Our very selective outrage over "moral obscenities"

[markpkessinger]

Last edited Tue Aug 27, 2013, 11:50 PM - Edit history (2)

Let us stipulate at the outset that the chemical attack in Syria was heinous, whomever the responsible party might be. Yes, indeed, it was, as Secretary Kerry put it, a "moral obscenity." But here's the thing: such "moral obscenities" occur all the time throughout the world. Indeed, was it not a moral obscenity when the Egyptian military slaughtered hundreds of Egyptian civilians just a couple of weeks ago? Yet there was no rush to respond and precious few calling it out as some "moral obscenity." Not to mention, has not the U.S. committed a few of its own moral obscenities in recent years? Are not the deaths of innocent bystanders killed by U.S. drones also a moral obscenity? Yet I see few calls to hold the U.S. accountable for its own morally obscene actions.

The very selective nature of Secretary Kerry's moral outrage is itself a "moral obscenity." It was invoked for the singular purpose of banging the war drums, to pave the way for yet another instance of U.S. military adventurism in the Middle East. Those who support this misguided venture should ask themselves this question: given the utterly abysmal record of "accomplishment" whenever the U.S. has intervened in the internal strife of Middle Eastern countries, what possible basis do you have for thinking intervening in Syria would result in any positive outcome whatsoever?

[blm]

1. You haven't been paying attention to Syria or Kerry's efforts there to prevent

war since 2005, right? You are way off base.

[markpkessinger]

2. I don't believe that I am off base . . .

. . . but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

[PDJane]

3. No, he isn't.

Remember Iraq? Remember Saddam's use of chemical weapons (supplied, use encouraged) of chemical weapons?

Nothing Kerry can do will erase US history.

[markpkessinger]

10. Thank you . . .

. .. Alas, memories are short, so it seems.

[blm]

14. Alas, some of you have no memories regarding Syria.

Kerry's constant efforts to prevent war in Syria went unnoticed by many Dems and at DU, apparently. The RWers noticed and vilified him for it regularly. Why? Because Kerry thought war could be avoided. And he was right...for years. Assad has lost it since the Arab spring, and became increasingly paranoid. Understandable, but, you still don't want someone that crazed heading a nation and causing so much suffering for its people.

Would you have preferred attacking Syria in 2005? No credit for those who actually took the time to prevent war, to resist war when most wanted war?


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/kerry-frequent-visitor-syrian-dictator-bashar-al-assad_690885.html

[markpkessinger]

16. What he did as a Senator . . .

. . . Isn't necessarily the same as what he is required to do as the President's employee.

[blm]

22. The point is that NEITHER men wanted this and they are NOT manufacturing

a case to invade. They've resisted for years, and you have no desire to factor that in to your own analysis.

[markpkessinger]

23. Then why have they not made a similar case to invade Egypt?

And where is their moral outrage over the innocent bystanders killed by drones? Sorry, but their hypocrisy is glaring.

[blm]

35. You're reaching. Egypt had an election last year.

What's going on now in Syria is Assad's reaction to Arab Spring and he is not exactly showing sound judgement in regards to the wellbeing of his people.

[markpkessinger]

43. Yes, it had an election . . .

. . . the results of which have been overturned by a military coup. And the military has slaughtered, just a couple of weeks ago, hundreds of civilians who were in the streets demanding that the results of that election be honored. So no, I'm not reaching -- rather, you are ignoring an inconvenient reality.

[blm]

76. Baloney - you wanted to know what the difference was. It is clear.

You are trying to cover for what you haven't known about Syria the last 8 years with your sideways attacks on Kerry and even me, instead of taking the time and energy to understand the long process that Kerry and also Obama has gone through to AVOID war.

[sabrina 1]

50. So why do you think Kerry has changed his mind now?

[karynnj]

65. The scope of this last attack is not one that can be ignored

Obama has said it would be a red line -- and for some "limited" attacks he did not move. I assume that Obama made the decision that he could not just ignore this -- and had Kerry give the speech. Kerry was very clearly repulsed by what has happened. He was also the one who spoke to Syrians about letting the inspectors in immediately --- not after 5 days of shelling.

[sabrina 1]

67. Was he repulsed by the use of White Phosphorous in Fallujah? I know I was

especially since our country was responsible. I don't recall any statements from Kerry when the rest of the world was expressing outrage.

If repulsive human rights violations is the reason for our 'rush to war' again, I have a LIST.

So why Syria? Compared to other parts of the world, even with this attack, and they do not know who is responsible until the UN completes its inspection, there are places were human rights abuses of mammoth proportions are happening every day.

And what will a military attack do to make it better? Kill MORE people, like we did in Iraq?

The US helped Saddam Hussein eg, when he gassed his own people.

Right now the US is turning as blind eye towards horrendous human violations in Bahrain.

Not to mention our War Criminals. They killed far more innocent people with WMDs, over one million.

So what gives us the moral authority to be 'outraged' at anyone else before we clean up our own act??

Hans Blix says that the 'US is not the world's policeman'. That they are doing now what they did in Iraq, rushing in before the the UN report.

And we all know how that turned out.

I am completely opposed to this new war, I do not believe for a minute it is about what happened in Syria. Not for one minute. We don't care about people being hit with WMDs or Chemical Weapons .We USED them against the Iraqis, I saw photos of the bodies.

IF Kerry was 'really disturbed' about this, he would have been horrified when his own country did it.

This is how judge someone's sincerity, not by their words, by their actions.

[karynnj]

70. Kerry has spoken against things the US did

Incomplete list
1) Vietnam
2) Supporting the Contras
3) Abu Ghraib - calling on Rumsfeld to resign. (Note that especially for JK speaking of war crimes while running to be President is noteworthy and something most others did not speak out on (Dean was the only other one to do so to my knowledge).
4) He also implied the Iraq war was not a just war by saying it was "not a war of last resort" - for a year and a half.
5) In 2006, he said the Iraq war was immoral at TakeBack America.

As to Fallujah, the timing - November 2004 - right after he lost, would not have been a time when he easily could have spoken out - and - to my knowledge - the US never admitted the use of WP and it was reported only in non mainstream publications. I assume that he would have at least waited to be sure it was true.

[blm]

86. Because Assad has grown increasingly paranoid the last 2yrs.

Understandably so, given the last two years in that post-ArabSpring region.

His decreasing reason is causing miscalculations that are devastating for his country.

Kerry is dealing with the reality that exists. He would NOT agree with use of military force in Syria unless it was a last resort.

Here's an idea of how scorned erry had been for his constant efforts to appeal to Assad in the years before and after the Arab Spring uprisings.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/kerry-frequent-visitor-syrian-dictator-bashar-al-assad_690885.html

[blm]

24. And you didn't even read before you posted.

Try researching Kerry's efforts with Assad and Syria the last 8 years. You certainly didn't know before you posted your nowhere near accurate analysis.

[markpkessinger]

25. He has only been Secretary of State since January n/t

[blm]

28. Exactly. He began interfering back in 2005 when Bush/Clintons wanted

to strike in Syria.

But for Kerry's interference then we'd have gone to war there. He literally flew there when he saw what they wanted and established a relationship with Assad that has lasted a long time....all to stop the next war. For Kerry to get to the point where it's a last resort decision is completely different than what went on with Iraq.

Now, you're trying to play catch up on what has been going on in Syria and dumping on the ONE PERSON, the oNLY person, who worked his ass off the hardest to prevent war there with no credit the last 8 years, just constant sniping from those angry at his interventions.

[markpkessinger]

30. That may all well be . . .

. . . but it doesn't change the fact that today, right now, Kerry and the Administration are busy building a case for war.

[blm]

36. As an HONEST BROKER, mark. This isn't happening based on

a manufactured case. If you knew the facts to how hard he has tried to stop any use of military force in Syria for so many years, you would understand that this is not happening based on lies and there isn't any manipulation of Kerry.

[markpkessinger]

38. We don't KNOW who is responsible for the attack . . .

. . . There are only opinions, and the administration has presented no evidence to substantiate its opinion that the Assad regime was behind it. I don't know and you don't know (although you obviously think you do).

As for anyone "deserving" to be deemed an "honest broker," when it comes to war, as far as I am concerned, ANYONE making the case for war deserves to be treated with the very highest level of skepticism. And I think history bears me out on the wisdom of such skepticism. It is up to the administration to make the case; so far, they haven't done so.

[blm]

41. Yes, we DON'T know. Kerry would be the first told by UN inspectors

and I know he worked too hard for too long to prevent war there, and wouldn't be manipulated into it. He'd side with the inspectors.

[markpkessinger]

42. As for being an "honest broker" . . .

Kerry's mention of Doctors Without Borders in his remarks today, after that organization yesterday released a press conference distancing itself from any assertions regarding who is responsible for the attack, wasn't exactly "honest."

[blm]

48. If this story really matters to you, then you'll

be reading more about it to catch up so you fully understand it better, right?

Instead of wasting time attacking based on what you DON'T know.

[cali]

73. you're the one who knows absolutely nothing whatsofuckingever about Syria

you adore and worship Kerry. And there is an abundance of evidence in the form of your devoted posts about how JK is a hero who can do no harm. YOU post nothing to support your claims.

It's sad. lame.

[blm]

75. I absolutely posted support. Who do YOU think has kept

the US out of war with Syria the last 8 years, cali?

I have only posted the facts about Kerry. Sorry the facts of his career don't rise to your level of acceptance, however, those who DO focus on matters of government corruption and global terrorism the last 25 years DO see him through a different lens.

[karynnj]

66. Note that his comment re DWB did not assign blame - just that there was an attack

The comment was to Russia that was contesting whether there had been an attack at all.

[markpkessinger]

26. And you haven't addressed the central question posed by the OP . . .

. . . What possible basis do you have to believe there would be any positive outcome whatsoever from U.S. intervention in Syria?

[blm]

32. I don't know. I do know that Kerry is an honest broker in this, and for

him to get to this point with Assad it has to be extremely serious.

You work to prevent a war for 8 years you deserve to be seen as an honest broker.

You assumed he was only out there beating war drums, completely ignorant f the previous 8 years.

[markpkessinger]

34. Sounds like a gloss on . . .

. . . Brittney Spears' "We should just trust whatever our President says. . ."

[blm]

37. BS. I know a helluva lot about Syria because I've followed it

closely for over a decade. You're the one sounding like an under informed Brittany and you're clinging to your own assessment even after you've been directed to enough information where you could easily find the facts you lack.

Apparently you have the energy to stick to your faux narrative, but, no energy to do a search about Kerry's efforts to prevent war in Syria the last 8 years.

[OnyxCollie]

60. First you criticize the media coverage of the NSA leaks

and now you defend the administration's stance toward Syria.

It seems out of character for you, blm. Or perhaps I have misjudged you over the eight years I have seen your posts and this is the way you've always been, only not so much.

[blm]

78. Try reading up on Kerry's work in Syria to AVOID war

the last 8 years and perhaps you'll realize how off base some of you are being. He is the LAST person in DC who wanted military force in Syria to be necessary. Why some of you who never paid attention to the last 8 years of hard work there, now are claiming wildly that Kerry is pushing lies to get into war that Obama and he are eager to start is just plain old WRONG.

Would Bush have worked for 8 years to AVOID war in Iraq? No. And Colin Powell didn't, either.

Kerry did. Obama did. What's happening in Syria is completely different, and force would be used as a LAST resort. EIGHT YEARS this process to keep Syria in a place of peace has been going on. The Arab Spring changed Assad. Understandably so, but, changed....unfortunately, for the worse.

[cali]

74. +1000. the adorers mindlessly go with the "trust them" shit.

[blm]

87. Based on the FACTS of his work in Syria the last 8yrs

that you refuse to acknowledge and further refuse to factor in to your uninformed, knee jerk judgement of Kerry's remarks.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

56. I disagree.

He's not the President's employee. He's our employee. So is the President.

[markpkessinger]

57. As a member of the Cabinet . . .

. . . he is answerable to the President, and obligated to pursue the President's priorities. That's what I meant by that.

[blm]

12. Yes he is. Kerry's been trying to stop war in Syria PERSONALLY since 2005

and he has taken a ton of criticism for his efforts. Had any of you known this you wouldn't possibly be sounding so obtuse now.

Bush had both Clintons and many others supporting an invasion of Syria in 2005, and Kerry went to Assad and developed a relationship with him to try and work through diplomatic measures and he did so on his own knowing that the war hawks wanted to go to war. He kept up the relationship and kept appealing to Assad and his wife's gentler sides while being heavily mocked for it by the GOP and the press.

Obama's big mistake with Syria was tapping Hillary Clinton for Sec of State. She refused to do anything to advance a relationship with Syria, she was never considered an honest broker there, and by 2012 the window of opportunity closed. Had Obama tapped Kerry to be Sec of State from get go, I am certain he would have gotten Assad through the Arab Spring and eventually out of the country.

Now, I expect Kerry will be getting it from all those who were willfully ignorant about Syria matters the last 8 years.

[markpkessinger]

13. None of that addresses the selective nature of his moral outrage . . .

. . . Not to mention that Kerry is no longer acting as "his own man," but is now answerable to the President in a way he wasn't prior to becoming Secretary of State.

[blm]

46. Baloney. You had no clue about Kerry's efforts before you judged his words.

The point being that he would only act as a last resort. He knows Assad better than anyone in the US, and would have succeeded in preventing war had he been Sec of State from day one.

You are clueless to the efforts he took the last 8 years to avoid war there. War with Syria was expected to come in 2005, but for Kerry's interference then. You think YOU could go up against the forces of Bushes and both Clintons and their circle of war hawks and get in their way?



http://billclintondailydiary.blogspot.com/2005/03/rafiq-hariri-and-lebanon.html
BILL CLINTON DAILY DIARY
IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF CURRENT EVENTS, PERSONAL STORIES AND HUMOR



FRIDAY, MARCH 25, 2005

Rafiq Hariri and Lebanon
I read the newspapers this morning over two cups of coffee. I’m allowed to drink coffee again. I’m happy about that. The most interesting articles were the ones dealing with the UN report pertaining to the international investigation into the murder of Rafiq Hariri. The UN report does not assign blame to either the Lebanese or the Syrian governments.

It does blame the Lebanese government and the Syrian intelligence forces for an atmosphere of violence and hate and the lack of law and order in Lebanon. It also says the Lebanese government didn’t do a good job investigating the murder and there should be an international investigation. It also clearly says that Bashar Assad, during a meeting threatened to harm Rafiq Hariri and Druze leader Walid Jumblatt if they stood in his way.

I agree with this report. I’m certain Bashar Assad ordered the assassination of Rafiq Hariri, but in international affairs you can’t do anything without proof. I’m certain the international investigation will find proof linking Bashar Assad to the murder of my friend Rafiq Hariri.

The reason I’m so confident is the fact that it took the FBI years to find the culprits, who had blown up the plane over Lockerbie, Scotland, but they found them and linked them to the Libyan government. And when the investigation succeeds, there will be hell to pay for Assad.

He probably thought the United States wouldn’t care about the death of an Arab politician. But Rafiq Hariri isn’t just some politician and Lebanon isn’t just some country in the Arab world.

Rafiq Hariri had many friends all over the world. I’m proud to say he considered me a friend. I talked to him ten days before his assassination. I was later debriefed by a few national security agents, who were interested in this conversation.

Bashar Assad made the mistake of thinking we, Americans didn’t care about Lebanon. We do and the reason for that is pretty much the same as the reason most Americans like Israel. Lebanon is a democratic and pluralistic society. What’s more there are hundreds of thousands of Lebanese Americans living in the United States. Most Americans have neighbors, who descend from families, who came from Lebanon.

For instance, one of the most respected journalists in Washington, Helen Thomas has Lebanese ancestry. Same goes for Senator Edward Kennedy’s wife. Lebanese Americans are a very successful and respected group in our society. And for that matter in the Democratic Party.

Even France, whose president Chirac was a friend and business partner of Rafiq Hariri has made it clear this situation has to be dealt with.

The international community does not take it lightly when a president murders a politician of another country. I have no idea what Bashar Assad was thinking, when he gave the order to kill my friend, but one thing I know for certain, murdering foreign politicians in a manner reminiscent of Michael Corleone in the Godfather will not stand. He has lost any respect any foreign head of state had for him.

Finally, Bashar Assad doesn’t seem to understand how serious this administration is about dealing with rogue states and state sponsors of terrorism. Let me clarify this. Syria is not the objective, it’s a barrier on the road to Iran.

The Syrian president has made three mistakes in one years. One, he appointed Emile Lahoud president of Lebanon for another three years against the will of the vast majority of Lebanese and in spite of the Lebanese constitution. Two, he murdered Rafiq Hariri. Three, he allied himself with Iran.

The United States can not allow Iran to have nuclear bombs. We know the ayatollahs in Tehran want them and will do anything to get them. The Bush administration is intent on stopping them.

There are two ways to stop them. One, we destroy their nuclear facilities or two we bring down the regime, which wants them. Regime change in Iran isn’t easy.

Iran is a big country, with a lot of money, because of its oil and gas reserves and has a population of about seventy million people, most of them young and of military age. Invading Iran is out of the question. Bombing Iran is possible, but won’t have the intended result. The only avenue left is to mortally wound the regime in Iran by cutting off its tentacles.

The first one is Hizballah in Lebanon, the second one is the Syrian regime.

I saw an interesting article in a newspaper, when I was in the hospital. It said someone had written pro- Sistani words on a wall in the Hizballah dominated Bekaa Valley. The reason I thought this was interesting is simple. Grand Ayatollah Sistani is the leader of the Shia in Iraq. He is a direct rival of the ayatollahs in Iran, who claim they are the leaders of all Shia in the world.

The Shia religion is structured in the same fashion as Catholicism. There is a pope and there are lower ranking priests. The leader of Iran Khamenei considers himself the “pope” of all Shia, including the ones in Iraq, but also the ones in Lebanon.

This is by the way the reason why the ayatollahs in Iran are interested in helping Hizballah. They are asserting their dominance as leaders of the Shia faith.

Their only rival for the title of “pope” is grand ayatollah Sistani of Iraq. His brand of Shia Islam is more moderate and democratic than the brand the Iranians are trying to sell to the Shia world. If we want to undermine the ayatollahs in Iran, we must support Sistani in Iraq and we must do everything possible to promote Najaf as the real base of Shia Islam. Now that Sistani seems to be making inroads in the Bekaa Valley, this might end the pro- Iranian Hizballah’s stranglehold on the Shia in Lebanon.

Hizballah lost its reason to exist after Israel pulled out of Lebanon. Hizballah knows this. The Shia in Lebanon want the same things as the rest of the Lebanese, a good education and jobs. Hizballah can’t provide those things, so they will never be as important as they used to be. As they lose votes, so will the Iranian ayatollahs lose influence over the Shia in Lebanon.

Coming back to Syria, when the international investigation proves Bashar Assad was behind the murder of Hariri, the UN will impose sanctions on Syria. Syria, which is a poor country with only about 15 million inhabitants will be hit hard. If the sanctions don’t bring down the government of Bashar Assad, they will certainly cripple his grip on power and undermine his influence in the region and his capacity to help the Iranians.

This is a good thing for Lebanon. It will calm down the situation in the region, possibly leading to the creation of a Palestinian state. This would mean that the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees living in Lebanon can go home.

All in all, Bashar Assad made the mistake of his life when he decided to kill my friend.
POSTED BY BILL CLINTON AT 12:03 PM

[PowerToThePeople]

63. blm, thank you

I do not know the history behind Syria very well. Your posts are informative. I am 100% against any action that is not UN. If we wish to support UN actions, fine. I do not want the USA going in all "cowboy" to any more countries.

[blm]

79. Thank you. Once people research the last 8years, they would see

this far more clearly.

[snooper2]

81. Most people posting about this really don't care, they are just looking for any anti-administration

topic they can cling to. And there are plenty of trolls on here helping them along.

[karynnj]

68. Kerry has issued statements on many many things that he has thought were wrong

in many many countries -going back to 1971 when he spoke out against the US war in Vietnam. He was nearly alone in the Seante against the US aiding the Contras.

How many other Senators ever called the war in Iraq "immoral" as he did in the 2006 Take Back America Speech?

While it is true that when he speaks he is seen as representing the President, so he is not free to speak as freely as he did as Senator, but this is an intensely personal speech that obviously reflects his opinion as much as that of the President.

[leveymg]

33. My opinion on Kerry's role re: Syria has shifted along with Kerry's role. He's no longer the

leader of the peacemaker camp I once thought he was. That is a deeply disturbing realization about the man, who for years I thought was one of the few genuine good guys in DC.

[blm]

39. OK - you're all right. Kerry cooked the intel to go to war.

He did it personally.

He betrayed his longtime friend Bashir Assad to do so, too. Poor Assad still can't understand how Kerry could do that to him after Kerry spent the last 8 years keeping the US from using military force in Syria.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3675201,00.html


Especially after all the constant crap that has been thrown at Kerry for spending so much time trying to PREVENT war in Syria. You people SHOULD know better. You don't. Apparently Syria was never really on the radar for so many of you at DU.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/kerry-frequent-visitor-syrian-dictator-bashar-al-assad_690885.html

[leveymg]

44. I didn't say Kerry personally cooked the intel and I'm sure he wouldn't describe Assad as a personal

friend; at this point, I'd say John is violently disaffected and disillusioned, as only someone who was once morally invested in seeing a peaceful outcome and had come to realize that Assad and his circle are devious and ruthless bastards.

Syria has been on the radar for some of us since long before March 2011. It's been on my list at least going back to my initial read of the 1997 PNAC manifesto, A Clean Break, and how prominently it features as regime change target along with Lebanon after Iraq and before Iran in that document. Some things take time, but some of us don't forget where these sorts of glorious moral crusades really come from and the level of cynicism that drives them to their carefully planned conclusions. We are seeing just another step along the way, tonight.

[blm]

51. I was arguing with everyone above. Not just you.

They want to believe he's following the game plan on Iraq without knowing anything about his work the last 8 years to KEEP the US from going in to Syria the way Bushes and Clintons and establishment DC wanted back in 2005.

Seriously, NONE of them know anything about Syria or the last 8years, and it's frustrating to listen to their assessments based on the news reports from the last month.

The whole picture tells a completely different story.

Yes, Obama made an ENORMOUS screw up in regards to Syria - He should NEVER have tapped Hillary Clinton to be Sec of State - she had been committed to war in Syria since, at least, 2005, and probably as long as Bush and Cheney.

That we haven't gone to war in Syria the last 8 years has been because of Kerry's personal efforts and investment in the peace process.

[leveymg]

52. All true. But, he appears to have, in the end, come over to the War Party.

Or am I misreading his statement, and how might I misunderstand what has happened? Please, I would like to retain some thread of hope that this isn't going to actually happen as it was described 15 years ago by Doug Feith, the Wurmsers, and Richard Perle.

I am on your side, and appreciate your bringing up the the critical roles of Clinton and Petraeus. It seemed all of six to twelve months ago that maybe Obama had sent them packing. But, it appears now they may have the last laugh.

[blm]

80. Sad truth is that they left a clusterfvck in Syria because

she wouldn't jeopardize her future presidency by going that public. There was a window of opportunity in Syria after the Arab Spring that she wouldn't take, because they wanted Assad gone. Obama gave Kerry some room to negotiate with Assad apart from State Dept through the summer of 2012, and until Assad's paranoia became too overwhelming.

Neither one of them WANTS war. If they are at this point it's for a darn good reason.

[snappyturtle]

4. Good question! I wrote about the moral obscenity that Kerry

ragged on and on and on about today....what about the innocent
women and children and innocent bystanders to our drone attacks?
Who does he think he talking to?

We're going to war...period. Read this afternoon that the Brits have
planes arriving on Cyprus; the Israelis are buying gas masks, Russia
is verbalizing threats....yep, it's on!

[markpkessinger]

5. Exactly n/t

[Throd]

6. I thought this would be a Miley thread. I'm out.

[markpkessinger]

7. I have barely a passing knowledge of who Miley Cirus even is . . .

. . . and I don't generally use this site to comment on pop culture. Sorry to disappoint.

[Throd]

11. Unfortunately vapid poop-culture worship leads to apathy about your OP

We might be bombing Syria in a few hours, but look over there! Some celebrity did something stupid!

[leftstreet]

8. Creepy how Obama just asked for immunity for war criminals

Now Kerry getting all tough-guy about invading

[markpkessinger]

9. Isn't it, though? n/t

[Seeking Serenity]

15. The President didn't "ask" for any such thing.

Get real.

If you're referring to that badly written and hyperbolic-designed-to-stoke-unthinking-outrage Common Dreams blog post, it's badly written, the headline is very misleading and it has factual inaccuracies.

[markpkessinger]

17. I think leftstreet is referring to this:

http://warisacrime.org/sites/afterdowningstreet.org/files/Certification%20of%20Scope%20of%20Employment.pdf

[Seeking Serenity]

20. That's a civil lawsuit

Government officials, whether elected or civil service, as a general rule, enjoy immunity from civil lawsuits (as opposed to criminal proceedings) when acting within the scope of their duties.

[markpkessinger]

21. "when acting in the scope of their duties" . . .

. . . is not typically construed to incliude the commission of war crimes.

[leftstreet]

18. Guess you're kinda right - the DOJ did n/t

[FSogol]

19. Of course that applies to 99% of all Common Dreams Crap.

[reusrename]

29. If we are going to make killing legal during war, then we better enforce the law.

I'm getting sick of this crap. I don't know if legalized killing is necessarily a good thing or not, but many good people have signed onto this idea of Just and Unjust Wars.

If we are ever going to enforce any laws at all, we should begin by enforcing the war crimes statues, both under US and international law. The people responsible for the crimes should be hunted down and, if possible, tried in the appropriate forum.

We know there are many war criminals, each of whom can easily be identified, walking around free as can be without a worry. It ain't right. This administration is responsible, both as a government organization and as individuals, for investigating and punishing war crimes, including torture. It's the damn law of the land - 18 USC § 2441 - War crimes.

They are not just morally responsible to investigate war crimes, they are each also legally responsible to investigate any credible accusation of torture. It's the damn law!

[markpkessinger]

61. +1000 n/t

[leveymg]

27. What is really obscene about this call to arms that it probably won't have the announced effect,

and its authors, particularly General Dempsey, admit that there is a substantial chance of major unintended consequences that will drag out our involvement leading to escalation at greatly increased costs. In other words (although he doesn't mention the place) Iraq. See his cautionary letter of Aug. 17 to Sen. Levin that may have had some role in triggering someone's decision to carry out a false flag attack.

[markpkessinger]

31. Precisely n/t

[Catherina]

40. Nobody does moral obscenity like our MIC government. n/t

[markpkessinger]

45. Indeed! n/t

[sabrina 1]

47. Has Kerry ever said anything about the 'moral obscenity' of Bush's use of

White Phosphorous in Fallujah? I don't recall.

[markpkessinger]

49. Very good question . . .

. . . I don't recall either.

[karynnj]

71. Maybe you should listen to this -- where he calls the Iraq War "immoral"

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC4QtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DEfetW7VMOdw&ei=nj4cUtmBBYii9QS96oDADA&usg=AFQjCNHjAHyd0aY_wVWtaehBB8UXDChkEw&sig2=2iXyLlLQT0OY_lYu9pF7ww&bvm=bv.51156542,d.eWU
This is when a very good MA friend remarked to me that this was a real sign that he did not intend to run in 2008 -- you can't go back after saying "immoral".

[karynnj]

69. He called the Iraq war immoral

at the 2006 Take Back America - https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC4QtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DEfetW7VMOdw&ei=nj4cUtmBBYii9QS96oDADA&usg=AFQjCNHjAHyd0aY_wVWtaehBB8UXDChkEw&sig2=2iXyLlLQT0OY_lYu9pF7ww&bvm=bv.51156542,d.eWU As to Fallujah, there were claims but it was never mainstream information that WP was used -- and that was in November 2004. At that point, it is not clear that Kerry speaking out would be even reported or taken seriously.

Now, before you say why not earlier - consider that he actually said as much in 2003 and 2004 while running for President. In those years, he did not bluntly say it was "immoral" as he did in 2006, he instead used words that meant it was immoral. Throughout that time, he constantly - more than once a day - spoke of Bush not going to war as a "last resort". This was familiar language to anyone raised as Catholic - and as the Pope himself said, the war in Iraq was not a war of last resort - thus it was illegal. (In 2006, Kerry spoke at Pepperdine University on faith and how it informs politics - and he there spoke of the Catholic concept of just war - and listed why it wasn't.

[sabrina 1]

72. Yet he continued to vote to fund it.

There has been plenty of time since the war crimes in Iraq were committed for members of Congress to ask for an investigation.

The use of White Phosphorous was admitted to by the Pentagon. First it was denied, then an admission was made claiming it was used only to provide 'light' on the battle field.

So I don't think there is any doubt about its use. There should have been an investigation as soon as the admission was announced.

There was plenty of evidence, there so many bodies, photos, witnesses, doctor reports.

But no investigation.

We are hypocrites.

[karynnj]

82. He voted to attach a version of Kerry/Feingold - Reid/Feingold to the funding in 2007

Bush vetoed that version and Kerry voted against the bill without it. However, that was a PROTEST vote - knowing the bill would pass.

Earlier, even Ted Kennedy voted to fund the war. To do otherwise when soldiers were risking their lives would not happen.

[railsback]

53. You're right. We only have two choices: Do EVERYTHING or NOTHING at all

We have our own human rights to protect without worrying about kids getting gassed, like the NSA having the capability to spy on our porn. Priorities.

[markpkessinger]

54. As I said, our outrage over "kids getting gassed" is very, very selective - and hypocritical n/t

[railsback]

58. Well, like you said, we shouldn't do anything

Assad sold his balls to Iran, and can't survive without their troops and military support, and nows just a puppet. The 'rebels' are being supplied by Western powers… this could go on for years. What's a few more hundreds of thousands dead, anyways? We got our own humanitarian problems, like poor, poor Snowden.

[markpkessinger]

55. Right. And being gassed is so much worse than being killed by a drone strike.

[DeSwiss]

59. K&R

- Mr. Secretary, THIS is what a moral obscenity looks.........
[center]

















[/center]

[drokhole]

64. But at least we didn't use CHEMICALS!!!

Though, I'm not sure what depleted uranium counts as these days:

Depleted uranium used by US forces blamed for birth defects and cancer in Iraq

[Sheepshank]

62. Biggest problem i have with this OP are the assumptions

Syrian information has provided sefinitive verification of the use of the government force against it's citizens. While in Egypt, there are civilian fighters as well as the military fitghting back and forth and investiations are still on going. It appears that you want Kerry to make a unilateral decision and determination to assuage your outrage that Kerry has a lack of ourtage.

http://www.rferl.org/content/egypt-killings-us-kerry-reaction/25058870.html

Kerry says he spoke by telephone on July 27 with Egypt’s interim Vice President Muhammad ElBaradei, interim Foreign Minister Nbil Fahmy, and European Union foreign-policy chief Catherine Ashton to express Washington's deep concern about the bloodshed in Cairo and Alexandria.

He said that in the "extremely volatile environment, Egyptian authorities have a moral and legal obligation" to respect the right of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression.

Kerry reiterated Washington’s call for an end to politicized detentions and the release of political leaders so that a meaningful political dialogue can move forward.

He also urged "an independent and impartial inquiry" into the July 27 violence

[G_j]

77. BBC included the comment

that Kerry's speech was meant for the American public. Which could also mean it is propaganda. Not a good way to approach another military adventure.

[stevenleser]

83. I agree that WMD use is a special circumstance. I support the UN and other countries dealing with it

Not us.

We should be done for the next 25-50 instances of enforcing international law or humanitarian interventions.

Start coming back to us after the next 25 and we'll talk.

[JoePhilly]

84. Every situation in every ME country is exactly the same ...

... and we should respond accordingly.

Apparently.

Ironically, that's how Bush was able to sell the Iraq war. Iraq and Afghanistan, Saddam and Osama ... all the same.

And here in this situation ... Egypt = Syria ... apparently.

[librechik]

85. agree. Our foreign policy is a grotesque masquerade.

built on a web of "moral obscenities" disguised as righteous nationalism.

However, we made the choice. We have surrendered direct participation in democracy for a comfortable lifestyle. We have become our own worst enemy.

I see no way to reverse it. Does anyone else?

We have to stop hiding and face up to who we are in fact.

To paraphrase the commercial: "Sorry, US. You Fascist now. "

http://sorryrogeryoutigernow.com

(caution, ear worm)