John Kerry was superb on Morning Joe today.

[CTyankee]

I urge you to find the clip on the morning joe website and watch the entire segment. It is breathtaking. He answered all of the objections of the puny panelists who then, once he was gone, attempted to pick it apart again.

Kerry is no youngster but his ability to persist and be clearheaded and precise was incredibly admirable. He readily admitted that there was a time when he thought they might have failed to do the deal and told his counterpart "If we don't resolve this tonight, we'll have to leave and go home." And the Iranians came back to the table. I hope that shuts up at least some of the critics.

Joe was silent and let Kerry talk. I think Joe was probably close to his own mini breakdown because he simply couldn't effectively rebut one thing that Kerry said.

As I've said in earlier posts, the repubs got nuthin' before and still got nuthin'...it was pretty clear on that segment today...

[Surya Gayatri]

1. Hey CTyankee, can you post the video as soon as it becomes available? Gotta see this.

Didn't stream the Scar this morning. Forgot that JK was supposed to be on.

[CTyankee]

2. I will find it and post it...not sure it's up yet as the show hasn't finished.

BTW, Trump was on (on the phone) and has met a resolution with Lawrence O'Donnell. I found that segment fascinating. I hate to say this, but Trump didn't come off too bad. As crazy as this sounds, I prefer listening to him than to Ted Cruz and some of the other puke oozers out there. At least Trump is funny sometimes...and therefore dangerous. And just because he got rich from selling real estate in NYC (who knew real estate was valuable in Manhattan? ) doesn't make him a genius or desirable to be president.

[Surya Gayatri]

5. What makes him different, in part, is that he doesn't have that

creepy X-tian fundy vibe going on. And, he CAN genuinely be funny.

But then, Raygun was 'funny and charming', too.

[CTyankee]

6. It's funny but I've known a few rich businessmen and they all sound like him...

they just roll over any objection they don't like. It's all swagger and boast. They all think they have all the answers to everything. And they don't and that is why a Trump presidency would be an unmitigated disaster.

[Surya Gayatri]

15. Sociopath, Type A personalities, all of them.

A Trump presidency doesn't even bear contemplation.

The Horror, the horror...

[CTyankee]

17. I think he'll lose interest in this "project" after a while...he just likes the chase...

and the attention. Once it gets boring -- and it will -- and just too much work at somethings he might not like to do, he'll drop it like a hot potato. He's enjoying all his adulation right now but he'll stop when he's bored...

[Roy Rolling]

20. Sales versus Management

Some businessmen/women become successful because they are great salespeople---they are expert persuaders. Sometimes, they are expert salespeople for crummy products.

When they are promoted to management the only skill they have is persuasion and cannot effectively manage, which is an entirely different skill.

Politicians who are long on persuasive skills but short on management expertise are why America is deficient today.

[snort]

38. He was born with a golden spoon in his big mouth.

Trump has never worked for anything.

[MBS]

56. It's up and on the morning joe website

I'm out of town, with a slow internet connection, so I personally can't watch it yet (darn), but you can see it at http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe

Look for :
7/17/15
Title: Kerry: We need to complete the job in Iran
Secretary of State John Kerry joins Morning Joe for an exclusive interview on the Iran nuclear deal and what comes next.
Duration: 13:44

By the way, there are some positive comments about Kerry's appearance on the website.

[11 Bravo]

63. Damn, I watched it all the way through! SOS Kerry ...

was pitch perfect!

[kentuck]

3. What I don't understand about it?

Why is Israel against the agreement? Netanyahu has spoken of his fears of Iran getting a nuclear weapon. He wanted the US to bomb their uranium facilities and take out the threat. He would not want do it unilaterally without the support of the US. Now that the nuclear threat has been taken off the table for the next 10-15 years, he is very unhappy about it? One would think the Israelis would be supportive of this agreement?

[CTyankee]

4. I think Bibi is just a hard assed conservative who doesn't want anything less than war

to keep Israel safe. His focus is narrow and dangerous. Israel needs a better leader. Bibi has out lasted his sell by date...and I am pretty sure he's got a lot of opposition from other, more sensible Israelis.

[brer cat]

7. I agree, CTyankee. nt

[Fritz Walter]

29. Or more precisely, he wants the USA to fight that war

Just as Saudi Arabia refuses to put any skin in the game.

[brush]

30. Agreed, he's a dinosaur who knows . . .

only war. President Obama, with this new agreement with Iran, has shown that using war and threats is an outdated approach to foreign policy and Netanyahu can't stand that he was successful because it means he is no longer relevant.

He wanted war with Iran and thought that he could game us into doing if for him. Israel needs to get rid of this guy. All he does is keep sh_t going and tension high in the region from threats of war.

[karynnj]

41. Unfortunately, almost all Israeli politicians including Herzog, Livni and Lapid from the opposition

are with him on Iraq.

Netanyahu has demagogued Iran for years. Consider whether the likelihood that any politician since 2001 (especially 2001 - 2004) would have argued that diplomacy could have been used in the ME to get rid of the threat of nonstate terror. (Even INCHING that way - as Kerry did in the NYT magazine article where he spoke of the need to use international intelligence and law enforcement as the primary tools was derided.)

[spanone]

13. netanyahu rules by fear....he got elected on fear of iran....peace is not good for him.

[IHateTheGOP]

23. Easy, Netanyahu is a republican like war hawk

[Fred Sanders]

27. Excellent question. Why all the fear rhetoric? Emerging fascist states require fear to cement the deal.

[leftynyc]

32. It's not just the nuke question

that bothers the Israeli's. It's the billions of dollars that are going to be going to Iran that can be forwarded to their terrorist proxies (hezbollah, hamas, islamic jihad, etc). There is no mechanism in the agreement to track the money so they're free to send it wherever they like. Both Pres Obama and SOS Kerry have already admitted that's the truth.

[CTyankee]

39. Like everything, you have to weigh the negatives and the positives and do your

damnedest to keep an eye on where they think there may be a flow of money. Nobody said this would be easy...

[leftynyc]

40. I'm agnostic about the agreement

I could argue both sides but to claim it's only the nuke issue that bothers Israeli's is dishonest. There is nothing in that agreement that would stop the Iranians from continuing their habit of financially supporting terrorism.

[CTyankee]

42. what would you prefer we do?

[leftynyc]

47. I would have put

safeguards against Iran financially supporting terrorists for starters. There are only spot inspections of those nuclear facilities we know about - the 24 day period allowing Iran to hide whatever they want when it comes to sites we discover is complete bullshit. The deal is good...for as far as it goes but it allows Iran to continue their terrorist funding. That's my biggest objection.

[CTyankee]

50. my guess is that, like the hostage situation, there were all kinds of barriers put around

this deal and we had to give up something to get as good a deal as possible. I'll bet we started out with something like what you are suggesting. But in a deal there comes a point where you get something better than you have now and rather than risk that, go back to it later with a different deal. Who knows, that issue and the hostage issue might be something in the works even as we speak...

[leftynyc]

52. Agree

We weren't going to get everything and that's fine for us. But I can't fault the Israeli's (which is where this conversation started) for being nervous about those finances. It's them that have to deal with those issues far more than we do. I really think if the Iranians wanted to really show good will, they'd release those hostages for the PR value alone.

[CTyankee]

53. I don't think the Iranians much care about PR value...they'd be giving up something

they can use for leveraging in the future and they're not going to do that. Plus, it may be to keep us from coming in and bombing them for fear that they'd kill the hostages...

[leftynyc]

54. Do they really feel we would

start bombing them? I think that's a ridiculous fear but whatever. If they're going to join the world stage - the agreement is a start on that - perhaps they should start thinking about PR value.

[CTyankee]

57. that seemed to be what kerry was saying: no alternative this or go to war....

I just have no idea what the Iranians think, really. I am abysmally ignorant of their culture, like many Americans. Kerry was so excellent on his understanding of what is happening there, I must say I was truly impressed...

[karynnj]

64. Did you even bother to listen to Kerry?

The KNOWN facilities - the entire supply chain - are being monitored 24 hours a day. The terms you speak of are for areas NOT NOW identified as having nuclear items. If the IAEA finds one of these suspicious places, they will go through a process that can take as much as 24 days to get inspections.

What you are repeating is Netanyahu's distortion - where he conflates the two. He then ignores that if nuclear material is somewhere it is FAR FAR more persistent than his example of drugs. Traces amounts will be found even 24 days later. In addition, note that they would need to covertly create an entire covert supply chain. (I ask you to consider why Netanyahu is intentionally distorting things and then look at the ease with which he lied before the election -- and how completely unsurprised Israelis were that he lied through his teeth.)

The deal that the 6 nations worked on was JUST to eliminate the chance of them getting a bomb. Iran remains on both the human rights and the terrorism report the State Department wrote in June. As to the terrorist funding and supplying arms, as Obama and kerry both spoke of, nothing in this agreement lowers what we are doing to try to stop that. In fact, Obama spoke of increasing their intelligence and interdicting more of what is passed.

Obviously, there is a long list of things that would be nice to have been included, but the question is that given what was negotiated - are we better with or without it. That is the real choice.

[leftynyc]

65. Spare me the condensation as

I VERY clearly said the ones we don't know about are under a different set of rules so have no idea why you're claiming I don't and am repeating distortion and I said it was a decent deal - for as far as we went. It looks to me like you're complaining and accusing me of something for no reason at all.

[karynnj]

62. The agreement is JUST about nuclear weapons - it is Israel and the Republicans bashing it for NOT

doing everything else.

That is NOT because the administration is not concerned about funding terrorism. As President Obama says, that is a problem - but it would be a worse problem if they aided terrorism AND they had a nuclear bomb.

Imagine the WORST case under the agreement -- and compare it to the REAL alternative. Not Netanyahu's magical "better agreement", but a situation where most countries drop their sanctions. If only the US ramps ours up AND other countries remove theirs, it is a net win for Iran. We have done very little trade with Iran since the 1980s. In addition, no agreement means no monitoring, no reducing their nuclear stockpile to a small portion of what they now have.It also means the interim agreement ends and is replaced by nothing. In addition, after years of negotiations and the US backing away, do you really think that they would immediately agree to new negotiations any time soon?

So, what happens then -- a call to war. THIS ISSUE REALLY IS ABOUT GIVING PEACE A CHANCE.

My point - The alternative is so bad that it seems strange to reject a plan that actually has a reasonable chance of working for 10 years - as even Netanyahu said - before rejecting it because they could get a bomb in 10 years. This from the man with the bomb cartoon saying before the interim agreement that they would have a bomb in 3 months. ( Speaking of which - given that - why not thank the negotiators for not just keeping them from the bomb they would have had more than a year ago, but having a one year break out?)

As a Jew, I feel a connect to Israel, but as I said to an AIPAC rep speaking at a NJ synagogue I attended 4 years ago, just as I felt I had to speak out when my own country was wrong (Vietnam, Iraq, funding the Contras etc) I could not be a blind follower of another country. Since then, I have seen Israel move more and more to the right. It is a very easy choice for me to support Obama/Kerry over Netanyahu. (In fact, I happily did just that when I got a polling phone call just today. I happily identified as Jewish, strongly favoring Obama and strongly NOT favoring Netanyahu. I've rarely been polled, but I have NEVER been happier to give my responses.)

In fact, the PUBLIC lobbying of our Congress by Israel - after years when we as Jews were told that we should not try to second guess Israel in their policies and elections - is utter chutzpah.

[karynnj]

35. like Bush/Cheney, it's because his issue was never really WMD

Now, he like everyone wants to prevent Iran from getting a bomb, but his problem is that this agreement (and in fact any remotely possible agreement) MAKES Iran less an outcast than it is now and ends onerous sanctions.

One thing of many that Kerry did well is to argue that this is an attempt to avoid a war. This IS the argument that the Republicans immediately when the deal was known tried to argue was unfair. It is not only not unfair, but it is the brutal truth of the situation.If this deal is rejected, there will be no negotiations, no monitoring and no reduction in their nuclear material. Iran at that point will again be 3 months from a bomb ... and the world will be angry with us. There will be no additional INTERNATIONAL sanctions. The justification for sanctions was they could drive Iran to the bargaining table. So, where would that leave us .... with Netanyahu and the neo cons arguing for a military strike. Yes, the alternative is likely war.

Note also, Israeli estimates are that bombing nuclear facilities will set them back no more than three years. This means that either they go for boots on the ground and regime change (by us) or they would be risking all out war to set Iran back 3 years ... while whining that the agreement is just for ten years which is not really accurate. Simple argument 10 >3.

In addition fighting to save Israel from Iran is the raisin d'etre of Netanyahu. He is concerned for Netanyahu at least as much as for Israel. Other comment - reading the Israeli press before the election, Netanyahu is aean spirited person who places no value on whether he is telling the truth. He is their Dick Cheney. Yet the media, which regularly questioned Kerry's motives or Obama's motives on this, treats him with far more respect than he has ever earned

[uponit7771]

61. +1

[kelliekat44]

46. Because if Iran behaves, then the world will begin to look at Israel's nukes and civil rights

violations. It's just that simple.

[leftynyc]

48. Until Iran give up their

financing of hezbollah, hamas, islamic jihad, etc., I don't think Israel has anything to worry about on that score. They also don't give a shit about the UN and neither do most Americans.

[merrily]

8. Edited out: mistaken comment about Ramadan. Sorry.

Last edited Fri Jul 17, 2015, 09:57 AM - Edit history (1)

[hatrack]

14. Actually, I think it ends tonight - but that would also affect the timing

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=ramadan+dates+2015&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001

Eid-al-Fitr starts tonight.

[merrily]

18. Ok

[truebluegreen]

21. Lasts a month. This year it started on the 18th of June

and ends today on the 17th of July.

[merrily]

25. I must have misunderstood my friend. I thought he said it started yesterday. Guess he

meant it was ending. Sigh. I'll edit.

[libodem]

10. Hope someone is merciful

And brings us a link. Gives a coy look.

[CTyankee]

11. I finally snagged it after a frustrating time to get it...

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe

[libodem]

12. Hugs and kisses

Oops, maybe that's too much. Handshake!!!!

[CTyankee]

16. I always have problems with that website...but today I think it was that I tried to soon

after the show aired live. I dunno, tho...

It's crazy because I have no problems anywhere else getting links to stuff like this.

My technical proficiency however isn't that great...

[libodem]

22. Just finished watching it

I don't have cable and watch clips like this to stay caught up on news and commentary. Much thanks.

[Surya Gayatri]

44. Just watched it. Level-headed, well-reasoned, convincing...what a great SoS.

But, I hope he gets some down time now. He looked VERY tired and worn.

[Historic NY]

31. Thanks excellent interview.....

more explanations like that will educate the media and those willing to sack it.

[Duval]

33. Thanks, CTyankee! nt

[True Blue American]

19. I Watched

Thought Joe would explode but he respectfully listened and let others ask question.

John Kerry owned the interview.
I made a prediction that the hostages will soon be released. John answered Robinson about having a conversation with his Iranian counterpart the day before the agreement was reached.

This reminded me of the release of the hostages the minute Reagan was sworn in,then we had the Iran/ Contra mess.

I had the pleasure of listening and asking questions of one of the hostages at a Military Convention in Boston.

This situation is almost eerie thinking of that time. They will be released as a sign of good will.

One of the wives was on the CNN Brook Baldwin show. Brook tried everything she could to have the wife complain about the President and the deal the wife told her several times she was in constant contact with the State Department and they assured her they were doing everything they could to get her Husband released. Brook pushed harder about being disappointed. She then told Brook the president was right not connecting the two and her Husband wanted no part of getting concessions for his release. Brook really failed in getting her 15 second sound bite to run all day long. They prey on worried people like that.

[Surya Gayatri]

24. The wife sounds like a savvy lady...and Brook Baldwin is a tool.

Well said:

"Brook really failed in getting her 15 second sound bite to run all day long. They prey on worried people like that."

Welcome to DU, by the way!

[Cosmic Dancer]

26. Can't stomach Joe and his blonde yes girl.

[IHateTheGOP]

28. During dufus W's tenure Iran enriched enough to build 12 bombs.

They will now give up that uranium because of this deal. Wow.

[Zambero]

34. Nothing but 8 years of sabre rattling

There were no effects whatsoever toward a diplomatic solution, and in the meantime Iran's nuclear program was allowed to proceed unabated. Neocon logic says that this protracted record of failure was expunged on day 1 of the Obama administration, at which time WWIII should have been declared on Iran.

[Stellar]

36. Thanks for sharing. I rarely if ever watch that show anymore.

[1StrongBlackMan]

37. Yes he was ...

I, particularly, liked how he deconstructed the republican's, "well, we could've done something else" arguments!

[CTyankee]

43. and that's a little embarrassing because the American people don't like the alternative

of going to war with Iran. So the repukes are in a sticky wicket here with no viable alternative to what Obama has done. Just like with the old "replace" crap I mentioned with regard to the ACA. They've been forced to give up on the repeal talk and they got zero replace ideas...

[1StrongBlackMan]

49. I was watching some republican legislator saying ...

"from everything I'm hearing this is a bad deal" ... the "journalist" didn't ask have you read it ... "we should walk away and not have to go to war ... we can impose more economic sanctions." The "journalist" didn't ask how we would get the Russians and Chinese to impose sanctions when it was the US that broke the deal?

[CTyankee]

51. bunch of lazy complainers not worth shit...

[AtomicKitten]

45. John Kerry is a statesman who has brought gravitas to State.

[MBS]

55. + 100,00 n/t

[snot]

58. I've always felt Kerry got a raw deal from the media (among others).

Kind of like Howard Dean . . . they couldn't be effectively attacked based on the issues or character, so they had to be mocked for some quirk in the way they expressed themselves.

Yet they worked overtime to try to make W's endlessly inane pronouncements sound like something intelligible/tenable.

Edited to add: Bernie, beware!

[tabasco]

60. Of course he did

The right-wing-owned mega-corporate mass media is nothing but fascist propaganda.

[Dawson Leery]

59. The opponents of this deal are bitter (in defeat) that

they are not getting a war with Iran. Looking at the right wing echo chamber, social media, and some around here(who have attacked we supporters of the deal), there is great disappointment that this deal was stuck.

[Cha]

66. Very heartening to hear, CTyankee.. thank you!

[Shankapotomus]

67. I like John Kerry

I voted for him in the presidential election against Bush and I'd vote for him again.