The Rooskis suggested to the Syrians that they surrender their chemical weapons to an international body which would destroy them, and sign the Chemical Weapons Convention agreements. The Syrians "welcomed" the Russian "suggestions." If the Syrians "accept" in addition to "welcome," why isn't this the end of this? The Obamas have said their "limited" military air strike proposal would "degrade" but not eliminate the chemical wmd. And, Secretary Kerry "suggested" this also earlier today. Asked if there was anything Assad could do to avoid an American strike John-John said he "could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week. He isn't about to do it and it can't be done obviously." Well, he may be about to do it! And, why can't it be done in some reasonable time period, "obviously?" Obama has said there was nothing time-sensitive about the military strike proposal.
Official Washington's reaction to this Russian gambit is telling. CNN says "The State Department later sought to clarify Kerry's comment as a "rhetorical argument" and one U.S. official called it a "major goof" and that America's top diplomat "clearly went off script." A rhetorical argument it might have been but a major goof it was not. Why wasn't this a serious proposal made by the Americans? Why is this likely to be less successful than the American military involvement that the president is so conflicted about? Which the entire administration has emphasized would be limited? Which has caused some supporters of American military action, like Senator McCain, to back away. These comments are telling that some in the administration, like the State Department spokespeople, are on a bomb-or-bust "script." And they are telling for this: The Russians have outsmarted the Americans.
Official Washington's reaction to this Russian gambit is telling. CNN says "The State Department later sought to clarify Kerry's comment as a "rhetorical argument" and one U.S. official called it a "major goof" and that America's top diplomat "clearly went off script." A rhetorical argument it might have been but a major goof it was not. Why wasn't this a serious proposal made by the Americans? Why is this likely to be less successful than the American military involvement that the president is so conflicted about? Which the entire administration has emphasized would be limited? Which has caused some supporters of American military action, like Senator McCain, to back away. These comments are telling that some in the administration, like the State Department spokespeople, are on a bomb-or-bust "script." And they are telling for this: The Russians have outsmarted the Americans.
