Obama & Kerry, Preparing to Send Troops “to Die For the Biggest Nothing in History?”

by lewwaters

“I said this from the beginning of the debate to the walk up to the war. I said, Mr. President don’t rush to war, take the time to build a legitimate coalition and have a plan to win the peace. It’s the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time.” – Sen. John Kerry, August 30, 2004 in opposition to the Iraq war.

“There is a reason why no matter what you believe about Syria, all peoples and all nations who believe in the cause of our common humanity must stand up to assure that there is accountability…” Sec. of State John Kerry, August 26, 2013 in support of Military action against neighboring Syria.

Kerry goofOnce again we get to see the situational ethics plaguing today’s Democrat Party as there is nothing they won’t politicize for political gain, even if it costs the lives of some of our Troops.

Kerry, the scorn of many Vietnam Veterans, this blogger included, for his treasonous acts and ‘testimony’ filled with lies before the Fulbright Commission back in 1971 after his abbreviated 4-month tour in Vietnam, who voted to approve sending Troops into Iraq only to come out heavily opposed a year later when he campaign for the Presidency, who claimed “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it” to fund the Iraq War and who said in 2007, “Iraq, as in Vietnam, more American soldiers are being sent to fight and die in a civil war we can’t stop and an insurgency we can’t bomb into submission” somehow now seem to think that we will be able to bomb or stop what is going on in Syria with Military intervention.

We now read of remarks by Kerry supportive of Military intervention as he says,

“President Obama has also been in close touch with the leaders of our key allies, and the President will be making an informed decision about how to respond to this indiscriminate use of chemical weapons. But make no mistake: President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world’s most heinous weapons against the world’s most vulnerable people. Nothing today is more serious and nothing is receiving more serious scrutiny.”

But we also have known for some time that the crimes of Iraq’s President, Saddam Hussein were well known to the world, including John Kerry.

Even though he labeled Iraq the “wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time,” in 2004, he also warned us numerous times of the WMD’s (Chemical Weapons) of Iraq as well as recommended President Clinton take acts to remove Hussein as President of Iraq in a 1997 Senate Floor Speech: We Must be Firm with Saddam Hussein.

After approving of the Iraq War and justifying his YEA vote against his subsequent opposition to the Iraq War when campaigning as President and later when the Democrat party opposed the Iraq War in unity during the 2006 mid-term elections, it was Kerry we heard continually telling the country the only viable Iraq solution is a political one.

That from the same John Kerry who just days earlier, later alleging a “botched joke” told a group of college students,

“You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

Kerry’s flip flopping from Hawk to Dove, Dove to Hawk, depending on which party is in power is legendary.

And now, after years of the Democrat Party campaigning in opposition to war led by Republicans, even though defending our nation after over two decades of Islamic Extremist attacks, we are to believe these same Democrats, especially Barack Obama are well suited to lead the country into another ill-advised war right next door to the very country they so strongly opposed later during the Bush Administration?

Democrats, who in their efforts to portray President Bush as out of touch as he was building the very successful ‘surge,’ claimed U.S. can’t fix Iraq violence as they geared up for the 2008 Presidential Election.

Obama, ShockCan we forget Obama’s claims made just a few years ago for him to win that Presidential election?

He told the world then that there was “No Military Solution in Iraq’ after earlier saying “Preventing Genocide Isn’t Reason to Keep U.S. Troops in Iraq,”

But now and right next door to Iraq, we are told that

“President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world’s most heinous weapons against the world’s most vulnerable people. Nothing today is more serious and nothing is receiving more serious scrutiny.”

Kerry and the Democrats questioned the intelligence President Bush relied upon. Even then Senator Hillary Clinton, in an appearance on the Larry King show April 24, 2004 said of that intelligence,

“The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared.”
“But I think that in the case of the [Bush] administration, they really believed it. They really thought they were right, but they didn’t let enough sunlight into their thinking process to really have the kind of debate that needs to take place when a serious decision occurs like that.”

It was Democrats that claimed the intelligence was manufactured, that Bush lied, that he didn’t listen, labeling him a ‘warmonger’ who came to the Oval Office with the express intent of starting a war in Iraq.

But now, it’s all good again? The intelligence is accurate even though other countries are questioning it and warning Obama to not interfere in Syria?

And hasn’t it been Democrats blasting President Bush over the cost of the War on Terror, claiming going into Iraq is what killed our economy?

Can we really afford now to go back next door to Iraq into Syria and support the rebels fighting the Syrian government, knowing that many have admitted their alliance with Al Qaeda, our sworn enemy?

And hasn’t it been Democrats throughout the Bush Administration reminding us that we are not “the World’s Police Force?” But now, somehow we are?

The New York Sun concluded in an Aug 26, 2013 editorial,

“We carry no brief for Bashir al-Assad. We carry no brief for the Islamists who are in arms against the Syrian regime. What we do is predict that if the President takes us into this war and if there is an escalation — if, say, Russia or Iran enters the lists — then neither Mr. Obama nor the next president nor America itself will be able to count on Mr. Kerry. If the going gets rough, he’ll prove to be a summer soldier and fall away, maybe to go treat with the enemy at a future parley at Paris. We’ve always said that history has a way of playing its tricks.”

John Kerry and Barack Obama would do well to recall Kerry’s scripted words spoken back in 1971 on giving Troops “the chance to die for the biggest nothing in history.”

Democrats have long complained of getting involved in civil wars of other nations and yet, here we are poised once again to involve ourselves in another civil war at the behest of the Democrats.

Isn’t it about time we let those oil rich nations all over the Middle East, who do not want the Muslim Brotherhood or other radical extremists in power, deal with what is happening in their own front yard?

11 Comments to “Obama & Kerry, Preparing to Send Troops “to Die For the Biggest Nothing in History?””

  1. It’s insane what is happening in the Middle East and it would be more insane if we got directly involved.

  2. Lew,   Hanoi  Jane Fonda & John Kerry both should have tried for treason!!!  Stop Obamanations war needs to hit the Socialist Marxist Media like a ton of brick!!!

    Chuck Miller, Director Washington Citizens for Responsible Government P. O. Box  992 Camas, WA.  98607    

  3. Interesting post. I wrote something on a similar topic a while ago, you might be interested, baring in mind what you’ve written here.

  4. “Avoid foreign entanglements!” George Washington, Farewell address

    Yeah, sometimes you DO have to go to war but this ain’t one of them.

  5. Syria is one of those situations where backing rebels with both humanitarian and military aid (with the military aid being quietly provided through indirect means) might have well have been a positive influence when the rebels began their efforts to oust their dictator and his family.

    However, we did not act — and now, two or three years later, those bankrolling and providing manpower to the rebels are no less evil than the Assad family they are attempting to oust. So, our joining in to assist one side (or the other) is equally bad. Obama’s foreign policy blunder was to “draw a red line” — one that was crossed more than 6 months ago (with claims that we did not have “definitive proof”) and now that there are world wide headlines and front page photos showing the obvious use of poison gas, Obama has boxed himself into a corner where he either loses face by continuing to ignore the violation of his self-proclaimed “red line” … or he makes one of the many options of military intervention that he has available. It is likely that he will use a “Clinton in Bosnia” type intervention that closely resembles the “lead from behind” approach in Libya that was so effective.

    Frankly, since we failed to act when it would have been most advantageous to us to intervene, it might be better to let Assad and the rebels just kill each other. Both sides of this conflict are (or are likely) anti-American in outlook. The various segments of Islamic power in the middle east have been at loggerheads for centuries. The collapse of “the caliphate” (the Ottoman empire) in World War I coupled with the post WWI western powers dreadful drawing of “country” borders that managed to include sizable religious minorities and fractured tribes in every country (Shiites, Sunni. Kurds and so on) that have been in conflict ever since. Odd as it may seem, these internal to Islam conflicts might actually have proved an advantage to the west, since it did not allow any single country (in the mideast) to reach sufficient strength to impose hegemony over the region.

    In conflict resolution, it is generally best if a “win-win” solution can be found. In Syria, it appears that the best we can achieve is a loss to the security of the U.S. and the implementation of yet another Iranian client state … or the ultimate victory of the Assad regime, who will remain negative to U.S. interests and will remain aligned with Iran. (So we have a “lose-lose” situation and Iran has a “win-win” situation.)

    It is obvious that Obama’s naive foreign policy (as seen through the rose-colored glasses of the progressives) is an abject failure. I fear that the U.S. is going to spend years recovering from the damage Obama has done to U.S. foreign policy during his terms.

  6. Friend, so far Obama has almost perfectly represented my thoughts & interests, so even though you carefully laid out a compelling argument against intervention in Syria, I completely disagree with your final paragraph. For me, 55 and a Liberal, Obama has been the best president in my lifetime. I find it interesting that the same objective facts lead to two such subjective POVs? As an engineer, that’s fascinating…

  7. We should of kept our mouths shut done a surgical strike on the chemical dumps sending a message to Syria and let them go back to sorting out their own problems. Now by moving ships and talking way to much they have made it a bigger deal than it should have been.

  8. The only sure thing is Obama’s opponents will use Syria against him, no matter how it turns out.

  9. ROFLMBO, Schuyler.

    Thank you for perfectly pointing out the liberal hypocrisy.

    Bush go after WMD’s in Iraq that everybody said was there, bad, illegal, war crime.

    Obama go after some unidentified WMD in Syria, good thing, warranted, responsible, even though it is well known Syrian rebels have aligned themselves with Al Qaeda. You know, the ones who plotted and executed the September 11, 2001 attacks?

    God but you liberals are such hypocrites.

  10. The problem with this argument is that it ignores the much more straightforward possibility that the Democrats were simply wrong on Iraq — both in the policy they supported and the way they arrived at it. After all, if voters were really dead-set on sending a message of opposition to the war, was it really so hard to know which party to vote for?

  11. Let’s not forget, Tracie, Democrats campaigned heavily against any war in the Middle East. In fact, it was Biden who came out against Romney, warning that he wanted a war with Iran and Syria.

    They can’t have it both ways

Leave a Reply. Comments are moderated. Spam & off topic comments will not be approved at Blog Author's discretion. THIS IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ZONE!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: