Ah, so no "boots on the ground" Mr. Kerry? Or wait a minute, perhaps there will be "boots on the ground." Oh never mind about the details, right? With this administration, you can always expect that what you are told it the exact opposite of what is really meant. Though Secretary of State John Kerry attempted to say that no ground troops would be used in Syria….well, sort of, it appears that a report from the Pentagon from a year ago indicates something entirely different. In fact, it claims it would take 75,000 ground troops to secure chemical weapons in Syria…..that is, if they actually have them.

According to the Daily Mail, understanding that 75 ,000 ground troops would be needed to effectively secure chemical weapons was known one year ago.

Securing Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles and the facilities that produced them would likely require the U.S. to send more than 75,000 ground troops into the Middle Eastern country, MailOnline learned Wednesday.

That estimate comes from a secret memorandum the U.S. Department of Defense prepared for President Obama in early 2012.

U.S. Central Command arrived at the figure of 75,000 ground troops as part of a written series of military options for dealing with Bashar al-Assad more than 18 months ago, long before the U.S. confirmed internally that the Syrian dictator was using the weapons against rebel factions within his borders.

'The report exists, and it was prepared at the request of the National Security Advisor's staff,' a Department of Defense official with knowledge of the inquiry told MailOnline Wednesday on condition of anonymity.

'DoD spent lots of time and resources on it. Everyone understood that this wasn't a pointless exercise, and that eventually we would be tasked with going and getting the VX and sarin, so there was lots of due diligence.'

Since the Senate resolution that was voted on by the panel is pretty open ended, as far as ground troops are concerned, why is it that these senators don't listen to the people or to wisdom? According to multiple polls, the American people are tired of war, and they certainly don't want it in Syria.

090513_2016_PentagonsRe1.png

Yesterday, Secretary Kerry seemed to be oblivious to what people in America actually think about military strikes in Syria.

"I don't think, I know, it's no exaggeration to say that the world is not just watching to see what we decide here, but it's watching to see how we decide…can we achieve a single voice?" he asked the House Committee of Foreign Relations on Wednesday.

Kerry went on to assert that Assad's conscious overstep of the President's "red line" was a direct threat to U.S. national security:

"Only the most willful desire to avoid reality, only the most devious political purpose could assert that this did not occur. It did happen, and the Bashar al-Assad Regime did it."

"This is about the world's red line, this is about humanity's red line…this is also about Congress' red line…Congress passed the Syria Accountability Act," he reminded the committee.

He urged Congress to avoid "consent through silence…Syria is important to America and our security."

OK, Mr. Secretary, if it's about the "world's red line," then why isn't the world backing you up? Hmmm? That's what I thought. The world and the American people are opposing Kerry and the Obama administration at every turn. It gets worse. John Kerry then seeks to insult our intelligence.

"We are not asking America to go to war. (Secretary Hagel and General Dempsey) know the difference between going to war and what the President is asking for. We all agree there will be no American boots on the ground. We have no intention of assuming responsibility for Assad's civil war; that is not in [the] cards."

This is exactly what the administration is calling for. I suggest that he and the administration read William Lafferty's piece in which he states, "If a Russian warship anchored near New York fired a series of missiles into the mainland United States, few of us would have difficulty saying that was an act of war."

Lafferty is right. Anyone with half a brain understands that any and all strikes, no matter how many missiles are involved, is an act of war. Add to that the fact that ground troops are also being considered, and you know for sure, this would be an act of war. Keep in mind, that at the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003, only 63,000 troops were deployed.

This is why you don't put incompetent boobs in the White House, and then allow them to put incompetent boobs in the State Department. These people are about to launch us into a World War over something they cannot prove and something that has absolutely nothing to do with us or our national security.

UPDATE: Russia has now delivered a 100 page report to the United Nations claiming that Syrian Rebels (the guys the Obama administration want to support) are behind the sarin gas attack.

McClatchy reports:

Russia says a deadly March sarin attack in an Aleppo suburb was carried out by Syrian rebels, not forces loyal to President Bashar Assad, and it has delivered a 100-page report laying out its evidence to the United Nations.

A statement posted on the Russian Foreign Ministry website late Wednesday said the report included detailed scientific analysis of samples that Russian technicians collected at the site of the alleged attack, Khan al Asal in northern Syria. The attack killed 26 people.

A U.N. spokesman, Farhan Haq, confirmed that Russia delivered the report in July.

The report itself was not released. But the statement drew a pointed comparison between what it said was the scientific detail of the report and the far shorter intelligence summaries that the United States, Britain and France have released to justify their assertion that the Syrian government launched chemical weapons against Damascus suburbs on Aug. 21. The longest of those summaries, by the French, ran nine pages. Each relies primarily on circumstantial evidence to make its case, and they disagree with one another on some details, including the number of people who died in the attack.

The Russian statement warned the United States and its allies not to conduct a military strike against Syria until the United Nations had completed a similarly detailed scientific study into the Aug. 21 attack. It charged that what it called the current “hysteria” about a possible military strike in the West was similar to the false claims and poor intelligence that preceded the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.