Yesterday, Secretary of State John Kerry testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Without apparent shame, he made the most amazing admission:
[emphasis added to quotes]
Secretary of State John Kerry said at Wednesday’s hearing that Arab counties have offered to pay for the entirety of unseating President Bashar al-Assad if the United States took the lead militarily.
“With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assess, the answer is profoundly yes,” Kerry said. “They have. That offer is on the table.”
Asked by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) about how much those countries would contribute, Kerry said they have offered to pay for all of a full invasion.
“In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing the way we’ve done it previously in other places, they’ll carry that cost,” Kerry said. “That’s how dedicated they are at this. That’s not in the cards, and nobody’s talking about it, but they’re talking in serious ways about getting this done.
Got that? This Secretary of State dickers with Arab nations to sell (or rent) our brave troops AS IF they’re mercenaries for hire to the highest bidder!
They spend their treasure; we spend our precious blood.
What a deal! We risk our best and brightest. They risk … What?
Sorry, Secretary Kerry:
These troops are not for sale, or hire, or rent. None of them signed up for this.
I can write that statement without taking a poll because I’m that positive that our troops and their families would be outraged to hear this proposal.
Isn’t it wonderful that the Arab sheiks, awash in oil wealth, are willing to pay for the entire “invasion”, if only OUR PRECIOUS TROOPS would fight their war for them? Why is this? Because Muslims won’t kill other Muslims, so they must hire infidels to get ‘er done? Six degrees of separation from the killing? Don’t want to get their own hands bloody dirty?
Kerry said this without any apparent sense of shame. This from a man who’s currently arguing that our credibility and standing in the world is on the line.
And yet, here’s Kerry, pimping out our troops for hire because his Dear Leader has so destroyed our economy and starved our military that we must go begging to the Arabs to fund “our” wars. What does that do for our standing in the world?
This very commentary telegraphs to the world exactly whose war this is. It tells us upon whose behalf Obama and Kerry plan to commit our troops to war. It tells us for whom they are going into harm’s way.
Obama and his supporters in Congress gamble with the lives of our troops, while they play games.
John McCain, played video poker during a Senate hearing about Syria, prompting this chastisement:
Gold Star mother Debbie Lee fired back …
“It infuriates me,” she said. “We are facing the possibility of sending our sons and daughters to a war, conflict, military action or whatever politically correct term you use – an action that could change the world as we know it – and McCain couldn’t care less.”
Lee is the founder of America’s Mighty Warriors, a non-profit focusing on Gold Star moms. She lost her son, Navy SEAL Marc Alan Lee, in Operation Iraqi Freedom, on August 2, 2006. …
“McCain is so bored that he needs to play poker on his iPhone and then when caught jokes about it. How disgraceful! …
“I’m sorry the lives of our brave warriors who are fighting for our freedoms bore you. I’m sorry my country, the country my son died for, bores you. I’m sorry that the risk of war bores you. Senator, it is time for you to resign your position as my Senator.”
What’s the real reason we “must” attack Syria? It cannot be because Assad allegedly used chemical weapons. 100,000 have already died, and there was no serious attempt for us to openly intervene in a civil war “to save lives.” There are no good guys in that civil war.
I write allegedly with regard to blaming Assad because we still don’t know exactly who is responsible for this alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria. Obama’s administration argues that it must have been Assad, because, they claim, the rebels don’t have such weapons. Well, the Russians beg to differ:
Russia says it has compiled a 100-page report detailing what it says is evidence that Syrian rebels, not forces loyal to President Bashar Assad, were behind a deadly sarin gas attack in an Aleppo suburb earlier this year. …
Russia said the report had been delivered to the United Nations in July and includes detailed scientific analysis of samples that Russian technicians collected at the site of the alleged attack, Khan al Asal.
Russia said its investigation of the March 19 incident was conducted under strict protocols established by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the international agency that governs adherence to treaties prohibiting the use of chemical weapons. It said samples that Russian technicians had collected had been sent to OPCW-certified laboratories in Russia.
That story relates to an earlier chemical weapons attack in Syria, not the one that took place on August 21, 2013, which is Obama’s justification for going to war against Syria. However, it clearly puts the lie to the administration’s contention that the rebels don’t have chemical weapons.
If that’s not enough, there’s this:
6 June 2013
Russia has called on Turkey to share its findings in the case of Syrian rebels who were seized on the Turkish-Syrian border with a 2kg cylinder full of [the] nerve gas sarin.
Russia’s top foreign official Sergei Lavrov today said the Kremlin wanted to get clear on the issue of chemical weapons used in Syria, since the allegation had taken on the role of a trading card in the conflict, becoming a focus of constant provocations.
“I do not rule out that some force may want to use it [the rumour] to say that the “red line” has been crossed and a foreign intervention is needed,” the minister said.
“We are still waiting on a comprehensive report from our Turkish colleagues,” he added, citing the incident when a gang of terrorists carrying a canister with nerve gas sarin was arrested inside the Turkish territory about two weeks ago.
Got that? Syrian “rebels” (most of whom are associates of Al Qaeda or some other jihadist group) were caught in May 2013 carrying sarin gas. That would have been just about three months prior to this most recent chemical weapons attack in Syria–the one being blamed on Assad because, as the Obama administration claims, it must be him because nobody else has such weapons. Right? Wrong.
But let’s hurry and pass a resolution in Congress and attack, before the UN and the Russians have time to finish their reports on this most recent attack–the one being blamed on Assad.
Leaked emails have allegedly proved that the White House gave the green light to a chemical weapons attack in Syria that could be blamed on Assad’s regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country.
A report released on Monday contains an email exchange between two senior officials at British-based contractor Britam Defence where a scheme ‘approved by Washington’ is outlined explaining that Qatar would fund rebel forces in Syria to use chemical weapons.
Barack Obama made it clear to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad last month that the U.S. would not tolerate Syria using chemical weapons against its own people.
According to Infowars.com, the December 25 email was sent from Britam’s Business Development Director David Goulding to company founder Philip Doughty.
It reads: ‘Phil… We’ve got a new offer. It’s about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved by Washington.
‘We’ll have to deliver a CW to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell from Libya similar to those that Assad should have.
‘They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak Russian and make a video record.
‘Frankly, I don’t think it’s a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion?
‘Kind regards, David.’
Britam Defence had not yet returned a request for comment to MailOnline.
Several thoughts on the above exchange:
First, if you read the Russian report, cited above, you will see that the Russians identified the source of the Aleppo attack (which took place in March 2013) as coming from the rebels because of the type of rocket (or rocket propellant) used. Therefore, it would be important, in a false flag operation, to make sure that the weapons match what Assad allegedly has.
Second, note that Qatar (an ARAB) country, allegedly would fund the operation, with “sums” that are “enormous.”
Third, note the need to have a videographer on site. After the alleged August 21, 2013, chemical attack in Syria, a huge number of videos were nearly immediately posted on the Internet, alleging to prove that the government of Syria attacked its own citizens with chemical weapons. Most major mainstream news organizations picked up these video and still photos, which were supplied to them by the rebels or by “activists” (like Doctors Without Borders) and they proceeded to publish them. In some cases, the news agencies claimed to have vetted the images, but how could they do so? How would they authenticate such images, which must be approached with extreme skepticism, especially when one considers the Muslim concept of taqiyya? Many thinking folks have since noted that these images and videos are suspicious, especially with regard to the number of people handling the victims without wearing gloves or respirators to protect themselves from deadly contamination. As Judge Andrew Napolitano said,
Never mind that the photos shown by Mr. Obama’s folks of aid workers ministering to the supposed victims of government gassing show the workers without gas masks or gloves, and never mind that the Assad regime has permitted United Nations weapons inspectors unfettered access to its materiel, and never mind that the president wants to invade Syria before the weapons inspectors issue their report. The president wants us to think that the Assad regime intentionally gassed 1,000 Syrian innocents who were of no military value to the rebels or threat to the regime — and among whom were, according to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, “hundreds of children.”
Even if all this took place as Mr. Obama claims, can he lawfully bomb Syria to punish its government for violating international norms or to deter it from doing so again? In a word: No.
Finally, while Infowars notes that Britam admits that they were hacked, they did imply that the emails are not authentic. Nevertheless, it’s an interesting story because of the odd similarities to what was allegedly proposed and what has come to pass. Then there’s Obama’s “red line.”
A story at Free Republic, cited above, asks WHY Obama mentioned his red line in the first place, seemingly out of the blue, during an “impromptu news conference” on August 20, 2012, nearly a year to the day before the actual chemical weapons attack:
President Obama said … that any attempt by Syria to move or use its chemical weapons would change his administration’s “calculus” in the region, evoking the possibility of more direct U.S. intervention in the conflict.
Speaking at an impromptu news conference at the White House, Obama noted that he has not authorized military operations against Syria. But he said that any effort by President Bashar al-Assad to use chemical weapons would have significant consequences.
“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us . . . We’re monitoring that situation very carefully. We have put together a range of contingency plans.”
The president’s remarks represented his strongest language to date on how the United States might respond to contain Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal. In July, he warned that Assad would be “held accountable by the international community” if he made the “tragic mistake” of deploying chemical munitions. …
[A]n administration official said that Obama did not intend to flag any change in policy in his latest remarks and that the appetite for military intervention remains low. …
The United States has been working with allies in the region to develop contingency plans against worst-case scenarios, such as deployment of chemical weapons. The planning has included detailed arrangements for securing chemical arms with Special Operations troops in the event that they are seized by militants.
Speaking after a summit with Turkey’s foreign minister, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said this month that officials were seeking to coordinate efforts.
“We need to get into the real details of such operational planning. It needs to be across both of our governments,” she said.
Clinton added that the prospect of Syria’s use of chemical weapons was particularly troublesome.
“What would that mean in terms of response, humanitarian and medical emergency assistance, and, of course, what needs to be done to secure those stocks from ever being used or falling into the wrong hands?”
U.S. officials have said that they are working with Turkey and Jordan to monitor Syria’s chemical weapon sites and have been in discussions with Israel on what steps must be taken to ensure the sites are secure. …
Turkey! The very country that allegedly was used as a conduit for (illegal) weapons intended to arm the Syrian “rebels” through our assets in Benghazi, Libya, potentially precipitating a state attack on our CIA “mission” in September 2012, only weeks after Obama drew his “red line” in the sand.
Thus, four dead in Benghazi. RIP. Will We the People EVER learn the truth about Benghazi? (btw, touching upon yet another Obama scandal, the IRS scandal also featured an “impromptu” press event, when Lois Lerner blew the whistle on herself by answering a planted question.)
Keep in mind that the chemical weapons that Assad possesses very likely came from the store of WMDs that Saddam Hussein allegedly did not have when the USA took action to enforce 17 UN resolutions Hussein ignored, but only because he had already sent them to Syria!
Fast forward to September, 2013. The UN, thus far, is not supporting action against Syria. Nor is Russia (of course). Nor is the UK, our formerly staunchest ally. Nor is Germany. What European country is on board? France. Take note of this, from August 2012, a year ago:
French President Francois Hollande warned Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Monday that any use of the country’s chemical weapons would be a legitimate justification for military intervention. …
The comments followed U.S. President Barack Obama’s warning to Syria on August 20 that military intervention could be justified if al-Assad’s government used unconventional weapons or moved them in a threatening fashion.
“What’s at stake goes beyond Syria. It concerns the security of the Middle East and especially Lebanon,” Hollande said.
What a coincidence that Hollande echoed Obama last year and now he’s the only European leader openly supporting Obama today.
No boots on the ground “for combat operations.” That’s what the resolution passed by the Senate committee says; and yet the contingency plans specify a need for as many as 75,000 ground troops to secure those WMDs.
Of course, they’ll have to be dropped in there, somehow. Prepared to lose more helicopter crews? More Navy SEALs?
A limited cruise missile strike, we’re told. Nope. If that doesn’t do the trick, why then they’ll call out the big guns–the B-52s and the B-2 stealth bombers–putting our pilots in harm’s way.
But I’m not the only one who was immediately outraged by what Kerry said yesterday (which of course goes virtually unreported by the mainstream media).
Jonathan Turley wrote about Kerry’s “free war“:
This week Secretary of State John Kerry became the Sham-Wow man for the latest war by the United States. Here is how a Sham-War pitch works. Kerry announced that the Arab countries will pay for our entire war if we invade Syria. That’s right, we can simply rent out U.S. personnel like mercenaries for Saudi Arabia and Gulf nations. …
The clear suggestion is that we might be able to go to war on a Saudi credit card . . . if we act now. Indeed, as Congress contemplates whether it would buy a war for zero down, Kerry could offer to get a second war at the same cost.
What is astonishing is that the offer of a free war was viewed as Kerry as a positive contribution to the pitch for war.
It’s seldom that Turley and I are on the same page. Take it from me. I find it “astonishing,” to say the least.
We can only hope that more open-minded individuals from all parts of the political spectrum ask the right questions before Obama takes us into yet another Middle Eastern war.
Before we Lurch to Damascus, let us all remind Obama and Kerry:
These troops are not for sale or rent.