HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Bill Kristol: John Kerry ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 10:28 AM

Bill Kristol: John Kerry Hasn’t Supported Enough Wars To Be Secretary of State

By David Edwards
Sunday, November 25, 2012 14:08 EST

Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol on Sunday suggested that Republican senators should confirm United States Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice if she is nominated as secretary of state because she is more likely to support going to war than Sen. John Kerry (D-MA).

The conservative columnist told Fox News host Chris Wallace that Rice had made a mistake by not being more clear that the September attacks in Benghazi were terrorism but Kerry had a history of opposing military intervention.

“I rather think will appoint Susan Rice and I think — I’m not a huge fan of hers — but I think she’s likely to be confirmed by the Senate,” Kristol explained. “And an awful lot of people might decide, you know, given the range of alternative appointments, maybe she’s not — John Kerry, in my opinion, might be a worse secretary of state. Maybe one just goes ahead and lets him have the secretary of state he wants.”

“I think Susan Rice has been a little more interventionist than John Kerry,” he pointed out. “John Kerry was a guy who loved the Assad regime in Syria. John Kerry has been against our intervening in every war we’ve intervened in, the first Gulf War. In Iraq, he was for it before he was against it.”

MORE...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/25/bill-kristol-john-kerry-hasnt-supported-enough-wars-to-be-secretary-of-state/

OP COMMENT: The exact reason why I support Sen. Kerry for SoS. He has lived war and understands its consequences fully.

24 replies, 1512 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 24 replies Author Time Post
Reply Bill Kristol: John Kerry Hasn’t Supported Enough Wars To Be Secretary of State (Original post)
Purveyor Nov 2012 OP
frazzled Nov 2012 #1
blm Nov 2012 #3
frazzled Nov 2012 #7
blm Nov 2012 #8
frazzled Nov 2012 #11
blm Nov 2012 #12
frazzled Nov 2012 #13
blm Nov 2012 #17
ProSense Nov 2012 #18
frazzled Nov 2012 #20
blm Nov 2012 #21
PDJane Nov 2012 #2
warrior1 Nov 2012 #4
Festivito Nov 2012 #5
EC Nov 2012 #6
Enrique Nov 2012 #9
Arcanetrance Nov 2012 #10
sarcasmo Nov 2012 #14
Purveyor Nov 2012 #16
blm Nov 2012 #22
Ganja Ninja Nov 2012 #15
Purveyor Nov 2012 #19
Proud Liberal Dem Nov 2012 #23
greendog Nov 2012 #24

Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 10:33 AM

1. Huh? He sure as heck supported the Iraq war

And did so with gusto. Which was a negative to me, but should count in the asset column for Mr. Kristol. Is he still pissed about Vietnam?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #1)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 10:52 AM

3. That's not an accurate statement. Kerry supported Biden-Lugar version of IWR, same as Dean, and

voted for IWR with the stipulation that he would oppose any decision to invade if circumstances proved that war was unnecessary to secure Iraq's WMDs. When weapon inspectors in Iraq were proving war was not needed, Kerry sided with the weapon inspectors openly and alone, with no other IWR voters and high-profile Dems (Clinton, Biden) standing with him in opposing Bush's decision to invade. Corpmedia ignored him for siding with the weapon inspectors and for speaking out against the decision.

The corporate media adopted Rove's preferred narrative grouping ALL yes votes for the Resolution as Pro-war, and all no votes as anti-war, even if the no votes were cast because the lawmaker viewed the IWR as not hawkish enough, or the lawmaker preferred Biden-Lugar.

The corporate media made sure the left AND the right were never aware of any discerning details. Too bad so many on the left accepted the narrative so easily.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #3)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 03:08 PM

7. He was supporting an invasion as of the day before it happened

I remember, because it was on my birthday, and I was angry that he had made a statement on the order of (paraphrasing here) it being necessary to our long-term security.

So sorry, but I have a vivid memory of this. He was my senator at the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 05:27 PM

8. Baloney. You remember wrong. Birthday or no birthday. Dean's campaign exaggerated the differences

between his position and Kerry's and so did some members of Kerry's camp. It was so much easier to repeat the narrative that Rove wanted, and, so you and the corporate media did exactly as expected.

<<Kerry voted in support of the Senate resolution authorizing the President to use force against Saddam Hussein if he failed to surrender his weapons of mass destruction and related tools for constructing and distributing them. Kerry, in October 2002, declared his belief that "Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing weaponizing of a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles, such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives which would bring them to the United States itself." The National Intelligence Estimate, to which Kerry had access, held some skepticism of Iraq's capability. Kerry's vote to support the use of force in Iraq was given with strong stipulations that all other peaceful avenues be exhausted first, and that any action of force would be done in conjunction with a world coalition, and not just with the British. (Kerry's full statement before casting his resolution vote)
After the President launched the U.S. invasion against Iraq, without meeting all of Kerry's stipulation, Kerry reiterated his position and declared the Administration's Iraq policy reckless at best and baseless at worst. He has since been outspoken against the handling of the war and of the Bush Administration's stewardship of occupied Iraq, attacking what he calls poor planning and poor diplomacy on Bush's part, but supports remaining in Iraq until the task of reconstruction and reconciliation is complete. He changed his position on WMDS by saying they were not enough to go to war with Iraq. (Kerry's post-attack view on Iraq) This harmed Kerry's campaign when he was perceived as a "flip-flopper," changing his position to better suit what is popular.
Kerry was criticized by Howard Dean and others for his position on the war, which was criticized as inconsistent. Kerry explained his vote authorizing force by claiming that he believed the Senate resolution was intended to be a diplomatic "threat" to Saddam Hussein and not a blank check for war. In the first of the 2004 U.S. presidential election debates, Kerry argued that Saddam Hussein had posed a significant potential threat, but that President Bush was premature in going to war. Kerry stated that war should have been a last resort, after diplomatic pressure and efforts by United Nations weapons inspectors had been allowed to run their course.
Kerry and Bush sparred repeatedly over Kerry's expression of his policy. Kerry maintained that he has "one Iraq policy", while Bush claimed that Kerry has made major changes in his policy. The Bush campaign says that differences between one Kerry policy statement and another amount to "flip-flops." The nonpartisan FactCheck stated that "Kerry has never wavered from his support for giving Bush authority to use force in Iraq, nor has he changed his position that he, as President, would not have gone to war without greater international support.">>

BTW - Dean was FOR Biden-Lugar version of IWR which would STILL have resulted with an invasion of Iraq - media never bothered to check into that fact and cast Dean as the 'anti-war' candidate with none of the scrutiny on his actual position. Dean camp was fine with that and rode it strong until Dick Gephardt hit him with his actual position on Biden-Lugar that was essentially no different than Kerry's during the last debate in Iowa before the caucus vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #8)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 12:00 AM

11. No, you're just talking the same gobbledygook as in 2003 (and I do not remember wrongly)

Give it up already. Kerry pulled a typical Romney-style political move, trying to prove his bona fides to one side and then trying to say he never meant that to the other side. He supported the damned invasion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #11)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 09:34 AM

12. You are wrong. Rove counted on your lack of discernment regarding Kerry's position and

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #12)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:44 AM

13. Yeah, I'm duped by Karl Rove

When pigs fly. You are perhaps blinded by an overzealous idolatry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #13)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 12:17 PM

17. When you repeat the corpmedia narrative Rove helped fashion at the time expect to be

called on it.

Kerry was consistent in his reasons for voting for the IWR and for standing against Bush's DECISION to invade once weapon inspections were proving military force was not needed.

Try comprehension. Try fairness. Try reading full statements and not cherry-picked phrases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #11)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 12:21 PM

18. What nonsense.

Kerry did not support the invasion. In fact his official statement days before the invasion urged Bush not to go to war.

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

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

While Kerry never let up on Bush, there were other Democrats who did initially.

Video: Dean reacts to capture news
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/3710796#3710796

Speaking to reporters Sunday, Dean said, "This is a great day of pride in the American military, a great day for the Iraqis and a great day for the American people and, frankly, a great day for the administration. I think President Bush deserves a day of celebration. We have our policy differences, but we won't be discussing those today. I think he deserves a day to celebrate as well."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3710459/


An Open Letter to Howard Dean
by Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich

Dear Chairman Dean,

<...>

That's what most Democrats want, too. Your performance in the early stages of the primary, and your recent chairmanship of the party, were made possible by many, many progressive and liberal Democrats. It was their hope and expectation that you would prevent the party from repeating its past drift to the Republican-lite center. They hoped that this time the party would not abandon them or its core beliefs again.

Yet you say that you hope the President succeeds. With no pressure exerted from the leadership of the Democratic Party, the past threatens to repeat itself in 2006. We may not leave Iraq or our minority status in Washington for a long time to come.

Dennis J. Kucinich

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0504-21.htm



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #18)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 02:25 PM

20. "The criticism appeared to contradict statements Kerry made on March 18, just a day before Bush ...

authorized military action"

Thank you for totally and completely proving my point accurate. Done and done. From your common dreams article:

The criticism appeared to contradict statements Kerry made on March 18, just a day before Bush authorized military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

Kerry, who previously had been critical of Bush's efforts to reach out to the international community, was reluctant that day to answer when a television crew asked him whether the administration had handled its diplomatic efforts poorly.

''You know, we're beyond that now,'' the senator said after addressing the International Association of Fire Fighters. ''We have to come together as a country to get this done and heal the wounds.''

Kerry, a Navy veteran of Vietnam, said he strongly supported US troops. ''There will be plenty of time here to be critical about how we arrived here,'' he said at that time. In response to questions after his speech yesterday, Kerry reiterated his support for the troops.

He also joined the administration in blasting ''armchair generals'' who are criticizing the war plan.

''War is war,'' he said. ''It's tough, and I think there's a little too much armchair quarterbacking and Monday-morning reviewing going on. I think we need to trust in the process for a few days here. This is only days old, and they've achieved quite a remarkable advance in that period of time.''

When asked to square his criticism with his pledge of restraint two weeks earlier, Kerry first said that he had tempered his criticism of the administration's diplomatic efforts.

Then he said: ''It is possible that the word `regime change' is too harsh. Perhaps it is.''


Here he is, 14 days after the war started, supporting it, reneging on his diplomatic positions, etc.

The statement of March 18 (my birthday) to which I was referring, which appeared either in the Boston GLobe or on Boston Public Radio, also included comments about the "long term security" of the US. I remember being furious that this statement seemed to be a tacit support of the Bush Doctrine. I spoke to him about that statement in person, while out a backyard gathering in Nashua.

Sorry, but your and blm's blind refusal to criticize Kerry on this point (and attack someone like me, who actually did campaign work for Kerry), calling me a dupe of Karl Rove and confused, are really inappropriate and offensive. And as your own posting proves, just plain wrong.

I end this stupid discussion here. I know I am 100% correct, and I know it tempered my respect for Kerry. It was crass political posturing, and many of my cohorts in the progressive community in Massachusetts were livid at the time. Done.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #20)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 02:48 PM

21. You are doing exactly what the reporter did - putting YOUR spin on Kerry's statements without

putting them in complete context.

Funny how you ignored the fact-check link from SF Chronicle I included that dissected ALL the GOP talking points against Kerry re his position on Iraq. Gee - why would YOU, frazzled, be on the same page as the GOP campaign against Kerry? Maybe because you WANTED to believe YOUR conclusions couldn't possibly be wrong? Well, you were wrong then to rely on corpmedia spin against Kerry and still wrong. Deal with it.

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/NEWS-ANALYSIS-Flip-flopping-charge-unsupported-2723125.php

http://www.factcheck.org/bush_ad_twists_kerrys_words_on_iraq.html


Despite accusations, Kerry's position on Iraq has been consistent


http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9743513.htm


Despite accusations, Kerry's position on Iraq has been consistent

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. - Sen. John Kerry set his jaw, and even sighed at one point, as he confronted anew the confusion over his stand on the Iraq war, a fog that has enveloped his candidacy for months.


"I have one position on Iraq," Kerry insisted this week during a rare news conference. "One position."


In fact, he's right, his image as a "flip-flopper" notwithstanding.


Kerry voted in October 2002 for the congressional resolution that authorized President Bush to go to war in Iraq. He now says that the invasion was not justified and has made the United States less secure.


These positions are not contradictory, but his attempts to explain the distinction between them are often complicated, and they have given President Bush an opening to caricature Kerry as a flip-flopper. However, beneath the torrent of campaign verbiage, Kerry's position on Iraq for the past two years has been consistent and defensible - just difficult to sell in a sound-bite world.


Kerry always called for a broad international coalition to confront Saddam Hussein, and going to war only as a last resort. Like most senators, he thought Bush needed the authority - it passed the Senate 77-23, and Kerry was one of 29 Democrats who supported it.


But once Bush got the authority, Kerry believes, he misused it.>>>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 10:39 AM

2. Kristol has had the unenviable record of being wrong.

Last edited Mon Nov 26, 2012, 11:10 AM - Edit history (1)

On everything. Every single time. He's amazing.

But he keeps spouting his neocon nonsense, and will until he dies. I have no idea why anyone pays any attention to him, but they do. He's been behind almost every lack-wit, pie in the sky idea from the right for years and years.

He should have lost all credibility years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 10:54 AM

4. This, coming from a man who has never served.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 11:10 AM

5. Also discussed in Foreign Affairs National Security - Veterans group. DU LINK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 11:23 AM

6. So this is all posturing to get him to appoint

Rice in the first place? Since McCain and Lindsey are part of the hawks and they want war, I'll bet they were using reverse psychology on this one. It's one of the only moves they know, since it is such an old one. I didn't believe getting Brown back in the Senate was their motive so maybe this is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 05:37 PM

9. i don't believe him

I don't know why he is saying that Rice is more interventionist than Kerry, but I assume it's not because it's true, I assume he has some other reason for saying that.

By the way, I don't have any idea whether it's true, I'm saying I don't think Kristol thinks it is when he says it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 05:43 PM

10. Forgive me but i thought a SoS job in many ways is to help avoide war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:47 AM

14. Let me get this straight. Kristol says in order to be SOS you have to be a warmonger?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarcasmo (Reply #14)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:49 AM

16. His only 'requirement'...I'm sure. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarcasmo (Reply #14)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 02:09 PM

22. Apparently - Rice is more likely to back interventionist actions than Kerry and THAT is why GOP has

been performing their dog and pony show for the media - they know it forces Obama to go with Rice, the more hawkish choice and one who they can count on as the more likely to side with military action. Plus, they get the added bonus of watching snookered Dems and left media smear Kerry, who is the LAST person the Republicans want as SoS.

You would think more people in left media would have realized by now that you CANNOT take Republicans at their word.....ever....especially when they are in dog and pony show mode.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:48 AM

15. We really need to find another planet we can send ...

useless fucks like Kristol to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ganja Ninja (Reply #15)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 12:43 PM

19. Ha. No other planet would even allow 'them' in their atmosphere. ;) eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 02:13 PM

23. Since when is "supporting war" a qualification

for being Secretary of State, which, as I understand it, is a DIPLOMATIC position? Kristol might have a point if Kerry was being considered for Secretary of War (which, of course, no longer exists).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 02:33 PM

24. Kristol has never been right about ANYTHING and his crappy magazine has NEVER turned a profit.

Maybe he should run for the Republican nomination in 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread