(OT) US State Secretary, Defense Secretary Gung-Ho with Japanese Counterparts, As Abe Smiles Broadly

US State Secretary John Kerry was the one who wanted to mete out "shock and awe"-like military attacks on a small country in Middle East back in August based on Youtube videos, and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel was going along with Kerry until Kerry put his foot in his mouth.

The two look very eager to please Japan's Abe administration, as shown in the photos below, taken during their recent visit to Japan.

Back in February this year, President Obama treated Mr. Abe rather shabbily when the latter visited the US, with only a brief working lunch and no press conference. I guess the US administration needs some allies now.

Chuck Hagel, John Kerry, Shinzo Abe, Fumio Kishida (Minister of Foreign Affairs), Itsunori Onodera (Minister of Defense), from freebeacom.com (10/4/2013):

From freebeacom.com:

The United States and Japan announced on Thursday that defense relations are being strengthened for the first time in 16 years, including new force deployments and greater cooperation against missile and cyber attacks.

The closer military and defense relations come amid growing tensions in Asia over China’s maritime encroachment in the region, which military officials fear could trigger a future conflict.

New missile defenses, the addition of two squadrons of MV-22 tilt rotor transport aircraft, and deployment of three Global Hawk long-range drone aircraft are key elements of the new ties. New P-8 anti-submarine warfare aircraft and advanced F-35 jets also will be deployed in Japan.

"MV-22 tilt rotor transport aircraft" is trouble-prone Osprey.

Kerry and Hagel laid a wreath at the Chidorigafuchi Cemetery where the war-dead (including unnamed soldiers and civilians who died, but not those judged as "war criminals" in the Tokyo Tribunal) are buried, in Tokyo, from AFP (10/3/2013). The only other foreign high-ranking official who did the same was the Argentinean president in 1979; there had been no US official who had done so, until Kerry and Hagel on October 3, 2013:

Tweet

(OT) Today's John Kerry on Syria: "It Was Me Who Suggested Syria's Chemical Weapon Control Last Week"

After the scramble to spin Secretary Kerry's blunder during a press briefing in London on Monday which gave an opening to Vladimir Putin was unsuccessful, the Obama administration's Tuesday's spin is that it is not Russia but the US who suggested it, and it was last week.

From Buzz Feed (9/10/2013):

Administration Changes Russian Proposal’s Origin Story

WASHINGTON — The Obama Administration’s explanation of how a Russian proposal to get rid of Syrian chemical weapons came to be has morphed rapidly in the past 24 hours from being portrayed as an unexpected slip-up to — in its new incarnation — a plan that U.S. officials were involved in as early as last week.

“I had some conversations about this with my counterpart from Russia last week,” Secretary of State John Kerry said during a House Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday, referring to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. “President Putin raised the issue with President Obama at St. Petersburg. President Obama directed us to try to continue to talk and see if it is possible. So it is not something that — you know, suddenly emerged, though it did publicly. But it cannot be allowed to be a delay.”

Later, under questioning by Rep. Hank Johnson, Kerry said he had not made a mistake when he suggested the proposal in a press conference in London on Monday.

“I didn’t misspeak,” Kerry said. “I was asked about it. I responded because I was asked.”

(Full article at the link)

How he takes us for fools who cannot (do not, would not) remember what his own department put out yesterday that his remark was nothing but "hypothetical and rhetorical".

But now the Obama administration's "strategy" today is to make it near-impossible for the UN Security Council to come to any agreement on Russia's proposal for an international supervision of Syria's chemical weapons. Russia has just withdrawn the request for the emergency session of the Council.

Meanwhile "Syrian rebels" that the US supports are dead set against political solutions, as they have been planning their offensive around the coming US military attack on Syria.

Mccain-Graham duo now says the Assad administration's willingness to submit its chemical weapons under international supervision is an excellent reason for the US Congress to vote "yes" on launching a military attack on Syria.

President Assad, during his interview with Charlie Rose that was aired on Monday, said:

"... for us in Syria, we have principles. We'll do anything to prevent another crazy war in the region. ... It's not about me, it's about the region."

Tweet

(OT) US Secretary of State John Kerry's Own Goal on Syria, and Obama Takes Credit for Possible "Political Solution"

Now the Obama administration is busy taking credit for possible political solutions on Syria, after Russia made good use of Secretary Kerry's blunder, aka "hypothetical" remark, during a press briefing in London on Monday, and Syria, the UN, and a host of political leaders around the world (including UK's Cameron) warm up to the Russian proposal of putting Syria's chemical weapons under international supervision.

Even the GOP duo McCain and Graham, who have been staunch supporters of President Obama's policies and initiatives, say "the proposal should be given a chance".

Harry Reid has delayed the procedural vote in the US Senate due to this new development (aka he doesn't have enough vote to pass the resolution).

From Washington Post (9/9/2013; emphasis is mine):

(Original title of the article as seen on the browser bar: Syria says it 'welcomes' Russia proposal on chemical weapons)

(Current article title is all about Obama) Obama sees potential ‘breakthrough’ in Russia’s Syria proposal

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.

...

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.”

As Kerry flew back to Washington to help lobby lawmakers, he received a midair call from Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who said he had heard the secretary’s remarks and was about to make a public announcement.

The statement in Moscow came before Kerry landed.

“We are calling on the Syrian authorities [to] not only agree on putting chemical weapons storages under international control but also for its further destruction and then joining the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons,” Lavrov said, adding, “We have passed our offer to [Syrian Foreign Minister] Walid al-Moualem and hope to receive a fast and positive answer.”

Moualem, who was in Moscow meeting with Lavrov, followed with a statement that his government “welcomes Russia’s initiative, based on the Syrian government’s care about the lives of our people and security of our country.”

Although Syrian President Bashar al-Assad denies having a stockpile of the widely banned weapons, the idea of international control also quickly gained traction among diplomats and at least some senior Democrats whose support Obama seeks for a show of force.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) was the first senior lawmaker to voice support for the Russian proposal.

“I think if the U.N. would accept the responsibility of maintaining these facilities, seeing that they’re secure, and that Syria would announce that it is giving up any chemical weapons programs or delivery system vehicles that may have been armed, then I think we’ve got something,” Feinstein said.

The Russian announcement was met with approval by international backers and critics of a U.S. strike. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who has said a U.S. attack on Syria would be illegal without U.N. approval, signaled support, as did British Prime Minister David Cameron.

French Foreign Minister Laurant Fabius, whose government had said it would join an American attack and who two days ago stood at Kerry’s side in Paris to pledge an all-out effort to build public support, said it was worth testing. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has been wary of a strike, welcomed the idea.

Republican Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) said the proposal came only because Assad feels the threat of military force and that Congress should continue considering Obama’s request for legislative backing. But the two said the proposal should be given a chance — and a test of its sincerity — by being committed to writing in a U.N. Security Council resolution.

“We should not trust, and we must verify,” the pair said in a joint statement.

A senior State Department official said Kerry warned Lavrov that the United States was “not going to play games.”

Current and former Obama administration officials scrambled Monday to say the proposal should not derail plans for a punitive strike. They suggested it was a delaying tactic after more than two years of diplomatic efforts with Syria and its ally Russia, albeit one spurred by the prospect that a U.S. military attack is imminent.

“It’s very important to note that it’s clear that this proposal comes in the context of the threat of U.S. action and the pressure that the president is exerting,” deputy national security adviser Tony Blinken said at the White House. “So it’s even more important that we don’t take the pressure off and that Congress give the president the authority he’s requested.”

(Full article at the link)

Senator John McCain's initial reaction to Secretary Kerry's own goal was, "unbelievably unhelpful".

Tweet

(OT) Syria War Justification by Obama Administration: "Our Credibility Is At Stake"

(UPDATE 9/5/2013) To preserve credibility of POTUS and by extension of the world, the US military is preparing not only Tomahawk cruise missile attacks but also intense aerial bombing by B2 (stealth bomber) and B52. See my new post.

==================

To preserve credibility, President Obama wants to bomb Syria, while backtracking on his infamous "red line" threat.

The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed the modified resolution full of holes by 10 to 7, with one Democrat voting "present".

The majority of Americans remain opposed to any military attack on Syria, and even President Obama's support base is overwhelmingly against it.

So will they do it anyway? President Obama and his Secretary of State have said so a number of times already. The US-trained and armed "Syrian rebels" are marching into Syria, according to the president himself, says UK's Telegraph (9/3/2013), "newspaper paper of record".

Why is this mad rush to attack a small country which has been already decimated in 2-year civil war, with 20% of its population as refugees? To preserve Mr. Obama's credibility?

From Policymic.com (9/4/2013):

Latest Syria War Justification is the Worst One Yet

Michael Luciano

Did you hear? Apparently, the United States needs to take military action against Syria – not because it poses an actual threat to the United States (it doesn’t), not because it’s undermining the vital interests of the United States (it isn’t), and not because a strike will topple President Bashar al-Assad (it won’t), but because the U.S. must preserve its “credibility” in the international arena.

The argument goes something like this: Last year, President Obama made an off-the-cuff remark about a “red line” in Syria, and said if Assad used chemical weapons in the country’s civil war, that would “change my equation” vis-à-vis his approach toward Syria, even though Obama never explicitly threatened military action. Now that Assad has used chemical weapons, it is incumbent on Obama to strike to make good on this earlier, vague threat.

Or as the hacktacular David Ignatius recently explained in the Washington Post,

“Using military power to maintain a nation’s credibility may sound like an antiquated idea, but it’s all too relevant in the real world we inhabit ... [Obama] needs to demonstrate that there are consequences for crossing a U.S. ‘red line.’”

Although Ignatius says that the main reason for a strike “should be restoring deterrence against the use of chemical weapons,” the fact is, the “credibility” argument pervades his thinking, just as it does Obama’s.

Here’s Obama speaking in Sweden on Wednesday:

“The international community's credibility is on the line ... And America and Congress' credibility is on the line, because (otherwise) we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.”

(Full article at the link)

It looks like Washington Post remains the cheerleader of the administration in war, despite the ownership change. (Jeff Bezos of Amazon.com owns the paper, who says "Put readers first not advertisers, don't write to impress each other.")

And here's MoveOn.org, on all-out campaign to stop the war, from Daily Caller (9/4/2013):

MoveOn.org announced its opposition to military action in Syria on Tuesday after conferring with supporters.

The left-wing organization called on supporters on Tuesday to decide the liberal advocacy group’s position on whether the U.S. should use military force to respond to reports that the Syrian government used chemical weapons.

On Wednesday, the results were in — 73 percent of MoveOn.org respondents said the outfit should oppose the congressional authorization to use military force in Syria.

“History has shown again and again that even a ‘limited’ military engagement can quickly become a slippery slope to seemingly endless war. But stopping this war is within reach,” MoveOn.org wrote in an email to supporters.

“So we need to unleash the power of our more than 8 million member community right away to make it clear to Congress that we oppose military action in Syria,” the organization said. “Congress will vote on the authorization to use military force as soon as next week, and members of Congress are making up their minds right now, so we need to act fast.”

MoveOn.org, which also opposed the war in Iraq, is encouraging its members to call their representatives and tell them to vote “no” on the use of military action in Syria.

“President Obama is proposing a military strike that raises the specter of another Iraq War—and we’re still dealing with the costs of that war today,” MoveOn.org wrote. “It’s critical that every one of MoveOn’s 8 million members pick up their phones today to let Congress know plain and simple: We oppose a military intervention in Syria.”

Republican Congressman Matt Salmon says he has received 500 calls from his constituents, and only 2 were in support of military intervention in Syria.

Senator Rand Paul says he will filibuster to stall the Senate vote on the war resolution, like he did on the Defense Appropriation Bill over the Obama administration's use of drones.

Maybe he could alert more Americans that the US government has been funding and training "Syrian rebels" who are members of Al-Qaeda affiliates and many of whom are not even Syrians.

Tweet