people are so fucking stupid . they are trying to say kerry is a hypocrite because of pics of him with assad.

are people really that stupid and limited in their thinking. so they oppose any diplomacy or there should never be a change in relations based on what people do?

Kerry reached out to him after being told that he was different from his father and other leaders. As a diplomat this is norm. And, Kerry soon came to realize that Assad was no different than the others. Frankly, I think these old pictures prove nothing, and are just ignorance rearing it ugly head.

and they view things in black/white.

Last edited Sat Aug 31, 2013, 06:32 PM - Edit history (1)

tried his best to move Assad away from supporting Iran and Hezbollah and to make reforms in his own government. Had this succeeded we would not be at this point - and no one would remember (except a very few people) that John and Teresa had this dinner and that they helped.

At the time he did this, he knew if was a long shot - and he knew some would attack him, but it was the right thing to do. Given that we now know the consequences of Assad NOT changing, I think it can be proven that Kerry made the right decision to do this -even if the chance of success was 1 in a million. The cost of his effort was almost nothing - we gave no concessions or "goodies"

I remember that when Wikileaks cables came out, the Boston Globe immediately analyzed those involving Kerry. Almost uniquely, he came out very well. The conclusion - his private comments were consistent with public ones.

Grazie.....I had forgotten about that.

is speaking of this how Obama got Kerry to try diplomacy when kerry was senator .

Was he around in the 80s?

but he was referring to when Obama asked Kerry to go on a few missions for it. the way he didn't it came off better though . but his point was that they have been trying to work with Assad for a while.

with Assad back in Jan2005 when it was becoming apparent Syria was next on the list for the warmongers.

Last edited Sat Aug 31, 2013, 01:57 PM - Edit history (1)

Yesterday, they wanted Obama to go to congress, because, you know, it is unconstitutional not to go.

Today, he announces he goes to Congress and guess what, they are unhappy still. He wants to dump responsibility on Congress.

I think that some people cannot be logical at all.

Frankly, I would prefer he had decided not to strike Syria. For me, it seems that a strike is more aimed at telling Iran and other actors that we hold our commitment more than anything else. For the rest, it will do nothing for Syrian people. So, I share the huge skepticism of some on DU, but at the same time, I am starting to feel a huge disgust for some people I used to respect: clearly, empathy is deeply lacking.

...by going to Congress, no matter the outcome. My trust in the President and John Kerry is reinforced for me by this decision. They are very good at 'teachable moments'...and this definitely provides that opportunity to educate the world (and Americans) about democracy and our values.

I still agree about the low level of empathy on DU. But some of it, IMHO, is grounded in ignorance. A debate will clarify things for some people. Not all,but some.

He definitively should go to Congress to get the authority.

I made knots with my sentence, but I meant I still oppose a strike.

He did the right thing by deciding to get authorization from congress. Richard Clarke was on ABC earlier, detailing two scenarios for a strike. Both surgical and aimed at weapons, delivery system, etc. One on a small scale, the other on a larger one, that would include Syria's Air Force material (I understood this to mean planes, delivery systems, etc).

I'm still uncertain if a US intervention or strike is a good idea. On the other hand, doing nothing could well send a message that nobody is going to get punished for violating international laws on chemical weapons, making their use more prevalent.

A couple twitter feeds that are at best incoherent.

Do these people think Rice was against a strike? Or that Kerry was against going to congress.

Frankly, that a few grossly uninformed people are offended is not the issue.

Let me just say I am happy Obama decided to go to congress. He was right on that. For the rest, except if you have people in the room, you have no idea who was for and against going to congress.

BTW, Kerry is carrying the foreign policy defined by Obama. He only talks because Obama wants him to talk, which is indeed logical because we are talking about foreign policy. So, while I certainly would not want Obama to spend one minute addressing people who should go take a PoliSci 101 class, I do not understand what they are harping at. If somebody hung Hagel and Rice dry (not sure how, but), that would be Obama.

A more interesting and positive article on Kerry. https://www.google.com/search?q=Kerry&oq=Kerry&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i61l3j69i65j69i60.1003j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#psj=1&q=Kerry&tbas=0&tbm=nws

(I mean, sources for the media, not for some bloggers or twitters)

If you read the politico article below, you'll see that Kerry was in fact asking congress to give advice on what specific action to take.

because you cant even give us a source.

I found the articles. As I expected, they do not say Kerry wanted to bypass congress.
One said that senior advisors told him he had the authority to bypass congress, something he also said during his speech today.
The other one that he took the decision after Kerry's speech. True as well, but this does not tell us that there is a disagreement with Obama.
Note that I am unclear who AP calls all national security advisors. Is it WH staff or do cabinet members count as national security advisors.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/31/20270696-obama-will-seek-congressional-approval-before-any-military-action-against-syria?lite
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/obama-made-minute-decision-syria-approval-20127557

Read the other articles I posted (including Ben Rhodes's comment) + this that I just found

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/a-very-wise-decision-by-obama/279245/

Also, from my friend Charles Stevenson:

I don't think it's just a coincidence that Obama's request for congressional authorization for force came when, for the first time ever, all four statutory members of the National Security Council were former Senators.

He is talking about Obama, Biden, Kerry, and Hagel.

Went back and deleted the comments. Apologies for being divisive.

...Jack Jacobs...not sure the name is right. I wanted to throw something at the TV. PURE speculation that the president's decision undermined Kerry and what he said yesterday. I don't see it.But it seems the spin has started.

So you can take your 'like he valued Clinton' BS and put it where it belongs.

He was making a case for intervention. Gee, some people like this Jefferson guy read way to much into things. And, he speaks on behalf of the President and Rice. There is no way he overstepped his bounds. It seems like this guy is trying to hang Kerry. What an idiot.

fu

Micleshevski(SP?) was doing that with Gen. Jacobs . Disgusting crap.

but I couldn't give a shit less about politics right now, and what people I don't even know or care to know have to say about that on twitter. Obama picked Kerry to be SoS. Kerry took the job and all it entails. I'm also pretty sure that Kerry did not advocate circumventing congressional approval. If anything, he would have advised the President to seek a vote before going in.

Hope he can hang in there.

Posts deleted. Apologies.

correct in handling is as he has, and by leaving it up to Congress (for now), he is deferring to the will of the people.

If Syria actually becomes a legitimate emergency national security threat then Obama has the right and duty to act regardless of what Congress thinks.

I can't picture what it could be - especially as Russia is not only not helping but hurting the effort to make it a completely clear case of the world saying this is wrong. Imagine if they helped by pressuring Assad to kick his brother out of power and condemn the attack- and state that he agrees chemical weapons should never be used.

I agree that I don't see how strikes can help. I wish we belonged to the International Court as a possible reaction as pushing for a war crimes indictment against Assad would make the point without involving the military - but ironically it would make a political solution harder.

I don't think a portion of DU will ever say Obama did anything right. They really are the party of Manning, Snowden and anyone who attacks Obama - whether right or left. I am stunned with posts today that site PUTIN, of all people, as a trusted source compared to Obama. I am stunned how many fall into CT.

and Kerry is the most coherent person in the administration on this. Dempsey would be a good choice as well. We saw that Susan Rice really did a poor job with the talk shows on Benghazi. Samantha Powers may be seen as more likely to say something that will get them in trouble than Kerry would.

Kerry did look exhausted, but his speech was as focused as any I have ever heard, while keeping open how the country would or should respond. I hope that he has taken today to catch up on some sleep, because it is when he exhausted that he (like most of us) misspeaks. (The saving grace may be that it is Labor Day weekend - but it's true any misstatement will be the new content of the echo chamber.) I do think that JK is better at this than he is given credit for - the media has been hostile since 2003 (if not before).

I think he has the moral high ground - and that is a good place for him. What is trickier is the more important question of whether it makes sense for us to strike in a limited way. (It is interesting that there are people saying he should go all in -- and others against doing anything. )

There is also likely no one who better understands the dynamics in that region.

I think we are use to SOS's like Clinton and Rice, who remain mostly in the background during conflicts and military strikes. We are not use to seeing a forceful SOS. It may also be that he has the most experience and expertise on this issue and Assad. I will also add that he truly believes we need to send a strong message to Assad so that these atrocities end. I see nothing real unusual about his appearances, he was just making the rounds on all the Sunday talk shows.

I just listened to Kerry making the point and frankly, I am disappointed by the administration (and that includes Kerry and Obama here).

I am ready to believe that Assad did that, but it is still unclear what is going to be accomplished with this attack. McCain is right we need more to have an effect.
If little can be accomplished, should we not have other means to act. Like the ICC (of course, a little bit hard when we are not supporting it, of course).

But I am so sad.

In addition, some of the statements he makes are quite Orwellian, like striking Syria is not going to war? Uh?

Frankly, I find even more difficult the way he is used to make the case for the administration so that Obama can look more pro peace.

I am siding with them on this because I know how hard Kerry worked to get Assad to accept diplomatic solutions. Had Assad worked with Kerry more earnestly during the Arab Spring, this day would never have come.

and this matters. you can be opposed to strikes without a ground war also.

but it's clear the reason he is making this distinction is because of Iraq and iraq is what people are thinking of. not libya, or even tihngs like kosovo.

and I think Libya may have been the tipping point. There was comparatively little outrage when Obama decided to do a no fly zone in Libya - more than is being done here. The difference was that Libya was not important to Russia and China, so he did have a UN resolution.

I kind of wonder if it could be the media is not happy with Obama - however they wanted him re-elected. It just seems since the election, they have given him little credit for any success he has.

I hate that they keep arguing that the problem is Obama used the words red line. It seems to me that even had he never said that, a chemical attack of this size - in a country where we had some tangential connection - would likely not be ignored.

I remember back to the Libya discussions here. Kerry clearly is someone who strongly believes in humanitarian intervention. In fact, his comments on Libya were somewhat similar - except in Libya they intervened earlier.

I am not sure that I agree that we really can have the affect we want - which I think is the real question for many.

I was really happy to hear that THK was there.

it's too bad we don't get that but instead we get stupid things about pnac, mic, conspiracy crap about who really is behind the chemical attacks, israel, . and then all the personal attacks like how people want to see people die . we want to kill them and other crap to make certain idiots feel more superior.

i agree about the red line also. people are acting like Obama feels he has to do something just because he said it aloud. but i believe it was a personal moral red line whether he said it out loud or not. i think he would sitll be doing what he is doing now. he isn't so stupid and cold as to start something like this just because he said something in public and doesn't want to look weak.

today is a better one: people thinking Kerry should have lied at the question by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen about foreign countries ready to pay for a ground war.

Granted, Kerry's answer was not exactly artfully worded , but apparently, some people thought he should have lied to Congress.

and not created a circus out of this important strike. Personal attacks on Kerry, people like Grayson grandstanding, talking heads who are clueless and John Stewart bellowing like an expert on foreign policy. Is this the atmosphere the President wanted to create. If this fails-either in Congress or the attack itself (which I doubt) it will be Kerry being blamed for the failure. All this BS simply because he wants to protect innocents and the US.

He just isn't forceful and doesn't show determination at the onset.... when it matters most.

The Susan Rice-JK thing, the Summers-Yellen thing ...(there's a third case, too, can't remember right now. .it's such a consistent pattern that it's hard to keep count) . . . everyone is diminished in the process. Actually, the process itself is diminished in the process. Bizarre and extremely frustrating M.O.

to his administration and anyone who backs it. He really should have made the decision up front of whether to go to Congress. He has also possibly created another box for himself now - having asked, if he is denied what will he do? I think he loses no matter what - and I suspect the Republicans will see this as their chance to accomplice their main goal - of a failed Presidency.

I don't really see Russia helping Obama out by accepting that Assad uses chemical and helping remove the chemicals - which is maybe the only way to diffuse this.

I understand why he put Kerry as the point man - if anyone could succeed in the administration it likely is Kerry. The risk is that it will totally destroy his proven effectiveness, because of what he has to say. However, in any administration, the sad truth is that everyone except the President is expendable and will be sacrificed for the President. (The fact that Edwards and others flouted this in 2004 has been noted here and - at least for me - was one of many reasons I did not respect Edwards.)

It hurts to read the revival of every personal attack - some combining the attacks from the right with the attacks from the left. It also hurts to think of the promise - of just a month ago - of Kerry having brokered the Israel/Palestine attacks and having reengaged the Pakistanis. Reading things like Putin calling him a liar - distorting completely Kerry's response hurts because I think it shows that one of Kerry's greatest strengths will be compromised by what he has to do here. It was hard watching the SFRC hearing and seeing Kerry respond just as he always has respectfully and, I think, as honestly, as possible -- then seeing the gotcha reporting and the unbelievable twisting here. (The only good thing was seeing Teresa looking far better than I had expected - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/reliable-source/wp/2013/09/03/teresa-heinz-kerry-makes-first-public-appearance-since-illness/ )

It also hurts because here, he either loses or his legacy may be having been part of war rather than peace - even if the Syria attack is just what Obama spoke of.

I think they have - for all but those using Russian media as their new go to source - have succeeded in convincing people that there was likely back up for that they likely can't show. As the real number is likely not known, why not round off to the nearest thousand - as the French did with almost the same estimate. (I think those wanting to say that the Doctors Without Borders shows it is much smaller given their number from hospitals they deal with ignores many never made it to a hospital.)

They also have done as well as could be expected in getting people to agree that action of some kind should be taken. They were less successful in convincing people that MILITARY action of any kind should be taken -- and even fewer that the type of military action VERY VAGUELY described should be taken. All I have heard is that it would target Assad's ability to use chemical weapons and would not change the outcome of the conflict itself. That seems a very hard task to accomplish both things.

Even worse, is that they have not convinced Congress that they have an overall plan. Because Assad is the ruler, everyone against him is lumped into "the rebels" and many here (and elsewhere) have held US responsible for anything done by any rebel.

From one article, Dempsey backed the plan by Petraeous and Clinton to arm the rebels back in 2011 when the civil war really started to get violent. He did however give a very frank opinion shortly before the chemical weapon attack that spoke of the US doing anything militarily as not worth it, very expensive and unlikely to "work".

...ulcer.

On Obama. I have always thought he is most interested in creating 'teachable moments' for the Americqn people...even when it creates chaos and/or debate. Even when his and other reputations are hurt in the process. I am not sure that is a bad thing. The public was asleep (JMHO) when GWB came into office. I think more are awake now...on all sides. And,yes, a lot of them are in GD these days.

On Kerry. I am so proud of him and his work to resolve issues that have plagued the ME for years. It is painful to see people in GD, media and others trash his reputation when they really...obviously...have no clue. I think many have a myopic view, only focussing on Syria, equating it with Iraq, and assuming that his actions mirror those of the Bush Administration. IMO, nothing could be farther from the truth. I continue to be grateful for his work and think history will show that the country is lucky he is out there working for us. As to his legacy...it does hurt to think it won't be about peace. But I remember Kerry speaking about 'just war' and so I think his legacy will be for peace, but I also think it will be about use of power to enhance justice in the world.

In general...I wish people could see Kerry's recent actions on Syria in context. He has pushed for diplomacy there for years. He has pushed for involving ME neighbors in finding solutions. Personally, I think he is still doing that...he uses the word 'leverage' all the time to desribe how we get to peaceful resolution to the problems of the ME from land disputes to WMD. There is a LOT of pressure on Assad right now to go, and on Putin to help with that. I am probably naive but my fingers are crossed.

Finally, you guys keep me sane.Reading your posts and links educates and enlightens me.They make me think. And your defense of Sec.Kerry gives me hope for all of us.

Being Obama's point man and being forced to reason for an intervention in Syria with the most tortured arguments is shameful for JK. His legacy should be one of peace. A successful deal between Palestine and Israel being his crowning achievement. Instead we get him justifying a war before the SFRC. What irony! He has come full circle indeed, but not in a good way at all!

I was on the fence about Syria until a couple of days ago, but not anymore. Yes, using chemical weapons is crossing the red line that the international community drew long ago. Obama had that right, despite some here claiming he was walking back his own statement. But why does this line have to be enforced in the way that is being advocated now? And where is the UN on this? Why this rush to bomb who only knows what? Something is beginning to stink about the administration's argument. They also don't appear to have an exit strategy and/or contingency plans in case things don't go as smoothly as they envision. And the most disturbing thing is this new willingness to "go bigger" than previously planned.

No, this whole mess is not good at all. Obama and his admin need to eat crow, back down, and go to the UN for comprehensive measures.

that Assad himself did this - and the US does not belong to the International Court. I do NOT see Obama walking back the red line comment. To me saying it is an international red line.

I agree that it is tragic for Kerry, but this is something he does believe in. Remember his position on Libya and consider Boxer's position. I wrote the above this morning before attending Synagogue. One thing that surprised me is that the rabbi's sermon which addresses many problems included a comment that though poison gas was used, the international community is not even debating action. This is a man who favors VT's progressive party and is one of the leaders of an effort to keep F35s out of Burlington - fighting the entire delegation - yes, including Sanders, who has gotten a lot of flack at town halls on the issue.

I think we all have a tendency to assume that a favored politician's views are identical to our own. In this case, I think Kerry is more hawkish than almost all of us - in that he does see the need to use force to stop evil actions. I do see that his words and actions are coming from the same moral heart that his efforts for peace come from. In addition, I assume that he also may be thinking of what would create the balance needed to get to a political solution.

Still, it is heart breaking to see these events rather than an announcement (likely by Obama) of some political solution of Israel/Palestine or Afghanistan/Pakistan/India.

why do people need to bring up stupid shit from Russian(putin's) media ?

i think people have convinced themselves of their own moral superiority that they can't just accept that there was something bad done (chemical attacks) and that is what the President wants to respond to. because that would be taking a position where they acknoweldge something bad happened and their position is not to do anything about it.

i'm still not sure whether we should respond at the moment because i question how much it would help and whether it could make things worse. but i don't question the intentions of the President.

and then you have fucking idiots like Rumsfeld going on bashing the administration because OBama isn't doing it like they did in Iraq ?????????????

and there are some who are angry Obama has not attacked because certain people only live on phony outrage. i remember there were some insisting he was going to attack before G20 and how he was so horrible for not going to congress the way parliament was asked in the UK .

...to do, he will be bashed, blamed and berated...rather than supported, celebrated and honored. NO matter the result. Even if peace comes to the entire ME region.

And sadly, Kerry will probably experience similar treatment. It's just the way things are right now.

Someone out there prove me wrong...please.

but, I can't help but thinking there is something bigger behind all of this that makes this action necessary. I don't like how the process has been playing out, but I trust this administration and SOS Kerry to do the right thing, even if it comes down to attacking Syria. I don't like conflict, but sometimes it is necessary. There is to much cynicism in the world. We have to learn to trust our leaders again. I have faith that what is being pursued is necessary.

But given that people are now praising Rand Paul and Putin -- while they trash the administration - I can't but agree. It seems that DU lost its grip on reality with Snowden and it will be hard to get back to any semblance of being a supportive Democratic board.

Last edited Sat Sep 7, 2013, 09:03 AM - Edit history (1)

Frankly, I don't recognize it any more.

Last edited Sat Sep 7, 2013, 09:09 AM - Edit history (1)

attacked and, in many cases, driven out. I think most of us have considered whether even trying makes sense. My only thought is that for everyone posting pseudo intellectual nonsense -and when you hit S&B and swift boat charges - they have likely hit bottom, there are some reading just trying to make sense of something that fills them with horror (going to war) and which they didn't expect under their President. They have even resurrected the old BH standby that JK had a face lift recently - even though he has not been out of the public eye for more than a few days at a time. (Likely less as the right stalks the poor guy on the few days he takes for himself - and then complains that he is on his yacht again and wind surfing once.) I guess it is a compliment -- and I think we all know why he looks better now than a month ago = Teresa doing better.

They are an army working feverishly to get Rand Paul into the WH.

The same ones who actually showed up to vote at caucuses and won a whole lot more delegates than the GOP allowed them to claim. They are a furious bunch. The yellow jackets of politics.

and are willing to rearrange facts to avoid any mixed feelings.

I really wonder why they simply do not disagree with the concept of humanitarian intervention rather than assuming there is a different motivation. (Not to mention allowing them to feel smug because they can say PNAC or oil ) There are many who think that humanitarian intervention is not a good idea in this case (or in some cases, ever). That is a valid opinion that can be debated. It is also reasonable to agree that the humanitarian issue is real, but the likely outcome of doing anything is to make things worse.

Kerry would be the last person to disagree that every diplomatic step should be tried - and he has tried - only to hit brick walls. The UN avenue is essentially blocked by the US.

of giving diplomacy and sanctions a try. Unfortunately, diplomacy has been tried already-sanctions I am not certain about, but I have to believe that SOS Kerry would pursue all avenues first, before pursing a strike.

In this case especially, US sanctions against Syria are pretty useless as they they don't have much commerce with us. neither Iran, Russia, or China are likely to approve sanctions - and they do have a lot of business with Syria.

We have the same problem with teh UN - Russia and China. At this point, Russia likely thinks that the unrest hurts us more than him - so he is not going to push Syria to give up Chemical weapons - something that could defuse any reason to attack. I hope that Ban Ki Moon suggests that

People don't know a thing about Syria. And, they think they are coming up with new ideas. But, really, do they really think that SOS Kerry has not pursued other means for peace?

...post:

There used to be a certain respect and 'reverence' for our leaders...presidents and others...that came from citizens being distanced from our government. They didn't tweet, for example.

The fact that communication is enhancing our access to leaders and to information has changed that. Good in many ways...but blurring lines in others. It equalizes things...opinions of Kerry, Grayson, ChrisHayes, Putin,McCain, Palin, me and you all seem equal. People don't consider...enough...experience and other fsctors when deciding who
to believe. So you get people believing a KGB person over JK.It's frustrating. Hopefully the debate will continue to inform...

notice the difference between most Democrats in Congress who oppose involvement and how those who claim to be opposed on the internet talk. it is possible to oppose something without all the bs and defending putin. you have idiots on the internet going on about how obama, kerry etc want to kill kids and other shit.

but i guess it would be boring without the drama, hysterics etc. i really think a lot of people on the internet view much of this as entertainment . trying to get real change in politics is actually very boring. i have done it but that is also where you make actual effective change.

...trolls. I ran across some who admitted to being anarchists. They have an agenda very different from Democrats.

I also think some...Dems included...are just getting to know the real John Kerry. We here have had time to understand where he is coming from on foreign policy. Most on DU haven't had that time...so he seems to be this 'different person'. Even the 2004 election didn't really portray who he is. Sadly.

On the positive side...all this mess DOES finally allow his life's experience to be put out there by the media. I have wished that would happen for a long time. So...depending on how this turns out...maybe his biography will be clarified for all.

(Oh, I know it is fiction, even some people on GD would want to compare Toby Ziegler's speaking ability to Kerry's but this is a different issue).

One of the side stories sounded eerily like DU today. Josh finds a website of some of his fans, wants to post on it to correct something wrong and ends up being assaulted by his former fan because they cannot stand reality and want to teach him the Constitution.

DU looks like that today. Too many people refuse to admit they do not know the answer to this question and therefore go far off in the wilderness.

I hope the debate will inform, but I would not hope to get information from DU.

As an aside, did anybody see Kerry on All In yesterday? I have only seen excerpts on Maddow and the excerpts looked good (not that I am convinced), but obviously they will be torn off by GD because (gasp) the Secretary of State does not act like an anonymous poster on GD.

...brother watches it when current politics seems to be off the rails, like now.

I did see Kerry on All In. It was a good interview, mostly like other shows he has been on. The major difference was that Chris asked him about Rumsfeld's remarks. He basically dismissed his comments as a non-issue and unimportant.

Earlier this year, we were watching many of the episodes again with a 23 year old daughter, who had just discovered the series. It was hilarious. I missed All In - because of Rosh Hashanna.

I did watch the entire, long, SFRC hearing - and what I saw was that he handled it very well. I have not watched the House one yet. For the Senate one, I was appalled that the cable media had less interest in getting the administration's positions than looking for things to fuel the outrage machine that it has become. It is ridiculous and not how any previous administration was treated.

This is one of the side effects of the internet. This perception of intimacy and closeness to political figures and celebrities empowers us to speak to, and about them on an equal footing.

Some carry this too far, believing themselves smarter than the experts. I read several posts demanding the release of classified information. That defies all logic. There is a reason certain information is classified, and it is not because "They" are trying to hide something from us.

I saw some of the interview as clips were posted here. (we have no cable tv at the moment. Furlough financial pains, but that's another story). I honestly couldn't understand the outrage and claims that JK appeared crazy and angry. He actually sounded pretty reasonable, provided all their intel is correct. As to his appearance that so many are up in arms about - he actually does look like he is battling an infection with prednisone. I would guess a sinus infection, because one side of his face and that eye looked a bit swollen. But how is that relevant to the discussion?

That said, I'm still opposed to an intervention. Not because I doubt the veracity of the intel, but because there is no clear exit strategy, and because the unintended consequences could far outweigh any good a strike would do.

I am not going to link, but I am sure it can be Googled. Reich attacks Kerry as being the only one responsible for this Syria situation and then presents gossip and hearsay to continue to demean him. What's your opinion on this. Reich of all people. I had more respect for him. And, what the hell does he know about foreign policy to even be commenting on this situation?

.

Not saying this is HC directly, but for 4 years as SOS, she kicked the can down the road, and did not act on much. The 4 years seemed to be about doing very little, and riding it out so that she could just say she was SOS, and others could embellish her record. Now, we have a proactive SOS, making tough choices and working tirelessly, and risking his own record, and what are people like Reich concerned about?

I took a 'wild' guess.

I googled it and found no such piece.

I am also on his mailing list and still found no such piece.

All I found was an Huffpo piece with which I agree completely. Yes, he quotes Kerry as Obama SOS, but the point of the piece is that this money and time could be better used elsewhere (plenty of domestic problems).

Given the poor definition of what will be accomplished and the lack of information concerning an exit strategy, I cannot disagree with him.

this is even less complimentary of Obama than of Kerry.

I have heard this version of things before (the piece of Kerry being the main architect of Syria). It may be true or not. However, it makes Obama look like a weakling, a man easily influenced by others.

As for being the only one in the room who wants intervention, HRC wanted it, we' ve been told. Susan Rice, who, last time I checked, was National Security Advisor, is also rumored to want it.

I suspect blm's explanation is correct, but I cannot say I am thrilled by Obama and Kerry on this issue.

I avoided answering on GD, but the piece, with all these rumors. makes Reich sound like Limbaugh.

In addition, the story on the President meeting with his team on going to Congress spoke of many who were angry. From the NYT account, this was a meeting with Obama's NS STAFF and that he later called Kerry and Hagel. This suggests that there are others beyond Rice for it.

I agree that the accusation makes Obama very weak, but there are the additional charges about Kerry that are completely off base.

He irritated Bill Clinton enough that Clinton, who he had recently worked for endorsed Grossman over him. He also had many negative things to say about the Clintons in 2007 when he was for Obama. In 2008, he said more unkind things in arguing that she should not be VP.

He said Obama would lose in 2012 and has not been happy with him at all. Could it be that he is unhappy that Obama did not appoint him to anything?

I can't imagine why he used RW smears to attack Kerry - when he could have stopped after saying that Kerry was the one pushing Obama to war. In fact, he is one of several - but the decision will be Obama's.

Could it be some obscure MA politics things? Or is a certain 4 foot 9 inch man jealous?

I fear someone picked up on the Reich comments because of me. Such nastiness and crazed behaviors coming from people who have agendas or simply do not like Kerry.

Everything I see that is negative is on DU within a few hours - even if the source is Russian or Iranian.

a good thing .

not radical left leave. I wonder whether it sends the wrong message. Worse it makes DU more of an echo chamber that will maybe never allow any genuine conversation.

In a way, we saw that happen once before - Firedoglake was an interesting - if unfriendly to us forum. In 2008, after Hillary lost, they became as bad as any RW site -- and to this day they color everything against Obama and most Democrats.

I think there are tipping points - and there exists a point where the percent of people willing to dissent from the main view of the board becomes so low that it is an entry barrier to any people not in agreement with the main group. In addition, it is welcoming to any who echo the main group -- even those who strategically come in and post just on topics where they fit. (The obvious example is the and Paul fan club.) This could have the impact of ultimately transforming what this site is.

We were NEVER in the mainstream of DU. The closest we were was in the excitement of 2008. Remember that even in early 2008 when Kerry endorsed Obama - there was livid outrage and character assassination from a very significant segment of DU. Through the entire time, no matter how close to DU "goals" Kerry's actions were he was NEVER the DU favorite that sleazes like Edwards, Weiner and Grayson were. I think we all remember seeing some Kerry comment or Kerry vote that we KNEW would lead to a rehashing of all their grievances would be forming on GD. Now, people who primarily support Obama - our Democratic President - are almost as much outsiders as we are.

I almost left when Kerry became SoS. For two reasons - as he was out of the political world, I thought what DU thought was less important. In addition, he will be seen for what he - and Obama accomplish - not whether he is popular on DU.

I stayed because Kerry seemed to be making such a good start. Then because I wanted to defend his integrity and to push the discussion to the POLICY issue where there are HUGE reasons to disagree with the path they are on.

....wisteria and other DUJK folks stay engaged here. It is true that we are not mainstream DU. That is fine by me. But...as one who advocates debate as the path to education of an American electorate that needs information...that debate NEEDS voices that are not 'mainstream DU'.

DU needs voices of reason. And most here are very reasoned thinkers. I wish everyone here would get involved in the GD debate...although I get why some don't want to.

To wisteria...you have been valiant on this debate on Syria. Outnumbered badly, but VALIANT. Karynnj too.

One reason to have stayed is all the people in this group.

If anything, I wished they had a better feeling of what the left means (if anything). I wished they cared about a stronger action from the government, not a weaker. I find that what you call the radical left wants less government.

I have dramatically reduced my presence on DU this last year, but it is largely because this is crazy land. I feel an outsider not because I disagree with the ideas that are prevalent on DU but because it does not seem possible to have a discussion on ideas. All seems to become personal and frankly, it bothers me. I think that we (the left) are losing in this dynamics.

The left means wanting those who are oppressed to make progress. We should have tons of threads concerning fast food workers and their strike: nothing. We should have threads increasing minimum wage: when have they ever existed on DU. Nobody on the left would subscribe to the notion of the 99%. Nobody on the left would believe that student loans interest rates are the problem. They are not. The fact that even public colleges and CC are too expensive is the problem and the proposal of Obama will do little to win.

So, let's be clear. About 15 % of DU is on the left. Most of them are those who fight with ideas, not invectives. The rest are just loud mouths who like other loud mouths. Frankly, the fact that they thought Wiener or Edwards were from the left is a sign they have no idea what they are talking about. The fact that some think Liz Warren is from the left is also a sign they do not know what they are talking about.


One of the major issue that I see on DU is that people are more here to support or attack somebody than to care about ideas. It is true that there is a fight for the soul of the party, but too often, the fight is not on issues (I know I repeat myself here), the fight is on personality: Obama is God, Obama is bad. Kerry is god, Kerry is bad.

So that it is clear, I agree with the anger on Syria. I am totally lost on what the government is trying to accomplish in Syria and ready to say "the hell with them". I have little doubt that the Syrian government has used gases (they may not be the only ones though). But I do not think that Obama or Kerry have made the case. They actually seem to be dubious (Kerry said there was no military solution in Syria, so what are they trying to accomplish).

I have often thought about leaving, and I may leave someday, but, while I understand your point and I am sure it applies to you and others, this is not my problem. The problem is the ignorance of many of these people.

To be clear, I have always known Kerry was to my right and it is clear that sometimes, I have had trouble defending him. I cannot defend him today. But disagreeing on ideas does not mean becoming Rush Limbaugh. I have no problem with those who bring the IWR today. It is relevant.

Kerry hasn't had a very good couple of weeks, IMO, but for once, something that seemed to be a mistake may just lead us out of trouble.

Sully doesn't like Kerry, and has been mean, but his threads here are pretty informative.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/09/09/kerry-gaffes-the-russians-blink-ctd/

You won't like his commentary here, but just read about the policy and reactions:

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/09/09/kerry-gaffes-the-russians-blink/

I think everything I have said in the past rings true here. "Doing something" requires a lot of risk. Kerry is a risk taker whereas Hillary took no risks that I can remember. She comes out of it by getting high praise in Washington and across the country. Kerry will not. In fact, if they did approval ratings for him right now, I have a feeling they would be pretty low. But maybe this screw up of his was actually what he has been thinking the whole time. Maybe he really did not want this bombing thing to go through either, but of course has to do what his boss wants. Just saying, suddenly a lot of the pressure just went from the U.S. to Russia, and I welcome that.

and the chemical attacks may have ended up being the opportunity to force him there.

See...again....I do not believe in coincidence theory. Not at this high stakes level.

IOW, Sully isn't completely clued in because he ignored the deep background to all of this. If he had he wouldn't have jumped on the take-a-shot-at-Kerry bandwagon.

http://www.rferl.org/content/syria-lavrov-kerry-geneva/25071543.html

A trial balloon, that if it failed, the Administration could just say he gaffed? I would think that if they hadn't put out the statement walking the remark back which undermines that viewpoint.

I think Kerry is a Class A diplomat, but as a politician he has made gaffes in the past, because he doesn't always like conforming with stringent talking points. This tendency has been both helped and hindered him over the years.

wins out because media always makes it so and it has to be addressed as such.

Kerry has two very distinct media enemies - media friendly to Bushes and media friendly to Clintons.

Last edited Mon Sep 9, 2013, 04:56 PM - Edit history (1)

this route. What do they have to lose? Obama has already said that time is not the issue. It would seem that they can get a UN resolution backing the Russian plan and it would put the world on record against the use of chemical weapons.

If it is a sham, we will know and then we can attack at that point.

What I am hoping is that they negative voices are those of people with an agenda - and that agenda is that of McCain and (unfortunately) probably Hillary.

I really do not think that Kerry just misspoke. First of all, I am suspicious that Russia, Syria and the UN all had detailed responses within 3 hours. In addition, in the BBC accounts of yesterday, Kerry spoke of speaking to Obama about "our friends" desire to wait for the UN report and he even did not rule out another UN resolution.

Remember when the same voices spoke of Kerry screwing up in his dealings with the Palestinians and the Israelis - calling him a "bull in a china shop" and saying he was delusional to think their could be direct negotiations? Not to mention - few of those sources really admitted they had been wrong.

Most of the beltway foreign policy circle never wanted JK - they were nasty when he was not picked in 2009 and worse when Rice was not picked in 2013.

If Syrian President Bashar al-Assad gives up his chemical weapons, a military strike would "absolutely" be on pause, President Obama said today.

I hope he asks Reid to put the vote on hold. It makes no sense to vote when this is up in the air.

it give us leverage (if it goes well), that we will carry through with our plans if he doesn't comply, and it makes it easier for the Senate to vote on something hypothetical rather than immanent.

It is a tough vote that can hurt people voting out of loyalty to the President. There is no rush on this and it would be better working for a UN resolution - not for war, but for giving up the Chemical weapons. There is likely ample support for this. Then if this does not work out - there is more back up on why it is needed.

could be what changes the balance and allows diplomacy to happen that Hillary let die.

I agree that Hillary took few PUBLIC risks, but it seems that decisions that she was part of - be it Afghanistan, Libya (and yes Kerry was in agreement) and Syria where she did a lot for the rebels did have an impact. The difference is that the media never tied her to any of this in recent times - and people's memory is short.

I am surprised that she took a position to the right of Kerry - I would have expected her to take advantage of not being involved now and to take a position to the left of Obama - but not DU left.

I agree that if JK were polled now he would be very very low - the right still hates him and these last two weeks has likely taken a toll on his liberal and moderate support.

save face, buy more time and stops the use of chemical weapons by Assad for the time being, fine. Personally, I think we are kicking the can down the road. And, I think Kerry knows this. This entire situation has been so bungled, mismanaged and yes, embarrassing. Seems like Kerry comes out looking somewhat bad after all this. But, I blame the President, he either didn't trust the judgment of his security, and foreign policy advisor's, or it is as has been claimed, the man can not make up his mind-because he sees things as only political with political outcomes. I think the administration used SOS Kerry, and like a good soldier he went right along.

As for Sullivan and his elk, I consider them utterly irrelevant.

As to the pundits- remember back to June when JK was trashed as annoying both the Palestinians and the Israelis and being obsessed and delusional that peace talks could occur. Then remember how few said they were wrong. (I loved the comments of both Palestinians and Israelis in the BG article mostly on Teresa ) Remember how he just stayed focused - even after Teresa became very ill?

On ABC, Obama told Diane Sawyer that Kerry will work with Lavrov on this. I think they both want it to work. (According to one account a few months ago, they bonded as big hockey fans.)

As to the chattering class, I agree with these words from Dylan -

Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won’t come again
And don’t speak too soon
For the wheel’s still in spin

Read more: http://www.bobdylan.com/us/songs/times-they-are-changin#ixzz2eRNR2IhB

before, supposedly blurting this out. With this entire Obama mess tail spinning, I think the President should be grateful that Kerry proposed this-even if with doubts.

Obama and Kerry failed to make the case. Most people do believe that Assad used CW, but they still don't want to get involved. At this moment, I can't see the House voting Yes. So what happened today is very good news. It is possibly pulling us from the brink. We can find a way out of this diplomatically and Obama won't face a defeat vote in the Congress.

I only linked to Sullivan because he had a good round up of voices that I thought people here might find interesting with the caveat to skip his commentary.

Most of which I think was based on experiences with Bush and company. Some conflicts aren't popular, but sometimes it is necessary to buck public opinion and take leadership of an issue. Obama did, than didn't, making people even more unsure. Kerry tried hard to be a good soldier, to a President that was on board, than wasn't entirely, without further Congressional support. It denigrates Kerry to assume there was not diplomatic avenues attempted already, and there was a rush to do this. Sure, somehow, Obama gets a reprieve for now, and maybe some more time to sell a strike-especially when/if Assad does not comply. Sadly, I think this entire idea is to simplistic and people are just jumping on board to delay the inevitable. I don't consider myself a war hawk, but we have been down a very, very similar path with Saddam during the 80's. Ultimately, I believe we will need to strike Syria, either sooner or later, to protect our interests, help our allies, and protect our security. At least this buys some time. I hope there is a diplomatic solution, I don't think this one is it though.
As for Sullivan, please, continue to post his commentary. I simply do not care for him, but I am sure others enjoy reading him.

I think the reason is not a reflection on Obama or Kerry, but I think the fact is that in a war weary country, there is no possibility to sell a war that is for a moral principle. Obama never got a resolution for Libya and it had to be harder then (pre election) for Democrats to vote against him than now --and the failure of Libya was another factor.