John Kerry is a Good Man

[alcibiades_mystery]

I disagree with the need for military intervention at this time.

I disagree with Mr. Kerry's argument. And Mr. Obama's.

I disagree with their argument.

But I think John Kerry believes in his case. I think John Kerry believes the facts he is laying out (I do, too), and believes that the course of action he is promoting is 1) in the best interests of the people of the United States, 2) moral and necessary, 3) in the best interests of the Syrian people, and the people in the region, and for people in general, especially if it averts proliferation. I disagree with him on those latter points, but I think he is making his case in good faith, and for good reasons.

I don't think John Kerry is a "filthy liar," or "despicable and disgusting," nor that he is "getting paid by the MIC," nor that he "was always an opportunist who just used the anti-war movement for his own purposes." I don't believe that John Kerry "has lost his soul."

I believe John Kerry is a good man who believes that he is doing the right thing. I happen to disagree with his assessment. That doesn't make him a "warmonger" or a "devil."

Of course, the chorus is coming: did you think the same of the Bushies when they made their case? If not, then YOU TOO are a giant, filthy, disgusting, despicable, soulless, opportunist, hypocrite! Yes, yes. The world is so easy. Actually, I think some of the Bushies did think they were doing the right thing. I disagreed with them, too. Other Bushies were clearly motivated by more sinister strategies. I thought they were assholes.

But John Kerry? I don't think he's an asshole. The vitriol directed his way is unfair. You're all better than that.

[woo me with science]

1. Last refuge of corporate neocon/neolib talking points:

Try to make it personal. Try to make it about being mean to a Democrat.

You know what? Spare us.

[forestpath]

2. +1000

[Skidmore]

3. And the attacks lobbed against Kerry weren't personal

as was your response to the OP? Let's all step back and use more considered and measured language.

[Adrahil]

143. Preach brutha!

I'm still new here and I'm flabbergasted this place is so full of people using the same kind of tactics as the other guys.

[RC]

155. You noticed that, huh?

That is because the Democratic party is far to the Right of where the Republican party was 40 years ago.
And many here would be Republicans now, except for the Right wing of the Democratic party or the Left wing of the Republican Party (same thing), being so far off kilter, to the Right, from the real reference point. You know, the DLC, New Democrats, and assorted and other wise, DINO's, claiming to be main stream Democrats.
Also, there are many here, who treat politics as a big league sports game, who only recognize good and bad ideas by the (D) or (R) by the players names and will defend bad ideas to the death, because of the (D) on their pedestaled icons.

[phleshdef]

13. LOL, like you never "make it personal"... SPARE US

[MADem]

46. +1,000 nt

[pnwmom]

36. "Thread to mourn the passing of the soul of John Kerry" isn't personal? Isn't hate?

The OP is a response to threads like that one -- as you know. Why pretend you don't?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3589985

[Marr]

42. +1

[karynnj]

56. Wrong - the op differentiated between policy and individual

I have seen thousands of posts that do not attack the POLICIES, they attack John Kerry.

[grahamhgreen]

66. +1

[Katashi_itto]

83. Ok, how about he's a kinder, nicer, more loving, War-mongering Devil.

[ripcord]

106. I preferred his testimony before Congress in 1971

[bvar22]

111. Nailed It.

[Zavulon]

150. +10,000 (NT)

[tazkcmo]

4. I have nno problem with disagreeing.

But when you start parsing words about war in the "classic" sense it doesn't mean the people you kill are not "classicly" dead. Also, military action could very well cause a "classic" war providing us with "classic" American casualties.

[reformist2]

5. So he's a good man, who keeps voting for PNAC wars time and time again? Sorry, not buying it.

He always starts out like a peacenik, then caves in and votes with the hawks, then backpedals later to get back in the good graces of his liberal base. Lather, rinse, repeat. Enough. He's tested my patience one too many times.

[MrMickeysMom]

6. He's a fucking sell-out...

Of all people ... John Kerry was part of a hearing on Viet Nam... Now, not only does he give up presidential election of 2004, but he has become the official water carrier for another imperialist perpetual war.... absolutely the worst hypocrisy imaginable.

Not only does Kerry lack credibility, but he had his wife Teresa Hines Kerry visible sitting behind him in today's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. What an outrage!

For us to draw a red line on chemical weapons, what about our dropping 2 atom bombs on Japan, the use of agent orange and napalm in VN, and the our use of white phosphorus and depleted uranium weapons in Falagua, Iraq?

STOP the military industrial congressional complex, NOW!

[karynnj]

58. Why is it an outrage that Teresa Heinz Kerry was there?

This was his former committee - and the current chairman was happy to see her. I assume that she was there with Kerrry - to give him moral support and to see the Senators who she has known for years. Given that she was extremely ill earlier this summer, I assume that many Seantors were happy to see her.

[MrMickeysMom]

85. Because, it had nothing to do with justice and everything to do with...

exactly what you described. What was this supposed to be? A "soft sell"?

If you want to sell a certain march convinced that you are right, leave out the sell factor. This whole setting the scenery stinks on ice.

[karynnj]

88. I seriously do not understand your logic

Most of the people on that committee served with Kerry for years and have substantial respect for him. Many also served with Hagel - and his quiet competence on the committee is likely remembered.

However, no one is making this tough decision - and it is a tough decision - based on their friendship with them. Nor are they basing it on the fact that Senator Kerry's wife is there behind him. I assume many are delighted that she is well enough to be there and to be home with her husband.

Did you watch the hearing? No one sitting in the audience was likely to make an impact - and many of the seats were filled by people with no connections to the Senators or administration. Including some women from Code Pink. I assume you think it important that they were there. If so, why do they have more right to be there than the Secretary of State's wife. A wife who tried with her husband back in 2009 to persuade Assad to reform and cut ties with Hezbollah.

[MrMickeysMom]

93. Think about it...

It's more than logic. She just got out of the hospital with a stroke. She was window dressing. Code pink's message is germane to stopping this violence. THK was there to soften the sell because she is loved.

Bad enough that he's there in that role with the NON logical role of selling our involvement. BAD move to include window dressing. If you want to "sell it", don't use her.

[YvonneCa]

62. The real outrage was that Flag pin he was wearing...

...on his suit lapel. How did you ever miss that?

(sarcasm thingy)

[MrMickeysMom]

86. Any of them wearing it at this point is an embarrassment...

Here we are, ready to march into something without good reason. By applying the timeline of history on the way European colonialism drew the lines around those countries decades ago, then expecting that there wouldn't be religious wars and this civil war was a mistake.

Maybe they should put a pair of glasses over that flag pin.

[avaistheone1]

7. I judge a man by his actions.

John Kerry's actions as of late have not been very good.

I don't think he is telling the truth on this very serious matter.

So I do not think him as a very good person.

[blm]

21. I think you are NOT - you completely ignore his 8years of engaging

personally with Assad when NO ONE ELse would, in order to prevent the war the hawks were close to getting in 2005.

You don't know that Kerry's been trying to keep Assad's mental grip intact when he started freaking out during Arab Spring. He only stopped last year when Assad proved he was incapable of accepting further diplomatic attempts or cooperation.

Where were all of you when Syria threads were posted that discussed this since 2005?

Where? None of you showed up to support diplomatic efforts then and the RW media had a fee ride attacking Kerry for interfering in Syria.

Now, you all have so MUCH to say against the one man who showed up and actively PURSUED an alternate path for peace in Syria.

[avaistheone1]

24. John Kerry could have been working on this for 100 years.

It doesn't matter. This is a civil war where we have no business. We should not be dropping bombs that will cause more problems in the long run.

I don't think we should be starting a war to help Al Qaeda either.

[blm]

34. You claim he is deliberately lying. You refuse context.

You don't know a darn thing about what's been going on in Syria, but, you're willing to smear the one man who did the most to prevent use of military there.

You sure didn't show up to provide political support for his efforts in the 8 years prior, did ya?

He knows better than anyone what Assad's mental state is - - he is the one who tried to keep Assad from losing it the last two years. Where were any of you and the press THEN?

[OnyxCollie]

47. Fuck, blm, give it up.

Even if Kerry has the best intentions, he's making a colossal mistake.

We assume that statesmen think and act in terms of interest defined as
power, and the evidence of history bears that assumption out. That assumption
allows us to retrace and anticipate, as it were, the steps a statesman-
past, present, or future-has taken or will take on the political scene.
We look over his shoulder when he writes his dispatches; we listen in on
his conversation with other statesmen; we read and anticipate his very
thoughts. Thinking in terms of interest defined as power, we think as he
does, and as disinterested observers we understand his thoughts and actions
perhaps better than he, the actor on the political scene, does himself.

The concept of interest defined as power imposes intellectual discipline
upon the observer, infuses rational order into the subject matter of politics,
and thus makes the theoretical understanding of politics possible. On the
side of the actor, it provides for rational discipline in action and creates that
astounding continuity in foreign policy which makes American, British, or
Russian foreign policy appear as an intelligible, rational continuum, by and
large consistent within itself, regardless of the different motives, preferences,
and intellectual and moral qualities of successive statesmen. A realist theory
of international politics, then, will guard against two popular fallacies:
the concern with motives and the concern with ideological preferences.

~snip~

Yet even if we had access to the real motives of statesmen, that knowledge
would help us little in understanding foreign policies, and might well
lead us astray. It is true that the knowledge of the statesman's motives may
give us one among many clues as to what the direction of his foreign policy
might be. It cannot give us, however, the one clue by which to predict his
foreign policies. History shows no exact and necessary correlation between
the quallty of motives and the quality of foreign policy. This is true in both
moral and political terms.

We cannot conclude from the good intentions of a statesman that his
foreign policies will be either morally praiseworthy or politically successful.
Judging his motives, we can say that he will not intentionally pursue
policies that are morally wrong, but we can say nothing about the probability
of their success. If we want to know the moral and political qualities
of his actions, we must know them, not his motives. How often have
statesmen been motivated by the desire to improve the world, and ended
by making it worse? And how often have they sought one goal, and ended
by achieving something they neither expected nor desired?

Morgenthau, H. (1948). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace (pp. 5, 6). New York: Knopf

[wisteria]

72. And, armed with words referencing other conflicts,

you presume to refute a man who has more foreign policy experience than any of us here, has attempted diplomacy with Assad and has lived through a war fought for the wrong reasons. Could it be that SOS Kerry is a visionary and knows that if we do nothing now, we will be doing a lot more in the near future.

[OnyxCollie]

90. Your glowing, emotional, non-rational response notwithstanding,

John Kerry has made a lot of money off of defense contracts and has voted for a war in which the US used chemical weapons.

US lawmakers have as much as $196 million invested in defense companies
From AP via The International Herald Tribune

WASHINGTON: Members of the U.S.Congress have as much as $196 million (€126.2 million) collectively invested in companies doing business with the Defense Department, earning millions since the start of the Iraq war, according to a new study by a nonpartisan research group.

The review of lawmakers' 2006 financial disclosure statements, by the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics, suggests that members' holdings could pose a conflict of interest as they decide the fate of Iraq war spending. Several members who earned the most from defense contractors have plum committee or leadership assignments, including Democratic Sen. John Kerry, independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman and House Republican Whip Roy Blunt.

The study found that more Republicans than Democrats hold stock in defense companies, but that the Democrats who are invested had significantly more money at stake. In 2006, for example, Democrats held at least $3.7 million (€2.3 million) in military-related investments, compared to Republican investments of $577,500 (€372,000).

Overall, 151 members hold investments worth $78.7 million (€50.6 million) to $195.5 million (€125.9 million) in companies that receive defense contracts that are worth at least $5 million (€3.2 million). These investments earned them anywhere between $15.8 million (€10.1 million) and $62 million (€39.9 million) between 2004 and 2006, the center concludes.

More Here: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/04/03/america/NA-GE...

...

Fallujah the Hidden Massacre
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10907.htm

...

Carry on.

[blm]

97. Horsepoo - yours is the under-informed, irrational response.

You want to know how that is calculated? They include Heinz and Pepsi products that are served on bases.

They also included Teresa's holdings even though she and Kerry have always kept their finances separate they were still required to be reported.


Wow - what a profiteering warmonger.

[OnyxCollie]

107. You ignored the white phosphorus used in Fallujah.

If Kerry is concerned about rogue regimes using chemical weapons, he could have done something about the Bush administration.

[blm]

108. Take it up with TeamClinton - they were the ones protecting Bush

on so many levels, including the 2004 election. Nice of Bill to use his summer2004 book tour to vigorously support Bush's military decisions and leadership on Iraq, eh?

BTW - you have yet to name ONE American lawmaker who has shown greater effort to prevent use of military force in Syria than Kerry has the last 8 years. Gee - ya think he MAY be more cognizant of Assad's current, post Arab Spring mental state than YOU, at this point?

[blm]

94. Give up to the LIES being spread about Kerry? No. Lazyminded people

who spread lies and smears are NOT going to be rewarded with silence.

YOU give it up - tell the truth - YOU and most everyone doing the loudest bitching about Syria the past few weeks had NO CLUE what was going on there the last 8 years, and are now smearing and attacking with lies the one American lawmaker who did the most to try turn things around in Syria through diplomatic solutions the last 8 years than ANY OTHER PERSON.

[OnyxCollie]

98. YOU keep throwing your little tantrum.

Recently, you've been complaining about the media's coverage of the NSA, questioning the motivation behind the attention.

Now, with an attack on Syria a near certainty (and with McCain, Lieberman, Graham, PNAC/FPI, Israel and Saudi Arab cheering for it), you want to focus on Kerry's motivation, despite the similar appearance of the lead up to the Iraq war.

Either you've completely lost the plot, or you were never the protagonist I thought you were.

[blm]

100. Baloney - Because I see a BIGGER picture on Snowden's role, and don't accept

him at face value the way some of you do, is alarming to you?

Fer chrissakes, that YOU don't understand how BushInc works shows YOU are not the type of protagonist who can put recent events and matters in historic context.

Snowden was at Bush's CIA.

Then he moved to Dell, a longtime Bush loyalist firm.

Then he moved to Booz-Allen, a longtime Bush loyalist firm.

Then he and Greenwald frame the narrative on NSA as not just a document release, but, personalizing the blame to Obama, even though the entire NSA network had been built through GHWBush, with private firms chosen known to be LOYAL to GHWBush, and whose process was institutionalized in the years before Obama took office.

The NSA narrative against Obama came at the EXACT same time that Bush family was rehabbing its legacy, and many of the Obama is no different than Bush meme was being spread.

That YOU don't understand that NOTHING is a coincidence with the Bush family is troubling.

You think they never before found young, gullible dupes whose minds can be shaped to deliver the actions that work in their favor?

And for THAT insight on BushInc you want to pretend that I'm acting as an establishment tool?

News flash: People who DON'T put everything done by Bushies in historic context are the best tools the establishment elite can have.

[avaistheone1]

82. I guess it was Kerry's little secret then.

It was his job long ago to educate the press if he was the US point man regarding Syria.

[blm]

96. The press DIDN'T CARE. The RW media, however, targeted him

for interfering and taking the initiative with Assad.

Ya know, when lawmakers like Kerry are stuck acting on their Own, they really are ALONE....their own party leaves them hanging out there on their own. Just like they did during IranContra, BCCI and CIA drug running. Knee-jerk reactionaries who only notice the blazing fires and never mind long smoldering coals are the ones who make it easy for earnest efforts to be ignored.

[YvonneCa]

65. Do you get that his work has been resolving conflict...

...wherever he's needed?

[polly7]

74. Which conflicts has he resolved? nt.

[blm]

101. You'd have been happy if we had a full on war in Syria in 2005?

.

[TheKentuckian]

132. Bullshit, we were already spread to the breaking point. No way a front was going

to be opened in Syria at that time.

Hindsight fear mongering nonsense, "full on war in Syria in 2005" was not plausible. Next on the list? Sure and just about on schedule.

C'mon, how many tours do you think these guys were going to hold up? How long could those reserve and National Guard units be up at stretch?
A front had to be drawn down.

[blm]

137. Then you don't know how close we were.

Especially after Hariri was assassinated. IMO, it's very likely the release of Downing Street Memo hurt Bush's credibility with every world leader and nation that learned of the content of the memo and was a big factor in why his plan to expand war to Syria became too difficult. He did have key Dem hawks supporting him including both Clintons.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2005/02/death_of_a_salesman.html

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/the-hariri-murder-investigation-kofi-annan-s-syria-problem-a-391437.html

Read US/Syria articles from 2004 and 2005:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security-council/index-of-countries-on-the-security-council-agenda/syria.html#a2005

[David Zephyr]

130. Fingers in their ears, blm.

fingers in their ears. Thanks for sticking up for John Kerry against the outrageous accusations made against him here. I have to almost pinch myself to believe it. I admire you even more than ever before. Don't ever give up. Truth matters.

[blm]

138. Exactly. Truth matters.

.

[Adrahil]

144. Other than your "gut" what backs up your feeling that he's lying?

I mean, I'm all ears. But I strongly suspect confirmation bias at work here. You don't WANT to support strikes, but if Kerry is telling the truth, it would make you feel conflicted, therefore, he must be lying.

[mcar]

8. Thank you

I have been sickened by the vitriol directed at this good Democrat on this board. Disagree with him, please, but the hatred is just sad.

[Hekate]

12. +1

[jessie04]

30. You ain't kidding.

nt

[YvonneCa]

35. Exactly. He is a good man. Conflict resolution has been his life's work. And...

...we here are Democrats. We don't have to agree, but why all the hatefulness?

[totodeinhere]

128. I don't hate John Kerry personally. But I do hate the policy that he is advocating

and I make no apologies for that. We are not the world's policeman. There are plenty of other countries that have the capacity to carry out a strike against Syria, many with military equipment that our MIC sold them.

Lets sit this one out like the Brits, the Canadians and the Germans are. But at the same time as a member of the international community we can continue to work for a non violent solution. It's too bad we can't take Assad to the ICC, but heck we are only one of a very few few countries that are not a party to the ICC. I had thought that Obama would remedy that after he took office but I guess not.

[YvonneCa]

131. FWIW, I haven't noticed hateful posts...

...from you. But others have been awful. I am all for debate...heated when necessary...and discussion. And if the topic is war...I would hope and expect it to be passionate. On both sides.

Sitting it out is irresponsible, IMHO. I just appreciate civility.

[Grateful for Hope]

38. Absolutely.

K&R!

[hrmjustin]

9. I think he is a good man.

[Summer Hathaway]

10. "You're all better than that."

Correction: Some people are better than that.

Sadly, the "some people" who ARE better than that are in the minority on this site.

Great post, BTW - well stated throughout.

[sufrommich]

11. No forum does hair on fire hyperbole better

than DU. The less seriously you take this place,the less time you'll spend trying to make sense of it.

[lumpy]

41. Truly

[liberalhistorian]

61. Ya know, I've been here for ten

and a half years and right now I can say you're quite right, lol!

[stevenleser]

141. I'm only going to slightly disagree. No remotely credible forum does hair on fire hyperbole better..

certainly the rotten elm stump, common dreams and firebaglake do it better, but they have no credibility at all, never did, never will.

[Hekate]

14. Thanks for that, alcibiades.

John Kerry is a good man, and has a good record of service to his/our country. If he is mistaken, he is mistaken, but he's not evil and he's not a tool of the MIC.

[Hutzpa]

15. I'm bordered by these Noble men allowing themselves

to be over powered by these war hawks, it is really frightening.

I can only think of one thing and that is somehow these hawks have found their way
into both Kerry and Obama's staff and are now taking orders from their paying masters.

[Eddie Haskell]

16. I disagree, I thank they have something on Kerry and it must be a whopper.

[leftstreet]

25. +1

What is it with people wanting to believe a politician is a 'good man'

Jesus

[bhikkhu]

49. Most people are good. Most politicians are people.

Therefore...

But aside from that general "belief" (in quotes because it has more to do with life experience than anything else - belief is more properly something you take on faith, rather than something you know through experience), of course one has to judge a person on their actions, whether that person is a politician or not. I'm pretty impressed with John Kerry's actions.

[wisteria]

75. Are you being serious?

[Eddie Haskell]

120. Yes

They probably have something on all of us.

[cali]

17. I neither know or particularly care

and btw, I didn't say he was "despicable and disgusting", but that his performance at the hearing was.

And however you wish to characterize it, nothing alters the fact that he's pushing war.

[wisteria]

73. He is pushing for a humanitarian strike.

You are getting ahead of the real issue.

[progressoid]

95. "humanitarian strike"

"humanitarian strike"

That's like "almost pregnant". Is it oxymoron day?

[HardTimes99]

148. A 'humanitarian strike' based on 'military intelligence' :) - nt

[woo me with science]

105. Anyone with the GALL to use the phrase "humanitarian bombing"

should go to Syria and put themselves and their families in the path of the bombs when the US strikes, so that they, too, can benefit from that great humanitarian gift.

Good fucking god.

[intersectionality]

121. +10000

[HardTimes99]

152. We're going to liberate the fuck out of those Syrians - nt

[frylock]

126. fresh frozen jumbo humanitarian strike

[babylonsister]

18. Thanks so much. I agree.

[ProSense]

19. Kerry is proof that

anyone who joins the Obama administration will be venomously attacked by some.

Some of it is just Kerry hate.

[Logical]

23. LOL, anyone who disagrees with ANYTHING Obama does will be venomously attacked by you! n-t

[lumpy]

43. Reality

[Bluenorthwest]

104. Kerry is proof that anyone who voted for invading Iraq to find WMDs will have a hard time

selling war to the same people he lied to so fiercely for W Bush. It is sad that all the leadership is from the Shock and Awe set.

[HardTimes99]

153. +Infinity! - nt

[Faryn Balyncd]

20. The fact that he IS a good man makes me weep all the more.

[Logical]

22. He believes what the administration tells him to believe. n-t

[leftstreet]

26. How could a 'good man' be a politician? n/t

[shenmue]

29. Puh-leese

You want to live in a country without a government? Or do you want to accept somebody and work with what you have?

[leftstreet]

33. Politicians do not make up the 'government'

Thousands and thousands of working class people labor in civil service, in public healthcare, in teaching, in emergency services - they are the 'good' people

Politicians aren't part of that

[shenmue]

27. This is DU

What are you hoping for? Respect doesn't exist. The board has become a kettle of whiny trolls. We don't have debate; we have squalls.

[lumpy]

44. The ant-government people think we can exist with decisions I guess.

[frylock]

127. who are the ant-government (sic) people here that are against the war?

[jessie04]

28. Thank you. + 1,000,000

[MH1]

31. Thank you. nt.

[Hydra]

32. He just had a Colin Powell moment

And as a DUer pointed out to me before this, he's had other Colin Powell moments. Like when he said he still would have voted for the IWR knowing that the Bush Admin was lying to him.

The idea that a person is either good or bad is unbelievably small. People do good things, and they do bad things. Secretary Kerry has done both amazingly good things and amazingly bad things, and both should be measured and considered on their own terms.

This was and is an amazingly bad thing he's done. Like Powell, it will tarnish his image, and we will not forget it as the bombs fall and people die for a lie...but the greedy must be fed, so sayith our religion of Capitalism.

[Maedhros]

123. This post makes a lot of sense.

Actions matter.

[HardTimes99]

154. "The evil that men do lives after them; The good

is oft interred with their bones."

Kudos for an amazingly insightful response! May be my favorite one in this thread!

[Hydra]

157. tyvm!

And I love the quote! It's true that the evil that we do seems to cling to us and the lives of the people it effects. The good is somehow more fleeting.

[MisterP]

37. why do you love Iran so much?!

[QuestForSense]

39. I disagree.

He IS a warmonger. And he is war-mongering. It's part of his job description and that's why he's in that job in the first place.

[babylonsister]

53. Oye. The same Kerry who protested

against VN is a warmonger? Read up. And how is that part of his job description, oh wise one?

[OnyxCollie]

68. The same Kerry who makes a lot of money off of defense contracts

and voted for a war in which chemical weapons were used.

US lawmakers have as much as $196 million invested in defense companies
From AP via The International Herald Tribune

WASHINGTON: Members of the U.S.Congress have as much as $196 million (€126.2 million) collectively invested in companies doing business with the Defense Department, earning millions since the start of the Iraq war, according to a new study by a nonpartisan research group.

The review of lawmakers' 2006 financial disclosure statements, by the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics, suggests that members' holdings could pose a conflict of interest as they decide the fate of Iraq war spending. Several members who earned the most from defense contractors have plum committee or leadership assignments, including Democratic Sen. John Kerry, independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman and House Republican Whip Roy Blunt.

The study found that more Republicans than Democrats hold stock in defense companies, but that the Democrats who are invested had significantly more money at stake. In 2006, for example, Democrats held at least $3.7 million (€2.3 million) in military-related investments, compared to Republican investments of $577,500 (€372,000).

Overall, 151 members hold investments worth $78.7 million (€50.6 million) to $195.5 million (€125.9 million) in companies that receive defense contracts that are worth at least $5 million (€3.2 million). These investments earned them anywhere between $15.8 million (€10.1 million) and $62 million (€39.9 million) between 2004 and 2006, the center concludes.

More Here: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/04/03/america/NA-GE...

...

Fallujah the Hidden Massacre
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10907.htm

[blm]

109. Yeah - Heinz and Pepsi products on bases are HUGE warmongering

tools.

[QuestForSense]

92. Yes, he is.

The times, and people, do change. And I do read.

Kerry speaking out against Viet Nam had a strong, visceral appeal and a lot of emotional impact. It is no wonder he's had a long carrier as a successful politician. But he is on the other side now; he's all over the place using every means of blandishment and threat to beat the drums of war. This is the mongering.

As for his job description, among many other responsibilities, the Secretary of State consults on economic issues involving foreign nations and is responsible for advising the President on which courses of action will best serve the United States in the foreign arena. He has already advised the President.

[Cha]

40. Exactly, alcibiades_mystery. All this "Kerry has no soul"..

"Kerry really expects us to buy the koolaid", "Kerry has turned into a jackal" is emotional bullshit that has nothing to do with reality. But, what the hell does that matter to those who throw shit at these honorable people.

And, whether they know it or not.. they've lumped Senators Elizabeth Warren, Ed Markey, and Bernie Sanders in with those disgusting accusations, too. They're all drinking the "koolaid" but they still want to have the Debate. Go Figure.

snip//

“What Assad has done is reprehensible. It violates international law, and it violates the law of humanity,” she said. “But it is critically important that before we act that we have a plan, a goal and we have a reasonable way for ensuring that goal. I think we’re now in a state of flux.”

Warren’s comments, among the first she’s had on Syria since hundreds were killed in a chemical weapon strike last week, come as fellow U.S. Sen. Edward J. Markey said he could support a “surgical strike” but not one that includes troops on the ground.

“We should not involve ourselves in the conflict that involves American combat personnel,” he said earlier today at a Democratic unity breakfast in Mattapan. “But we have to make a statement and if the president does determine that he can make a surgical strike, limited, targeted, and towards the goals of ensuring that chemical weapons are not used in that conflict in Syria, then I would support the president.”

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_politics/2013/08/markey_backs_surgical_strike_in_syria_warren_hesitant#

[lumpy]

45. And that is the truth. Wonder how some of these people would respond to Canada being

attacked, let alone this country.

[mountain grammy]

48. I agree with this post. Let's dial it back a bit.

I think there's more going on here. Assad's a bully and crazy, Kerry knows it. Frankly, I've been disturbed by the rhetoric from Kerry and the President. They sound like the Bush administration.
But wait, maybe they are just bullying the bully to the point where he will allow neutral observers or somehow capitulate.

Nothing could please me more than Obama and company ending up on the right side of this crisis, and I don't think that is a missile strike. I have emailed and called my representatives and the White House several times expressing my views.

Now I want to go to my room, pull the covers over my head and hope they all listen to me.

[marble falls]

50. +1000%

[Sand Wind]

51. He is an honourable man ! Nt

[KittyWampus]

52. The ones spouting the ugliest crap are the least well informed.

[SidDithers]

54. But he ate dinner with Assad!!11! DINNER!!1!!1...nt

Sid

[baldguy]

55. It's character assisination, plain and simple.

That's the kind of thing that makes the GOP so despicable, dishonest & dishonorable.

[KoKo]

57. I grant you this...you are a thinking person who is trying to

put a "Positive Spin" on Kerry's Statements.

But...there are those who certainly have a right to disagree with you!

Peace.

[graywarrior]

59. As a MA resident, I've had the opportunity to meet him many times

I always sensed that he was a good guy. I don't like the crap that's going on with Syria, but I haven't made up my mind yet about which way to throw my support.

All I know is, Kerry has worked his ass off for MA residents and I appreciate everything he's done for us.

[graywarrior]

129. How DARE you post this crap

You TROLL!

[blkmusclmachine]

60. Kerry was an empty suit back in '04, fall guy for George W. Bush

[blm]

102. Baloney.

.

[David Zephyr]

63. K&R.

Thank you for some sanity.

[freshwest]

67. K&R. And it was nice to come home to your post as well, DZ.

[cheapdate]

64. Huzzah! Thank you.

[wisteria]

69. I do not share your opinion regarding stiking Syria, but

I do agree with your thoughtful comments regarding SOS Kerry.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

70. "You're all better than that."

I'm not.

[bowens43]

71. if he truely believes the US should be involved syria then not only is he not a good man

He's a stupid man

[LibAsHell]

76. Ok, so he's not an asshole

He's still fucking wrong.

And so what if he believes in his case? His case is awful. From claiming that we're not getting involved in the civil war by dropping some bombs on Syria to trying to claim we know the breakdown of "moderates" vs extremists in the opposition. Total non-sense.

[Iliyah]

77. K & R

and these DUers who constantly bash no matter what, this voter refuses to help Libertarians and GOPers get into office, i.e . insane Paul . .

[politicasista]

78. Kick for civility

[lexington filly]

79. The Kerry of today is consistent with the Kerry of the 60's.

He served his military branch then (Navy, right?) and is serving his president now--both then and now with dedication, honor, and intelligence.
The Secretary of State's job isn't to make policy but to further the policies of the President's administration and to advise in hopes of effecting policy.

So why all the arguing over whether he's a good man or as some suggest, scum? He's a really fine Secretary of State it seems to me and appears especially sincere and genuine. Yes, Powell seemed sincere too, but then he was totally duped and used by his administration. This time the American people have video, social media, and all kinds of proof of a weapon of mass destruction used.

For me, the questioning Kerry's or Obama's character isn't the issue. It's about my character and morals. It's about what Syrians must now feel every time they hear a missile fired or coming in their direction. Will it be a chemical this time? Isn't that the ultimate weapon--terror? I remember every time a plane passed overhead for the longest time, I was transported back to the feelings of 9/11 even here in KY.

There's no guarantee we could help their chemical situation by lobbing some bombs Assad's way. But my conscience nags at me--shouldn't we try? But I know countries can't be governed just by feelings. Truthfully, I'm glad it's not my decision.

[MrMickeysMom]

87. Were you saying the same thing in the 60's?

"It's about my character and morals. It's about what Vietnamese must now feel every time they hear a missile fired or coming in their direction. "

How about what Japanese must have felt every time they heard a missile fired or coming after August 6th and 9th 1945?

How about what Iraqis must feel every time they look at a newborn's externally dangling intestines and cyclops eye? What about their white phosphorus skin.

Why on earth didn't we have our own civil war intervened with?

What's the difference?

[On the Road]

80. I Doubt John Kerry Threw His Speech in the Air

saying "I can't read this -- this is bullshit!"

[Botany]

81. "John Kerry is a Good Man" ... Damn straight he is a good man

In 2004 I had the honor of meeting and talking to the man Kerry pulled out of
the water in Vietnam when he was a commander on a swift boat.

[Old Union Guy]

84. Kerry is a warmongering scoundrel.

What deal with Assad fell though?

[yurbud]

89. Kerry would have to be an idiot to be sincere in the arguments he is making, and he isn't an idiot.

[ProSense]

91. Or maybe he knows what he's talking about, and you can't accept that. n/t

[1awake]

99. I am not going to treat a politician different because he has a "D" after his name.

If I would be against it when it was a Republican, I would be against it if it was a Democrat. Party means nothing to me, even though at this point in time people's view points I mostly agree with tend to be Democrat's.

I have never called Kerry nor any other person any names (though there may be a few Republicans I have that I can't remember). At this point in time, there remains very, very few in any party that I still trust in any measurable way, including... or especially might be the better word... our President.

[stevenleser]

142. I reread the OP several times. It says nothing about doing that. nt

[Turborama]

103. Sincerely, coming from you this sentiment carries a great deal of of weight

And I hope that the neo-Kerry haters on DU recognize this.

[alcibiades_mystery]

115. Thanks

I think I'm glad for the posts in this thread I can't see!

[Downtown Hound]

110. A good man who voted for the Iraq War

participated in the Vietnam War, and is now banging war drums for Syria.

Sorry, but I just don't buy his story about how he was misled by faulty intelligence in his vote for the Iraq War. If all of us marching in the street knew it was bullshit, then he should have too. He was afraid of going against the Bush administration. Afraid of looking "unpatriotic."

Kerry may not be a bad man, but he has quite the questionable history of supporting America's less than brilliant military adventures. It's not enough to just say you "disagree." We need to start condemning this kind of reckless militarism, and CONDEMN IT HARD.

[bvar22]

112. Just curious, but...

..do you also believe that Colin Powell believed he was telling the truth too,
or was he also just duped into helping get The War On?

Do you really believe that John Kerry believes that dropping BOMBS on another country and killing their people is NOT an Act of WAR?
I thought these were supposed to be "smart" men.


Friendly advice:
IF you ever travel to the Big City,
and see a "game" being played that looks like this,

do NOT play.
Its NOT a game. Its a CON.

[morningfog]

113. Was a good man.

[Romulox]

114. It's the same thing they said about Colin Powell...

Now, these 10 years later, poor Colin is practically begging for someone to restore his honor and integrity for him.

Doesn't work that way.

[IronLionZion]

116. I doubt either Kerry or Obama would have sinister motives

And I believe they don't actually want to engage in the Syrian war, they just believe that they have exhausted all other options and have to do something about the humanitarian costs.

Bill Clinton claims his biggest foreign policy regret was not engaging in the Rwandan conflict to stop the genocide.

Bin Laden and Gaddafi are dead. When it comes to war, Democrats do it with far less civilian casualties.

[Downtown Hound]

117. "Democrats do it with far less civilian casualties."

Tell that to the Vietnamese. More than a million civilians dead under a Democratic president.

[IronLionZion]

118. And since then?

I like to think people in our party have learned from Johnson's mistakes. And Vietnam regrets bothered him so much that he died a few years later.

And to that point, Truman ended the last world war with weapons of mass destruction. There won't be another global ground war like that one ever again.

[TheKentuckian]

134. What do you think has been learned and why?

Americans have too much belief in the reset button and a magic one at that, chock full of leaps of faith and reading of souls.
Well...not so much too much because we are brutal with other "small people", brown folks, and anyone we can label "other" but the rich and powerful get that reset, all they have to do is swap spokespeople every now and again or flip parties and they can sell the "peaceful revolution every two years" bull-fucking-shit as the the revolving door commences to spinning.

They've learned to try and keep the body count on our side down, to keep a lid on the casualty rate of the innocent folks we zilch out, and to control the message in the media which means to make sure as possible the people don't run afoul of the devastation and suffering we bring along with "Freedom" (aka some criminal ass authoritarian regime and resource pillaging).

[Downtown Hound]

135. The Powers That Be have also learned to control the media

So that we sensitive common folk see as little of the actual destruction we're causing as possible. Vietnam was broadcast into people's living rooms night after night. All we see of the Iraq War is what they want us to see or whatever happens to squeak by the censors.

[Botany]

140. LBJ made his mistakes in Vietnam but by 1968 he wanted out and tried to do so but ....

.... Dick Nixon went behind his back and scuttled the peace talks. In 1973 Nixon
and Kissinger sign off on almost the exact same agreement that the North offered in
in 1968. President Kennedy was starting to get out of Vietnam before he was killed
in 1963.

[Union Scribe]

119. He's lost something. You can pick what.

He's arguing that bombing the shit out of a sovereign nation isn't war. That's either a liar or a fool. Neither is a particularly good person to be leading the charge for war.

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

124. So by Kerry's rational

the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the German blitz on Britain weren't acts of war? LOL

[JohnnyRingo]

122. How dare you take a moderately measured stand!

We must fight to end this shoulder shrugging namby pamby nuanced extremism at DU. hahaha

K&R

[SunSeeker]

125. K & R

[Beausoir]

133. I used to think so. I voted for him for President.

I cringe when I hear him now.

He sounds a lapdog for war. Which is in his best interest now. He is Obama's lapdog.

He is doing a TERRIBLE job of selling Obama's new war.

Quoting a price tag of "millions" when we all know that just an air bombardment alone would cost a billion easy.

Just think of the struggling school nutrition programs in the US that could benefit from a billion dollars.

[Coyotl]

139. Facts my ASS! Kerry testified he has 100% certainty about future. That's witchcraft, not facts.

Kerry is up to his ears full of BULLSHIT.

[BklnDem75]

145. +1000

[HardTimes99]

146. John Kerry has the blood of 1,000,000 Iraqis on his hands. Once you get past that, yeah,

he's a 'good man' . . . the same way Brutus was an 'honorable man.'

[ProSense]

147. Bullshit. Kerry

was not the President. Bush didn't just lie before the vote. He lied during and after the vote.

There were no UN inspectors in Iraq when Congress voted on the IWR, but they returned shortly after.

July 5, 2002

Iraq once again rejects new UN weapons inspection proposals.

<...>

November 13, 2002

Iraq accepts U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 and informs the UN that it will abide by the resolution.

Weapons inspectors arrive in Baghdad again after a four-year absence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_disarmament_crisis_timeline_2001-2003

Following the mandate of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, Saddam Hussein allowed UN inspectors to return to Iraq in November 2002. UNMOVIC led inspections of alleged chemical and biological facilities in Iraq until shortly before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, but did not find any weapons of mass destruction. Based on its inspections and examinations during this time, UNMOVIC inspectors determined that UNSCOM had successfully dismantled Iraq’s unconventional weapons program during the 1990s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Monitoring,_Verification_and_Inspection_Commission

Bush removed the inspectors before launching the invasion. He had it all planned. He had a Senate that was in complete agreement that Saddam possesed WMD based on the bogus intelligence fed them. The Senate was voting on several versions of the resolution to authorize force, including the Byrd Amendment with an expiration date one year from passage.

Here is the Durbin Amendment, which only got 30 votes, including Feingold and Kennedy.

To amend the authorization for the use of the Armed Forces to cover an imminent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction rather than the continuing threat posed by Iraq.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00236

The Byrd Amendment got 31 votes, Kennedy voted for, Feingold voted against.

To provide a termination date for the authorization of the use of the Armed Forces of the United States, together with procedures for the extension of such date unless Congress disapproves the extension.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00232

Bush only needed a few months to launch the war. Setting a date for the termination of the authorization would still have given Bush enough time to lie and launch a war. And as anyone could see, once the Iraq war was launched, none of these Senators committed to forcing a withdrawal. In 2006, Kerry-Feingold, setting a date for withdrawal, got 13 votes.

After the IWR vote, Bush lied, first in his state of the union:

Hubris: The Selling of the Iraq War - Monday 2/18 at 9 p.m. ET

By Will Femia

Last night Rachel pointed out that this year marks the tenth anniversary of President George W. Bush's State of the Union address containing the now infamous 16 words that turned out to be a very consequential lie:

“The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .”

Included in a collection of web materials associated with Rachel's upcoming documentary "Hubris: The Selling of the Iraq War," is a longer cut of that 2003 State of the Union address. It's a powerful reminder of how thick the Bush administration laid it on to rally the nation to war in Iraq:

- more -

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/02/14/16966287-hubris-the-selling-of-the-iraq-war-monday-218-at-9-pm-et

How Powerful Can 16 Words Be?
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0720-09.htm

...and then in the bullshit letter and report he sent to Congress claiming a link to the 9/11 attacks.

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President: )

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html

Hubris: Selling the Iraq War - The Rumsfeld memos
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022394769

Bush's signing statement spelled out his intent to ignore the conditional aspects of the IWR. He acknowledged that while Congress agreed that a threat existed, they didn't give him the full support to launch a war unconditionally.

Statement on Signing the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
October 16th, 2002

<...>


The debate over this resolution in the Congress was in the finest traditions of American democracy. There is no social or political force greater than a free people united in a common and compelling objective. It is for that reason that I sought an additional resolution of support from the Congress to use force against Iraq, should force become necessary. While I appreciate receiving that support, my request for it did not, and my signing this resolution does not, constitute any change in the long-standing positions of the executive branch on either the President's constitutional authority to use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other threats to U.S. interests or on the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution. On the important question of the threat posed by Iraq, however, the views and goals of the Congress, as expressed in H.J. Res. 114 and previous congressional resolutions and enactments, and those of the President are the same.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=64386

Statements by Senators at the time.

We Still Have a Choice on Iraq

By John F. Kerry
Published: September 06, 2002

It may well be that the United States will go to war with Iraq. But if so, it should be because we have to -- not because we want to. For the American people to accept the legitimacy of this conflict and give their consent to it, the Bush administration must first present detailed evidence of the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and then prove that all other avenues of protecting our nation's security interests have been exhausted. Exhaustion of remedies is critical to winning the consent of a civilized people in the decision to go to war. And consent, as we have learned before, is essential to carrying out the mission. President Bush's overdue statement this week that he would consult Congress is a beginning, but the administration's strategy remains adrift.

Regime change in Iraq is a worthy goal. But regime change by itself is not a justification for going to war. Absent a Qaeda connection, overthrowing Saddam Hussein -- the ultimate weapons-inspection enforcement mechanism -- should be the last step, not the first. Those who think that the inspection process is merely a waste of time should be reminded that legitimacy in the conduct of war, among our people and our allies, is not a waste, but an essential foundation of success.

If we are to put American lives at risk in a foreign war, President Bush must be able to say to this nation that we had no choice, that this was the only way we could eliminate a threat we could not afford to tolerate.

In the end there may be no choice. But so far, rather than making the case for the legitimacy of an Iraq war, the administration has complicated its own case and compromised America's credibility by casting about in an unfocused, overly public internal debate in the search for a rationale for war. By beginning its public discourse with talk of invasion and regime change, the administration has diminished its most legitimate justification of war -- that in the post-Sept. 11 world, the unrestrained threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein is unacceptable and that his refusal to allow in inspectors is in blatant violation of the United Nations 1991 cease-fire agreement that left him in power.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/06/opinion/we-still-have-a-choice-on-iraq.html

Feingold on the Senate floor, September 26, 2002:

<...>

The threat we know is real--Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction or WMD--is unquestionably a very serious issue. What is the mission? Is the mission on the table disarmament or is it regime change? Has anyone heard a credible plan for securing the weapons of mass destruction sites as part of a military operation in Iraq ? Has anyone heard any credible plan for what steps the United States intends to take to ensure that weapons of mass destruction do not remain a problem in Iraq beyond the facile ``get rid of Saddam Hussein'' rallying cry?

Saddam Hussein is a vile man with a reckless and brutal history, and I have no problem agreeing that the United States should support regime change. I agree with those who assert that Americans, Iraqis, and the people of the Middle East would be much better off if he were no longer in power. But he is not the sole personification of a destabilizing WMD program. Once Hussein's control is absent, we have either a group of independent, self-interested actors with access to WMD or an unknown quantity of a new regime. We may face a period of some chaos, wherein a violent power struggle ensues as actors maneuver to succeed Saddam.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2002-09-26/pdf/CREC-2002-09-26-pt1-PgS9412-2.pdf#page=1
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2002-09-26/pdf/CREC-2002-09-26-pt1-PgS9413.pdf#page=1

Kennedy slams Bush on Iraq
'Wrong war at the wrong time'

By Sean Loughlin
CNN Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a stinging rebuke of the Bush administration's foreign policy, Sen. Edward Kennedy predicted Tuesday that a military strike against Iraq would "undermine" the war against terrorism, "feed a rising tide of anti-Americanism overseas" and strain diplomatic ties.

<...>

Kennedy said U.N. weapons inspectors need more time to discover what kind of weapons Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein may be amassing in Iraq.

Bush, however, said Tuesday that Saddam was not disarming his nation and was giving the world community "the runaround." (Full story) ...But in an interview with CNN, Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican and member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, urged the Bush administration not to rush toward any confrontation with Iraq.

"We need to be patient here; time is on our side here," Hagel said. He added that a "precipitous" move would "endanger not just Americans around the world, but it would endanger this country, our security, stability in the world for a long time to come because we were rash in using our power."

- more -

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/21/kennedy.speech/index.html

Kerry Says US Needs Its Own 'Regime Change'
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0403-08.htm

Bush lied the country into war. He pulled the trigger despite protests even from members of Congress.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022537683

[HardTimes99]

149. In 2004 on the campaign trail, Kerry said he would have voted to attack Iraq even if he

knew for a fact before-hand that Saddam had no WMD. I saw and heard him say it with my own two eyes and ears.

Drip . . . drip . . . drip . . . drip . . . drip

[ProSense]

151. Nonsense. n/t

[stevenleser]

156. The November 2002 vote is defensible. Going to war after the March 2003 UN Weapons inspector reports

is not.