John Kerry's personal experience with Assad

[Savannahmann]

U.S Secretary of State John Kerry having a cosy and intimate dinner with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.

Kerry - who compared Assad to Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein yesterday - is pictured around a small table with his wife and the Assads in 2009.

Assad and Kerry - who was then a senator for Massachusetts - lean in towards each other and appear deep in conversation as their wives look on.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2408805/The-image-John-Kerry-WONT-want-U-S-Secretary-State-pictured-dining-Assad-wife-Damascus-restaurant-war-broke-Syria.html#ixzz2dkvD0HWv

Perhaps I should give Secretary Kerry's speech another consideration, since he apparently has first hand knowledge of Assad.

[pjt7]

1. Kerry has a lot more first hand experience

with Yale's SKULL & BONES. & that's the bad side of the CIA

Fact is those boys are running Kerry right now.

[karynnj]

20. Amazing you consider that and ignore what Kerry did opposing Vietnam,

exposing the illegal funding of the Contras, and his investigation of BCCI - against the wishes of powers that be of both parties. No one is "running" Kerry - now or ever.

[freshwest]

36. Next from the same school of thought: Kerry danced naked at Bohemian Grove worshiping Moloch and

Last edited Mon Sep 2, 2013, 08:27 PM - Edit history (2)

howled war hoops and cheered human sacrifice with the satanists there!

Well, NOT. He's not even on the list reported by Infowars. Won't link it here, though, but no, he's not on it despite the other Skull and Bones members who attend there.

But Iran's PressTV is very definite on Kerry's evil ambitions and uses ALL the dog whistles. I dare a person to not get their blood riled up at this:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/03/03/291680/kerry-skull-and-bones-and-syria-ruin/

So folks can decide if the Iran, Syria and Russia are the real defenders of human rights, freedom and liberty from the uh, well, you know whatsis.

I've entertained all of this stuff, until I found the JBS, Koch links and kept going down the rabbit hole.

Billionaires do not ignore any chance at pushing their agenda. It is being played from all sides now. Enough people will fall for it who have the best of intentions. The results are the same.

People with experience dealing those who one truly can't stand, but must act nice in public, know how this works. I've had to negotiate with political opponents my gut wanted eliminated from the gene pool for the sake of humanity.

If you listen to your gut and not your mind, things get out of hand quickly. There are usually areas of common cause that can be found, even if the other person is a lying no-good POS. But you can't get anything out of them by venting at them.

Venting is the cheap thing to do on the internet or in a mob. It does not work in the real world when there are causes more important than ego.

So yes, Kerry is going to treat Assad with respect and warmth to his face. It is part of getting support for what one accepts, not a love affair. It's called diplomacy and most people don't have what it takes to do it.

As far as the claims that it is hypocritical for Kerry to get angry at Assad's use of chemical warfare, with over a thousand dead in one day and thousands disabled survivors the same day, they are wrong.

This is just the icing on the cake of a civil war that has taken the lives of tens of thousands as Assad attempts to win a ground war that he has lost.

It's said that half a million people have been made homeless and are fleeing into Turkey and other places. Assad is losing vital territory, even in the nation's capitol, the city of Damascus.

If a fighting force took over part of Washington, D.C., it would have a paralyzing effect on the government. This is last ditch fighting, and for some reason Assad does not seem to have any plans to reconcile by working through their differences in a democratic way.

The fact Kerry called out the US government on its own war crimes in Vietnam, by the use of chemical weapons and free fire zones, etc. and is still hated by the RW, is why this will be pushed from the RW which is merging with the left, having found common ground on one or more issues.

So people should (not referring to you) look to all the alliances, social, military and political before going on the attack, is all I'd ask. The world is not B&W. JMHO.

EDIT:

Regarding the mention of Kerry, Bush and Skull and Bones in the post you replied to:

My citation of the article with this accusation is from a well-known CTer, birther and an Infowars regular:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster_Tarpley

He is cited by Infowars, Paulites, 2nd Amendment Solution advocates and other fringe RWer groups. Now he is in league with:

Press TV (stylised PRESSTV) is a 24-hour English language news organization of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB). Its headquarters are located in Tehran, Iran.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PressTV

We won't see him cited at DU, but the ideas sans the birtherism is, AFAIK. But Paul Craig Roberts, an Infowars idol and father of Reaganomics, which he still supports, is posted here at times.

He is a thinker and some of what he has written is good. He defends Social Security, etc. as private property. But he also supports Ron Paul and likely Rand as well.

They are no good for this country and encourage those who want armed revolt over taxes, the ACA, infringing on the 2nd amendment, etc. Their interpretation of the 2nd is insane. So none of them are in my good books.

[DirkGently]

2. Assad is like Hussein. Another useful dictator we're done with.

Doesn't give us a license to start our own war.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. Jeez. All Rumsfeld got out of Saddam was a prefunctory handshake.

My cynicism grows by leaps and bounds.

[karynnj]

21. Kerry was not there giving Assad chemical weapons - as Rumsfeld was with Saddam

The Kerrys were trying to convince Assad that they and Syria would be better off breaking ties with Hezzbollah.

[KittyWampus]

4. Kerry has been carrying out DIPLOMACY to try and prevent what is currently going on.

Are you really this… gullible?

[Dreamer Tatum]

5. Diplomacy isn't usually carried out with spouses at the table.

So maybe you're the gullible one.

[KittyWampus]

6. Yes, it is. The FACTS of matter show the ignorance of many DU'ers. What does diplomacy mean to you?

This clearly shows how many DU'ers have a cartoon version of reality playing in their heads.

Try to do things diplomatically with a carrot and you later get called out for it

When the carrot fails you get called out for using a stick AND using the carrot previously.

[Dreamer Tatum]

7. You can capitalize 'facts' all you like, but you still have none

unless you happen to be one of the women in that picture.

[KittyWampus]

8. Hypocrite. Kerry gets smeared for attempting diplomacy. It says volumes about anyone attempting this

[Dreamer Tatum]

11. Then so was Rumsfeld, huh? nt

[KittyWampus]

14. Rumsfeld was proven to have been onboard for PNAC. But don't let facts get in the way.

[ProSense]

22. "Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons"

<...>

By the summer of 1983 Iran had been reporting Iraqi use of using chemical weapons for some time. The Geneva protocol requires that the international community respond to chemical warfare, but a diplomatically isolated Iran received only a muted response to its complaints [Note 1]. It intensified its accusations in October 1983, however, and in November asked for a United Nations Security Council investigation.

The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war [Document 24]. The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well [Document 25].

What was the Reagan administration's response? A State Department account indicates that the administration had decided to limit its "efforts against the Iraqi CW program to close monitoring because of our strict neutrality in the Gulf war, the sensitivity of sources, and the low probability of achieving desired results." But the department noted in late November 1983 that "with the essential assistance of foreign firms, Iraq ha[d] become able to deploy and use CW and probably has built up large reserves of CW for further use. Given its desperation to end the war, Iraq may again use lethal or incapacitating CW, particularly if Iran threatens to break through Iraqi lines in a large-scale attack" [Document 25]. The State Department argued that the U.S. needed to respond in some way to maintain the credibility of its official opposition to chemical warfare, and recommended that the National Security Council discuss the issue.

Following further high-level policy review, Ronald Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114, dated November 26, 1983, concerned specifically with U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The directive reflects the administration's priorities: it calls for heightened regional military cooperation to defend oil facilities, and measures to improve U.S. military capabilities in the Persian Gulf, and directs the secretaries of state and defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to take appropriate measures to respond to tensions in the area. It states, "Because of the real and psychological impact of a curtailment in the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf on the international economic system, we must assure our readiness to deal promptly with actions aimed at disrupting that traffic." It does not mention chemical weapons [Document 26].

Soon thereafter, Donald Rumsfeld (who had served in various positions in the Nixon and Ford administrations, including as President Ford's defense secretary, and at this time headed the multinational pharmaceutical company G.D. Searle & Co.) was dispatched to the Middle East as a presidential envoy. His December 1983 tour of regional capitals included Baghdad, where he was to establish "direct contact between an envoy of President Reagan and President Saddam Hussein," while emphasizing "his close relationship" with the president [Document 28]. Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity toward Iran and Syria, and the U.S.'s efforts to find alternative routes to transport Iraq's oil; its facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran, and Iran's ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory. Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons, according to detailed notes on the meeting [Document 31].

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

[karynnj]

26. True -it was expected that the right wing would use this - as they immediately did -

but it is sad that DU would as well.

There is no doubt what John and Teresa Kerry were doing there with Obama's blessing. Not to mention, this was not secret. The sad thing is that that approach failed. Maybe it would have been better to double down on it, rather than support the nascent FSA back in 2011- but that was not Kerry's decision. At that point, the right questioned why Obama (and specifically then Senator Kerry) was not supporting overthrowing Assad, as was done with Mubarek, or helping militarily, as we did against Gaddhfi. However, we are where we are. When the Arab spring started, Kerry pushed Assad to try to reform his government to avoid exactly what is happening.

[karynnj]

15. It was in this case - and Teresa has helped him in other places as well

- including Sudan, South Africa (where her past as marching in SA against apartheid helps), and Pakistan.

What Kerry was trying to do was to move Assad to reform and to stop helping Hezbollah. Ironically, DU hero, Chelsea Manning, actually supports that Kerry's intent and actions were exactly what he claimed. There are cables from various regional meetings Kerry had that spoke of Syria. He gave Assad nothing - calling on him to do real things before the US did anything more than restoring an ambassador there. This was to increase the likelihood of pushing Syria away from Iran and Hezbollah. (The Boston Globe studied the Wikileak cables involving Kerry. )

[ProSense]

19. State dinners and like events. It happens all the time. n/t

[Thinkingabout]

9. KittyWampus, it seems the ODS bunch is out in full color today, don't understand how gears

works together to get the job done.

[leftstreet]

10. It's so 'diplomatic' to compare Assad to Hitler

Did he have the guts to do that at the dinner table?

"Bashar Assad now joins the list of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein [who] have used these weapons in time of war," he said.

Kerry is an embarrassment

[KittyWampus]

12. Had Assad's forces gassed 1000 civilians yet? Your being so uninformed is kind of embarrassing.

[leftstreet]

17. Why don't you and Kerry prove Assad did it? n/t

[ProSense]

13. "Did he have the guts to do that at the dinner table?"

When did Assad launch the chemical attacks?

It's not Kerry who is an "embarrassment."

[leftstreet]

18. Where is the evidence Assad launched a chemical attack?

[ProSense]

25. Who launched the attacks? n/t

[leftstreet]

29. Exactly! Who did it? n/t

[karynnj]

27. Kerry is responding now to something done in the last 2 weeks

Back in 2009, Assad's government had not just killed over 1000 people in a chemical weapons attack - which he then followed with 5 days of shelling!

Obviously, at this point, he would not be at a dinner table with Assad along with their wives.

[Savannahmann]

16. Um, the picture was from 2009, when John Kerry was Senator Kerry not Secretary Kerry.

[KittyWampus]

23. Then research John Kerry before posting crap f/ the Telegraph. What Committee was he on?

On the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he led a series of hearings from 1987 to 1989 which were a precursor to the Iran–Contra affair.

[Savannahmann]

28. And was Assad any less of a Dictatorial Thug then?

According to the State Department, in 2009 Assad was still a Dictatorial Thug. http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/nea/136080.htm

RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS


Section 1 Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including Freedom From:


a. Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life


During the year there were reports of arbitrary or unlawful deprivation of life.

But that's all right, because the law was changed in 2009 by Assad requiring a two year prison term for Honor Killings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing

[ProSense]

24. He was Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

He made many diplomatic trips.

[JohnnyLib2]

30. Wow. Straight from Drudge to DU.

Whodathunkit?

[Savannahmann]

31. I don't know about Drudge

I read four British News websites including Daily Mail, Telegraph, BBC News, and the Guardian, For American, I read CNN, AP, MSNBC, and the Note from ABC. Then I read the political sites like Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and still when I come here I find news stories I hadn't read yet. I don't read them every day, there is a time factor here. But I do make every effort to make the rounds of the news sites. If Drudge reported it, I am utterly ignorant of that fact.

BTW. Ignorant is defined as not knowing. I also don't know if Alex Jones, Rush, Hannity, or anyone else has reported it from the Right. I wouldn't know unless it was reported on one of the sites I do read.

If you are suggesting that this is RW Propaganda, then my question is this. Why is it that the Dictators we oppose today were our valued allies in the region yesterday? We all know about Cheney and Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam. Perhaps that's what Secretary Kerry meant when he said that Assad was just like Hitler and Saddam. Those were people we liked/admired/cultivated until it was no longer popular to do so. Hitler was Time's man of the year after all. Saddam was our good friend who was fighting Iran until he wasn't fighting Iran anymore. Then the friendship was a little strained to say the least.

[MineralMan]

32. "A cozy dinner," eh.

You're aware that people in high elective office often are required to sit at the table with people with whom they disagree, right? It's called diplomacy, and it happens all the time. As a detail you didn't mention, that photo is from 2009. I don't believe we were dealing with a possible chemical attack by Assad on his own citizens at that time.

What is the point of your post? I'm not sure you've offered that.

[Savannahmann]

33. Actually the excerpt clearly said 2009

Look again, zero edits, and it's right there in the excerpt.

Perhaps you should read the thing before you claim I misled.

[MineralMan]

37. I don't claim you were misled. I claim that you are attempting to mislead.

There is a difference, you know. The fact is that he was doing his job in 2009, as he is today. Today, his job is representing the Obama administration as Secretary of State.

[Savannahmann]

38. OK, for some reason we're not communicating clearly.

The excerpt said the photo was from 2009. My comments outside of the excerpt was that I may have to reconsider my opinions based upon Secretary Kerry's close personal knowledge of Assad.

You claimed that I misled people by not stating it was from 2009. I pointed out that the unedited post included in the excerpt that the photo was from 2009.

Now, you say I am still misleading people. I don't get it. How can I post that the photo was from 2009, and still mislead them about when the photo was taken? Should I have bolded the 2009? Should I have underlined and then bolded? If we had the ability to change color text, should I have considered doing that?

Your assertion is not only falling flat, it is digging a hole. One you seriously should stop digging. Many times you've made interesting and relevant points. This time, you aren't. Take a deep breath, calm down, and realize that I posted the relevant fact you think I am somehow hiding in plain sight.

If anything you are proving the point raised by others that we like dictatorial thugs providing that they are doing what we want, as soon as they stop doing what they want we object to them being dictatorial thugs. Perhaps it's our support of dictatorial thugs when it's convenient that is the problem here. Not your obsession with information that is clearly posted.

[MineralMan]

39. Sitting across the table from someone at

some sort of dinner does not really create a "close personal knowledge." Happens all the time when governments are involved.

See, I think you're trying to build an association that doesn't exist here.

[Savannahmann]

40. Then why did you start off with 2009?

Your objection began with the assertion that I had not posted that the photo was from 2009. An assertion that you made twice despite my pointing out correctly that it was in the original and unaltered post.

Instead you are now pivoting to save face to the obviously tongue in cheek title of the thread. Why are you so determined to find something, anything offensive in the post?

Face it, as a nation we back plenty of dictatorial thugs. Democrats and Republicans do it. We wrap it in all sorts of excuses, be it realpolitik, a comprehensive world view. Or sometimes we say it is the limits of power. In the end, we back many dictatorial thugs.

I found it hilarious that Saudi Arabia would come out and complain that Assad was a totalitarian regime and unanswerable to the people. Perhaps nobody told the King of Saudi Arabia, but that is a totalitarian regime too, and it is hardly the only one we support constantly in the region. Kuwait and Qatar are two others with potentate who answer to nobody, which is the very definition of Totalitarian. We oppose to some extent or another totalitarian regimes who don't espouse loyal and friendly statements about us. We support those who do.

Why is Assad a worse guy in 2012 and 2013 than he was in 2009? He was killing innocents in 2009. He was doing it in 2008. But the region was essentially peaceful, and nobody was protesting.

So what else do you have as an objection? Was my punctuation not to your standard? The good news is at least now you're dropped the obviously false assertion that I misled people with the 2009 claim. What's next?

[MineralMan]

41. We appear to be moving away from any sensible discussion.

So, I believe I will simply withdraw.

[spanone]

34. hit piece full of speculation....

[Cha]

35. BFD. You think you got Kerry? Things fucking change from 2009

to 2013 when Assad has dropped chemical bombs on women and children.. flaunted his assholery in front of the world.

Scrape something else outta the barrel.