So now the new goal is Regime Change?

[Ichingcarpenter]

White House LiveVerified account
?@WHLive


Rice: "Our overarching goal is to end the underlying conflict through a negotiated, political transition in which Assad leaves power" #Syria

https://twitter.com/WHLive/statuses/377121102507433984

this is not diplomacy, take baby steps

[David__77]

1. It was ALWAYS about regime change.

The weapons are purely incidental. The weapons help protect Syria from foreign intervention, interestingly.

[Ichingcarpenter]

3. I don't think this is a good sign

and confirms my earlier analysis.

[quinnox]

2. Didn't Obama and his hawk-ish team learn anything from Iraq?

Damn, maybe they are slow learners.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

4. apparetnly you haven't been paying attention

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/8709657/Syria-Bashar-al-Assad-must-get-out-of-the-way-says-Hillary-Clinton.html

Obama administration came in with hopes of working with Assad, and Democratic congressional leaders including Kerry had been working to engage with Syria and Assad since before Obama was elected. Obama reinvigorated diplomatic relations by sending a diplomat to Syria.

This idea that Obama and team have been a war monger against Syria since the beginning is false. It is also false that this was never about regime change once Assad truly showed the violence and depravity of his regime.

[cali]

8. uh, Assad's regime has demonstrated it's use of violence for years

it was "truly showed" long before the onset of the civil war and everyone knew it.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

10. and those darn war mongers Obama and Clinton tried diplomacy over conservative objections

he may have been a dictator and crushed dissent, but the uprisings of 2010 and 2011 in Arab countries and then Syria led him to engage in wholesale slaughter of his people.

So you are saying Obama was wrong to engage in diplomacy?

[Igel]

16. It was politically expedient.

Which is a fancy way of saying, "Yup, probably wrong." The only reason for diplomacy with Assad was that Bush II was calling for harsh rhetoric, and the nurturing, peaceful alternative was the Democrats. Even if they had to deny reality and call Assad a "reformer" and make nice with him. It drew a distinction that was important on the campaign trail.

This was before the election. After the election all things were new. The problem wasn't Assad--the problem was Bush II. This was also true of Iran--it wasn't Iranian intransigence, it was Bushite bullheadedness.

The wholesale slaughter of the Syrian people wasn't wholesale. It happened for all the same reasons that Mubarak and the Bahraini king were badasses. And for the same reason al-Sisi was a badass. To hold on to power. Bahrain? Okay. Al-Sisi? Heck, even Bachmann and many DUers agree that the MB had to be supressed. Assad? He wasn't a good guy and the gloves could come off. After Tunisia, the triumphant installation of a pro-Western democratic state in Libya, Egypt's early success, only good could come out of protests. Now it's a bit late to say, "Uh, we might have miscalculated."

[Myrina]

5. No, its just NOW that they're admitting it.

It was always regime change. Why do you think we were funding and training Al Q Rebel forces there to begin with?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

7. it was publicly stated since 2011 by Hillary Clinton that Assad needed to go

quit acting like this is some big thing uncovered by the DU sleuths! try google.

[Autumn]

6. Wait. What. getting him to give up CW isn't the most important

reason to bomb the fuck out of Syria? They seem to be willing to do it and now Obama administration is changing the goals?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

9. goal since 2011 Assad murder of his own people

in large quantities has been for Assad to go. Publicly stated.

[Waiting For Everyman]

11. Isn't that implied in the Russians giving him up?

Because that's what they just did, you know.

Does anybody really think that Assad is going to be trustworthy afterwards? That he could continue on, and not use the rest of his arsenal to bomb the hell out of his people? None of the principal players are that naive.

[Comrade Grumpy]

12. That's been the goal all along.

[dipsydoodle]

13. Much of that subject is covered by International law.

She does what for a living ?

[Avalux]

14. If it occurs peacefully - great.

And if Russia is the mediator to make it happen - perfect.

Sounds good to me.

[KoKo]

15. Susan Rice is all about "Regime Change" ....so she will not be in favor

of having the CW Excuse go down in flames if the UN Inspectors get in there and secure and then begin to dismantle them.

It's going to be a tug of war within the administration and with the Senate, House votes for weeks or longer. If Senate votes Yes for Authorization of Strikes and House Votes NO...then that's going to have Rice in a fit because the only acceptable thing will be to let UN inspectors in to secure and begin to dismantle the CW. I don't see how this works out well for the Regime Change Crowd...but, then they have so much power they might find a way to undermine UN Efforts.