General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKerry said it - we're going to attack Syria for US credibility
What fucking credibility? Get out of your fugging bubble - Bush destroyed that ages ago and the drones aren't helping and neither is the spying.
David__77
(23,320 posts)They'll never be forgiven if they go through with this thing.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Fuck John Kerry.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts).
SamKnause
(13,087 posts)He certainly is good at fear mongering and slinging the war propaganda.
Sad to see and hear.
P.S. Don't forget that war propaganda became legal in July of this year (2013). They certainly didn't waste anytime initiating their new found tool.
The U.S. has zero credibility. It has not seen it's moral compass in decades. The more I research and learn about my country, the more I realize from it's inception the U.S. has never been what it advertised itself to be.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)What's taught for history in school leave a shitload out.
GeorgeGist
(25,311 posts)on the block.
Now STFU and watch this cluster bomb.
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)Last edited Fri Sep 6, 2013, 08:11 AM - Edit history (3)
"Stopping a nuclear-capable Iran is the gravest, most pressing national security threat facing the United States today," he added, quoting from the introduction of the report, the product of a task force that included several former George W Bush administration officials, several retired flag officers, and Ambassador Dennis Ross, who served as Obama's top adviser on Iran for most of his first term.
" I)f there isn't a (congressional) response to the crossing of the red line (against the use of chemical weapons), the Iranians will draw the lesson that when we create red lines, we don't mean it," Ross said.
"So when the administration makes it clear that prevention (of Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon) is the objective, (the failure to act on Syria) will make it look more rhetorical than real," according to Ross, who currently serves as counselor to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a pro-Israel think tank...
/... http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MID-01-050913.html
--> See also the following, which has apparently been scrubbed from Haaretz's site but which is still present in Google's cache:
A high-level Israeli delegation headed by National Security Adviser Yaakov Amidror arrived in Washington on Monday (Aug 26) for political and security talks with senior U.S. officials. The meeting was planned a few weeks ago, but gained special importance and urgency in light of events in Syria and U.S. preparations for a possible attack there...
... In addition to the Syrian issue, the talks were expected to focus on the Iranian nuclear program and preparations by the U.S. and the other five world powers to begin a dialogue with Iran over the coming weeks. In addition, the talks will address the involvement of Iran and Hezbollah in the Syrian crisis.
A senior Israeli official said Amidror was joined by Maj. Gen. (res.) Amos Gilad, head of the diplomatic security department at the Defense Ministry; Nimrod Shefer, head of the Israel Defense Forces planning department; Itai Baron, head of the research division in Military Intelligence; Jeremy Issacharoff, head of the strategy department in the Foreign Ministry, and senior officials from the Shin Bet. Israels Ambassador to Washington Michael Oren, soon to retire from his position, will also join the talks.
On the American side, the talks are coordinated by National Security Adviser Susan Rice. She will be joined by senior officials from the White House National Security Council, State Department, Pentagon and the U.S. intelligence community. U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro also arrived in Washington to take part in the diplomatic-security dialogue...
/... http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ya8iKHPovXMJ:www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.543657+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk
Little Star
(17,055 posts)MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)The young John Kerry who was an impassioned anti-war Viet Nam vet would be appalled. Kerry has committed a flip-flop of historic proportion. He has abandoned his values and sold his soul.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)durablend
(7,455 posts)Ingenious!
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)liberal N proud
(60,332 posts)Which is it really?
malaise
(268,691 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)ctsnowman
(1,903 posts)he lost the 04 election was when he stood at the grand canyon and said he didn't regret giving Bush his Iraq AUMF vote. I believe that it was even plainly spoken to him that "knowing what you know now" and he still stood by it. I went on to vote for him in the end but his poll numbers were never the same after that.
karynnj
(59,498 posts)That was the media superimposing a rhetorical Bush question on to Kerry defending why he voted as he had many many times. Here is the Daily Howler from that time outlining what the media - which also condoned character assassination of both John and Teresa Kerry did. http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh081204.shtml
Not to mention, this did not change the poll numbers that fell during the Republican convention when the media did not call out the purple heart bandaids but did change their previously positive opinion on Kerry's convention while praisiing as "strong" Bush's mean one. Still, the polls did change because of Kerry's excellent debates and hewas pulling into the lead in the last week until the OBL tape appeared. Still, they has to suppress the vote to win.
ctsnowman
(1,903 posts)Whatever you believe you believe but I am not buying it. I don't believe Kerry got a fair shake on a lot of things (hell even Al Michaels jumped on him on MNF) but I don't believe he apologized for letting a dog like Bush off the leash period.
Here's a quote from the site you sent:
"Basically what Kerry has said, correct me if I'm wrong, is, Look, I would have wanted the authority if I'd been president. That's why I voted to grant this authority to go to war to the president...But he said he would have used it differently. He would have used it to as more of a lever for diplomacy. He would have used it to bring more allies aboard. He would have used it to as a threat behind inspections, to leave them going longer."
That's some weak tea right there. Defend it all you want but Iraq was the biggest mistake of our era and EVERYONE who enabled it should have came out and admitted it was flat out wrong
and they were wrong for letting Bush do it. Many of us knew Bush couldn't be trusted with that power... why didn't Kerry.
karynnj
(59,498 posts)In various news reports, an in studio reporter framed the question to be the Bush question AND Kerry's answer to an unheard question was was then played. Note that WITHIN his answer, he says " He would have used it to as a threat behind inspections, to leave them going longer." That is the give away that Kerry was NOT answering what he would do if he knew there were no WMD. His IWR speech includes the same comments.
Kerry did say his vote was wrong in 2005 - before Edwards and before Clinton. He repeated that in 2006 at Take Back America - and called the war immoral.
ctsnowman
(1,903 posts)again if a Senator couldn't see through Bush I have doubts about that person. I saw what I saw and no amount of spin is going to change it.
Well just have to agree to disagree, the last word is all yours.
Peace.
karynnj
(59,498 posts)On January 23, 2003 at Georgetown University, Kerry gave a speech that was reported using his words - "Do not rush to war". He called on Bush to let the inspectors complete their work, exhaust diplomacy and said that if he didn't it was not a war of last resort.
When the vote happened the inspectors had not been there for 4 years when they left when Clinton asked them to before he bombed Iraq.
Rebellious Republican
(5,029 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Evidently he has confused the two.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)florida08
(4,106 posts)This was written by a young man in his 20's who recently died.
KG
(28,751 posts)pampango
(24,692 posts)but you also have to know when to follow through on a threat or promise and when to back away - as gracefully as you can.
I have often made threats or promises to my son which at the time seemed like a good idea. If it later turned out that my threat/promise was unrealistic (OK downright stupid sometimes), I had to figure whether maintaining my 'credibility' was more important than doing the mature, good-parent thing. I would like to say that I always did the mature thing and backed away from my most ridiculous threats/promises, but ... Well, let me just say that I hope Obama is more mature about backing away from his threat than I was at times.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)malaise
(268,691 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,265 posts)GeorgeGist
(25,311 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)In terms of taking an action that's directly counterproductive to the stated aim, that is...