State Dept did not disavow Kerry's peace offer to Assad

[cthulu2016]

The wide confusion on this point arose from more clusterfuckery, in keeping with the whole damn episode, but the administration was not fighting to head off any chance of a negotiated solution. They were more trying to keep a straw-grasping option open.

Kerry was asked whether anything Assad could do at this point to prevent war.

Kerry said Assad could turn-in all his chemical weapons.

Kerry then went on that say that Assad was a bad guy who will not do that. (Giving up the weapons)

The State Department then sent out a broadcast email (that was less than clear) saying that Kerry's predictive rhetoric that Assad would never give up the weapons was rhetorical.

LONDON, Sept 9 (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was making a rhetorical comment when he said on Monday that Syria's President Bashar al-Assad would not hand over his country's chemical weapons.

Kerry told a news briefing on Monday that Assad could avoid a military strike by turning over all his chemical weapons within a week but added that Assad was not about to do that.

"Secretary Kerry was making a rhetorical argument about the impossibility and unlikelihood of Assad turning over chemical weapons he has denied he used," a U.S. State Department spokeswoman said in an emailed statement.

"His (Kerry's) point was that this brutal dictator with a history of playing fast and loose with the facts cannot be trusted to turn over chemical weapons, otherwise he would have done so long ago. That's why the world faces this moment."

The State Department did not disavow the offer that Assad could avoid war, but rather the guess that he would not take it. (Whether the offer was calculated or off-the-cuff, it was not disavowed.)

That is a vital point -- the sort of gratuitous "but he'll never do it" comment had to be taken back because that sort of rhetoric is largely what convinced Saddam Hussein (correctly) that Bush's last minute public overtures were crap, and that Bush was going to invade no matter what Saddam did. (Kerry should have said, if he does X he can avoid war, and we hope he does X, rather than talking tough and wanting to show how Kerry's too smart to be fooled.)

I think Kerry should resign for an amazingly disgraceful performance these last two weeks.

But it is a bum-rap to suggest that the WH is eager to avoid a way out. At this point they are, IMO, desperate for a way out.

There are ugly Bush-like aspects to this whole sad affair, but Obama is not Bush. Obama is not 100% dead set on diplomatic failure, in the way Bush was.

[uponit7771]

1. +1

[DonViejo]

2. Here's the Reuters article on the same subject

over in LBN

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014590131

[ProSense]

3. "I think Kerry should resign for an amazingly disgraceful performance these last two weeks."

I think people need to stop fantasizing because they disagree with Kerry.

I mean, more nations are on board with holding Assad accountable for the attack. The UN is resolved to address disarming Assad, and now Russia is on board.

While everyone was screaming, the effort to hold Assad accountable was moving right along.

[cthulu2016]

5. It's a fantasy that I think that? Good to know.

[NuclearDem]

4. Thanks for clearing that up.

I got it wrong in another OP. Kneejerked.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

6. yours is the very definition of "damning with faint praise"

[cthulu2016]

8. Yes, it is. Because there is very little to praise.

[KittyWampus]

7. You think Kerry should resign when he's the one that's been negotiating? Sorry, that makes no sense.

And sabre rattling is a part of negotiating. I posted a thread earlier today about Kerry meeting with Lavrov in August. He's been doing quite a bit. Just because DU'ers don't pay attention doesn't mean various forms of diplomacy have not been happening.

[cali]

9. I think they want a way out too, but I think the practical considerations

could be a major impediment.

[cthulu2016]

10. I agree.

And I expect a linked but not-linked end of assistance to rebels will be a non-public demand and perhaps a deal-breaker.

(In the way our taking missiles out of Turkey was a non-public Russian demand in Cuban missile crisis.)