Let's see here.. anonymous source (likely the WH, likely Cohen) leaks that Rice was unmasking for "political reasons". This is all of course anonymous. Mark Warner, co-chair of the Senate IC via NPR today .."The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee says he has seen "no evidence" that former national security adviser Susan Rice may have improperly surveilled then-President-elect Donald Trump or his aides during the transition.
Hmm... who shall I believe for now? My home Senator who is a centrist and has shown himself above petty politics, or the Trump administration, who time after time counters any charge with an outlandish counter-charge... hmmmm..
1. Was the Armed Services Committee consulted? Clearly the Congress did not provide consent. While not required anymore (unfortunately) it generally has consultation. 2. Is this a violation of international law? 3. How will this escalate US Russia relationship particularly regarding the fighting of ISIS in the eastern part of the country 4. And what is the strategic importance of this airfield, if any?
I just don't understand what Kushner or his wife have ever done to be qualified to be working in the White House. I mean, Ivanka is what? A business woman involved in the fashion industry, and her dad used her as a pretty face on his reality TV show. And Kushner is a real estate developer. So what in God's name do either of them know about anything related to the good of the citizens of America, social policies and programs, war and foreign relations and policy, economics outside of ultra-rich business economics, etc etc etc? Same question applies to just about everyone else in the WH. I just can't fucking believe how unqualified almost everyone in the White House is. I mean fuck. It's pretty scary. One could just as easily take the entire staff in my office here at a university and plunk them down in the White House and tell us to go at it (but we'd make much more humane decisions). Where did these people get the idea that being in business and real estate is anything like government?? It's totally not.
I love that all these anti-semites in the middle east have to deal with a religious jew. That alone makes it worth it.
I just don't understand what Kushner or his wife have ever done to be qualified to be working in the White House. I mean, Ivanka is what? A business woman involved in the fashion industry, and her dad used her as a pretty face on his reality TV show. And Kushner is a real estate developer. So what in God's name do either of them know about anything related to the good of the citizens of America, social policies and programs, war and foreign relations and policy, economics outside of ultra-rich business economics, etc etc etc? Same question applies to just about everyone else in the WH. I just can't fucking believe how unqualified almost everyone in the White House is. I mean fuck. It's pretty scary. One could just as easily take the entire staff in my office here at a university and plunk them down in the White House and tell us to go at it (but we'd make much more humane decisions). Where did these people get the idea that being in business and real estate is anything like government?? It's totally not.
I love that all these anti-semites in the middle east have to deal with a religious jew. That alone makes it worth it.
1. Was the Armed Services Committee consulted? Clearly the Congress did not provide consent. While not required anymore (unfortunately) it generally has consultation. 2. Is this a violation of international law? 3. How will this escalate US Russia relationship particularly regarding the fighting of ISIS in the eastern part of the country 4. And what is the strategic importance of this airfield, if any?
How did he lie? Here's what I read from the site you referenced:
"Kerry said all of Syria’s chemical weapons had been removed. The UN body in charge said that the last of Syria’s declared chemical weapons left the country in late June. There remain, however, some discrepancies in the details of the weapons the Syrians had acknowledged possessing, and some additional work is needed.
With that qualification, we rate the claim Mostly True."
...and...
"In the days and weeks to come, we will learn more about the recent attacks, but in the interest of providing clear information, we have replaced the original fact-check with this update."
Nowhere does it say Kerry made an intentionally false statement. Spin much?
This is Kerry's direct quote: ""we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out."
Kerry lied...people died.
In order for that to be a lie, you have to prove Kerry was aware chemical weapons were present when he said there wasn't.
The UN body in charge said that the last of Syria’s declared chemical weapons left the country.
If you're going to call somebody a liar, you should first understand what a lie is. It's possible he may have been incorrect, but there is nothing to indicate made an intentionally false statement.
Or it's possible the weapons entered the country afterwards. Either way, I don't know how you can ever be certain they were all gone.
In the Framework, Russia and the United States agreed to the following target dates: Syria to provide a comprehensive listing of its weapons to the OPCW by 21 September 2013 Initial OPCW on-site inspections of declared sites to be completed by November 2013 Equipment for producing, mixing, and filling chemical weapons to be destroyed by November 2013 All chemical weapons material and equipment to be eliminated in the first half of 2014
(Chlorine, a common industrial chemical which would later allegedly be used in poison-gas attacks inside Syria in 2014, is not on the list of prohibited chemicals covered by the disarmament agreement.)
So if anyone was lying here, it was Syria.
Yes. Syria and those who ran cover for Assad just to get their deal. I love how you all are so defensive over the massive humanitarian disaster cause by the last 8 years. Talk about a clusterfark. Now Trump is finally responding to the crossing of the red line and years of Obama weakness.
And the idiots called Clinton the warmonger...This sucks.
I wouldn't get too bent out of shape yet.. my guess... this is another marketing ploy essentially. It allows him to show how he is tough and Obama wasn't, when my guess is that he struck a relatively benign military base and probably didn't actually diminish any capabilities.
And the idiots called Clinton the warmonger...This sucks.
Clinton was the neocon in the race but I always had faith that Trump would come around. Now only if he would drop that bomb on Assad's head like I requested.
Let's see here.. anonymous source (likely the WH, likely Cohen) leaks that Rice was unmasking for "political reasons". This is all of course anonymous. Mark Warner, co-chair of the Senate IC via NPR today .."The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee says he has seen "no evidence" that former national security adviser Susan Rice may have improperly surveilled then-President-elect Donald Trump or his aides during the transition.
Hmm... who shall I believe for now? My home Senator who is a centrist and has shown himself above petty politics, or the Trump administration, who time after time counters any charge with an outlandish counter-charge... hmmmm..
And the idiots called Clinton the warmonger...This sucks.
Clinton was the neocon in the race but I always had faith that Trump would come around. Now only if he would drop that bomb on Assad's head like I requested.
And the idiots called Clinton the warmonger...This sucks.
I wouldn't get too bent out of shape yet.. my guess... this is another marketing ploy essentially. It allows him to show how he is tough and Obama wasn't, when my guess is that he struck a relatively benign military base and probably didn't actually diminish any capabilities.
I actually agree with you on this. That being said this is just a first step and a signal and how Assad, Russia and Iran interpret it is what is most important. Do they think it is meaningless and that Trump won't actually go further or do they think he should not be tested? This is where I go back to my argument from the campaign where I said his perceived "craziness" and/or "irrational shooting from the hip" can actually be an asset when it comes to foreign policy. Do enemies become concerned that he is unconstrained by standard international rules and will act forcefully on his own?
Comments
Mark Warner, co-chair of the Senate IC via NPR today .."The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee says he has seen "no evidence" that former national security adviser Susan Rice may have improperly surveilled then-President-elect Donald Trump or his aides during the transition.
Hmm... who shall I believe for now? My home Senator who is a centrist and has shown himself above petty politics, or the Trump administration, who time after time counters any charge with an outlandish counter-charge... hmmmm..
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/04/06/522891616/sen-mark-warner-no-evidence-to-support-trump-political-snooping-claims
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
1. Was the Armed Services Committee consulted? Clearly the Congress did not provide consent. While not required anymore (unfortunately) it generally has consultation.
2. Is this a violation of international law?
3. How will this escalate US Russia relationship particularly regarding the fighting of ISIS in the eastern part of the country
4. And what is the strategic importance of this airfield, if any?
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com