0 program, it was also his other programs for weapons of mass destruction. forever, libya had resisted signing on to the international protocol that bans the use and stockpiling and manufacturing of chemical weapons. gadhafi had 23 tons of mustard gas stockpiled in libya. but as part of this deal ten years ago, gadhafi said he would abide by the international chemical weapons convention, he would give those weapons up, he would allow them to be handed over to the international community and destroyed. that happened in late 2003. the george w. bush years basically had no diplomatic victories at all except for this one. but it happened. and eventually, there was a revolution in libya and gadhafi was overthrown, gadhafi was killed and libya today is still chaotic and nobody quite knows how things will end up in that country, but they gave up their nuclear weapons program and they gave up their chemical weapons. they handed them over to the u.n. for destruction. and that was a rare thing and that was amazing. and maybe that is about to lobbying effort scheduled for capitol hill tomorrow afternoon, also a major address to the nation scheduled from the white house tomorrow night. on the eve of that address, in the middle of this intense debate here about whether the u.s. should use military force in syria, in response to syria's alleged use of chemical weapons, there was what seems to be a huge and totally unexpected breakthrough today. this is a huge deal, if this pans out. it started this morning in london, when secretary of state john kerry made what seemed like a frustrated, off-the-cuff, even dismissive remark about how, hypothetically, syria might be able to convince the united states to not hit them with cruise missiles. watch. >> is there anything at this point that his government could do or offer that would stop an attack? >> sure, he could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week. turn it over, all of it, without delay, and allow a full and total accounting for that, but he isn't about to do it and it can't be done, obviously. >> or maybe it could be done. after john kerry said that early today in london, things moved very quickly today and very far ahead of where they had been just hours before. even as the state department today was still trying to explain that secretary kerry wasn't really formally proposing that when he said it, he was just speaking rhetorically about something that everybody assumed could never happen, even as they were still explaining that today, first russia and then syria weighed in to say, actually, we don't care if he didn't really mean it, that really could happen. and thus was born a whole new way out of this that nobody knew was coming. between what we have had so far, which is no international response to the alleged use of chemical weapons in syria and what the united states has been proposing, which is a u.s. military strike on syria, maybe as of today there is a credible, possible third way forward, which is not about us bombing and is not about the world doing nothing, but which is specifically about syria's chemical weapons, specifically about the specific problem. it's specifically about syria turning those weapons over, as john kerry proposed today. >> reporter: russia, perhaps seeking a way out, chose to take him seriously. only three hours later in moscow, foreign minister sergey lavrov said, "if the establishment of international control over chemical weapons makes it possible to avoid strikes, then we will immediately get to work with damascus." syria's foreign minister also in moscow said his government welcomes the russian initiative. >> this is amazing. if anybody told you this was going to happen in advance, you wouldn't have believed them. but that's how this went today. john kerry says, listen, the only way out of this is if syria hands over its chemical weapons stockpiles right away, how likely is that to happen? that's not going to happen. and russia says, really? well, turns out, we can get syria to hand over their chemical weapons stockpiles. and syria responds to that by saying we agree with russia. yeah, we can do that. this is an amazing turn of events. then the u.n. secretary-general, ban ki-moon weighs in and says, hey, don't just hand over your chemical weapons, destroy them. have them handed over to the international control so they can be destroyed. and the russians say they agree with that. "and we call on the syrian leadership to not only agree to setting the chemical weapons storage sites under international control but also to their subsequent destruction." so, russia said yes, their chemical weapons ought to be handed over and destroyed. and so far, syria says, yeah, they're going to go along with it, described as publicly welcoming the russian proposal. so, ta da? maybe? i mean, again, this is all moving very fast, but even without knowing whether john kerry meant to start what he seems to have started, he does seem to have started something. and you can feel the debate changing now as the united states government that thought it was making the case for acts of american war against syria now starts to change tack, realizing that there might be another, maybe even more direct way out of this. >> if the regime immediately surrendered its stockpiles to international control, as was suggested by secretary kerry and the russians, that would be an important step, but this cannot be another excuse for delay or obstruction. >> that was former secretary of state hillary clinton, who was at the white house for an unrelated event today when she made those remarks on syria. that was roughly midday today. and that was supposed to be just one high-profile component of this huge full court press today by the administration, including the national security adviser, susan rice, speaking on this today, the u.s. ambassador to the u.n., samantha power, speaking about this today. but as events changed and moved so fast over the course of the day today, over the course of just a few hours, you had hillary clinton and then president obama himself in the stacked network interviews tonight having to take account of this whole new idea, this potential light at the end of the tunnel. >> but does it feel like a ploy? >> well, you know, i think what we're seeing is that a credible threat of a military strike from the united states supported potentially by a number of other countries around the world has given them pause and makes them consider whether or not they would make this move. and if they do, then this could potentially be a significant breakthrough. but we have to be skeptical because this is not how we've seen them operate over the last couple of years. >> president obama expressing that skepticism tonight based on how syria has behaved in the past around this issue. and he is right that syria has been super sketchy on this issue in the past. as recently as yesterday, the syrian president was still neither confirming nor denying that his country even has chemical weapons. but that was yesterday! and today they have moved past neither confirming nor denying it to at least seeming to agree to a russian proposal to hand over their chemical weapons to international inspectors to have them destroyed by the international community. and apparently, even, maybe, to sign on to the chemical weapons convention, which has not had a new signatory since ten years ago when libya agreed to start complying with it, in an equally unexpected move. what a difference a day makes. man, i would love to talk to somebody from the white house about this, wouldn't you? that, of course, will never happen. but of course, the advantage of talking to people who were once at the white house but are no longer there is that sometimes those people can tell you even more of what they really think is going on now that they are free of their white house shackles. joining us now is just such a man, tommy vitar. he served as national security spokesman in the obama administration. thank you for being here. >> shackle-free. >> exactly. well done. let me ask you, just from your experience in the white house but also from your experience just in national security, do you see this as a breakthrough? and if it is a breakthrough, does it matter if it's accidental? >> did doesn't matter if it's accidental. i am very skeptical that it's a break-through, but as you said, the great thing about this proposal is that the most durable efforts to disarm a country with nuclear weapons has been when they voluntarily give them up. efforts to bomb them or, you know, sanction them out of these weapons have been more difficult to make durable over time. so, i think this is, you know, would be great, actually, in fact, would be better than a military strike, because if this cw were shipped out of the country, it would take that option out of his hands permanently, rather than degrade the capability to use it. >> is there anything you can see the united states doing to make this more likely to be true? i agree with you that just in terms of tactics, this is a better way to solve the chemical weapons problem than shooting cruise missiles into syria that won't materially affect necessarily their ability to use them in the future. if they get rid of them, this would be a better way to address that problem. what can the united states do to make that more likely to happen? >> i think ironically, the congress needs to authorize the use of military force, because this only happened today because, as the president said, there is a credible military threat on the table. this is classic diplomacy. you back up a diplomatic entree with a military threat to force a bad actor to move. >> how's the administration and its surrogates who are making the case -- do you think they have made a convincing case that there could be a blow hit against the syrian regime on chemical weapons by using a military strike? i mean, i think you're right that they have persuaded the world that they are ready to shoot cruise missiles at syria even if the congress says no, and maybe that is what's pushed this diplomatic breakthrough forward. do you think they have really made the case that hitting syria with cruise missiles would have any effect on chemical weapons use in the future? >> i think they have began -- they have begun to make this case over the weekend. as the intelligence came in, i think they made it even more strongly than they did in those initial days. i think that there is a very real impact on his military if you're landing 300 krucruise missiles on helicopters or runways or sites. that truly degrades his abbott to use the weapons and should serve as a strong deterrent to assad. they've also tried to be unbush-like in saying that there are unintended consequences to any military action. we do not know what those will be, but we know that the unintended consequences of doing nothing is likely to be that assad does this again and continues to use poison gas on children sleeping in the night, and that's unacceptable. >> tommy, if the united states congress does authorize the use of military force, or if, indeed, the administration keeps insisting that they might waive that kind of strike, regardless of what congress does, do you think that preincludocludes in short term doing something international, even conceivably involving the u.n. security council on this proposal? >> no. >> is there a way to hold that off in the distance while in the medium term talking with russia about today? >> no, you get that military authorization so you have a real hammer to hold over assad and that frees you to up possibly pursue something at the u.n. or a bilateral agreement with the russians and the syrians it i think that credible threat is what the president needs to make the syrians understand that their buddies at the u.n. security council, the russians and chinese cannot protect them anymore. those days are over. when you gas 400 children in their sleep when you basically torture them to death with a chemical, you no longer get a free pass. >> tommy vietor, formerly with the obama administration, thank you. >> thanks, rachel. there are some politicians who have taken this important decision moment on syria to have an honest and thorough and painful debate about what to do. that group does not include the most vocal wing of the republican party, and that story is ahead. stay with us. hey kevin...still eating chalk for heartburn? yeah... try new alka seltzer fruit chews. they work fast on heartburn and taste awesome. these are good. told ya! i'm feeling better already. [ male announcer ] new alka seltzer fruits chews. enjoy the relief!
Related Keywords
New York , United States , Moscow , Moskva , Russia , Damascus , Dimashq , Syria , Afghanistan , China , Indiana , California , Capitol Hill , Tennessee , Washington , District Of Columbia , Pakistan , Des Moines , Iowa , London , City Of , United Kingdom , West Virginia , Cairo , Al Qahirah , Egypt , Iraq , India , Israel , Colorado , North Korea , Libya , Italy , Italian , Americans , America , Chinese , Russian , Syrians , Pakistani , Egyptian , British , Syrian , Russians , American , Msnbc Savannah Guthrie , Barbara Lee , Chet Culver , Joe Manchin , Sergey Lavrov , Michael Grimm , Thomas Jefferson , Michele Bachmann , Harry Reid , John Kerry , Savannah Guthrie , Louie Gohmert , Al Qaeda , George W Bush , Thomas Payne , Michele Bachmann Steve King , Rachel Maddow , Mitch Mcconnell , Moammar Gadhafi , Chris Matthews , John Morse , Hillary Clinton ,
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.