Why is John Kerry so determined to empower Islamic militants who are now confirmed to be associated with al Qaeda? Why are we going to allow the ethnic cleansing of Christians in Syria? Are we doing it to prove Kerry’s manhood? Just what’s going on here? This report doesn’t come from just any old source, but from the Jerusalem Post!
Once again John Kerry has outright lied about the use of chemical weapons.
“…Kerry maintained that what happened in Syria isn’t just contained to Syria, “this concerns every American’s security.” He noted that the only two other men to use chemical weapons in such a manner before Assad were Adolf Hitler and Sadaam Hussein. Kerry referred to Russia’s standing on the U.N. Security Council, arguing that the U.S. can’t just turn its back because the international body has become a “tool of ideology.”…”
He has had several days to correct his misstatement of earlier in the week, on the subject. He has not. Ergo, I’m going to come out and say the man is lying. He’s not telling the truth about the use of chemical weapons. He is lying. I have no patience or tolerance for anyone who lies. I had, until this week, given him the benefit of the doubt. Now, though, I’m not. The man is just plain old, out and out lying.
What is John Kerry’s agenda?
In many ways, we should rightfully be afraid of what could happen via Iran. They’re nuts, but, the argument that we need to take out Syria’s chemical warfare machine is a bit disingenuous. It reminds me of John 8: 7. We’re all familiar with the story of the woman (Mary Magdalene) who was to be stoned to death for adultery. Christ told the accusers that who ever was without sin could throw the first stone. That’s the problem with the constant crying of wolf about Iran. Yes, they are crazy. And yes, they don’t wish us well. There are a lot of countries in the world who don’t wish us well. One begins to wonder if we were not so involved with the protection of Israel if we would have so many problems with Iran.
The argument that is now being made, about Syria is that we need to take out these chemical weapons, which have been used for well over a year, before Iran gets their hands on them, and uses them either on us or Israel. There are several problems with this scenario. If these are connected to Iraq’s missing WMD, they’ve been there in Syria for years. I suspect Iran would have known they were there.
There’s another problem with this scenario. Iran has signed onto the Chemical Weapons Convention. Funny thing, though, Israel has not. Neither has Syria. It is also quite disingenuous for
Co-President Secretary of State John Kerry to say that the world has basically not done much in the way of chemical weapons since World War I. The Pink Flamingo has presented 16 documented cases, several involving the US, where chemical weapons have been used, contrary to Kerry’s running commentary that such weapons have been used only 3 times since World War I.
The problem with Kerry’s scenario and creatively edited history is that it is not quite accurate. In fact, it is terribly inaccurate. The first international agreement limiting the use of chemical weapons was in 1675 when France and Germany signed an agreement limiting the use of poisoned bullets. Additional treaties were signed and noted in 1874, 1899, and again in 1907. The rules of warfare that were ratified at the Hague in 1907 prohibited the use of poisoned weapons. That went well, didn’t it? The Geneva Protocol was signed in 1925. The US DID NOT sign the protocol. Franklin D. Roosevelt came close to using the outlawed weapons in World War II. Only a lucky bomb strike by a Nazi pilot prevented it from happening. Winston Churchill also came quite close to using them. It wasn’t until 1992, when the US renounced our insistence of retaliation in kind, and we dropped the right to maintain and even retain security stockpiles of weapons. Israel has YET to sign on to this agreement.
During the Iran-Iraq War, 30,000 Iranians are either still suffering from or have died from the effects of chemical weapons deployed by Iraq. These weapons were in part, provided by the Reagan Administration. They were deployed with the assistance of the Reagan Administration. In short, we were complacent in the slaughter of THIRTY THOUSAND Iranian men, women, and children via chemical weapons.
No one castigated us. No third party version of a John Kerry demanded that they be allowed to step in and bomb our chemical weapons stock. No one stated that we were so complacent in the actions that they feared what we might do, by helping other nations. Instead, a blind eye was turned. One of the results of the REAGAN ADMINISTRATION’S assistance in the slaughter of 30,000 Iranians is the fact that Iran’s medical establishment has been very successful in developing effective treatment for victims of chemical weapons and for those suffering from exposure to mustard gas.
If any country has a right to retaliate against the US for the use of chemical weapons, it is Iran. They have not. Because they have managed, thus far, to be quite moderate in their desire to do something nasty to us, John Kerry’s argument that they would use Syria’s weapon’s cache on us is a total and complete joke. Yes, we need to worry about terrorists getting any sort of WMD. But, so far, no one has used them.
The more I do my own research into the use of chemical weapons, the more John Kerry’s over the top, hysterical reaction seems self-serving. If any nation deserves to be castigated for the use, employment, and distribution of chemical weapons, it is the United States. For Kerry to pontificate on how we need to take out Syria’s cache of them, and not bother admitting that we might even be responsible for those very weapons is starting to make us look like a bunch of fools.
When Kerry began to discuss limited proportional attacks on those weapons, what about attacks against what we have done in the past? An invasion like what we did in Afghanistan, to respond to a direct attack on our nation is one thing. To beat one’s allegedly masculine chest, express over-the top, poorly referenced hyperbole and demand we do something that might be terribly ill-conceived is another. Kerry is beginning to sound like a hysterical fool.
If we had not been so actively involved in the covert use of chemical weapons over the past half century, I might look at things a bit differently. But, we’ve been little stinkers. We are no more innocent that the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Germany and Russia when it comes to enabling the use of these weapons. Israel isn’t so innocent either. In fact, we’re being pushed into this action by a nation that is viewing its own self-interests. I don’t blame Israel for wanting security. I blame us for putting their needs ahead of our own.
Barack Obama is now weakened. He is bloody and bruised, and appears to be almost a puppet of John Kerry. He has destroyed his own domestic agenda by even agreeing to step into an issue we’ve known about for well over a year. Why now? According to David Corn, Obama has truly harmed himself over his actions. I don’t expect things to get any better. If Obama goes ahead and strikes, without Congressional approval, he basically turns himself into a hypocrite. If he does not work within the framework of the UN, he risks turning his actions into something that is almost ‘rogue’. Right now, the EU has told him that he needs to go back to the United Nations. If they do not approve, does Obama, with the advice of Co-President Kerry, indeed go rogue and turn us into an invading nation?
If we were indeed innocent in the use of such horrible chemical weapons, Obama would have the moral high ground. Unfortunately, he does not. If he goes after Syria, he risks turning the US into a two-bit banana republic and empowers Russia as the world’s true superpower. I don’t like using the NRO, and their writers, but I agree with Andrew McCarthy. This is becoming a joke. I keep asking myself, what set off John Kerry. Why is he now going after such weapons? Why are we even aligning ourselves with rebels who have proven ties to al Qaeda. In doing so, we become a total and complete joke.
I love my country. I consider myself a fairly patriotic American. I am though, not blind to the problems we have created in the past. I’m not blind to the things we’ve done wrong. In order to repair the damage a person creates, you must accept and deal with your offenses.
Why are we assisting rebels who are involved in killing Christians in Syria? According to German officials, al-Qaeda linked rebels are systematically involved in what can only be described as genocide and ethnic cleansing of Christians in parts of Syria. Why are we going to help them? Israel wants US to attack Syria for them, so they can deal with Iran.
Robert Satloff of the Washington Institute of Near East Policy has said that the reason Obama MUST attack Syria is for the Israelis not to lose confidence in Obama’s ability to protect them. Is that why we’re going to war, so that John Kerry can bully Barack Obama into protecting Kerry’s manhood with the Israeli lobby?
According to Alan Grayson, (D-FL) the Obama Administration has been less than upfront with the information they’ve provided to Congress. He compared John Kerry’s complete lack of transparency with that of Hillery Clinton after Benghazi. She made everything possible, available to Congress. Grayson, in his NYTimes Op-ed states that:
“…The danger of the administration’s approach was illustrated by a widely read report last week in The Daily Caller, which claimed that the Obama administration had selectively used intelligence to justify military strikes in Syria, with one report “doctored so that it leads a reader to just the opposite conclusion reached by the original report.”
The allegedly doctored report attributes the attack to the Syrian general staff. But according to The Daily Caller, “it was clear that ‘the Syrian general staff were out of their minds with panic that an unauthorized strike had been launched by the 155th Brigade in express defiance of their instructions.’ ”
I don’t know who is right, the administration or The Daily Caller. But for me to make the correct decision on whether to allow an attack, I need to know. And so does the American public.
We have reached the point where the classified information system prevents even trusted members of Congress, who have security clearances, from learning essential facts, and then inhibits them from discussing and debating what they do know. And this extends to matters of war and peace, money and blood. The “security state” is drowning in its own phlegm.
My position is simple: if the administration wants me to vote for war, on this occasion or on any other, then I need to know all the facts. And I’m not the only one who feels that way….”
Sure, the information is classified. But, if Kerry is unwilling to allow members of Congress to see what he has, contrary to what he has been pontificating, then why would anyone vote to authorize any sort of military action in Syria? Grayson is saying we need to ‘trust’ but verify the Administration’s information about Syria. Considering the fact that John Kerry is not interested in correcting the lies he’s been telling about the use of chemical weapons, I don’t trust a damn thing that is coming out of his mouth.
If you want my humble opinion, the only way Barack Obama can regain control of his administration is to can John Kerry as quickly as possible. If not, Kerry is going to destroy him.
Tomorrow, The Pink Flamingo will have even more. This is a set-up to destroy Obama – nothing more, nothing less.