The US lied about having conclusive information.While no doubt some people do feel this way. For the ten thousand and first time, there is a significant and important difference between "lying" and something proving not to have been the case. Again the Russians and every major Western Power believed that Iraq still had chemical weapons.
Good article in Time MagazineBut Fuji Obama healed all of that. He repaired Americas standing in the world. He rebuilt the trust. He got a Nobel prize for crying out loud.
Twelve years of enforcing no fly zones in which often several times a week Iraq attempted to shoot down the enforcing aircraft.No. No they were not. What, if anything, is your point?
His intelligence chiefs told him there were, and had he gotten on the hot line with V.V. Putin he would have told him my Intelligence chiefs tell me the same thing.The US lied about having conclusive information.
I have no doubt that Bush sincerely believe there were WMD in Iraq. But it turns out that was only his hunch. He did not have solid reasons to believe it. Yet he lied and told others there were solid reasons.
Since times immemorial the way to figure out why something like this happens has been to look at who has profited from it.His intelligence chiefs told him there were, and had he gotten on the hot line with V.V. Putin he would have told him my Intelligence chiefs tell me the same thing.
That's not lying, that's having incorrect information. We have previously been over the hurdles as to why that was.
cui bono?Since times immemorial the way to figure out why something like this happens has been to look at who has profited from it.
The media tarred Bush 2 because he acted like a dolt.This one.
The media tarred Bush for WAY less .
Why would you expect? I am sure the meeting was an attempt to get Assad to stop being a funnel for weapons to Lebanon and try, pull him away from being in Iran's pocket, and work out rights issues in a more peaceful way.Okay, but the US had no way of knowing at that time Saddam was gonna invade Kuwait. And up until that time Iraq had been a US ally.
Syria was not a US ally, so why Did Kerry have a cozy dinner with Assad and his wife??!
Arab league says yes.UN says no, NATO says no, UK says no, the French are back peddling (a national tradition)....
I'm going to go with No.
Any chance a stripped down resolution get's 60 votes in the Senate?
OTB
Oh! Oh! Oh! I got this!While no doubt some people do feel this way. For the ten thousand and first time, there is a significant and important difference between "lying" and something proving not to have been the case.
Glad to know that you know better than the editors of either the OED or Webster's.Oh! Oh! Oh! I got this!
Lying = when people you do not like make statements that have not been proven true.
Yes he was.and George Zimmerman was a self appointed vigilante, right Fuji?
Thats possible.Why would you expect? I am sure the meeting was an attempt to get Assad to stop being a funnel for weapons to Lebanon and try, pull him away from being in Iran's pocket, and work out rights issues in a more peaceful way.
Besides that, meeting with world leaders is a part of the job. Even Regan met with hostile world leaders
You're making that up. Virtually every Western intelligence service reported no evidence that Iraq had WMDs. Even Hans Blix came back saying he had found no evidence of WMDs. The CIA and the Pentagon have even had multiple leaks and defectors documenting that they were encouraged to falsify information in order to suggest WMDs, and the majority were completely shocked when WMDs were used as justification for the war. A former Colonel even resigned over the issue when one of her intelligence briefings, which stated categorically that there was no evidence of WMDs, was edited and "redacted" to remove critical words and phrases in order to make it sound as if it supported the WMD theory. The chief informant, the one upon which the majority of the information used to justify the belief that Iraq had WMDs even admitted he lied to the CIA. But anyone who knows anything about HUMINT and SIGINT knows no one acts to this extent on single-source information that can't be verified. No way a CIA case officer would've told his bureau chief he had conclusive evidence based on single-source intel. No way the bureau chief forwards that on even if they did. That's just not how intelligence works. The stakes are far too high. CSIS and the CSE reported they didn't believe Iraq had WMDs prior to the invasion, the same goes for JIC in the UK, France's DGSE and BND/MAD in Germany.While no doubt some people do feel this way. For the ten thousand and first time, there is a significant and important difference between "lying" and something proving not to have been the case. Again the Russians and every major Western Power believed that Iraq still had chemical weapons.
Assad used to torture people for the CIA. Ask Maher Arar about that.Thats possible.
Or they were friends and as soon as things turned sour for Assad in Syria John Kerry turned into a backstabbber.
We dont know the nature of the conversation they had at that dinner, it couldve had nothing to do with politics
And he was completely innocent. Of course they only found that out till he was thoroughly tortured for a year or soAssad used to torture people for the CIA. Ask Maher Arar about that
Yup, they are defending themselves from terrorists trying to take over their country. Apparently this is not allowed under ObamaIs not Syria protecting itself from Al Qaeda?
Wait, didnt the US also use some sort of gas called Napalm during some war in Vietnam?!Gassing citizens is small compared to what the allies did in WW2
This outbreak was caused by ordinary Syrians rising up against the horrendous oppression they were living under and demanding democracy.Is not Syria protecting itself from Al Qaeda?
What does USA want ?? Another Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt ????
Did not Syria have a thriving middle class before this outbreak?
True they never had our freedoms but this is Syria with problems we do not understand
Gassing citizens is small compared to what the allies did in WW2
Agreed, but even if Assad is ousted, the next dictator will take over and pick up exactly where Assad left offThis outbreak was caused by ordinary Syrians rising up against the horrendous oppression they were living under and demanding democracy.
Al Qaeda infiltrated that movement, but the bulk of the protests were always regular Syrians who got tired of being tortured and murdered.
It was the Syrian government torturing a child to death that led to the uprising.
Don't try and paint Assad as a good guy or make it sound like the West had anything to do with the rebellion. It was entirely home grown and for damned good reasons
Right. Yes. No fly zones. Which have zero to do with terrorism. ...what was your point again?Twelve years of enforcing no fly zones in which often several times a week Iraq attempted to shoot down the enforcing aircraft.
