« | »

Kerry Now Says Chemical Attacks Number In Teens

First we have this from the Associated Press:

Kerry: Strikes not about Obama’s red line

September 3, 2013

WASHINGTON (AP) — Secretary of State John Kerry says the debate about military strikes against Syria is not about President Barack Obama’s "red line" that weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated.

No, it’s about Obama’s red face.

Instead, Kerry told Congress Tuesday that "this debate is about the world’s red line." He says it is "a red line that anyone with a conscience ought to draw." …

Kerry said "This is not the time for arm-chair isolationism. This is not the time to be spectators to slaughter."

Assad had killed over 100,000 Syrians before he allegedly used chemical weapons to kill 1,400 of them. Where was Mr. Kerry then? Why are these 1,400 deaths so much more tragic than the previous 100,000? It sure sounds like it’s a matter of Obama’s ‘red line’ line to us.

By the way, how many millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians were slaughtered after we cut off aid to South Vietnam? (Despite Kerry’s assurances to the contrary.) Where was his outrage then?

Meanwhile, we have this from the Associated Press:

Kerry Says Chem Weapons Attacks Number in ‘Teens’

By BRADLEY KLAPPER | September 4, 2013

WASHINGTON (AP) – The Obama administration is now saying that the number of chemical weapons attacks by Syrian government forces is in the "teens" and that rebels put the number even higher.

If this is true (and that’s a huge if) why didn’t Kerry mention this in his speech the other day? Why hasn’t it ever been mentioned before? And when did we start taking the rebels at their word? They have wanted us to intervene in their civil war from the start.

And, while we are asking questions, when did Kerry decide it was moral to intervene in another country’s civil war? We seem to recall that he had completely different views about Vietnam and Nicaragua.

The figure cited by Secretary of State John Kerry is significantly higher than any previous public estimate from the United States. Before last month’s suspected chemical attack in the Damascus suburbs, U.S. officials had spoken of several earlier incidents. But no one had put the total in double figures…

So where was the outrage then? Why did they wait for so many attacks to occur before becoming incensed?

Meanwhile, the hits from Mr. Kerry kept coming. This one, via the Politico:

John Kerry fumbles boots-on-the-ground question

By SEUNG MIN KIM | September 3, 2013

Secretary of State John Kerry was forced Tuesday to repeatedly stress that U.S. troops will not be sent to the ground in Syria after an early comment that appeared to leave that option on the table.

As always, the Politico only reports the ‘fumble’ when they can print the ‘correction’ first. It if were Republican we would first hear about the ‘outrageous gaffe,’ and then read the retraction buried in the ninth paragraph. But here it’s in the lead.

The Obama administration has tried to assure lawmakers and the public that any mission responding to the Syrian regime’s alleged use of chemical weapons would not involve U.S. ground troops. But when asked whether the administration would accept such a ban in a revised authorization resolution, Kerry replied that it would be “preferable not to.”

He raised hypothetical situations such as if Syria “imploded” or if chemical weapons were transferred into the hands of al-Nusra — an al Qaeda operation in Syria — where options needed to be on the table for Obama.

“I don’t want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to a president of the United States to secure our country,” Kerry testified during an appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Funny, that doesn’t sound like a slip of the tongue to us.

But a few minutes later, after Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) called Kerry’s comments “not very appropriate,” the secretary of state quickly walked them back.

“Let’s shut that door now,” Kerry said, clarifying that he was “thinking out loud.” Kerry added: “There will not be American boots on the ground with respect” to the civil war in Syria…

In other words, Kerry made the mistake of actually saying out loud what he was really thinking. And Democrats should never do that.

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, September 4th, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

4 Responses to “Kerry Now Says Chemical Attacks Number In Teens”

  1. Petronius says:

    “… randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside….”

    There was never much left of Kerry’s credibility after that whopper.

    But more importantly, we see the regime still has no clear objective and no plan. With all of their heroes and geniuses surrounding and advising the divine Nerobama, they still have no idea what they’re doing.

    What a circus.

    • GetBackJack says:

      Syria Conflict: Opposition Leader Haytham Al-Manna Criticizes Plans For US Military Intervention As ‘Satanic’

      The man Kerry lies to us he’s helping calls Obama’s plan satanic. This would be wonderful Kabuki theatre if it weren’t so damned dangerous.

    • JohnMG says:

      I think he pronounced it Jenjis Kahn but that might just have been his ‘French’ accent pressing to the fore.

      Nobody believed this asshat back in the seventies–why should they believe anything he says now? Especially since he’s the mouthpiece for that other pathological liar and his F-‘d up foreign policy.

      Besides, even if the incidences IS in the teens, and even if the death toll number IS one hundred thousand, the office of Secretary of State has already established a threshold for action (or perhaps inaction) with one simple phrase: “At this point in time, what difference does it make??!!

      Makes ya’ wonder whose ‘behind’ he’s leading from. Or which behind is supposedly leading? There are so many asses in this administration you can’t keep them sorted out without a scorecard.

      On a separate note: Those weapons of mass destruction that Saddam never had (Bush lied/people died-remember?)…….you know the ones that didn’t get moved to Syria before the inspectors could investigate Iraq……might they be the ones that got used on the Syrian people by Allah-knows-who?

  2. Noyzmakr says:

    “Kerry said, clarifying that he was “thinking out loud.”

    Thinking? There’s a whole lot of CYA going on but very little thinking.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »