Gazette - 090613

Friday September 6th 2013

----------------------------

Russia and US 'no closer' on Syria

The US and Russia have not bridged their differences over the issue of possible military action in Syria, Russian President Vladimir Putin says.

Mr Putin said military intervention would destabilise the Middle East and would be "counter-productive".
His comments came in a news conference on the final day of the G20 summit in St Petersburg.
US President Barack Obama had been pushing for support among leaders at the G20 for a US strike on Syria.
The US government accuses President Bashar al-Assad's forces of killing 1,429 people in a poison-gas attack in the Damascus suburbs on 21 August.
Mr Assad has blamed rebels for the attack. China and Russia, which have refused to agree to a UN Security Council resolution against Syria, insist any action without the UN would be illegal.
Mr Putin said the discussions about Syria on Thursday evening had gone on well past midnight.
He added that he had a one-to-one meeting with Mr Obama in which they had discussed Syria.
Both men had listened to the other's position but had not agreed, he said.

Vladimir Putin says Russia will 'help Syria' if US attacks

Russia will keep on supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government if the US launches strikes against the Middle East country, President Vladimir Putin said.
‘‘Will we help Syria? We will,’’ Putin told reporters in St Petersburg on Friday after discussing the Syrian issue with US President Barack Obama and other world leaders at the Group of 20 summit in St Petersburg.
‘‘We are already helping them with weapons and we are cooperating in the economic and humanitarian spheres.’’
Putin said on the eve of the forum that Russia may resume deliveries of advanced S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Syria if Obama carries through on his threat to attack selected targets to punish Assad for allegedly using chemical weapons.

Earlier on Friday, Obama held an unscheduled meeting with Putin, who is Assad’s ally and has questioned US evidence that the Syrian government was behind the chemical weapons attack.
The US President said the discussion was ‘‘very straightforward’’ and focused on their differences on Syria.
Obama said there’s an increasing global consensus that Syria must be confronted over its use of chemical weapons and that he plans to make his case in an address to the American people next week.
‘‘There is a growing recognition that the world cannot stand idly by’’ and ‘‘there needs to be a strong response,’’ Obama said during a news conference at the close of the international summit in Russia.
Discussions over whether to support military action against Syria dominated  dinner for the Group of 20 leaders and overshadowed talks on the global economy and tax policy.

10 G20 nations join US in blaming Assad for attack

Ten members of the Group of 20 international economies joined the United States in accusing the Syrian government of carrying a chemical weapons attack on civilians last month and called for a strong international response against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

A joint statement by the ten countries and the United States stopped short of explicitly calling for military action against the Syrian government, as President Obama is advocating.
But the tough language aligned half of the G-20 members with Obama, who worked the sidelines of the summit to build international support for a limited U.S. military response. Obama is seeking congressional authority to launch a strike.
The countries are Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom.

China Calls For UN Role In Syria Crisis After U.S. Gives Up On Security Council

BEIJING, Sept 6 (Reuters) - China's Foreign Ministry urged a role for the U.N. Security Council in resolving the crisis in Syria on Friday after the United States said it had given up trying to work with the council on Syria, accusing Russia of holding it hostage.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power's remarks on Thursday left no doubt that Washington would not seek U.N. approval for a military strike on Syria in response to an Aug. 21 chemical attack near Damascus.

She said a draft resolution Britain submitted to the five permanent council members last week calling for a response to that attack was effectively dead.

Asked about those comments, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said the Security Council needed to be used.

"China supports the important role that the U.N. Security Council plays in properly resolving the Syria issue," Hong told a daily news briefing in Beijing.

"We hope that relevant parties can continue communications and coordination and hold deep consultations so as to resolve the relevant issue in a peaceful way," he added.

China has called for a full and impartial investigation by U.N. chemical weapons inspectors in Syria into the Aug. 21 attack, and has warned against pre-judging the results. It has also said that whoever uses chemical weapons had to be held accountable.

"China believes that a political solution is the only realistic way out on the Syria issue. Given the current circumstances, a political solution settlement is of utmost importance," Hong said.

Report: US intercepts Iranian order to attack American interests in response to Syria strike 

Iran has ordered militants in Iraq to attack US interests in Baghdad should the US carry out military strikes in Syria, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday, citing intercepted communications from the Iranians.
The message from Qasem Soleimani, the leader of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' Quds force, to Shi'ite allies in Iraq was intercepted in recent days, US officials told the Journal.
The US Embassy in Baghdad was one potential target of a retaliatory strike by the Shi'ite groups, the paper quoted US officials as saying.
The US State Department on Thursday warned Americans against nonessential travel to Iraq, citing terrorist activity "at levels unseen since 2008." 

Syria crisis: US orders non-emergency personnel out of Lebanon

The US state department has ordered non-emergency US personnel to leave Lebanon and has approved voluntary evacuation from southern Turkey.

The state department cited "current tensions the region" but did not specifically mention Syria.
The department also warned US citizens traveling in the two countries to remain alert to potential danger.
The US Congress is debating President Barack Obama's request to wage a military strike against Syria.
"Given the current tensions the region, as well as potential threats to US government facilities and personnel, we are taking these steps out of an abundance of caution to protect our employees and their families, and local employees and visitors to our facilities," state department spokeswoman Marie Harf said in a statement.
The department did not offer details of any threats to the US embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, or the consulate in Adana, Turkey.
But it issued the warning less than a week before the 12th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks and amid an intense debate over Mr Obama's plans for a potential military strike in Syria.
In the past week, Mr Obama and leaders in the US Congress have been trying to gather support for a resolution authoring force in Syria, with votes expected next week.

 US drone strike kills 6 suspected militants in Pakistan, officials say

 

A pair of missiles launched by a U.S. drone hit a militant hideout near the Afghan border and killed six suspected militants, two Pakistani intelligence officials said Friday. The officials said the missiles hit a sprawling compound early Thursday morning near the border town of Ghulam Khan in the North Waziristan tribal region.
The identity and nationality of the slain men was not immediately known, and agents were investigating, the officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to brief reporters.
The area where the strike took place was believed to be a hiding place for the Afghan Haqqani network, the officials said. U.S. officials consider the Haqqani network to be one of the most dangerous militant factions fighting American troops in neighboring Afghanistan.
Related story: US drone 'kills Haqqani commander'

Egypt Will Reportedly Dissolve Muslim Brotherhood NGO

CAIRO, Sept 6 (Reuters) - Egypt's army-backed government has decided to annul the Muslim Brotherhood's legal registration within days, a newspaper said on Friday, pressing a crackdown on deposed President Mohamed Morsi's movement.
While short of a formal ban, the move underlined the government's determination to crush the Brotherhood. The authorities accuse the group that won five successive elections since 2011 of terrorism and inciting violence.
But so far they have failed to snuff out nationwide demonstrations demanding the reinstatement of Morsi, ousted by the army on July 3 after mass protests, or stem a rise in militancy, which culminated on Friday in an attempt to assassinate the interior minister in Cairo.
The Brotherhood, sworn to peaceful protest, condemned the attack but urged its supporters to fill the streets of Egypt's towns and cities again on Friday, for the third time in eight days, to reject what it calls an army coup against democracy.
Authorities are pursuing the toughest crackdown in decades on the Brotherhood, Egypt's biggest political grouping.
Since July, they have killed more than 900 of Morsi's supporters and arrested most of the movement's leaders, including Morsi, on charges of murder or inciting violence against anti-Brotherhood protesters.
The symbolic move to cancel its legal status applies to the non-governmental organisation registered by the Brotherhood in March as a defence against legal challenges.
The privately-owned Al-Shorouk newspaper said the decision would be taken within days, quoting Hany Mahana, spokesman for Social Solidarity Minister Ahmed el-Boraie.

 Obama to address nation on Syria next week, amid struggle to gain support

Possibly seeing the specter of defeat starting to hang over his decision to seek congressional backing for a Syria strike, President Obama announced on Friday that he plans to make his case to the American people next week from the White House. 
Obama, speaking toward the close of the G-20 summit in Russia, reiterated that the Assad regime's alleged use of chemical weapons last month is a "threat to global peace and security" and must be met with a military response. He said he plans to address the American people from the White House on Tuesday. 
"I will make the best case that I can to the American people as well as to the international community to take necessary and appropriate action," Obama said. 
The decision comes as his team struggles to win rank-and-file support in the House – with even top ally Nancy Pelosi saying she’s not sure she can round up a majority of her caucus. The president was not doing much better 5,000 miles away, seemingly running into a wall -- and Vladimir Putin -- during his brief visit to St. Petersburg, Russia, for the G-20 summit as he tries to sway allies to back his plan. Still, at the close of the summit, 11 nations including the U.S. released a statement condemning the use of chemical weapons and calling for a "strong international response."
Related Story: Obama To Speak On Syria Tuesday

Obama’s puzzling ‘red line’ denial

“I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line.”

-- President Obama, news conference in Stockholm, Sept. 4, 2013
“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”
-- Obama, remarks to reporters, August 20, 2012
This is a puzzler. How can the president say he did not create a “red line” when his statement last year about a “red line” is one of the most famous statements of his presidency? We’ve certainly received many tweets and e-mails from readers eager to see The Fact Checker slap a bunch of Pinocchios on him.
It’s not quite so simple. The “red line” has been rhetorically troublesome for the president ever since he uttered those words about a year ago — apparently to the surprise of his aides. Let’s see what the fuss is about.

The August 2012 statement

Obama’s initial comment was prompted by this question:

“Mr. President, could you update us on your latest thinking of where you think things are in Syria, and in particular, whether you envision using U.S. military, if simply for nothing else, the safe keeping of the chemical weapons, and if you’re confident that the chemical weapons are safe?”

Note that the question has to do with whether the Syrian government has enough controls on its stockpile of chemical weapons that such weapons would not fall in the hands of terrorist groups. Obama gave a long answer, but here’s the key section:

“I have, at this point, not ordered military engagement in the situation. But the point that you made about chemical and biological weapons is critical. That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria; it concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us. We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.
“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”

Obama’s formulation is very loose and informal, focused mainly on the question of movement of chemical weapons: “a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.”

House Republicans Say Constituents Are Strongly Opposed to a Syria Strike

MIDWEST CITY, Okla. — Representative Tom Cole started hearing it in the morning when he went to grab coffee.

“I was just at Starbucks, and a woman there recognized me,” the six-term Republican House member told a Chamber of Commerce gathering here. “She said, ‘Everybody here’s a no on Syria.'   “

Mr. Cole would seem a potential candidate to support President Obama on Syria. A pragmatic Congressional veteran, he has been open to compromise with the White House in the past and is not afraid to break with House conservatives. But after portraying himself as leaning against the strike, Mr. Cole on Thursday afternoon came down firmly in the opposition when his office issued a statement announcing that he will vote no.

Given the intensity of opposition in his district, he said it would take a “road to Damascus experience” to change his mind now.

“I literally cannot walk across the parking lot without being stopped to talk about this issue,” he said. “I haven’t seen anything quite like this.”

He is hardly alone. Fewer than a dozen House Republicans, a total that includes the top two leaders, have publicly said they would back the president on a military strike, making the White House climb to a House majority exceedingly steep given significant Democratic resistance as well. Not only is the administration not winning over Republicans, it lost at least one it had. Representative Michael G. Grimm, Republican of New York, said Thursday that he was reversing his support. “The moment to show our strength has passed,” he said.

Rep. King: Not enough votes in House for Syria resolution

Republican Rep. Peter King said he wants President Obama to show more leadership if he wants to convince House members that voting "yea" for his Syria resolution is in the best interest of the United States.
"It is up to the president to be much more forceful and not seem like he is trying to pass the buck on to someone else," King said Thursday on Fox News. 
King added that Obama did not help his cause by saying Wednesday that the Syrian government's alleged use of chemical weapons on Aug. 21 violated the international committee's and the Congress' "red line" -- and not his red line.  
As of Thursday afternoon, only 31 out of 435 House members support strikes in Syria, according to The Hill.

ICE Official Who Leaked Obama's Aunt's Immigration Status Thought Americans Had 'A Right To Know'

WASHINGTON -- An Immigration and Customs Enforcement official admitted he tipped off a reporter that Barack Obama’s aunt was undocumented just four days before the 2008 election because it was “interesting,” “newsworthy” and because “the American public [had] a right to know,” according to an internal report obtained by The Huffington Post.
A heavily redacted report from ICE’s Office of Professional Responsibility, disclosed in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, reveals that an agency employee admitted to calling an Associated Press reporter to inform him that President Barack Obama’s aunt might be an undocumented immigrant facing a removal order. ICE's investigation determined that the unnamed employee disclosed the woman's identity and immigration status to the media, displayed a "lack of candor" to investigators and misused government property.
The 20-page internal report was completed in August 2010 but the agency declined to provide it until this year. The report doesn’t indicate what, if any, disciplinary action was taken against the ICE official.
"ICE does not comment on whether management action is taken as a result of an investigation done by [the Office of Professional Responsibility] unless the resolution results in some kind of criminal or other public administrative action," said agency spokeswoman Gillian Christensen.
The unnamed official called the disclosure of the information "an error in judgment” but said his decision to call AP reporter Elliot Spagat on Oct. 31, 2008, wasn't politically motivated.
"I thought it was very interesting information, just like everybody else who was talking about it," the official told ICE investigators, according to the report. "And, um, you know now it was probably an error in judgment ... I think it was very interesting and I think it was newsworthy."
-