New York Times Editorial, "Diplomatic Stirrings on Syria": Who Is the Naif Who Writes This Poppycock?

Obama and his friends in the media are desperately seeking to explain away the president's declaration that the mere "movement" of Syrian chemical weapons would cross a "red line" for his administration. Of course, Bashar al-Assad's loyalist forces have now used chemical weapons against the rebels, and Obama has done . . . nothing.

And so, this morning, we have Obama's friend Fareed Zakaria, a liar and a plagiarist, declaring in his latest Washington Post opinion piece (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-us-credibility-is-not-on-the-line-in-syria/2013/05/08/0c38db80-b7fa-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_story.html?hpid=z2):

"Secretary of State John Kerry is right to try to achieve such an accord and to enlist Russia. Such an agreement might now have to include an Alawite enclave in Syria because it is hard to see how the communities can peacefully live together. (The model here might be the Kurds in Iraq.) Obviously the odds are against a peace accord, and clearly the Russians have their own interests. But without some political agreement, military intervention will not end Syria’s humanitarian nightmare. It will only change its composition."

John Kerry, who once declared that Assad is a "dear friend," to the rescue? Yeah, right. In case you haven't noticed, Kerry is a moron.

A tiny Alawite enclave? The Kurds have oil. What would sustain the Alawites?

The Russians are going to lend a helping hand to the US? What is Zakaria smoking?

In the same vein (surprise, surprise), The New York Times, in an editorial entitled "Diplomatic Stirrings on Syria" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/opinion/diplomatic-stirrings-on-syria.html?hp&_r=0) is similarly suggesting:

"There are reasons to be skeptical about plans by Russia and the United States to hold an international conference on Syria — diplomats often propose meetings when they don’t have solutions. But, at a time when the civil war is worsening in every way, this initiative counts as a hopeful sign.

. . . .

The Russians and Americans have put their credibility on the line, but Russia is particularly critical to the outcome. An earlier diplomatic initiative by the United Nations and Arab League aimed at easing Mr. Assad out of power and beginning a democratic transition failed miserably, largely because Russia — along with Iran, Mr. Assad’s main protector — sent arms to the regime and refused to impose sanctions."

So, The New York Times is also pinning its hopes on Putin.

Apparently unbeknownst to Zakaria and the editorial board of The Times, Russia is now planning to send highly sophisticated S-300 missile batteries to Assad (see: http://www.jpost.com/International/Report-Israel-warns-of-Russian-arms-sale-to-Syria-312562). This is intended to prevent the US from enforcing a "no fly zone" and to complicate any American or Israeli air mission aimed at attacking Assad's chemical weapons arsenal.

Surely you remember Obama's March 2012 open microphone gaffe in Seoul, when he naively requested "space" from Putin in exchange for "flexibility" after the presidential election in November:

President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it's important for him [Putin] to give me space.

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

Well, Obama continues to wear his naivete on his sleeve. Putin's credibility in not "on the line" in Syria, and he is playing Obama for a weakling and a fool.