U.S. Sen.Graham wants Trump to kill Assad, Jeffries just wants Assad gone

Of course, Graham didn't put it quite that baldly but he clearly implied it. From his Twitter page yesterday:

Unbelievable Bashar al Assad would use chemical weapons again as reported by State Department. Clearly we have lost deterrence when it comes to Assad. Time for the world to stand up and be counted in opposition to barbaric actions like this.

LindseyGrahamSC (R-South Carolina)

More
I recommend President Trump consider a decisive blow this time around – do to Assad what Reagan tried to do to Khaddafi. [Muammar Gaddafi]
Time to reset the table in the Middle East.
Will introduce Senate resolution declaring Assad a war criminal and expect to receive bipartisan support.

As to which nonexistent chemical weapon attack Graham is talking about, see Bernhard's September 27 report for Moon of Alabama, Note To Journos - When Pompeo Doubles Down On A Lie He Does Not "Confirm" It

Also yesterday, from Jason Ditz at Antiwar:

James Jeffrey, the US Ambassador for the Syrian War, has reported on Friday that Bashar Assad needs to be removed from office, and that the US military options against him remain open.

Jeffrey was objecting in particular to reports that the UN had made a deal on a Syrian constitutional committee which would work on a legal framework for post-war Syria. The committee includes both pro-government officials and the opposition.

A negotiated settlement has been something the US has long opposed, as they’ve wanted the US to have a substantial say in how Syria will be organized after the war, with Assad and his allies forced out.

Jeffrey presented the US as opposed on the grounds that Syria is continuing to fight rebels in Idlib Province (primarily al-Qaeda). He said the US would not allow Syria to negotiate peace while continuing to fight rebels.

With the US also accusing Syria of another chemical weapons attack in May, albeit once again [without] evidence, there remains the possibility of the US just attacking Syria outright. Barring this, however, the US doesn’t really have a way to prevent the UN-brokered talk.

[END REPORT]

If you've never before heard of an ambassador to a war -- it's because the U.S. doesn't like to recognize Syria as a sovereign state. That's quite understandable because if the U.S. did recognize Syria more people would be asking why the U.S. isn't acting as if the country has borders.

In more Syria-related news yesterday, Sputnik reported on the latest U.S. strategy to protect terrorist assets in Syria:

Earlier in the day, the US Treasury Department designated a Russian-based maritime company, three Sovfracht directors and five vessels for an alleged scheme to evade sanctions to facilitate the delivery of jet fuel to Russian forces operating in Syria.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accused Iran and Russia of "fueling" violence in the Syrian Arab Republic, noting that the US "supports @UN efforts to end military violence in #Syria."

[...]

The Russian response:

[...]

The Russian Foreign Ministry observed that Moscow had repeatedly noted Washington "patronizing" terrorists allied with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham -- formerly known as the Nusra Front -- providing them with means and protection, despite the group being a "direct successor" to the al Qaeda terror group.

 "The United States has exposed its open support for terrorism. For Russia, the sanctions are nothing new. Fighting terrorists in Syria will continue despite the United States patronizing them and illegally occupying a part of this sovereign country’s territory, hampering the settlement of the Syrian conflict. We decisively condemn the cynicism and unscrupulousness of Washington’s policies," the foreign ministry noted.

**********