Kerry Proves Obama Administration Wants War, No Matter What

In a press conference yesterday, Secretary of State John Kerry responded to a question about what could be done to avoid a U.S. attack on Syria by laying out specific measures that could be taken.

9710201192_664a701f25_zBashar al-Assad “could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week,” Kerry explained. If that happened, the Obama administration would consider rescinding its promise to attack.

Russia, Syria’s closest ally, was listening. Early Monday, they announced they would, according to Reuters, “urge Syria to put its chemical weapons arsenal under international control if this would avert military strikes.”

This was a real chance at using diplomacy to stave off U.S. intervention that is almost universally opposed and would very likely worsen the humanitarian situation in Syria without any additional utility.

As soon as Russia made this announcement, Kerry took back his comments, denying they were a serious proposal and shooting down the first substantive diplomatic overture in the Syrian civil war in years.

According to Kerry’s spokeswoman, he was “making a rhetorical argument about the impossibility and unlikelihood of Assad turning over chemical weapons he has denied he used.” Assad “cannot be trusted to turn over chemical weapons,” she added, despite Russian assurances.

And that’s how you know the Obama administration is hell bent on war, determined to spurn every peaceful resolution and plea to back off on plans to bomb Syria.

Update: Syria’s Foreign Minister welcomed Russia’s proposal to place its chemical weapons under international control if it would “prevent American aggression.”

Update II: Via the AP’s Matt Lee: “The State Department said Monday it would take a “hard look” at a proposal for Syria to surrender its chemical weapons to international control to avoid a military strike, but voiced skepticism that Syria would carry out such a plan.”

29 thoughts on “Kerry Proves Obama Administration Wants War, No Matter What”

  1. I am honestly blindsided by Kerry being the one person more anxious to start war than anyone else. It's almost like he has his mind made up before he ever got the gig, and he get's angry when other solutions are even pondered.

    He's 'seemingly' became the very entity and person he once tried to warn you about…. times ten.

    I mean unbelievable John.. You know this is EXACTLY the same kind of nonsense they were trying to reassure us at the start of Nam and HE knows it netter than anyone.. Hell, we were going to be Liberators in Iraq.. Bay of pigs was to be a breeze. I've heard it all, but the dismissive arrogant tone of 'unbelievably small' when it comes to death and horror.. well f'k John Kerry. He has shown with one comment, how unbelievably small he is.

    1. It seems the main job of the US Secretary of State is to be a public battering ram for the US war of the moment. I seem to remember Hillary Clinton, Condoleeza Rice, Madaline Albright all turning themselves into public hate figures by taking personal responsability for US gunboat diplomacy and wars, when of course these actions are really decided by consensus.

    2. The last honorable thing John Kerry did was the Kerry Committee report. Kind of put the CIA in a bad light if you know what I mean. Maybe he was made an offer he couldn't refuse. Funny how Gary Webb isn't even mentioned in the Wikipedia article. That poor man. Shoot himself twice in the head with a 38. LMAO.

    3. Garreth Porter stated on Chris Horton that he believes Kerry is one of the ones behind this war effort. He said he believes Kerry wants to do something big. I'm thinking now that with the unpopularity of the war, Obama will take the deal to save face. He can now say his tough talk has led Syria to the negotiating table. If I'm right, there are going to be some really ticked off warmongers like Kerry and McCain.

      1. If his brain is still his own, Mr. Obama will indeed take the easy exit. This is the sloppyist war induction I've ever seen, and I've watched 'em since Vietnam. On the other hand, the speeding U.S. monger-train has never been derailed before.

    4. I don't believe the United States wants war from whom they are most likely to get war from over in Syria . I honestly believe Putin and his Chinese pals will invade Saudia Arabia as the United States bombs Syria . They will use the excuse of Saudi supplying the Syrian rebels with Sarin gas , Saudi's claiming they control the Chechen rebels in Russia , maybe even Saudi participation in the 9 11 attack on america . Russia and China will claim the right to punish and liberate Saudi Arabia from their cruel dictator like US and Europe claim the moral responsibility to remove Assad .. We will be given the choice attack Russia and China or giveup Saudi Arabia . What goes around comes around . Russia and China honestly believe NATO is the same as the NAZIs once were

      1. And most of the american people and the whole non muslim world would be praying for Russia's success . It is long past to pull the islamists teeth

  2. This is another example of why I have said for the last nine years that my conversion from left liberal to traditionalist conservative happened "on the road to Damascus, Baghdad and Tehran". This tool made anti-Iraq War rhetoric a staple of his 2004 presidential bid. When push comes to shove, his opposition to war is not based on any principle, it's based on political expediency.

    1. When was John Kerry a "left liberal"?! The man is famous, aside from beating war drums post-70s, for being a demi-billionaire who voted against a raise in minimum wage almost 20 times. When did C. Montgomery Burns become the Left poster boy..?

  3. "According to Kerry’s spokeswoman, he was “making a rhetorical argument about the impossibility and unlikelihood of Assad turning over chemical weapons he has denied he used.” Assad “cannot be trusted to turn over chemical weapons,” she added, despite Russian assurances."

    Oh yea, these excuses are just stupid beyond belief. So Assad can't be trusted, then have the UN oversee it. Duh Kerry. So why is Assad any more or less trustworthy than plenty of people deals are made with when actually doing DIPLOMACY? So what is even lost by trusting him now and if he proves untrustworthy (even with everything overseen by the U.N.) doing something then? Yea, I figure that will also be a false flag, but the fact they won't even postpone war for even one moment is incredibly telling.

    Of course the U.S. is every bit as untrustworthy as Assad, making statements they don't mean, not signing chemical weapons treaties at all etc.. If Assad claims to turn over all his chemical weapons he would actually be much more in compliance with eliminating them than the U.S.. Uh oh, can't have that huh?

    So why are we really going to war again?

  4. This video will explain the Federal Reserve’s involvement in these war’s.
    Look up on YouTube :the shits about to hit the fan and here’s the proof.

  5. The obvious solution for the U.S. Created crisis was for the Syrians to turn over their chemical weapons. Tellingly, that wasn't even originally considered by the Obama Administration. This was made clear when Mr. Obama didn't know how to address that suggestion when made by a journalist during Mr. Obama's post-G20 press conference.

    If anyone's interested, I have the video of him stumbling over what was clearly to him a novel idea.

    1. Also have video of Kerry's blunder. Sometimes video evidence proves a (moving) picture is worth 1,000 words.

  6. Obama/Clinton got their Saudi GOLD neckless for getting red of Qathafi..Kerry/Holland want one like the rest of sold animals.

  7. @L. Reichard White: "A key provision of any SOFA is exempting occupying soldiers from the laws of the country being occupied."

    Me: Yes. Amazing that they (US rogue-regime) try it on, even more amazing that any 'host' country ever acquiesces (if you know what I mean). But the 'usual' explanation is that the host is coerced; "You've got a nice little country here. It'd be a shame if anything were to… happen to it." Of course, Iraq had little left to lose, but even so they refused; good on 'em.

    Turning to Kerry's blunder, I wonder. Seems almost inconceivable that he'd err, makes one go "hmmm." I'm supposing that the Zs fear that CWs are Syria's "Samson Option?"

    I think that the US rogue-regime game-plan = 'bomb Syria back to the Stone Age' appears in tatters. Either Kerry 'over-egged the pudding,' scarcely credible, or the whole ugly crew saw that Congressional approval would *not* be forthcoming (let alone UNSC), so they quickly cobbled together this 'plan B.'

    Then, the offer noCW=noSA (Syria gives up their chemical weapons, and US won't bomb you back to the Stone Age) – may be genuine, as there is *no* credible evidence, *no* smoking gun, that would convict Assad in any fair court (plus many reps and the usually ppp-dd's US public are not 'on board' at this time, and polls show declining enthusiasm), that could be *exactly* why the US is dropping the bomb-threats. Next, there're too many others agreeing; Cameron, Fabius, Merkel and Ban Ki Moon, say. IF Obama/Kerry really want war, it's a funny way to go about it. Of course, treachery cannot be ruled out; Syria fulfils its part of noCW=noSA, say – but the tomahawks fly anyway? There's a lot of blood that has already flowed under the US rogue-regime bridge, what's a bit more?

    1. I think they arrogantly mis-calculated this time, Aletheia. The bombers thought they could bang things through as usual and so skipped any Plan B. They may have had Hitler in mind – – –

      I shall give a propagandist cause for starting the war. Never mind whether it is plausible or not. The victor will not be asked, later on, whether he told the truth or not. In starting and waging a war, it is not Right that matters but Victory. –Adolph Hitler, Speech, August 22, 1939, to high officers

      But OOPS, something went horribly right for a change – – –

  8. @L. Reichard White: "I think they arrogantly mis-calculated this time"

    Me: Agreed.

    Consider "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" vs. MSM+PFBCs

    1. [DW]: "Obama blocks help for Syrian rebels"
    Date 19.02.2013
    Author Ben Knight

    «The United Nations high commissioner for human rights Navi Pillay this month put the latest death toll for the two-year conflict at "approaching 70,000" – but the relentless reports of atrocities in Aleppo and the suburbs of Damascus have done nothing to move western governments to intervene in the conflict.»

    2. [AusBC]: "Human Rights Watch concludes Syrian regime behind chemical attacks despite Assad denials"
    PM
    By Mandi Sami
    Updated September 10, 2013 22:09:13

    «Human Rights Watch reported on the incident which reportedly killed more than 1,400 people near Damascus in August as the US president Barack Obama was pushing for congressional approval for military strikes on Syria.»

    3. [AusBC]: "Russia plan on Syrian chemical weapons was no accident, US official says"
    Updated September 11, 2013 10:34:34

    Video: North America correspondent Ben Knight reports on the Syria situation (ABC News)

    «You were not there. How can you talk about what happened if you don't have evidence?»

    The latter statement is from Bashar al-Assad.

    Comments:

    1. Note that Ben Knight appears to do work for both DW and AusBC (Q: So what? A: IMHO, Knight is a 'journeyman propagandist,' and one of the prime skills of a propagandist is attempting to pass off lies as truth – warning!)

    2. Both UNHCHR and HRW appear to be working on supporting the proposed smashing of Syria by a) 'rebels' and b) US tomahawk assaults. Pillay played an important role in the smashing of Libya; she can hardly be taken seriously. Since despite tries by the US, F+UK,D (all probably based on the same set of Z-lies, but UK rejected their 'briefing'), even the US rogue regime admits that *no* smoking-gun has been found – proof = *no* tomahawk assault; HRW is highly unlikely to have any proper proof either, it looks like yet another propagandist trying to pass off lies as truth.

    3. The DW item contradicts reports that the CIA has been 'assisting' arms and mercenary entry into Syria through Turkey and Jordan, so IF Obama is blocking help for Syrian rebels THEN he's not very effective? Now, the CIA is revving-up its arms-injections].

    «If there was a rogue general that did it on his own accord …»

    Note that this <font color=red>*proves*</font> the US&Co has *no idea* who ordered the attack.

    4. Both AusBC items have the same URL; they revised the HRW item and changed the headline – why? Because the HRW story was 'too hot' = contentious = the lies too transparent? Who knows what propagandists get up to, but *no* worthwhile project ever needs a smoke-screen of lies.

    5. What then, of this Kerry story; within minutes of his 'blunder,' both he and many US spokespersons tried to back-track, but as the idea was greeted by F+UK,D & UN et al., the direction of the US rogue regime lie-juggernaut was reversed again. Meanwhile, most of F+UK,D & UN et al., after a) initial agreement to the 'Kerry-Lavrov' plan then b) followed the US back-tracking, only to be c) confronted by the 2nd US reversal. Haw!

    Oh what a stupidly tangled web they weave, when first they practise to deceive! – us, we the people.

    IMHO, a very good reporting resource can be found here].

    Fazit: So far, the tomahawks have been reined in – possibly permanently, but I expect there'll be another attempt. Another false-flag, perhaps, rebels dressed as Assad's men attacking Israel might do it?

  9. This was a real chance at using diplomacy to stave off U.S. intervention that is almost universally opposed and would very likely worsen the humanitarian situation in Syria without any additional utility.

Comments are closed.