Kerry On Chemical Weapons: They Were There Before They Were There

Since the start of the Iraqi war, Democrats have made a living saying there were no weapons of mass destruction, specifically chemical weapons, in Iraq when America attacked. Now after years of Obama and his Democrat chorus claiming Bush misled the American people on Iraq, Secretary of State, John Kerry recently claimed that the chemical weaponry used on the Syrian people was the same chemical weaponry that Saddam Hussein smuggled out of Iraq in the final moments before we attacked. Someone should ask the liberals advancing that theory, which Russian President Vladimir Putin promptly called an outright falsehood. The question that begs answering is if Saddam Hussein never had chemical weapons, as Obama, Kerry, and their “Bush lied choir” are on record claiming, how can the chemical weapons used in Syria be from Iraq? And if he Hussein sneaked them out of Iraq in the hours before he was attacked, why did Obama, Kerry, et al. claim they never existed? Or were they there before they were there?

I suggest this was directed to those at the bottom of the Flesch-Kincaid readability test, and it would have worked flawlessly if not for Putin exposing the lie. It was classic sleight-of-hand by Obama. By having Kerry claim the chemical weapons were from Hussein’s Iraq they could then create a dialog amongst the low-information people that would turn the conversation to what Bush did wrong, and Obama now has the ordained responsibility to straighten out. Hence the talking points diatribes by Bob Beckel, et al. blaming Syria on Bush.

[adsanity id=8405 align=alignleft /]The problem, as Dan Bubablo, my colleague on the Daily Rant made crystal clear in his tremendous article “The Obama Presidency In A Nutshell, is this”: “…it is well documented that in the class of clowns from 2007, then- Senators Obama, Clinton, Kerry, Biden, McCain and Hagel opposed vociferously the recommendations of President Bush with respect to imposing severe sanctions on Syria’s Assad for human rights abuses…”(http://newdailyrant.wpengine.com/)

Obama attacked President Bush for years pursuant to the Iraq war, and now Obama and his liberal minions are A)blaming Bush for the problems in Syria and B)clamoring that America has a sworn duty to go to war with Syria and depose the legally elected leader — which will, without question, result in a Sharia state.

Every good liberal under the sun will at the mention of the late Senator Joseph McCarthy recoil and have nothing but denigrating things to say about him. But while the facts may (and I do say may) show that McCarthy might have become enamored with the importance of his mission the facts unequivocally also show he wasn’t wrong. Communism had, by the 1950s, entrenched itself into the fabric of America and was winding its way through Hollywood.

Amongst other things, people attacked FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover for spying on Dr. Martin Luther King. But these same people never mention the avowed communist Bayard Rustin who was a key member of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of which Dr. King was an unwitting part. Blacks and liberals curse Hoover’s FBI for wiretapping Dr. King. But these same people are silent as Obama spies on our emails and taps our phone calls.

Liberals and those given over to lies about documented history give new meaning to willful blindness.

It is my opinion that Obama isn’t as hell-bent on bringing down Assad as he would want people to believe. I believe he is much more hell-bent on eroding the superiority of America on the world stage. And I believe he is committed to do so because his Neo-Leninist proclivities lead him to view America as the great evil who has bullied the world.

It is also my opinion that by churning as much attention on Syria as possible focus is turned away from the murders in Benghazi of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty. I conclude that Obama is willing to walk naked through the fires of hell rather than allow Benghazi to come under the glare of a full-out investigation. The question remains, “Why?” But, that said, the shadows surrounding the truth of what Obama is trying desperately to keep covered up in Benghazi are shrinking appreciably.

[adsanity id=9462 align=alignleft /]