Tweet
The French are helping to set out the true context of these action - Iran. Jean-Marc Ayrault:
Edit: Eliot Engel basically confirmed that Iran was the real target. Engel was the person who presented the "arm the rebels bill" last year. in response, Kerry tried to argue that not getting involved would lead to more extremism among the Opposition.
Also Barrage Obomba is now trying to convince us that Assad used chemical weapons to test the resolve of the International Community. So yet another change in narrative. Previously it was part of the Assad's regime general use of chemical weapons. Then it was a lunatic or panicked officer who temporarily lost his mind. And now it was a deliberate challenge from Assad to the the USA and UN. So Assad committed suicide in his domestic civil war to send out a message to an international community? He did this despite having the support of Russia and China.
Now Obama is denying he set any "red line". Of course, if he set the red line, then that would make him responsible for inducing the Rebels to plan this attack. Just like yesterday Kerry tried to convince Congress this wasn't a war.
Sounds more like an unraveling lie than a confident expression of the truth.
Also today we have some new semantics on the evidence. Previous Kerry said they "knew". Then that became "highly confident". Now Obama is saying that that the Syria evidence is "more robust" than Iraq. More robust that a pack of lies false flag? How reassuring Mr President.
To not act would be to put in danger peace and security in the entire region. What credibility would our international commitments against non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weapons stand for?
What message would this send to other regimes, and I am thinking like you of Iran and North Korea? The message would be clear: You can continue.
What message would this send to other regimes, and I am thinking like you of Iran and North Korea? The message would be clear: You can continue.
Also Barrage Obomba is now trying to convince us that Assad used chemical weapons to test the resolve of the International Community. So yet another change in narrative. Previously it was part of the Assad's regime general use of chemical weapons. Then it was a lunatic or panicked officer who temporarily lost his mind. And now it was a deliberate challenge from Assad to the the USA and UN. So Assad committed suicide in his domestic civil war to send out a message to an international community? He did this despite having the support of Russia and China.
Now Obama is denying he set any "red line". Of course, if he set the red line, then that would make him responsible for inducing the Rebels to plan this attack. Just like yesterday Kerry tried to convince Congress this wasn't a war.
I didn't set a red line, the world did. My credibility is not on the line. The international community's credibility is on the line. America and Congress' credibility is on the line, because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.
Also today we have some new semantics on the evidence. Previous Kerry said they "knew". Then that became "highly confident". Now Obama is saying that that the Syria evidence is "more robust" than Iraq. More robust that a pack of lies false flag? How reassuring Mr President.
Comment