Something has been bugging all weekend. Something so crazy it almost doesn't make sense. I sort of feel like when Dr. Johnny Fever quipped, "this is so crazy and messed-up, even I understand it!"
What has been bugging me? It was a simple headline, "Kerry: Assad has to go, but timing can be negotiated" in the Times of Israel. To me, that has got to be one of the stupidest damn things Kerry has ever said, and that's saying a lot. The headlines itself is ludicrous, the Obama Administration has failed miserably with regards to Syria. How the hell they expect to negotiate a time for Assad to step down is beyond me. Clinton and then Kerry have been trying to get rid of Assad since 2011.
Think about that for a moment, Mr. Obama has been trying to push Mr. Assad out of office which means that the US either overtly or covertly supported the opposition to Assad (now known as ISIS). ISIS is supposedly an even bigger threat than al Qaeda which means we should be looking for any help in defeating them, especially from someone who has intimate knowledge of ISIS. Someone like say Assad.
Adding to the failure of ousting Assad was Obama's withdrawal of troops from Iraq. A perfect storm was thus created allowing ISIS to rapidly expand and occupy territory. Don't let the Obama Administration or their lackeys at the Pentagon fool you, no one actually believed the Iraqi Army was ready to take over responsibilities from the US troops.
All of the troubles started because of an obsession by the Obama Administration with the one leader to survive the Arab Spring. Now Kerry wants to continue this ridiculous and untenable line of thinking. Let's just say for the sake of argument that Assad does step down, who then becomes President of Syria? And whoever that is, would they have the ability to resist ISIS? More than likely, it would be someone who then s torture and secret police to maintain power. Sounds a little like Iran under the Shah.
Speaking of Iran, Kerry now wants Iran and Russia to help convince Assad to step down. First, I doubt Iran would be interested in having Syria experience the same US policy that led to the Shah being in power. US history when it comes to ousting political leaders has been remarkably bad over the years. There is no indication that it would be any different in Syria.
Second, why would Russia be inclined to oust their ally? Syria has provided the Soviet Union and now Russia with a warm water port on the Mediterranean. Adding another military facility would insure that Russian interests continue unimpeded by US or ISIS.
To all of which, Kerry and Clinton (as part of her campaign talking points) now want the US to take in 65,000 Syrian refugees. Huh? The Obama Administration abandoned and ignored the plight of the Syrians up until now. Obama did nothing to help European allies who are being inundated by refugees fleeing the conflict his policies help create. And what of those refugees, exactly who are they? ISIS could easily pose as some of the refugees.
How crazy is all of this? Obama's failed policy in the Middle East, headed up by Presidential hopeful Clinton and failed Presidential hopeful Kerry, created ISIS, left Iraq in a far worse state that it was under Bush, and now sees Europe bursting at the seems with refugees. It makes sense only when you realize that Obama thinks that he and his administration are infallible and that there are no consequences for their mistakes.