Tuesday Morning Open Thread

Now that the entire world is following my advice on Syria, my work is done. (snark) Here is an open thread to comment on that and other important issues, like how the Oregon Ducks beat the Washington Redskins last night.

Open thread.

< Colorado Public Marijuana Giveaway Goes Smoothly | President Obama's Syria Address >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 123 (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Dadler on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:26:16 AM EST
    QUACK!! (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by bmaz on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:48:09 AM EST

    So much for the vaunted return of RGIII; (none / 0) (#11)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:56:54 AM EST
    I didn't watch the whole game, but what I did see, he didn't exactly dazzle...hard to live up to the kind of hype he's been surrounded by for the last 8 months, for sure.  In general, I thought Washington looked old and slow and not in condition to keep up with the speed of the Chip Kelly offense.  Even the ESPN commentators seemed a little out of breath - not as many opportunities for Jon Gruden to endlessly flap his gums in the gaps (his football knowledge is ginormous, but he just never shuts up, to the point where I have to mute him sometimes).

    And the Eagles finally look like they're going to give teams a run for their money...

    Saw a little of Chargers/Texans - I was mostly biting my nails watching the O's beat the Yankees (I missed the real-time Showalter/Girardi dust-up, but I think it fired up the O's); Jim Johnson once again made it nerve-wracking in the 9th.


    Chargers, sigh... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Dadler on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 11:06:35 AM EST
    My AFC team looked so good in the first half, then so blah in the second, and came from ahead to lose in much the same fashion as last year. A Rivers INT returned for a touchdown the difference. Who coulda seen Drew Brees being THIS much better than an admittedly, blunders aside, bigger and stronger and younger Rivers? Especially coming off that last play Brees played with the Chargers, getting his throwing shoulder shredded like cheddar. Crazy. Such is the game.

    It's just Week One...and that's as true (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 11:20:55 AM EST
    for teams that lost as it is for those that won...

    My Ravens are tied for first in the AFC North - because every single team in the division lost this week.  

    But here's the thing...the Jets aren't going to get the gift of an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty on their opponents in the last seconds of every game to give them the opportunity to kick a winning field goal.  The officials aren't going to give San Francisco an extra down every week on an offsetting-penalties/dead-ball foul that should have had them at 4th down and forced to punt (but please - let's not talk about Anquan Boldin; I'm sick over him being a 49er).  John Harbaugh isn't going to miss throwing the challenge flag on a non-catch that turned into a TD on the next play.  What are the chances the Titans return guy will ever make that mistake of scoring a safety for his opponents in the opening seconds of the game?

    It's a long season, and not much to be set in stone after one week (I hope, anyway).


    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 12:33:21 PM EST
    ...as much as that makes sense, I totally disagree, last year the Pack was robbed of that game in Seattle due to the the B squad refs that were retired because of that very call.

    In the playoffs, that 'L' instead of a 'W' meant no bye week and not hosting all the playoff games at Lambeau.  The entire NFC playoff schedule would have been different and SF would not have enjoyed home field had they had to play the Pack.

    All of it easily traceable to one bad call because it just happened to be the last play of the game.

    As a side note, I found it so irritating that the league didn't change the call.  They found it so bad as to fire an entire group of refs, but not bad enough to correct it.  It didn't make sense to let the bad call stand as it was the last play of the game.


    You know, you're right. Some of these (none / 0) (#48)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 01:32:16 PM EST
    first week losses can loom large later in the season, and the worst are those decided by wrong calls by referees.

    I guess my point was that it's too early to panic - and it's also too early to book any tickets to NY for Super Bowl.


    How did the Ravens let arguably the best (none / 0) (#58)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 03:05:40 PM EST
    clutch possession reciever in the league get away?

    Flacco looked more than a little lost at sea on some of those pass plays on Sunday..

    And then Boldin has like 14 catches for 200 yards in his first game for the Forty Niners. What a receiver corps San Fran has now..


    How? (none / 0) (#62)
    by CoralGables on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 03:23:30 PM EST
    No choice. Six-year, $120.6 million to their QB.

    No - that was an extremely cap-friendly (none / 0) (#65)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 03:28:47 PM EST
    contract - at least in the first two years - but realistically, are you going to keep Boldin - who is getting up there in age - and let Flacco go out on the free agent market?

    If there's any team that knows how important a QB is, it's Baltimore, so if you're Ozzie Newsome, are you working out a deal with the Super Bowl MVP and letting Boldin go, or are you keeping Boldin and what, making Tyrod Taylor your #1 QB?

    You do the latter, and you've committed football malpractice.

    Come on, CG - I know you're smarter than that!


    Each position has a value (none / 0) (#76)
    by CoralGables on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 03:56:53 PM EST
    That the best offer Baltimore received was a 6th (Minnesota offered a 7th) pretty much says the league was in agreement with the Raven's decision on Boldin's value. Yes, I agree moving aging players when they won't accept cuts is usually wise or their cap hit grows as their production diminishes. I always refer to the Dolphins and Marino as Exhibit A on how to wreck a franchise by overpaying for a name.

    As for cap friendly on Flacco, everything is relative. It's friendly this year compared to Brees or Eli but not so friendly when compared to Kaepernick.

    As you've stated, the Raven's window may have been a small one with Lewis and Reed and they were victorious. When it starts to reopen, the Flacco contract in future years may keep it slammed shut.


    Please don't remind me...I almost (none / 0) (#63)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 03:23:52 PM EST
    couldn't stand to watch Boldin grab catch after catch after catch...

    There were two things at work here: one was the salary cap.  If they made room for Boldin's $6 million, it meant not having money to address some other needs; they asked him to take $4 million, but after the season he had (mostly after Cameron was fired and Caldwell opened up the offense and used Boldin the way he should have been used all along), he was insulted - and I don't blame him.  

    Was it smart that they traded him to an NFC team?  I don't know - I do know that I'd probably feel worse if he'd ended up in New England or Denver, or Pittsburgh.

    The other was they just wanted to get younger overall, but when you let talent like Boldin go, and then bring in the likes of Stokley and Clark - essentially aging one-season rentals no one else wanted - it's hard to maintain that argument with a straight face.

    I think there is some talent on this team, but I don't think it's necessarily going to mature this season, but the owner has said he's willing to take a step back if it means that the future looks like it could be built for the long haul - however long that can be in the salary cap era.

    We'll see; I've kind of lowered my expectations in preparation for what could be a not-so-great season.


    I couldn't stand listening to the (none / 0) (#67)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 03:41:34 PM EST
    catch after catch. I was like, why isn't this dude on my fantasy team!!!, lol!~ Although, on the upside, he does play for my '9ners now :D

    I live five minutes from Candlestick (none / 0) (#26)
    by Dadler on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 11:51:01 AM EST
    And I am very happy your Ravens gave us Boldin for, essentially, a pack of gum and two marbles. Unless, of course, and this is entirely possible in the NFL, Baltimore turns that 6th round pick into a bigtime player. They have good management, as good as any, so it could happen, and we shall see. But for now...neener, neener, neener!!! ;-)

    You're not the only (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Zorba on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 12:50:07 PM EST
    one who's happy about Boldin, Dadler.  Son Zorba is a total 49'ers fan.  Even though we live in Maryland.       ;-)

    Zorba, you can't see me, but I am (none / 0) (#40)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 12:58:37 PM EST
    right now sticking my tongue out at you.  :-p

    I'd feel better about the 49ers if Jim Harbaugh wasn't such a whiner; he's a great coach, but insufferably whiny.


    Hey, stick your tongue out (none / 0) (#45)
    by Zorba on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 01:24:15 PM EST
    at Son Zorba, not me.  I didn't say that I was a 49'ers fan!  I really have no dog in this hunt, since St. Louis was never really a big football city when I was growing up.  I'm perfectly happy, given where we live now, to more or less root for the Ravens (but never the Redskins!).  However, Son Zorba was born in San Franisco, and he still takes his birthplace seriously.      ;-)

    After the UT poll results said the coach must (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 03:52:29 PM EST
    Go, and he did, and what you are sayin' is the Chargers lost?  Off w/his head!

    Don't know if you saw this, but the NFL (none / 0) (#139)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 02:54:28 PM EST
    has admitted that it blew the call on the penalty against SD on the unnecessary roughness call against SD on the Texans FG attempt in the 4th quarter:

    The play happened with 14:53 left in the game, and the Chargers up 28-14. Texans kicker Randy Bullock booted a 37-yard field goal, but Chargers defensive lineman Cam Thomas was flagged for unnecessary roughness when it was ruled that he instigated contact with Texans long-snapper John Weeks. The NFL's new rule is designed to prevent blatant contact to the head and neck area to defenseless snappers on kicks, a new NFL point of emphasis. The penalty took the ball from the San Diego 19-yard line to the nine-yard line and gave the Texans a new set of downs. Matt Schaub threw a nine-yard touchdown pass to tight end Owen Daniels on the next play, and the comeback continued.

    But in an interview with the NFL Network's "Total Access" show on Tuesday. NFL VP of Officiating Dean Blandino revealed that the penalty should not have been called by Scott Green's crew.

    "This was not a correct call," Blandino said. "The rule is to protect the snapper on a field goal or extra point from a direct forcible blow to the head or neck area, or with the crown/forehead/hairline parts of the helmet to the body. It was not designed to prohibit any contact with the snapper, which is what happened on this play."

    As the article points out, 4 points in a game that ended up being decided by 3 is kind of a big deal.


    The Other Call... (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 03:33:03 PM EST
    ...against the Pack with the unsportsmanlike by Clay Mathews.  Beyond the screw-up of counting the previous down, I have always thought that is one rules that needs changing.

    If a play goes bad and you commit an blantant unsportsmanlike penalty near the opposing teams bench, there is about a 90% chance someone will retaliate, making the penalties offset and nullifying the play.  Even if the foul was committed at the end of a 70 yard run.

    Nullifying a play seems ridiculous when one party was the instigator of the bad conduct.  They should spot the ball where penalty occurred and nullify the gain/loss of the penalty, not the entire play.

    The Packers benefited from hitting Kaepernick because SF retaliated, that is non-sense.

    And that ticky/tack call you mentioned was ridiculous.  Each year it seems like they call more and more unsportsmanlike penalties that are questionable at best.


    Was a lot (none / 0) (#16)
    by bmaz on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 11:15:12 AM EST
    better in the second half, but RGIII still seems tentative with his knee.

    The little I saw, it seemed (none / 0) (#25)
    by scribe on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 11:47:35 AM EST
    the Iggles were aiming low on him, too.

    If that's true (none / 0) (#69)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 03:43:59 PM EST
    they might want to think twice seeing as their QB tends to open himself up to hits and injuries . . .

    btw, any bets on how long a season Vick has this year?


    I still think it was foolish to have ... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 12:16:12 PM EST
    ... allowed RG3 to continue playing in that January playoff game against the Seahawks, when he was very obviously hurt. He may not be 100% again for quite a while.

    Obvious in hindsite (none / 0) (#31)
    by Slado on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 12:29:58 PM EST
    Ultimately it's on the player.   Remember the flack Cutler took for taking himself out of the NFC championship?   Probably saved his carrer.  He gave it a go and it didnt' work.   As Gruden said last night there is a difference between "hurt" and "injured".  

    As for the now not everyone can be AP.  

    RGIII is not 100%.   They sugar coated it last night but he's not even close.   All that said even AP last year took 4 games to get going.

    My worry is RGII is only 23 or so and has had two knee replacements.  I don't care who you are you just don't recover from that.   Not all the way at least.


    ... that sort of decision should never be left up to the player any more at any level of football, be it Pop Warner, high school, college or professional.

    And given the NFL's obviously pressing public concerns about limiting its future liability over player disabilities incurred from compounding injuries, you'd think that the franchises would be getting that message loud and clear. (Sigh!) I guess not.

    RG3 was clearly a wounded duck in that playoff game -- and in a full-speed and full-contact sport like football, a wounded duck is also a sitting duck. In my opinion, leaving him in the ball game at that point was clearly an abrogation of both responsibility and authority on the respective parts of Washington's coaching staff and team physician, and their failure to act in RG3's best interests served to compound his injuries rather than limit them.

    When winning that playoff game over the Seahawks (which they didn't) became more important than protecting the health and well being of the player, what subsequently happened to Robert Griffin III became practically inevitable. It was simply a matter of when he was going to get hit and knocked out of the game, and not if.



    Can't agree (none / 0) (#82)
    by Slado on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 04:12:10 PM EST
    Players ultimately make the choice.  The choose or don't choose to accept the macho culture of the NFL or they don't.

    This isn't college.  In college it's on the coach.  The players aren't paid professionals.

    Would it be in Shanahan's interest to prolong RGIII's career?  Sure for now.   But it's also in his interest to put the best player on the field.

    If the player is willing to lie and tell the coach "It's good, I can go" and the team doctors say he can go then what?    

    Ultimately no one is at fault because no matter what we do in football people get hurt.  


    I have to agree with Donald here (none / 0) (#93)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 04:44:01 PM EST
    Set aside any consideration of whether it is ethical to send an obviously injured player on the field in such a physical sport. Even setting that aside, the coaching staff, including the team doctors, have an obligation to protect the team's assets. RGIII can say he is ok to play, but he should not get to decide whether in fact he plays. If he throws three interceptions in a row, the coach could bench him even if he promises on a stack of bibles that he will not throw another one. Whether he plays is actually never his choice, it is the coach's.

    In contrast, the Nationals shut down Stephen Strasburg last year to protect the health of his arm after coming back from Tommy John surgery -- and Strasburg was begging to keep pitching. But it was the right thing to do. It respected him as a human being rather than treating him like cattle, but at the same time it protected his arm (which the company has invested a great deal in) for the future.

    I wish more corporations thought long-term like the Nats, and fewer thought short-term like the Washington football club.

    And if I owned the team, I would have fired Coach Shanahan -- if not instantly, then certainly after he made the lame excuse that RGIII claimed he wasn't hurt too badly. It's bad enough that Shanahan sent RGIII out to play, but to blame it on the player afterwards, well, that's not the "buck stops here" attitude I want in a coach.


    You have a fair point (none / 0) (#96)
    by Slado on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 04:53:24 PM EST
    The owner is ultimately responsible for the team put on the field.

    He could have over ruled Shannahan about not only that game but the type of offense and how many hits RGIII took during the season.

    But in that specific game RGIII was looked at by doctors and declared by them and himself ok to play.   What was the coach supposed to do?

    It's football.  Player play hurt all the time, lie about their condition and keep playing.

    To put this on only the coach is simply not fair.   Especially when you consider the fact that doing everything possible still won't prevent horrible injuries.


    I see that point (none / 0) (#103)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 05:41:04 PM EST
    I take your point that the owner should not be involved in all of these decisions on the field.  And clearly players lie all the time about whether they are fit to play.  But that's exactly why with something that was manifestly as serious as this, it was folly to send him back in.

    I'd fire the doctor too. He was likely under tremendous pressure to ok sending him in, but he should have known better.

    And of course it also was folly for RGIII to say he was ok -- it would have been very difficult for such a competitive individual and the team leader to take himself out. I'm not saying he's not at all to blame, but that the Coach makes the ultimate decision, so in the end it's on him.


    I Would Like to Know... (none / 0) (#127)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 09:56:25 AM EST
    ...how much bonus cash RG3 had in his contract for a playoff win, ditto for Shanahan and his staff.  

    The NFL already removes the players and coaches choice for head injury situations and puts the decision into medical hands.  Which is great, the problem of course is that the clock doesn't always allow this kind of thorough examination and evaluation for non-head injuries.  

    But even if it did, these are human beings and anyone claiming they could predict an injury from 3000 miles away is disingenuous at best.  You would have to look high and low to find a player that isn't dealing with some sort of injury in the post season.  Acting like a coach or player is going to remove the star player in a close playoff game just isn't reality in the NFL.  Shanahan didn't do anything the other 15 post season coaches and numerous star players wouldn't have done.  Right or wrong, that is the norm today.

    How many times do you think Shanahan told RG3 to stop getting sandwiched for a yard or two, or to take the slide, or run out of bounds, to quit taking unnecessary hits in general ?  That is all we heard last year, he can't sustain those kinds of hits in the NFL and it turns out occasionally, the announcers make a good point.  

    That is what rookies do, take chances that seasoned players know aren't worth taking and they generally pay for them in the form of an injury.

    No one knows what transpired between coach, player, medical staff, and whoever else was involved.  Ultimately, they all share responsibility, maybe not evenly, but to say the player has no responsibility in deciding if they should play is silly, especially when you consider that they have the most to lose.


    See! (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 11:53:45 AM EST
    Obama WAS playing 11 dimensional chess! <snark>

    Yea, it was amazing (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by christinep on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 12:32:35 PM EST
    how Putin woke up yesterday to think "I'll urge my ally Assad to start dismantling the chemical weapons that he has suggested he does not possess, and that he should do it through UN monitoring" and, further, it was amazing how Assad's government has accepted that proposal.  Oh, and wasn't it amazing how Secretary Kerry had just happened to slip in a comment about dismantling under UN authority earlier that day ... and, how the package was starting to be wrapped within 3 hours.  And, double oh, it was truly amazing that the UN Secretary General had been working with French President looking at a resolution in the Security Council urging the same that same day ... and, today before the UN inspectors' report on CW, Human Rights Watch released its findings that the Assad government appeared to be responsible for using said weapons on August 21st.  Just amazing ... oh, oh, oh and the timing of Hillary Clinton's supportive comments.

    All of this coming together at the same time ... amazing.  Must be coincidence.  There is a little factoid: Apparently, Obama & Putin did have a private talk in Petersburg .... (talking about the weather?)  Almost feels like a partially choreographed dance, if it weren't for coincidence theory???

    Hard, driving negotiation.  Maybe.  As we all know, it could yet fall apart.  There has to be determination to hold it together ... timetables to keep the resolution process on track (as the WH noted) and monitoring provisions.  But, if the hard public drive to a bona fide bargaining table works, we all find a better part of ourselves.  And, the best part would be a reduction of chemical weaponry.  


    Please (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by kmblue on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 03:46:38 PM EST
    Can we get back to talking about the NSA now?

    Shhh! Shhh! (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Zorba on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 03:54:37 PM EST
    Look over there, look over there!  Syria!
    Sorry, snark tag appropriate here.
    The American public, unfortunately, has the attention span of a newt.  They are easily distracted.      :-(

    I anticipate the next big media push will (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 04:09:15 PM EST
    be the newly-wed who pushed her husband over a cliff, allegedly.

    What, do you mean that (none / 0) (#101)
    by Zorba on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 05:15:16 PM EST
    there is no young blond woman who has been kidnapped or has disappeared in mysterious circumstances???
    I guess that the media will have to make do with the newly-wed.

    Does (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 06:19:33 PM EST
    this mean that we don't get to bomb?

    lentinel: It just may ... hopefully. (none / 0) (#107)
    by christinep on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 07:01:29 PM EST
    Sometimes, with good strategic & hard negotiation, things can work out for everyone.  That would be extremely good.  And, then we can move on to day-to-day difficulties of those "without a permanent home" living in our country ... viva full immigration reform!

    Oh come on. (4.00 / 4) (#60)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 03:09:47 PM EST
    This was luck, pure and simple.

    Teresa: You might want to review (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by christinep on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 04:26:30 PM EST
    various approaches to negotiations ... particularly those knotty ones.  When the non-blinking steel-eyed negotiator achieves a resolution wherein everyone gains individually and collectively, we usually do not see the behind-the-scenes push.  Luck is always a component, as is timing ... but, what really gets you there is orchestration, pure and simple.

    We are still a long way off from a signed agreement.  Putin now says there can be no reference to military response in the event of non-compliance.  Nothing unpredictable about that ... I would be surprised if he (or Assad) did not counter any enforcement component with teeth.  But, if Putin/Assad are serious in wanting an agreement, there are lots of ways to agree that enforcement component must be "strong, firm" etc. without explicit definition or, in the alternative, build in an appeal process (a process, I'm sure, that the US would want to be open, public.)  IMO, the fact that Putin is raising objections to enforcement definition on the first day is not bad ... that typical objection in government agreements usually comes near the end of the process when everyone stomps out (a bit overstated on my part), thinks about it, and agrees to an obviously necessary enforcement provision (e.g., maybe with 3rd party input or a variation.)

    A word about luck: While I tend to think that fortune or luck cannot be disregarded in most successes, I think too that patterns of behavior by those who seem to habitually find the key or the "fortunate" surprise add immeasurably to the successful outcome.


    Smart and hardworking people (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Politalkix on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 07:49:02 PM EST
    always seem to have more luck than others! :-).

    And don't think (4.00 / 6) (#61)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 03:11:32 PM EST
    this saber rattling will always work.  At some point it's going to cause the other side to attack first.

    Stop with your 11 dimensional argument.  It's laughable.  Obama wasn't talking about doing this. He got lucky.  Putin saved his face.


    I'm sort of wondering... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by unitron on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 12:41:03 PM EST
    ...whether this is a case of blundered into it, or "you can get a lot done if you don't worry about who gets the credit", and "make them think that it was their idea all along".

    We've seen this type of process before (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by christinep on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 12:48:53 PM EST
    When Obama is involved. On a world community level, it may be the best part of community organizing principles ... the "we are all in it together," so the old tendency to worry about credit for oneself is replaced by "everyone gets the credit."  It sure feels this way to me.

    Excellent point (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by CoralGables on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 01:05:56 PM EST
    you can get a lot done if you don't worry about who gets the credit

    When people worry less about who gets the credit and more about the common good, far more is accomplished.

    Of course, human nature being as screwy as it is, people choose sides even when on the same team and like to declare a winner even in a case where everybody wins.


    I see (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by Towanda on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 01:29:20 PM EST
    that you've met my family.

    And human nature being what it is, ... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 02:39:50 PM EST
    ... I'd bet that we've almost all had the personal experience of watching someone step forward to claim credit for something in which his or her participation was marginal at best, and being extremely irritated and annoyed.

    I disassociated myself professionally from an Arizona-based consultant last year, after I had been subcontracted by him to do a feasibility study, and I subsequently discovered that he had removed my name from the completed study, attached his own name to it and proceeded to pass it off as his own work -- and further, he then invoiced his client for an amount that was five times what I had charged him for that same work.

    Ultimately, the notion about nobody worrying about who gets credit for success (or failure, for that matter) only works when all the parties involved are like-minded, and are behaving in an ethical and unselfish manner.



    Who needs credit? (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 02:48:42 PM EST
    I spend my work day avoiding blame...credit don't get ya sh*t, blame can get you fired;)

    I figured you'd be in Denver! (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 04:05:51 PM EST
    Hey, Donald, will the Hawaii legislature (none / 0) (#90)
    by caseyOR on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 04:35:59 PM EST
    legalize marriage equality in a special session? Is there very opposition to this in your state?

    President Obama should do (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by KeysDan on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 01:52:35 PM EST
    everything possible to facilitate converting the Russian/Syrian proposal into reality, beginning with his speech to the nation tonight.  In my opinion, that speech should lose the bellicosity of the past days, and focus on the lucidity of the past day.

    Indeed, the military adventure, whether it was to be more than a pinprick but less than an itsy, bitsy, teeny, weenie bikini wrapped bomb, should remain unspoken since it is the elephant in the room, anyway,  and organize his address around the diplomatic proposal.  

    It is probably too late, but an alternative would be for the president to postpone his speech on the basis of his serious and sensitive discussions that are underway.    In any event, the president has a way out that should not be allowed to slip away. Among reasons of supporters of "bombs away" have been the president's "credibility." It seems to me that for the president to appear too skeptical or unyielding, or rigid,  will bring into question the claimed premise that this was all about chemical weapons, nothing more and nothing less-- and not a pretext for regime change, thereby giving clarity to Kerry's  "changing the momentum on the battlefield."  

    The president has achieved his goal of bipartisanship in that those on the entire political spectrum are, in large measure, opposed to a military intervention, especially if a peaceful means can be achieved.  It is not important if this turn of events was eleven-dimensional chess.  Whether grand spin or not (I go with the latter on the basis of a common sense test), but President Obama deserves credit for willingness to change course and would deserve even more credit since the desired outcome would have occurred during his tenure in a more effective and non-violent way.  

    Wow, that madman theory of bargaining stuff (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by vicndabx on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 03:32:03 PM EST
    actually does work.

    The Syrian government announced on Tuesday that, after decades of denying the existence of their chemical weapons program, the regime of Bashar Assad will renounce its stockpiles, sign the United Nations Chemical Weapons Convention, and offer up their arsenal for destruction.


    I know, I know, it was all an accident.

    I will give Obama all the credit (5.00 / 6) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 03:56:44 PM EST
    if he achieves this without a military strike.

    I know you will (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by vicndabx on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 04:22:59 PM EST
    others, well....

    I don't think anyone really wants to gloat here (I know I don't).  I'll simply say, folks do need to try a little less cynicism sometimes.

    It's not always about Bush or world domination or whatever worries people are concerned about.  Maybe it actually is about people.  

    I'll shut up now lest these chickens don't hatch.


    I find it amusing (none / 0) (#91)
    by Slado on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 04:36:35 PM EST
    anyone would give Obama credit for anything on Syria.

    He created a mess with his own stupid words, then didn't back them up and Putin bailed him out.

    He isn't achieving his 2 year goal of removing Assad and stopping the carnage but instead assuring that Assad stays in power and the carnage continues until there is a winner.

    He's failed at his policy but we all get to pat ourselves on the back that while thousands die we won't be a part of it and UN delegates will get lots of meetings and meaningless agreements hammered out over the next few years.

    Great Job.


    I find it amusing (5.00 / 5) (#95)
    by sj on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 04:46:11 PM EST
    that you are choosing to completely re-interpret everything that's said here.

    I'll give the credit to Obama if it makes him happy. No doubt Russians will give the credit to Putin. Who cares? It's the outcome that matters.

    It doesn't matter if the horse was dragged to water. The accomplishment is making him drink.

    And you -- and everyone else -- can name that horse whatever you want.


    Waiting for lentinel to check in on the (none / 0) (#98)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 05:01:40 PM EST
    current state of affairs.

    Guess we need to bomb (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by KeysDan on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 07:59:26 PM EST
    other countries every once in a while to keep them on their toes   Susan Rice is not the kind of advisor that the President needs: she and Kerry should take a hike.

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 124 (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 08:36:39 AM EST
    Dos a Cero! Dos a Cero! (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 09:35:07 AM EST
    US Men's National Team has punched their ticket to Brasil 2014 with a 2-0 result over Mexico in Columbus last night, coupled with a draw between Honduras and Panama.   I propose every big home game should be played in Colombus, make it the national team's primary venue and have a real home field advantage.  Friendlies and such can be played anywhere, but for the big ones it should always be Columbus...what a crowd!

    Mexico looks to be in real trouble...aside from an early flurry we weathered, they looked uninspired and lost.  Hope they still qualify but the road to Brasil just got a lot rockier.

    Any guesses (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:32:16 AM EST
    on what the next false flag operation will be? Will Kerry's head explode in somebody's embassy somewhere?

    "Barack Obama: Syria does not pose 'significant' retaliation threat"
    -- The Guardian

    "retaliation" obviously needs to be designated a serious war crime, of course. @@

    Would Scotch for breakfast be considered chemical warfare against propaganda?

    No, it would be considered... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Dadler on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:35:30 AM EST
    ...a missile shield.

    Heh! (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:41:54 AM EST
    You may be onto something there. Lol.

    Edger, won't you acknowledge the U.S. (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:36:56 AM EST
    military intervention in Syria.may not occur?

    Sorry but I'm not holding my breath... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by gbrbsb on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 03:05:49 PM EST
    IMBW but from how I see it the US, UK, France, et al are 100% determined the Russian plan will not go forward... they wan't Assad gone, no more no less. From what I'm hearing here the many conditions for calling off punishment strikes are looking ever more impossible to comply with. And even if a resolution does get through in a minimally doable state, after seeing a BBC report on how really desperate the opposition are for the West to intervene which they know will give them the upper hand if they did not use the CW's before my bet is they will most certainly use them now to make sure the regime is blamed so strikes can immediately begin.

    That "this is not about regime change" my a**, that is exactly what it IS about... at least that is what I see even though I hope I am wrong.


    Here you go (1.00 / 3) (#64)
    by CoralGables on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 03:27:34 PM EST
    Are you some kind of advertising troll ? (none / 0) (#74)
    by gbrbsb on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 03:56:37 PM EST
    Or did someone hack your ID ? Or perhaps you are just joking and/or disagreeing or simply being unpleasant with me in a way I am much too dense to fathom, because your link
    "This might help"

    takes me to "Lasik Vision Institute's" website which I can't see has anything to do with my comment.

    CG is not an advertising troll (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by sj on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 04:13:21 PM EST
    But that comment was seriously trollish behavior.

    Thanks SJ... (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by gbrbsb on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 04:43:47 PM EST
    I don't know what in my comment merited the slight but either CG saw something that caused them to think I did or they are just plain rude.

    Taking your words out of context (none / 0) (#172)
    by Visteo1 on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 02:10:57 PM EST
    takes me to "Lasik Vision Institute's" website which I can't see...

    Sorry, I couldn't help myself.  


    The opposition using CW is one thing... (none / 0) (#115)
    by unitron on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:00:52 PM EST
    ...but pulling off a convincing false flag operation while doing so would be quite another, and I'd hope we'd be just as careful to determine for certain where the next CW attack came from as we were the last one.

    It does look like a failure so far (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:49:40 AM EST
    But I'm sure they'll work on it. Obama can't let Putin's proposal save him from his own idiocy, can he? And Bandar may be working on another shipment of sarin to al qaeda rebels in Syria as we speak, after all. He's a big obama supporter and loves Qatar's pipeline proposal, to boot.

    You're hopeless, Edger. (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 02:57:07 PM EST
    You have a rank inability to acknowledge facts that run counter to your increasingly tedious Obama-bashing narrative.

    And for the record, it was Secretary of State John Kerry, and NOT Vladimir Putin, who first broached the idea about Syria surrendering its chemical weapons arsenal to the international community. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov seized on Kerry's remark, and fashioned it into the present proposal presently being discussed.


    He didn't 'broach an idea,' Donald. (5.00 / 6) (#68)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 03:42:25 PM EST
    He dismissed the idea with as much sarcasm as his stolid little brain could muster, which ain't much.

    There is some seriously confirmation bias addled thinking going on around this issue.

    Putin made Obama's team look like war mongering fools, which to anyone who discusses this with non U.S. nationals, is what Americans look like anyway.

    If you want to credit Obama with anything, it is no more than that for once, voting 'present' actually landed us in a better place.


    An off-the-cuff, rhetorical "broach" ? (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by gbrbsb on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 08:33:43 PM EST
    Because I watched Kerry's conference live here and he sure convinced me he was "broaching" tongue in cheek, even showing (or should that be feigning?) certain impatience at the journalist for asking the "silly" question about what the Syrian regime "could do or offer that would stop an attack".

    And Kerry's reply, more especially his last sentence... priceless, chuckle and all:

    "He [Assad] could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week [i.e. 7 days to turn over the 1,000 tons of CWs Kerry says there are]. Turn it over, all of it, without delay, and allow a full and total accounting for that. But he [Assad] isn't about to do it, and it can't be done... obviously."

    a real Oscar winning performance if the proposal was pre-planned !


    You're moving very slightly closer (none / 0) (#106)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 06:55:42 PM EST
    to reality Donald, which is difficult to not do admittedly with it dragging you - and obama - fighting it tooth and nail all the way.

    By the end of the day, President Obama conceded that the idea of monitoring and ultimately destroying Syria's arsenal "could potentially be a significant breakthrough." The Senate postponed a vote scheduled for Wednesday on whether to back a proposed punitive strike.

    "I think you have to take it with a grain of salt, initially," Obama said in an interview with NBC that was among several he gave Monday in pursuit of public backing for a military strike in response to an alleged Aug. 21 gas attack on Syrian civilians.

    "We are going to run this to ground," Obama said. "We're going to make sure that we see how serious these proposals are."

    You're right: Lavrov seized on Kerry's remark - which Kerry made with zero seriousness behind it - and then Lavrov did indeed fashion it into the present proposal presently being discussed.

    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."

    Leaving kerry with his mouth hanging open, his arms flailing helplessly, obama probably wondering how to get rid of him before he opens his trap again in public, and wondering what the he!! hit him and obama and and where the war they both thought was in the bag for them went. And as Mr. Natural has pointed out, leaving "Obama's team look like war mongering fools, which to anyone who discusses this with non U.S. nationals, is what Americans look like anyway."

    Reality always has had a way of refusing to be denied  though, and sneaking up on those who try to deny it and biting them on the a$$. Enjoy yourself.

    It is not obama's fault that even though he promised transparency there are still some people who are unable to see through him, although the vast majority of people have no problem doing so.

    In the rest of the world's eyes U.S. credibility evaporated before Obama became president. So he's off the hook by virtue of his idiocy and kerry's incompetence.


    How the proposal unfolded (none / 0) (#110)
    by Politalkix on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 07:58:17 PM EST
    The article doesn't convince me, at least. (none / 0) (#116)
    by gbrbsb on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:32:52 PM EST
    I still believe Obama, Hollande and other "willings" especially the willing but unable, i.e. the UK, suddenly found themselves wrong footed by Kerry's comment which handed Lavrov the trump card on a plate. Now the willing are trying their damnedest to come up with a counter trump to scupper it... and they may well succeed in view of the conditions proposed. The West does not want Assad to win and he is and the threats from the FSA are that without help the extremists will swallow them up... a no brainer for them.  

    (And I say this as the enthusiastic Obama fan that was because Guantanamo, drone strikes, and this up and coming intervention have changed my mind somewhat)


    The Human Rights Watch (none / 0) (#30)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 12:24:01 PM EST
    has just issued a report stating that the evidence "strongly suggests" that the Syrian Government used chemical weapons.


    The Human Rights Watch is the gold standard as far as I am concerned.  They got it right about Guatemala when no one else did.  They were the first ones to report--early on--that the government was responsible for the atrocities there instead of the rebels--years before the Gerardi Report and the UN Truth Commission.


    Once more to the high horse, eh? (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 03:52:24 PM EST
    So when are you going to dig up a pretext, in one of those international treaties you're so fond of, for droning the U.S. Southern Command for the White Phosphorus job America did on the city of Fallujah?

    High horse? (none / 0) (#100)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 05:14:04 PM EST
    My comment was a simple factual comment.  Do you really have an issue with it?

    I have talked about Nuremberg (none / 0) (#102)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 05:22:12 PM EST
    Do you have a problem with that as precedent?

    THX MKS (none / 0) (#173)
    by Visteo1 on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 03:15:49 PM EST
    Here is the link to the 22 page report.

    It is compelling evidence and I look forward to the UN reports.  It appears they will have good evidence based on this link in the 22 page report.  

    Still trying to figure out what those reports were about saying too much time had passed for the UN.

    Why our government is not providing this unclassified documentation is troubling to me.

    Many of the links accessed on Sept 6 by Human Rights watched are no longer available.  (see documentation)  Why?

    Weird Sh*t.


    Imminent threat (none / 0) (#8)
    by woodchuck64 on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:52:11 AM EST
    Well, I just don't get it.  The media has made it clear that President Obama's military plan is in complete disarray and the entire nation of America has mass converted to non-interventionism and is marching the streets in protest.  

    What imminent threat would force Assad to agree to give up his chemical weapons?  Did Putin threaten to take him shirtless horseback-riding?

    HUh? (none / 0) (#9)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:54:34 AM EST
    Didn't you follow the threads here. Most of TL was horrified that Obama was going to attack Syria despite what Congress and the world thought about it.

    I think what he means (2.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Slado on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 11:01:48 AM EST
    is the latest talking point from team Obama is their saber rattling lead to this latest move by Syria and Russia.

    That is definitely putting lipstick on a pig but when you've bundled Syria as much as they have what else can they say.

    One could say that despite their best efforts and incompetence they will find a way out of this that doesn't involve war.

    Ignore the fact that their "policy" for the last two years was to get rid of Assad and now this action cements him as the leader.


    Really? (none / 0) (#17)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 11:15:13 AM EST
    Cements Assad as Leader? Wow...  Seems more to me that Obama went BushCo, and since he was Obama and not Bush you have decided that his success here is putting lipstick on a pig.

    Big surprise...


    You can shoot the messenger all (2.50 / 2) (#21)
    by Slado on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 11:36:16 AM EST
    you want but Obama did not go Bush.

    His team has shown tentative incompetence all along the way when it comes to Syria.

    He doens't know what to do and now he's willing to take any crappy deal the Russians will give him because heaven forbid he takes a position that is poll proven.

    Let's all ignore the fact that going into a weapons schem with the UN and Syria will take decades to finish, it took 8 years to get Lybia to give up it's chemical weapons, and that would be during peace time.

    The only way we get chemical weapons from Assad is if he wins and then cooporates with UN inspectors as the soverign leader of Syria.

    Until that happens or he somehow loses no UN force or ispectors can possibly do anythign while the bombs are in the air.

    Even in a cease fire Assad remains in control of the country.

    Syria wins, Russia wins and we look the fools.


    Shoot The Messenger? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 11:41:34 AM EST
    The only difference between BushCo and Obama in this conflict is that Assad conceded. He admitted to having WMD's and agreed to give them up. End of story... for now anyway.

    A tactical move to (2.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Slado on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 11:52:09 AM EST
    remain in power.  In direct contradiction of the two year policy of this administration (not that they ever really did anything about it).

    Russia told him, "give up" the weapons (or as many as we have to) and we'll make sure you stay in power.

    End of story.  

    Russia has only one goal.  Keep Assad in power.   With this new development that becomes likely.

    Obama apparently has a new goal.   To remove chemical weapons from Syria.   His old goal, well who cares about that?   He'll just adjust his goals to events on the ground and a large portion of the democratic party will nod their heads and cheer him on.


    Perhaps one other difference... (none / 0) (#114)
    by unitron on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 08:53:55 PM EST
    ...unless you think the Obama administration decided it wanted to believe Assad had WMD and went looking for whatever intelligence could be "fixed" to support that claim so that we have an excuse to take him out.

    By the way (none / 0) (#22)
    by Slado on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 11:40:55 AM EST
    The bombs are flying again in Syria thanks to the brilliant diplomacy of Obama.

    While the diplomatic wrangling was under way in far-flung capitals, Assad's warplanes bombed rebellious districts inside the Damascus city limits on Tuesday for the first time since the August 21 poison gas attacks. Rebels said the strikes demonstrated that the government had concluded the West had lost its nerve.

    "By sending the planes back, the regime is sending the message that it no longer feels international pressure," activist Wasim al-Ahmad said from Mouadamiya, one of the districts of the capital hit by the chemical attack.

    It's not our job... (none / 0) (#42)
    by unitron on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 01:10:56 PM EST
    ...to get Assad overthrown and replaced by God knows who or what, like maybe a Syrian Taliban.

    Civil wars are tough on non-combatants on both sides as well, but it's not up to us to choose sides, just up to the international community to keep things within certain boundaries, like no chemical or biological weapons or ethnic cleansing/mass murder--that sort of thing.


    I totally agree (none / 0) (#85)
    by Slado on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 04:18:09 PM EST
    But our president, the current and former secretary of state have repeatedly said the goal of this administration is for Assad to be removed from power.

    Why?  Because they laid down the mandate that evil dictators squashing revolutions is against US policy.   See Egypt and See Lybia.

    I believe Obama's exact words were..."Assad's got to go".

    Now the new policy is the removal of chemical weapons from Syria.   Which is only the current policy because Obama opened his big mouth and said if they used them it would be crossing a "Red Line".

    The policy of this administration on Syria is to react to whatever the Russians and Syria want them to react to.    

    If we're going to claim that Obama is brilliant lets at least admit that it's only because Putin allows him to be so.


    Except Pres. Obama's red line does (none / 0) (#77)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 03:58:19 PM EST
    not mandate Assad's forces stop bombing.

    "Good bombs" vs. "Bad Bombs" (none / 0) (#130)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 10:43:10 AM EST
    In the Terrible Land of Oz.

    And when did the bombs STOP flying ?! (none / 0) (#79)
    by gbrbsb on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 04:07:03 PM EST
    It is immersed in a civil war and I don't see why that would stop while the West "decides" (euphemism for how we can strike without looking like we're going for the regime change we're going for) if it is going to strike or not. (JMO)

    By the way neither the Lord Jesus (none / 0) (#168)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 06:57:48 PM EST
    or the combined powers of Milton Friedman the Blessed and every wingnut talk radio host could instantaneously make peace reign throughout all of Syria.

    I'm guessing that on some level you're dimly aware of that, Slado.


    Or this was a planned outcome (none / 0) (#104)
    by woodchuck64 on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 06:09:35 PM EST
    Ignore the fact that their "policy" for the last two years was to get rid of Assad and now this action cements him as the leader.

    One simple explanation for Assad's use of chemical weapons is a need to strike fear in the hearts of the opposition in addition to everything else he has at his disposal.  Apparently, things haven't been going well.  If Assad is now actually giving up that most potent weapon of all, it may mean he is willing to take a new tack in the civil war, a change of heart.  But if he intends to battle it out, giving up weapons can only make him weaker.


    Nah (none / 0) (#84)
    by sj on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 04:16:22 PM EST
    that's just his version of comment of substance. I've found it's better just to ignore it.

    The Ducks, I fear... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Dadler on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:55:26 AM EST
    ...are going to get very tired and injured by about week 6, I'd guess. Not that they won't get lucky and cruise, just that, well, it IS the NFL, not the Pac 12, and that's kind of a, um, huge phucking difference in talent and the amount of it spread around the league. Which translates into many bone crunching, I.R. inducing hits.

    Go Niners. And F Jerry Jones, every day. Word.

    Beyond keeping a lid on Syria's (none / 0) (#12)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 11:01:46 AM EST
    chemical weapons, which I agree is better if able to be done without military intervention, does anyone know what our interests actually are there?  Once the weapons are contained, what next?  Will we have or take some kind of role, and if so, what will it be?

    Maybe Obama will clarify that tonight.

    Wishful thinking (none / 0) (#14)
    by Slado on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 11:03:55 AM EST
    Keep in mind that his "policy" for the last two years has been the removal of Assad.

    If we sign some sort of UN arrangement with him we are basically declaring that he is the ruler of Syria and we will work with him going forward.

    Tough Sh*t opposition.   How can we fund weapons and the opposition while signing an international treaty with Assad?

    Good questions.   all of which I'm sure Obama won't answer tonight because he doesn't know what the hell he is doing.


    Guessing that the sought resolution (none / 0) (#36)
    by christinep on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 12:44:09 PM EST
    would place the enforcement onus primarily on the UN. If the carrot & stick (aka commit-to-the-world-that-the Syrian government-will-undertake-dismantling CW-&-related process-with-enforcement via military back-up-if violation) process of recent days can bring about the desired resolution through the Security Council, one other positive outcome would be that the world community becomes more the "world policeman."

    I'm guessing something... (none / 0) (#43)
    by unitron on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 01:12:46 PM EST
    "...does anyone know what our interests actually are there?"

    ...involving oil or nat gas and various pipeline routes and such, although no one will actually admit that.


    Our real strategoc interests (none / 0) (#87)
    by Slado on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 04:24:52 PM EST
    are to oppose the Syrian/Iranian forces messing up Iraq, Afghanistan and the wider Middle East.

    Also to make sure Israel isn't wiped from the face of the earth.

    A little oil doesn't hurt but this is more to not mess up the global market then for our own selfish needs.

    All that said I don't think Obama had many good options on Syria.   We aren't going to get involved in that civil ware because we don't want to ultimately do what it would really take to stop it.   Get involved with boots on the ground.  

    Also we have plenty of evidence to support the position that maybe these dictators aren't the worst option....See Iraq, Egypt, Lybia, Tunisia, Yemen etc...

    But Obama for whatever reason decided that removing Assad was our policy and then created his own "Red Line".   Now that he actually has to do something about it he is going to take the first escape hatch he can find to avoid a conflict he created all by himself.  

    That's how we got here.  Obama created this mess and now Putin is going to clean it up for him.


    Just out of curiousity... (none / 0) (#113)
    by unitron on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 08:47:58 PM EST
    ...why is it in our interest that Israel not be wiped from the face of the Earth?

    I know there's the obvious not wanting all of those people killed in the process, but what does the U.S. gain by there being a nation of Israel, and specifically what do we gain by there being a nation of Israel at its current location?

    Or is it not so much Israel in particular as it is avoiding the precedent of any nation being wiped from the face of the Earth?


    The U.S. supports Israel (none / 0) (#118)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:17:46 PM EST
    for a wide variety of reasons.  It ultimately is a question of values that is largely beyond debate.  Either you support Israel (in general with perhaps exceptions as to means) or you do not.

    No amount of debate will really change that.


    For a start (none / 0) (#121)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 01:46:16 AM EST
    Israel will not go quietly or without exercising every option it has available to stay alive.

    I think it is less true that Israel depends on the US for defense, than that the US defends Israel to prevent the whole of the middle east turning into WW III if Israel decides to defend itself directly in a major way.


    Must research how many U.S. tax (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 01:54:22 AM EST
    dollars are devoted to helping Israel defend itself and/or use its military on offense.

    How did all these people (none / 0) (#134)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:58:05 AM EST
    who like they're from Belgium and Terre Haute, Indiana suddenly become semites?

    Because more and more, due to changing demographics panic, they're giving the "right of return" to just about anybody these days.


    Anne (none / 0) (#18)
    by CoralGables on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 11:17:51 AM EST
    Have surpassed the halfway point. Book > Ebook > book on tape has me slow-rolling through the pdf. It's like an intelligent version of my much hated Hardball by leaving out the hyperventilating of negativity (aomething already obvious on this thread even when things take an excellent turn for the good).

    Glad you're giving it a go... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 11:24:09 AM EST
    I read it rather than listen, but I didn't get a sense of much "tone," which I was pleased about.

    Finished (none / 0) (#44)
    by CoralGables on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 01:21:42 PM EST
    Thank you. It is amazing how fast things change. That same group could now sit down less than a week later and discuss the merits of the newest proposal, and I'd take on another 59 page pdf file to read their take on the matter.

    What book is this? (none / 0) (#89)
    by caseyOR on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 04:31:23 PM EST
    I'm always on the lookout for reading material.

    Not a book - the Lawfare podcast (none / 0) (#99)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 05:09:52 PM EST
    on Syria, the transcript of which CG and I read in pdf form.

    Link is here

    Really well done, and I hope they reconvene and do another one when these latest developments gel.


    Anyone Catch the 17 Point Run... (none / 0) (#24)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 11:46:56 AM EST
    ...last night by the Texans to come from behind and smack the 'Super' right off the Charges new moniker.

    I missed the Colts run a few years ago which was more impressive, but since I am Texans fan, last night was awesome !!!

    I hate last minute field goals, it puts the game in the hands of the only non-contact position.  Plus they are so fricken stressful, watch that kick, hoping it goes in/out...

    Overall I think the line up of opening week was pretty weak.  From moving a game because of baseball, to a bunch of non-divisional match-ups, so overlapping Monday night games, it didn't fulfill that yearning for kickass football.

    My beloved Pack lost in San Fran so the Bears and Lions are leading the division, which makes me sad.  

    What's the over/under on when Ed Reed (none / 0) (#46)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 01:27:35 PM EST
    takes the field?

    I guess they're saving him for later in the season, but there are some of us in Baltimore who wonder if he ever makes a significant contribution this season, given his hip and neck issues.


    We Seriously Need Him (none / 0) (#52)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 02:21:11 PM EST
    I personally don't like getting great players that are getting up there in age.  The $15M for 3 years with only $5M guaranteed contract leads me to believe the Texans think he's only good for one season, or rather they are only willing to risk one season of pay for that position.   Making that position next years draft/trade problem, again.

    Which really sucks when you consider the secondary has pretty much been behind every big loss in the past couple years.  The line can only knock down so many balls and rush the QB so many times before the deep ball kills us.


    Lawrence O'Donnell, (none / 0) (#32)
    by KeysDan on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 12:30:14 PM EST
    on his show last night, accomplished what seemed to be the impossible... he made Anthony Weiner look good.   O'Donnell's questions, not to mention his over-bearing manner of asking them, were embarrassing...to O'Donnell.  For example, Weiner was asked, "what's wrong with you?"    Besides the question's awkwardness, such a question would, you would think, provide opportunity for a response.  But no, he just asked more impertinent, and unenlightened questions.  My question, is why did Lawrence invite Weiner on the show?    Followed-up by why is Lawrence on the show?

    I agree... (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 12:45:01 PM EST
    I just caught a clip of the interview this morning, and the question I was left asking is "What's wrong with this O'Donnell character?"

    I give Weiner a lot of credit for taking his lumps throughout the campaign, and making it till the end to take his lumps at the polls today;) The tabloid media came out of the whole thing looking like the real freaks...but I guess it's entertaining and that's what it's all about.


    Will Weiner's verbal altercation w/the bakery (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 04:12:08 PM EST
    customer help or hurt Weiner today?  

    Are you serious, oculus (none / 0) (#94)
    by christinep on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 04:44:16 PM EST
    Or maybe all of this W's altercations & temper displays will only help him?  What is your theory? Or is this about mischief making or conversation starter?

    I'm serious. He is leaving a bakery (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 04:58:17 PM EST
    munching a Rosh Hashanah sweet and a customer insults his wife, which is apparently a red line.

    If Weiner's red line had been a little closer to (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 10:44:39 AM EST
    his belt line, he wouldn't be in this fix.

    Now one of his sextong recipients (none / 0) (#135)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 12:41:35 PM EST
    is stalking him and last night he flipped a middle finger at a reporter.  Wife doing her own thing in D.C.    

    Regarding the psycho stalker... (none / 0) (#136)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 01:11:45 PM EST
    it never ceases to amaze at how low people will go in search of a buck...15 minutes are up lady, get a life!

    Nothing could help Weiner... (none / 0) (#125)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 09:06:55 AM EST
    but I respected him calling that bakery bigot out.

    Looks like Blas`e De Blasio might have dodged a run off...Act 1 of the clown show is now complete, onto the general!  De Blasio's rhetoric is good, but is he full of sh*t?  Some recent allegations of past quid pro quo with slumlords has me concerned.  If he is on the level, does he have what it takes to bang heads with the moneyed interests and slow this tale of two cities trend?

    So glad Spitzer lost his primary...hit the road Jack.


    As a New Yorker (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Nemi on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:00:35 AM EST
    in my dreams only ... [sigh] ... I very much appreciate opinions from those of you here that are ... [envious sigh] ... in fact New Yorkers.

    And while I think Anthony Weiner behaves as an idiot - and find him saying about his 20 month old son wearing a fedora, that "He's bringing sexy back", obnoxious. Really, Weiner! - from what I know I agree with this:

    "Anthony Weiner is the best political performer in this field and is progressive and tough enough in his policies and rhetoric that he'd be at or near the top of this race were it not for his scandals," said one veteran of New York City politics who, because of friends working in rival campaigns, did not want to be named saying something nice about the man who called himself Carlos Danger.

    Enough with the sighs but still ... what could have been.


    The eccentricity or... (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:53:30 AM EST
    "odd behavior" doesn't bother me, neither do his cyber sex habits...it's about the ideas, and I think there's some truth in Weiner's remarks during his concession party..."We had the best ideas. Sadly, I was an imperfect messenger."

    We get the government we deserve by focusing on messengers and optics over message and ideas.


    Well ... maybe there was something else (none / 0) (#140)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 03:09:38 PM EST
    Something to do with W's character?  By any standard or expectation, didn't he really sc**w  himself?  Somehow if someone can't hold himself/herself together long enough to get through a campaign, maybe that someone's smarts and that someone's ideas aren't as superior as they were sold either?

    No doubt... (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 03:56:27 PM EST
    Weiner knows the game and the rules of it...nobody to blame but himself.  Sh*t I'm not a big Weiner fan or anything...more speaking generally about our political climate and how we choose leaders.  Speaking about "the game" and if we're being served by it.

    I wonder how anybody can deal with a campaign...I know I have no patience for the bullsh*t to ever run for office.  Ya gotta be crazy....everybody and their mother digging for dirt on ya, every word uttered scutinized in and out of context.  Which might have something to do with the scarcity of quality candidates for any and all offices...nature of the beast I know, but this is a beast of our own creation, and it doesn't have to be this way.


    Carlos Danger: International Man of Mystery.. (none / 0) (#144)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 04:14:03 PM EST
    if he can't keep it together when he knows everyone's watching, how's he going to maintain some integrity in the grease-spreading-lobbyist shadowlands that so many other pols are enmired in?  

    Valid question... (none / 0) (#146)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:00:50 PM EST
    sh*t brother he knew the game and decided to play way back when he started out fetching coffee for Schumer...it's an industry where integrity is an endangered species.  

    Once again we've stumbled upon the Vonnegut Theory.  Kurt didn't know what to do about it...and my best idea is to fill all elected offices via random lottery.  Worth a shot! ;)    


    Maybe term limits? (none / 0) (#152)
    by Zorba on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:11:53 PM EST
    For all elected officials.  Although that would mean we just get another crop of scalawags in every few years.
    Maybe IQ tests for voters?  No, I suppose that would be way too close to the "literacy" tests that were used so many years ago to keep blacks from voting.
    I've got no solution here.  I guess a random lottery might not be any worse than what we have now.     ;-)
    (OTOH, there are a few of my neighbors who would cause me to shudder if they were elected to anything, including dog-catcher.)

    "A few of the neighbors..." (none / 0) (#154)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:14:49 PM EST
    Yes, that's an obvious pitfall.

    But let's think about this...how many of your "representatives" would you want as neighbors?  Hmm Hmm ;)


    LOL! (none / 0) (#159)
    by Zorba on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:26:05 PM EST
    Well, there is that, Dog.

    kdog: True, that. (none / 0) (#147)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:04:32 PM EST
    Case in point... (none / 0) (#151)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:11:52 PM EST
    the primary reason De Blasio surged from also-ran to 40% was his son's afro.  Granted, it's a pretty nifty 'fro.  And the punchline is compared to how most elections are decided, it's as good a reason as any.  

    It... (none / 0) (#155)
    by sj on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:16:35 PM EST
    ... really is a pretty nifty 'fro. Haven't seen one that good in a while. Maybe years.

    sidebar: Also haven't seen good looking dreads since I've been back in Colorado, and only a few sets of braids.


    Nothing new, kdog (none / 0) (#157)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:19:37 PM EST
    President Eisenhower was once elected US President primarily because of his smile. (If memory serves, that factoid comes per the Michigan Survey Research Center as to 1956.)

    Whatever happened in NY, it looks to an outsider like me that a part of C. Quinn's fall was a rejection of another Bloomberg term ... in part, anyway. If that is so, how fascinating that is (especially given how much the national media has long awaited any word from Bloomberg as if it were manna.)

    What about would-be Comptroller. Spitzer, tho?  Was it his past or Wall Street's past & present $$$ or a combo?


    If Kuchinich... (none / 0) (#167)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:38:09 PM EST
    was only 6 inches taller! ;)

    The Spitzocrite...I think more his past.  Stringer had some ads running, don't know who paid for them, though he is a matching public funds guy and limited in his fundraising...assuming that's on the level, Wall St. could only pump him up so much.  And he was   a somewhat pro Occupy guy as Borough Pres.


    By that logic... (none / 0) (#145)
    by sj on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 04:16:38 PM EST
    Somehow if someone can't hold himself/herself together long enough to get through a campaign, maybe that someone's smarts and that someone's ideas aren't as superior as they were sold either?

    ... someone with Tourette's (or any other disorder) could never have superior ideas.

    I didn't mean that, sj (none / 0) (#148)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:06:22 PM EST
    Really? (none / 0) (#149)
    by sj on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:07:29 PM EST
    How do you know that he doesn't have some sort of disorder?

    He's got some kinda disorder all right! ;) (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:17:58 PM EST
    But who doesn't.

    Sh*t sj show me somebody who doesn't and I'll bet that's who really want nowhere near a position of power.


    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by sj on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:33:57 PM EST
    show me somebody who doesn't and I'll bet that's who really want nowhere near a position of power.

    On a micro level, that's how I've always felt about someone with no obvious vices.

    Add... (none / 0) (#158)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:20:19 PM EST
    and our personal disorders got nuthin' on our societal disorders.

    If "he" is W in your conjecture (none / 0) (#153)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:12:40 PM EST
    I would suppose that "he" should tell us ... for who are we to assume.

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#161)
    by sj on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:31:22 PM EST
    now that I think about it. I think that way about you that way often enough.

    So, carry on.


    My, my ...your guard is always up (none / 0) (#169)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:37:23 PM EST
    Blame the marketers.. (none / 0) (#162)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:31:59 PM EST
    and the ubiquitous media "consultants" (who isn't one these days?)

    They've been baraging the public with moronic "hot button" words, phrases, and images for a few decades now and have succeeded in engendering a crop of disasterously non-reflective impulse buyers one half of whom don't vote and the other half of whom shouldn't vote..

    Don't think, just keep buying stuff: they could put it in place of Novus Ordo Seclorum on the national seal at this point..    


    The thoughtful Jungian psychologist (none / 0) (#165)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:37:17 PM EST
    James Hillman said "America is over" a short time before he died, he was very conservative in a lot of ways..

    And btw, he wasn't talking about "the loss of traditional values", "the family", and "our diminishing prestige" in the eyes of the world..


    Excuse me (none / 0) (#50)
    by lilburro on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 02:07:30 PM EST
    those were the IGGLES.

    I was unbearably anxious the whole game but haven't felt as happy as I've felt in the last 16 hours for a loooooong time.  Hot damn!  And Philly sports radio is entertainingly jubilant/hilarious/delusional today.

    World War III kickstarter (none / 0) (#54)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 02:41:28 PM EST
    Presentation here

    $10 Donation:  Media shoutout
    $25 Donation:  Piece of rubble from middle eastern country kissed by Lindsay Graham.
    $10,000,000 Donation:  Your own Senator for a year.

    Or for more peaceful kickstarters (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by CoralGables on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 02:58:16 PM EST
    I'm proud to say one of these very bright young ladies is a close family member.

    Veils to Cleats


    Bruce Dixon of Black Agenda Report (none / 0) (#108)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 07:25:40 PM EST
    Fun to watch the spin (none / 0) (#117)
    by Mikado Cat on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:03:02 PM EST
    As long as Syria makes even a token effort at handing over chemical weapons I don't see how any kind of military strike could go ahead.

    The process won't be quick or simple, and at best is bound to have major delays. Assad could "reasonably" demand a ceasefire from the Rebels so that the chemical weapons can be "safely" removed, or that UN forces do the removal and let the UN negotiate with the rebels for safe passage.

    Somewhere in this timeline Iran is going to need to be dealt with.

    2014, and 2016 will start looking closer and closer with all associated mess and partisanship.

    Isn't This How We Started the Justification... (none / 0) (#129)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 10:26:52 AM EST
    ...for Iraq, the claim that Saddam wasn't letting in Hans Blix and Co. in to inspect.  Then came all the claims about WMD's.  And if I remember correctly, the claims about the inspectors were as accurate as the the ones about WMD's.

    I just discovered I am a Vince Gill fan (none / 0) (#119)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 01:06:50 AM EST
    Who knew?  Hope he's ready to have some of my money.  And the soldier in this video needs to start a boy band.

    Insomnia..I also did not know that Netflix had a category they call 'Cerebral Historical Documentaries' (now that's a mindfull), but there it is, came up tonight on the categories they are throwing at me.

    One Thing I Hate... (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 10:21:47 AM EST
    ...about Netflix.  Is the odd categories that occasionally appear and then disappear.

    And depending on the devise used, they vary wildly.  I can never find the same movies in my BR as my main TV.  Enjoy the 'Cerebral Historical Documentaries', because it will stick around for a couple days then be gone like the wind...

    I like the 'Dark Independent Comedies', but it only appears a couple days of the month.  I wonder if it's because of what I watch or just timely.

    The website is no better, it's like it's designed to not be useful IMO.  The good news is the poor design always leads me to watch something I normally wouldn't, which generally works out well.

    One thing that is very solid, the ratings, I generally watch anything with 4 starts, rarely does that not satisfy.

    If you like dark comedies this is awesome, 'Safety Not Guaranteed'.


    Thank you for the rec (none / 0) (#160)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:29:15 PM EST
    They like some dark comedy around here

    Which movies are listed in this category? (none / 0) (#120)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 01:23:05 AM EST
    I tried to watch The Daniel Project (none / 0) (#163)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:33:38 PM EST
    It was awful, dumb as dirt too.

    As Scott said, when I shut The Daniel Project down and went to see what else was in the category the damn category was gone.  Where did it go?


    I Did Notice This Yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 09:33:45 AM EST
    If you type 'Cerebral Historical Documentaries' in the online search engine, it brings up "Top picks in Cerebral Historical Documentaries".

    I have no idea if this works from the devise or if the results are the same.  But it appears to recognize the category.

    FYI, on Monday Hank: Five Years From the Brink will be available on Netflix.  I am sure it's a self serving fantasy from the former Treasury Secretary, but I am still going to check it out.

    The film features Paulson explaining how and why he tried to get banks and the government to approve the bailouts, even though he didn't completely agree with the move. Hank -- produced and directed by Joe Berlinger -- marks Businessweek's first foray into film, and the debut product from Bloomberg Businessweek Films, a new division of the magazine.

    Reuters reports (none / 0) (#123)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:38:45 AM EST
    big bomb in Benghazi to mark 9/11.


    The permanent members (none / 0) (#137)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 01:41:17 PM EST
    of the UN Security Council: France, Britain, China, Russia, and the US, are meeting in NY later this afternoon. With all them having veto ability, they'll have to be in agreement moving forward on Syria.

    The resolution to be put forward by France will get nowhere but the two points of contention are easily settled with a little logic.

    Syria and Russia want any possibility of military intervention off the table. That leaves too much potential for Syria to stall and stop the process. That won't happen and will have to stay included.

    France, Britain, and the US want those responsible for the chemical attack brought to justice. Since that may be Assad's brother, that will likely have to be dropped from the resolution for Syria to agree.

    Keep the military intervention possibility if the UN resolution terms aren't followed. Drop the potential for criminal charges so a much more important process for the greater good can move forward.

    Interested in your thoughts on something (none / 0) (#138)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 02:20:57 PM EST
    I read the other day, in connection with the Manchin/Heitkamp proposal, and now that Syria is offering to sign the Chemical Weapons convention, I'm wondering what, if any, relevance the following has should any proposal Syria might also sign onto have possible military consequences for failure to comply:

    A potential problem with this approach is that Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides: "A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations."  The United States has not ratified this treaty but the State Department says that the "United States considers many of the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to constitute customary international law on the law of treaties."  Syria has ratified the Convention, as have most countries.  I cannot imagine that Syria will give in to the proposed threat if it became law.  But if Syria were to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention in the face of this threat, it would have a good argument that the ratification was void.


    Does this not seem like a huge loophole?  Or at least provide enough of a suggestion of one that "bogged down" might severely understate what would ensue?


    Excuse my interjection here, Anne and CG (none / 0) (#141)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 03:23:07 PM EST
    But, consider that in almost any major government settlement/resolution, the matter of enforcement or how to enforce is a very predictable issue.  One suggestion: The consequential words such as "military response" or "military intervention/action" or such-like can be encapsulated in less specific (but equally understandable or umbrella) language such as "strong consequences" "necessary & appropriate compliance action" or any number of phrases.  The broader language--even foot-noted--could be especially important in view of Syria's minister's remarks earlier today that they didn't want the agreement forced on them ... an indication that the wording shouldn't cut their face off for the world to see.  If the specific word "military" must be used to describe consequences for violation, one other possibility typically employed is a short timetable appeal/3rd entity review process.

    My point: For clarity and everyone's position, the future agreement does need a sentence or two about the consequences for violation.  Without an enforcement component, the paper will float away on the wind.  Do expect a lot of pushing, pulling, posturing on that issue for awhile, tho.


    You don't have much use for (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:09:54 PM EST
    treaties and conventions, do you?

    The language is the language, and it seems pretty clear to me that if a country's signature is obtained through threats of force, it renders the country's signature void.

    So it seems to me that care needs to be taken to craft any agreement with this in mind - and it may well be that Assad is agreeing to sign onto the CW convention because he knows it will be meaningless if they are threatened with force.


    As for the fine points (none / 0) (#166)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:38:04 PM EST
    as well as the arguable points related to the UN, I think it most appropriate to allow the negotiators in this instance to grapple with any potential impediments.  (What I recall in my International Law studies is that one of the prime purposes is to further mutual agreement, expectations, and comity.  Then there is the Morgenthau School.) I would think that the focus of the involved governments and designated negotiators in the Syria situation is the crafting of a document, together with some defined logistics, for accomplishing the goal voiced by the leaders (in varying forms) that past two days.

    As for your first sort of question: I do have regard for all extant treaties and conventions.
    I have respect for different interpretations as well.  And, in this instance, I have the greatest respect for negotiators who can craft a resolution that will lead to fewer Chemical Weapons.  That would be in the interests of law and humanity.


    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 125 (none / 0) (#170)
    by Dadler on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 07:50:51 AM EST