LONDON (Reuters) - Syrian President Bashar al-Assad could avoid a U.S. military strike by surrendering all his chemical weapons within a week, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Monday, but immediately made clear he was not making a serious offer.
President Barack Obama is seeking support from Congress for punitive military action against Syria over a suspected chemical weapons attack in a civil war that the United Nations says has killed at least 100,000 people.

When asked by a reporter in London whether there was anything Assad's government could do or offer to stop a military strike, Kerry answered:

"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 the full and total accounting (of it), but he isn't about to do it and it can't be done."

The State Department later said Kerry had been making a rhetorical argument about the impossibility of Assad turning over chemical weapons, which Assad denies his forces used in the August 21 poison gas attack.

In an interview with U.S. television network CBS, Assad said the United States would be going against its own interests if it got involved in Syria, warning of repercussions.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, Assad's only big-power supporter, says opponents of Assad staged the attack to provoke U.S.-led military intervention, an allegation Kerry dismissed out of hand on Monday.

Putin's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, met Assad's foreign minister, Walid al-Moualem, in Moscow on Monday and the two urged Washington to concentrate on convening a Syrian peace conference rather than on military action.

Moualem suggested the chemical attack was a pretext to trigger military intervention and asked whether Obama was backing "terrorists" - an allusion to radical Islamists, who are prominent in the ranks of rebels fighting to topple Assad.

WAR IN SYRIA

Kerry said he was confident of the evidence that the United States and its allies had presented to support their case that Assad's forces used poison gas, though he said he understood skepticism lingering from the 2003 Iraq war - in which cited intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was later proven wrong.

He avoided directly answering a question on whether the United States had evidence directly linking Assad to the alleged August 21 chemical weapons attack, but said such weapons were controlled by only three people in Syria: Assad, his brother Maher, and an unnamed general.

Kerry, a former lawyer, said he had successfully prosecuted people with less evidence and warned that doing nothing was worse than doing something, saying inaction would come back to haunt the United States and its allies.

"If you want to send Iran and Hezbollah and Assad a congratulatory message: 'You guys can do what you want,' you'd say: 'Don't do anything.'

"We believe that is dangerous and we will face this down the road in some more significant way if we're not prepared to take ... a stand now," Kerry said.

When asked about the CBS interview with Assad, British Foreign Secretary William Hague cautioned against giving too much weight to the Syrian president's words.

"We mustn't fall into the trap of attaching too much credibility to the words of a leader, President Assad, who has presided over so many war crimes and crimes against humanity (and) shown such a murderous disregard for the welfare of his own people," Hague said. "So let's not fall into the trap of believing every word that ... comes out of such a man."

Kerry stressed that ties between Britain and the United States were as strong as ever despite the British parliament voting not to endorse military action against Syria, prompting a government decision not to take part.

"The relationship between the United States and the UK has often been described as special, essential and it has been described thus because it is," Kerry said. "The bond ... is bigger than one (parliamentary) vote."

While in London, Kerry said he had held talks with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that he described as "productive", but did not give further details.

(Writing by Guy Faulconbridge and Belinda Goldsmith; Editing by Stephen Addison and Mark Heinrich)

Join the conversation about this story »

Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson doesn't think that President Barack Obama will get 100 votes in favor of his plan for military strikes in Syria — even after the public-relations blitz Obama will put on over the next two days. 

"If you do the math, what you're seeing is that Democrats are 2-to-1 or 3-to-1 against among those who have already declared," Grayson (D-Fla.) said in an interview with Business Insider. 

"That will remain true. The Republicans are more than 10-to-1 against. I think that will remain true. Project it out by party, and you'll see that the President is going to have to struggle to get to 100 votes here."

Grayson, who re-entered Congress this year for a second term after losing re-election in 2010, has become a leading force in what has been heavy Democratic opposition to Obama's plan for intervention in Syria. 

At home on recess, members of Congress have found near-record opposition to intervention in Syria at local town-hall events.

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver told Business Insider on Friday that opposition was lined up at a "90-10" clip. Grayson relayed examples from other members of Congress, who have struggled to find constituents with pro-intervention views. Grayson said that his constituents don't believe the U.S. should act unilaterally, and they are weary of the potential slippery slope that comes with "limited" strikes. 

Grayson told Business Insider that current doomsday-esque whip counts don't relay the full picture of the opposition. He said that many members of Congress have told him that although they are officially "undecided" in certain counts, they have made up their minds to vote against a resolution in the House. He said the "overwhelming majority" of the House is privately "vehemently against" intervention, but that members in "purple districts" are going through the ritual of consulting their constituents.

And he doesn't expect Obama's slew of TV interviews and address to the nation on Tuesday to change that.

"The President can get on any news shows he wants, obviously," Grayson said. "But the public and members of Congress are already well aware of the arguments."

He added: "The President has spent too much time talking about what did happen, rather than giving fair consideration to what might happen."

Grayson also blasted the Obama administration's "trust, but not verify" approach in presenting intelligence of the attack to Congress — expanding on an op-ed he wrote Saturday in The New York Times. Compared to the aftermath of the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi last September — when the administration made available every document — Grayson feels like it has stonewalled legislators on Syria.

It led him to question, in his Times op-ed, who was right — the administration or the conservative publication The Daily Caller, which ran an opinion piece last week claiming that the Obama administration had "selectively used intelligence to justify military strikes on Syria."

It's a sentence Grayson, a liberal Democrat, probably thought he'd never write.

"It's almost incomprehensible to a rational person that they would ask us to go to war based on a four-page [unclassified] report and a 12-page [classified] report written by the proponents of war when all of the information can and should be readily available to all of the people with classified clearance."

"I think that they've made a mistake in asking us to accept their one-sided analyses that they have presented to us, without letting us see any of the underlying intelligence reports," he added. "I think that will lead people to question whether we're deploying the proper decision-making process here. In any event, if they simply repeat their existing arguments, they're not going to win."

Join the conversation about this story »

As the U.S. continues to debate whether the country should attack Syria to punish the Syrian government for using chemical weapons, a Palestinian man whose family was killed in the chemical attack provides an interesting perspective.

11 members of Ahmed al-Hurani's family lived in a house in the Damascus suburb hit by the chemical attack. Everyone in the house, including al-Hurani's brother, his brother's wife, and nine sons, daughters, in-laws, and grandchildren, were killed.

But in an interview with NPR, al-Hurani said he doesn't think it makes a difference that chemical weapons were used:

Bassam al-Hurani [Ahmed's son] says members of the extended al-Hurani family have been killed in conflicts before. Two cousins died fighting Jewish militias in the 1940s. A niece was killed during a confrontation between Palestinians and Israeli soldiers in Jenin.

Several other relatives, all children, died in a conventional attack in Syria earlier this year. Ahmed al-Hurani says it hardly matters that these latest deaths were from poison gas.

"I don't see a difference," he says. "To me, all weapons kill."

al-Hurani also doesn't know whether Syrian President Bashar al-Assad ordered the attack.

And, perhaps most importantly, the al-Huranis don't think that strikes by the U.S. would be "illegal" and would only make things worse:

"I think other countries should have worked on solving the crisis in Syria much earlier," Bassam al-Hurani says. "In my opinion, America's intention to hit Syria is illegal. It's not right. America should stand in the middle and stop the fighting, rather than escalating it."

His father agrees.

"I only see a lot of harm coming out of such an attack," Ahmed al-Hurani says. "It will be a world war. Israel, Jordan, Turkey — everybody will be affected."

You can read the whole interview with the al-Huranis on NPR.org.

SEE ALSO: AMBASSADOR POWER: Here's Why The U.S. Must Attack Syria

Join the conversation about this story »

Making the case for intervention in Syria to a war-weary American public, Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that the strike will be "unbelievably small"— a comment that has already earned him relentless mocking in its immediate aftermath.

"We’re not going to war. We will not have people at risk in that way," Kerry said during a press conference in London with UK Foreign Secretary William Hague, according to a transcript released by the State Department.

"We will be able to hold Bashar Assad accountable without engaging in troops on the ground or any other prolonged kind of effort in a very limited, very targeted, very short-term effort that degrades his capacity to deliver chemical weapons without assuming responsibility for Syria’s civil war.

"That is exactly what we’re talking about doing – unbelievably small, limited kind of effort."

Kerry's comments are a microcosm of the poor job the Obama administration has done trying to explain the rationale for intervention. On one hand, they realize they are dealing with a "war-weary" public skeptical of engaging in another Middle East conflict.

On the other hand, Kerry has made repeated comments casting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as the greatest villain of the 21st century, in response to an alleged chemical-weapons attack against his own people on Aug. 21. The U.S. says the attack killed 1,429 people, including 426 children.

In a blistering statement unveiling the evidence the U.S. had against Assad, Kerry called him a "thug" and a "murderer." He has also made repeated comparisons of Assad to Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein. He has also said this is a "Munich moment" for members of Congress deciding whether to grant President Obama the authority to carry out limited strikes.

Kerry earned immediate fire from even supporters of the administration's plan, including Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), the chair of the House Intelligence Committee.

"I don't understand what he means by that," Rogers said when asked to analyze Kerry's comments Monday on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

"This is part of the problem. That's a very confusing message. Certainly a confusing message to me — that he would offer that, as somebody who believes this is in our national security interest."

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), also a Syria hawk, quipped that Kerry's comments were "unbelievably unhelpful":

Kerry says #Syria strike would be "unbelievably small" - that is unbelievably unhelpful

— John McCain (@SenJohnMcCain) September 9, 2013

Join the conversation about this story »

On Monday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Syria could avoid an American attack by turning over "every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week."

Russia immediately jumped on the offer, as Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrovsaid Moscow will urge Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control in a bid to avert military intervention.

This is a deft political move on Russia's part, especially since the State Department immediately walked back Kerry's comments by saying that he "was making a rhetorical argument about the impossibility and unlikelihood of Assad turning over chemical weapons he has denied he used."

The Wall Street Journal's Tom Gara observes that Russia is capitalizing on a "silly Kerry mistake," since even though Assad would never turn over chemical weapons, beginning such a process would serve an ideal delay to any U.S. decision to attack Syria.

On Sunday, Assad denied using chemical weapons on his own people and would not confirm or deny that his government even has chemical-weapons stockpiles.

Russia's announcement further muddies the situation for an American administration that is struggling to convince Congress and the country to back a military strike on Syria.

And it seems to be having its intended effect: A bunch of news outlets are reporting Russia's move. WSJ called it"a rare sign of apparent agreement between Moscow and Washington." 

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said that Damascus welcomes Russia's proposal and is ready for "full cooperation with Russia to remove any pretext for aggression."

U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron said he welcomes the move but warned that the idea must not be used as a "distraction tactic." U.N. Chief Ban Ki-moon also backed the Russian proposal.

The U.S. State Department, meanwhile, now says it will "take a hard look" at Russsia proposal on remain skeptical.

Interpreter Magazine Editor-in-Chief Michael Weiss summed up the situation perfectly: "Kerry says give up CW. Assad says what CW? Russia says those CW, give em up but not really. Syria says oh, right--good one, bolshoe spasibo" (i.e., "Thank you very much").

Weiss and Eurasia Group President Ian Bremmer note that Russia's play is most likely aimed at scuttling the congressional vote altogether.

The atmosphere does not bode well for President Obama's Syria media blitz on Monday night, which will be flanked by an interview of Assad on PBS.

SEE ALSO: John Kerry Is Getting Relentlessly Mocked For Saying Syria Strikes Will Be 'Unbelievably Small'

Join the conversation about this story »

They're still counting votes on the Hill to approve a strike on Syria. 

But PIMCO's Bill Gross says investors need to prepare now for one.

See his Tweet below.

In forecasting a "steeper curve," he is saying he expects the difference between long-term interest rates and short-term interest rates to widen.

Gross: American citizens seem to want war no more. Do their opinions matter? Doubt it. Structure portfolios for a strike. Steeper curve.

— PIMCO (@PIMCO) September 9, 2013

Join the conversation about this story »

When President Barack Obama gives a slew of television interviews and addresses the nation over the next two days, he will walk into a rising firestorm of public opposition to the bombing in Syria for which he is clamoring. 

Opposition to Obama's plan of limited, targeted airstrikes has surged 15 points in the past week, according to a new Pew Research Center/USA Today survey. The poll found that 63% oppose possible U.S. airstrikes in Syria, which is up 15 points from last week. Only 28% favor airstrikes, which is down a single point.

Most of the change from Pew's poll last week comes from previously undecided respondents making up their mind — which is a bad sign for an administration trying furiously to make its case before Congress will vote on whether to authorize a military campaign. 

The biggest change, in fact, has come from Republican respondents. Last week, Republicans narrowly opposed airstrikes by a 35-40 margin. Now, they are against it by an astounding 21-70 gap. Democrats oppose such action by a 35-53 margin, and Independents oppose by a 28-66 gap. 

A big part of the reason for the opposition comes from what respondents say is Obama's lack of clear explanation as to why the U.S. should wage the campaign of airstrikes. Only 35% of respondents said that Obama has "clearly explained why the U.S. should launch airstrikes," compared with 54% who said he has not.

Beginning on Monday, Obama is mounting a furious media push to sell his plan on Syria, when will give interviews to six networks. On Tuesday, he will address the nation in a primetime address from the Oval Office.

It comes as Congress looks increasingly unlikely to authorize any military action. Many members of Congress have cited near-record opposition from constituents at town-hall style events.

And Obama's blunders on Syria have taken their toll on his overall approval rating, which matches a new low in the poll at 44%. His foreign policy approval rating is even more brutal, at 33%:

Join the conversation about this story »

With President Barack Obama seemingly determined to use military force to intervene in the conflict in Syria, we thought it appropriate to explore which admiral or general might lead the operation.

Here are five military commanders who, due to experience and present assignment, are well-positioned to lead military action against the Bashar al Assad regime.

Each of the men on this list has no fewer than 30 years of experience as a U.S. military officer. Each is supremely qualified.

1. Army Gen. Lloyd Austin — U.S. Central Command

Austin has to top this list. As the man in charge of U.S. Central Command, the Unified Combatant Command responsible for the Arab world, Syria falls smack in the middle of his purview. 

He also has the best resume to lead this strike. He previously commanded U.S. forces in Iraq and then served as the Army Vice Chief of Staff. This means he both has the requisite experience in warfare and the political knowledge to navigate this mess in Syria. 

Additionally, reports last week were that leaders at CENTCOM headquarters at MacDill Air Force Base in Florida were narrowing down the list of planned targets for the Syrian strike. That certainly suggests Austin is in charge. Don't be surprised if come game day, he takes off for the region to oversee action from the front. 

2. Adm. Bruce Clingan — U.S. Naval Forces Europe and Africa

The only four-star admiral on this list, Clingan is an intriguing choice. He also has a fantastic background for the job. He has put in a ton of time in the region, including stints as deputy director of operations at CENTCOM and as commander of the Navy's Sixth Fleet. 

There's also interesting recent historical precedent for the man in his chair: when the U.S. lead Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya in March 2011, the tactical commander for that operation was Clingan's predecessor, Adm. Samuel Locklear III. 

Now, there are major differences between Syria and Libya. Notably, Libya falls within the area of responsibility for the Commander of Naval Forces in Africa and Europe, while Syria does not. But a lot of the surrounding region does fall under his responsibility, and assets that he is responsible for would be involved in the operation. Obama's limited military strike with no boots on the ground promises to principally involve Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from Naval vessels, and he's the most senior American sailor for thousands of miles.  

3. Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove — Supreme Allied Commander Europe

Breedlove makes sense to lead the military strike on Syria due to his role as the top U.S. officer in NATO. If there is any sort of coalition of the willing executing the intervention, his role with NATO could be key.

Additionally, Breedlove is also the commander of U.S. European Command, and much of the region that surrounds Syria falls under his area of responsibility, namely; Israel, Turkey, and the Mediterranean Sea where many of the military assets are positioned. 

But Breedlove seems an unlikely choice. Unlike Austin, he has never commanded any sort of kinetic military operation, and has no experience in Iraq or Afghanistan. As an F-16 pilot, Breedlove did, however, fly combat missions over Bosnia and Kosovo. Perhaps if the seat at NATO were filled by Obama's first choice, Marine Gen. John Allen, who previously commanded coalition forces in Afghanistan, the move would make more sense. 

4. Vice Adm. Frank Pandolfe — Sixth Fleet

The first three-star on this list, Pandolfe has impressive credentials. He has commanded carrier strike groups in support of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he has put in his time in Washington, on the staff with the Joint Chiefs and as a White House military advisor.

His most recent assignment strikes a chord — he served as director of the Navy's surface warfare division. This is a man with a keen understanding of the type of military operations Obama envisions for Syria.

He commands the Sixth Fleet, which has assets positioned off the coast of Syria, but also serves as the commander of striking and support forces at NATO. The Sixth Fleet has it's hands in a litany of similar military operations in the region, from the intervention in Libya, stretching all the way back to the U.S. Lebanese intervention of 1958. What's more, Pandolfe's predecessor at the Sixth Fleet, Vice Adm. Harry Harris, was the commander of maritime forces for Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya. Even if Pandolfe isn't the top guy, expect him to have a major role in the Syrian War.

5. Vice Adm. John Miller — Fifth Fleet

Miller commands the Fifth Fleet and U.S. Naval Forces for CENTCOM out of Bahrain, so he is intimately acquainted with Syria and undoubtedly has been tracking the conflict longer than anyone on this list.

He's a Naval aviator by trade who understands the nature of the beast when it comes to selective strikes. Additionally, he's an expert in U.S. military interests in the Middle East, having spent the majority of his career on the CENTCOM area of responsibility.

Along with assets from Pandolfe's Sixth Fleet, ships with the Fifth Fleet presently surround Syria and will unquestionably be used in any military strike. 

SEE ALSO: These Two Maps Show Just How Much Western Power Is Surrounding Syria Right Now

Join the conversation about this story »

White House and State Department officials said they are open to Russia's proposal to place Syrian chemical weapons under international control and then destroy them, even though they are skeptical about the Syrians' sincerity.

"We'd have to take a hard look. Any transfer of chemical weapons to international control would be a positive development," Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes told MSNBC on Monday. He quickly added, though, that the White House was "skeptical" of the seriousness of the offer.

The White House's move is the latest in a rapidly progressing series of events Monday. Here's what has happened:

• Secretary of State John Kerry made what appeared to be an offhand remark in London early Monday, suggesting that Syria could potentially avoid a U.S. attack if it handed over "every single bit of his chemical weapons" to the international community in the next week.
  
• The State Department walked back the remarks; spokeswoman Marie Harf called them "rhetorical" and "hypothetical."
• Nevertheless, Russia immediately jumped on the offer. "If the establishment of international control over chemical weapons in that country would allow avoiding strikes, we will immediately start working with Damascus," Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said.
• Syria then said it "welcomed" Russia's offer.

As has frequently been the case with Syria, the Obama administration's response to Russia's offer is muddy. At the same time it is walking back Kerry's statements as "rhetorical" and "hypothetical," it's also signaling a willingness to pursue the Russian proposal, and taking credit for Russia's and Syria's willingness to negotiate over chemical weapons as being sparked by the threat of military action. 

What happens next is also unclear. Both the State Department and White House said that the new developments don't immediately change their plans for action in Syria, as Congress debates whether to authorize limited military strikes.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said in his press briefing today that congressional approval of strikes is especially important now to keep up pressure on Syria to give up its chemical weapons. Obama is also preparing a media blitz to explain his plan on Syria, while the public's opposition to such strikes surges.

Watch Below: Hilary Clinton's First Public Remarks Regarding Syria

Join the conversation about this story »

There's little to laugh about when it comes to Syria, but when it comes to understanding what's happening there, some of the best analysis comes in the form of a joke.

Join the conversation about this story »

The debate over U.S. military action in Syria has pushed President Barack Obama's approval ratings on handling foreign policy all-time lows in two new polls released Monday.

The latest, released by CNN Monday afternoon, found Obama's approval rating on matters of foreign affairs at just 40%. That was a 4-point drop from June, Obama's previous low. 

A new Pew Research/USA Today survey found even worse numbers for the President. His approval on foreign policy had plunged to just 33% — down far from his previous low of 44% in November 2009 in that survey.

The dip in foreign-policy approval reflects the surging public opposition to U.S. military action in Syria, even in the limited, targeted scope that Obama has advocated. The CNN poll contains a slew of cringeworthy numbers for Obama, especially on foreign policy and Syria. His approval rating on handling the situation in Syria is just 31%, while an astounding 63% disapprove. 

Obama's overall approval rating is unchanged from June, at 45%. 

Beginning on Monday, Obama is mounting a furious media push to sell his plan on Syria, when will give interviews to six networks. On Tuesday, he will address the nation in a primetime address from the Oval Office.

It comes as Congress looks increasingly unlikely to authorize any military action. Many members of Congress have cited near-record opposition.

Join the conversation about this story »

President Barack Obama is about to embark on an unprecedented media drive to sell his plan for military action in Syria, in response to an alleged chemical-weapons attack last month launched by President Bashar al-Assad against his own people.

Each interview will be about seven minutes long. Here's a quick guide for when each interview will air:

• CNN: 6 p.m., with anchor Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room."
• PBS: 6 p.m., with Gwen Ifill on "PBS NewsHour."
• Fox News: 6 p.m., with anchor Chris Wallace on "Special Report."
• CBS: Anchor Scott Pelley, who is conducting the interview, tweeted that excerpts of the interview will air during the network's coverage of the U.S. Open men's final between Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal. It will air in full during "CBS Evening News" on the West Coast.
• ABC: 6:30 p.m., with anchor Diane Sawyer during "ABC World News."
• NBC: 6:30, with anchor Savannah Guthrie during "NBC Nightly News."

The networks' order of interviewing Obama was determined by a drawing from a hat. NBC won the drawing, and was followed by CNN, CBS, Fox News, ABC and PBS.

Join the conversation about this story »

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) is delaying the first full Senate vote on a resolution to attack Syria. Reid had previously laid out a schedule which would have involved an initial vote on Wednesday.

In a speech on the Senate floor Monday evening, Reid said "we have enough votes for cloture," the initial vote requiring 60 Senators to proceed to a vote on passage, but that he wants to wait.

"I think what we need to do is make sure that the president has the opportunity to speak to all 100 senators and all 300 million American people before we do this," Reid said.

Reid did not set a new timeline for Senate votes.

Join the conversation about this story »

President Barack Obama said Monday that he would "absolutely" put plans for strikes on Syria on hold if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad gave up control of his country's chemical weapons.

"Absolutely — if, in fact, that happens," Obama said in an interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer, which was one of six interviews he gave at the White House on Monday. 

Obama's comments came after a day of unexpected developments in the Syria situation that signaled a potentially dramatic shift in course on Syria. Secretary of State John Kerry first made what appeared to be an offhand remark in London early Monday, suggesting that Syria could potentially avoid a U.S. attack if it handed over "every single bit of his chemical weapons" to the international community in the next week. 

Russia immediately jumped on the offer, despite the State Department's furious walk-backs of Kerry's remarks as "rhetorical" and "hypothetical." And Syria said it would "welcome" the offer. 

Obama echoed his sentiments in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer.

"It's possible if it's real," Obama said. "... It's certainly a positive development."

Obama told PBS' Gwen Ifill and Fox News' Chris Wallace that he had "conversations" with Russian President Vladimir Putin about this issue during their conversation last week at the G20 summit in St. Petersburg. But he emphasized that even if this deal led to a "breakthrough," it would require strict conditions and follow-up.

In interviews with NBC and Fox News, Obama quoted former President Ronald Reagan, saying he would "trust but verify" Russia's offer. After the interview on NBC, Savannah Guthrie reported, citing a senior administration official, that Putin initiated the conversations.

"We will pursue this diplomatic track,"Obama told Fox News' Wallace. "I fervently hope that this can be resolved in a non-military way. But I think it is important for us not to let the, you know, the pedal off the metal when it comes to making sure that they understand that we mean what we say about these international bans on chemical weapons."

Obama also took credit for Russia's offer, noting that it did not come without the threat of U.S. military action. 

"I don't think we would have gotten to this point unless we had maintained a credible possibility for a military strike and I don't think now is the time for us to let up on that," Obama told ABC.

As Obama's interviews aired, Senate Majority Harry Reid pulled a critical test vote that was scheduled for Wednesday.

"I don't anticipate that you would see a succession of votes this week or anytime in the immediate future," Obama told ABC. "So I think there will be time during the course of the debates here in the United States for the international community, the Russians and the Syrians to work with us and say is there a way to resolve this."

He also said on multiple networks that he still planned to address the nation in a primetime speech on Tuesday night, amid rising opposition from both the public and in Congress. Obama told NBC that he "wouldn't say I'm confident" about the chances of Congressional authorization.

When asked by NBC whether he would carry out strikes in case Congress denies his request, he said he hadn't made up his mind.

Join the conversation about this story »

Sean Penn, George Clooney, Jane Fonda, Susan Sarandon and a handful of other celebrities can usually be counted on to be Hollywood's most outspoken anti-war protesters. 

But not when it comes to the current situation with Syria.

So why does the cat suddenly have Hollywood's tongue?

Vocal celebrity progressive activists Ed Asner, 83, and "M*A*S*H" star Mike Farrell, 74, opened up to The Hollywood Reporter about why they think Hollywood is staying quiet.

Farrell explains, "an all-out war in Iraq under Bush, a Republican who was very unpopular in Hollywood, was a much bigger deal than potential missile strikes against Syria under the direction of Obama, a Democrat who drew millions for his campaigns from showbiz industry donors."

Adds "Mary Tyler Moore" actor Asner, "It will be a done deal before Hollywood is mobilized. This country will either bomb the hell out of Syria or not before Hollywood gets off its a--."

Asner, who has seven Emmy awards to his name, further explains that a main reason celebrities haven't come forward in protest is because they don't want to be called racist.

"A lot of people don't want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama," says Asner.

Asner continued about the current president: "I voted for him, but I'm not proud. He hasn't thrown himself on the funeral pyre. I wanted him to sacrifice himself. Instead, he has proved himself to be a corporatist, and as long as he's a corporatist, he's not my president. A lot of people have lost hope -- with the betrayals, the NSA spying ... People aren't getting active because 'Who gives a sh--?' is essentially the bottom line."

Farrell echoed his friend's sentiments: "He's a disappointment to me and other people I know."

Hollywood's silence is deafening in contrast to the handful of celebrities, from Martin Sheen to Neil Young and Barbra Streisand, who railed against the Bush administration throughout the 2000s, imploring Bush against going to war with Iraq.

But while many past protestors are remaining silent, a select few are speaking out via social media.

Earlier this week, Madonna posted a strong message to her Instagram account. It has over 34,000 "likes."

Signer Azealia Banks went on a Twitter tirade expressing her disapproval by publicly questioning whether the Obama administration might be in a “diabolical ego race” with rivals like Russia and Iran, and declared, “America should mind it’s business this time.” 

And Obama isn't doing himself any favors by upsetting Univision. Feeling snubbed by the prez, anchor Jorge Ramos tweeted Monday: 

Pres. Obama gives 6 interviews today. None of those to Univision. Why? Hispanics also care about Syria. Same mistake as presidential debates

— JORGE RAMOS (@jorgeramosnews) September 9, 2013

150,000+ Latinos are serving in the U.S. military. But none of the 6 interviews given today by Obama include Univision #LessonsNOTlearned

— JORGE RAMOS (@jorgeramosnews) September 9, 2013

SEE ALSO: 'Grand Theft Auto V' Cost More To Make Than Nearly Every Hollywood Blockbuster Ever Made

Join the conversation about this story »

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made her first public comments regarding Syria during an appearance at a forum on wildlife trafficking.

Clinton had met with President Obama at the White House earlier to talk about the ongoing situation in Syria.

Watch below her comments on Russia's latest proposal that Syria place its stockpile of chemical weapons under international control as a way to avoid U.S. military strikes.

Produced by Reuters

SEE ALSO: Use Pivot Tables In Excel To Organize Confusing Raw Data In Seconds

Follow Us: On YouTube

Join the conversation about this story »

Monday's new developments on Syria should make Congress pass a resolution authorizing President Barack Obama to use military force in Syria, Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) said.

"Today's development should make Members of Congress more willing to vote yes," McCain and Graham, who have advocated military action in Syria for more than a year, said in a joint statement. "This will give the President additional leverage to press Russia and Syria to make good on their proposal to take the weapons of mass destruction out of Assad’s hands."

Syria's Foreign Minister said that it "welcomed" a Russian effort that would put its chemical weapons in international control and then destroyed, in response to what appeared to be an offhand remark in London from U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry earlier Monday.

Obama said later Monday in a round of television interviews that he would "absolutely" put planned military strikes on hold if, and only if, the U.S. was able to "trust but verify" Russia and Syria's offers. He called it a potential "breakthrough."

McCain and Graham said that these developments should lead Congress to authorize Obama to use force, saying it would create additional leverage in his bid to get Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to give up chemical weapons. 

There's a huge caveat in this, obviously — increasingly dire whip counts in both chambers of Congress, especially the House of Representatives. As Obama's interviews aired, Senate Majority Harry Reid canceled a critical test vote that was scheduled for Wednesday — perhaps realizing that getting the required 60 votes for cloture was dicey.

McCain and Graham also said that the U.S. should immediately introduce a U.N. Security Council Resolution that spells out "what the international community should expect of the Assad regime if it is serious about abandoning its weapons of mass destruction."

"This resolution must be presented as a take-it-or-leave-it offer and agreed to within a week at the Security Council, or else we run the risk that Russia and Syria will use this gambit as a way to play for time and continue the massacre of innocent men, women, and children in Syria," they said in the statement.

Join the conversation about this story »

Last weekend, on August 31^st, activists around the world staged rallies against United States’ involvement in Syria. The movement, aptly titled No War with Syria, was largely set up and organized through social media, calling on citizens of all major cities to come together in opposition to President Obama’s desire for “limited military strikes” against Syrian forces, for the use of Sarin gas during its two-year-long civil war. At the time of these protests, it was not clear whether Bashar al-Assad’s military had used the chemical weapon, or if it had been unleashed by one of the numerous militant forces fighting for control of the country.

I attended the San Diego rally, curious to see what others thought of events unfolding on the other side of the world. Admittedly, I was not entirely sure this would be an effective or impressive rally; the impotence of the Occupy movement was fresh on my mind, with its ineffectual camping in public places having achieved nothing of note after almost a year. Don’t get me wrong, I fell in love with Occupy when it started, and devoted a great deal of time to following and documenting the movement, especially as it forced the media to pay attention, and terrified Capitol Hill with its sheer size and scope. Occupy Wall St. was the kind of movement that could have forced much needed change upon the political realm, but squandered its potential by doing nothing. Their lack of leadership, and desire to solve every single social issue, instead of focusing solely on the banks and politicians who sold us out and ruined the economy, wasted all the influence Occupy had amassed; I saw shadows of the exact same tendencies in NWS San Diego, and did not leave the rally with a desire to continue supporting it.

The rally took place outside the Ruben H. Fleet Science Center in Balboa Park. By the time I’d arrived, there was a respectable gathering of about a hundred people all from a diverse set of backgrounds. Liberals, conservatives, libertarians, youth, seniors, veterans, and even a few members of Anonymous were in attendance. Their signs, however, were my first warning that this would not be an effective gathering. Hidden amongst the usual anti-war signs and slogans were a few signs protesting Monsanto and calling for the legalization of weed, a clear indication that the purpose of a No War with Syria protest was somehow not completely clear to all of its attendants. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for having debates about GMOs and recreational drug use, but keep those to their own forum. They have no place at an anti-war rally, and advocating these subjects does little but detract energy from the primary goal of this protest. Unfortunately, this was something the rally’s speakers did not take into account, and they proved to be the most disappointing, and infuriating, part of my entire afternoon.

The first speaker decided that the most appropriate thing to do was lead the group in a meditation on the “peace in our hearts,” while ringing a bell, to help us find inner peace. Or something. I have no idea what his goal was, but he was one of the most aggravating people I’ve had to listen to. This man’s actions are the embodiment of why nobody on the right respects liberal rallies; these pointless, feel-good acts do nothing to further the agenda, and only serve to make participants (who get washed up in the moment) feel like they’ve accomplished something when they have not. There is a time and place for being calm and peaceful, and a protest against the bombing of another country is not one of them. If your blood isn’t boiling from the idea that your government wants to attack another country, again, for no damn good reason, you have no place at such a protest. This is when you get angry, and loud, and passionate, and make it perfectly clear to your representatives that they are in no way representing you, the constituent, by raining death on another country. If you want to feel good about doing nothing, take a nap.

The next two speakers ran liberal radio news stations, because nothing says “forward-thinking progressive” like the radio. These guys, as I alluded to earlier, could not stay on target with their speeches. Instead of focusing on the idea of getting embroiled in another country’s issues, which may incite all-out war when their allies get involved, these guys felt the need to mention drug legalization and prison overcrowding. Again, these are important issues, but they are debates for another time. You want to deal with them, set up a separate protest.

Following the DJs was one of two speakers I have any respect for: a Syrian-born woman whose family has endured the hell of the Syrian civil war for the past two years. She was articulate and passionate, and spot-on about President Obama’s disregard for American law in his desire to strike Syrian forces without congressional approval. She was so on point, in fact, that local news affiliates KUSI and ABC, who had placed mics on the speaker’s podium, withdrew said mics and left the rally as this woman spoke. Apparently, it’s no longer okay to point out that our own leaders fail to uphold the laws they hold the rest of us to. Spot on reporting guys; I can’t wait to see you not present the facts on CNN when you make it to the big leagues.

The other speaker I still have respect for is a member of Veterans for Peace. A Vietnam veteran, he knows first-hand what it’s like to be embroiled in a pointless, thankless war, that the citizens he’s serving want no part of. His is a powerful, passionate voice that needs to be heard much more often than it is. Of course, with this country’s respect of the veterans it so publically venerates, I’m not surprised he and his ilk go largely unheard.

Following Veterans for Peace was easily the greatest source of irritation I’ve ever had the displeasure of listening to. This man had the audacity to compare himself to Martin Luther King, Jr., one of the greatest civil rights activists and orators of the 20^th Century, and certainly of US history. I’m sorry, but no, you do not get to make that comparison. You know the difference between the people attending Occupy and No War with Syria, and those who protested in the Civil Rights Movement? The latter group suffered for their cause. You have done nothing but stand in a public pavilion during an uncomfortably warm day. Do not insult the accomplishments of Dr. King by comparing yourself to him; you have done nothing, and continue to do nothing, to deserve such distinction, and until you’re willing to face down an army of police officers, suffer at their uncalled for brutality, and do so day after day, rally after rally, in a nonviolent manner, you are nothing like your idol. Stop lying to yourself, and the rest of us, that you have gone through anything akin to what this man, and those like him, did to achieve their goals.

Following these speeches, the organizers of the rally said that the agenda for the remainder of the afternoon was to have closing comments from those of us who were present, then exchange information with each other and network, and “we can march if you’re up for it.” If that quote doesn’t say it all, I don’t know how to explain the impotence of these people any better. If you don’t have the drive and willpower to march for your convictions on a hot day, you sure as hell shouldn’t be speaking to motivate others. The people who make real change in the world have not only the fiery passion to drive themselves forward, but the ability to pass this flame on to others, so that they too are willing to do what it takes to see their visions become reality. The inability of any of the speakers and organizers to do this is why No War with Syria San Diego will amount to nothing. Protests in other cities may do better, and I certainly hope this is the case, but that will only come from people willing to put themselves on the line for their convictions. This half-assed, feel-good, we-can-march-if-you’re-up-to-it attitude is exactly why organized events like Occupy and NWS fail to be effective, and it needs to change if we are to do anything to fix the status quo.

Join the conversation about this story »

A Russian proposal to get Syria to cede control of its chemical weapons is about to be enshrined in a French-sponsored U.N. resolution, and oil prices are falling fast on the news.

Brent was off -1.27%, while NYMEX-traded WTI was down -1.59%.

Here's the Brent chart:

Join the conversation about this story »

Syria has "agreed to the Russian initiative" to place the country's chemical weapons under international control for subsequent dismantling, Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said on Tuesday.

He added that Syria did so to "uproot U.S. aggression."

On Wednesday U.S. President Barack Obama said that he would "absolutely" pause plans for strikes on Syria if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was serious about ceding control of the WMD stockpiles.

Moscow and Damascus "expect to present this plan soon" to the U.N., Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told Agence-France Presse on Tuesday.

China and Iran, who along with Russia is propping up the Syrian regime, back the Kremlin's proposal.

How Syria would place one of the world’s largest stockpiles of chemical weapons under international control in the middle of an ongoing civil war is unclear.

The Syrian opposition denounced the notion as a political maneuver "that will only result in more deaths and destruction for the Syrian people" and called for military retaliation on Assad's regime for a August 21 chemical weapons attack.

Germany, the U.K., and France acknowledged the potential deal but remain skeptical.

On Tuesday France said it would propose a United Nations Security Council resolution that will call for Syria to allow inspectors to oversee the destruction of chemical weapons in the country and for Syria to become a member of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

What the Russian move will certainly do is delay any U.S. decision on a strike.

"I don't anticipate that you would see a succession of votes this week or anytime in the immediate future," Obama told ABC news.

The potential breakthrough arose from an offhand remark by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry that the Kremlin pounced on. Last night Obama said that he has discussed the topic with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week at the G-20 summit.

SEE ALSO: Vladimir Putin Puts John Kerry In Check On Syria

Join the conversation about this story »