John Kerry Calls Assad Dictator And Thug, Yet He's Had No Problem Dining With Assad!

Is Kerry being a hypocrite? Here he is dining with Assad and his wife in a intimate setting back in 2009. Kerry stated in 2011 about Assad as being a “very generous” man.

“Well, I personally believe that — I mean, this is my belief, okay?” Kerry said. “But President Assad has been very generous with me in terms of the discussions we have had. And when I last went to — the last several trips to Syria — I asked President Assad to do certain things to build the relationship with the United States and sort of show the good faith that would help us to move the process forward.”

I refuse to believe that Syria's Assad would turn chemical weapons on his own people knowing that there would be harsh payback. There is something more nefarious that is taking place and the United Kingdom was wise enough see it.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...nt-always-so-harsh-to-syrian-president-assad/

 

Liberal Hypocrisy knows no bounds........

 

It's called diplomacy. You always attract more flies with honey then vinegar.

 

Yet diplomatic and hypocrite are not synonyms, well not outside liberal la la land anyway...

 

LOL!!! These Democrats are such political whores.

 

Why are democrats so interested in attracting flies?

 

Is that quail wrapped in bacon?

 

Lol......no! Funny you should say that, I actually raise Bobwhite quail as a hobby.

 

Guess both you and I will have to agree to disagree on this thread.

 

Did Assad unleash a chemical attack and kill tens of thousands in 2009?

No..?

Not hypocritical then.

 

Did he ever ?

 

I believe so.

UN report coming any day now. I think we both know what it will say, considering the Speaker of their Parliament already hinted that it shouldn't be trusted, and that Britain should send its own inspectors.

 

You sure as (*)(*)(*)(*) do not speak for me. You know what its going to say ? That a nerve agent was used. The UN was not tasked to ascertain who caused it, just that chemical agents were used.

And we are supposed to go to war because some folks "believe he did" ? While others believe not ? Brits ain't going. Germans ain't going. But the US is supposed to put a "limited strike" on Syria ? All for Obama's idiot ego ?

 

Without the UN.
Without a coalition.
Without congress.
Without attack against the US or allies or assets.
Without the constitution.
Without the support of his people.

Impeach... now.

 

Did he now?

 

Yeah, he was such a nice guy way back in 2009, wasn't he?

- - - Updated - - -

Oh please, the Brits are just being (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) and stalling.

 

So thats only important when the agenda suits you...got it

 

Didn't stop Bush, nor was he impeached. Plenty of legal experts say this is not necessary. The UN Charter explicitly authorises military action in the event of chemical weapons being used. That's precisely what British, American, French and Israeli intelligence is suggesting happened.

That is neither true nor impeachable. France will be taking part, President Holland has the authority to authorise military action for up to 4 months without Parliamentary approval.

I believe there SHOULD be an authorisation vote, but he's actually already consulting Congress. Boehner can call one any time he wants.

Non-proliferation and usage of chemical weapons with impunity is in the US national security interests.

No president since Truman has followed the Constitution to the letter with regards to military action. Should they have all been impeached?

The Gipper was a big offender. Grenada? Libya?

A thread I've just posted shows that 50% are willing to support LIMITED cruise missile strikes on Syria. Nevertheless, this is still no reason to impeach,

I believe he SHOULD call a vote to show he's different to big offenders like Ronald Reagan.

 

Why would you say that? Because we don't want Obama sucking us into a war where China, Russia and Iraq are backing Syria?

Because we don't want Assad replaced by Al Qaeda? Because we don't all jump when Kerry says attack?

 

Bush didn't need the UN because he had congress. Outside of congress, one can use the supremacy clause... as was done in Libya... outside of all the arms trading... that works against him there.

GB is our greatest ally. They have spoken. France, is not a coallition. Who else we can bribe to support us or have self interest does not matter at all.

He has not consulted congress. Congress is NOT voting on this.

We don't even know who launched them... and Syria is not part of any agreement to not to produce its weapons programs. The war powers act is very specific. Without specific conditions, none of which are met here, the president cannot commit military action without congress.

Grenada was Bush I. That isn't what I am talking about. To wage war Congress must authorize it unless specific conditions are met.

I don't care if you think people are 50% in favor of unilaterally bombing a country which poses us no threat, without congress, without the UN, without Great Britan, without Germany... you are wrong. No poll has been conducted and carried out after GB dropped. Like they said... the reasonable course is evidence, then action. Not action, then evidence. Iraq sort of spoiled us for simply saying "intelligence suggests"... left AND right.

 

Shockingly horrible logic!!

 

So, is President Red Line still waiting for Valerie Jarrett to make up her mind? Will they wait for the next Benghazi hearing to attack to get it off the nightly news?

 

I heard Kerry speak and thought he spoke with clarity and was almost - Churchilleque, the way he laid it out.

I just do not agree with his conclusion that the United States must step up to the plate over
The Red Line being crossed.

When the Red Line was drawn there was international support that has now disappeared.
Hurting Assad now is helping Al Qaida and a particularly nasty branch from Chechnya - Al Nursi
who although claiming to side with the rebels, killed a major rebel leader and kills Syrians with apathy.

Assad is no doubt a dictator and a thug. Amazingly Kerry hasn't learned from Egypt and Iraq that removing a dictator and a thug does not mean better conditions for the common folk.

Moi

 

To the OP, we don't want to start calling hypocrites out. I bet your a GOP lover, God fearing man. Please, let's not drag into the the hypocrite arena all of your heroes. You'll spend days trying to figure where I got all these facts you conveniently ignore.

As far as Kerry visiting Assad in '09, Bush did the same thing with Saddam before he bombed his country. Then we gave his family protection. What else you got? Shovel dirt, you get dirty, son.

 

I'm on my mobile phone otherwise I'd post that photo of Rumsfelt and Saddam.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm on my mobile phone otherwise I'd post that photo of Rumsfelt and Saddam.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm on my mobile phone otherwise I'd post that photo of Rumsfelt and Saddam.