General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRobert Reich Believes It Is SoS John Kerry Sounding The War Drums of Syria.
From Robert Reich Facebook Page today.
The driving force behind the folly of bombing Syria is Secretary of State John Kerry. I’m told Chuck Hegel has strong reservations, as do the Pentagon’s top generals. But Kerry has no reservations at all, and has convinced the President to stake much of his second-term presidency on it. Why? It’s possible, of course, that Kerry honestly believes that a punitive military strike against Assad is necessary, and that the benefits of such a strike would outweigh the potential costs. But I suspect something else is going on. Kerry is an intelligent man, but he has a fatal flaw. He craves the limelight. He wants to be in the center of the action and attention. Over the years I heard again and again from his Senate colleagues that Kerry grandstanded and wanted all the credit, said things that would get him on the evening news, pushed too fast and too far in order to make his mark. Recently he seemed to be making progress getting the Israelis and Palestinians back to the table, but perhaps he sensed that the incipient talks would drag on forever, and needed a new cause.
Forty years ago John Kerry called for an end to the Vietnam War but in his public pronouncements this past week he has sounded eerily like Robert McNamara in that tragic time – urging that America show “resolve,” that our “credibility” is at stake, that our “enemies are watching,” that we mustn’t “back down.” These were not then, and they are not now, reasoned arguments; they are exhortations. Kerry is on the warpath. The President is ultimately responsible, of course, but I fear he is listening mainly to the loudest voice in the room. And that loud voice is channeling loud voices from America's past -- voices that have led us seriously awry.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
roamer65
(36,745 posts)between him and Bu$h if he had won in 2004.
I don't like Bu$h but Kerry is sounding just as much the warmonger. Sad.
monmouth3
(3,871 posts)silvershadow
(10,336 posts)
KoKo
(84,711 posts)them through, though.
That this is what we are left with or "Right With"...is very disturbing.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)As repulsed as I am by Kerry's trajectory on Syria, I can't go so far as to say that I'm glad Bush won. No fucking way. There is no question in my mind that we not only took a bullet in 2004, but it was a big one that hit the vitals.
warrant46
(2,205 posts)
NYC Liberal
(20,135 posts)There also would have been no Alito or Roberts to give us the Citizens United decision or to gut the VRA, among others.
And that's just the start of the differences.
blm
(113,041 posts)about the man's work and his quiet effect on this nation's historic record.
roamer65
(36,745 posts)...and his behavior now. I and others are seeing a pattern...warmongering.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)indepat
(20,899 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)What the hell is with this cheap psychoanalysis? Kerry's career has been marked by not getting credit for much of the work he has done in the Senate. He has helped to write and push legislation that he took no credit for, but he has also done a lot.
It's bullshit for Reich to use this idiotic character attack to question Kerry's motive. Reich worked for a President who launched several military actions.
Bill Clinton launched several strikes on Iraq, including a strike to take out Saddam's chemical infrastucture.
CLINTON: Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.
- more -
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
—Iraq (1993): Launched cruise missiles into Baghdad, hitting Iraqi intelligence headquarters, in retaliation for assassination plot against President George H.W. Bush.
—Somalia (1993): Increased troop deployment for security and stability mission with 35 other nations under U.N. Security Council resolution.
—Haiti (1994) Deployed troops for peacekeeping and nation-building mission as authorized by U.N. Security Council resolution.
—Bosnia (1994-96): Launched airstrikes with NATO allies over 18 months, culminating with bombings, artillery attacks and cruise missile strikes against Bosnia Serbs, by request of U.N. Secretary General Boutrous Boutrous-Ghali and to enforce no-fly zones as authorized by at least three U.N. Security Council resolutions. Deployed troops in year-long NATO peacekeeping mission.
—Iraq (1996): Launched cruise missiles at targets in southern Iraq in retaliation against attacks on U.S. jets enforcing no-fly zones to protect Iraqi minorities as authorized by U.N. Security Council resolution.
—Sudan, Afghanistan (1998): Launched cruise missiles at terrorist training camps in Sudan and Afghanistan in retaliation against U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania that killed more than 220 people, including 12 Americans.
—Iraq (1998): Launched cruise missiles and airstrikes on a number of Baghdad targets to punish Saddam Hussein for not complying with U.N. chemical weapons inspections as required under U.N. Security Council resolutions.
—Kosovo: (1999): Launched airstrikes and cruise missiles over more than three months at Yugoslavian military targets, power stations, bridges and other facilities as part of NATO mission.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/crash-course-a-guide-to-30-years-of-us-military-strikes-against-other-nations.php
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1998/roll482.xml
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-105hr4655enr/pdf/BILLS-105hr4655enr.pdf
cali
(114,904 posts)Kerry's career has been marked by not getting credit for much of the work he has done in the Senate. He has helped to write and push legislation that he took no credit for, but he has also done a lot.
"Kerry's career has been marked by not getting credit for much of the work he has done in the Senate. He has helped to write and push legislation that he took no credit for, but he has also done a lot."
...look up the 2004 campaign reports accusing him of having no record, and I'm sure you know his record.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)help for New Orleans and other areas after Katerina. He introduced the bill, he then added Landrieu as a sponsor and then Snowe who was the chair of Small Business agreed to sponsor the bill as well - as she was chair it became Snowe/Kerry. While it was on the floor of the Senate and the vote was going on - a large group of Republicans refused to vote for it if his name was on. Kerry then took his name off his own bill and it won over 80 votes. A large group of us in the JK group were watching on CSPAN and were surprised to see the name of the bill change from Snowe/Kerry to Snowe/Vitter - as they were voting.
In addition, Kerry and Kennedy wrote a health care bill that was the precursor for SCHIP. Kennedy then worked with Hatch and some substantial changes were made including letting each state design their plan. Kerry (and Dodd) were still included as cosponsors. The reason I know this is that Kennedy in several speeches in 2004 spoke of it. Hillary Clinton, who had less involvement, claimed far more credit for it in 2008 than Kerry did in 2004
Kerry wrote the provisions that allow for following the money internationally that has provided tools to catch international criminals, including non state terrorists. He wrote the legislation in the wake of his BCCI investigation and was blocked by the banks and the Senators they controlled until after 911.
Kerry sponsored the Affordable Housing Fund through 3 congresses getting progressively more sponsors until in 2008 he had 23 sponsors including Dodd and Reed. Dodd and Reed agreed to include the bill into the Banking Committee's bill. The NYT in writing about it had quotes from Dodd, Reed and Sessions from the banking committee and they praised Reid and McConnell for helping get the overall bill passed.
Another example is that it was Kerry and his SFRC staffer who suggested and wrote the provisions that formed the basis of the Aids in Africa effort in Pepfar. Kerry convinced Frist to join him as a go sponsor and Frist pushed Bush to back it. Ironically, because he was President at the time, Bush has gotten the most credit - and Pepfar which is a SFRC bill is listed as Lugar/Biden (the then chair and ranking member).
You could also note that Kerry who initiated the investigation of the Contras and who had the witness whose testimony which was earlier trashed by the WH was proven accurate after a plane with guns crashed in Central America was then not included in the joint committee that did the grandstanding hearing.
In 2007, Olympia Snowe and John Kerry negotiated and agreement that raised the fuel efficiency standards for cars for the first time in over a decade. Neither got much credit for it - it was a Maine paper where I first saw the story behind this.
On a personal level, the Boston Globe was furious with him when the Las Vegas papers reported that Kerry had saved NV Senator Hecht who was chocking. They were angry that his office had not called them to inform them that he did this. Looking for a link on this to get the Senator's name - the first google result was this - http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1893&dat=19880713&id=msFQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=PccMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1200,1475098 Note that Kerry's response was - "I think Dr Heimlich deserves the credit.
These are all from memory - I assume a much larger list could be compiled.
Cha
(297,128 posts)pissy little tear. It says more about him than SOS Kerry.
Me thinks RR is projecting..
"but he has a fatal flaw. He craves the limelight. He wants to be in the center of the action and attention. Over the years I heard again and again from his Senate colleagues that Kerry grandstanded and wanted all the credit, said things that would get him on the evening news, pushed too fast and too far in order to make his mark."
And, this.. shows how ignorant he really is.
"..and has convinced the President to stake much of his second-term presidency on it."
Like PBO doesn't make his own decisions and that he's "staking" anything. gawd he sounds stupid.
Thank you for busting out some facts, PS, in response to Reich's psychobabble..
cali
(114,904 posts)she posted her opinion
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"what facts? ProSense didn't post any she posted her opinion"
Maybe you missed all the information posted, including that clip of Clinton speaking because you're so busy trying to dismiss stuff by deflecting with personal comments.
rug
(82,333 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)This is the President's decision. He set the line for action before Kerry joined his administration. Hillary was SOS when the decision to arm the rebels was pushed.
Hagel is fully on board with this decision. The notion that Reich is trying to portray this as all Kerry is absurd.
rug
(82,333 posts)All you are doing is peddling your own opinion, not "facts".
Trying in some bizarre manner to yoke a former Secretary of Labor with military incursions by a former President to deflect criticism of a present Secretary of State speaking directly on behalf of a present President is hardly providing factual rebuttal.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)The notion that making this decision has to do with the bullshit Reich is attributing it to (Kerry's personality) instead of eliminating the potential for Assad to launch another attack is absurd.
Clinton took out Saddam's chemical weapons and it was not because he "craves the limelight."
The fact that Reich reduced this decision by the President to such petty bullshit is beyond strange.
rug
(82,333 posts)He stated his opinion of Kerry's motives based on information he has received. Unless the rumors are true, his sources are more direct than yours.
In response to his informed opinion, you let loose a spray of irrelevant blue links, including video, implying that that Reich is God-knows-what.
If that's not character assassination, then Gavrilo Princip was an actuary.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)The President isn't making this decision based on Kerry's personality, and Reich's assessment of Kerry's personality is bizarre.
rug
(82,333 posts)karynnj
(59,501 posts)Reich has sometimes been pretty off in his inside guesses. Remember this oldie but goodie - where Hillary and Biden would switching places for the 2012 ticket? http://robertreich.org/post/14932718385
Reich is not part of the Obama inner circle - even though in both of these posts of his he tries to sound like one. I don't know of any relationship he had with Kerry - but Reich did run for the governorship of MA, where Kennedy and Kerry stayed neutral in the primary. Incidentally, he so angered Bill Clinton by embellishing accounts of his time in that administration that Clinton endorsed Steve Grossman. This may mean he is no longer in the Clinton inner circle either. (If I remember Hillary are pretty obviously irritated with the 2012 rumors.
wisteria
(19,581 posts)on our Secretary of State. It is an insult to Kerry and also our President. And, it is not even an informed decision. Reich knows nothing about foreign affairs.
rug
(82,333 posts)karynnj
(59,501 posts)Note that you are asking Prosense,a poster on a board, for back up, but fail to note that Reich does not give a single example. Certainly there has to be at least one - and there isn't. I challenge you to cite even one thing that Kerry claimed that he did when it was someone else.
It is clear that Reich does not like Kerry - could it be something from MA politics? Did Reich want and not get an endorsement from Kerry in 2002 when he ran for Governor? (Kerry stayed neutral)
The fact is that his comment smears both Obama and Kerry. Not to mention, Reich has sometimes been pretty off in his inside guesses. Remember this oldie but goodie - where Hillary and Biden would switching places for the 2012 ticket? http://robertreich.org/post/14932718385
wisteria
(19,581 posts)It is history. The rebels were armed during the time Clinton was SOS. Obama spoke about Syria over two years ago, and at time spoke of a line being drawn, and action needed. These are facts. Syria has been on the President's radar for a long while now.
rug
(82,333 posts)1) Outside of the Alamo, do you think drawing a line in the sand is prudent foreign policy?
2) Regarding the OP, do you think Kerry is the leading Cabinet member pushing for military strikes?
karynnj
(59,501 posts)1) I don't think the declaration of a red line changed anything - a chemical weapons attack of that magnitude would generate a response regardless of anything Obama said. Note that the no fly zone in Libya was partly because he was on the verge of massacring people by plane. If anything, Obama's comment COULD have had the effect of deterring the use.
2) Reading Samantha Powers' speech - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/09/07/samantha-powers-case-for-striking-syria/ , it is likely a toss up. (UN Ambassador is a cabinet post) In addition, Susan Rice, who we were told is the one Obama listens to by people wanting to diminish Kerry, is strongly behind this as well. Not to mention, the story was that the senior National Security staff supposedly had people extremely angry Obama went to Congress -and Kerry and Hagel were not there as it was Obama's NS staff . Per detailed accounts they were called with the decision.
blm
(113,041 posts)Because he's far more noble a person than the DC chattering class could ever hope to be.
He is used to their slings and arrows.
blm
(113,041 posts)to diplomatic solutions in the region for years, and NEVER once sought credit. In fact, he worked so quietly on this that most of DU's 'news' hawks knew little to nothing about it, did ya? There was nothing sexy enough about it to catch interest, was there? Now, you all have so much to say with precious little BACKGROUND to the charges that are made.
Kerry pushing for military action is ABSURD!!!!!!! The only way he would be on board is because he knows after YEARS of working with Assad that Arab Spring sent Assad into a descent that is being taken out on the Syrian people.
If anyone is using anyone it's all the know-nothings who need someone to blame, and, as usual, Kerry is the target because not a damn one of them has affected this nation's history more positively than John Kerry has the last 4 decades. They are so into glorifying their OWN performances that they need to diminish his.
Fvck Reich's self serving screed. He should stick to economics.
cali
(114,904 posts)as ProSense's responses so clearly demonstrate.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)blm
(113,041 posts)Some say?
It was pure BS. If Kerry HAD been acting for limelight, all the morons here would have KNOWN long ago that he had been working to bring Assad to the table for peaceful solutions since 2005. Kerry doesn't do that because he doesn't want limelight to jeopardize progress.
Reich's earwigs were probably Clintonites anxious to blame Kerry so no one wonders what she 'who supported war in Syria since 2005' had been doing (not doing) on Syria for her four years.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)war based on bullshit for 14 years. This is no different. Former intelligence officers, most of the world and the country are crying bullshit. John Kerry is a joke to me and that is hard to say after being on his side since viet nam. This is bullshit. All of it. They are the ones wanting it. There is nothing more to say. Killing the messenger doesn't change the message. I want these fuckers strapped to the first bombs dropped. Then I will support this war. Et Tu Kerry indeed.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)furious when Obama opted to go to the Congress. Immediately people here and in the media said it was Kerry - but detailed accounts show that the meeting of senior STAFF did not include the cabinet members - Kerry and Hagel were NOT there.
Also note that Reich was NOT there and not part of the Obama's inner circle.
In addition, what does this do to ALL the many stories that it would be Rice, not Kerry, who would have the President's ear. Which is it? Kerry is not influential as he is not in Obama's inner circle OR Obama is listening just to Kerry as this suggests?
Both are stupid comments made by people wanting to sound knowledgeable.
Cha
(297,128 posts)himself out on a stupid limb here. Talk about wanting to be in the limelight.. any ol vicious gossipy limelight full of psychobabble will do. Shame on him.
QuestForSense
(653 posts)The Secretary of Labor exercises control over the Department of Labor and enforces and suggests laws involving unions, the workplace and all other issues involving any form of business-person controversies.
It is the Secretary of State who 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.
kentuck
(111,078 posts)
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)stock broker.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)his home on Cape Cod, Boat and kiyacking and he's Forgotten that folks Remember Him...for WHAT HE WAS...and NOT what he is now.
He has "Moved on" and what he hopes to achieve doesn't seem Legacy...but, something we yet don't know about him and his character.
But...I know there are those who would strongly disagree with me on my current opinion.
blm
(113,041 posts)that they used were pics during his treatment for cancer, and the 'after' were pics taken after he was free from cancer. Most people get to go through cancer treatment with some leeway from the looks police. Except Kerry. Apparently he's always a good target for the scum taking potshots at him.
Let Reich name NAMES - he won't. He wrote this piece of crap because the do-nothings in the Dem party have always hated the doers that actually made a difference to this nation's history.
Reich is welcome to name ONE lawmaker in DC who had a more positive effect on this nation's actual history the last 4 decades than John Kerry.
NAME ONE, Mr. Reich. Or rather, Mr. Reach.
warrant46
(2,205 posts)with visions of Sugar Plums dancing
reformist2
(9,841 posts)...then we gave him a second chance in 2004 when he said that vote was a mistake, and nominated him for Prez.
Now he's proving that he never changed at all. He might be a peacenik at heart, but he always votes the way he thinks will further his career.
wisteria
(19,581 posts)to protect our country. He has a great responsibility to this nation, and he is responding in a way t protect us, our friends and allies.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)poster for Al Qaida.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)is Kerry? I have trouble believing either the serious independent professionals of the State Department or clandestine services or Secretary Hagel could possibly be enthusiastic about his nonsense which is so obviously dangerous and contrary to American national interest. Robert Reich is one of the most sensible level headed people on the current political scene. He may be on to something.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)They are both close to the Clintons, and may very well share the Clinton's guilt about not intervening in Rwanda and Burundi back in the '90s.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)he knows he will have some great influence in her Administration if she does and wins.
She's been pushed as Candidate since and before Obama won his Second Term and Bill has been out there dogging Obama the way Cheney does. So it's possible the Hillary/Bill Team is "behind the scenes" working Obama.
Point is, though. Why is Obama so "weak of character" that he has allowed not only the CLINTONS but the BUSHIES to run "behind the scenes" his Administration.
Every time he needs some help with an issue he's not getting good press on domestically...either the Bushies or the Clintons step in and put out a Statement that gets him over a hump.
It's been consistent...just as whenever Obama seems to veer off the road for a differing policy...that "Darth Vader Cheney" shows up and makes a statement about how Obama is weak on the Middle East Policy.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)their ally over Obama is funky as it get. Here is Power on John Kerry's 2004 loss "God love him, he must have thought that having got shrapnel in his ass out there bought him some credibility. It didn't."
http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2008/03/barack-obama-interview-power
karynnj
(59,501 posts)He angered Bill Clinton so much that Clinton endorsed another Democrat over him when he ran in 2002 for Governor of MA!
Look at one of his last pronouncements - which seemed to annoy Hillary Clinton - http://robertreich.org/post/14932718385
Not to mention it is insulting to Obama. He is the one who makes the decisions - not his team.
polichick
(37,152 posts)"And that loud voice is channeling loud voices from America's past -- voices that have led us seriously awry."
I know Reich is saying that Kerry's is the loudest voice in the room with the president, but he's also very loud anywhere right now. Why is he always just shy of YELLING?!
I've spoken with him in person and he didn't YELL like that. What the hell is going on with him? Maybe Reich is right.
wisteria
(19,581 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)karynnj
(59,501 posts)Last edited Sat Sep 7, 2013, 11:06 PM - Edit history (1)
He has a very strong voice when he gives speeches - as do many other people. I seriously doubt he was yelling in private meetings with Obama. I also think that Obama would likely NOT LISTEN to anyone "yelling".
I have never seen Kerry yelling - and I have watched him on CSPAN for years. If you mean that he did not let people like Gloria Borger, Stephanopolis etc cut him off - remember that he was on via satellite and they should not have tried to cut him off. It was rude. At the hearings, his responses - like them or not - were given in a normal voice. Not even raising his voice for a sound bite like HRC's "What does it matter" - which was a NORMAL reaction to the frustration of answering the same insults.
polichick
(37,152 posts)as if he doesn't want anyone who might not agree to be heard.
The way you run in to prop up John Kerry at every opportunity makes me think you work for him or are part of his family.
TroglodyteScholar
(5,477 posts)I feel like I may have missed something. If you have a unique insight into Kerry's motivations, I'd be interested to hear it.
polichick
(37,152 posts)TroglodyteScholar
(5,477 posts)I asked you to share your insight since you stated such a strong opinion. If you've got none, so be it.
polichick
(37,152 posts)TroglodyteScholar
(5,477 posts)My mistake. 
polichick
(37,152 posts)Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)That's been clear since at least mid-June.
David__77
(23,369 posts)I'm sure there will be a few books about it.
blm
(113,041 posts)What gullible fools some people are.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)karynnj
(59,501 posts)Not to mention, he was accused by Bill Clinton of embellishing his accounts of the Clinton administration. Clinton was so angry he endorsed another Democrat over Reich for the 2002 MA Governor race.
wisteria
(19,581 posts)This is a personal attack on a man who has served his country for over 30 years. Our Secretary of State risks his reputation and his legacy with this action. And, he works for our President. This makes it seem as though no one else is in command. This is below the belt lies. Reich knows nothing about foreign policy nor Kerry. He repeats gossip and hearsay and his remarks are more suited for the Republican rag, the Boston Herald. Reich must have an agenda of his own, or his has totally lost it.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)and Kerry supported Obama instead of Hillary. That must have smarted, Kerry and Ted Kennedy.
I'm thinking jealousy and pay back is involved in this to some degree. And general shithawk stirring they like to do.
The Clintons think they still are Presidents
wisteria
(19,581 posts)I would bet that the Clintons have to duck and hide in fear of being asked by the press for their opinion on this matter. Instead they get this hatched man to do some dirty work for them. I use to respect Reich, but I will doubt everything he says from now on. Clinton stabbed Kerry in the back once before, seems like it is being done indirectly now.
dflprincess
(28,075 posts)hardly surprising and it appears she learned nothing from her IWR vote.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)race.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)discuss his performance. its american to do it. No one has to temper their tone just because someone is something. Intelligence professionals have sided with Reich. Kerry is wrong. PEople will die and its his fault. It won't make us safe. It will make more generational hatred for us.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Kerry is wrong, and he knows he is wrong. He really wants another run at the Presidency. No doubt he needs big money support to succeed. There is very big money to be had by catering to the MIC and acting in concert with AIPAC. Both of those entities have huge desires for a war against Syria, and the parallel weakening of Hezbollah which could follow.
kentuck
(111,078 posts)He will make the foreign policy in his own image? Surely the President will agree with him?
karynnj
(59,501 posts)and has always referred to himself as working (or representing) President Obama.
blm
(113,041 posts)and so many of you know so little about it that you're suckers for any bit of BS you hear now.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)In the first place, he can not rubn in 2016 because he can not do anything political as SoS. The race actually is already started and preliminary work would have to start at least by the end of 2014. So, 2016 is out - and he is already 69 and his wife is 74.
Not to mention this would be the last thing he would do if that were the case. Here's a scenario - if he wanted to run from the left. He could resign in protest and blast Obama, Clinton, Gates, Petraeous etc for creating "friends of Syria" - he could make (false) comparisons to the Contras - who he was against backing - unlike the Clintons. This, of course. is not who he is and it would destroy Obama's presidency. In addition, he would lose because everybody except the fans of Alan Grayson would hate him.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)But if he isn't thinking of another run for the White House, why is he pushing this nonsense so hard. He is starting to look rather foolish, in my opinion.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)Here is what he put on the State Department twitter - http://blogs.state.gov/stories/2013/09/06/yes-vote-conscience-worlds-red-line
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)To say that the Syrian government has "crossed a line" is mere semantics, just playing a game of words and phrases. To start dropping bombs on Syrian towns and cities would be an act of war, real, ugly, bloody and illegal war. Our country has spent all of this young century causing and waging such wars. It is past time we tried something else to occupy our energies.
If the Secretary really wants to ease the suffering of Syrian civilians, he should find another way. If he only wants to punish the President of Syria for having the gall to defy America's Imperial dictates, he is no better a man than Dick Cheney or George W. Bush.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)I hadn't thought of the presidency angle, but it makes sense. Starting another war could possibly propel him into the Oval office with MIC and AIPAC tribute money.
I do think Kerry loves the limelight. I was young college kid in Boston during his political ascendancy after Vietnam. He came to talk on several campuses. Most of us liked him, even admired him but it was clear he had a huge ego and he loved to grandstand even then.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Once someone convinces himself he is good enough to be President of the United States, he never really quits trying to achieve that goal. Examples do abound throughout our history.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)Damn. We are never going to get him off stage then. 
BTW I am serious even as young man he had a HUGE, over-blown ego.
Yeah, and postscript: I did vote for him for president.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Just remember who he was running against!
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)If they have the temerity to take issue with the Obama war machine then it's under the bus for them from the apologists. And it's always the same small group of people from the BOG. And since they don't really have anything it usually boils down to character assassination and name calling. For instance we read in this thread that a good long standing Democrat, Robert Reich is a "petty little gossip monger."
polichick
(37,152 posts)karynnj
(59,501 posts)Any idea who did that? http://robertreich.org/post/14932718385
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)by DU posters as well. It's called political prognosticating, not gossip mongering. And Reich was not called a gossip mongerer when he made that prediction.
He is only being called that now because he is questioning Obama and Kerry on Syria and some people cannot abide any such criticism.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)thus was given a lot of undeserved credibility. He also has a pattern of making these unsupported attacks - the last time being against the Clintons.
You could just as easily saying that the reason he is being given credibility now - is that he is attacking Obama and Kerry.
Overlooked is that his comments do not make sense. If kerry were as he says - with no supporting evidence -why would Obama have appointed him SoS and why would he listen to his opinions.
KT2000
(20,572 posts)looks like he is trying to expand his "influence" as an authority on everything. Most of his work is tainted green - as in the color of envy.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)Clintons when he was for Obama.
I have no idea why he decided to make it personal about Kerry. Who knows? From what I've seen, he can often be pretty petty in his comments.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)When our boys and girls are wounded the government bills them to return their reenlistment bonus. They have to return any pay they received while they were hospitalized. They have to pay for their helmets and uniforms that are destroyed in the hell of war. But they keep on fighting for these politicians’ right to keep their war profits.
• Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) $3,001,006 to $5,015,001
• Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) $250,001 to $500,000
• Rep. Kenny Ewell Marchant (R-Tex.) $162,074 to $162,074
• Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) $115,002 to $300,000
• Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) $115,002 to $300,000
• Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) $100,870 to $100,870
• Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) $65,646 to $65,646
• Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) $50,008 to $227,000
• Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.) $50,001 to $100,000
• Rep. Stephen Ira Cohen (D-Tenn.) $45,003 to $150,000
#
kentuck
(111,078 posts)????
840high
(17,196 posts)infowars - » 151 Congressmen Derive Financial Profit From ...
www.infowars.com/...derive-financial-profit-from-war Cached
Ralph Forbes OpEdNews May 28, 2008. Who profits
karynnj
(59,501 posts)They include all stock from companies with contracts above a certain size from the military. They include IBM, Microsoft, Johnson&Johnson, and Pepsi. The tallies came from Senate disclosures. Kerry's includes Teresa's assets. Almost all stock owned by the Kerrys is their share of teh Heinz (Teresa) trusts and the Wintrop(Kerry) and Forbes (Kerry) trusts. Neither JK or THK are trustees in any of these and they do not control the investments - they are simply beneficiaries.
TroglodyteScholar
(5,477 posts)Campaign contributions from defense firms? Personal income on investments?
Your phrase "war profits" could benefit from some clarification.
P.S. - I'm not a hawk, I just don't like seeing ill-defined figures used to support any position.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)While running for Governor of MA, Reich was accused of this -- leading Bill Clinton to endorse someone over Reich.
"Reich's candidacy attracted considerable media attention, especially due to the 1997 publication of his memoir of working for the Clinton administration, Locked in the Cabinet. Reich had received criticism for embellishing events with invented dialogue, and the book had so angered Bill Clinton that he endorsed Grossman instead.[1] Of the Democrats running, all but Tolman opted out of Clean Elections funding.[1]"
It seems there may be more reason to accuse Reich of embellishing than Kerry. One question I have is to name something that Kerry GOT credit for that someone else really did.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)Put a fine shine on that turd and has ne er really apologized to the workers of this nation for his role in catapulting the propaganda. Reich is not a go to guy for me.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)Reich has sometimes been pretty off in his inside guesses. Remember this oldie but goodie - where Hillary and Biden would switching places for the 2012 ticket? http://robertreich.org/post/14932718385
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Hillary supports this intervention, and he will be pushing for her in 2016.
Report: Hillary Clinton Backs Obama On Syria Strike
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023589844
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)JI7
(89,246 posts)i guess with reality tv, the internet and other things out there people have a need to use any situation to get attention for themselves. twitter, blogs etc. use anything to get attention for yourself.
omg , Hillary to replace Biden as VP .
this kind of reminds me of a lesser version of the Bob Woodward bs about being threatened by the white house. they were probably snubbed or not given the ass kissing they are used to be certain types so they come up with these things to get attention, sell books etc.
Obama isn't some BUsh type idiot who can easily be fooled by stupid things like who talks the loudest must be the one he should listen to.
and he claims kerry always wants the limelight ? if that was true his ass would be on those shitty ass sunday shows and other shows all the time. but he is not. even when he had a pretty significant position as chair of foreign relations committee he wasn't making the rounds like mccain and others.
and even as SOS until this issue with Syria and chemical attacks came up he wasn't out in front of the cameras all the time.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)The president and the president alone is responsible for his or her decisions.