John Kerry: I was for bombing Syria before I was against it — so gas away, Assad

Britain Syria

John Kerry was for bombing Syria before he was against it. It was just about a year ago that the Secretary of State said that history would judge us all “extraordinarily harshly” if something (i.e., a military strike) wasn’t done about the Assad regime gassing its own citizens to death.

“Now, we know that after a decade of conflict, the American people are tired of war. Believe me, I am, too. But fatigue does not absolve us of our responsibility. Just longing for peace does not necessarily bring it about. And history would judge us all extraordinarily harshly if we turned a blind eye to a dictator’s wanton use of weapons of mass destruction against all warnings, against all common understanding of decency,” — (John Kerry, Aug. 20, 2013).

Today? Well, Chlorine is bad but it’s not really that bad. And, well, we don’t really want to be “pinned down” with actually having to do anything with the 150,000 dead bodies (and counting) in Syria. So maybe someone else will figure it out. Someday.

Here’s what the guy who voted for war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan before voting against it said in London May 15:

“With respect to the [chemical weapons] and what the consequences are, it has been made clear by President Obama and others that use would result in consequences. We’re not going to pin ourselves down to a precise time, date, manner of action, but there will be consequences if it were to be proven, including, I might say, things that are way beyond our control and have nothing to do with us. But the International Criminal Court and others are free to hold him accountable. And as you know, we have a resolution that will be in front of the United Nations with respect to culpability for crimes against humanity, atrocities in the course of this conflict. So one way or the other, there will be accountability,” (John Kerry, May 15, 2014).

As radio host Chris Plante said: Chlorine takes the “red” out of red lines!

Kerry Football

Why is it okay to murder your own citizens with bullets, bombs and Chlorine gas, but it’s not okay to do so with VX nerve agent? Why did the U.S. bomb the hell out of Libya for “humanitarian” purposes, but then does nothing in Syria?

Politicians like John Kerry make the world a more dangerous place because they perpetually engage in doublespeak. They take every side on an issue, act on what is politically expedient and then (if they have the right letter next to their name) count on the media to throw all the contradictory statements down the Memory Hole.

What makes matters worse is that dictators like Bashar al Assad and former KGB agents like Vladimir Putin know that men like John Kerry are generally unprincipled buffoons, so they act in ways they otherwise wouldn’t; they know they can get away with it (e.g., the annexation of Crimea).

When John Kerry says things like Bashar al Assad gassing his own people was the “straw that broke the camel’s back,” the world’s worst actors just laugh because they know that all they have to do is feign interest in a “deal” of some kind to get men  like John Kerry to blubber themselves into a new position.

It isn’t often that dictators around the world get to do whatever the heck they want and know that they can do so, for all intents and purposes, with impunity. Before President Obama leaves office, expect a few more surprises from the usual cast of international thugs and lowlifes because they will want to push the envelope as far as possible before the 2016 presidential election.

Place yourself in the shoes of Nicholas Maduro, Bashar al Assad, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping or Kim Jong-un. What would you do? Answer that question and then ask yourself another: How has “leading from behind” worked for the United States since 2008?

 

 

No one will admit the obvious: We are at war with Iran

Stuxnet was a cyberweapon used against a regime that has attacked the civilized world for years. The problem is, no one has the courage to admit the truth: We are at war.

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is on a five day trip throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Along the way he’s found time to state the obvious: Sanctions have done squat to change the Iranians’ desire for nukes. Let me repeat that again: Squat.

However, like most administrations, he then follows up the truth with an attempt to obscure it:

“What we all need to do is to continue the pressure on Iran, economically and diplomatically … to negotiate and to ultimately do what’s right in joining the international family,” [said Panetta].

After throwing up a little after the bit about joining the “international family” (How many families do you know that stone their women?) I was saddened because it’s obvious that this will all end militarily.Why? Because military operations have been going on for quite some time, even if media and politicians refuse to acknowledge that we’re at war.

What do you think Stuxnet was, my friends? That was a big, fat cyberweapon meant to slow down the creation of a big, fat nuclear weapon. It was an act of war perpetrated on a regime that has committed countless acts of war against free nations for decades with impunity — killing American servicemen on foreign soil by supplying weapons, training and cash to its proxy agents around the globe.

I’ve written before on how the world is living in its own little Christopher Nolan film, Memento, on the Iranian problem, but as the “oh crap, this is real” moment approaches, it’s worth repeating. The reason for writing this now is because three scenarios are likely to unfold:

  1. Israel strikes Iran with conventional weapons before the presidential election. Despite having a Nobel Peace Prize winner *cough* in office for just under four years, George W. Bush will be blamed for going into Iraq when he should have been focused on “diplomatic” efforts with Iran (as if that would have helped).
  2. Mitt Romney is elected president and he of course supports Israel (as any sane American president would) when they strike, and the anti-war movement — so mysteriously absent over the past few years during Obama’s Terror Tuesdays — rises from the dead to accuse President Romney of being a war monger of Bushian proportions.
  3. President Obama is re-elected and Israel attacks. Despite having a Nobel Peace Prize winner *cough* starting his second term in office, George W. Bush will be blamed for going into Iraq when he should have been focused on “diplomatic” efforts with Iran (as if that would have helped).

See how that works? No matter how all of this plays out, the blame for fighting Barack Obama could not quell will fall onto someone else’s shoulders. Think of it like Obama’s defenders, who also find interesting ways to explain away his feckless YouTube diplomacy, his failures at the United Nations over Syria, and the $40 million dollar fiber optic upgrades to Guantanamo Bay.

Here is the bottom line: We are at war. President Obama won’t tell you that and Leon Panetta won’t tell you that, but the pawns have been in play for quite some time. Stuxnet was a fancy set of moves that required digital knights and bishops to enter the fray, and no one denies it. The sooner we realize what’s happening, the sooner we can figure out how to get ourselves out of this mess. If you disagree, that’s fine. I truly hope I’m wrong about the how all of this will end … but I don’t believe that will be the case. Just remember this blog post when the bombs you traditionally associate with warfare start exploding on your television screen.