Amy Davidson in the New Yorker analyzes Kerry's lousy performance

[cali]

in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the lack of coherence and clarity coming from the administration.

“Make me proud today, Secretary Kerry,” Senator Rand Paul said toward the end of more than three hours of Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on whether to authorize President Obama to use military force against Syria. Paul wanted Kerry to say that if Congress voted no—“which is unlikely”—the White House “wouldn’t go forward with the war.” Otherwise, he said, “you’re making a joke of us. You’re making us into theatre. And so we play constitutional theatre for the President.” (Despite what Paul told Kerry, it’s not clear that there are the votes to get a resolution through Congress, even though House Speaker John Boehner said on Tuesday that he’d support it, as did Nancy Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton, for that matter.) Meanwhile, his colleague John McCain, who complained that there wasn’t enough of a war planned, had been caught on camera playing poker on his iPhone.

There was something stunted about the testimony from Kerry, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, and General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. If it was a piece of theatre, it was one clearly still in workshop, with only the roughest notion of how the last act would end—or even how its authors wanted it to end, and what the basic motivations of the characters might be. Kerry, who did most of the talking, came with reassurances on the quality of the intelligence showing that the Assad régime had used chemical weapons, but with little more than impressionistic notions and sweeping historical admonitions when asked what would happen after the United States launched air strikes. When pressed, quite reasonably, by Senator Tom Udall, who said that he agreed that Assad had done something “horrific” but wanted to know more about diplomacy and the possibility of escalation, Kerry compared the present moment to the Holocaust, and not going along with strikes to turning away Jewish refugees. He explained to Paul that he had no idea what Obama would do if the authorization failed—that the President hadn’t told him. Earlier in the hearing, he’d said the same thing to Senator Jeff Flake, adding,

But I’ll tell you what will happen, where it matters, in Pyongyang, in Tehran, in Damascus—folks will stand up and celebrate. And in a lot of other capitals in parts of the world, people will scratch their heads and sign a sort of condolence for the loss of America’s willingness to stand up and make itself felt where it makes a difference to the world.

<snip>

If there is one thing that the hearings are showing, it is that the Administration has a great deal of work to do in constructing the strategic and logical framework for military action. (This is one reason why it was a good idea to go to Congress.) Senator after senator asked if what the President planned to do about chemical weapons would also help the rebels, and whether it should. They got confused answers—an acknowledgment from Kerry that there might be “downstream” benefits; assertions that the opposition was on the whole getting more moderate and “more defined by its adherence to some, you know, democratic process and to an all-inclusive, minority-protecting constitution,” never mind that one of the groups was an Al Qaeda affiliate. Mostly, Kerry seemed to want the senators to put the question of régime-change entirely out of their minds for the purposes of this vote, and to think about the American policy that Assad should step down as being on a different “track.” At one point, when Dempsey was asked about how limited American air strikes might change the direction of Syria’s civil war, he said, “I have never been told to change the momentum. I have been told to degrade capability.”

<snip>

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/09/john-kerry-syria-intervention-air-strike-moral-argument.html?mbid=gnep&google_editors_picks=true

[pjt7]

1. Kerry needs to touch down in Syria

& interact with some of the radical Islamists that will come into power.

Nothing like seeing a women beheaded in person for not wearing headcover, to make you feel like your on the right team.

[TwilightGardener]

2. The problem is that chemical weapon punishment is being conflated with

aiding the rebels and pushing for their victory. Obama wants to punish chem weapon use, and I can't say I disagree with that, though I am uncomfortable with unintended consequences of a strike. But Obama has been HESITANT about helping the rebels, and promoting regime change, and still is. Both Dempsey and Hagel didn't want to intervene and arm them (as per their testimony in the spring), Obama was slow-walking the decision and kind of ignoring Carl Levin and McCrazy and their calls for no-fly zones, and Kerry seems to want regime change and more intervention. Because of this internal disagreement on arming rebels/regime change, it's hard for Obama, Kerry, Hagel and Dempsey to project a united front and lots of conviction on the whole Syria matter. But they all do agree on punishment for WMD use, it seems.

[cali]

3. Until recently I thought Obama was reluctant to help the rebels too, but

after listening to Kerry over the last two days minimize the role of radical fundamentalists in the opposition and after hearing him say repeatedly that regime change is something the admin wants, I no longer agree that Obama is all that reluctant. Kerry wouldn't be saying what he's saying without the express approval of the President.

[TwilightGardener]

4. Keep in mind that Kerry is tailoring his presentation to pull in as many

Congressional "fish" as possible. You want regime change? Well, maybe there's something in the bag for you! You say your objection is extremists gaining power? Aw c'mon, they're not THAT extreme. Etc. Kerry is the salesman and point man--I don't think he's lying, but he's trying to convince by offering a little something for everyone in order to get the results--a passed authorization. Whether or not Obama is in total agreement with everything he says, we'll never know. But having watched these guys for a while, and understanding their backgrounds and previous positions, that's where my gut is: Obama resisted Clinton, Petraeus and Panetta calling for intervention last year, I don't think he is suddenly comfortable with a big role in the civil war now, despite Kerry's pitch. I believe he sincerely feels strongly about chemical weapon use, and the consequences of not acting against it.

[obxhead]

7. However, Obama is fighting for the next election.

Sure, we won't have any say one way or another, but he is going through the job interviews now.

[bigdarryl]

5. I told you guys Kerry was a idiot in another post I posted

And some DU'ers went after me for posting it.When you say WE ARE NOT GOING TO WAR!!!.Your a idiot you drop 200 bombs on this country that would be an act of WAR!!!!!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

6. For all the money that we've paid Kerry et al., shouldn't we get better theatre?