If he isn't lying, then he is an idiot. And I don't think he's an idiot.

For starters.

there are al quaeda like elements in syria. assuming we know where they are, we could theoretically target them and assad.

They look exactly like moderates from the camera on a drone, missile, or "smart" bomb.

are operating, you theoretically could take out those groups while leaving other less radical groups intact

all i am saying kerry may not be lying. that said, i still oppose war,

you said one group can be targeted and another spared....which is pure fantasy given recent US military actions. We have no bloody idea who the good guys are, who the bad guys are, or who the civilians are. Policy has been to kill them all...are you paying attention to drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan?

but i don't think kerry is necessarily lying when he thinks he can harm al quada elements and assad. i think its possible and there will def be collateral damage of civilians.

this war is not going to achieve any stability or real help for syrians

Of course Kerry will be supporting the push to get after Assad. We have a commitment to uphold the agreement we have to stomp out chemical use, otherwise who would trust this country in their commitments. But as for Kerry's lying, it is an abysmal piece of disingenuous ammunition that misses the mark. There is plenty of reason to stop Assad from his brutal attacks against his citizenry. If it can be done without attack all the better, but I don't have much hope of that.
In any event time will tell. Thanks for your level headed post, quite refreshing.

But I don't think they are going to target groups of people. They are planning to hit things like airplane and anti-airplane sites. They'll probably be going after command and control too. I don't expect militants to be at these places. There will probably be few civilians too.

They impose fundamentalist sharia law. Their brand of fundamentalism is extremely narrow. It stems from the Wahhabism enforced by the house of al Saud to keep the people in line while playboy Saud's frolic and gambol in Las Vegas. This is, by the way, the same Wahhabism underlying the jihadist movement funded and trained by the CIA in Afghanistan, back when Osama was openly the CIA's boy wonder. (cough: only a conspiracy theorist would suspect the Saudis of having a hand in.....)

Saudi Arabia and the USA sitting in a tree, then and now. How things change, how things stay the same!

HRC's "Friends of Syria" movement was the US "leading from behind", Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey. Are the mercenary employees of these "friends" no longer the "good rebels"? Is the US desperately trying to produce "better rebels", to be the new good guys? In this so-called "civil war" that Kerry says the US isn't involved in...

Jeez, the sewer of lies unearthed when once one starts digging into fact on the ground and comparing those facts with war propaganda. In one sense it's a fertile field (heh), but in another it feeds on something so abomin

Realistically, how likely is that? I could see if we were talking about one raid on one target, but we are talking about a military campaign over a whole country, with multiple enemies and multiple types of enemies. It hasn't really worked out for us in Afghanistan and in Iraq. How/why would we have such amazing, perfect intel in Syria, but not in any of these other countries?

It is a judgment, an opinion, if you will. It is a prediction about something that has not yet occurred. Only time would tell if it becomes fact. Because someone expresses an opinion that does not match with your interpretation of a set of information, it does not immediately follow that they have lied.

made statements about WMD and threats to our national interest. Both voted to fund that war each time they were asked. He and Hagel were both either complicit or both were duped by the likes of W when millions around the world could see the lies. He think he is a trusted person.

Hope you get an answer, Lioness.

They are offering only their unsupported "opinion" that Assad is responsible for using chemical weapons, refusing to await the outcome of UN experts' investigation.

This is exactly what Bush and Cheney did about Iraq. Bush and Cheney forced the inspectors to leave Iraq before they even finished thier inspections. They were afraid their fraudulent accusations would be exposed, as eventually they were.

Further, missile strikes to "punish" Assad are absurd on their face. More innocent civilians will likely be killed in their "revenge" strikes, strikes which will only help jihad extremists win power in Syria. We were supposed to be fighting Al Qaeda, not helping it, remember?

Their proposed strikes will violate international law, and be themselves war crimes. The UN is the only body that can approve such international aggression. The U.S.signed on to the UN Charter, remember?

have you read the publicly released information (I did not, but here is a link if you are interested http://www.c-span.org/uploadedFiles/Content/Documents/USGassessmentonSyria(1).pdf). Do you have access to the classified information? I think it's safe to assume you do not.

In other words, when you claim that they are only "offering their unsupported opinion" what you write is in itself an "unsupported opinion". As to the UN experts, AFAIK they are only to decide whether chemical weapons were used, not WHO used them.

This being said, I feel extremely uncomfortable about the whole thing. But I think that whatever opinion and position one has, it has to be based on whatever facts are available, and NOT be a knee-jerk reaction. War IS bad, any war, I agree. But Grenada was not the same thing as WWII, though both were wars. And the fact that somebody, in this case a politician, says or reaches a conclusion you disagree with should not automatically erase everything you ever learned about that person. In my personal case, I trust and respect Obama, Kerry, and Hagel. Not always agree with everything (especially in the caser of hagel of old), but the trust and respect is still there. Wel... I have probably already written too much and for no good reason..

If he can lie about that...

The media is trying to create a contradiction, but Kerry was talking about the constitution of the opposition.

Im trying to find it.

Prosense has the actual Kerry comment.

in the opposition, and they are the ones the US is arming. It stands to reason that if those are the forces gaining the arms, their numbers will increase further.

He never said there were no Al Qaeda groups there.

I wish I could remember who asked it. Im trying to figure it out.

Its possible that I am wrong. Im more than happy to admit that.

Sanity and Compassion.

TY.

Trust of any politician went out the door long ago.

and from disinterested sources and they all agree that Assad tortures Syrians and rules by brutal force. this is technically not really up for debate.

and pay attention to history. Anyone that possesses sense and has learned history knows better than to implicitly trust a politician.

did you survive the hot peppers?

OMG, they were FANTASTIC! I still have some salsa frozen that I made with them. The peppers didn't survive me and my voracious love of them .

God, that tomato, Craig, it was the best. I saved the seeds. That has to be one of the finest and most to my taste tomatoes I've ever savored. Your garden grows some wonderful vegetables!

but thanks for your concern for my well being.

Other wise... good bye.

I love my wife of 34 years and children and my mom and brother and trust them implicitly. I have many friends that I love deeply.

But are you conflating trust and love - when it comes to politicians? Trust is earned. And to me, politicians, because they are beholden to money and lobbyists and special interests, have not earned my trust.

We, the Qataris, Saudis, Russians, Iranians and anyone else providing all sides with weapons or money to buy weapons should stop doing this and instead insist on peace talks because there will be no other weapons forthcoming. However, don't hold your breath.

The real reason for the war drums leads back to the oil and gas giants of industry and the MIC. Follow the money. I'm disgusted our administration is doing their dirty work for them.

Btw Chris just announced that the video is more than a year old. Where was the outrage then?

the chances that the rebels would have gotten so radicalized would be less.

now its a real shitshow and intervention of the sort that is being proposed will achieve nothing.

Our government has backed many brutal regimes-- even installed them and propped them up. We tortured prisoners ourselves.

I don't buy it for one second as a justification for military action. That's always a matter of very tangible "national interests".

of responsibility for these problems, Syria was placed under a French mandate following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1918 (as a by-product of the Sykes-Picot accords that created, among other things, modern-day Iraq and Kuwait).

France had pretty much given up its dreams of empire after it got shellacked in Vietnam and Algeria in the late 50s and early 60s. But it's still interesting to see that, while the UK has soundly rejected this latest exercise in imperial hubris, France announced it would back Obama. And this, mind you, is France under a nominal Socialist, no less! (Well, Hollande is also Prince of Andorra (!), so not sure how much of a real Socialist he is.)

harm to african countries.

the parliamentary traditions in India and Pakistan and the Vietnamese restaurants in Paris and some wonderful paintings by Gaugin.

The Belgians may have been the most brutal, although any such measures are bound to be subjective.

indians would have figured out some way to rule themselves without the british

but i dont think banh-mi would have happened without the french

the parliamentary system.

The huffing and puffing about the "real motives" and the "MIC" and similar nonsense is just that: childish nonsense.

For any military intervention to be legitimate, it needs UN Security Council approval. That's a high bar, because the Russians have every interest (save a moral one) in maintaining Assad in power and allowing him to do what he wants. It's not going to happen, and intervention should be shelved on that basis alone.

The effectiveness of intervention is also obviously an issue, and has not been demonstrated with any compelling arguments. I see effectiveness along two vectors: short term and geo-local effectiveness (i.e., in Syria, now) and long-term and abstract effectiveness: the NEXT person contemplating the use of chemical or biological weapons and how that person weighs his or her risks. Long-term effectiveness of this sort is easier for me to grok than the short-term effectiveness, which is complicated by the extremely complex conditions on the ground.

Finally, apart from basic legitimacy and practical utility, there is obviously a very real moral concern here. How can military intervention be more moral than doing nothing? I think that case is actually somewhat clear, despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth that will ensue from my saying that. Allowing Assad to use these atrocious weapons with impunity is a moral wrong, and a fucked up one at that. Anyone arguing that point (it's none of our moral business, or, because we massacred Native Americans or Vietnamese, we are beyond moral responsibility) - anyone arguing such nonsense loses me at GO. But the choice isn't between military intervention and doing nothing. And that's where the morality of it gets fuzzier: I agree with those (like Maddow, for instance) who suggest that if there is a spectrum of options (albeit most practically bad), then we must exhaust those as a moral imperative before any military intervention.

shoot something at something.
I also have some real reservations about blowing up chemical weapon facilities. Explosions sort of spread stuff around.

I agree, even if other options may not work, we should try that first.

If it weren't a lie, it wouldn't be classified.

They'd better cook some Powell-like fake "facts" damn soon.
The most rabid warmongers will believe even in "classified proof" because they "like Kerry", but the luke-warm warmongers who want an excuse to fall back on later, regardless of how blatant the lie, will want Kerry to do a full Powell on them.

It strikes me it is possible that there are reasons to classify information besides wanting to lie about it.

Bryant

eta: Kerry on Hayes tonight, says a bombing campaign like this doesn't involve the US in a war. He says that the US bombing will help the "good rebels, but not the bad rebels", and he defines the "good rebels" as the ones who've been directly trained by and answer to the US CIA/Military. Now, that's a direct contradiction, proving that Kerry is a liar.

If the US unilaterally bombs fuck out of Syria based on secret classified evidence then the US will be openly committing a war crime, and that *fact* will have much more credibility than Obama's "secret classified evidence".

The UN exists for a reason, and the US seems to be pissing on it.
I thought that kind of pissing on the UN had ended with John Bolton's masters were voted out of office, after the populations heartfelt yearning for change, and hope.

And not for humanistic reasons.

Bryant

aim here is to make positive consequences for Syria. Nor do I think it is to particularly help the rebels.

I think it is to safeguard against a chemical hit on Israel that Assad would do, gladly. Anyone who has ever studied his brutal, bloody occupation of Lebanon, and understands what power he still holds there, and the allies he has, understands the danger to Israel.

Assad is a doctor....and his atrocities in Lebanon were legion. His Daddy put in charge of the occupation, personally. And Lebanon will never forget it.

if we bomb syria. its easier to retaliate against Israel than us.

There's always been a threat. I think something tipped Assad's hand, made him nervous. He's a loose cannon, now.

No one wants to believe that Kerry could be right, but what if he is?

It's like making the case for global warming to a skeptical world.

threat is very real.

Alas...I would like for Kerry to be wrong. But I do not think he is.

I don't see Assad attacking Israel...unless the US attacks Assad, then he might attack Israel hoping to drag Iran into the war on his side.

OTOH, Israel is lobbying like hell (through AIPAC) for the US to wage war on Syria. Israel wants Syria separated from ally Iran, so when they attack Iran they won't have to worry about Syria counter-attacking them.

Confused yet? Yep, ME politics is a clusterfuck.

And Kerry's definition of it as "not war" is - well - amusing, considering the "cakewalk" Iraq was.

There was a UN resolution and broad international support for the Libya action. Even then, there were criticisms that the US went too far (acting beyond the scope of the resolution) and essentially became the rebels' air force.

The Syria talk is reminiscent of Iraq because we don't seem to give a damn what the UN thinks and are willing to go forward regardless.

Ultimately, each situation is different and has different possible pitfalls. Iraq was obviously a calamity. Libya was much more successful - in my opinion, one reason was because the Libyan resistance was less influenced by extremists than the Syrian resistance.

Regarding Syria, the president has not gained broad consensus from the international community on what must be done. He has failed to lay out what the goals of the action would be ("to send a message" is really too vague). I just don't think he has made a case for military action.

It's war.

This isn't the first chemical attack in Syria. There's upwards of 11 attacks. The attack that has caused all the trouble may have been a "mistake". Someone appears to have mixed the recipe wrong. Which is why it was so deadly. So the argument is basically over a mistake. IF they had continued to mix it in the lower strengths, and not killed as many folks, we'd be back ignoring what's going on. But even though they probably wouldn't intentionally repeat this again, we're going to war.

And if we do that, one of the possible outcomes will be that Assad will feel to demonstrate that he still is in charge by committing an attack that is as deadly, or more, that the one that got him in all the hot water to begin with.

Bush didn't mean to cause the largest Christian diaspora in the history of the world, but he did. The law of unintended consequences can be a real pain.

It was probably a mixing error on their part. Not surprising considering that there is probably a constantly shifting set of people to draw on.

They only know what war hawks want them to know.

LBJ figured that out and refused to run for another term. The Tet Offensive showed him that the Pentagon and CIA were both lying about the nature of the war, the indigenous support for the Viet Cong, and our capability to whip them in any sense of the word was being hyperinflated.

Subsequent presidents have forgotten that.

for lying established his "credibility gap" long before Tet.

I do not see the President or Kerry lying either..

The Middle east is such a mess.. nothing we do or do not do, is going to make a bit of difference.

But I give the President this.. he is consistent .. and that is driving everyone batty.. and always has.. He has always said that he believes congress should be part of the decisions being made about foreign involvements.. but when he gives them a chance to step up to the plate..they do 180's.. Last week he was a dictator.. not keeping the Constitution, because they thought he was going to intervene solo.. this week he is weak, for asking Congress to step up..

He was never a pacifist. Never ran as one. He told us who he was, and he has not changed one iota.

He has always been opposed to "stupid" wars. But he never ran as someone who would not use force. He has not lied..people have not listened to what he is saying.. big honking difference.

I can't see any good coming from this. People displaced all over the middle east. And even if Assad steps down, what is coming in behind him is dictatorship by committee.

I just think they're wrong.

are not making plans to have boots on the ground.

Congress should hold hearings and ask they have made plans to have boots on the ground.

"But in the event Syria imploded, for instance, or in the event there was a threat of a chemical weapons cache falling into the hands of al-Nusra or someone else and it was clearly in the interest of our allies and all of us, the British, the French and others, to prevent those weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of the worst elements, I don't want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to a president of the United States to secure our country."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/09/american-boots-on-the-ground-in-syria-john-kerrys-facepalm-moment/279312/

I understand he was basically saying he would have to go back to congress to get another resolution if they decide they need to. But that is still not an emphatic "no" with regards to boots on the ground in Syria.

And the fact that Kerry just proved himself a liar recently and that Obama has done so to the American people repeatedly, is without question. There is no reason to begin believing them now.

I don't abide LIARS. Nor MURDERERS of innocent babies and their mothers. No matter what noble reasons they might try to claim is the justification for why they're doing it. Innocent people have died, are dying and will continue to die so long as we allow them to think they can do so with impunity.

To claim they do this in the names of the people of America and to protect their FREEDOM -- that is THE LIE.

- What is most striking to me however, is that just recently Obama stood before Lincoln's statue and spoke of peace and brotherhood and Martin Luther King Jr (a wonderful photo op for the ages). A few days later he's rallying a cry for war. For bombs to fly and more innocent babies and mothers to be put at risk. And exponentially increasing the level VIOLENCE.

Here is what Martin had to say about violence:

[center]The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral,
begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy.
Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it.
Through violence you may murder the liar,
but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth.
Through violence you may murder the hater,
but you do not murder hate.
In fact, violence merely increases hate.
So it goes.
Returning violence for violence multiplies violence,
adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness:
only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.[/center]

everyone I know.

All over the rural areas where people are starving. Maybe once they get more calories they could start to think straight. Nothing saying it is from us, just drop it all anonymously.

Pretty sure more people are dying there then in Syria and bombing syria isn't going to make anything better.

...and we could expand that notion a lot further. Especially considering this:

[center]CAPITALISM WARPS EVERYTHING

According to a study published by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Americans waste about 40% of all food produced in the United States. It is also estimated that 70% of all fresh water consumption in the US is attributed to the agricultural production; which means that food waste alone accounts for one quarter of ALL the water consumed within the US.

Furthermore, given that the average farm requires 3 kcal of fossil fuel energy to produce 1 kcal of food (before accounting for energy requirements of food processing and transportation) wasted food accounts for roughly 300 million barrels of oil per year. link[/center]

- Bombing people with food and necessities would be a war I could support!

The lie are that this poses a threat to our national security. The lie is that the objective is to "deter and degrade" chemical attacks. The lie is that military strikes will meet that objective. The lie is that this will be limited. The lie is that US military intervention will improve the situation. The lie is that without intervention Jordan will fall. The lie is that moderates are taking over the rebels. The lie is that this would be legal under international law. The lie is that it could be legal without Congressional authorization. The lie is that Congress can make it legal. The lies go on an on.

Please, wait until an actual proof-cocktail is cooked up for you to imbibe, before saying that your warmongering siren is true.

Well Stated,
and worthy of a repeat:

But since we have no national health coverage, one in four children are growing up in poverty, 60,000 veterans are homeless, etc., then I'm pretty comfortable in my assumption that we're NOT going to bomb Syria for humanitarian reasons.

This is a carbon copy of Condi's "mushroom cloud" canard which was a complete lie.

with the war on drugs and the war on the poor and the middle class. i'm all for humanitarian aid to Syrians, but i KNOW dropping bombs is not going to help them, any more than dropping bombs here would help US.