l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 By Noel Sheppard | September 15, 2013 | 11:00
CNN’s Candy Crowley did her best Hillary Clinton Sunday.
During a State of the Union discussion about the American-Russian agreement
concerning Syria, Crowley asked a skeptical Congressman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.
), "Who cares" that "Russia got the diplomatic edge?" (video follows with
transcript and commentary):
CANDY CROWLEY, HOST: I'm joined now by Mike Rogers, he is chairman of
the House Intelligence Committee. What do you think of the plan?
CONGRESSMAN MIKE ROGERS (R-MICHIGAN): Well, obviously I'm skeptical. But
any day that we can do something to take chemical weapons off the
battlefield, take them away from Assad, and/or stop them from being, from
falling into the hands of Hezbollah or al Qaeda, it's a good day.
But here's the problem with where we're at. The Syria plan has been
confusing at best over the last two years. Last week it was more confusing
to the American people and more confusing to members of Congress about our
national security interests. The president couldn’t quite close that deal.
So that indecisiveness, I think, gave the diplomatic advantage to the
Russians. They saw it, they stepped in. This is a Russian plan for Russian
interests. And we should be very, very concerned…
CROWLEY: Who cares? If it has a chance to get rid of chemical weapons,
do we really care that Russia got the diplomatic edge?
Yes, a CNN host actually asked, "Who cares" that "Russia got the diplomatic
edge?"
Pretty astounding, isn’t it?
Fortunately, Rogers was there to explain why we should care:
ROGERS: Well, if it were just that, that’s true. But if the president
believes, like I do, that a credible military force helps you get a
diplomatic solution, they gave that away in this deal. I’m really concerned
about that. If you believe there’s broader national security interests in
Syria, I know the president does, I know I clearly believe that. We have al
Qaeda pooling in the west, we have Hezbollah operating there. It’s a proxy
fight.
By the way, the Russians have been here the whole time and are complicit
, in my mind, in allowing chemical weapons to be used. They got exactly they
wanted. They wanted Assad here for a year, at least extended for a year.
They got that.
And there’s not one ounce of chemical weapons in this. Remember, it’s
a framework. There’s a lot of “shoulds,” not a lot of hard dates. All of
this has to go to the U.N. So, not one ounce of chemical weapons came off
the battlefield, but we’ve given up every ounce of our leverage when it
comes to trying to solve the broader Syrian problem because we’ve taken
away a credible military threat. The Russians said, “We maintain that right
to oppose it in the National Security Council,” and they’ve said that
they would. | b*******h
发帖数: 2585 | 2 确实不是很重要， 比如小布什， 卖看之流就不在乎什么外交成功。
美国随时都可以找个借口空袭一下。 |
|
