Posted on 09/05/2013 5:15:07 PM PDT by Hotlanta Mike
Drudge has been killing the White House all day by spotlighting that harrowing NYT story about the rebels that Ed blogged this morning, and now heres Kerrys response. If youre worried about Al Qaeda and its jihadi partners like Jabhat al-Nusra running wild, then you should
support a U.S. attack on their enemy Assad. Wait, what? Sure, says Kerry: Only if the U.S. empowers moderate rebels like the Free Syrian Army whose leadership, by the way, is falling apart will there be an alternative for people who want Assad gone but dont want fundamentalists to replace him. Never mind that Reuters reported months ago that jihadi groups were successfully sidelining the moderate elements within the rebel ranks and confiscating their weapons. And never mind that, as of just four months ago, the Times famously reported that there was really no such thing as a secular fighting force in rebel-controlled Syria. Evidently were going to find, or build, one and then somehow elevate it to prominence over battle-tested jihadi outfits like the Nusra Front.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Maybe Lurch needs to take up serious drinking where he just staggers around, but doesn't talk.
Why are they so desperate to get US involved over there I wonder?
To cover up all the arms they’ve already sold ? To get the campaign money the Saudi’s promised in exchange for our brightest and best? I bet inside they are really freaking out, because they aren’t even making coherent arguments any more.
Reminds me of that national lampoons magazine cover with the gun to the dogs head.
Maybe, maybe not. If we don't intervene it may get better or worse. There's no real reason to believe it'll get better if we do intervene. In fact, an argument could be made that it would embolden the rebels and it might actually get worse.
As I heard related on the radio the other day the stated intent of the proposed strike(s) is specifically not to change the "ground game" nor is it to effect regime change. So if the strikes are intentionally going to be ineffectual, why do them? I see no military use for intentionally weak strikes. No real political gain from such intent and execution. It is looking more and more like a flawed (read that idiotic) attempt by odumber to save a little personal face. Personal feelings and pride are a terrible reason to commit acts of war that will injure and kill fellow human beings. That's the kind of thing psychopaths do.
I personally think they’re in fear for their lives because they’ve already taken the money and are now expected to keep up their end of the bargain or the mafia don will send them to sleep with the fishes.
I personally couldn’t care less what happens to them.
And do what? Provide more matches to burn down the the last remaining churches?
STFU!
There is no moderate muslim ultimately, and Obama is a muslim, period.
Get over it Kerry, Boehner and the rest.
He’s got a point. This administration has run unrestrained for five years so the scandals multiply while their claims and lies get bolder every day.
Sounds like the same reason we went into Vietnam.
Pray for America to Wake Up
John Kerry really is insane and has been for years. He is mad. This would be the better word.
Yes. He’s sharp.
You left out War is not good for children and other living things, and You can’t hug a child with nuclear arms.
Now that we’ve heard from Kerry I anxiously await Jane Fonda’s opinion.
Each day we peel back another layer of their psychotic onion.
“Syrian rebels” Almost sounds romantic, doesn’t it?
I prefer SEAL Chris Kyle’s name for them: Savages!
And Obama is on their side .......
“Syrian rebels” Almost sounds romantic, doesn’t it?
I prefer SEAL Chris Kyle’s name for them: Savages!
And Obama is on their side .......
BINGO
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.