I mean these are the sort of bold moves that John Kerry would heartily praise.

Or the John Kerry who said this last week:
Both of us – Sergey Lavrov and I, our countries, our presidents – are deeply concerned about the death toll and destruction, the acts on both sides, all sides that are creating more and more refugees, more and more of the humanitarian catastrophe. And we are committed to try to work together, beginning with this initiative on the chemical weapons, in hopes that those efforts could pay off and bring peace and stability to a war-torn part of the world. And we’re very appreciative for Lakhdar Brahimi hosting us today in an effort to try to advance this initiative.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=323949

Or the John Kerry who spoke to Syria asking that they move toward peace in the last three minutes of the Google hangout last monday:

http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/09/announcing-a-live-google-hangout-with-john-kerry/?_r=1

Or maybe in the fashion of Clint Eastwood, you have an imaginary John Kerry you speak to. You are totally discrediting yourself when you make idiotic comments like this.

It is difficult to fathom, and sad.

Your comment is completely asinine and - if I hadn't refuted it with good links - I would have alerted. I suggest that maybe you need to watch the google hangout - or at least the last 3 minutes - or even read his comment -- that is against the destruction from both sides.

Too bad that Kerry and Obama disappointed you by getting an agreement that could possibly remove chemical weapons that either the regime - or these very people, if they gained access to them - might use.

Here's another where Kerry addresses exactly your question - and this was before he and Lavrov had success in their negotiations - http://blogs.state.gov/stories/2013/09/06/yes-vote-conscience-worlds-red-line

Or continue speaking to your empty chair! It has nothing to do with Secretary Kerry.

That is the main thing. I am extremely proud of President Obama for that. While I said that the decision to wage war against Syria would surely be the political end of his presidency, I also expressed doubt that the man who I strongly supported since 2004 would do so - and, indeed, he has not.

Sadly, the influence of Kerry was not helpful to Obama. That is my own opinion. His words were extremely irresponsible. Please feel free to alert anything that you think should be.

Kerry's praise of the al-Qaeda-allied terrorists is well-documented. He bears moral culpability for their crimes.

You must be using Assad's definition that ALL people against him are terrorists and Al Qaeda linked. Not to mention, Kerry never praised any atrocity by anyone.

Again, you are speaking of the empty chair version of Kerry. Have fun, it is not worth responding back to you because you are completely fact free - ignoring hundreds of times where a worry of Kerry's is that the AQ rebels are there.

How many times will Damascus be car-bombed before they condemn those attacks?

Their complete silence when rebel atrocities are reported is quite revealing.

and in the google hang out (the other link given)

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Monday accused U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry "and his Western allies" of misunderstanding the deal, according to Russia's state-run Itar-Tass news agency.

The deal does not say the U.N. resolution will be under Chapter VII of the U.N. charter, Lavrov said.

Chapter VII potentially authorizes the use of force.

Lavrov said comments by Kerry "show unwillingness to read the document" that Russia and the United States agreed to.

Kerry said Monday that a U.N. resolution will need to include the possibility of force. "If the Assad regime believes that this is not enforceable, then they will play games," he said.

"Should diplomacy fail, the military option is still on the table," he told reporters.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/16/politics/syria-civil-war/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014595978

They are jostling for definition. Yet here are the joint comments - BOTH speak of Chapter 7 = http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2013/09/214250.htm

and here is a snip which is more than you provided for some reason, one can only wonder why, well unless one actually reads the statement

and yes - this is a US document, but Kerry's words match what he said - Lavrov did speak in Russian, but I assume the translation is correct.

As to giving you the snip - I had a call I had to take and gave you the entire link - note that Lavrov at the end refers to the same thing. What Kerry has said is that with non compliance, they have to return to the UN -- and the measure that will be used would be decided then.

some scribed and PDF documents make that difficult not so what with this one though

the words are indeed those of the US government and only the US government period, Russia's words seem to a response to the US's statement the best you possibly did here was to clarify what Russia is disputing and for that much I thank you

I thought it better to just give the link and took the time to find it. It never occurred to me that anyone would get huffy when provided the link.

You ignore that Lavrov - who speaks decent English - was standing right there when Kerry spoke and Lavrov spoke last - note he did not contradict Kerry.

This was an issue through the entire negotiation and - like in legislation - the language was negotiated. The US gave up having non compliance immediately trigger UN authority to attack. Russia allowed a provision that spoke of consequences - that would be triggered if non compliance occurs and required going to the UN - where Russia holds a veto. Throughout, Obama and Kerry continued to hold out the same possibility that they had before negotiations -- the US going alone with no approval.

There was a Friday article where both spoke of their views on this.

I would suggest that you consider that Chelsea Manning did Kerry a favor - the Boston Globe analyzed the leaked cable that Kerry was in - and their conclusion was that they showed him a very good light - saying in private - what he says in public.

but what your link shows is that the US and Kerry while invoking Reagan also spoke out of both sides of it's mouth, while claiming that the military option was a no win also claimed that it must be left on the table, one wonders why?

1) From the beginning of negotiations, Obama and Kerry said that threat of force was what brought the agreement and what needs to be there to get Syria to actually comply. Giving up chemical weapons - that Assad used - is what this is about.

2) The "no military solution" refers to settling the entire civil war in Syria. Both Lavrov and Kerry agree that there is no military solution.

Gee - "a clever word choice device" - who knew?

I have been here and posted a lot more often than you -- and I would bet I have provided far more links for far more things than you have. This was a short document and - in context - is better than the snip. From the snip, you would not know it was a joint conference, Lavrov spoke after Kerry said this and he spoke of consequences as well - meaning that had he wanted he could have (and should have if it really was a disagreement) contradicted Kerry. He didn't.

What do I think - just as Kerry is reassuring people allied with us -- Lavrov is speaking for a Russian audience and might be concerned with some of them thinking "Russia caved" - which should sound familiar here.

As to sounding like Reagan - to what thing Reagan did are you referring? I think he sounds a lot more like JFK!

unless of course your admitting our leaders can not be taken at their word?

I'll repeat it here

Which do you not want - trust or verification?

verification of what exactly? We all already know Russia and the US disagree on specifics

It means that the chemical weapons are really removed - and on this there is agreement.

"war between unsavory sides"

We should totally give Al Qaeda guns again to use against Russia's proxy, because it never ended badly for us before.

Second verse? Same as the first.

and awesome that we're giving these well balanced, humanitarian, wonderful people weapons. They can use American guns to kill 7 year old boys.
Can we do a background check on the people that we give guns to to make sure they aren't, in fact, Al-Qaida fighters? Or are we just going to drop a bunch of weapons at their feet and tell them to fight Assad's forces, and not head to the green zone in Iraq?
If our allies in the region can't treat non-combatants with humanity, they shouldn't be our allies any more. Let both armies of bad guys have at each other. We should stay out of it totally.