http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4464115
The tapes tell the tale. Go back and look at images of our nation’s most senior soldier, Gen. Martin Dempsey, and his body language during Tuesday’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on Syria. It’s pretty obvious that Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, doesn’t want this war. As Secretary of State John Kerry’s thundering voice and arm-waving redounded in rage against Bashar al-Assad’s atrocities, Dempsey was largely (and respectfully) silent.
Dempsey’s unspoken words reflect the opinions of most serving military leaders. By no means do I profess to speak on behalf of all of our men and women in uniform. But I can justifiably share the sentiments of those inside the Pentagon and elsewhere who write the plans and develop strategies for fighting our wars.
WaPo
In the 56-second clip below the image, you will see SecState Kerry ask General Dempsey, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, if he would like to add anything to what he just said. Dempsey politely declines, which causes the senator sitting to Rand Paul's left to burst out laughing.
From the clip, you can navigate to the entire hearing. From the hearing, you can select 'Timeline,' and then select for Dempsey in the drop down menu, and his responses will be highlighted in the mini-transcripts. You must click on the texts to make the video play. He uses very guarded language that denote, in my opinion, a reluctance to grant his imprimatur to the intervention.
In the 56-second clip below the image, you will see SecState Kerry ask General Dempsey, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, if he would like to add anything to what he just said. Dempsey politely declines, which causes the senator sitting to Rand Paul's left to burst out laughing.
From the clip, you can navigate to the entire hearing. From the hearing, you can select 'Timeline,' and then select for Dempsey in the drop down menu, and his responses will be highlighted in the mini-transcripts. You must click on the texts to make the video play. He uses very guarded language that denote, in my opinion, a reluctance to grant his imprimatur to the intervention.
54 comments:
In case you haven't heard
They think we're going to war.
I think they think
We're going to war!
--Marx Brothers, "Duck Soup"
Wasn't one of the big reasons Choom wanted to ace us out of our strategic positions in A-stan and Iraq was that our men were worn out from a decade of the War on Terror?
I guess this isn't supposed to be exhausting or something
PS Remember those rumors from Debka about the Red Chinese marines heading for Syria?
Well, they ain't no rumors no more.
PPS More evidence PencilNeck's WMDs were originally Saddam's.
I can't figure the angles on Syria.
Is Obama trying to recover belatedly from his red line remark?
Is Syria his idea of how the US is supposed to use its military power -- purely for a do-gooding purposes and nothing to do with American interests?
Is it for the benefit of radical Muslim interests?
Is it a distraction from all the Obama scandals?
Is it an attemmpt to regain momentum for an administration which has hit lame duck status early?
Is it a mistake he's entered arrogantly and now can't back down from?
I remember seeing that.
Even Kerry's own body language...
"That's not... I don't... I just don't consider that going to war in the classic sense of coming to congress and asking for a declaration of war"
...betrays the inverisimilitude of his own comments.
The declaration of war we are asking for is not a declaration of war.
A little bit of all those, Creeley, plus a couple more we don't know about yet.
Great post, deborah.
Obama insists over and over that he is not going to war. Kerry echos that. Yet they seek permission to light a match in room full of flammables. I can't figure it out. It's almost like they want to start a war. Maybe it would be good for the economy or something.
inverisimilitude is a pretty fancy word there, Lem.
Don't you have an awful feeling about all the bar lowering we have endured in the last 5 years? It seems like all the things that we didn't have to worry about because they were just to far outside the norm, have now become options that we have to avoid with diligence and a fight. It's like if you suddenly lost your sense of touch and now had to worry bout leaving your hand on the stove until you smelled the flesh burning. Anything is now possible and even likely. There are no standards now. There is no historical wisdom, no political taboos. It's Lord of the Flies with frat boys in charge.
From Ed's link...everyone's coming to the dance.
"According to the Russian news outlet Telegrafist.org, the People’s Liberation Army dispatched the Jinggangshan amphibious dock landing ship and the vessel was seen passing through the Red Sea towards the Suez Canal, the waterway in Egypt that leads to the Mediterranean Sea and waters off the coast of Israel, Lebanon and Syria.
According to the report, the ship has not been sent to engage in any aggressive actions but is merely there to “observe” the actions of Russian and US warships. However, the Jinggangshan is equipped for combat, has conventional armaments and secondary cannons, and was utilized as part of a “show of force” in maneuvers aimed at defending the South China Sea earlier this year."
From Ed's link...everyone's coming to the dance
What about India and Brazil? They stand to gain by staying away.
I don't see how blowing up chemical factories is a humanitarian goal.
I think it just boils down to common interests, with the US allying with Sunnis plus Israel, and Russia and China allying with the Shia.
China and Russia are backing Assad. If we stay out, Assad wins. What does that mean for foreign policy down the road?
Sixty Grit said...
Stupid is as stupid does.
I hope you all have some food, water and ammo set by.
I'm curious to see whether POTUS gives us or them an ultimatum on Tuesday.
Yes, I've been wondering about that Sixty. You ready?
inverisimilitude is a pretty fancy word there, Lem.
It is apt... isn't it?
deborah said...
Are you being ironic, chick?
Not sure which of my comments you're referring to.
China and Russia are backing Assad. If we stay out, Assad wins. What does that mean for foreign policy down the road?
It surely means a greater threat to Israel, I'd imagine.
But then, they'd be threatened from either side in that conflict.
eborah wrote...
"Yes, I've been wondering about that Sixty. You ready?"
Want to find out?
But back to the topic at hand - we are going to try to kill Assad because he is killing al Qaeda fighters? Shouldn't we give him a medal?
Didn't those guys fly some planes into our buildings not long ago? Or is that impertinent to ask?
In 2004 I sat next to a US soldier on a flight from upstate NY back to NC.
He had been on some training thing or other (He was vague. His arms were scratched like he'd been in the briar patch with Brer Rabbit.) We are a US Army family, so I engaged him in conversation.
His assignment in Iraq (he'd been there at least once by 2004) was on the Iraq / Syrian border. In the heat. Wearing full gear. Laying in the sand trying to keep on the right side of the unmarked border berm between the countries.
He mentioned how tough it was to determine whether the shepherd guy they found with the hot AK-47 in the dark after gunfire was telling the truth (guarding his flock) or whether he was the enemy. Sometimes just a gut thing.
I asked: "So -- do you think Saddam moved the WMD to Syria?"
"Absolutely. There were semi-trucks crossing into Syria."
Satellite picture seems to support.
There is no reason I can think of not to believe that.
[SGT Chris from Georgia, I pray you are safe wherever you are these days.]
"It surely means a greater threat to Israel, I'd imagine."
I don't know. Because our intervention would have the effect of leveling the playing field, it seems like the two sects would be wearing themselves out fighting each other. This would have the effect of keeping them preoccupied, with the added benefit for Israel of possibly capturing the Golan (though it is a UN ministered area, I think).
I meant the comment about Brazil and India.
creeley23 said...
I can't figure the angles on Syria.
Is Obama trying to recover belatedly from his red line remark?
Is Syria his idea of how the US is supposed to use its military power -- purely for a do-gooding purposes and nothing to do with American interests?
Is it for the benefit of radical Muslim interests?
Is it a distraction from all the Obama scandals?
Is it an attemmpt to regain momentum for an administration which has hit lame duck status early?
Is it a mistake he's entered arrogantly and now can't back down from?
Yes.
bagoh20 said...
Don't you have an awful feeling about all the bar lowering we have endured in the last 5 years?
Back at TOP, wasn't it Fen who always called Choom DHOTUS?
That's what you get with Affirmative Action.
deborah said...
I don't see how blowing up chemical factories is a humanitarian goal.
Willie did, anything that helped him was a humanitarian goal, since he was the only humanity he ever cared about.
I guess that set the precedent.
It took people's minds off Monica for, what?, coupla days?
Damn you, Sixty, it's complicated!
I said in a post a few weeks ago that I'm pro-Assad, for reasons of their diverse religious population. I also think it would be more regionally stable to keep him on.
But. I'm interested in this idea of Sunni vs. Shia and their respective allies. Kind of a clash of civilizations idea, where the modern world chooses sides between the two sects...with their own interests at heart.
Russia and China each have problems with Sunni extremist militants in their countries.
US has oil needs from Saudia Arabia, et al.
Bago, re lowering the bar, I told my son after Obama first came in (I didn't vote for him) that if he just got us out of Afgh. I would vote for him next time. And since then all hell's broke loose.
This would have the effect of keeping them preoccupied, with the added benefit for Israel of possibly capturing the Golan (though it is a UN ministered area, I think).
I would think this would draw the Iranians in like hornets.
Thank you for that JAL.
I meant the comment about Brazil and India.
They are not part of BRIC for nothing. Two very strong emerging economies (with problems to solve and overcome). Kind of like we were in the 19th century.
"I would think this would draw the Iranians in like hornets."
Perhaps. I'll poke around.
Got it.
"Want to find out?"
Yes, I'd welcome a guest post by you on preparedness. Prepping, though I don't do it (and am not suggesting you do) is near and dear to my heart.
The only thing I did for y2k was get a few gallons of water lol.
I've said too much already.
:)
In The Daily Star (out of Lebanon): “Hezbollah, Iran and Syria prepare for counterattack”
Perhaps a lot of bluster, or maybe not.
And the article used a term I'd not seen before -- “axis of the resistance”, that being Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah. What a dilemma that must pose for Western lefties.
That would be a dilemma if there was a single leftist with morals, principles or any intelligence.
From Lydia's article, the plot thickens:
"Diplomatic and political sources also revealed Syria too has a bank of targets to hit in response to any U.S. attacks, namely in Israel as well as U.S. military bases in neighboring countries such as Turkey and Jordan."
The Axis of Resistance, eh?
Creeley, also bread and circuses.
Look at us all sitting here gaming this out.
One reason the Army isn't hot to trot about all this is that they've been using the sequester to undertake a much-needed reorg.
El Pollo Raylan said...
I meant the comment about Brazil and India.
They are not part of BRIC for nothing. Two very strong emerging economies (with problems to solve and overcome). Kind of like we were in the 19th century.
Both are having their problems now, particularly India.
I fell asleep Friday night with the Ken Burn's National Park documentary on the TV, which meant the local PBS station. I woke up in the middle of the night and they were replaying PBS's Washington panel discussion, led by Gwen Ifill, I believe it is. One of the members of the panel stated that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs looked like a victim in a hostage video during the Congressional testimony. I believe everyone on the panel laughed.
If that's what the people on PBS think, I'm not even going to bother watching the testimony.
And I saw the article the other day. I didn't bother linking it up in the comments because it's just one of a myriad of pieces against. This thing is a giant cluster-fuck, but that doesn't seem to be halting the momentum for war, because by God the President wants to kill some Arabs and help al Qaeda no matter the damned cost.
One thing I noticed about the article the other day was that the first few commenters I (at the time I saw it) were completely dismissive of the article solely because the general works for Fox News. Basded solelyu on that, that someone opposed to this action got paid to work on Fox News, these folks were completely in favor of the President killing a bunch of Arabs just to piss in the eye of conservatives.
"Until recently, it would have been unimaginable to conceive of John Kerry as the strongman of the National Security Council."
"One of the members of the panel stated that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs looked like a victim in a hostage video during the Congressional testimony. I believe everyone on the panel laughed."
Who said libs don't have a sense of humor.
"A [President] who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way" -- Mark Twain
Bags, you or chick are going to have to change your avatars...I keep getting you confused, out of the corner of my eye.
Being confused with bagoh20 is a good thing.
A compliment to both you boys in blue.
'Night all.
It's hard for me to have a hang gliding photo of me that's not mostly blue, but I bet Pollo has that same outfit in pink.
If we stay out, Assad wins. What does that mean for foreign policy down the road?
Status quo ante.
It is apt... isn't it?
Ellroy-esque.
Actually, it wouldn't be status quo ante. The President of the United States of America, and a fair number, perhaps a majority of the US Senate, have now accused Bashar al-Assad of crimes against humanity.
This means that neither we, nor the Israelis, can ever hope to negotiate a settlement with Assad. We could certainly never negotiate a settlement that would require him to leave power. He HAS to hold onto Syria now, or it's his life. So no Idi Amin flight to a comfortable exile. (Amin went to Libya and then Saudi Arabia to live out the last 24 ears or so of his life in comfort. Assad could hope to go to Iran or Russia at best - BEFORE being accused of crimes against humanity.)
Yep, the President's reckless logorrhea has actually ended all chances of a negotiated settlement in Syria. No, the chances of that weren't very high to begin with, but it's now impossible.
SMART diplomacy!
"Diplomatic and political sources also revealed Syria too has a bank of targets to hit in response to any U.S. attacks, namely in Israel as well as U.S. military bases in neighboring countries such as Turkey and Jordan."
Great, let 'em attack Turkey. My preferred solution to the Arab problem is to give the whole damned lot of them back to the Turks. Plus it would give the Turks something constructive to do instead of bitching about not being in the EU. (I don't they want that any more anyway.)
Bags, you or chick are going to have to change your avatars...I keep getting you confused, out of the corner of my eye.
Bags needs to go back to the mustachioed avatar. THAT guy looks like the one who doesn't give a shit and shows up at the party naked, drunk and frisky!
I watched Argo a few hours ago and watched everything I could about Iran. I so want to vacay in Tehran. It is so much more than what you see on Western Media. And you stupid Americans should educate yourselves on the diversity of Tehran, population 12 million.
The guys are fricking unbelievably hot and totally open to doing gay. They are very emotional yet love Gucci and Prada. But I don't want the Gucci Prada wearing fags, I want the major radicals to sucky my white pussy.
I have done a few American Iranians but I want to do it with them on their home turf in Tehran. My hubby said he would be able to pass there but because I am major whitey they would be all over me....I was enthralled.
Some friends of mine went to Kuwait to teach drum corps and said the masculine mens were all over them, even sporting huge hardon's under their sheets. And they were felt up constantly in the bazaars. My hog is dripping pre cum.
I have been looking for flights.
Wish me luck!
tits.
One of your communication failures Titus, is that most of your desires/fantasies are idiosyncratic. You're not actually expressing what anyone else wants to do.
To me, you sound like David Carradine extolling virtues of neckties.
Rumor is that the gay men in Iran are all really, really hung.
Post a Comment