*LIVESTREAM* 9/3/13 2:30 PM EST - Senate Foreign Relations Committee HEARING on SYRIA. starring...

Gotta love this note from the gov document...

Note: Reports of chemical attacks originating from some locations may reflect the movement of patients exposed in one neighborhood to field hospitals and medical facilities in the surrounding area. They may also reflect confusion and panic triggered by the ongoing artillery and rocket barrage, and reports of chemical use in other neighborhoods

Seems to admit they really don't know the real extent.

Originally posted by burntheships
This is as good a place as any to put this, sad to say it looks
like the writing is on the wall.

First we have Pelosi, using her 5 year old grandson to make a political
statement about why the U.S. "needs" to go to war with Syria.

*Warning - this will sicken you*

www.youtube.com...

Secondly, here is our confirmation that the U.S.did send in
CIA - agents for support into the Rebels.

First Syria rebels armed and trained by CIA 'on way to battlefield'

Mr Obama said that a 50-man cell, believed to have been trained by US special forces in Jordan, was making its way across the border into Syria, according to the New York Times.....

"There seems to be emerging from this administration a pretty solid plan to upgrade the opposition," Mr Graham said.

He added that he hoped the opposition would be given "a chance to speak directly to the American people" to counter US fears that they were dominated by al-Qaeda sympathisers.

"They're not trying to replace one dictator, Assad, who has been brutal... to only have al-Qaeda run Syria," Mr Graham said.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

So there we have the admission that also, the U.S. is now backing rebels who are
supposedly a go between for al Qaeda and Assad?

Sickening.

edit on 3-9-2013 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

Okay I watched the vid of her and I'm like..................................What?????? Then I threw up.

Props to Tom udall for being logical in his assessment and also calling Kerry's speeches a "performance". Very on point judgement

It's almost over but it's live here:
weplaylive.tv...


John owned Kerry lol, but Kerry is making GOOD points right now.

This hearing might have changed my mine.
even tho it'll be a breeding group for extremist groups.

I am not watching the steam, I couldn't even finish watching the clips posted here. How long we can sustain this war machine? At some point, there will be a huge set back (Iran? ) .

I think war is the only way to keep Petro Dollar from collapsing. So after Syria, they have no other option than to go to Iran, then what? It is really sad to see killing more innocent people is the easiest way to make money.

Originally posted by earthling42
There, he said it, the goal to help oust assad, afterwards naturally there will be boots on the ground because the civil war is over and the chemical weapons are not allowed to fall in the hands of Al Qaida.

That is how i understand it.

It makes more sense as there is no way to make a difference otherwise. So it only confirms how misleading Obama was when saying 'limited and no boots on ground'. He conveniently forgot to include 'initially'. Really a confidence builder. Just like a used car salesman saying, 'yea and it has a new engine too' but not telling you they put it in wrong. How about the whole picture before spouting off rhetoric to show the American people you have thought it through. I would rather have heard this information front loaded rather than them being forced to answer it. Dont give more info than you have to in order to sell your agenda.

Cross-posting because I posted in the wrong thread (doh!)

Kerry says they intend to win resolution passage because anything else would be too dire? WTH is that supposed to mean? Playing up the fear card in a last ditch effort, or hinting at something we've already been suspecting (ie. going in regardless)?

Originally posted by all2human
So when asked what if Chem.weapons use continues after the strikes, the answer was we don't know ? these war-hawks have not thought this through,because it has nothing to do with Syria, there luring in Iran, that's the plan..

edit on 3-9-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)

It seems so. He never did answer what they suspect Russia will do.

reply to post by Dianec


That is the whole point, why no honest answer in the first place?
That can only be if they were not afraid that more chemical attacks would follow.
Which begs the question, were they themself involved in the attack to force a reason for an intervention, which obviously will not be limited and will not stop untill they have their way.

A limited attack, to sell that story to us must mean they really see us as stupid cattle.

For those who are in this to watch Rand grill Kerry, I think he may be up next. It appears they are going by ranking.

Menendez
Corker

Barbara Boxer
James E. Risch
Benjamin L. Cardin
Marco Rubio
Jeanne Shaheen
Ron Johnson
Christopher Coons
Jeff Flake
Richard J. Durbin
John McCain
Tom Udall
John Barrasso
Chris Murphy
Rand Paul
Tim Kaine
Edward J. Markey

Kerry sure is a piece of work, he is going around in circles and no one truly successfully called him out on it yet with the exception of maybe Udall & Barasso. I think Rand could make Kerry look pretty bad if he pressures him as hard as I think he will.

Rand Paul is speaking now

Go Rand Paul!!!!!!! Omg I love him!

reply to post by Jusvistn


Wooo Rand just made point that has been on a lot of our minds.

Why would the Assad regime use weapons when UN inspectors were on the ground..

Excellent point.

Rand Paul went home to 40 cities and out of everyone that has approached him and called his office, not one was for this war.

John Kerry thinks just because we're not calling it a "war" that it makes people detest it LESS!?!?!?!?

Originally posted by MDDoxs
reply to post by Jusvistn

 

Wooo Rand just made point that has been on a lot of our minds.

Why would the Assad regime use weapons when UN inspectors were on the ground..

Very smart man. And he is right about most people not wanting this. I was on drudge today and he has a poll up, if you are in favor or against, and last I check there were a half million votes and its like 92 percent against and 8 percent for.

I would like to add that at no time during this hearing was there any arse kissing going on.

Paul made the only serious attempt at questioning and Kerry looked affronted to get some.

There is no point talking about this anymore. Its going to occur. They want it and they are going to get it. All the arguments for and against in these forums and others are moot.

There really isn't anything more to be done barring some sort of mass demonstration by americans that they simply don't care enough to do. Truth be told, I don't even think that would work.

I dont think i've ever been this depressed about world events in general. Time to take some time off I think.

Originally posted by earthling42
reply to post by Dianec

 

That is the whole point, why no honest answer in the first place?
That can only be if they were not afraid that more chemical attacks would follow.
Which begs the question, were they themself involved in the attack to force a reason for an intervention, which obviously will not be limited and will not stop untill they have their way.

A limited attack, to sell that story to us must mean they really see us as stupid cattle.

Yea I know - its been the big question overall. It just confirms suspicions (what we already knew), so thinking of how this session has actually hurt them more than helped them. Missed some of this so going to see what Rand had to say now.