Underscoring just how reluctantly the United States was dragged into accepting Syrian chemical weapons disarmament as opposed to a unilateral American invasion, Secretary of State John Kerry is the latest to gripe about the deal adding “legitimacy” to President Bashar Assad’s government.
Kerry went on to say that the deal “improved his position a little bit,” but that Assad is still not winning the ongoing Syrian Civil War and the US is confident that the stalemate remains.
Absent in the grousing about the chemical weapons deal is that Kerry himself was the one that floated the idea publicly, backpedaling furiously before Syria accepted the deal.
At the time, Kerry’s comments were supposed to be another push to war, proving that Syria was being given ample opportunity to avoid American invasion and had refused. It turned out they accepted the deal, however, and Kerry and others have been lamenting their failure to sell the war ever since.
Everywhere in history you look there is this double USG moral, so is not surprising when USG supporting their own created Islamic terrorism in Jordan, living behind the Saudis barbarians, letting the Syria war drags on meanwhile praising Assad position because of chemical deal. This shows another double or no moral in USG doing or saying. At least Assad keeps this words, when was the last time that USG did that?
Is Kerry for real, or just plain mindless? Keep changing his position to fit is state of mind.
I just can't dissuade myself that Kerry treats this "Secretary of State" thing as a game, you know, like Risk. Except that when things go down the crapper you just can't sweep the board clean and start again.
US policy-makers 'power political theories DO treat it as a game.
It's called Game Theory and revolves around these "risks" and appearing to behave irrationally, because then opponents will give in.
It was devised by RAND.
Read "The Rise to Globalism"
thanks…
Kerry told CNN. “But he's (Assad) still not winning. This is a stalemate. And there is no military solution. Everybody who has anything to do with this agrees there is no military solution.”
And yet Congress just allocated more funds – and promises more high quality weapons – to keep the war going. Obviously, the stated reason for intervention in Syria – US "responsibility to protect" civilians – is not the real reason. For the real reason see: "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" the first PNAC (neocon) report delivered to Israel in 1996.
So to sum up: Kerry was for the Syrian chemical weapons disarmament deal before he was against it. No wonder he enjoys windsurfing so much, if conditions don't provide the wind, all he has to do is open his mouth.
So to sum up: Kerry was for the Syrian chemical weapons disarmament deal before he was against it. No wonder he enjoys windsurfing so much, if conditions don't provide the wind, all he has to do is open his mouth.
So to sum up: Kerry was for the Syrian chemical weapons disarmament deal before he was against it. No wonder he enjoys windsurfing so much, if conditions don't provide the wind, all he has to do is open his mouth.
Kerry was against “chemical weapons disarmament” before he was for it, before he was against it again. Stay tuned.
Kerry = Laurel + Hardy