Since his foul up which accidentally saved tens of thousands of Syrian lives, John Kerry has become the man to listen to on international dealings. Not because he is particularly good but because of his humorous ability to put both feet in his mouth in a way that any contortionist would be proud of.
His latest guffaw inducing comment came in an interview on CBS’s 'Face the Nation' where he accused the Russian leader of: 'acting in 19th-century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped-up pretext'.
I didn't see it myself but i assume he kept a straight face when he said it although with all that botox in his face he probably had no choice.
A light hearted moment to make us chuckle in an otherwise terrible situation and William '14 pints' Hague who is the UK version of John 'It's the way i tell 'em' Kerry is on the television looking suitably sombre as he talks about his 'concern over the escalation of tensions in Ukraine' and how he is due to fly to Kiev with Ukraine's new leaders.
Never fear, the Chuckle Brothers Kerry and Hague are on the case and with two such dangerously stupid people involved it can only be a roaring success.
6 comments:
Ive tried to tell you that it wasnt just W that believed sadaam had weapons of mass destruction. All 100 senators and 434 of 435 representatives voted to invade iraq. Kerry was one of the supports.
Q
That's a bit of a lame argument, because they voted on the grounds of manipulated, politicised, cherry-picked intelligence. It was manipulated, politicised, and cherry-picked by the Bush Administration (with a lot of help from their good friends in Downing Street).
Now, in my book this doesn't let the senators off the hook because, at the time, I was reading the reports of genuine experts on the ground, and I thought that there was an extremely good chance that we were all being made the victim of a massive state-run con. I'm nobody special, but it was pretty obvious to me what going on.
Y'know, part of me finds it hard to believe that people are still, in 2014, disputing the mendacity under which the invasion of Iraq was perpetrated... but on the other hand, it's solidified my opinion that many otherwise intelligent people will form their opinion first and then look for the evidence afterwards... and the end result is that they can come to justify the most outlandish of theories in their own minds. Shame, but it seems a very fixed part of the human psyche - made worse, not better, by the way people fall into political/tribal cliques on the internet.
That argument has been made for the past decade and it isn't sounding any better with age. I never mentioned Bush or Iraq either, could have been any of the UK/US adventures of recent times.
in my case it comes back to who you trust. i always trust the US leadership to pursue their best (usually personal - not many pols are martyrs) interests.
that means the senators and representatives that voted to invade can claim ignorance or subversion, but it does not let them off the hook - if indeed W's administration lied.
a senator has unfettered access to the nsa, cia, russians, french, germans, etc. all those sources were saying saddam had wmd's. they also have back channels.
now comes kerry saying the invasion was not trumped up. either kerry is as guilty as W, or neither is guilty.
q
"all those sources were saying saddam had wmd's."
No. But no means all. The sources at the time were reporting highly ambiguous and confused data. It was only by the time word reached us through our wonderful leaders that it all became miraculously unambiguous and unconfused. Funny dat.
If the arguments for deployable WMDs were strong ones, then why did the ones that reached the public arena hinge on the easily debunked word of Ahmed Chalabi, Ayad Allawi, and a student's discredited doctoral thesis from several years before? Answer: Cos they were never strong.
I honestly can't believe we're still discussing this in 2014...
then discussion over. i respectfully grant you the last position statement on the topic.
q
Post a Comment