that message may be clashing with a simultaneous effort by American officials to explore dialogue with Iran’s moderate new president, Hassan Rouhani, in the latest expression of Washington’s long struggle to balance toughness with diplomacy in its relations with a longtime adversary.
Two recent diplomatic ventures have raised speculation about a possible back channel between Washington and Tehran. Last week, Jeffrey Feltman, a high State Department official in President Obama’s first term who is now a senior envoy at the United Nations, visited Iran to meet with the new foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, and discussed possible reactions to an American airstrike in Syria.
At the same time, the sultan of Oman, who has often served as an intermediary between the United States and Iran, was in Tehran meeting with Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Neither Mr. Feltman nor Sultan Qaboos bin Said al Said of Oman has said anything about carrying messages between the two governments. Still, those overtures, along with some surprisingly mild noises from Iranian leaders, have raised hopes that Washington may be able to thread the needle — to strike Syria without compromising efforts toward an Iranian-American détente before meetings at the United Nations General Assembly this month.
Those hopes may well be premature: even if Mr. Rouhani and his foreign minister are eager for a deal ending the dispute over the future of Iran’s nuclear program, it is far from clear that they would be able to deliver one. Negotiations have been stalled since last year, and final authority on foreign policy rests with Ayatollah Khamenei. The Iranian president’s hand, whatever his politics, is weakened further during national security crises, analysts say, and hard-liners are likely to be empowered.
Like Mr. Obama, Mr. Rouhani — who has declared his goal of resolving tensions with the West and bringing “more transparency” to nuclear talks — is vulnerable to domestic conservatives, who still blame him for having signed an agreement in 2003 opening Iran to United Nations inspectors.
“I am convinced that Rouhani and Zarif want to overcome the hostility between the U.S. and Iran, but a military strike on Syria could be a spoiler,” said Hossein Mousavian, a former nuclear negotiator for Iran who is now a visiting scholar at Princeton University.
Even as Secretary of State John Kerry worked to build support for a strike, his Iranian counterpart, Mr. Zarif, known as a moderate who hopes for dialogue, seemed to be working to avert one, declaring in an interview on Sunday that Iran warned the United States last year about chemical weapons getting into the hands of Syrian rebels. On Monday, he even tried to suggest that Mr. Obama was closer to his way of thinking, saying the American president was being pushed toward war by hard-liners in his own government.
Nuclear weapons aside, the debate over chemical weapons has raised questions about the strength of Iran’s commitment to the government of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria. Iran suffered terrible losses to chemical weapon strikes during its decade-long war with Iraq in the 1980s, and the issue is a delicate one for many Iranians. Mr. Rouhani aroused some controversy last week by strongly condemning the use of chemical weapons in Syria [ https://twitter.com/HassanRouhani/status/372266584070291456 ] on his English-language Twitter feed [ https://twitter.com/HassanRouhani ], without saying who used them.
Mr. Zarif made similar comments on his Facebook page, and others went further, including a former Iranian diplomat who suggested that Iran should not put all its eggs in one basket. A former president of Iran, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, was quoted in Iranian state media accusing Mr. Assad of using chemical weapons on his own people, though the government later disavowed those comments.
But Syria remains an essential ally for Iran, and a crucial link with Hezbollah, the Shiite movement based in Lebanon. There is no sign that Iran’s leaders are backing off; an Iranian delegation visited Mr. Assad in Damascus on Sunday to reaffirm its country’s commitment. But with the Iranian economy in tatters, the military support to Syria is costly.
“The question is, if things go badly for Assad on the battlefield, at what point would Iran let the rope go?” said Mehrzad Boroujerdi, the director of the Middle East studies program at Syracuse University.
If more evidence emerged that Mr. Assad’s military had used chemical weapons, that would raise the political cost of continuing to support him, Mr. Boroujerdi added.
One thing is clear: the statements by Iran’s leaders have shifted from earlier this year, when high-ranking Iranian officials said a foreign attack on Syria would be treated as an attack on Iran itself. There may even be some relief at the prospect of more direct American involvement in the Syrian conflict, which has occasionally been cast as “Iran’s Vietnam,” some analysts say.
“The reality is that Obama’s military action will make the Syrian tragedy his and not Iran’s,” wrote Farideh Farhi, an Iran scholar at the University of Hawaii, in an analysis published online at Lobelog.com. “And in Iran’s postelection environment, in which the country has moved toward national reconciliation — both among the elite and between the government and the population — nothing suits the Islamic Republic better than divesting itself from this issue quietly.”
For all their mutual antipathy, the United States and Iran may ultimately find common ground in Syria.
“The United States and Iran are fighting a zero-sum proxy war in Syria at the moment,” said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “If and when Assad falls, the two sides will have a mutual adversary in radical Sunni jihadists.”
*
Multimedia
Timeline on Iran’s Nuclear Program
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03/20/world/middleeast/Iran-nuclear-timeline.html
Related
Times Topic: Conflict in Syria
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/syria/index.html
President Gains McCain’s Backing on Syria Attack (September 3, 2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/world/middleeast/syria.html
Attacks Delayed, Syrians Juggle Anticipation With Attempts at Normalcy (September 3, 2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/world/middleeast/syria-obama.html
Vote on Syria Sets Up Foreign Policy Clash Between 2 Wings of G.O.P. (September 3, 2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/us/politics/syria-vote-sets-up-foreign-policy-clash-in-gop.html
Flow of Refugees Out of Syria Passes Two Million (September 3, 2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/world/middleeast/flow-of-refugees-out-of-syria-passes-two-million.html
*
© 2013 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/world/middleeast/drawing-a-line-on-syria-us-eyes-iran-talks.html [with comments]
--
House Leaders Express Their Support for Syria Strike
President Obama, flanked by Speaker John A. Boehner and Representative Nancy Pelosi, met with Congressional leaders at the White House on Tuesday.
Christopher Gregory/The New York Times
Speaker John A. Boehner outside the White House after a meeting on Syria with President Obama on Tuesday.
Christopher Gregory/The New York Times
Sen. John McCain before a television interview on the crisis in Syria, in Washington on Tuesday.
J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press
By MARK LANDLER, MICHAEL R. GORDON and THOM SHANKER
Published: September 3, 2013
WASHINGTON — President Obama won the support on Tuesday of Republican and Democratic leaders in the House for an attack on Syria, giving him a foundation to win broader approval for military action from a Congress that still harbors deep reservations.
Speaker John A. Boehner, who with other Congressional leaders met Mr. Obama in the Oval Office, said afterward that he would “support the president’s call to action,” an endorsement quickly echoed by the House majority leader, Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia.
On Tuesday evening, Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee agreed on the wording of a resolution [ http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/03/us/politics/senate-resolution-on-syria.html ] that would give Mr. Obama the authority to carry out a strike against Syria, for a period of 60 days, with one 30-day extension. A committee vote on the measure could come as early as Wednesday.
Uncertainties abound, particularly in the House, where the imprimatur of the Republican leadership does not guarantee approval by rebellious rank and file, and where vocal factions in both parties are opposed to anything that could entangle the nation in another messy conflict in the Middle East.
Still, the expressions of support from top Republicans who rarely agree with Mr. Obama on anything suggest the White House may be on firmer footing than seemed the case on Saturday, when the president abruptly halted his plans for action in the face of growing protests from Congress.
Mr. Obama is now headed to Sweden and Russia, where he will try to shore up an international coalition to punish Syria for a chemical weapons attack and will probably encounter some of the same debates that are cleaving the Capitol.
Before his departure, the White House intensified what has become the most extraordinary lobbying campaign of Mr. Obama’s presidency as it deployed members of his war council and enlisted political alumni of his 2008 campaign to press the argument with the public.
“This is not the time for armchair isolationism,” said Secretary of State John Kerry, who answered sharp questions and defended the administration’s strategy for Syria in nearly four hours of sometimes sharp exchanges before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Mr. Kerry stirred some confusion about the potential scope of American military involvement when he tried to carve out an exception to a proposed Congressional prohibition on the use of ground troops in Syria — something Mr. Obama and other officials have long ruled out as a general principle.
If Syria were to fall into complete chaos and if the chemical weapons of President Bashar al-Assad’s government there were at risk of falling into the hands of a militant group like Al Nusra, Mr. Kerry said, “I don’t want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to a president of the United States to secure our country.”
Later, under questioning by Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the ranking Republican, Mr. Kerry walked back his comment, insisting that he had only been speaking about a hypothetical case. “Let’s shut that door now as tight as we can,” Mr. Kerry said, without quite doing so. “There will not be American boots on the ground with respect to the civil war.”
The Senate resolution — released on Tuesday night by Mr. Corker and the committee’s chairman, Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey — would limit the president’s options and prohibit the use of ground forces. Any strike, it says, should be “tailored” to only deter Syria from using chemical weapons again and to cripple its capacity to do so.
The resolution would prohibit “boots on the ground” and require “the Obama administration to submit their broader plan for Syria,” Mr. Corker said in a statement.
Mr. Menendez added, “We have an obligation to act.”
In one of the most heated moments of the hearing earlier, Senator Rand Paul, the Kentucky Republican, said that Mr. Obama might go through with an attack if Congress failed to authorize it. Mr. Kerry said that he did not know what Mr. Obama would decide but that the president had the authority to do so under the Constitution.
It was a vivid tableau: Mr. Kerry — the former senator and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who voted to authorize the Iraq war in 2003, then turned against it — imploring his ex-colleagues to authorize an act of war.
Although he appeared alongside Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel — another former senator — and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, Mr. Kerry dominated the hearing. He seemed keenly aware of the echoes of Iraq.
“We were here for that vote,” Mr. Kerry said. “We voted. So we are especially sensitive — Chuck and I — to never again asking any member of Congress to take a vote on faulty intelligence. And that is why our intelligence community has scrubbed and rescrubbed the evidence.”
Mr. Kerry said the intelligence proved that the “Assad regime prepared for this attack, issued instructions to prepare for this attack, warned its own forces to use gas masks,” and the intelligence included “physical evidence of where the rockets came from and when.”
Mr. Hagel, who, like Mr. Kerry, is a veteran of the Vietnam War, used another argument used by previous administrations: a warning that authoritarian governments with arsenals of unconventional weapons could transfer them to terrorist groups.
Casting the issue as one of self-defense, the defense secretary also underscored the threat to American military personnel across the region. He said other dictators around the world and militant groups like Hezbollah might be emboldened if the United States did not punish the Assad government. “The use of chemical weapons in Syria is not only an assault on humanity,” Mr. Hagel said. “It is a serious threat to America’s national security interests and those of our closest allies.”
Before the hearing began, and again after Mr. Kerry spoke, protesters from the antiwar group Code Pink jumped up and shouted against military action. “Kerry, no more war in Syria!” one demonstrator exclaimed, adding that America needed health care and education more than military action.
Although the declared goal of a strike on Syria would be to degrade its ability to launch a chemical weapons attack and deter any future use, General Dempsey was asked whether such an attack would also diminish to a broader extent the Assad military’s abilities.
“Yes,” he replied.
General Dempsey was a subdued presence in the hearing. Although he, Mr. Kerry and Mr. Hagel sought to present a unified front, they have had differences over how to respond to the conflict in Syria in recent months. Mr. Kerry has pushed to provide military support to the rebels and consider deeper military involvement, and General Dempsey has repeatedly highlighted the risks of intervention.
Similar differences were on display among lawmakers who spoke during the Senate hearing or after the meeting with Mr. Obama, Mr. Kerry and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House minority leader, said she supported the president and sent a letter to fellow Democrats urging that they fall into line. But she conceded, “In my district, I don’t think people are convinced that military action is necessary.”
Ms. Pelosi’s comments reflected her dilemma as a leader of the president’s party, which still has a strong liberal antiwar wing. “The American people need to hear more about the intelligence,” she said.
A spokesman for Mr. Boehner said that despite his support for Mr. Obama, the Republican leadership would not lean on other Republicans to vote for military action and would leave that lobbying to the White House. Mr. Boehner’s stance will ease the pressure on him from members of his party, who believe the United States has no business in Syria. It will increase the pressure on Ms. Pelosi.
The calendar is Mr. Obama’s enemy: Many members from both parties are still back in their districts hearing from constituents, and the feedback, based on numerous interviews, is overwhelmingly negative.
On Tuesday, however, a powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, threw its support behind military action in Syria, citing the need to send a strong message to Iran and the militant group Hezbollah, both of which support Mr. Assad.
“Iran is watching us very carefully,” said Representative Eliot L. Engel, Democrat of New York and a staunch defender of Israel.
Jennifer Steinhauer, Ashley Parker and Jeremy Peters contributed reporting.
*
Multimedia
A Broader Look at the War Across Syria
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/08/30/world/middleeast/A-Broader-Look-at-the-War-Across-Syria.html
Video: Kerry Calls for Action on Syria
http://www.nytimes.com/video/2013/09/03/us/politics/100000002419345/kerry-calls-for-action-on-syria-.html
Video: No Ground Troops in Syria, Kerry Insists
http://www.nytimes.com/video/2013/09/03/us/100000002419637/no-ground-troops-in-syria-kerry-insists.html
Video: Hagel Outlines Goals in Syria
http://www.nytimes.com/video/2013/09/03/world/middleeast/100000002419347/hagel-outlines-goals-in-syria.html
Document: Senate Resolution on Syria
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/03/us/politics/senate-resolution-on-syria.html
Document: U.S. Assessment of Syrian Use of Chemical Weapons
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/08/31/world/middleeast/31syria-chemical-weapons-assessment.html
Related
Officials Make Case for Strike Before Senate Panel (September 4, 2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/world/middleeast/officials-make-case-for-strike-before-senate-panel.html
Assad Wages War Shielded With a Smile (September 4, 2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/world/middleeast/assad-wages-war-shielded-with-a-smile.html
Related in Opinion
Op-Ed Contributors: On Syria, a U.N. Vote Isn’t Optional (September 4, 2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/opinion/on-syria-a-un-vote-isnt-optional.html
Editorial: Debating the Case for Force (September 3, 2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/opinion/debating-the-case-for-force.html
Op-Ed Contributor: NATO Must Help Obama on Syria (September 3, 2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/opinion/nato-must-help-obama-on-syria.html
*
© 2013 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/us/politics/obama-administration-presses-case-on-syria.html [ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/us/politics/obama-administration-presses-case-on-syria.html?pagewanted=all ] [with comments]
--
Hillary Clinton Supports Obama's Call To Congress To Approve Military Action In Syria
09/03/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/hillary-clinton-obama-syria_n_3862442.html [with embedded video report, and (approaching 4,000) comments] [also (linked) at http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=91657147 ]
--
Susan Rice On Syria: White House is 'Quite Confident' Congress Will Support A Strike
09/03/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/susan-rice-syria_n_3863134.html [with embedded video, and comments]
--
Putin Talks Syria, 'Doesn't Exclude' Supporting U.N. Resolution Despite Warnings
By JOHN DANISZEWSKI, LYNN BERRY and VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV
09/04/13 04:12 AM ET EDT
NOVO-OGARYOVO, Russia — President Vladimir Putin warned the West against taking one-sided action in Syria but also said Russia "doesn't exclude" supporting a U.N. resolution on punitive military strikes if it is proved that Damascus used poison gas on its own people.
In a wide-ranging interview with The Associated Press and Russia's state Channel 1 television, Putin said Moscow has provided some components of the S-300 air defense missile system to Syria but has frozen further shipments. He suggested that Russia may sell the potent missile systems elsewhere if Western nations attack Syria without U.N. Security Council backing.
The interview Tuesday night at Putin's country residence outside the Russian capital was the only one he granted prior to the summit of G-20 nations in St. Petersburg, which opens Thursday. The summit was supposed to concentrate on the global economy but now looks likely to be dominated by the international crisis over allegations that the Syrian government used chemical weapons in the country's civil war.
Putin said he felt sorry that President Barack Obama canceled a one-on-one meeting in Moscow that was supposed to have happened before the summit. But he expressed hope the two would have serious discussions about Syria and other issues in St. Petersburg.
"President Obama hasn't been elected by the American people in order to be pleasant to Russia. And your humble servant hasn't been elected by the people of Russia to be pleasant to someone either," he said of their relationship.
"We work, we argue about some issues. We are human. Sometimes one of us gets vexed. But I would like to repeat once again that global mutual interests form a good basis for finding a joint solution to our problems," Putin said.
He also denied that Russia has anti-gay policies – an issue that has threatened to embarrass the country as it prepares to host the Winter Olympics in February.
The Russian leader, a year into his third term as president, appeared to go out of his way to be conciliatory amid a growing chill in U.S.-Russian relations. The two countries have sparred over Syria, the Edward Snowden affair, Russia's treatment of its opposition and the diminishing scope in Russia for civil society groups that receive funding from the West.
Putin said it was "ludicrous" that the government of President Bashar Assad – a staunch ally of Russia – would use chemical weapons at a time when it was holding sway against the rebels.
"From our viewpoint, it seems absolutely absurd that the armed forces, the regular armed forces, which are on the offensive today and in some areas have encircled the so-called rebels and are finishing them off, that in these conditions they would start using forbidden chemical weapons while realizing quite well that it could serve as a pretext for applying sanctions against them, including the use of force," he said.
The Obama administration says 1,429 people died in the Aug. 21 attack in a Damascus suburb. Casualty estimates by other groups are far lower, and Assad's government blames the episode on rebels trying to overthrow him. A U.N. inspection team is awaiting lab results on tissue and soil samples it collected while in Syria before completing a report.
"If there are data that the chemical weapons have been used, and used specifically by the regular army, this evidence should be submitted to the U.N. Security Council," added Putin, a former officer in the Soviet KGB. "And it ought to be convincing. It shouldn't be based on some rumors and information obtained by special services through some kind of eavesdropping, some conversations and things like that."
He noted that even in the U.S., "there are experts who believe that the evidence presented by the administration doesn't look convincing, and they don't exclude the possibility that the opposition conducted a premeditated provocative action trying to give their sponsors a pretext for military intervention."
He compared the evidence presented by Washington to false data used by the Bush administration about weapons of mass destruction to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
"All these arguments turned out to be untenable, but they were used to launch a military action, which many in the U.S. called a mistake. Did we forget about that?" Putin said.
He said he "doesn't exclude" backing the use of force against Syria at the United Nations if there is objective evidence proving that Assad's regime used chemical weapons against its people. But he strongly warned Washington against launching military action without U.N. approval, saying it would represent an aggression.
Putin reinforced his demand that before taking action, Obama needed approval from the U.N. Security Council. Russia can veto resolutions in the council and has protected Syria from punitive actions there before.
Asked what kind of evidence on chemical weapons use would convince Russia, Putin said "it should be a deep and specific probe containing evidence that would be obvious and prove beyond doubt who did it and what means were used."
Putin said it was "too early" to talk about what Russia would do if the U.S. attacked Syria.
"We have our ideas about what we will do and how we will do it in case the situation develops toward the use of force or otherwise," he said. "We have our plans."
Putin called the S-300 air defense missile system "a very efficient weapon" and said that Russia had a contract for its delivery of the S-300s to Syria. "We have supplied some of the components, but the delivery hasn't been completed. We have suspended it for now," he said.
"But if we see that steps are taken that violate the existing international norms, we shall think how we should act in the future, in particular regarding supplies of such sensitive weapons to certain regions of the world," he said.
The statement could be a veiled threat to revive a contract for the delivery of the S-300s to Iran, which Russia canceled a few years ago under strong U.S. and Israeli pressure.
Putin praised Obama as a frank and constructive negotiating partner and denied reports that he had taken personal offense at remarks by Obama comparing Putin's body language to that of a slouching, bored student. Putin said appearances can be deceiving.
Putin also accused U.S. intelligence agencies of bungling efforts to apprehend Snowden, the National Security Agency leaker, who is wanted in the U.S. on espionage charges. He said the United States could have allowed Snowden to go to a country where his security would not be guaranteed or intercepted him along the way, but instead pressured other countries not to accept him or even to allow a plane carrying him to cross their airspace. Russia has granted him temporary asylum.
Putin also gave the first official confirmation that Snowden had been in touch with Russian officials in Hong Kong before flying to Moscow on June 23, but said he only learned that Snowden was on the flight two hours before it arrived. Putin once again denied that Russia's security services are working with Snowden, whose stay in Russia has been shrouded in secrecy.
On another topic, he denied at length charges that Russia has anti-gay policies, indicating that Obama was welcome to meet with gay and lesbian activists in Russia during his visit. He even said he might meet with a similar group himself if there is interest from the gay community in Russia.
Putin rejected the criticism of a Russian law banning gay propaganda that prompted some activists to call for the boycott of the 2014 Winter Games in Sochi, arguing that it wouldn't infringe on the rights of gays.
He also said that athletes and activists would not be punished if they raise rainbow flags or paint their fingernails in rainbow colors at the Feb. 7-23 Olympics.
But he clearly has no intention of allowing a gay pride parade or other such actions: Last month, Putin signed a decree banning all demonstrations and rallies in Sochi throughout the Winter Games.
As for the body language between Putin and Obama that some have said suggested a difficult working relationship, the Russian president urged everyone to avoid jumping to conclusions.
"There are some gestures, of course, that you can only interpret one way, but no one has ever seen those kinds of gestures directed by Obama at me or by me at Obama, and I hope that never happens," he said.
"Everything else is fantasy."
Associated Press writer Laura Mills in Moscow contributed to this report.
© 2013 Associated Press
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/04/putin-syria_n_3863762.html [with comments]
--
Rand Paul Accuses Obama Of Reducing Congress' Role In Syria To 'Constitutional Theater'
09/03/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/rand-paul-syria_n_3862624.html [with embedded video, and comments]
--
Rand Paul: Filibuster a possibility on Syria vote
By Sean Sullivan, Published: September 3, 2013 at 7:07 pm
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of the most outspoken opponents of military action in Syria, wouldn’t rule out the possibility Tuesday of launching a standing filibuster over the issue in the Senate.
“I can’t imagine that we won’t require 60 votes on this,” Paul told reporters on an afternoon conference call. “Whether there’s an actual standing filibuster — I’ve got to check my shoes and check my ability to hold my water. And we will see. I haven’t made a decision on that.”
Paul attracted widespread attention in March when he launched a marathon filibuster [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/03/07/icymi-the-complete-rand-paul-filibuster/ ] over the Obama administration’s use of unmanned aerial drones, winning support from some GOP colleagues and prompting criticism from others.
When it comes to Syria, Paul said he believes the best hope for defeating a resolution to authorize military action will come in the House. He reiterated his view that an attack on Syria would create more turbulence and danger in the region, and may not even disable the Syrian government’s ability to launch chemical attacks.
“At this point, I think it’s a bad idea,” Paul said.
While Paul said he was pleased President Obama asked for congressional authority before acting, he added that he finds the possibility that the president may launch a strike even in the face of rejection from Congress “insulting.”
The senator said the reception from his constituents back home in Kentucky has been overwhelmingly negative toward the prospect of military action.
“I’m told the phone calls are at least nine out of ten against,” Paul said, before adding that his staff informed him it was even more lopsided.
© 2013 The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/09/03/rand-paul-filibuster-a-possibility-on-syria-vote/ [with comments]
--
Jeff Flake Attacks Obama For Making GOP Vote On Syria
09/03/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/jeff-flake-obama-syria_n_3862481.html [with embedded video, and comments]
--
Allies’ Intelligence Differs on Details, but Still Points to Assad Forces
The body of a victim of a chemical weapons attack was buried on Aug. 21. The United States says 1,429 Syrians were killed.
Bassam Khabieh/Reuters
Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel spoke to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Doug Mills/The New York Times
By DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMITT
Published: September 3, 2013
WASHINGTON — The British say that there have been 14 Syrian chemical attacks since 2012 and that the last, the most horrific, killed “at least 350” Syrian civilians. The Americans count fewer attacks, but put a stunningly higher, quite precise number on the casualties: 1,429.
The French argue that only President Bashar al-Assad of Syria and the closest members of his clan can order chemical attacks; publicly, the Americans say that, at least in the Aug. 21 attack that led President Obama to call for military action, it is unclear where the orders came from. In classified briefings they are far more specific in saying that the commander of Syria’s infamous Unit 450, which controls its chemical weapons, gave the order.
In short, the differences in intelligence estimates among the United States and its closest allies are considerable but, in their view, not very significant. All come to the same bottom line: all the attacks involved sarin gas, only the Assad government had control over the chemical agents, and, whether they were premeditated or the result of “sloppiness,” as one senior American official put it, the results were devastating.
As they emerge from unclassified and classified briefings, members of Congress say the Obama administration’s case against the Assad government is convincing and leaves them with little doubt that it was responsible for the attacks. Even those most conscious of the intelligence errors that preceded the invasion of Iraq concede that this case is different. Iraq was about assessing whether weapons existed, they say, while Syria is all about who used them, and whether a military strike would prevent — or encourage — their use again.
“More and more members of Congress are finding the evidence that Assad used chemical weapons compelling,” said Representative Adam B. Schiff, a California Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, who has been briefed on the administration’s evidence and is skeptical about whether the United States should intervene without the help of traditional allies. “The question now is, what should our response be?”
Still, the very public way that the Americans, French, British and Israelis have felt it necessary to publish their evidence — even where it differs — underscores the huge post-Iraq sensitivities involved in justifying the need for new military involvement in the Mideast. And until the most recent gas attack in Syria, reliable assessments of the use of chemical weapons proved particularly difficult.
The Americans say their assessment is based on “multiple streams of information, including reporting of Syrian officials planning and executing chemical weapons attacks,” code words for intercepts of conversations. It also refers to “human, signals and geospatial intelligence that reveal regime activities” connected to attack preparations.
But a look at the intelligence judgment made public by the United States, Britain, France and Israel suggests that the United States was reluctant — and slow — to conclude that small-scale chemical weapon attacks began in Syria last year. And even today, Washington cannot agree with its allies on exactly how those attacks began.
The Israelis were the first to press the case, declaring in an April 23 presentation at a security conference that it had clear evidence that Syrian forces had used chemical weapons on a small scale. But no sooner had a senior official of Israel’s military intelligence unit laid out his case than Secretary of State John Kerry, seeing the reports, called Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, apparently out of concern that such a declaration would force Mr. Obama’s hand.
Mr. Kerry told reporters that the Israeli leader “was not in a position to confirm” the intelligence assessment. American officials said later that they had concerns about the chain of custody on hair, blood and urine samples from some of those attacks, and feared the evidence might have been tinkered with by the opposition.
Now the British say that in their judgment, the Syrian government “used lethal C.W. on 14 occasions from 2012,” adding that “this judgment was made with the highest possible level of certainty following an exhaustive review.” They added, “A clear pattern of regime use has therefore been established.”
While the United States eventually came to a similar conclusion, it was with only a moderate level of confidence — meaning that some of the nation’s 16 intelligence agencies disagreed. Those internal debates did not get resolved until the Aug. 21 attack, on which all the different agencies agreed.
But it is the French who have been the most specific. They argued in their Monday assessment that the Aug. 21 attack involved “massive use of chemical agents” against civilian populations in several suburbs of Damascus. It was followed by “significant ground and aerial strikes” with conventional munitions that were aimed at the “destruction of evidence” in those areas.
The French also warned that “our services possess information, from a national source, that leave one to think that other actions of this nature could again be conducted.”
Chemical weapons can be delivered many ways, from helicopters (which the French say were used in April, in small attacks) to small rockets (which the Americans say delivered the deadliest attacks.). The effects are sometimes hard to detect, and American officials admit they were caught off guard by a string of smaller attacks starting in March, with no established way of gathering evidence of chemical weapons use.
But in the Aug. 21 attack, there were so many dead and so much forensic evidence that only Russia has argued that it was the rebels themselves who launched the attack — and they have offered no details to back that claim. “We are certain that none of the opposition has the weapons or capacity to effect a strike of this scale, particularly from the heart of regime territory,” Mr. Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday. The British say they have come to the same conclusion.
In their briefings for lawmakers, administration officials typically begin with a primer on Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles, assessed to be among the largest in the world. Only the French have offered a detailed accounting, including “several hundreds of tons of sulfur mustard” and “tens of tons of VX,” among the most toxic chemical agents. The French also speak of “several hundreds of tons of sarin,” and in the closed-door sessions American intelligence officials tell lawmakers that they believe the Syrian forces are using sarin exclusively in their attacks.
Unit 450, the secretive Syrian Air Force organization that controls the country’s chemical weapon stockpiles, is a highly vetted outfit that is deemed one of the most loyal to the Assad government, given the importance of the weapons in its custody, according to American intelligence officials. “If you are rising through the top ranks of military loyalists to Assad,” said Joseph Holliday, a fellow with the Institute for the Study of War in Washington, “you are likely to have found yourself high up in the 450 hierarchy.”
According to a French intelligence assessment of Syria’s chemical weapons program, Unit 450 “is in charge of the filling of chemical ammunitions, as well as the security of chemical sites and stockpiles.” The Israelis bombed missiles in a convoy just outside one of the center’s crucial sites in January.
Only Mr. Assad and senior members of his Alawite clan are authorized to employ the deadly arsenal, according to the French assessment issued on Monday. The order is then forwarded to commanding officers within Unit 450 as well as to military planners in Damascus who decide the target, the choice of weapon and which toxic agent to use, the report said.
But no one can agree on a motive for Mr. Assad in the Aug. 21 attack. Some American officials believe that the intent was to continue low-level chemical attacks that would be hard for the West to prove, and the American assessment said that “regime officials were witting of and directed the attack.” The British are more circumspect: “There is no obvious political or military trigger for regime use of C.W. on an apparently larger scale now.”
During a classified briefing for about 30 lawmakers on Tuesday, American officials said that while there was no evidence that the Syrian president himself had given the orders for the most recent deadly attacks, they believe the directives came from generals close to Mr. Assad, including the commander of Unit 450. “It rose to a very, very high level,” said one Democratic lawmaker who was in the briefing.
In the past year, American officials have used back channels to warn the unit’s commanders that they would be held personally responsible if the government used its chemical weapons. But the history of the past few months suggests that effort yielded little or no results — perhaps because the members of that unit, almost all from Mr. Assad’s Alawite sect, view the weapons stockpiles as one of the last guarantees of their survival.
Steven Erlanger contributed reporting from London.
*
Multimedia
Video Feature
Watching Syria’s War
Syrian Refugees Harassed and Arrested in Egypt
http://projects.nytimes.com/watching-syrias-war
Video: History as a Guide in Syria
http://www.nytimes.com/video/2013/08/29/world/middleeast/100000002412790/history-as-a-guide-in-syria.html
*
© 2013 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/world/middleeast/allies-intelligence-on-syria-all-points-to-assad-forces.html [ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/world/middleeast/allies-intelligence-on-syria-all-points-to-assad-forces.html?pagewanted=all ]
--
(linked in):
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=91639493 and (the many) following, including
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=91655158 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=91643847 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=91656984 (in full, second-last item in the post to which this is a reply) and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=91658230 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=91660054 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=91657695 (and any future following);
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=91559070 and preceding and following
Supporters of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad gather in Damascus.
Factions of Republicans and Democrats are on either side of the intervention debate -- but for very different reasons.
Sep 3 2013
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/09/how-the-syria-debate-is-splitting-both-parties/279301/ [with comments]
--
A Progressive Perspective: Why Congress Should Approve the President's Request to Punish the Use of Chemical Weapons
09/02/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/a-progressive-perspective_b_3854243.html [with comments]
--
GOP’s sabotage fetish: Can an honest Syria debate occur?
John McCain addresses the media as Lindsey Graham listens, on possible military action against Syria, in Washington September 2, 2013.
Obama was right to bring a vote to Congress before intervening in Syria. But a worst-case scenario could greet him
Sep 3, 2013
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/03/gops_sabotage_fetish_can_an_honest_syria_debate_occur/ [with comments]
--
Drawing a Line on Syria, U.S. Keeps Eye on Iran Policy
Iran's foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, with Marzieh Afkham, ministry spokeswoman.
Abedin Taherkenareh/European Pressphoto Agency
By ROBERT F. WORTH
Published: September 2, 2013
WASHINGTON — As the Obama administration makes a case for punitive airstrikes on the Syrian government, its strongest card in the view of some supporters of a military response may be the need to send a message to another country: Iran. If the United States does not enforce its self-imposed “red line” on Syria’s use of chemical weapons, this thinking goes, Iran will smell weakness and press ahead more boldly in its quest for nuclear weapons.
But that message may be clashing with a simultaneous effort by American officials to explore dialogue with Iran’s moderate new president, Hassan Rouhani, in the latest expression of Washington’s long struggle to balance toughness with diplomacy in its relations with a longtime adversary.
Two recent diplomatic ventures have raised speculation about a possible back channel between Washington and Tehran. Last week, Jeffrey Feltman, a high State Department official in President Obama’s first term who is now a senior envoy at the United Nations, visited Iran to meet with the new foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, and discussed possible reactions to an American airstrike in Syria.
At the same time, the sultan of Oman, who has often served as an intermediary between the United States and Iran, was in Tehran meeting with Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Neither Mr. Feltman nor Sultan Qaboos bin Said al Said of Oman has said anything about carrying messages between the two governments. Still, those overtures, along with some surprisingly mild noises from Iranian leaders, have raised hopes that Washington may be able to thread the needle — to strike Syria without compromising efforts toward an Iranian-American détente before meetings at the United Nations General Assembly this month.
Those hopes may well be premature: even if Mr. Rouhani and his foreign minister are eager for a deal ending the dispute over the future of Iran’s nuclear program, it is far from clear that they would be able to deliver one. Negotiations have been stalled since last year, and final authority on foreign policy rests with Ayatollah Khamenei. The Iranian president’s hand, whatever his politics, is weakened further during national security crises, analysts say, and hard-liners are likely to be empowered.
Like Mr. Obama, Mr. Rouhani — who has declared his goal of resolving tensions with the West and bringing “more transparency” to nuclear talks — is vulnerable to domestic conservatives, who still blame him for having signed an agreement in 2003 opening Iran to United Nations inspectors.
“I am convinced that Rouhani and Zarif want to overcome the hostility between the U.S. and Iran, but a military strike on Syria could be a spoiler,” said Hossein Mousavian, a former nuclear negotiator for Iran who is now a visiting scholar at Princeton University.
Even as Secretary of State John Kerry worked to build support for a strike, his Iranian counterpart, Mr. Zarif, known as a moderate who hopes for dialogue, seemed to be working to avert one, declaring in an interview on Sunday that Iran warned the United States last year about chemical weapons getting into the hands of Syrian rebels. On Monday, he even tried to suggest that Mr. Obama was closer to his way of thinking, saying the American president was being pushed toward war by hard-liners in his own government.
Nuclear weapons aside, the debate over chemical weapons has raised questions about the strength of Iran’s commitment to the government of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria. Iran suffered terrible losses to chemical weapon strikes during its decade-long war with Iraq in the 1980s, and the issue is a delicate one for many Iranians. Mr. Rouhani aroused some controversy last week by strongly condemning the use of chemical weapons in Syria [ https://twitter.com/HassanRouhani/status/372266584070291456 ] on his English-language Twitter feed [ https://twitter.com/HassanRouhani ], without saying who used them.
Mr. Zarif made similar comments on his Facebook page, and others went further, including a former Iranian diplomat who suggested that Iran should not put all its eggs in one basket. A former president of Iran, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, was quoted in Iranian state media accusing Mr. Assad of using chemical weapons on his own people, though the government later disavowed those comments.
But Syria remains an essential ally for Iran, and a crucial link with Hezbollah, the Shiite movement based in Lebanon. There is no sign that Iran’s leaders are backing off; an Iranian delegation visited Mr. Assad in Damascus on Sunday to reaffirm its country’s commitment. But with the Iranian economy in tatters, the military support to Syria is costly.
“The question is, if things go badly for Assad on the battlefield, at what point would Iran let the rope go?” said Mehrzad Boroujerdi, the director of the Middle East studies program at Syracuse University.
If more evidence emerged that Mr. Assad’s military had used chemical weapons, that would raise the political cost of continuing to support him, Mr. Boroujerdi added.
One thing is clear: the statements by Iran’s leaders have shifted from earlier this year, when high-ranking Iranian officials said a foreign attack on Syria would be treated as an attack on Iran itself. There may even be some relief at the prospect of more direct American involvement in the Syrian conflict, which has occasionally been cast as “Iran’s Vietnam,” some analysts say.
“The reality is that Obama’s military action will make the Syrian tragedy his and not Iran’s,” wrote Farideh Farhi, an Iran scholar at the University of Hawaii, in an analysis published online at Lobelog.com. “And in Iran’s postelection environment, in which the country has moved toward national reconciliation — both among the elite and between the government and the population — nothing suits the Islamic Republic better than divesting itself from this issue quietly.”
For all their mutual antipathy, the United States and Iran may ultimately find common ground in Syria.
“The United States and Iran are fighting a zero-sum proxy war in Syria at the moment,” said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “If and when Assad falls, the two sides will have a mutual adversary in radical Sunni jihadists.”
*
Multimedia
Timeline on Iran’s Nuclear Program
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03/20/world/middleeast/Iran-nuclear-timeline.html
Related
Times Topic: Conflict in Syria
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/syria/index.html
President Gains McCain’s Backing on Syria Attack (September 3, 2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/world/middleeast/syria.html
Attacks Delayed, Syrians Juggle Anticipation With Attempts at Normalcy (September 3, 2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/world/middleeast/syria-obama.html
Vote on Syria Sets Up Foreign Policy Clash Between 2 Wings of G.O.P. (September 3, 2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/us/politics/syria-vote-sets-up-foreign-policy-clash-in-gop.html
Flow of Refugees Out of Syria Passes Two Million (September 3, 2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/world/middleeast/flow-of-refugees-out-of-syria-passes-two-million.html
*
© 2013 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/world/middleeast/drawing-a-line-on-syria-us-eyes-iran-talks.html [with comments]
--
House Leaders Express Their Support for Syria Strike
President Obama, flanked by Speaker John A. Boehner and Representative Nancy Pelosi, met with Congressional leaders at the White House on Tuesday.
Christopher Gregory/The New York Times
Speaker John A. Boehner outside the White House after a meeting on Syria with President Obama on Tuesday.
Christopher Gregory/The New York Times
Sen. John McCain before a television interview on the crisis in Syria, in Washington on Tuesday.
J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press
By MARK LANDLER, MICHAEL R. GORDON and THOM SHANKER
Published: September 3, 2013
WASHINGTON — President Obama won the support on Tuesday of Republican and Democratic leaders in the House for an attack on Syria, giving him a foundation to win broader approval for military action from a Congress that still harbors deep reservations.
Speaker John A. Boehner, who with other Congressional leaders met Mr. Obama in the Oval Office, said afterward that he would “support the president’s call to action,” an endorsement quickly echoed by the House majority leader, Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia.
On Tuesday evening, Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee agreed on the wording of a resolution [ http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/03/us/politics/senate-resolution-on-syria.html ] that would give Mr. Obama the authority to carry out a strike against Syria, for a period of 60 days, with one 30-day extension. A committee vote on the measure could come as early as Wednesday.
Uncertainties abound, particularly in the House, where the imprimatur of the Republican leadership does not guarantee approval by rebellious rank and file, and where vocal factions in both parties are opposed to anything that could entangle the nation in another messy conflict in the Middle East.
Still, the expressions of support from top Republicans who rarely agree with Mr. Obama on anything suggest the White House may be on firmer footing than seemed the case on Saturday, when the president abruptly halted his plans for action in the face of growing protests from Congress.
Mr. Obama is now headed to Sweden and Russia, where he will try to shore up an international coalition to punish Syria for a chemical weapons attack and will probably encounter some of the same debates that are cleaving the Capitol.
Before his departure, the White House intensified what has become the most extraordinary lobbying campaign of Mr. Obama’s presidency as it deployed members of his war council and enlisted political alumni of his 2008 campaign to press the argument with the public.
“This is not the time for armchair isolationism,” said Secretary of State John Kerry, who answered sharp questions and defended the administration’s strategy for Syria in nearly four hours of sometimes sharp exchanges before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Mr. Kerry stirred some confusion about the potential scope of American military involvement when he tried to carve out an exception to a proposed Congressional prohibition on the use of ground troops in Syria — something Mr. Obama and other officials have long ruled out as a general principle.
If Syria were to fall into complete chaos and if the chemical weapons of President Bashar al-Assad’s government there were at risk of falling into the hands of a militant group like Al Nusra, Mr. Kerry said, “I don’t want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to a president of the United States to secure our country.”
Later, under questioning by Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the ranking Republican, Mr. Kerry walked back his comment, insisting that he had only been speaking about a hypothetical case. “Let’s shut that door now as tight as we can,” Mr. Kerry said, without quite doing so. “There will not be American boots on the ground with respect to the civil war.”
The Senate resolution — released on Tuesday night by Mr. Corker and the committee’s chairman, Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey — would limit the president’s options and prohibit the use of ground forces. Any strike, it says, should be “tailored” to only deter Syria from using chemical weapons again and to cripple its capacity to do so.
The resolution would prohibit “boots on the ground” and require “the Obama administration to submit their broader plan for Syria,” Mr. Corker said in a statement.
Mr. Menendez added, “We have an obligation to act.”
In one of the most heated moments of the hearing earlier, Senator Rand Paul, the Kentucky Republican, said that Mr. Obama might go through with an attack if Congress failed to authorize it. Mr. Kerry said that he did not know what Mr. Obama would decide but that the president had the authority to do so under the Constitution.
It was a vivid tableau: Mr. Kerry — the former senator and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who voted to authorize the Iraq war in 2003, then turned against it — imploring his ex-colleagues to authorize an act of war.
Although he appeared alongside Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel — another former senator — and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, Mr. Kerry dominated the hearing. He seemed keenly aware of the echoes of Iraq.
“We were here for that vote,” Mr. Kerry said. “We voted. So we are especially sensitive — Chuck and I — to never again asking any member of Congress to take a vote on faulty intelligence. And that is why our intelligence community has scrubbed and rescrubbed the evidence.”
Mr. Kerry said the intelligence proved that the “Assad regime prepared for this attack, issued instructions to prepare for this attack, warned its own forces to use gas masks,” and the intelligence included “physical evidence of where the rockets came from and when.”
Mr. Hagel, who, like Mr. Kerry, is a veteran of the Vietnam War, used another argument used by previous administrations: a warning that authoritarian governments with arsenals of unconventional weapons could transfer them to terrorist groups.
Casting the issue as one of self-defense, the defense secretary also underscored the threat to American military personnel across the region. He said other dictators around the world and militant groups like Hezbollah might be emboldened if the United States did not punish the Assad government. “The use of chemical weapons in Syria is not only an assault on humanity,” Mr. Hagel said. “It is a serious threat to America’s national security interests and those of our closest allies.”
Before the hearing began, and again after Mr. Kerry spoke, protesters from the antiwar group Code Pink jumped up and shouted against military action. “Kerry, no more war in Syria!” one demonstrator exclaimed, adding that America needed health care and education more than military action.
Although the declared goal of a strike on Syria would be to degrade its ability to launch a chemical weapons attack and deter any future use, General Dempsey was asked whether such an attack would also diminish to a broader extent the Assad military’s abilities.
“Yes,” he replied.
General Dempsey was a subdued presence in the hearing. Although he, Mr. Kerry and Mr. Hagel sought to present a unified front, they have had differences over how to respond to the conflict in Syria in recent months. Mr. Kerry has pushed to provide military support to the rebels and consider deeper military involvement, and General Dempsey has repeatedly highlighted the risks of intervention.
Similar differences were on display among lawmakers who spoke during the Senate hearing or after the meeting with Mr. Obama, Mr. Kerry and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House minority leader, said she supported the president and sent a letter to fellow Democrats urging that they fall into line. But she conceded, “In my district, I don’t think people are convinced that military action is necessary.”
Ms. Pelosi’s comments reflected her dilemma as a leader of the president’s party, which still has a strong liberal antiwar wing. “The American people need to hear more about the intelligence,” she said.
A spokesman for Mr. Boehner said that despite his support for Mr. Obama, the Republican leadership would not lean on other Republicans to vote for military action and would leave that lobbying to the White House. Mr. Boehner’s stance will ease the pressure on him from members of his party, who believe the United States has no business in Syria. It will increase the pressure on Ms. Pelosi.
The calendar is Mr. Obama’s enemy: Many members from both parties are still back in their districts hearing from constituents, and the feedback, based on numerous interviews, is overwhelmingly negative.
On Tuesday, however, a powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, threw its support behind military action in Syria, citing the need to send a strong message to Iran and the militant group Hezbollah, both of which support Mr. Assad.
“Iran is watching us very carefully,” said Representative Eliot L. Engel, Democrat of New York and a staunch defender of Israel.
Jennifer Steinhauer, Ashley Parker and Jeremy Peters contributed reporting.
*
Multimedia
A Broader Look at the War Across Syria
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/08/30/world/middleeast/A-Broader-Look-at-the-War-Across-Syria.html
Video: Kerry Calls for Action on Syria
http://www.nytimes.com/video/2013/09/03/us/politics/100000002419345/kerry-calls-for-action-on-syria-.html
Video: No Ground Troops in Syria, Kerry Insists
http://www.nytimes.com/video/2013/09/03/us/100000002419637/no-ground-troops-in-syria-kerry-insists.html
Video: Hagel Outlines Goals in Syria
http://www.nytimes.com/video/2013/09/03/world/middleeast/100000002419347/hagel-outlines-goals-in-syria.html
Document: Senate Resolution on Syria
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/03/us/politics/senate-resolution-on-syria.html
Document: U.S. Assessment of Syrian Use of Chemical Weapons
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/08/31/world/middleeast/31syria-chemical-weapons-assessment.html
Related
Officials Make Case for Strike Before Senate Panel (September 4, 2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/world/middleeast/officials-make-case-for-strike-before-senate-panel.html
Assad Wages War Shielded With a Smile (September 4, 2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/world/middleeast/assad-wages-war-shielded-with-a-smile.html
Related in Opinion
Op-Ed Contributors: On Syria, a U.N. Vote Isn’t Optional (September 4, 2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/opinion/on-syria-a-un-vote-isnt-optional.html
Editorial: Debating the Case for Force (September 3, 2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/opinion/debating-the-case-for-force.html
Op-Ed Contributor: NATO Must Help Obama on Syria (September 3, 2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/opinion/nato-must-help-obama-on-syria.html
*
© 2013 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/us/politics/obama-administration-presses-case-on-syria.html [ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/us/politics/obama-administration-presses-case-on-syria.html?pagewanted=all ] [with comments]
--
Hillary Clinton Supports Obama's Call To Congress To Approve Military Action In Syria
09/03/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/hillary-clinton-obama-syria_n_3862442.html [with embedded video report, and (approaching 4,000) comments] [also (linked) at http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=91657147 ]
--
Susan Rice On Syria: White House is 'Quite Confident' Congress Will Support A Strike
09/03/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/susan-rice-syria_n_3863134.html [with embedded video, and comments]
--
Putin Talks Syria, 'Doesn't Exclude' Supporting U.N. Resolution Despite Warnings
By JOHN DANISZEWSKI, LYNN BERRY and VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV
09/04/13 04:12 AM ET EDT
NOVO-OGARYOVO, Russia — President Vladimir Putin warned the West against taking one-sided action in Syria but also said Russia "doesn't exclude" supporting a U.N. resolution on punitive military strikes if it is proved that Damascus used poison gas on its own people.
In a wide-ranging interview with The Associated Press and Russia's state Channel 1 television, Putin said Moscow has provided some components of the S-300 air defense missile system to Syria but has frozen further shipments. He suggested that Russia may sell the potent missile systems elsewhere if Western nations attack Syria without U.N. Security Council backing.
The interview Tuesday night at Putin's country residence outside the Russian capital was the only one he granted prior to the summit of G-20 nations in St. Petersburg, which opens Thursday. The summit was supposed to concentrate on the global economy but now looks likely to be dominated by the international crisis over allegations that the Syrian government used chemical weapons in the country's civil war.
Putin said he felt sorry that President Barack Obama canceled a one-on-one meeting in Moscow that was supposed to have happened before the summit. But he expressed hope the two would have serious discussions about Syria and other issues in St. Petersburg.
"President Obama hasn't been elected by the American people in order to be pleasant to Russia. And your humble servant hasn't been elected by the people of Russia to be pleasant to someone either," he said of their relationship.
"We work, we argue about some issues. We are human. Sometimes one of us gets vexed. But I would like to repeat once again that global mutual interests form a good basis for finding a joint solution to our problems," Putin said.
He also denied that Russia has anti-gay policies – an issue that has threatened to embarrass the country as it prepares to host the Winter Olympics in February.
The Russian leader, a year into his third term as president, appeared to go out of his way to be conciliatory amid a growing chill in U.S.-Russian relations. The two countries have sparred over Syria, the Edward Snowden affair, Russia's treatment of its opposition and the diminishing scope in Russia for civil society groups that receive funding from the West.
Putin said it was "ludicrous" that the government of President Bashar Assad – a staunch ally of Russia – would use chemical weapons at a time when it was holding sway against the rebels.
"From our viewpoint, it seems absolutely absurd that the armed forces, the regular armed forces, which are on the offensive today and in some areas have encircled the so-called rebels and are finishing them off, that in these conditions they would start using forbidden chemical weapons while realizing quite well that it could serve as a pretext for applying sanctions against them, including the use of force," he said.
The Obama administration says 1,429 people died in the Aug. 21 attack in a Damascus suburb. Casualty estimates by other groups are far lower, and Assad's government blames the episode on rebels trying to overthrow him. A U.N. inspection team is awaiting lab results on tissue and soil samples it collected while in Syria before completing a report.
"If there are data that the chemical weapons have been used, and used specifically by the regular army, this evidence should be submitted to the U.N. Security Council," added Putin, a former officer in the Soviet KGB. "And it ought to be convincing. It shouldn't be based on some rumors and information obtained by special services through some kind of eavesdropping, some conversations and things like that."
He noted that even in the U.S., "there are experts who believe that the evidence presented by the administration doesn't look convincing, and they don't exclude the possibility that the opposition conducted a premeditated provocative action trying to give their sponsors a pretext for military intervention."
He compared the evidence presented by Washington to false data used by the Bush administration about weapons of mass destruction to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
"All these arguments turned out to be untenable, but they were used to launch a military action, which many in the U.S. called a mistake. Did we forget about that?" Putin said.
He said he "doesn't exclude" backing the use of force against Syria at the United Nations if there is objective evidence proving that Assad's regime used chemical weapons against its people. But he strongly warned Washington against launching military action without U.N. approval, saying it would represent an aggression.
Putin reinforced his demand that before taking action, Obama needed approval from the U.N. Security Council. Russia can veto resolutions in the council and has protected Syria from punitive actions there before.
Asked what kind of evidence on chemical weapons use would convince Russia, Putin said "it should be a deep and specific probe containing evidence that would be obvious and prove beyond doubt who did it and what means were used."
Putin said it was "too early" to talk about what Russia would do if the U.S. attacked Syria.
"We have our ideas about what we will do and how we will do it in case the situation develops toward the use of force or otherwise," he said. "We have our plans."
Putin called the S-300 air defense missile system "a very efficient weapon" and said that Russia had a contract for its delivery of the S-300s to Syria. "We have supplied some of the components, but the delivery hasn't been completed. We have suspended it for now," he said.
"But if we see that steps are taken that violate the existing international norms, we shall think how we should act in the future, in particular regarding supplies of such sensitive weapons to certain regions of the world," he said.
The statement could be a veiled threat to revive a contract for the delivery of the S-300s to Iran, which Russia canceled a few years ago under strong U.S. and Israeli pressure.
Putin praised Obama as a frank and constructive negotiating partner and denied reports that he had taken personal offense at remarks by Obama comparing Putin's body language to that of a slouching, bored student. Putin said appearances can be deceiving.
Putin also accused U.S. intelligence agencies of bungling efforts to apprehend Snowden, the National Security Agency leaker, who is wanted in the U.S. on espionage charges. He said the United States could have allowed Snowden to go to a country where his security would not be guaranteed or intercepted him along the way, but instead pressured other countries not to accept him or even to allow a plane carrying him to cross their airspace. Russia has granted him temporary asylum.
Putin also gave the first official confirmation that Snowden had been in touch with Russian officials in Hong Kong before flying to Moscow on June 23, but said he only learned that Snowden was on the flight two hours before it arrived. Putin once again denied that Russia's security services are working with Snowden, whose stay in Russia has been shrouded in secrecy.
On another topic, he denied at length charges that Russia has anti-gay policies, indicating that Obama was welcome to meet with gay and lesbian activists in Russia during his visit. He even said he might meet with a similar group himself if there is interest from the gay community in Russia.
Putin rejected the criticism of a Russian law banning gay propaganda that prompted some activists to call for the boycott of the 2014 Winter Games in Sochi, arguing that it wouldn't infringe on the rights of gays.
He also said that athletes and activists would not be punished if they raise rainbow flags or paint their fingernails in rainbow colors at the Feb. 7-23 Olympics.
But he clearly has no intention of allowing a gay pride parade or other such actions: Last month, Putin signed a decree banning all demonstrations and rallies in Sochi throughout the Winter Games.
As for the body language between Putin and Obama that some have said suggested a difficult working relationship, the Russian president urged everyone to avoid jumping to conclusions.
"There are some gestures, of course, that you can only interpret one way, but no one has ever seen those kinds of gestures directed by Obama at me or by me at Obama, and I hope that never happens," he said.
"Everything else is fantasy."
Associated Press writer Laura Mills in Moscow contributed to this report.
© 2013 Associated Press
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/04/putin-syria_n_3863762.html [with comments]
--
Rand Paul Accuses Obama Of Reducing Congress' Role In Syria To 'Constitutional Theater'
09/03/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/rand-paul-syria_n_3862624.html [with embedded video, and comments]
--
Rand Paul: Filibuster a possibility on Syria vote
By Sean Sullivan, Published: September 3, 2013 at 7:07 pm
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of the most outspoken opponents of military action in Syria, wouldn’t rule out the possibility Tuesday of launching a standing filibuster over the issue in the Senate.
“I can’t imagine that we won’t require 60 votes on this,” Paul told reporters on an afternoon conference call. “Whether there’s an actual standing filibuster — I’ve got to check my shoes and check my ability to hold my water. And we will see. I haven’t made a decision on that.”
Paul attracted widespread attention in March when he launched a marathon filibuster [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/03/07/icymi-the-complete-rand-paul-filibuster/ ] over the Obama administration’s use of unmanned aerial drones, winning support from some GOP colleagues and prompting criticism from others.
When it comes to Syria, Paul said he believes the best hope for defeating a resolution to authorize military action will come in the House. He reiterated his view that an attack on Syria would create more turbulence and danger in the region, and may not even disable the Syrian government’s ability to launch chemical attacks.
“At this point, I think it’s a bad idea,” Paul said.
While Paul said he was pleased President Obama asked for congressional authority before acting, he added that he finds the possibility that the president may launch a strike even in the face of rejection from Congress “insulting.”
The senator said the reception from his constituents back home in Kentucky has been overwhelmingly negative toward the prospect of military action.
“I’m told the phone calls are at least nine out of ten against,” Paul said, before adding that his staff informed him it was even more lopsided.
© 2013 The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/09/03/rand-paul-filibuster-a-possibility-on-syria-vote/ [with comments]
--
Jeff Flake Attacks Obama For Making GOP Vote On Syria
09/03/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/jeff-flake-obama-syria_n_3862481.html [with embedded video, and comments]
--
Allies’ Intelligence Differs on Details, but Still Points to Assad Forces
The body of a victim of a chemical weapons attack was buried on Aug. 21. The United States says 1,429 Syrians were killed.
Bassam Khabieh/Reuters
Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel spoke to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Doug Mills/The New York Times
By DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMITT
Published: September 3, 2013
WASHINGTON — The British say that there have been 14 Syrian chemical attacks since 2012 and that the last, the most horrific, killed “at least 350” Syrian civilians. The Americans count fewer attacks, but put a stunningly higher, quite precise number on the casualties: 1,429.
The French argue that only President Bashar al-Assad of Syria and the closest members of his clan can order chemical attacks; publicly, the Americans say that, at least in the Aug. 21 attack that led President Obama to call for military action, it is unclear where the orders came from. In classified briefings they are far more specific in saying that the commander of Syria’s infamous Unit 450, which controls its chemical weapons, gave the order.
In short, the differences in intelligence estimates among the United States and its closest allies are considerable but, in their view, not very significant. All come to the same bottom line: all the attacks involved sarin gas, only the Assad government had control over the chemical agents, and, whether they were premeditated or the result of “sloppiness,” as one senior American official put it, the results were devastating.
As they emerge from unclassified and classified briefings, members of Congress say the Obama administration’s case against the Assad government is convincing and leaves them with little doubt that it was responsible for the attacks. Even those most conscious of the intelligence errors that preceded the invasion of Iraq concede that this case is different. Iraq was about assessing whether weapons existed, they say, while Syria is all about who used them, and whether a military strike would prevent — or encourage — their use again.
“More and more members of Congress are finding the evidence that Assad used chemical weapons compelling,” said Representative Adam B. Schiff, a California Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, who has been briefed on the administration’s evidence and is skeptical about whether the United States should intervene without the help of traditional allies. “The question now is, what should our response be?”
Still, the very public way that the Americans, French, British and Israelis have felt it necessary to publish their evidence — even where it differs — underscores the huge post-Iraq sensitivities involved in justifying the need for new military involvement in the Mideast. And until the most recent gas attack in Syria, reliable assessments of the use of chemical weapons proved particularly difficult.
The Americans say their assessment is based on “multiple streams of information, including reporting of Syrian officials planning and executing chemical weapons attacks,” code words for intercepts of conversations. It also refers to “human, signals and geospatial intelligence that reveal regime activities” connected to attack preparations.
But a look at the intelligence judgment made public by the United States, Britain, France and Israel suggests that the United States was reluctant — and slow — to conclude that small-scale chemical weapon attacks began in Syria last year. And even today, Washington cannot agree with its allies on exactly how those attacks began.
The Israelis were the first to press the case, declaring in an April 23 presentation at a security conference that it had clear evidence that Syrian forces had used chemical weapons on a small scale. But no sooner had a senior official of Israel’s military intelligence unit laid out his case than Secretary of State John Kerry, seeing the reports, called Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, apparently out of concern that such a declaration would force Mr. Obama’s hand.
Mr. Kerry told reporters that the Israeli leader “was not in a position to confirm” the intelligence assessment. American officials said later that they had concerns about the chain of custody on hair, blood and urine samples from some of those attacks, and feared the evidence might have been tinkered with by the opposition.
Now the British say that in their judgment, the Syrian government “used lethal C.W. on 14 occasions from 2012,” adding that “this judgment was made with the highest possible level of certainty following an exhaustive review.” They added, “A clear pattern of regime use has therefore been established.”
While the United States eventually came to a similar conclusion, it was with only a moderate level of confidence — meaning that some of the nation’s 16 intelligence agencies disagreed. Those internal debates did not get resolved until the Aug. 21 attack, on which all the different agencies agreed.
But it is the French who have been the most specific. They argued in their Monday assessment that the Aug. 21 attack involved “massive use of chemical agents” against civilian populations in several suburbs of Damascus. It was followed by “significant ground and aerial strikes” with conventional munitions that were aimed at the “destruction of evidence” in those areas.
The French also warned that “our services possess information, from a national source, that leave one to think that other actions of this nature could again be conducted.”
Chemical weapons can be delivered many ways, from helicopters (which the French say were used in April, in small attacks) to small rockets (which the Americans say delivered the deadliest attacks.). The effects are sometimes hard to detect, and American officials admit they were caught off guard by a string of smaller attacks starting in March, with no established way of gathering evidence of chemical weapons use.
But in the Aug. 21 attack, there were so many dead and so much forensic evidence that only Russia has argued that it was the rebels themselves who launched the attack — and they have offered no details to back that claim. “We are certain that none of the opposition has the weapons or capacity to effect a strike of this scale, particularly from the heart of regime territory,” Mr. Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday. The British say they have come to the same conclusion.
In their briefings for lawmakers, administration officials typically begin with a primer on Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles, assessed to be among the largest in the world. Only the French have offered a detailed accounting, including “several hundreds of tons of sulfur mustard” and “tens of tons of VX,” among the most toxic chemical agents. The French also speak of “several hundreds of tons of sarin,” and in the closed-door sessions American intelligence officials tell lawmakers that they believe the Syrian forces are using sarin exclusively in their attacks.
Unit 450, the secretive Syrian Air Force organization that controls the country’s chemical weapon stockpiles, is a highly vetted outfit that is deemed one of the most loyal to the Assad government, given the importance of the weapons in its custody, according to American intelligence officials. “If you are rising through the top ranks of military loyalists to Assad,” said Joseph Holliday, a fellow with the Institute for the Study of War in Washington, “you are likely to have found yourself high up in the 450 hierarchy.”
According to a French intelligence assessment of Syria’s chemical weapons program, Unit 450 “is in charge of the filling of chemical ammunitions, as well as the security of chemical sites and stockpiles.” The Israelis bombed missiles in a convoy just outside one of the center’s crucial sites in January.
Only Mr. Assad and senior members of his Alawite clan are authorized to employ the deadly arsenal, according to the French assessment issued on Monday. The order is then forwarded to commanding officers within Unit 450 as well as to military planners in Damascus who decide the target, the choice of weapon and which toxic agent to use, the report said.
But no one can agree on a motive for Mr. Assad in the Aug. 21 attack. Some American officials believe that the intent was to continue low-level chemical attacks that would be hard for the West to prove, and the American assessment said that “regime officials were witting of and directed the attack.” The British are more circumspect: “There is no obvious political or military trigger for regime use of C.W. on an apparently larger scale now.”
During a classified briefing for about 30 lawmakers on Tuesday, American officials said that while there was no evidence that the Syrian president himself had given the orders for the most recent deadly attacks, they believe the directives came from generals close to Mr. Assad, including the commander of Unit 450. “It rose to a very, very high level,” said one Democratic lawmaker who was in the briefing.
In the past year, American officials have used back channels to warn the unit’s commanders that they would be held personally responsible if the government used its chemical weapons. But the history of the past few months suggests that effort yielded little or no results — perhaps because the members of that unit, almost all from Mr. Assad’s Alawite sect, view the weapons stockpiles as one of the last guarantees of their survival.
Steven Erlanger contributed reporting from London.
*
Multimedia
Video Feature
Watching Syria’s War
Syrian Refugees Harassed and Arrested in Egypt
http://projects.nytimes.com/watching-syrias-war
Video: History as a Guide in Syria
http://www.nytimes.com/video/2013/08/29/world/middleeast/100000002412790/history-as-a-guide-in-syria.html
*
© 2013 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/world/middleeast/allies-intelligence-on-syria-all-points-to-assad-forces.html [ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/world/middleeast/allies-intelligence-on-syria-all-points-to-assad-forces.html?pagewanted=all ]
--
(linked in):
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=91639493 and (the many) following, including
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=91655158 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=91643847 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=91656984 (in full, second-last item in the post to which this is a reply) and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=91658230 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=91660054 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=91657695 (and any future following);
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=91559070 and preceding and following
Greensburg, KS - 5/4/07
"Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty."
from John Philpot Curran, Speech
upon the Right of Election, 1790
F6
Join the InvestorsHub Community
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
