Kerry looks like he's had his face ironed. How can anyone take this doofus seriously when he self-contradicts within the same statement?
Posted on 09/10/2013 4:32:26 AM PDT by markomalley
Monday 9 September, 2013, was the worst day for US and wider Western diplomacy since records began.
At the Foreign Office here in London we had the bizarre spectacle of US Secretary of State John Kerry giving a businesslike account of diplomatic incentives:
If one party believes that it can rub out countless numbers of his own citizens with impunity using chemicals that have been banned for nearly 100 years because of what Europe learned in World War I, if he can do that with impunity, he will never come to a negotiating table … If you don’t draw those lines, and the civilized world is not prepared to enforce those lines, you are giving complete license to people to do whatever they want
However, almost in the same breath John Kerry blew up the logic of his own position by assuring a bemused world that any bombing by the United States would be "unbelievably small".
During his presentation he also made a mock-sarcastic suggestion in response to a question about how Assad might stop an attack:
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...
An excellent analysis of the Syria chemical weapons debacle. His following article in the Telegraph clarifies the corner into which Obama has painted himself vis a vis Egypt. This is a remarkable writer, worthy of following.
I wonder if anyone has leaned from behing the throne to tell the asshat the US still has quite an arsenal of gas weapons due to how long it takes to dismantle and destroy them.
The dispute over Syria appears to be liberal vs. liberal, and it’s tempting for conservatives to follow my usual philosophy that if you find all your enemies standing in the same puddle of gasoline, throw in a match and stand back and watch the fun.
However, there is a lot more at stake than just watching liberals destroy each other. Ultimately, any failure on the part of the US in Syria policy will enhance and embolden Iran, the heart of the evil in the middle east. A nuclear armed Iran would not be good.
Obama has spent us so deeply into debt, that it is questionable whether we can afford even the pitiful military action that he is proposing. What we actually need to do, what will have the best effect, is militarily support the non-Islamist rebels and assure their victory. Supply them, support them, and enforce no-fly zones for Assad’s forces and those led by the Islamists. If Iran intervenes, bomb that place where the ayatollahs live until it and they are rubble.
We should be relentlessly promoting this strategy, and blaming Obama for us not being able to afford it.
Non-Islamist rebels?
Kerry looks like he's had his face ironed. How can anyone take this doofus seriously when he self-contradicts within the same statement?
Unbelievably stupid from John Kerry.
An interesting read. So are the comments following. Even though I don’t agree with everything in the article, we just don’t get that kind of analysis in the US media.
Botox.
From today’s Wall Street Journal:
“All the more so because the civil war is making it more likely that part or all of Syria will become a base and training ground for the next generation of jihadists. The revolt in Syria began 30 months ago with nonviolent demonstrations by peaceful protesters seeking Assad’s removal. The demonstrators turned to violence when Assad sent tanks to crush them. The rebellion was at least a year old before al Qaeda-linked fighters, many of them foreign, became significant in the insurgency.”
Meanwhile any new process of setting up an international monitoring and destruction regime will require painstaking UN and wider negotiation with the Assad regime, thereby giving Assad and his state apparatus a massive boost of renewed confidence and legitimacy. Before long Washington may find itself locked on to implicitly or even explicitly supporting Assad in his civil war as the best chance to get some sort of internationally agreed CW destruction programme delivered in Syria.
Obama and Kerry thoroughly snookered by Putin and Assad. I want to laugh but for the damage it does our foreign policy, and the fact that we are stuck with these bozos for three more years.
Just imagine what could have been if John “Ffing” Kerry was elected President!
Does it say the “demonstrators” were non-Islamist?
I hate to see Kerry get picked on by all these other countries now after he won those three Purple Hearts in Vietnam, only to end that war after coming home early.
I bet he had a great time in Paris sipping fine wine and talking French. They love him there.
He was for bombing before he was against it.
The US media is reporting on it as if it was all planned this way by the Obama administration.
Great discussion this AM about this subject:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3064845/posts?page=1
Hoping someone in the media will explore this idea.
Non-Islamist Rebels?
I contend that we should be on the same side as Assad and the Russians or not at all. In fact, just a few years ago, you had Kerry, Hillary and company singing Assad’s praises.
Kerry should have stayed on his boat! ;-)
I recall in 2004 when CSPAN was playing The Kerry Soldier in Winter clips where he calls on congress to pull out of VN (after he got his 3 Purple Hearts on Swift Boat) the Dem paid CSPAN drones called in repeating ‘What a serious young man he was who spent his time trying to make a positive difference’ implying how in contrast GWB was partying it up in college at the time, and what a great statesman Kerry would make as POTUS instead.
Now we see,
Gilligans Island is now playing on Me TV 8-9pm EST and Thurstan Howell the Third seems alot like Kerry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.