General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo now Kerry is a liar?
Whether or not you think we should take action in Syria (Currently, I am torn on the subject and a lot would depend on the type of action we take).... are we really at the level where some on DU are calling Kerry a liar?
I trust John Kerry on this. He's not a "center-right" politician... he's not a "third way" politician. He's not a hawk, "chicken" or otherwise. He's been in harm's way and wouldn't advocate sending others in harm's way willy-nilly.
There are good arguments both ways as to whether or not we should take action in Syria.
But if you come here saying that John Kerry is "lying us into war" like the Bush Administration did, you're not going to be taken seriously by this reader.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
FSogol
(47,623 posts)railsback
(1,881 posts)over seasoned vets like Kerry, who actually put his life on the line and is miles ahead in life experiences.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)..
Hissyspit
(45,790 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)I couldn't come up with a more laughably cartoonish example of authoritarian sentiment than your post if I tried.
railsback
(1,881 posts)I'll just chalk that up as more faux outrage.
Skittles
(171,710 posts)
railsback
(1,881 posts)A Wall Street gopher boy? Complicit in destroying the middle class? Assassinating 'Americans' overseas with drones?
These are NOT impeachable offenses?
Holy shit!
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)...those they suspect of wanting impeachment, even though no one has brought it up.
railsback
(1,881 posts)who's taking away all our 1st and 4th Amendment Rights?
Or is it all just faux outrage?
dawg
(10,777 posts)going to be on the ballot in 2016.
It isn't about Obama. Those of us who oppose the infringements on our civil liberties need to focus on electing members of Congress who are willing to act to curtail the NSA and the military industrial complex .
No one is claiming that Obama is acting alone to do all of these things that we oppose. The problem is much bigger than just one man.
Skittles
(171,710 posts)sad how it has to be explained over and over and over on a so-called DEMOCRATIC board 
railsback
(1,881 posts)but then again, I'm not the one calling Obama 'the evil tyrant destroying our liberties, but hey, that's ok, because this is his last term'.
Holy smokem' if you gottem.
dawg
(10,777 posts)You seem to think that if someone disagrees with a President, they must want to have him impeached. That, IMHO, is just dumb.
It makes no sense to talk about impeachment of a President who is doing things that most of Congress (almost all of the Republicans plus many of the "centrist" Democrats) supports. Our only recourse, at this point, is to change Congress.
But you want to believe that this is all about people just wanting to be mean to poor little Obama. So keep on believing that if you want to. Maybe it'll help you sleep better at night, knowing that you are supporting the same policies as Dick Cheney.
railsback
(1,881 posts)I do enjoy the weird explanations, too. So, please proceed.
dawg
(10,777 posts)Is English your first language? What the hell are you talking about?
railsback
(1,881 posts)Long live the Hero Snowden!
Marr
(20,317 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)The Secretary of State chosen by our system, whose history we know? Not assuming he's a liar is something only "authoritarians" do?
karynnj
(60,968 posts)we should believe in the complete innocence and goodness of two people that few if any here knew before they became news - Snowden and Manning.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
dorkulon
(5,116 posts)Brought to you by Old Guys
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)they have lived and seen more than a young person has! With age comes wisdom....the young have plenty in their favor...the one thing advantage age has over you....wisdom!
Moses2SandyKoufax
(1,290 posts)then those elders deserve no respect.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)dorkulon
(5,116 posts)and told a bunch of old Senators that the war was a mistake, who would you have thought the wiser then?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)
Progressive dog
(7,602 posts)
ForgoTheConsequence
(5,186 posts)20 somethings didn't get us into Iraq (remember when Kerry voted for that?) John McCain is a seasoned vet too, want to put him in charge of foreign policy?
progressoid
(53,179 posts)Kerry was a 20 something when he was protesting the Vietnam war. Maybe he should have waited until his 30th birthday.
Cha
(319,074 posts)http://wikileaks.org/Statement-by-Edward-Snowden-to.html
Something a "hero" wouldn't say. But a coward would.
Manning at least is facing what she did. She gets a lot of credit from me.
corkhead
(6,119 posts)with anything in this thread.
Snowden is 30 btw.
Logical
(22,457 posts)The Link
(757 posts)
Deny and Shred
(1,061 posts)I believe both were shown only what was necessary for each man to come to the 'conclusion' that intervention is justified. Colin Powell was highly respected, too, up until the UN presentation.
Where was the presentation of evidence? He asserted it was undeniable, but never presented a thing.
I was surprised by how succinct and full of emotional buzzwords Kerry's speech was yesterday. In 2004, he would speak for 10 minutes qualifying everything and refraining from absolutes. I found this speech very out of character.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)So, perhaps the appearance of "need to know" was the weak foundation for carrying the water and getting us into war.
It's more likely that it's harder to fool over and over and over time the same people to pay the price for war. Certainly both Powell and Perry understand that. So, it's a little harder to be "in character" for the role one plays in this very dangerous game.
I say that the game is over... I have to.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)karynnj
(60,968 posts)but then I have actually listened to many Kerry speeches for many years. It sounds like you listened more to Jon Steward's warped versions of them.
You might consider that it was the subject matter that led directly to the emotion in his words. As to refraining from absolutes - this is the very type of issue that calls for absolutes. (Just as Kerry's words repeated in several 2006 speeches that "the US does not torture Period - and this bill condones torture."
I could go through and list dozens of phrases that are classic Kerry in that speech -- starting with the call to check your conscience and moral compass - things he has spoken of since the 1970s. It is also the type of thing that is universal enough that he spoke of himself "as being a father" - words he has used in many tragedies including the death of a young diplomat in Afghanistan.
As to succinct - try watching him in hearings. Many Senators would spend their entire time reading a written statement that ended in a question - Kerry tended to ask crisp, clear questions and then followed up often with even shorter questions honing in on information that was given.
Deny and Shred
(1,061 posts)Question: Has he ever recommended we go to war on his word wihout giving evidence before? He claims he has irrefutable evidence, yet doesn't show it. Why?
To my understanding, other than the IWR, which he later said was his biggest political mistake, he has talked for as long as he thinks necessary to make his point, complete with qualifications, avoiding absolutes, taking down criticisms point by painstaking point. Did you see that yesterday? I didn't. I saw a diffent guy saying, and I paraphrase, "Let's bomb 'em, Assad deserves it, I can't explain how I know it was him, but trust me, he deserves it."
Take another look at the transcript of yesterday's speech. There is more propogandic conjecture than almost everything else he's said his entire career put together.
If he's going to pull the As a Father Card, where's that been with the previous 70,000 dead in Syria? Where's his call to action to stop the killing in Darfur? Where has his moral outrage been on the children killed by US drones? 1.5 million Iraqis dead, many of them children? Where was that speech from his share of the bully pulpit as SOS asking for military action to correct the situation?
Jeez.
PS. His name is Jon Stewart, not Steward. His job is comedy, but his take is not uniformly 'warped', though I don't watch often enough to know if he has a thing for busting on Kerry.
karynnj
(60,968 posts)I don't know if this is true, but this is a serious source -and it says that we captured communication speaking of the attack.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014578092
As to Dafur, he was one of those speaking out and he and Feingold held hearings. He (and Teresa) went to Sudan and he was key to the vote going forward that ended up splitting Sudan. He actually did question OBama people in hearings on the drone policy.
As to Stewart - I am a lousy typist - and yes he has repeatedly bashed Kerry and always for speaking in a way that Kerry actually does not do.
Deny and Shred
(1,061 posts)but in his position as SOS he can't tell the truth, not lawfully. Any possessor of classified info can't, without breaking the law. I'm sure he was shown 'evidence', but we don't know if he came to his conclusion based on the full truth, just enough truth, or complete fabrications.
You are right about his Darfur work, I admit I had a moment of throwing that out indiscriminately in a list of indignation. I will look into his questioning of drone policy. His would be a lone dissenting voice.
Peace.
Bedtime now.
tblue
(16,350 posts)Last edited Tue Aug 27, 2013, 05:15 PM - Edit history (1)
He is not stupid. And he has lied before at the behest of his superiors. I do not trust the man.
Kerry? Probably not lying but he's being a hypocrite and he's not entertaining other viable options. That's not okay. .
lumpy
(13,704 posts)I certainly am not for military action unless it is precise and only against the perpetrators and that is certainly a difficult task. There is no doubt that the administration, including Kerry, have racked their brains to come to a reasonable solution to the problem of bringing justice to the victims of the gassing.
If you can come up with the answer let the administration know.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)unless and until:
*Our government designates [font size=3]a clearly defined Military Objective[/font]
*A CLEARLY DEFINED ENEMY
*A Bullet Proof EXIT Strategy
*PAYGO Pre-Funding for our NEW WAR in place.
(I suggest an emergency 100% Tax Increase on the RICH and War Profiteers.)
*Have a transitional replacement government supported BY the Syrian People Up & Running to replace the one we are going to kill.
*Have a Pre-funded Hospital and Housing Plan to care for the refugees
and homeless we will be creating.
(I suggest an additional emergency 100% Tax Increase on the RICH and WAR Profiteers.)
THEN, maybe we can talk about the feasibility of another Military Intervention in the Middle East.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)as well as whether using a well defined military objective, a clearly defined enemy (to be determined ?) bullet proof exit strategy.
Prefunding ? tax the rich and war profiteers ?
Replace Syrian government ?
Prefunded Hospital/ housing for refugees?
100% tax to rich and war profiteers?
No suggestions regarding how to prevent military action other than just saying no ?
rdharma
(6,057 posts)Being a "good soldier".
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)I think that Bush and Cheney believed there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. I believe they believed it in a way that many that over-zealous prosecutors justify charging defendants with crimes they don't really have evidence for, because they must be guilty of "something".
They justified feeding lies to the American public because they believed that after the invasion, they would find something that would justify their invasion.
Powell knew the evidence was dubious at best. He went along because, against his better instincts, he managed to convince himself that there would be a post facto justification for the war.
MADem
(135,425 posts)This place is funny sometimes.
They don't even know what a Yemen Scenario is, and they don't understand that, vis a vis Syria, that's the preferred outcome that the US government supports.
They rather stupidly "ass"ume that objecting to al-Assad's rule "must mean" support for the rebels. It's just not true.
What I've learned from this incident and the discussions surrounding it, is that a lot of people love to talk, but they just haven't done their homework.
All one can do is Consider the Source!
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I wouldn't trust the Salafis with a crate of turkey sandwiches.....let alone weapons.
Though, TBH, I do at least think that Obama knows that the Islamists can't be trusted. Frankly, it wouldn't be surprising if both the Salafis/AQs AND the gov't forces got the receiving ends of a few Tomahawk missiles.....
MADem
(135,425 posts)That's why a Yemen Scenario is the way to go -- get the toxic bastard out of there, start engaging diplomatically with a slightly less toxic bastard, and see where we can go from there.
As for targeting, I think it will be more about stuff, not people. I should think that folks with brains would do well to stay well away from bunkers of CW, bunkers of aggressive conventional weapons, and aircraft and airfields, along with missile launchers.
Cha
(319,074 posts)I found this..
Remy reports the fighters were repeatedly attacked with chemical weapons while he was with them. Remy's detailed report, a recommended read, says in part:
The men cough violently. Their eyes burn, their pupils shrink, their vision blurs. Soon they experience difficulty breathing, sometimes in the extreme; they begin to vomit or lose consciousness. The fighters worst affected need to be evacuated before they suffocate. [...]
In two months spent reporting on the outskirts of the Syrian captial, we encountered similar cases across a much larger region. Their gravity, their increasing frequency and the tactic of using such arms shows that what is being released is not just tear gas, which is used on all fronts, but products of a different class that are far more toxic.
No, what the Obama administration appears to want is a limited, finite series of strikes that will be carefully calibrated to send a message and cause the just-right amount of pain. It wants to set Assad back but it doesn’t want to cause death and mayhem. So the most likely option is probably to destroy a bunch of government or military infrastructure – much of which will probably be empty.
there's more..
http://www.theguardian.com/world/middle-east-live/2013/aug/27/syria-crisis-military-intervention-un-inspectors
Thank you, MADem
MADem
(135,425 posts)He's more enraged than most--he'll support the rebels to make life miserable for al-Assad.
America has ALWAYS supported a Yemen Scenario for Syria. Kerry has been one of the strongest proponents. He, better than anyone else, understands the Machiavellian admonition, somewhat paraphrased, that "War is what happens when diplomacy fails." As the nation's premier diplomat, he's not about to let diplomacy fail if he can help it.
The action that US and her allies will be taking is akin to a group of kids on the streetcorner, seeing an innocent youngster being abused by a thug, taking action by dragging the thug into the alley and delivering a beat-down that he won't soon forget. They may take his wallet, they may take his lunch money, they may even steal his bike, but they will leave him with his life. They may tell him he's better off if he doesn't come 'round here no more--and that's what they hope to accomplish.
The existing regime makes the water and electricity flow, the bureaucracies of government provide for the citizenry, and gets the streets (that aren't strewn with rubble, anyway) swept. They may be brutes, but they know how to run Syria. By getting rid of the biggest brute, there's hope to restart a conversation. If al-Assad takes a powder and his VP steps up, perhaps diplomacy will be possible.
You'd never know by that reading some of the foolish crapola flung out here in the last few days by self-anointed "experts."
The minute you see "Obama evil!!" (substitute Kerry if you'd like), and "PNAC" and "BushCo" and "MIC," and let's not forget the "Cheney/Rummy" references, you know you're in for a heaping helping of generalized, knee-jerk bullshit that isn't related to the truth at all. The far right might want some of those "boots on the ground" (to what point, really?) but this administration doesn't want to go that way. Further, even if they were stupid enough to want such a dumbass scenario, they'd have a hard time doing it, since they're sending the Army home at a rapid clip with this drawdown. You'd think, if they were rubbing their hands together with glee just waiting to "invade," they'd have kept the invading force on the payroll, ya?
There's a reason the perpetual alarm-sounders are behind keyboards, griping, and not serving in any capacity at State or Defense!
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)And those few in State or Defense who did raise the alarm in 2003 got what has since come to be known as the "Shirley Sherrod" treatment.
I don't really have an opinion about this incipient quagmire at the moment, neither strongly pro or anti but looking for alarm sounders at State or Defense is just stupid, you are either a team player or you're gone.
MADem
(135,425 posts)That administration was a very top-down outfit, motivated to get revenge for Bush's "deddy" and make money for themselves while they were at it. There was a buildup of recruitment well ahead of the launch; factories went into overdrive to make the needed gear. That's not happening in this instance; these things do not turn on a dime.
If this was a big nefarious "plan" by the current administration, they would have started a recruiting drive a good year ago, not started the process of kicking servicemembers out left and right. You can't put boots on the ground without bodies in 'em.
I don't think Obama acts without advice. If he were that type, we'd be talking about this proposed action in the past tense.
And there's just no "up side" to invading Syria. No point. The purpose of this drill is to stop the use of CW; that's all.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)You could ask Ms Sherrod about that.
Given that we've seen no solid proof of who used the CW in the first place it seems a trifle premature to be bombing at this juncture.
Interesting how Snowwald and the NSA slid way over to the edge of the radar screen all of a sudden though.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)was accomplished without outside military intervention. (The much-publicized U.S. drone strikes there were aimed at al-Qaeda, not the regime.)
MADem
(135,425 posts)al Assad is gassing his citizens, and he's intractable. He wants to hang on to power at all costs. Since he won't be moved, he'll just have to be shifted--like it or not.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)
nolabels
(13,133 posts)To me that is worse than lying because that would indicate that US is being governed by fools
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)nolabels
(13,133 posts)and you get to look back at where you had been and what you have done, you will be able to ask that question of yourself, was it worth it?
Is that dent you might be making now going to be a bad one or a good one, only that person making it can really answer the question before it's made.
Kerry was once a guy that called out the establishment, now that he has been put inside it he tries to silence those outside it. That to me, that doesn't sound like a person that does a lot of deep thinking too far out of his box.
blm
(114,658 posts)than Kerry about what's going on there.
I would bet my house that he is not 'mistaken' in his judgements the last 8years of his focused attention there. Had he been Sec of State from 2009, there would be a different reality today.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)...I mean some Cuban Missle Crisis pics.
You know, the ones we didn't get from the Bush admin
nolabels
(13,133 posts)He and most of the people he knew till just a few years ago never had a problem with Assad and everything was peaceful. I haven't talked to him a few weeks but no doubt he would say his country is being used as a pawn. We are all a sad lot for letting this B.S. go on like this
But war is very profitable for some, so by god we will have it whether we like it or not.
And yes, Syria is a pawn, and we are suckers for falling for this yet again.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)If he is mistaken, then there is in fact, concrete evidence that either the FSA or a third party is behind the chemical weapons attacks?
Wait Wut
(8,492 posts)I was never on the John Kerry bus, but now I'm more of a fan than some of his most ardent followers. And, my opinion of him hasn't changed one bit.
It's a strange place.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)uponit7771
(93,532 posts)
Warpy
(114,615 posts)being kept in the dark and fed neocon bullshit. He's making decisions based on bad information, just like Congress did when Stupid was pushing for his oil war in Iraq.
It's really odd to think that the average crank on the net (looking in a mirror here) might have access to more accurate information than he does. However, it does happen. The Pentagon's spy unit gives him carefully slanted information. So does the CIA. He only know what he's been told by outfits that are supposed to be trustworthy.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)That he's being kept in the dark and being fed bullshit. You honestly think you know more of what's happening than the SOS? It seems delusion is the order of the day around here.
shenmue
(38,598 posts)This board has become almost as noise-driven as some piece of junk right wing site. I'm tired of people being accused of everything under the sun if they're not in lock step with "the majority."
mazzarro
(3,450 posts)Yes we were called all-sorts-of-names and fools that do not have the same information as Bush&Co. Until things started unraveling. I do not accept what is being propagated by the administration and the press regarding Syria. I think that there is other subterranean MO going on here.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Pres Obama, VP Biden and SOS Kerry to Bush, Cheney and Powell tells me everything I need to know. The poster I responded to claimed he/she knew more than the SOS. I still call bullshit.
Warpy
(114,615 posts)They sound like what some ordinarily sensible members of Congress were saying ten years ago about Iraq.
Syria's best hope lies in the fact that they have no oil to squabble over, only a pipeline to carry it from elsewhere.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)The poster claimed they knew more about what was going on than SOS Kerry. Do you honestly believe that to be true?
Warpy
(114,615 posts)We're done here.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)I'm all ears.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)We shall see. I think we have good reason to distrust what our government says.
And there may be alternative scenarios to the claim that Assad used the chemical weapons.
Kerry may just feel that something has to be done and have decided to take a chance that Assad used the weapons since he feels that is a more logical conclusion based on limited evidence.
Seems to me that if Assad did not use the chemical weapons, he would be more helpful in providing evidence a) that he did not and b) that a specific group among the rebels did.
At the least, he could cooperate with the US in trying to find out who did use the weapons. That is all based on a hypothetical presumption that Assad did not use the chemical weapons.
In other words, if Assad did not use the chemical weapons, wouldn't he assist in providing proof that he did not use them?
And if he did use them, wouldn't he act as he has been acting? Being very slow to invite investigators in, etc.?
But all of that is conjecture, not evidence. I think we need more information about why Kerry and our government think it was Assad.
I think that the rebels could have been given the rockets to send in the chemical weapons but if that is the case, Assad might have a means to find out evidence supporting that theory.
I think that everything is up to Assad now.
But we cannot allow either side to use chemical weapons.
karynnj
(60,968 posts)and many of his peers in other countries.
Could it be that not everything on the net is accurate?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Last edited Tue Aug 27, 2013, 03:48 PM - Edit history (1)
I don't wanna, BUT I do not have the answer either. But, fuck the attack on Kerry. Also, i agree with the poster above this one... Snowdens a god yet accusations about Kerry, who has put his ass out there.
blm
(114,658 posts)apparently ignoring issues in Syria.
None of them showed up to defend his interference with the war hawks pushing for war there the last 8years he was taking the hits for his persistent diplomacy efforts there.
If Kerry is saying that some type of military force may be needed, then he is saying it as a last resort measure.
Had either Obama or Kerry wanted war in Syria the way some are claiming, the war would have happened long ago.
treestar
(82,383 posts)
YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)Last edited Tue Aug 27, 2013, 08:00 PM - Edit history (1)
...in the Middle East. I dare folks to watch this entire video...including questions at the end (Syria)...and still think Kerry is anything like Bush/Cheney.
Thanks for all, your posts, blm. 
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/USForeignPolicy112
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)one of the few people who have an understanding of all the connections around the middle east to our friends in the oil and gas companies. the carter -reagan doctrine on steroids
blm
(114,658 posts)And don't care if I am called a 'conspiracy theory nut' for having paid attention to most every detail.
Cha
(319,074 posts)on everything Kerry and beyond. It's really helpful to someone like me who is interested in learning.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)gruesome chemical weapons? Has the US ever aided dictators in using chemical attacks?
Why does the US have to play policeman of the world?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)We almost used them in Korea, but it was shelved because a certain physicist pointed out 'their targets are small, ours are large'. Gas would have been largely ineffective for us to use on them, but if we opened that can of worms, and they used chemical weapons on us, well, our fire bases and airstrips and everything else we clump together in dense structures... well. That's a perfect target.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)And that this was not a highlight of his career, that speech he gave. I was disappointed. No, he is not a liar. He said no lies, but it was just way over the top, to the point of being cringe-worthy.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)shenmue
(38,598 posts)Sigh. 
bobduca
(1,763 posts)as soon as they receive their talking points.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)vote to authorize the war against Iraq & criticized because she stood by her vote then this shows John Kerry also is hawkish.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/09/kerry.iraq/
So yes, he most certainly has advocated sending others in harm's way willy-nilly.
Kerry was my senator for most of my life and I like him very much. But he is no dyed in the wool Liberal. He's no better or worse than Hillary Clinton, at least yet. Gotta wait until his time as SOS is over before I can be sure that he's not worse.
blm
(114,658 posts)PUBLICLY since 2005, along with Bill, and both gave 100% support to Bush if he chose to invade. Thank the release of the Downing Street Memos and Katrina for pushing Bush's credibility and his poll numbers too low to pull off invading Syria.
She never launched an earnest diplomatic effort towards Syria and pretty much left Kerry's efforts as Senate Foreign Affairs chair go unsupported. The window of opportunity to turn Assad around after the Arab Spring was closed last year.
Beacool
(30,518 posts)The mantra around here is that if it isn't Bush's fault, then it definitely has to be a Clinton's fault.
It would be bad enough reading this crap on any site, but on a supposed Democratic board it's pathetic.
Beacool
(30,518 posts)Pathetic logic and not even true. Got a problem with the way foreign policy is being handled? Then call the president. SOS do not set policy.
blm
(114,658 posts)even applying it unenthusiastically?
Gee...guess she wasn't very crucial then, or even influential in her position, according to you. Until, of course, we get to a thread about Hillary where she suddenly becomes the 'best' Secretary of State....ever.
Beacool
(30,518 posts)That's utter nonsense. As if Hillary could control Assad.
karynnj
(60,968 posts)Not to mention, Hillary voted against Kerry/Feingold. Both Clintons supported legally arming the Contras -- Kerry risked his career investigating them. In the leads up to the Iraq War, in January 2003, Kerry had a speech demanding Bush not rush to war --- Hillary was actively prowar.
Kerry was not the most anti-war Democrat; Hillary not the most hawkish -- but she - and Bill Clinton -both are more hawkish than he is.
You might consider how we got where we are in Syria. It was not Kerry who pushed people to rebel against Assad. Kerry's effort - for which he was blasted - was to use diplomacy to try to get Assad to stop helping Hezbollah and Iran.
cali
(114,904 posts)The better democrats did not. Hell, my then repub Senator, Jim Jeffords didn't vote for it. He should have listened to his many colleagues he made impassioned and fact filled cases against it.
I don't trust him.
There are no good arguments for military intervention in Syria and the administration has no fucking right, absent Congressional approval to launch military strikes.
I'm not claiming he's lying, just that he has PROVEN his suckass judgment.
and his speech yesterday was emotionally manipulative.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)In your daily life, have you ever made the wrong decision on something? Would that time you made the wrong decision be a justification for saying your judgment in general is bad?
I agree that it was poor judgment to buy into the Bush admins BS so easily and vote to clear the way for war with Iraq. But John Kerry has made the right call on many, many other votes.
The argument that "so and so voted for the IWR so they are wrong about everything" is a stupid argument devoid of critical thought.
For the record, I don't want us engaging ourselves in anymore war, but lets keep things honest.
cali
(114,904 posts)and comparing it to decisions made in daily life is silly. Look, I've never thought he was a particularly great Senator. I didn't make the argument that YOU falsely accuse me of making, dear. To wit: "so and so voted for the IWR so they are wrong about everything.
I don't trust his judgment on the issue of going to war.
I have reason not to judge it.
It's stupid to engage in this military adventure.
It's worse than fucking stupid.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)You are assuming that because he made the wrong vote on the IWR that his judgment on Syria must therefore be incorrect.
And I compared it to daily life because I don't know enough about you to make a personal comparison that you can relate to that would be a more appropriate one.
Kerry has a strong voting record against going to war with Iran. He also said his 2002 vote for the IWR was his biggest regret and voted against more funding for it in 2004. And every vote that came up for redeploying troops out of Iraq after that, he voted for. He has also voted for more military base closures. His record is mixed and not one that a solid hawk would have.
blm
(114,658 posts)probably be emotional, too. Of course, it was the war hawks criticizing his judgement for intervening there and appealing so personally to Assad throughout that time. Now his critics are those thoroughly ignorant of Syrian issues of the last 8 years.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/kerry-frequent-visitor-syrian-dictator-bashar-al-assad_690885.html
cali
(114,904 posts)sorry, YOU are the one who is ignorant if you support military action against the Assad regime.
blm
(114,658 posts)You cannot say the same, and THAT is why you so erroneously claim that Kerry is the bad guy here.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)Is there proof yet that Assad's regime actually did it, though?
I don't know...that's why I'm asking.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And nobody is handing the rebels the weapons systems to deliver the chemicals.
Meanwhile, Assad has chemical weapons stockpiles and weapons to deploy them.
There are no iron-clad guarantees, but it extremely unlikely that the rebels could have done this attack.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Cha
(319,074 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)JEB
(4,748 posts)then everything would be hunky dory. Accountability should start at home.
edit to add link: http://www.google.com/images?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en-US&biw=&bih=&q=White+phosphorus+Fallujah&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ei=hP4cUt6jGaa-igLLuoGADA&ved=0CCoQsAQ
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The invasion of Iraq was one of the worst mistakes our country has ever made. Kerry helped that mistake get made. So when you say he'd not send others to war 'willy-nilly' it is hard to take you seriously. He did exactly that very thing, while millions of others knew better and told him so. Many Congressional Democrats at that time voted NO. He voted Yes.
That sort of mistake sticks in my craw, for it is a mistake that cost the lives of thousands of human beings just as good as you or me.
So no, I do not see Kerry as particularly wise due to his track record.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)Is he, once again, blindly believing the provided 'intelligence'?
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)
dionysus
(26,467 posts)season on pretty much ALL dems, and they're seizing the opportunity.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
malaise
(296,101 posts)Progressive dog
(7,602 posts)For the record, I don't believe Kerry is a liar and I certainly don't believe that he's a fool. I also refuse to believe that the President is a fool or a tool of the warmongers.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)against innocent civilians. It is a matter of conscience. What other reason would our leadership want to rile up our citizens by military action against another country? Politically war is not a popular action by a majority of US citizens if we are not the ones being attacked.
Anyone who would welcome going to war has insane reasons for wanting that.
The administration has very difficult decisions to make.
dflprincess
(29,341 posts)We've never been real concerned about innocent civilians unless the country in question has something the oil and gas companies want. And, once we start dropping bombs, all mention of the deaths of innocent civilians will be omitted from the discussion.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)the use of gas in conflict.
Progressive dog
(7,602 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)He's never been my senator, I never voted for him except in his pathetically incompetent attempt to unseat Bush.
Kerry has proven nothing to me. His military cred comes from fighting and objecting to a war we lost. He also voted for starting the Iraq War. I'd as soon ask the advice of General Giap, at least he won a war. <- Not seriously, but just to make a point of the inanity of war credentials.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)brilliant military leaders of the 20th century, up there with Zhukov and MacArthur (WW II).
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Wiki says he's still alive at 102.
Maybe Kerry should phone him.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)election...and then immediately conceded to Bush/Cheney at the first opportunity. 
karynnj
(60,968 posts)He did not have enough uncounted votes to win. The same experts who had Gore unconcede, told Kerry there was no way to win. They stole Ohio by limiting the number of voting machines. You can't count votes not cast.
In every Presidential election, there are always votes counted after the election has been conceded.
... 
And machine votes were made un-recountable during the recount done by the Green Party.
FairWinds
(1,717 posts)extremely unwise to accept at face value ANYTHING U.S. govt. officials say with respect to issues of war and peace.
Mexican War, Spanish American War, Vietnam War, Iraq (2003) War.
This is just a small sample.
So do I trust what Kerry says based on the position he holds, or his experience??
ABSOLUTELY NOT !!
I'm a Vietnam vet and a member of Veterans for Peace.
I remember hearing the same crap justifications for war in 2003.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)It's never a good idea to trust any politician. I didn't trust the decision to attack Iraq. A number of trustworthy Dems seem to like the idea of cuts to Social Security as well.
Part of the problem we're facing right now comes from blind trust or complete indifference. They're not even pretending to listen to the public anymore. Most Americans are fed up with constant war. Huge mistake suspending our natural distaste for the unmeasurable suffering that will be the end result of another because we "trust" John Kerry or any other politician for that matter.
Link Speed
(650 posts)Kerry is just doing the tricks that his handlers' command.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)The fact is, until we are shown the evidence claimed to "virtually irrefutable" (itself a qualified phrase),and it is shown to be independently verifiable or at least highly convincing, the allegations remain refutable.
The Administration should have released the evidence and waited until the evidence is assessed before announcing military threats. At the very least, this whole thing has been terribly mismanaged.
EC
(12,287 posts)
SleeplessinSoCal
(10,412 posts)I don't think the Administration thinks it is. There's a huge backlash from the region on these chemical attacks. This is an opportunity. How we blow it is by allowing Assad to get away with this and so much more.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)busy trying to find an answer to the problem in this information age without using military force?
SleeplessinSoCal
(10,412 posts)Maybe restructuring it would help. Maybe deals can be done with Russia and China to get them to not veto any realistic action. In that region of the world air strikes won't work. They've endured far worse.
We know that the United States cannot be the leader of the free world and have these endless atrocities put at our doorstep. This serves no one well. And we can't afford it.
(I still hold out hope for hypnotism or a honed drone with Assad's name on it. Then sort out all the factions and possibly make it illegal for there to be theocratic governments worldwide.)
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)The UN SHOULD work, but it often doesn't. The good thing is that the UN is sending experts to the region to determine if chemical weapons were used. Of course, they can only determine IF chemical weapons were used, not who used them.
Russia will always have veto power - if anyone tries to take it away they will break away along with as many as they can take with them. Rendering the UN moot.
I agree that theocratic governments should be illegal - the question is, who makes them illegal? And then who enforces that law?
This is the world. It's far from what any of us would like. But we have to live in it.
SleeplessinSoCal
(10,412 posts)I'm in the vast majority on that. But I want an alternative. One that works. I really think Obama thought drones and intellignce might be the alternatives. For all we know, the youth of the world could band together via social networking and actually make a difference.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Or is it Miley now?
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)and people should be torn about it.
on the one hand, this could easily become an iraq/afghanistan nightmare scenario if we choose to intervene militarily
on the other hand we could just as easily be criticized for ignoring a humanitarian crisis the way we are criticized for darfur/rwanda
i really do not see how people see this as a black-white issue.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Last edited Wed Aug 28, 2013, 03:42 PM - Edit history (2)
"shame on Kerry for pushing for war"?
the Dem party went to shit when its main points became "complaining about the candidate's right-wing choices endangers left-wing policy," "it's immoral to disagree with the designated candidate, ever," and "the tiny LW minority causes all problems in the world"--and this vicious, avowedly-RW cultishness didn't start in '08...
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Like this administration is carrying out the PNAC agenda. WTF??? People have gone mad.
TBF
(36,669 posts)PNAC Statement of Principles:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
Reports:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm
Rebuilding America's Defenses:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)thinking of how to respond to that situation, it automatically means this administration is following the PNAC handy guide?
TBF, that's a logical fallacy. You know it. I know it.
What bothers me most is that the handy little guide is all about protecting Israel, which (If you believe the current CT) comes really, really close to saying some secret cabal of Zionists controls THIS administration and media. Or that this administration IS the cabal.
That's a bad way of thinking IMO.
TBF
(36,669 posts)and I don't believe this administration is run by a secret cabal of anything.
I don't need conspiracy theories - capitalism is right out there in front of us. I do think there is something economic going on behind the scenes and someone else suggested it has to do with a pipeline. That makes far more sense to me than anything else I've heard today. Iran needs to get it's oil to the tankers & Syria is right on the Mediterranean.
A lot of countries do a lot of things to their people ... we barely bat an eyelash when certain tribes are destroying each other. Something more is going on here.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)related to this administration just because you provided the links.
OK. If you wouldn't mind listening to me for a minute, I can shed some light on the matter. Another piece, if you will.
Yes, part is economic. There's a pipeline that Russia and Syria are partnering in. I've talked until I'm blue in the face. Russia has a base there and a SIGINT facility. They sell $4.4B in arms to Syria per year. They sell $1.1B in other products there a year. For all that, Syria's debt was forgiven. They've been allied with the Assad family a since 1971. 1972 is when they gave Russia the navy base. Arms sales started in 1956.
Russia plans to increase its presence in the ME. This is a regional power play, not just economic. It's military and political. The lines are drawn and IF a conflict were ever to occur this would spread to a world event so quickly it would make your head spin. It looks like the dominoes of alliances could go like this.
Russia and its usual allies plus Syria, Iran, other ME countries, Venezuela, Ecuador, Vietnam, Cuba again, China, North Korea, now perhaps Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Chile... etc. South America, Central America and the Caribbean are probably lost to us now. If so, Mexico...
Then you have the U.S., Western Europe, UKUSA, Japan, South Korea, Israel, and our usual allies.
On Russia and their economic interests and wish to expand throughout the ME:
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/billions-of-dollars-of-russian-business-suffers-along-with-syria/443078.html
Do you see how quickly this went from an issue in Syria to a regional issue? Now from there to other bases elsewhere, where we thought the Cold War was over...
Russia Seeks Naval Bases in Cold War Allies Cuba, Vietnam
http://mobile.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-27/russia-seeks-naval-supply-bases-in-cold-war-allies-cuba-vietnam
Of course you know that the "surprising" NSA leaks have changed our strategic alliances in South America. I put surprising in quotes because even Wikipedia has it in their section on UKUSA that the USA part of the globe is Central & South America. You know that UKUSA split the globe up to spy on a long time ago, right? And our part is here. But it gives the countries down there an excuse to switch sides. That's what Snowden did.
Those are the facts, like them or not. The first salvo was Boston, Putin pretending he'd "warned" us. Bullshit. Russia may in fact have too much to lose to risk NATO taking over in Syria. If Putin is smart he'll go along with whatever the rest of the UNSC comes up with. Minus China.
If Obama & Kerry are as good as I think they are they'll thread the needle so that nothing is tipped off. Make no mistake, not doing anything can be a huge green light for dominoes to fall as well. A time to make a move for the other players.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
Enrique
(27,461 posts)lying is common when it comes to justifying a war that has been decided on.
With Iraq, as I recall Kerry didn't just go along with it, he gave speeches where he made claims about WMDs that amounted to lies.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)that he would still have voted for war in Iraq even if he knew for a fact beforehand that Iraq had no WMDs.
What a putz! He deserved to lose for that shit.
karynnj
(60,968 posts)question was if he knew. In fact, the full answer did not make sense had that been the question.
http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=b716156ab5ecd7182fdbf9e72d749dcb&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.democraticunderground.com%2Fdiscuss%2Fduboard.php%3Faz%3Dview_all%26address%3D273x167621&v=1&libId=104bc264-0e0f-4fa2-88b9-a627bf0f7031&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailyhowler.com%2Fdh081204.shtml&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F&title=Cadmium%20posted%20the%20best%20analysis%20of%20the%20Grand%20Canyon%20answer%20I%20have%20ever%20seen%20what%20is%20clear%20is%20that%20-%20Democratic%20Underground&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailyhowler.com%2Fdh081204.shtml&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13776421740396
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)question from a TV interviewer (in Colorado Springs, if memory serves) exactly along the lines I mentioned above. After I picked my jaw up off the floor, I turned to my wife and told her Kerry had just lost the General Election.
Did my wfie and I collectively hallucinate the entire episode?
YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)...as to what was said. Back then, media often failed to show complete video. They would broadcast sound bites that fit their spin on what Kerry said. I'm sure the station you were watching has video archives...why not post a link to it here?
karynnj
(60,968 posts)You took a local lead in that asked a question and a TAPE of Kerry at the Grand Canyon giving an answer. That you remember Colorado Springs actually backs what the Daily Howler was writing about. Bush people had rhetorically asked the question of how he would have voted had he known what he knew in some of their speeches (not to Kerry)
No one recorded the question Kerry was asked -- but his answer was the same one he gave for months. What was jarring is putting them together -- and even Brut Hume had some residual intellectual honesty to not do what the mainstream media did. Remember this is the same media that played with the SBVT lies for over three months -- even though they contradicted the official record without asking for any proof.
Cha
(319,074 posts)dawg
(10,777 posts)Then I guess, unless Syria comes over here and attacks us, that we won't have one then.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Hey, he didn't WANT to do it! Oh, well then, carry on might warriors!
totodeinhere
(13,688 posts)he is wrong. This isn't about John Kerry. It's about a wrongheaded policy that might drag us into another Middle Eastern war.
atreides1
(16,799 posts)That's the job of the President!
Personally I would have rather have gotten all of the evidence before I made the statements that Kerry made yesterday, but that's just me!
And I didn't really buy the whole "moral obscenity" thing, considering we're still using UAV's and killing innocent civilians in aother parts of the world!
Those cruise missiles are going to kill more people, and that's the truth!
Hekate
(100,133 posts)
Quantess
(27,630 posts)
Cha
(319,074 posts)I do anonymous posters on the internet. He's given those of who trust him.. good reason to do so.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)That sure went well.
karynnj
(60,968 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)voted against it. He voted for it. Whatever he said has to be measured against his giving bushieboy his confidence and the power to do as he wished.
This is what opposition looked like:
This resolution, like others before it, does not declare anything. It tells the President "you decide." This resolution, when you get through the pages of whereas clauses, is nothing more than a blank check. The President can decide when to use military force, how to use it, and for how long.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0210/S00095.htm
karynnj
(60,968 posts)It seems clear to me that Kerry and the other SFRC Democrats, led by Biden, worked to get even worse provisions out of the IWR after it was clear that their alternative - which Howard Dean also supported - was not going to be the bill. At the point they were working on it, it was clear the IWR would pass. If you read Kerry's (or Biden's) speeches they spoke of moving Bush to go to the UN. In retrospect, ANY resolution would have been misused -- and Bush would have gone without any resolution. (In 2003, there was a Teresa Kerry quote that in essence said, they tried to avoid war and succeeded just in postponing it 6 months.)
In Fall 2002, no inspectors had been in for 4 years -- and the US and other countries did get the inspectors in AFTER that vote. What would have been better - if they would have had the votes to filibuster (right before the 2002 elections in a traumatized country - that would have worked!) - was to pass NO resolution. the US could still have pushed for inspections and had they happened in the same way, if Bush THEN went for a resolution, it likely would have failed as there was far more information available.
That does not mean that Bush would not have invaded - the Downing Street memos speak of creating a fake attack on a UN/US plane in the Iraq no fly zone. Bush would declare that an attack on the US (world forces) and we would be in the same place. The only good is that it would be clearer that it was Bush/Republicans who led this. (In fact, for most of the political spectrum - that is what it is anyway.)
(Note that even with no attack on the US, there is a long list of Presidents who went to war with no resolution. In fact, it would be good strategy for Obama to get a resolution on Syria. The fact is it is NOT an easy position either way - which is why there are very few clear specific statements either way from any legislators. The Free Press has had no comment from anyone in the VT delegation.)
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)And he's doing it quite well.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)Laughing Mirror
(4,185 posts)So it doesn't matter if its leaders tell the truth or not. No one believes them anyway.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)as SoS Kerry gets to make independent statements, that he is allowed his own message, he is not, as SoS Kerry is the public 'mouthpiece' of the administration, nothing more, nothing less
So the question is not do you believe John Kerry, the question is do you believe the administration
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)i know kerry is far more seasoned than the president when it comes to war. i know this president is`t going to rush to war like that addled brain idiot we used to have.
they both know one hell of a lot more than we do
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Clearly, a decade ago he believed that Iraq had WMD and was again working toward an atomic bomb even though there was no evidence of these - because they weren't. By contrast, *most* elected Democrats did not believe that Iraq was a threat. So while most elected Democrats were right, Kerry was wrong. By sheer coincidence, no doubt, the Democrats that voted for the IWR were Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, and the rest of the gang who wanted to run for President. Coincidence. No doubt.
Whether he was duped or he lied, it's clear that Kerry's words and beliefs don't always reflect the truth. More recently, about two years ago, Kerry said something along the lines of entitlements being the only problem with the US economy moving forward, which is clearly awful, stupid, and totally wrong. I'm not sure how that can be purely waived off with a claim of ignorance.
In any case, Kerry is not a particularly trustworthy source.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)Gothmog
(179,858 posts)I also believe that Sec. of State Kerry is telling the truth
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I need to see more facts.
Kerry may be persuaded by logic or circumstantial evidence. I think we have to wait for more than that. They may have it. Kerry may have seen it. But so far, I have not.
Ocelot
(227 posts)I don't think he's a bad person, or even a bad politician, but I think he's misguided in some areas.
MelungeonWoman
(502 posts)
If he was willing to make the Viet Nam War the cornerstone of his campaign knowing the SBVfT were completely ready for him, he'll literally do anything for the team.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)But at least he's not out catching waves during this crisis, so good for him.
Problem is, we're gung ho for war, We've been gung-ho for war from the first minute. And Kerry frankly doesn't seem to be interested in any options that don't involve turning Syrians into flying meat. He doesn't even seem interested in ascertaining whether the Assad government was responsible or not.
YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)...today. If you are interested in facts:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/USForeignPolicy112
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Having a D next to your name doesn't immunize you from being "trashed" when you're on a trajectory of stupid. Which is indeed what this administration is doing with regards to Syria. There is absolutely no way this plan of action is going to benefit anyone other than our declared enemies. It will send Syria into a deeper spiral of violence, it will endanger our allies - Turkey, Jordan, and Israel - as well as bring our remaining men and women in Iraq into further risk of harm. It holds a possibility of lighting a conflict with Iran or Russia. And all we get out of it is the privilege of saying we killed several thousand people with "conventional weapons" as a protest against someone (Remember, we don't fucking know who!) using gas to kill somewhere between three hundred and a thousand.
THis is the plan. It's a fucking asinine plan, and I don't give a flying fuck whether it's Obama and Kerry, or Bush and Rummy, it doesn't fucking matter who's leading the charge on a stupid idea.
YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)...here. (Probably would have phrased it in a little more 'G' rated form.)
I don't give anyone a pass just because they are Democrats. I do think you seem to know more about the action President Obama plans to take than I do. Could you share what you have found out?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)However I do know enough about the situation in Syria to say that almost nothing we do there will have any positive effect on Syria or the region.
And I say "almost" because I can think of exactly one option that would work in favor for Syria, its people, and the region as a whole... it's just that we're not going to take it, because it would mean working with Assad.
YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)...work as Chair of Senate Foreign Relations Committee, after President Obama's election in 2008. PLEASE.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)Straight out of limpballs mouth.
You must be proud.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)That's exactly what our secretary of state was doing while Egypt was undergoing a violent coup. I don't know if you're aware, but Egypt is Kind of A Big Deal™ - it's the second-most influential state in the middle east (possibly tied, with Saudi Arabia) and represents our second-largest investment in money, arms, and diplomacy after Israel.
Whether or not Limbaugh tried to score political points off of it is irrelevant to the fact of the matter. As for me, I'm actually pretty fucking concerned about what's going on in the middle east, which I strongly suspect differentiates me from Limbaugh by quite a large margin
Another point of difference is that I'm sure Limbaugh would reverse his stance if it were Rice taking "me time" during such a crisis. In fact I'm pretty sure he defended her going on a shopping spree during Katrina - did you defend her for that as well?
freshwest
(53,661 posts)karynnj
(60,968 posts)since becoming SoS, he has worked to revitalize the peace conference that should have happened two or more years ago. He and Lavrov did reach an agreement on that, but there have been postponements due to the rebels, Assad, and even the worsening of our relationship with Moscow.
He has taken two short MA vacations where he was out on the ocean briefly - while spending most of the time working. Join the RW that was upset that he took his little grandson on a boat ride for an hour back in July or that he did some windsurfing this month. ) He has traveled in this time at a rate faster than any SoS. He also has been involved in a huge amount of intense diplomacy.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)He and Sergei Lavrov agreed on the need for a peace conference on Syria? Well that's great, sure... except that Kerry has abandoned that notion and now is advocating for war against Syria, based on as-yet unfounded assertions, which by the way, Lavrov rejects entirely.
You can't try to make the case that a guy is a great diplomat if he jumps from "peace conference" to "fuck it, where's our bombs?" in a little under two weeks.
As I said, I don't think Kerry is lying, I don't think he's a bad guy. I am thinking that my opinion of him is steadily sinking, and that his efforts in the region are either halfhearted or, perhaps, full-hearted but half-brained... And since kerry's a smart dude I'm reluctant on that one.
avebury
(11,196 posts)is in no position to play the holier then thou card with countries like Syria. We provided a lot of the stuff Iraq used against Iran, the Kurds, and Iraqis. We have participated in the overthrow of way too many duly elected governments that either did not fit the mold of what we wanted or were a threat to Corporate interests in the West.
Syria and possibly Iran are just the MIC's move towards beginning the next war to fund their profits (as well as distracting our attention on what is going on within our own country). Let other countries deal with Syria, we have done more then are fair share over the years elsewhere.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)and I don't think anyone with a brain denies it. The US public is not for war in either Syria or Iran, but we are getting dragged into it one way or another. I guess it will obscure our own government's wrong doing.
Prepare for some fucked up shit to happen.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)
Deep13
(39,157 posts)
elleng
(141,926 posts)Thanks.
Wes Clark said:
When you start something like this you have to be prepared for an indeterminate length if you have a political objective," Clark said.
However, if the objective is punishment, it can be over quickly with a few missile strikes.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/27/216155784/retired-gen-wesley-clark-talks-about-precedents-and-syria
David__77
(24,728 posts)It doesn't matter if he is consciously lying. He is still a fool. And he is unwittingly supporting al Qaeda too. The blowback from this would be horrendous, and we owe it to our children to say "NO!"
mike_c
(37,051 posts)...i.e. when he ran for president in 2004, he defended the war and offered to pursue it "better" than W and his cronies. Find any evidence that he opposed it, or planned to end it, from his 2004 campaign and I'll take the time to look for some of the respect I once had for John Kerry.
senseandsensibility
(24,973 posts)respected John Kerry. I won't try to divine his motives or call him a liar, but this situation is very troubling.
karynnj
(60,968 posts)What he laid out was how he would resolve the war. It included the idea of a regional conference to help the Iraqis take over their government and to as quickly as possible replace the coalition with Iraqis in securing the country.
After he lost, he twice laid out what he thought should be done - first in October 2005, in a speech at Georgetown University. It would have started withdrawals by the end of 2005 and would have immediately moved Americans out of policing Iraq - something he thought dangerous when they did not understand the language or the customs ( The RW remembers this as Kerry suggesting that Americans were terrorizing people - when he spoke of how dangerous it was to have the US knocking on doors at night.)
The next time you should remember - He joined with Feingold and they sponsored Kerry/Feingold that had many elements in common with the earlier plans. A variation became the Democratic plan as Reid/Feingold = and got slightly ,ore than 50 votes as an amendment to a defense bill. Eventually, Bush even followed the idea that a timeline or deadline was needed.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)How absurd of you to try to suggest that they wouldn't lie again.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)#12: The swiftboating campaign virus permanently damaged their brains.
#11: His work in the VVAW has been forgotten, so they think he's become a warmonger.
#10: They never saw a Fox meme fly by that they didn't swallow.
# 9: His testimony on American war crimes in Vietnam during the Winter Soldier hearings must still rankle them.
# 8: He speaks French, so he must be an effete liberal intellectual snob, just like Agnew said.
# 7: His investigation on Iran Contra didn't rid the Earth of every single GOP goon, thus, he's one of them.
# 6: He went to the same college as Bush, thus he's a fraud.
# 5: He married a rich heiress which means he's one of *them.*
# 4: He's from the liberal state of Mass and we all know about them!
# 3: He was a friend of the Kennedys and some say Ted was no good.
# 2: He is taller, better looking and has more hair than them.
# 1: Mostly though, it's because he and Obama are way too friendly:
#4...my favorite~
freshwest~
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)changes...a lot.
Except republicans. They become more republican. That is stupider and meaner.
SleeplessinSoCal
(10,412 posts)Something really shockingly helpful..... 
mattclearing
(10,109 posts)That makes him either gullible or complicit.
Whether he's lying or not, I don't really trust anyone who was persuaded to support Bush or his war.