John Kerry is still out there beating the drums for war. He is growing increasingly frustrated as no one is buying his spiel. The situation has degraded into a tragic comedy.
Kerry issued Assad an ultimatum. Hand ’em over in one week or we attack:
The US secretary of state has said that President Bashar al-Assad has one week to hand over his entire stock of chemical weapons to avoid a military attack. But John Kerry added that he had no expectation that the Syrian leader would comply.
Kerry also said he had no doubt that Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack in east Damascus on 21 August, saying that only three people are responsible for the chemical weapons inside Syria – Assad, one of his brothers and a senior general. He said the entire US intelligence community was united in believing Assad was responsible.
Kerry was speaking on Monday alongside the UK foreign secretary, William Hague, who was forced to deny that he had been pushed to the sidelines by the House of Commons decision 10 days ago to reject the use of UK force in Syria.
And the attack itself would be “unbelievably small”:
“We’re not going to war,” Mr. Kerry told reporters Monday after meeting with British Foreign Secretary William Hague in London. “We will be able to hold [Syrian President] Bashar al-Assad accountable without engaging 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 are talking about doing; an unbelievably small, limited kind of effort.”
Almost immediately the State Department had to issue a retraction:
Kerry delivered the statement almost dismissively and quickly said Assad had no intention of giving up “weapons he denies using.” But it was still the first time such a suggestion had been made by the Obama administration.
The State Department was forced to clarify the remarks, calling them “rhetorical” and making clear its desire to strike could be tempered by a Syrian offer. Kerry’s point, according to spokeswoman Jen Psaki, “was that this brutal dictator with a history of playing fast and loose with the facts cannot be trusted to turn over chemical weapons.”
To further bolster Obama’s seriousness and determination, the White House has dispatched Susan Rice, who mislead the world about the attacks in Benghazi, presumably to mislead the world about Syria.
Susan Rice famously blamed the Benghazi terror attack that took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, on an Internet video. She further said the terror attack occurred after a spontaneous protest over that anti-Muslim film got out of hand, instead of blaming the al Qaeda backed terrorists responsible for the murders.
“The White House has had quite enough of the controversy over ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, the misleading talking points she used in TV interviews about the jihadist attacks in Benghazi, and the Obama administration’s contradictory narrative about those attacks,” Steve Hayes reported in December.
But today, Rice will be called upon again to make a public case for the White House — this time, she’ll be talking about Syria. Except now Rice is the national security adviser, a promotion she received in the last year.
And our naive UN Ambassador Samantha Power, who actually believed Iran would not tolerate Syria having WMD’s, now suggests that the US act “outside the law” with regard to Syria:
The NPR host pressed, “So let me make sure that I’m clear on this: You’re saying that something needs to be done and it is time to go outside the legal system, outside the legal framework. You believe it is right to do something that is just simply not legal.”
“In the cases of–we’ve seen in the past–there are times when there is a patron like Syria backed by Russia, we saw this in Kosovo as well, where it was just structurally impossible to get meaningful international action through the security council, and yet in this case you have the grave breach of such a critical international norm in terms of the ban on chemical weapons use, it is very important that the international community act so as to prevent further use,” said Power.
My hopes that the sycophantic press would begin to suspend disbelief were dashed entirely when CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin opined that NATO is a suitable substitute for the US Constitution:
FAREED: Jeff you made a distinction I want to understand a little bit better. You were strong about, well, either congressional authority or something from the UN. But the Constitution doesn’t say anything about UN authorization. Presumably, the crucial thing from a constitutional point of view is whether or not you need congressional authorization for the president to act. Why would the UN or NATO be sufficient?
TOOBIN: Fareed, I don’t want to pretend that I think, if you look at the history of the last 30 years, there is a perfectly logically consistent line here. I am advocating a position that I think largely should be followed, has mostly been followed, but I don’t want to pretend that this is some wild aberration if Obama were to have done it on his own.
I think this has really been a practical change to how both Americans and even members of Congress feel about the use of military force. That the sanction of our treaty obligations, whether it’s our obligations in the United Nations or in NATO in the case of Bosnia, those are authorizations in and of themselves for military action. The fact that we are part of the Security Council. When the Security Council authorizes military action, that’s authorization for us. Same with NATO.
You’re right, that is not formally part of the Constitution. But I think as the common law of international law has developed over the past 30 years, I think they are legitimate substitutes for congressional authorization.
All this despite the fact that there is no smoking gun. This has to be shut this down before the last shred of US credibility is gone. They are going to get us all killed.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
Monty Python … “Search for the Holy Grail” … John Cleese as Frenchman … “I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries” … “now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.”
I wonder how Kerry thinks Assad could get back into Aleppo to re-acquire his chemical weapons as it is a rebel stronghold presently.
Oh, wait!
According to CNN (the only network with boots on the ground) Assad was trying to re-take Aleppo when he used chemical weapons in the first place!
Back in Dec. 2012, Syria warned that rebels could use chemical weapons in their fight against Assad’s forces, and insisted that the regime will never unleash such arms on its own people. after having gained control of a toxic chlorine factory” east of Aleppo, the Syrian-Saudi Chemicals Company (SYSACCO) factory near Safira, which was taken over in Dec 2012 by militants from the jihadist Al-Nusra Front.
Al-Nusra Front IS al Qaeda.
Our Leadership:
An experience-free narcissist gladhander and a plastic-surgery-botox-addicted nitwit.
That’s the definition of srewed.
Libertyatstake,
Cracked up when that film first came out, and have laughed at that scene every time I’ve seen it. One of the best in film. Cleese is genius.
“unbelievably small” Does this mean one soldier will be maimed or killed versus a few?
From the unbelievably small minds in this administration.
James Raider,
And doesn’t Kerry fit the role of Frenchman perfectly?
You’re all ever hopeful of failure, aren’t you?
@Greg:
At least admit how badly this administration is handling this. It’s somewhere below amateur status. The emperors clothes are missing just as many of us have warned for years.
Even your own words on this subject are now somehow akin to the Bush administration supporters circa 2002-2003.
Funny how things come round.
@Mully: I would not be too sure that this isn’t all just another version of the Cuban missile scam
@Greg, you have a twisted view of “success”. You want to prevent a hypothetical gas attack on Israel – which has never been threatened by Assad until the US said they’d attack Syria – by doing exactly that which would prod Assad into full bore attack on Israel and US interests. And on the side, Iran’s giving out instructions for Shi’a Islamists to attack embassies.
So let’s see… Door #1: do “nothing”, which is really isn’t “nothing” but instead following CWC procedure against a non member state’s potential violation. That would entail taking evidence to the UNSC and OPCW in the wake of the UN investigations. Meanwhile, Syria’s civil war continues along it’s merry way.
Or Door #2: bomb Syria and be guaranteed escalation far outside of the Syrian borders.
Yup.. you have a twisted view of “success” here.
One more thing. You bounce from thread to thread with the pathetic attempt at a guilt trip, saying that if we don’t support Obama/Kerry Syrian strikes, that we are obviously sympathetic to Iran/Hezbollah. Leaving aside the obvious that continually escapes the oblivious – that no one is worthy of support – I will only say that if I “support” Hezbollah/Iran by opposing striking Syria – using your reasoning – then you find yourself providing military cover for the same group that attacked the US on Sept 11th, 2001.
Rather a topsy turvy world when the lib/progs think that honoring an int’l Convention’s procedure, going thru the UNSC, is a “failure” and instead going rogue with a handful of Arab nations at your side is success. WTF?
@Nan G, I am under the impression that there is no history of Assad’s use of CW on record – only allegations. In fact, as I’ve said multiple times before, the UN/OPCW inspectors have been in Syria since March of this year, at the specific request of Assad himself.
There is no strategic logic to use CW, invite an investigation by the int’l community, then use CW “again” right under their noses.
It even further defies logic (that CNN writer) that he’d obtain faster success by the use of CW in the Damascus eastern rural area to free up assets for Aleppo. I’m not under the impression that all these women and kids were Assad’s opposition fighting force. In fact, have the rebels ever once noted how many of their own fighting forces were supposedly killed in these attacks (other than the quotes from relatives of those rebels who claimed this was the fault of the Islamist rebel forces)?
Odd, don’t you think, there’s no mention of the loss of their own fighting forces. Or did they know where *not* to be at that time of day? And, as a matter of fact, their first claim following the attack was that all the victims were innocent civilians.
Has anyone ever seen such a claim of rebel fighter deaths? Would welcome the links.
@MataHarley:
You are correct, Mata, there is no history of Assad’s use of CW on record.
That’s why Obama’s media blitz tonight might be interesting.
Will he say, ”trust me,” and offer no more ”proof” than he already has?
Or, will he have the goods on Assad?
And CNN….it’s been a toady media outlet for Obama for some time, only moderating slightly to save it’s ratings.
As to your good point about who died, recall Gaza?
When Hamas released news about the dead in the IDF attacks, they were 100% ”innocents.”
BUT, when Arab-speaking experts searched the Arab-written web for those named, they found the IDF had very carefully been taking out Hamas operatives who had been eulogized as great soldiers!
Of course the PR damage had already been done, such searches take time.
Sure, the jihadist Al-Nusra Front plays that same game.
“Syria welcomes the Russian proposal to submit Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles to international control out of concern for the lives of the Syrian people.”
http://www.timesofisrael.com/russia-vows-to-push-syria-to-cede-chemical-weapons/
BUT……
Obama ´skeptical´ of Russian proposal to put Syrian chemical weapons under international control.
Obama will take “a hard look” at Russia´s proposal to put Syria´s chemical weapons under international control, but Congress should still approve a military action to keep pressure on Damascus!
http://www.jpost.com/International/US-skeptical-of-Russian-proposal-to-put-Syrian-chemical-weapons-under-international-control-325650
AND…..
Kerry suggested in a passing remark that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad could avoid a U.S.-led strike if he handed over all his chemical weapons, but the State Department quickly dismissed the comment as more of a “rhetorical argument” than an offer.
http://gma.yahoo.com/did-us-offer-syrian-president-125806202abc-news-topstories.html
So, Obama WANTS war powers.
He does not care about resolving the problem.
He WANTS al Qaeda’s people in a position to take power in Syria.
WHY????
@MataHarley, #12:
You don’t think inaction will set a dangerous precedent? That it won’t demonstrate to Iran the effectiveness of using chemical weapons proximate to Israel to hold the U.S. and Israel in check while they proceed with their nuclear program? How do Obama’s critics plan to deal with that little problem? They don’t seem to want to touch the central issue with a 10-foot barge poll.
No one seems to give any thought to the possibility that the credible threat of a U.S. military response could both discourage further use of chemical weapons, and make any suggestion that they be given up far more attractive. Assad doesn’t want the balance tipped. Consequently, the threat that gets his attention is the one that suggests you’re willing to tip the balance. It actually is within our power to do that without putting troops on the ground, and Assad knows it perfectly well.
It’s the credible threat of it that’s the most useful, and it’s the credibility that some at home are attacking. I consider that to be going a step too far. Vigorously arguing against military intervention is a healthy democratic response. Publicly suggesting that any military response Obama chooses will automatically be ineffectual begins to resemble fifth column activity.
How about save our artillery….stay out of Syria…cut to the chase when the time is right, side with Israel and just go after Iran and their nukes…Iran is a much, much, much bigger (world) threat than Syria….that would be leading from the front…Non-Cold war anyone??
And…in Liberal/Progressive fashion AND in Hellary’s own words…at this point…they are dead…so, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE???
@Greg: There can not be confidence in a lying, incompetent, floundering person who is in a leadership position. When he actually leads, people will respect and follow, but he has not showed he can lead his dog from the helo!
This is like slamming in to a brick wall over and over….
No, “inaction” won’t set a dangerous precedent since I don’t know of any official signatory of the CWC who is advocating “inaction”. They are pressing for the OPCW/UN regulations that have the evidence and debate brought before the UNSC for suggested action.
Your problem is you have two dimensions in your thinking… war/military action, or nothing. The CWC provides for a procedure, and if the Congress was dumb enough to sign on, they should follow the rules for what they signed on for.
Again it’s ironic you consider “success” military action that *guarantees* escalation beyond Syrian borders. But it’s a failure to follow procedure. You are willing to trade guaranteed war for a “possibility” of a “credible threat” that Assad has never issued in his entire reign. As a matter of fact, Assad has never threatened Israel, save in the wake of Obama/Kerry’s promises to attack his nation.
But let’s play, Greg. You seem to think that the threat of military action will force Syrian WMDs out into the open, and under the UN/OPCW. (all of them? that’s another question…) But we already know that the bad guys – AQ – have both sarin manuf capabilities (they just caught three in Iraq within the past month or so), and they have the largest chlorine plant in Syria. Add that they may also hold the cosmetic manuf plant in Aleppo with sodium fluoride supplies.
So you have Assad’s CW, but you haven’t a clue where and how much the rebels have. And considering we don’t know who used the CW on Aug 21st, don’t you think continuing to leave the CW in the hands of the rebels is counterproductive? Or do you think that US military action, that benefits them, will coerce them into giving up their CW capabilities?
Funny that argument never entered your mind in the past for Iraq, and still doesn’t even with the discovery of his links to Islamists, his acquisition of illegal missiles, the finding of dual use labs, and WMD sites that the ISG found, but didn’t have the manpower or equipment to investigate.
Apparently you prefer to let loose the hounds of war only when it’s a Dem POTUS, and facts and genuine (lack of) risk to US national security be damned. What is a fact, that you will ignore, is that our national security is threatened only when Obama bombs Syria… not before.
A “shot over the bow” or a few “unbelievably small” attacks will not accomplish anything, save to escalate the war beyond Syria’s boundaries. You can’t bomb any known CW sites. Taking out Syria’s military installations isn’t a shot over the bow. It’s a concerted effort to get your buds, AQ, into power.
@MataHarley, #18:
I prefer that they bark loudly enough that something can be accomplished without actually having to make good on your threat to let them loose. I believe I mentioned a week or so ago that Vladimir Putin might be getting his big chance to play statesman and peace broker.
It all depends on what Assad believes could happen.
Is this your “mission accomplished” schpiel, Greg?
Too bad the admin doesn’t seem to be buying into it.
So why don’t you go on record now… if Obama/Kerry don’t attempt this path, and still insist upon military intervention, where will you be standing?
Well, Greg has fully adopted Obama’s straw man fallacious thinking.
It is always very, ”either/or.”
In fact, in Greg’s case, since no fictional ”opposition” was created, this is merely a false dilemma fallacy.
You, Mata, are correct.
No power is saying nothing ought to be done.
Not even our most isolationists.
All look to international sanctions.
But the fact is, Obama has forced a solution that makes him look really bad:
Russia is willing to supervise the international taking possession of all Assad’s chemical weapons.
And Syria’s Assad is all for it!
The little problem: most of Syria’s chemical weapons are in rebel-held areas.
Who will come in and get them?
The rebels won’t sit still for that.
@Greg: Greg, we have already demonstrated inaction. Your savior drew a line in the sand and then didn’t do anything about it. The dye has already been cast no matter what we do now. Can you not get that into you thick head! What we are discussing here is the continued discussion that will have no effect!
@MataHarley, #20:
They certainly don’t seem to be. But that would be getting ahead of the script.
So Obama may chicken out. With a cluck-cluck here a red-line there, here a cluck, there a red line. O-Bama had a fall e-i e-i Oh (my)!
What a coward does. Obama knows best. The fall from grace will be hard on Obama.
So what happens if Syria ultimately refuses U.N. control of their chemical weapons?
Obama is DAMNED if he does and DAMNED if he doesn’t. Obama is a consummate LIAR. Fall, baby, fall!
Does anyone remember THIS:
I would bet a paycheck that if Obama is stupid enough to lob 400 Cruise Missiles into urban areas (Already destroyed!) in Syria, that these INSECTS who have proven they will kill their own citizens, will do it again.
Only this time it will be hundreds of women and children garrisoned in a school, blown up by Assad, with a “hat tip” to the AP Lap Dogs to “come have a look!” (Look at that Teddy Bear!) LOOK WHAT ONE OF OBAMA’S CRUISE MISSILES DID!!
Oh, the humanity!
ALL YOUR FAKES ARE BELONG TO US!
Obama took six chances to prove Assad was behind the attacks in Syria that killed 1400 people today.
He didn’t even bother to try to prove it.
He had an ”out,” from the Russians, a lifeline to save face, so he took it.
His one chance left to make a case to prove Assad was behind the attacks to America is tomorrow night.
If he also blows off that chance to prove Assad was behind the attacks in favor of what Hillary only called a 1st step, yet he still insists on war authorization from Congress, he will lose.
It will be interesting which way he goes.
Game on game ended. Putin the hero, the fool is bigger now. The world and America have stopped listing to the trash.
Putin is the big winner. Russian and China won and continue to command a sea port of vital interest. Putin, the next Nobel Prize winner.
If the fool does not resign, impeachment is the only option available.
@Greg: Failure has already been assured with 0-blama and Kerry at the helm!! They have proven they are clueless. You wouldn’t know real leadership if you say it. To think 0-blama has somehow shown real leadership between Benghazi and now Syria is a clear display of your hopeless ignorance, At least you came out of the closet for all to see it!!
Unbelievably small is that the combined IQ of this administration.
@Greg: #8,
Don’t have to be hopeful, we’ve had it since Jan ’09 tho it’s getting worse.
@Randy: #17
He can’t, that’s why he sends the dog on a separate flight.
@Greg:
What specifically do YOU propose be done. Give some detail. Are you down for an “unbelievably small” response? Is that the correct path? If Obama does not do as you see fit is that a failure?
What are the consequences of blowback to your proposal from Syria, Russia, China and Iran. After all they get a vote too.
@Greg:
Nice straw man argument, Greg.
No one opposed to Obama getting us involved in Syria’s civil war has argued against any use of force by Obama, the position is that US military force should only be used when there is a threat to the US or our allies. There is no evidence at all that the Syrian civil war meets that criteria. If Syria attacked Israel, whether chemical weapons were used or not, there would not be opposition from the right to Obama sending in US forces. That would be a justifiable reason to go to war. The reasons Obama has put forth to get involved in Syria are not justification for the US to go to war, especially given the question of who actually initiated a chemical attack.
I readily admit I detest Obama for being a socialist. But no matter how much I loathe his policies, I love my country infinitely more. If there was a true threat to the US, I wouldn’t give a damn who was president, I would want my country to defend itself. Obama’s handling of Syria has been horrendously pathetic, made moreso by Putin’s clear diplomatic superiority in producing a face saving way out of the mess Obama made with his ineffectual leadership.
@Pete, #33:
Yep. No doubt Vladimir Putin would have come forward with the suggestion that Assad give up his chemical weapons right out of the blue, even without Obama’s threat of military action. I’m sure he’s been eagerly awaiting any opportunity to do that.
We didn’t have much coverage of it, but most people remember Beslen, Russia.
How many children died because Russians fired shmel rockets into the school?
The Shmel is a type of thermobaric weapon, described by a source associated with the US military as “just about the most vicious weapon you can imagine – igniting the air, sucking the oxygen out of an enclosed area and creating a massive pressure wave crushing anything unfortunate enough to have lived through the conflagration.”
It helped kill all 31 on the militants.
But it also helped kill many of the 334 children who had been hostages.
Thank goodness it is a ”conventional” weapon.
And what about the 2002 Dubrovka theater incident in Russia?
Health Minister Yuri Shevchenko identified the gas used to subdue the attackers as a fentanyl derivative, an extremely powerful opioid.
The lethality degree of the chemical weapons used in World War I was 7%, while in the Dubrovka theater it exceeded 15%.
3 terrorists died in the gas attack.
So did 133 hostages.
And this in 2002.
Obama is grasping as straws when he lets Russia broker a chemical weapons pact with Syria.
And, obviously, Obama is ignorant of history.
@Greg:
I’m still trying to determine if that is the dumbest statement I’ve ever read, if not it sure ranks right there with it. So it was the threat of military use that ‘scared’ Putin into action? Al righty, so Dims will believe ‘anything’ their guy says. ta da.
blank
@Randy: I think you are wasting your time with a door knob
@Redteam, #36:
It’s the threat of military action that has motivated Putin. Assad’s position is precarious. Putin knows full well that a few carefully calculated U.S. missile strikes could alter the course of the Syrian civil war. He has absolutely no reason to doubt that Obama would do it. History demonstrates Obama will order military action he believes to be necessary, even when it’s unpopular, and even when doing so carries an obvious political cost.
If you have some other reasonable theory why Putin would be pressuring an ally to give up chemical weapons in the middle of desperate struggle against rebel forces, I would certainly like to hear it. I doubt if Putin is doing it to keep Obama from looking bad, or because he wants to see his face on the cover of Rolling Stone.
@Greg:
LOL, Ben Ghazi?
I doubt you’d ‘like to hear it’. How about defeating Obama on the world stage? There is not a chance the Congress would approve a strike, so Obama was desperately looking for an out and Putin, seeing a big win, ‘graciously’ offered him a way out. O jumped at the chance to avoid looking like the dunce he is. Your turn….
TWO MILLION BIKERS ARE GONE TO THE SITE OF 9 11TO PAY THEIR RESPECT AND
TO PROTEST ON THE MILLION MUSLIMS MARCH
Right. “I defeated Obama by pressuring my ally to place his chemical weapons under international supervision.”
Have you missed the part where a Congressional vote was put on hold? I’m pretty sure Vladimir Putin didn’t. Nor did he likely miss the part where Obama asserted that he doesn’t believe he needs Congressional approval.
A NO vote would be a problem. If it had happened.
Greg, here’s the ugly facts for you.
1: Obama never intended, nor discussed, Syrian negotations INRE relinguishing CW to Russia/int’l community. That’s a convenient back peddle.
2: What really happened was that Kerry babbled off the cuff, offering an “out” INRE Syrian/Assad/CW and joining the CWC. He overtly admitted later it was never a “serious proposal”.
3: Add to the “not serious” proposal was the Obama WH, carefully backing off of Kerry’s non existent offer.
4: But then, the US POTUS… being a war hound… can’t ignore Putin taking advantage of Kerry’s gaffe, can he? (Biden.. the gaffe master.. must be jealous.. LOL). So after seeing the Russians seize the avenue of opportunity that Kerry so jokingly provided, Obama had to back off his Kerry/gaffe backpeddling, and now look like the guy who had this planned all along.
What it comes down to is a bevvy of babbling buffoons as US foreign policy mouthpieces. Obama may be the luckiest shit on the planet with Kerry’s gaffe since it may provide him an out for the embarrassing march to war that was not gaining traction. Unfortunately for both Obama and his trick buffoon, Kerry, only Russia comes out looking like the active diplomatic statesman in all of this.
So you asked what did Putin have to gain by seizing Kerry’s invitation? A multitude of things. Viable superpower and diplomatic statesman, retaining secondary influential power in Syria, and all related to energy and land.
We have idiots in charge. And this time, not even the most devoted of press can ignore their ineffectual stupidity.
About the only good thing that may come of this is that Obama will have absolutely no moral authority to take the US to a war the majority oppose, and will be afraid to test his popularity when going against the masses.
@MataHarley, #43:
According to Vladimir Putin, he and Obama discussed the need to safeguard Syria’s chemical weapons when Obama attended the G20 summit meetings in St. Petersburg.
I don’t believe Kerry’s comment was inadvertent. It was too specific and too carefully framed in an assertion that this just wasn’t going to happen. I think he’d gone over that response in his mind a number of times.
Opinions vary. I strongly disagree. I wouldn’t presently feel comfortable having some of Obama’s political opponents in charge of a flea circus, let alone foreign policy. They can’t seem to decide if they want to proactively pursue U.S. interests abroad or turn isolationist. They’ve unfortunately come to believe too much of their own political propaganda, and can’t seem to analyze anything outside of that context.
I’m sorry…. is that some pathetic documentation of “Russia will see to it that Syria relinquishes it’s WMD to the UN?” Are you now calling both Kerry.. who admits it wasn’t “serious”, PLUS THE WH, who says he went off the script’s beaten path a liar?
Uh… don’t think so.
Greg, you should just be content that Obama may be the luckiest dumb shit to inhabit the Oval Office, benefited by the next dumb shit – John Kerry – that he appointed to SOS and went “off script”.
You’re desperate. And that’s really sad, dude.
@MataHarley, #45:
I don’t see how my comment even relates to that question. It’s just a reminder that there’s a public side and a behind-the-scenes side to diplomacy and foreign affairs. Presumably most of us understand this. No one should expect straight answers concerning what’s going on behind the scenes while events are still unfolding.
The fact that the President and Secretary of State haven’t publicly revealed their objectives and their strategies for attaining them doesn’t mean that objectives and strategies don’t exist. We can all try to figure them out. I happen to like my own theories far better than the sort of pessimistic, politically self-serving stories I’ve been hearing from the right for the past 5 years. If those stories were all true, the world most likely would have ended by now.
@Greg:
LOL, no I didn’t miss that at all. When Putin gave O the chance to save face, he jumped at the chance to ‘cancel the vote’ that he was definitely going to lose. Obama lost Greg, live with it.
@Greg:
Ohhhhhh!!!! so that’s why they still aren’t talking about Ben Ghazi? it’s still ” behind the scenes while events are still unfolding.” Ok, got it, thanks Greg, now we know..