Mr. Kerry, Is THAT Really You?

[kpete]

September 01, 2013
RUSH TRANSCRIPT: JOHN KERRY ON “MEET THE PRESS”
Sec. Kerry tells David Gregory that new evidence suggests Assad launched a Sarin gas attack and that “this case is building"

Well, the case remains the same, David. The President of the United States has made his decision. His decision is to take military action in response to this outrageous attack. There's a front against the decency and sensibilities of the world.

Bashar al-Assad now joins the list of Adolph Hitler and Saddam Hussein have used these weapons in time of war. This is of great consequence to Israel, to Jordan, to Turkey, to the region, and to all of us who care about enforcing the international norm with respect to chemical weapons.

http://nbcumv.com/mediavillage/networks/nbcnews/pressreleases?pr=contents/press-releases/2013/09/01/rushtranscriptj1415026.xml





In our opinion, and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart.

http://www.democracynow.org/2004/2/20/john_kerry_then_hear_kerrys_historic


before you all flame me for my dissappoinment, I voted for this man, I respected this man, I defended him....
kp

[MADem]

1. Well, I think he's making a good case. He disapproves of the slaughter of civilians by sarin gas.

How DARE he!!!

[YvonneCa]

2. I agree. It takes a person of real integrity and strength to take a stand...

...against anything, knowing you face attacks from all sides. Secretary Kerry has done that his entire life. I think he will be on 'the right side of history' once again, just like he was during Viet Nam.

The country is lucky to have him.

[kpete]

3. YvonneCa

I want you to be right
I am hoping,
but so far....

peace, kp

[karynnj]

16. I think in terms of morality, this is consistent for Kerry

I see no reason to doubt his integrity, basic decency or morality because of this stand (and I don't think you did.)

I think there are two levels here. 1) Kerry's reaction to this as an unthinkable atrocity. and 2) Is this a good geopolitical decision to make an attack.

On the first, Kerry's strong reaction here is very much the same motivation as his speaking out in 1971. In 2004, when asked why he risked never having a political career by speaking out, his answer was "his conscience". You could argue that that morality, decency and strength of character, while obviously making him a good person, may lead him to support actions that might -ignoring the moral questions would not be pursued.

Where there is a fairer question is whether the planned action will make things better or worse.

[YvonneCa]

30. Thank you for that...

...kpete. I have great respect for your efforts to provide information and initiate debate...no matter the outcome on this issue.

[Schema Thing]

62. so far, you're pounding him into your preconceived narrative wrt Syria.

[MADem]

9. +1,000 nt

[ProSense]

15. It's absurd to expect Kerry

not to point out an atrocity. Although Doctors Without Borders has made no determination about the origins of the attack, they do acknowledge the severity.

On August 24, MSF announced that three hospitals it supplies in Syria’s Damascus governorate had reportedly received 3,600 patients displaying neurotoxic symptoms, of which 355 died. Although our information indicates mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent, MSF clearly stated that scientific confirmation of the toxic agent was required, and therefore called for an independent investigation to shed light on what would constitute, if confirmed, a massive and unacceptable violation of international humanitarian law.

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/press/release.cfm?id=7033&cat=press-release

The DWB statement mentions the UN investigation.

Syria: Ban briefed by UN disarmament chief on latest developments - UN spokesperson

31 August 2013 – Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today met with the top United Nations disarmament official, just back from Damascus, on the chemical weapons investigation and the latest developments in Syria. The meeting comes as the UN inspection team arrived in the Netherlands earlier today to carry out a rapid analysis of samples gathered.

UN Spokesperson Martin Nesirky told reporters in New York that Mr. Ban met with UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Angela Kane for over an hour.

“Ms. Kane briefed the Secretary-General on her trip and on the current status of the investigation,” Mr. Nesirky said, adding that that she thanked the Syrian Government and opposition for their cooperation during this mission. Ms. Kane had been in Damascus, at Mr. Ban's request, meeting with the Syrian Government to facilitate access for the team of inspectors, who arrived on 18 August.

<...>

The inspection team, led by Swedish scientist Dr. Åke Sellström, is now in The Hague, the headquarters of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapon (OPCW), which is assisting the probe, along with the UN World Health Organization (WHO).

- more -

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45744&Cr=Syria&Cr1=

[rhett o rick]

67. But Kerry left out the USofA as having used chemical weapons in Vietnam. nm

[dionysus]

81. jesus christ

nice flail reaction.

[rhett o rick]

88. Annnnnnnnd you have nothing to add. Ok. nm

[YvonneCa]

105. You DO know he protested...

...that war, right?

[Bluenorthwest]

29. He was wrong about Iraq, he thought there were WMD and wanted to invade under Bush and voted for it.

Do you think that was 'the right side of history'?

[YvonneCa]

32. That vote has been explained...here and elsewhere...

...often. He has explained it, taken responsibility for it, and said he regrets it. No one can rewrite the past.

[Bluenorthwest]

44. But must we recreate the past? Why would the country believe a man who was so brutally wrong about

such an important decision? Not one of those who made that decision bore any hint of accountability for it. In what way did he take responsibility? He took the job as Sec of State knowing he was not that good at making these choices. That's taking responsibility?
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."

He sounded very, very certain about all of that. But he was wrong. It is what it is, we'd be far better off with leadership who are not known to have made such murderous errors, don't you think?

[YvonneCa]

48. You, and others, are judging Kerry by one...

...vote rather than a cumulative record of wise choices and votes he has made. Granted, it was an important one. But over his life and service, he has made choices most here would agree with.

THIS is a time to support those who have opposed the neocon agenda. Kerry has...valiantly.

[Bluenorthwest]

59. Uh, Iraq invasion was the neo con agenda, Kerry supported and marketed it.

And you know Yvonne, I have not dealt a word of criticism to you, I am not preaching at you about how I think you are making your decision. There is absolutely no reason to get personal, except that you have nothing else to say. That shifting gears to the personal attack is done so casually by some here.
Yes, when a person sends us to war on lies he not only believed but told himself, I look for actual accountability, a man of integrity would have stepped down in the face of the death and mayhem that 'mistake' caused. What other job can you kill thousands, waste billions, say 'whooops' and get big promotions? You tell me. Name one.

[HardTimes99]

53. He even said he would have voted to invade Iraq even had he known beforehand

that Saddam had no WMD.

I had to pick my jaw up off the floor when I heard that particular piece of speciousness. I pretty much tuned him out after that (although I did vote for him in 2004).

[customerserviceguy]

55. The right side of history on Vietnam?

You mean where he supported the war before he opposed the war? Just like Iraq?

No wonder the Rethugs had such an easy time painting him as a flip-flopper.

[Cha]

75. Mahalo Yvonne! nm

[YvonneCa]

106. Mahalo to you! Feels like the....

....old DU around here, doesn't it?

[n2doc]

4. But he approves of slaughter by other means

How Dare He!

[KittyWampus]

7. The difference… #1. killing masses of civilians and #2. doing it intentionally.

[Scootaloo]

84. KittyWampus, allow me to explain something to you...

The weapons we will be using are very likely these;

That's a tomahawk missile.

Now, if you're not aware of what a missile is, it's basically a self-propelled, guided bomb. When it impacts or is set off, it explodes, having an effect like this;


Now here's the thing about explosions... explosions aren't precise. They create a concussive wave, basically a spehrical wall of air and fire that picks up debris - things laying around, rubble from the impact and explosion, shards of the missile itself - and sends it flying at slightly faster than the speed of sound, for a varying distance (depending on the payload of the missile).

Anything caught within this sphere tends to die. Beyond the blast radius, people can still be severely injured and killed by flying debris. If the strike is against a building, pieces or the whole thing can collapse, crushing people, sending more debris out, raising clouds of dangerous and toxic dust and smoke, etc.

If you throw this sort of weapon at a populated area, you are, one hundred percent, ABSOLUTELY intentionally targeting civilians. There's no fucking away around it. No, it doesn't matter where the cross-hairs are centered on, because by design the weapon is going to kill and maim in a large radius around that point.

So yes, when we fire these:

into a place like this:

We are intentionally and knowingly creating these:


Spare me this "Golly shucks, it's an innocent accident when we do it!" bullshit act. We know what missiles fucking do.

[MADem]

8. No, he doesn't. But sarin is outside the Geneva Conventions, and we're a party to them.

This isn't about inserting ourselves on one side of a civil war--it's about telling someone with stockpiles of sarin gas that they should not use them.

But go ahead and be simplistic and obtuse!

[Bluenorthwest]

64. Waterboarding is outside the Geneva Conventions. So is eternal detention, so are war of aggression

But the Bushco crowd is either in the current administration or off on vacation spending War Bucks!!!!

[MADem]

66. Yes, and because George Bush had no problem with that, we have to remain, static, constrained by

George Bush's morality....because.... because.... because....?

Pay no attention to the dead bodies of children stacked like cordwood!!!

George Bush wouldn't have minded, so we shouldn't either!


Stupidest argument on the planet, IMO.

[dflprincess]

76. And when the U.S. allows Bush, etal to be prosecuted for the crimes they committed

then we will have the moral authority to complain about what someone else does.

[MADem]

77. You do know that's an idiotic set of conditions, and they aren't going to happen?

What you're saying is because Bush isn't punished, we can never be moral, ever again.

That is asinine thinking. It's like saying "Well, we once were OK with segregation, so we can never say a word about issues of civil rights or equality."

[dflprincess]

78. Given that it is the current administration that has refused to prosecute Bush

And has the DOJ in court asking that he be given immunity I'd say that Obana is not in a position to decide that anyone else should be punished.

What he is saying and apparently you agree with is that war crimes should only be taken seeriously when the person committing them is not an American.

That's what's idiotic.

[MADem]

80. You're just being foolish, now.

Charge him with what? "To the Hague!!!"

Presidential power is limited--he didn't do a thing without the helping hand of Congress. You'll have to send many of your favorites along, too.

Bush wasn't telling his brother to lob sarin gas into neighborhoods to murder sleeping children and grannies in their beds. That's what is at issue here.

Grow up.

[dflprincess]

83. Bush started a war for absolutely no reason

And we have no idea how many Iraqi children he killed. He also condoned torture and the indefinite detention of prisoners. But I guess that's okay because the Obama Administration doesn't think the crimes he committed are serious enough to prosecute.

How many children will we kill with an airstrike?

What's gone on in the Congo is worse but we've never heard any talk of going in there. Apparently they don't have anything we want.

Why don't you grow up and face the fact that Obama is just another tool of the MIC?

[MADem]

87. So? What's your point?

Bush isn't the President, now, is he?

Syria is not Iraq, is it?


And who --save you--is advancing the "I guess that's OK" theme? Just because one thing has jackshit to do with another thing doesn't mean it is "OK."

You might want to learn to advance an argument, instead of flinging shit everywhere and praying some will stick.

We don't "have" to kill any children with an airstrike, with the right targets--shows what you know to assume that we do. You think little kids will be sleeping on a runway at zero dark thirty? Runways make great targets, FWIW.

The one who needs to "grow up" and stop talking smack is you. You wouldn't know a "tool of the MIC" if it ran you over on a highway in broad daylight.

[YvonneCa]

107. Bush and his policies hurt our country. I don't use this word often...

...but I HATE what they did. We are still paying for it and will be paying for it for a very long time. Both in foreign policy and in our economy.

I think they should be held accountable, and wish the Obama Administration had done so. It seems, since they didn't, that we Americans will have to wait for history's judgement. Which means we probably won't be around to see it...

But...think through the 'what if', given the context of the world as it is today:

Would we project the strengths of democracy with a trial for a past president? Maybe, maybe not.

Would it help unify our country? Probably not...would polarize us more, if that's possible. Which could be dangerous, IMHO.

Would it be helpful, considering our economic woes? I doubt it.

Would it be helpful, considering our international woes? Pretty risky, IMO.

Given all that, I can understand President Obama's decision to move FORWARD. History will hold GWB accountable, although I admit I hate the wait.

BUT...

...we can't wait to uphold our BEST American values. We can't wait to reclaim our moral authority. GWB took a lot from us...the American people. I don't want to give up one more thing, because of him and Cheney.

Obama is not Bush. Kerry is not Powell. Biden is not Cheney.

And they NEED our support.

[Cha]

73. THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[SwampG8r]

74. i am not sure but i think we are not

signatures on the chemical weapons sections because of white phosphorus ammo
I could be wrong its happened before and not just the once either

[MADem]

79. We ARE signatories to the Chemical Weapons Convention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CWC_Participation.svg

[SwampG8r]

108. calm down now fella i said i wasnt sure nt

[MADem]

109. You seem excitable....and you're projecting your excitement on me, it would seem.

I'm as mellow as a cello, as they say....

The fact remains, though, that use of chemical weapons is not sanctioned by most civilized governments in the world.

[pacalo]

72. Bombing a sovereign country isn't the solution; it will be adding to the slaughter of civilians.

If the goal is to get rid of the problem, it makes more sense to have quietly sent a group of commandos to remove al-Assad from power.

After Dubya's lies, I question what the government tells us. It seems the military-industrial complex has become addicted to war & its appetite is insatiable.

Slaughtering more innocent lives to make a huge statement to a leader who supposedly gassed civilians makes no sense.

[MADem]

82. Not with proper targeting.

If al Assad needs "X" bridge to get his chemical weapons from point A to point B, take out "X" bridge.

If al Assad wants to use helicopters to disperse CW over a wider area, take out the helicopters.

Fuck with al-Assad, himself, personally. Take out his Presidential jet; crater his airfields so he can't take off and land, for example. Limit his movement, force him to use less optimal means of travel.

None of these targets will kill civilians, unless they all camp on the runways. They can be hit with great precision--and to good effect. There are many other targets that will slow al-Assad down, mess with him, but not hurt people. That's not the intent here, to hurt civilians--the intent is to make al Assad feel pain by messing with his toys for two or three days. It's not a "destroy everything" scenario--just a "Let's see how YOU like it" quick blow, with an inference that "There's more where that came from" if he continues to gas civilians.

[pacalo]

85. You'd make an excellent strategist, MADem.

If that were along the lines of what they're planning, I'm surprised that instead of keeping it a secret, those who are eager to attack are all over the media with their sales pitches.

Just last week, both Wes Clark & Brzezinski were individually quoted as saying there had not been nearly enough planning for military action in Syria. Wes Clark said the difference between Syria & Kosovo was that before the first missile was launched on Kosovo, the entire operation was planned down to the aftermath strategy. Both Clark & Brzesinski were concerned about the lack of strategy as well as the push being exerted to go into Syria. With both statements released & posted on DU on the same day, it made me wonder if they were speaking on behalf of Obama. Perhaps he is under intense pressure & he wants us to speak out for what's right.

After the Iraq quagmire, I cannot understand the urgency -- without a plan -- to get into another one.

[MADem]

86. The problem with tipping your hand is the motor-mouths in Congress.

You get your Rand Pauls up there waving their hands and giving Hafez's little boy the "hit list," as it were.

There are people in the Pentagon who do nothing but make lists of targets all the live-long day. It's not that they want to hit anything, it's just contingency planning. Sometimes, they're pulled out and applied to fictional countries when doing table top "war games."

I don't know if Wes has stopped by the ME desk lately, and actually asked if anyone's doing work along those lines--just because people aren't telling him doesn't mean it ain't happening. He may have pissed a few folks off (he was not universally beloved when he was in Europe, BTW) -- not that many remain, really, from back in the day when he was active -- and people just aren't reaching out to him or cluing him in. He does get paid a nice appearance fee to opine on TV, with or without real, actual data--I think that's probably the most accurate thing anyone can say.

I don't think Obama, or Hagel's crew, want to advertise their targets. I do think they'll be, as they promised, very limited, very precise, and designed to not just hurt al Assad physically, but to hurt him personally--hurt his FEELINGS. Knock out some precious asset, some "baby" he's just loving to have, like say, a prized pier on the Med, for example. Or maybe, say, one of those submarines he has (that he isn't using)--turn that thing into a hazard to navigation.

The idea is to get him shaking his fist like a bad actor playing Hitler in a WW2 movie; then, perhaps, his own crew will push him into exile with a false promise that they'll bring him back "later, when things settle down;" and then, once he boards the plane and waves goodbye, they can throw him under the bus...!

[rhett o rick]

97. I think we should be careful starting down the "let's punish bad behavior."

What Assad did pales in comparison to what we did in Iraq and Vietnam. The terrorists justify their attacks because they want to punish us for our atrocities. And if we bomb Syria, there will be those that will want to punish us.

If we are going to use air strikes to punish, what is the criteria? Is it just the use of chemicals? Is it the number of deaths?

Bombing for peace is not a Democratic ideal.

[MADem]

98. Well, that HAS been the goal all along with this proposal--it's not a secret.

You gas little kids, we smack your ass. You don't DO that shit. It's WRONG.

And the idea is to bomb STUFF, not people. It always has been. You'd never know it if you let DU be your only source for news, though.

In this case, the CW and Geneva Conventions are being enforced. I think it's a good time to stand up and say "NO. You can't do that and get away with it. It's beyond the pale."

Unless you want Kim Jong Un to get any ideas, anyway...

[KittyWampus]

5. Is it possible that maybe Assad forces did just kill 1000 civilians using chemical weapons & that

continued use of them in Syria might lead to destabilizing the area?

[MADem]

12. And not only the area--I'll bet Little Kim over in North Korea has his eye on this shit, too!

Nukes? Who needs nukes? I'll just launch some gas over the border...the US won't do shit!

[blm]

17. Apparently widespread chemical use to eliminate villages is acceptable

to the people of the world's last superpower.

[HardTimes99]

56. Are we still a superpower? Ragtag bodies of irregulars have now defeated us

or fought us to stalemates in the last 3 large conflicts (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan). Doesn't seem very 'super-power-y' to me.

[blm]

65. Essentially, we are. Others haven't much on their resumes, either.

Oddly enough.

[n2doc]

6. One wonders what Lt. Kerry would think

[KittyWampus]

10. it was pretty clear that no troops were being considered in Syria and that Viet Nam was based

on a lie.

So again, we are down to claiming no civilians were killed intentionally in Syria using chemical weapons.

[MADem]

11. Stupid cartoon. The artist ignored the repeated assertions by POTUS and SECSTATE about

No US boots on the ground, and he did it for pure snarky effect, to try to stab Kerry with his own words, while completely ignoring the details of this particular imbroglio.

Facts be damned, let me play "Gotcha."

Only he didn't get anyone, but himself--because he clearly didn't listen to what either of them said about what the mission was, how long it would last, and how it would be achieved.

[GoCubsGo]

20. Really disappointing and unfair cartoon from Danzinger.

He doesn't usually try to compare apples and oranges like this. And, I don't recall Mr. Kerry asking any American troops to die in Syria. What a pile of crap.

[MADem]

22. It's sheer laziness...pandering to a crowd, many of whom couldn't find Syria on a map two weeks ago,

who couldn't name the leader of the country on a bet. Knee-jerkish; like the opposite of flag-waving, in a way.

It sullies his veracity as a chronicler of the age, certainly.

[blm]

14. Big difference - Who is going on record saying that widespread chemical use to

eliminate a people are acceptable now to the world's last superpower?

[karynnj]

21. I think Lt Kerry would be as appalled by the use of chemical weapons

killing over 1000 by Assad. Kerry, even in 1971, was not a dove - even telling Congress that if the US was attacked he would be willing to fight.

His comments on the atrocities in Central America in the 1980s, in Yugoslavia in 1990s, and recently in Libya all reflect the same mind set.

I was looking at Blue Mass and was reminded that in 1971, part of what he spoke against was the use of napalm and he spoke about the atrocities that he heard related at the Winter Soldier hearings. He did this risking he might never have a political career - something he had long hoped he would have. In fact, a case can be made that that cost him the Presidency -- just as he suggested in might in 1971. He was asked asked on 60 minutes then if he wanted to be President - after asking President of what? - he answered that there were important things he had to do now and that he might not be able to keep people happy with him.

[YvonneCa]

45. Thanks, karynnj, for your informative...

...posts.

[Tigress DEM]

23. The difference between DEMS and RETHUGS is we don't just THROW the military AT problems.

We actually try other solutions first and when war is needed we are not all gung ho about being able to try out our new war toys. We are STILL working toward ending whatever war we get involved with in a truce that brings some level of solution.

*ush and his ilk were not even allowing the body count to be made publicly known and consideration of the cost to the soldiers involved not even on their radar.

When DEM leaders have to face the proposition of war they weigh the facts of what it will cost in ALL categories and live with the fall out of decisions made.

Kerry certainly has consulted his own experience and desire to not throw any lives away without real cause, but we are all overwhelmed and wanting a solution to these governments that are acting out because the major world powers are distracted.

[YvonneCa]

35. Below the belt and simplistic. Such rebuttals tend to arise...

...when one can't find a reasoned argument.

[Tigress DEM]

13. Intelligent people make specific distinctions. Broad justifications for rushing to war, still bad.

*ush destroyed 200 years of detant, the peaceful negotiation-based political process that would be the alternative to war.

He threw a match on the middle east and it's a raging wild fire. It's always been a volatile region, but we used to be more of a help than an obstruction. He pissed off our allies and gave our enemies justification to openly attack us so we could say, "They started it."

THEN: Kerry was promoting a decision to end a war that wasn't achieving any goals and was sending Americans to their deaths without any hope of real victory.

to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom... the height of criminal hypocrisy

But part of standing up for the citizens being murdered in Vietnam DID make a difference for US in the eyes of the world. At least we TRIED to be their for our fellow human beings up to and including sacrificing our own for their cause and it was more than just promoting "democracy" it was trying to stop the senseless destruction of half their own population.

Pressuring nations not to murder their citizens, by going through all peaceful options including sanctions and when nothing else works possibly to war when absolutely necessary is different than, "We gotta get Saadam, how do we justify it?"

Syria is murdering women and children and the whole world wants to see SOMETHING done to stop it.

IF there is a peaceful solution, hopefully Obama will find it.

IF there isn't one, hopefully the action taken will be surgical and precise, leaving some way for that country to get back to letting people live their day to day lives without the fear of being slaughtered by their government.

[kpete]

18. thanks for that

IF there is a peaceful solution, hopefully Obama will find it.

not too much hope left,
but President Obama's choice to go to Congress, left me with More Hope than I had a week ago...

good post Tigress Dem
peace, kp

[MNBrewer]

25. The likely outcome is that people will wind up fearing being slaughtered by their neighbors

genocide and ethnic cleansing is waiting in the wings.

[Jefferson23]

19. To strike because the US will be able to control the reaction?

Strike and nations such as North Korea will not bow to the US, they will
only harden their belief they need nukes to protect themselves from us.


As for Iran, if anything might change the Supreme leaders mind about not embracing
nukes, a strike on Syria may just tip it that way.

I truly hope there will be no strikes, none.

[kpete]

33. i agree:

I truly hope there will be no strikes, none.

i have hoped and wished for peace, all my life
i will be 62 this year
still waiting...

kp

[Jefferson23]

37. That's a long wait kpete, I hope we all get to that plateau soon.

[MNBrewer]

24. The comparison to Hitler is hyperbolic, and to Saddam Hussein, unfortunate.

Assad is no Hitler, and does he REALLY want to draw parallels to our Iraq War buildup?

[KurtNYC]

26. "the case is building"? what happened to "we know" ??

He seems to be talking about moving public opinion when he says "the case is building." Looks like 9% wasn't enough to be gate crashers at a civil war but I'll bet if they get to 35% they will go.

I see a pattern I think, of building credibility in certain political figures and then spending that credibility at the key moment. Colin Powell comes to mind.

[Bluenorthwest]

34. John Kerry, Oct 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."

[AnotherMcIntosh]

102. "I see a pattern I think, of building credibility in certain political figures ..." Absolutely.

The key, I believe, to understanding which of the politicians are truly liberal/progressive/populists instead of potential stalking horses waiting in their stables is to look at how they are treated by the powers-that-be.

If the PTB are not engaging in character assignation (think of the "crazy" screaming John Dean), it's possible that the politician is a stalking horse.

[Autumn]

27. I just saw him on TV. He seems to have gotten a new attitude to go along with his new look.

I'm not sure that I like either.

[karynnj]

31. New look? - He looks just as he has for a decade with a bit of aging

His attitude is very much what it always has been. He has always taken strong moral stands. Even here he is still saying that a political solution is needed.

Also looking back at photos a moth or so ago when the Israelis and Palestinians met in DC - you can see he would far rather be announcing that they are on the way to some peaceful conclusion. He seriously looked happier and younger in those photos than he did since 2004. But that is not where Syria is.

[Autumn]

70. What can I say. IMO he looks younger.

His face seems to be more filled out, I think he looks better than he did in 2004. I rarely ever watch TV and this is the first time I have seen him in quite a while.

[karynnj]

71. His face has filled out

Teresa in 2004 mentioned that he had lost about 20 pounds in 2003 while being treated for cancer and following the doctor's prescribed diet - and that the reason he looked better than in 2003 was he had gained some back - and needed to gain more.

[KoKo]

89. Botox?...everyone uses it. Have you seen reporter Margaret Carlson lately?

Also, many of our House and Senate who've been around somehow keep looking younger as they age. Seriously....they use it. I remember when Nancy Pelosi got her "eye lift" just before she became Speaker and her eyes were unnaturally wide with the rest of her face. It took awhile for her to look normal. You have to look "Young" these days with HiDef TV... And, sometimes it gets overused. I don't have problem with it...but, it does make one wonder if appearance can often seem more important than convictions these days.

I feel he isn't presenting himself as the Candidate I voted for in 2004. But, then we are told that we didn't know the "real Obama" who was always "center right." So, I guess many of us didn't know the "real" Kerry.

Some of us were taking people at their word and others drank the Kool-Aid of message massaging and marketing.

[Autumn]

90. His stance on this issue sure isn't the Candidate I voted for in 2004.

I saw him and at first it didn't register with me who he was, then I heard his voice. He just looked so different at first. Yeah probably Botox. I haven't watched any of the talking head news shows in years. I watch the local news in the morning and evening and the occasional Big Bang Theory. I don't miss the aggravation from the talking idiots at all.

[YvonneCa]

40. New look? You're kidding...

...right?

[mzteris]

28. People change.

They grow up. They have different experiences. Different POV's.

And I can pretty much bet he's privy to a lot damn more information than any one of us. Sometimes when you know the whole story, your stance can change dramatically.

I don't know the whole story. No one here does. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with him or Obama or you. I really haven't taken a stance as quite honestly I've not enough information to make an informed decision.

Do we want to be the world's policeman? I say we shouldn't have to be. But then again, if I see my neighbor beating the shit out of his wife or kid or dog and I can't get a policeman there in time, well, I'd probably have to do something stupid like going over there and doing something that would probably wind up with me getting MY ass kicked (little old lady that I am) because I refuse to stand by and just watch. I bet you wouldn't, either.

Are there multiple layers here? Are there multiple "reasons" for doing or not doing a thing? Who benefits. Who doesn't. Why. Why not. Whose fault. Does it really matter? Based on the "hands-off approach" - in retrospect, should we have intervened in WWII in Europe?

IMHO, the United Nations peacekeeping force should be the "world's policeman". If the UN functioned properly - if participants truly had the world's interest in mind - care for PEOPLE - and not complete self-interest, the threat of war anywhere could be drastically curtailed.

[Bluenorthwest]

39. Intervened in WW2? You do understand that Germany declared war on us, and we did not enter the war

until we had been attacked by the Japanese and had Germany declare war on us. Not really 'intervention' when one answers a declaration of war against our own nation, is it?

[MNBrewer]

43. My guess is that they don't know those facts

and that it will make no difference to have pointed out the truth *sigh*

[Bluenorthwest]

46. Some actually think we went to war because of the death camps when in fact even after we were in the

war and knew where the camps were, we refused to so much as bomb the railroad tracks that were hauling victims to those camps. Additionally, when we liberated some of the prisoners, we kept the gay prisoners in prison for being gay.

[MNBrewer]

49. sad but true

We were provoked into WWII by the Axis. We didn't enter it for "humanitarian" reasons as an intervention against Nazi genocides.

[mzteris]

57. you'd be guessing wrong, then.

That'd be like thinking the Civil War really had a damn thing to do with slavery.

The question attached to the post is really this - would you have NOT wanted the US to intervene in WW2 (all that causality aside).

[MNBrewer]

60. Of course it had something to do with slavery

The Confederate states seceded explicitly to retain slavery, then fired the first shots.

Re: WWII, I would not have imposed the harsh war reparations on the Germans that were imposed at the end of WWI. I would have supported the Weimar Republic and its democratic institutions.

Are you REALLY claiming that Assad and his Baath party is somehow at all similar to Hitler and the Nazi Party? Compared to the Nazis, the Baathists are models of tolerance!

Is Assad a bad guy? OH yes! But just wait til you see what comes after his downfall!

[mzteris]

91. noooooooo

not really. It had everything to do with economics.

While the South may have been trying to keep their horrid institution - it was BECAUSE it provided cheap labor.

Though, again, I was referring primarily to the North "intervening" - "freeing the slaves" was a useful tool to whip the public into a frenzy, but it was about cotton, manufacturing, trade, etc.


No no comparison at all. Hadn't even considered that. As stated, I really have not formed an opinion as I don't have enough information to make one. And no, I really don't want to get into a long drawn out thing about "me".

Just wondering at the "moral outrage" of the op over the US even considering the possibility of intervening over the gassing of women and children (and men of course). . . . just wondering if they regreted the US participation in WWII. I'm really not sure why it's not clear that that was the point of MY post (did you read that one?) and how we got off on this tangential garden path (or garbage path, if you will...).

As for the "downfall", well we saw what followed the "democratic" elections in Egypt. One either supports Democracy, or you don't. Just because they guy you don't like won, doesn't mean you can just throw him out (much as one might like to. (coughgeorgebushcough).

[MNBrewer]

92. The north never "intervened". It responded to the secession.

the secession was caused by fears on the part of the landed aristocrats in the South that they would eventually lose their slaves.

Re: Egypt. I wouldn't exactly call Morsi a "democrat". He may have been elected, but then he went on and behaved in a completely undemocratic manner.

I hope (probably in vain) that a second try at democracy might be more successful there and that the islamists might have learned a lesson.

[mzteris]

94. oh good lord

you really don't know your history, do you?

Sorry. I really don't have time to reeducate you. Suffice it to say, anything you learned in school, is not that close to correct except dates. Reasons, rationale, etc - all slanted and propagandized.

Of course Morsi wasn't a democrat - wtf did I ever even imply that? I said a "democratically held election".

So you believe that if you don't like who's elected you can just remove him from office (without due process)?

[The Midway Rebel]

96. The Amercian Civil War was ALL about slavery.

Slavery was the basis of the Southern economic system. This is NOT a chicken/egg argument. No slavery, no war.

That economic basis theory is bull crap propagated by Southern apologists and you really should stop repeating their lies. The war was about slavery and it says so right there in the CSA's constitution.

[mzteris]

54. We machinated that "declaration" -

we WANTED to be in that war. Although, quite frankly, it really wasn't for altruistic reasons at all. Though that sold well to the public.

But what I'm hearing you say, then, is that you would NOT have wanted the US in the war with Germany based on what they were doing? Is that correct?

BTW - The war with Japan and the war with Germany were really two separate wars. That they happened concurrently had more to do with opportunity presenting itself than anything else.

[MNBrewer]

61. Japan and Germany were allies...

We "machinated" Pearl Harbor?

"We" wanted to be in that war?

What planet are you posting from?

[mzteris]

93. what history do you not know?

Don't tell me you bought the party line?

The US and Russia were "allies", too, during the war. But were we really allies, or fighting a common enemy. Big difference.

And I was referring to our machinating the entry in the EUROPEAN war. That the Japanese were "allies" - well, they were fighting a common enemy, but I'd hardly consider them friends or working in close coordination. Or were Hitler and the Emperor holding regular chitchats of which we know nothing about. One was a sociopathic meglomaniac, and the other thought he was god incarnate on earth. I don't think they would have played well together in close communion. Hitler would never have considered the Japanese as anything resembling an "equal". And the feeling was probably mutual. The "common cause"? Complete and total control over "their territory" and joining forces (so to speak) against the US/England, etc.) (I've always wondered what would have happened had they both succeeded. Would each have left the other alone? Or would Hitler kept going to take over the world.)

US business interests made quite a bit off of the war before we 'entered' it. The policies of Wilson vs FDR and the actions of the various Congressional representatives played heavily on US action/ inaction (that and public opinion AND business interests). We were very much "involved" in it prior to PH, though we had fired no "shots" - except of the financial kind. The actions of Roosevelt were pretty provocative if you think about it.

You might want to read Howard Zinn, People's History, although he discounts the theory that Roosevelt "knew" about Pearl Harbor before it happened. Although we certainly behaved in such a way as to goad the Japanese into some sort of action. (And we didn't seem to care all that much about all that bombing of others that went on before 12/7). http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnpeopleswar.html

And this: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/fdr-foreign/

[MNBrewer]

99. You're really confused

"WE" didn't want to join the war. Roosevelt may have but that's hardly "WE". Sentiment against the war was prevalent until such time as Pearl Harbor.

[aquart]

36. How do we effectively prevent the normalization of poison gas as a weapon of war?

Because that, duckies, is the issue. Effectively.

[Bluenorthwest]

41. For one thing, make it a capital offense to sell component chemicals to nations who are using such

weapons. Firms in the UK sold Assad such components long after his civil war had begun. Iraq's gas, used on Iran and on the Kurdish people was created with components or assistance from firms in the US, the UK, France, Germany and the Netherlands, and we, the US with full knowledge he was using these weapons, gave him targeting coordinates in Iran, where he gassed people.
Many States do not allow the sale of cold medicine because it can be used as an ingredient in meth making, but when companies sell ingredients and instructions for making chemical weapons, no one stops them.
Just a piece of information, chemical weapons do not drop from the sky into the hands of evil people.

[totodeinhere]

47. I think that your approach is something worth considering. But while I am no

expert on the manufacture of chemical weapons I suspect that the ingredients used in the process also have other legitimate uses for peaceful purposes. So I'm not sure if this approach can be practical or not.

[MNBrewer]

50. We forbid sales that constitute technology transfer to certain nations

how is that any different?

[Bluenorthwest]

63. Yeah, Psuedofed is useful as a cold medicine but the sale is controlled becaue of one potential

misuse. Also note that not only ingredients but also development assistance is given by firms, as I listed the nations whose companies helped Saddam develop his own. They did not just sell him some item that he shockingly made into a chem weapon.
At any rate, if the answer to using them is bombs and war, then there obviously needs to be control of the sale of precursors and expertise. All we can do is sell them the ingredients then bomb them for it? I think not.

[lynne]

38. "And as president, I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: -

- The United States of America never goes to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to. That is the standard of our nation."

From John Kerry's Acceptance Speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25678-2004Jul29.html

[YvonneCa]

42. EXACTLY why the debate in Congress is so important. To define when...

...we HAVE to. Is the use of chemical weapons (or nuclear weapons) as a tool of war acceptable, even when the US and others signed treaties saying no?

Is a limited action...whatever that is...war?

The debate should be interesting. I am glad John Kerry and President Obama are helping our country have this important discussion.

[David__77]

51. Ugh. Yes, Kerry is a real disappointment.

It is sad that he chooses to end his political career on notes such as these. The Hitler reference will go down in the books...

[HardTimes99]

52. Oh, how the mighty have fallent. I share your dismay and disappointment - nt

[liberal N proud]

58. What turned him?

[rhett o rick]

68. He left out that the USofA used chemical weapons in Vietnam and helped Hussein use them

in Iraq. The USofA used depleted uranium in Iraq, which is a chemical weapon. The Iraq's will suffer the consequences for decades. We do not have the moral high ground.

[KoKo]

95. Indeed he did and that was the most disappointing in his rant about

HITLER/SADDAM... and his "WE KNOW! WE KNOW!" speech earlier.

It was like he was talking down to those of us "WHO KNOW" what USA has done in the past who voted for him in 2004 for change because of his Vietnam Stance and his later efforts with Iran/Coutra Hearings.

[YvonneCa]

104. Actually, I think he was defining how this situation differs from Iraq in...

...2003. The 'We know' statements were provable facts...listed one by one. That doesn't mean there are things we still do not know.

In 2003, we went to war based on suppostion and 'We believe/think' Saddam has____. Kerry has always tried to argue policy based on FACTS, not guess or idiology.ESPECIALLY in matters of going...or not going...to war.

[roody]

100. +1. USA also gave smallpox

infected blankets to native Americans.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

103. At no time did the USA give infected blankets. If you want to blame Lord Amherst, he was British,

the commanding general of British forces in North America during the final battles of the so-called French & Indian war (1754-1763).

[roody]

110. I stand corrected.

[delrem]

69. Reminds me of Colin Powell.

Colin Powell wasn't ignorant, he was lying.

Pro-war blockheads in '13 are identical to pro-war blockheads in '03, and they'll be identical in '23.
Those who haven't learned, never did want to learn.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

101. Kerry has consistently favored endless wars in the Middle-East since 12/14/2001

"On December 14, 2001, 3 months after the attacks of 9/11, Kerry said on Larry King Live that "I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue against, for instance, Saddam Hussein."

"Kerry said on October 9, 2002; "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Bush relied on that resolution in ordering the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry#Iraq

The genius behind the War on Terror is that it is not only profitable but that there is no one who can surrender.