Didn't Obama claim all the Chemical weapons were removed from Syria?

PolitiFact Pulls 2014 ‘Mostly True’ Rating of John Kerry’s Claim of Eliminating Syrian Chemical Weapons

648ff-john-kerry.jpg


PolitiFact has pulled a 2014 fact-check on remarks about Syria by former Secretary of State John Kerry after the claim the Obama administration “got ‘100 percent’ of chemical weapons out of Syria” turned out to be false.
In a post about the recent chemical weapons attack in Syria, PolitiFact admitted, “The outcry leads us to revisit a 2014 claim from former Secretary of State John Kerry.”

“Kerry said in a television interview that in Syria, ‘we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out.’ Syria had agreed in 2013 to an ambitious program to destroy its chemical stockpiles under international supervision, as part of a deal brokered by Russia,” they explained. “When Kerry spoke in July 2014, the process seemed far along. Based on reports from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons — which later won the Nobel Peace Prize for its efforts — we rated that claim Mostly True. There were caveats about incomplete information, but at the time, international experts said the claim largely held up.”

“Given recent events, we have pulled that fact-check (you can read an archived version here) because we now have many unanswered questions,” the fact-checking site declared. “We don’t know key details about the reported chemical attack in Syria on April 4, 2017, but it raises two clear possibilities: Either Syria never fully complied with its 2013 promise to reveal all of its chemical weapons; or it did, but then converted otherwise non-lethal chemicals to military uses. One way or another, subsequent events have proved Kerry wrong.”

PolitiFact is often heralded as a reliable and neutral fact-checking source by the mainstream media and political establishment, despite numerous revelations over the past few years that the site is largely biased towards the left-wing.

Last year, it was reported that Politifact, which is partially funded by a large Clinton Foundation Donor, had made 13 errors in a fact-check on the Clinton exposé book, Clinton Cash.

In a 2013 report, The Weekly Standard claimed that Politifact “has it out for Republicans” after they overwhelmingly focused more on fact-checking arguments made by conservatives than Democrats, even spinning jokes made by Republicans into facts.

During the 2016 presidential election, Politifact also rated just 15% of Trump’s campaign claims as “true” against a 51% rating for Clinton and spun stories to benefit Clinton and criticize Donald Trump.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/...claim-of-eliminating-syrian-chemical-weapons/
 
the paid soros shill defending the incompetent or worse leftists again.

These red lines (multiple red lines) were some of the dumbest most destabilizing things a president could say or do.

Obama and Kerry and Clinton did the wrong things every step of the way... The vacuum they created by their stupidity and actions gave rise to ISIS and made Putin larger.





Obama and Kerry were professional and competent in dealing with Syria under the circumstances of the time, as they were known at that time. Their goal was to cool down the conflict so far as within their power and to avoid the U.S. being ensnared in a complex civil war. They wanted to do what was possible to protect innocent Syrian lives, but not at the cost of American lives. And they wanted to work within the framework of the international community of nations. They were concerned about the possibility of Russian interference for purely self-serving reasons. It was a professional, level headed approach to a political mess and humanitarian crisis. As Americans we should be pleased with the competent way our government responded to the civil war by attempting to be a constructive influence on the warring parties. Our official position was that we wanted Assad to go and let the Syrian people decide their fate, but we, at the same time, kept a grip on reality. This is quite an auspicious effort even if the results are not ultimately what we would have wished for. My personal assessment is that John Kerry will be recognized as among the most effective, and forward thinking, of American Statesmen in U.S. history to date.
 
Obama and Kerry were professional and competent in dealing with Syria under the circumstances of the time, as they were known at that time. Their goal was to cool down the conflict so far as within their power and to avoid the U.S. being ensnared in a complex civil war. They wanted to do what was possible to protect innocent Syrian lives, but not at the cost of American lives. And they wanted to work within the framework of the international community of nations. They were concerned about the possibility of Russian interference for purely self-serving reasons. It was a professional, level headed approach to a political mess and humanitarian crisis.


Exactly.Thats what a good President does.A bad President makes the quick simple minded decision to shoot some missiles at them.
 
Exactly.Thats what a good President does.A bad President makes the quick simple minded decision to shoot some missiles at them.
No, he made a deal with the devil while naively, and I'm being generous in that assessment, naively believing that the devil would change his ways. Now the devil comes back on someone else's watch, and as per usual, you give Obama a pass and blame the realist for treating the devil for what he is.
 
They could have gotten some more.Doesn't take that long to make or transport Sarin gas.Thats even assuming it was Assads because he had no need to use it.

You may be a crazy left winger but at least you have sense of humor.
 
No, he made a deal with the devil while naively, and I'm being generous in that assessment, naively believing that the devil would change his ways. Now the devil comes back on someone else's watch, and as per usual, you give Obama a pass and blame the realist for treating the devil for what he is.

He changed his ways while Obama remained in office.Assad wanting to test trump has nothing to do with Obama.

As far as getting rid of the devil most Americans would oppose sending hundreds of thousands of troops and trillions of dollars to get rid of him.Of course it could get much worse by sparking WWIII
 
Last edited:
He changed his ways while Obama remained in office.Assad wanting to test trump has nothing to do with Obama.

As far as getting rid of the devil most Americans would oppose sending hundreds of thousands of troops and trillions of dollars to get rid of him.Of course it could get much worse by sparking WWIII
Nearly 500,000 dead under Obama's watch. Mr. Nobel Peace Prize didn't exactly live up to those lofty expectations bestowed upon him early on. I agree most Americans are content to watch the slaughter on the evening news while sipping their favorite beverage, and then proclaiming the humanitarian high ground for parting with their 19 dollar a month charitable donation towards the crisis. Maybe sing a tune in church this Sunday as well. Yes, we are the shining city on the hill. Ain't it wonderful?
 
Nearly 500,000 dead under Obama's watch. Mr. Nobel Peace Prize didn't exactly live up to those lofty expectations bestowed upon him early on. I agree most Americans are content to watch the slaughter on the evening news while sipping their favorite beverage, and then proclaiming the humanitarian high ground for parting with their 19 dollar a month charitable donation towards the crisis. Maybe sing a tune in church this Sunday as well. Yes, we are the shining city on the hill. Ain't it wonderful?
I believe there is a low probability of a military solution to these sorts of multi-party conflicts. We can help with humanitarian aid and diplomacy, but our unilateral military involvement is highly likely to make matters worse; not better. Just my personal opinion after a lifetime of observing conflicts and how they were ultimately resolved, or not.
 
Nearly 500,000 dead under Obama's watch. Mr. Nobel Peace Prize didn't exactly live up to those lofty expectations bestowed upon him early on. I agree most Americans are content to watch the slaughter on the evening news while sipping their favorite beverage, and then proclaiming the humanitarian high ground for parting with their 19 dollar a month charitable donation towards the crisis. Maybe sing a tune in church this Sunday as well. Yes, we are the shining city on the hill. Ain't it wonderful?


So you support sending hundreds of thousands of troops and spending trillions of tax payer dollars for regime change in Syria? And don't discount the possibility of Russia going all in to prevent that from happening.

And the deaths in another country's war is Obama's fault?
 
Back
Top