The only thing left for John Kerry to do is lick his comb.

[karynnj]

71. I think he genuinely believes in what he is doing

As to his looks = some one in the JK group suggested that he might have a sinus infection that he is getting treatment for. As to his position, here is what he wrote - http://blogs.state.gov/stories/2013/09/06/yes-vote-conscience-worlds-red-line

He was in favor of a no fly zone in Libya to stop a massacre there. Here, I have no doubt that he is very troubled by the use of chemical weapons and he is convinced that Assad did it. One point that he has made is that he called the FM of Syria the day after and demanded that they immediately get the UN there -- and instead they shelled for 4 days. That has stayed with me, because though there is no way to construct a parallel here, thank goodness, I really can't understand a government shelling an area of its country that just suffered such an attack.

His view is that we can't look a way and ignore this.

I think for everyone, there are really 3 big pieces here:
- Was there a chemical attack
- Did Assad himself (or his inner circle who have not since been reprimanded) do it
- What - if anything - should the US do.

Most of the US Congress seem to agree with the administration on the first two - though Grayson is not convinced on the second. Those are the questions that make up the factual case that US intelligence has provided. On DU agreement even on the first two is not there - which might indicate either complete anti-government mindsets or possibly because accepting them and arguing to do nothing is hard for a people from a culture that has an underlying fix it mentality.

For the third question, although there are many things that need to be known to understand the consequences of any action, positions are not based entirely on US intelligence. It brings into question whether "humanitarian intervention" to stop bad things from happening is a valid use of US power. This is not an easy question - after the fact, there are always questions of why the world ignored the plight of the Jews in the 1930s, the Cambodians in the 1970s (until Communist Vietnam intervened), Rwanda or the various peoples of the former Yugoslavia (until the US with NATO intervened). However, any intervention can have real consequences and we just saw in two wars how bad it could be - and here, we are closer to some of the fault lines between various powers.

Additionally, the administration (taken at its words) is stuck between the people who have pushed for far greater intervention to oust Assad - like McCain and Graham, and people who want to do nothing at all. Not being able to get enough votes in the center, the SFRC was forced to take McCain's amendment that goes beyond what the administration wants - or have no resolution voted out. There are also the people on the right who argue both that a strong leader would have just done it -- and they would impeach Obama if he goes without Congress.

I an not sure where I come out at this point. I was against the US covertly helping the rebels - which the administration did with Clinton, Petraeous, Gates and Dempsey behind it. The US Congress, including Kerry did not question this to any real degree - and the foreign policy media had more criticism for Kerry trying to diplomatically move Assad than these actions. To me, this was not far from Reagan backing the Contras -- other than Congress had banned military aid to them. Obama supposedly slowed this down and they have in the last year supposedly given just humanitarian aid - not military aid. However, you then hear that they have trained rebels. This is mess - and we have some culpability. One of the most depressing things I read before this attack was a NYT oped where it was suggested that the civil war continuing, but contained is may the best for us - as they kill each other. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/opinion/sunday/in-syria-america-loses-if-either-side-wins.html?_r=0

The planned response is supposedly designed mostly to send a signal that there will be a cost to using chemical weapons. I can see that the various standard international diplomatic responses seem unlikely - the UN will not even approve a resolution that would say it is unacceptable and takes no action. We can't take it to the ICC - that we do not belong to. I don't buy that this is just Obama's fault for having said that CW was a red line. Had he said nothing, I assume that the response might have been the same. I wish there were some way for the international community to pressure Syria to turn its CW over to the UN to end this. However, I can't imagine where that pressure could come from - unless Russia wanted to end this crisis - which I doubt.

It is not just whether we take this "shot across the bow", it is what we do - or don't do on the bigger Syria issue. There have been talks to restart Geneva 2 to find a political solution - but the rebels did not agree to participate (or even decide who represents them) I assume that taking action will make this goal even harder -- and it was a long shot when Lavrov and Kerry revived the dormant process that had been ignored for about two years.

It is tempting to say that we should just leave them to fight it out - but failed states anywhere are a problem and Syria is at the crossroad of Middle East - which has long been a powder keg.

So, I respect - and will defend - Kerry's honesty, integrity and basic decency - and I respect his knowledge and insight into foreign policy, but I really am afraid that both acting and not acting have major - mostly negative consequences. I also think that by elevating the issue, the consequences of doing nothing will be higher than they would have been otherwise.