Kerry Defends US Drone Policy After Pakistan Hit

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Secretary of State John Kerry is defending U.S. drone strikes after the CIA’s killing of a senior Taliban member.

Kerry says the U.S. is at war with al-Qaida and the Taliban, so the strikes are legal. He says the U.S. wages the war in self-defense and as a last resort.

U.S. drone policy is under growing scrutiny. President Barack Obama promised greater transparency last week and said attacks would target only “imminent threats” to U.S. national security.

On Wednesday, a CIA strike killed a Pakistani Taliban deputy leader.

Read more: http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/05/31/kerry-defends-us-drone-policy-after-pakistan-hit/

[Fuddnik]

1. Fuck you Mr Secretary.

I curse the day I went to work for your campaign.

[byeya]

3. Put me down for a "fuck you" too, if you don't mind.

[truebrit71]

80. Me three...

[byeya]

2. The Taliban is like the Mafia in that it's a criminal enterprise that is not a nation. Wars are

fought between nations. No country has declared war on the Sicilian Mafia but all countires have used their police forces against it with varying degrees of success.
And, you can't have a war on a tactic either.
Get Pakistan to turn over any and all who have attacked, or conspired to attack, the USA and American citizens.

[cstanleytech]

4. And if Pakistan says no or doesnt fully comply do what? Invade them? No thanks.

Mind you I dont think the drones are good strategy and never have but the options to counter terrorists are somewhat limited especially when they are hiding in another country thats either hostile to the US and or riddled with corruption that the traditional methods of getting local law enforcement and or the military involved is next to impossible as in the case of Osama bin Laden, he was living for years in Abbottabad which is the headquarters for some of the Pakistani military forces so its hard to believe that he didnt have assistance in doing so from someone in the Pakistani government.

[byeya]

6. I appreciate your comments. The US has an option at the UN; has a lot of diplomatic pressure to

exert; can command worldwide media condemnation of Pakistan, etc.
That should be the preferred route. Pakistan wants to have it both ways and not do any heavy lifting against the Taliban and their Al Qeada allies. I think it's worth the effort to change their minds.

[cstanleytech]

20. Oh I complete with you that all diplomatic efforts should be tried

first.

[byeya]

74. There's potentially a lot of pressure that can be brought to bear on a country especially

if that country has entered into international treaties and protocols on this subject.

[Fuddnik]

7. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have been playing us like a violin for decades.

Our two "Great Allies" have been funding the Taliban forever.

Here's a good (long) book on the subject, Ghost Wars", by Steve Coll. It's based on historic interviews, on the record, of US and Foreign intelligence officials. The treachery is astounding, all documented.

http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Wars-Afghanistan-Invasion-September/dp/0143034669

[byeya]

10. Couldn't agree more!

[RC]

13. Precisely! And if we had cooperated with the rest of the world on a police action after 9/11,

instead of being lied into a war with an innocent country, the so-called "War on Terror" would be basically over right now.

[cstanleytech]

21. Nope, the "war" is never over as you will always have those who think its

ok to kill innocent civilians for a cause.
Most we can do is try to keep the number as low as possible of people they manage to kill.

[RC]

24. What you do not understand is that WE, US, created most of these terrorists by our meddling in the

internal affairs of other countries for many, many decades. 9/11 itself was blow-back from this. Our irresponsible response to 9/11 just generated more terrorists.
9/11 didn't start anything. It was in response to our terrorism on other countries.
Our drone war is making even more terrorists as the excuse to continue our war on terror. To win the war on terror, we need to stop making more terrorist we "need to fight".

[cstanleytech]

27. Sorry but thats BS.

True our countries policies in the middle east helped such groups recruit more people easier but in the end they and they alone made the decision that killing civilians was ok if it achieved their goal.
Now we can maybe make it more difficult for such groups to recruit people by altering some of our policies in the middle east and I agree we should try but you will never ever be able totally make them go away even if our government pulled everything out of the middle east and told Israel to shove it.

[RC]

71. You're kidding, right?

How would you feel if some other country were killing people in this country because they wanted to control some of our resources?

Why are we even there in the first place. They did not invite us, US, WE invited ourselves.

[tblue]

70. So true.

Imagine if we helped the people instead of siccing on drones them. Helped them build schools, hospitals, and orphanages, and helped them grow their economy. It would cost us far less and actually give us more security. What we're doing now is just continuing to spiral in the exact wrong direction. Horrible. We could have turned a new leaf with a new administration but we opted not to. So sad. The world so wanted it.

[byeya]

90. The first WTC bombing was handled as a police action and successfully solved

and prosecuted.

[RC]

91. That point seems to escape a lot of people... Even here on Democratic Underground.

Too many people don't see that attacking a country that had nothing to do with terrorism, as a bad thing. And they wonder why there is so much terrorism now a days.
3000 people died on 9/11, so we attack Iraq because Saddam was a bad guy. Never mind Iraq didn't have any terrorists and had nothing to do with 9/11, in any way shape or form. And had few capabilities to carry something like that anyway. And to top it off, the Bu$h administration did know of the coming attack, because the outgoing Clinton gave them all it knew about the then, coming attack that happened on 9/11/2001. It was ignored by the incoming bu$h administration. War games simulating the actual attack, on the morning of 9/11/2001 anybody?

[Kelvin Mace]

14. We have problems with the real Mafia from time to time

Do we launch missiles at houses in Italy if the Italian government doesn't extradite the people we ask for?

Terrorism will mostly go away when we stop murdering people who support murdering us for murdering them in the first place.

[Tarheel_Dem]

19. "Terrorism will mostly go away when we stop murdering people". Really?

What was their excuse on 911, well before the first drone was launched? People keep saying what you're saying, but I need to know what the murderers who took out over 3,000 people were pissed off about, and decided to attack us on 911?

[RC]

25. 9/11 was in response to all the Arabs we've been killing in the past decades.

So what did we do? We attacked a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, instead of joining the rest of the world in a police action. How was that appropriate?

BTY, 911 is an emergency help number. 9/11 is a date to remember for when they struck back.

[Tarheel_Dem]

29. Where did we eventually find and kill OBL? So spare me the Iraq crap. This is about havens in....

Afghanistan & Pakistan where the 911 attacks were planned. It's not possible for the US to be the "bad guy" in every foreign policy scenario, but somehow you guys always find a way. The Tsarnaev brothers would be so proud of you.

[RC]

35. You must be fairly young

And have not lived through much history.
Do you even know anything about the history of US involvement in the Middle East?

[Tarheel_Dem]

40. So you can explain away 911 because of "history"? How about you answer....

with specifics, the question I asked? What did we do (specifically) to deserve 9/11, before most of us ever heard of an unmanned drone? If you can enlighten me, I'd be ever so grateful. If you can't, then say so. Judging from your "smug" tone, you have apparently justified this act of terror in your mind, but have found no justification for US retaliation. I'm interested in why. There are others like you, although much more notorious (I'm guessing).

[Kelvin Mace]

49. I gave you plenty of specifics

The U.S. has been backing dictators in the Middle East since the 50s.

You cannot just sweep that many bodies under the historical carpet and claim bewilderment as to why people are angry enough at the U.S. to launch terror attacks. It is like the Ulstermen in Northern Ireland claiming the couldn't understand the actions of the IRA, completely ignoring Britain's occupation of Ireland for 300+ years.

If you want people to stop murdering your people, stop murdering theirs.

Pull out of Afghanistan, stop propping up Pakistan, and use some of our economic clout to push Israel to stop expanding its occupation efforts and start giving land back.

[treestar]

84. Maybe that was not good, but it is no justification

for 911. Geez, do you people hear yourselves?

[RC]

53. So, for you, 9/11 just came out of the blue, no justification for it, except that they

hate us for our freedoms? Got it.

Then I guess that the fact that the outgoing Clinton Administration giving the incoming bu$h administration a 2 1/2 inch thick report on what was known about the coming attack and that the bu$h administration shelved it, unread, is too much for you to handle.

And as for your questions, you do the research yourself, as I doubt you would believe anything I gave you anyway.

Google is your friend.
https://www.google.com/

Aw, what the hell -Go back to at least the end of WWII. Some key words for you: 'oil' 'United States' 'Middle East' 'Shah Iran 1953'
Don't forget what we did, and more important, what we did not do in Iraq after 'Shock and Awe'. BTY, Saddam did not tolerate terrorist very well. Terrorism came to Iraq shortly after we did. It's all tied together.

[choie]

56. A brief read of Chalmers Johnson's

book, Blowback, would also help anybody understand what the U.S. has done to create hatred in the Middle East..

[Tarheel_Dem]

59. I thought not!

[Kelvin Mace]

44. Afghanistan and Pakistan are not Iraq

Why did we invade Iraq? We have over a half million dead for no reason what so ever.

Also, since we KNOW that Pakistan was peddling nuke tech to Iran and North Korea, why are we still giving them money?

The Tsarnaev brothers would be so proud of you.

I doubt it, since I certainly do not excuse terrorism. I condemn it when carried out by ANYONE, including, but especially as it is being done in my name with my tax dollar, the United States.

[Tarheel_Dem]

58. I'd hardly call killing a terrorist, "terrorism". Why are we discussing Iraq in this context?

I thought your bloomers were in a wad because we took out a terrorist in Pakistan. Pres. Obama got elected in '08 by promising to get us out of Iraq, and double down in Afghanistan, which he did. And Quelle Surprise, he got reelected. Go figure.....

[Kelvin Mace]

75. bin Laden was actually afforded more due process

than the Americans killed with drones, since he was killed as part of a mission, sanctioned (reluctantly) by Pakistan, to "arrest" him. Now make no mistake, the admin never had any intention of taking him alive, but at least the protocols were observed. In this instance, no attempt is being made to arrest these people, we are simply killing them (based on the say-so of agencies that have lied repeatedly about things throughout their history, up to and including entire wars) and anyone unlucky enough to be in their vicinity at the time.

Iraq was mentioned as an example of terrorism being used by the United States, as I consider war crimes, torture, and the illegal invasion and subsequent slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq to be terrorism.

[Tarheel_Dem]

77. Do you want to go in and put on the cuffs? I mean, since you're super "concerned" about observing..

"protocol" and such. Instead of putting the lives of our military in jeopardy, you should volunteer to go in and "bring 'em back alive".

Poll: Americans OK With Drone Strikes Overseas
Poll: Americans Still Approve of Drone Strike Program
Approval rate has grown over past poll taken last year
By Jason Koebler

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/11/poll-americans-still-approve-of-drone-strike-program

Poll: Americans Support Drone Strikes Abroad, Not On U.S. Soil
The Huffington Post | By Ariel Edwards-Levy

"Sixty-five percent of those polled said the government should launch drone strikes in other countries against suspected terrorists. More than half, however, said the government should not use such strikes if those terrorists are U.S. citizens."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/25/drone-strikes-poll_n_2948844.html

[Kelvin Mace]

79. Really, that is your argument? Polls?

At some point 65% of Americans:

Favored slavery
Opposed Women's suffrage
Favored removing native Americans from their lands
Opposed child labor laws
Favored segregation
Favored criminal prosecution of gays and lesbians
Opposed "mixed" marriages
Favored "Don't ask, don't tell"

Well damn, if 65% of Americans support something, it MUST be right!

[Tarheel_Dem]

81. Link?

[Kelvin Mace]

83. Don't need one

Your point was that a majority supporting something makes it right.

My point was that at some instance 65% of Americans supported all sorts of things that were completely wrong. Actually, I would guess that everything I mentioned enjoyed even higher support at various times. In my lifetime, I have seen homosexuality, "mixed" marriages, and smoking go from overwhelmingly favored to minority viewpoints.

[Tarheel_Dem]

87. Link?

[Kelvin Mace]

39. First of all

it is 9/11, if you must invoke this trite Bush excuse for all things illegal. 911 is the emergency line you call for police/fire/EMTs.

Gosh, which murders took place?

Could it be retaliation for all the murders that occurred under the Shah of Iran (brought into power by a CIA-backed coup, and kept in power by overt U.S. military and financial support)?

How about all the people murdered by Saddam Hussein, also brought to power by the U.S., and supplied with money and weapons all through the 80s?

Could it be all the people murdered under the various Egyptian regimes (US backed)?

The US has a long history of directly or indirectly murdering innocent people who just happen to "threaten" U.S. interests. Just ask people in Nicaragua, Guatemala, Chile, Vietnam, Peru, Panama, Grenada, and many more.

3,000 dead is certainly tragic, but it pales in comparison to the millions of dead the U.S. is directly or indirectly responsible for, and that is just in the last 50 years.

[Tarheel_Dem]

41. Another justification. Great!

[John2]

45. That is not what

I read about the Taliban. They are a Islamist ideological group, similar to Al Qaeda. The only difference is, the Taliban does not export their Terrorism except within the region of Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. They formerly controlled Afghanistan and implemented Sharia Law. They were dislodged by an American led invasion with the Northern Alliance because the political arm refused to turn over Bin Laden. Most of them fled Afghanistan or disappeared into the countryside among their tribal villages. It is also rumored some of them were evacuated by the Pakistani intelligence forces. That is rumored how Bin Laden escaped.

Information claims, the Taliban was armed and funded as a para military group, by a Pakistani General of the intelligence forces, to use against the Russian invasion and against India. So like Hezbullah is a creation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, the Taliban was a creation of the Pakistani intelligence.

I agree with Kerry saying the U.S. is at War with the Taliban because the Taliban are killing Americans in Afghanistan. There is a difference though, the Taliban is trying to regain control of their homeland. There is a reasion the current President of Afghanistan tried to enlist them to fight against Pakistan. The problem with that though, the Taliban is a creation of Pakistan. The Taliban just wants the U.S. to leave, so they can implement their Sharia Haven again.

[24601]

55. No problem, we are not at "War" we are at "Authorized Use of Military Force" and it provides for

"...the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups."

I'm sure Mr. Kerry would like to hear your ideas on just how to get Pakistan to turn over people in places they can't even govern.

[rug]

5. Go retrieve your medals.

[Fuddnik]

8. What would he do with them?

I shudder to think.

[byeya]

9. + +

[Freddie Stubbs]

50. This is the same attack that Republicans made on Kerry in 2004

[rug]

51. Sure it is.

[GeorgeGist]

11. Another hit of Botox ...

and he'll be winning Vietnam.

[blm]

78. "botox' was a RW lie. They used pics of him during cancer treatment and recovery

(and on the road 24/7 during the Dem primaries) to compare with pics taken many months later.

[cosmicone]

12. I'm with Kerry.

There should be zero tolerance for these lawless terrorists who cannot otherwise be reached for justice.

[Kelvin Mace]

15. And who makes the decision?

And if it is all "perfectly legal" then why won't the administration share the legal argument with us?

Lawlessness begets lawlessness. Since we are supposed to be the "adults" on the world stage, shouldn't we act the part?

[stevenleser]

38. The President just did that.

[Kelvin Mace]

42. Actions not words

Words are meaningless. Guantanamo is still open and doing a brisk business.

Also, if Obama TRULY wants the power rescinded, he could also refrain from using it as justification to murder people.

Nothing will change, the laws will stay on the books and Obama will be able to claim "I tried" even though he didn't and never intended to.

[stevenleser]

43. Now you are moving the goalposts. You asked for the drone rationale and legal argument its there. nt

[Kelvin Mace]

46. So, Obama has relased all of the classified documents

that the ACLU has asked for concerning the legal justifications for murdering American citizens by drone? That would be an action. Anything short of that is just words.

[stevenleser]

47. Again, you are moving the goalposts. You wanted the legal rationale, he gave it in the video. nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

23. Me too, as are most of us!

Poll: Americans OK With Targeting Citizens Overseas

On May 23, the Obama administration admitted to killing four Americans in drone strikes

By Jason Koebler
May 28, 2013

"More Americans support the government's use of armed drones to kill suspected terrorists overseas than oppose it, even if those targeted are American citizens, according to a Rasmussen Reports poll released Tuesday".....

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/05/28/poll-americans-ok-with-drone-strikes-overseas

and......

Poll: Americans Support Drone Strikes Abroad, Not On U.S. Soil
The Huffington Post | By Ariel Edwards-Levy Posted: 03/25/2013

"A majority of Americans support drone attacks on suspected terrorists abroad, but disapprove of the use of drones in other situations, according to a Gallup poll released Monday.

Sixty-five percent of those polled said the government should launch drone strikes in other countries against suspected terrorists. More than half, however, said the government should not use such strikes if those terrorists are U.S. citizens."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/25/drone-strikes-poll_n_2948844.html

[Ed Suspicious]

48. Most Americans are ridiculous, sweety-pooh. NT

[Tarheel_Dem]

57. But you seem to stand out in a crowd, honey boo boo!

[NOVA_Dem]

16. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

At Fri May 31, 2013, 05:47 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Kerry Defends US Drone Policy After Pakistan Hit
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014497536

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Flame bait from Free Republic.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri May 31, 2013, 05:50 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: cbs is now free republic? I'm confused...and this doesn't sound like an opinion piece other than Kerry's and Obama's.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: STOP ABUSING ALERTS
This is a valid topic of discussion on this board and if an (R) was in the White House you'd be opposed to the current use of drones too.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Source article is a legitimate news agency. I don't know where the alerter gets the "from Free Republic" nonsense. If there's an issue with the content, then address THAT.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

36. creepy truthiness support I persume

sounds just like the folks on that site who wail against reality, and facts.

[blkmusclmachine]

17. And how does Kerry feel about Obama's 30,000 drones flying U.S. neighborhoods by 2020?

Drone, baby, drone!

[Pragdem]

18. Keep up the good work, Mr. Secretary.

[Tarheel_Dem]

22. I'm with Kerry, and Obama. They're not warmongering neocons.

[cstanleytech]

31. Still I cant say I like that they have to resort to drones.

I wish they had a better way like getting the varies nations to actually crack down on these people but like we saw in Pakistan with Bin Laden thats not always easy especially if the country involved has corrupt officials providing aid.

[Tarheel_Dem]

33. Terrorists know who their friends are. They take aid from us for their "cooperation", and turn.....

around with a wink & a nod, and hide these mf'ers in plain sight! I'm with the majority of the American people, I'd rather take 'em out from afar than put a single boot on the ground ever again.

[Ed Suspicious]

26. I thought Mr Kerry was a good guy. What a disappointment. NT

[cstanleytech]

28. Kerry is whats called a pragmatist which is totally different from George Bush who is

a complete and utter asshole.

[Tarheel_Dem]

30. You're ridiculous. nt

[YeahSureRight]

32. I miss the John Kerry who threw his medals over the WH fence in protest

I will just add this to the extremely long list of continued administration disappointment. Some days I really think I wasted my time even voting.

[Tarheel_Dem]

34. "Some days I really think I wasted my time even voting." What a load!

I'll bet your vote really was "wasted". Sorry about that. Better luck next time.

[cosmicone]

62. Stay home the next time to avoid heartburn.

Then face someone like GWB for 8 years until you feel the heartburn is not as bad in comparison.

[YeahSureRight]

66. Ok I will just to make you happy!

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

37. The U.S. elite has lost their collective minds since 911.

no doubt about it... can you imagine ANY other country on the planet behaving like this, and then trying to justify their murderous actions?

well, I guess I could, but could you imagine buying it?!

and so it goes...

[babylonsister]

52. The maliciousness astounds me here.

, DU? I get that drones are not liked, but what should be done without drones? Should soldiers be used and killed? What would you do? Yes, besides gtf outa there? That's on the list.

[fascisthunter]

54. Ja, javul

[DCBob]

60. wow, the fu crowd needs to chill the f out.

if john kerry defends this policy then that says alot.

[TwilightGardener]

61. We hit the intended target? With no bystanders killed?

Well, alrighty then. I can't get upset over that.

[Le Taz Hot]

63. Cabinet membes are required to support

anything coming out of the White House. To do anything else would get him fired. Having said that, I'd like to remind everyone that John lost-to-the-worst-president-ever Kerry also voted YES on the Iraqi War Resolution.

[DCBob]

64. He could resign if he thought this policy was so evil and horrible.

[Le Taz Hot]

65. That would require principle. n/t

[Sunlei]

67. good & no boots on ground maimed/killed. Terrorist Taliban, Paks have offered huge rewards to kil.

Huge rewards by Pakistan for years to get this al-Qaida.

Surprised the 'Obama haters' hate Obama more than a terrorist who has sworn to attack America.

[Beacool]

68. Lots of comments against Kerry over here.

He's stating the US position on this issue, not his personal beliefs. Who knows what he really thinks about the use of drones? I do know though, that Hillary used to bring up drones at meeting and urge that the CIA refrain from overusing them because the collateral damage that they caused was impeding diplomatic efforts (she was specifically talking about Pakistan).

The use of drones has become a conundrum. The US and allies are waging guerrilla warfare. Should they respond with troops on the ground or should they send drones? Drones save American and allied lives, but can kill others besides the intended target. I think that the US has decided that it's better for them to lose some people than for us to lose more troops.

[Tarheel_Dem]

72. Are you really suggesting that Kerry might have a problem with the use of drones?

If you think, as I do, that Kerry is a man of integrity, shouldn't he have turned down the offer of SoS? Surely, a thousand term Senator knew of the drone program, yet from all accounts he actively sought the position, was offered the position, and accepted the position with full knowledge of US policy on drones. If his "personal beliefs" were in conflict that policy, being a man of integrity and high fallutin' "personal beliefs", he should've spoken up at his confirmation.

And as for what Hillary "may have (alledgedly) said" about the CIA's use of drones? Here again, despite her ambitions, she had the opportunity to step down at any time, being the paragon of virture that she is (IWR).

You've engaged in some powerful "theorizing" there. One can only guess from whence you continue to pull this crap.

[Beacool]

73. I'm expressing my opinion.

You don't have to agree with it. We don't know how Kerry feels about drones. My point is that his statement was made as SOS, it was not his personal view on the matter.

You are viewing things in a simplistic way, it's either black or white. No, most things are in shades of gray and policies have to be decided within the parameters of the reality on the ground.

As for the IWR, I'm not going to chastise any Democrat who voted for it, least of all a Senator who represented the state where 9/11/01 took place. .

[Tarheel_Dem]

76. Got it! Neither John Kerry, nor Hillary Clinton have integrity, according to beacool.

[Beacool]

88. That's not what I said, but whatever..................

[karynnj]

86. Actually from statements made over many years when he was Senator, these are sincere comments

Last edited Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:25 AM - Edit history (1)

There were several times in hearings - especially on Pakistan - where the issue came up. In addition, it came up when he visited Pakistan many many times - as the most successful diplomat the US had there. In the hearings and in the media - us and Pakistani, his views were consistent and very nuanced.

He spoke of having requested and gotten extensive briefings - and it was clear that he was concerned about the problems with the issues. It was also clear that he thought - and even the Pakistanis with him agreed - that the drones had been a factor in reducing the problem that both Pakistan and Afghanistan have with terrorists. He balanced this with being one of the few Americans to acknowledge that Pakistan had lost many people fighting terrorism themselves - while often suggesting that some in power were not helpful.

These comments - especially more complete comments reported elsewhere - like http://beta.dawn.com/news/1015185/us-top-diplomat-kerry-defends-drone-strikes - are not out of line with those comments.

The facts are:
- We are fighting Al Qaeda
- Kerry has NEVER been a pacifist, most certainly not even in 1971 when he told the SFRC that if the US was in danger, he would return to service - the best phrase once used was a tough dove. (This can be heard in his 2003 comments that Iraq was not a war of last resort AND his working with Russia on a pretty doomed attempt to find a political solution to Syria. )
- Kerry fought in Vietnam. He has spoken of the fog of war many times. Even boots on the ground result in innocents killed by error. In addition, in wars over the last century, there has been extensive bombing - and no matter how one speaks of expert targeting, there are errors and people die. How is using a drone any different? The BIGGEST difference is that we risk only the drone, not American lives. If it's as accurate - and I don't know if it is - an argument can be made for what is done,
- The program Kerry defended is the newly announced Obama guidelines. I suspect that Kerry and Hagel - 2 veterans - had some input.

I think a Secretary of State would likely prefer to avoid speaking on a policy they strongly disagree with the President on, so they might avoid speaking publicly - both on the policy and on their own position. This can be on very major policy - ie SoS George Marshall was against the UN action that led to Israel - Truman very much for it. That was not a problem. You could also cite that Hillary Clinton was for arming the Syrian rebels - Obama is more in line with the attempt to get a political solution. Clinton did not speak or advocate publicly for her position - we found out only in insider stories after the fact.

[Tarheel_Dem]

89. Thank you for that. I do admire intellectual honesty. You're a treasure.

[karynnj]

92. Thank you

I do not think it makes sense to ignore statements or actions of politicians we respect and to try to "rewrite" what their positions are or were. I think it shows no respect for the person we are advocating for to ignore the complexity of who they are to make him/her into someone who is simply a powerful reflection of one's self - having every position that you yourself have.

I don't think most people will ever find a leader with whom they agree 100%. I would prefer to understand the positions where my own initial position is at variance with Kerry or Obama or anyone else. There are times when even knowing the reason - and accepting that it is sincere and well motivated, I still disagree. I suspect that it is harder for people to accept someone they respect not taking a position they wanted them to lead on - and instead being on the opposite side. ( Interestingly, I am seeing this in Burlington Vermont at the moment - on a less personal level as I am less emotionally invested. There is a HUGE left based movement to fight the F35 being based in South Burlington - and the entire Congressional delegation is against it. The one taking the most flack - Bernie Sanders. Why? Because he was the hero of most of those fighting it. I went to a very nice town hall he had with the Danish ambassador with the topics of socialism and economic issues - several of the first questions were on the F35 until he said that he would not speak any more on that. My immediate thought was that this had to be how many MA people felt when Kerry voted for the IWR - even as he still spoke of the need to avoid war.

Anyone who has risen to the level of Congressman, Senator or President, has to be a pretty complex person who has balanced many needs to try to find a way to make the world in some way better. (I think this motivates BOTH sides - the difference is that their visions of what is better are different and occasionally completely opposite.) In the F35 case, it seems that the motivation is economic - there would be more jobs. This is being questioned, but I suspect that Sanders might be motivated by that - just as several coal state Senators (including Feingold and Franken and even Sherrod Brown) signed a letter arguing for coal to be included in any energy plan in 2010 when Kerry was working on a climate change bill. Those senators had to balance food on the table, urgent economic needs with environmental needs. (Kerry worked with Brown to insure that the overall plan would provide help to the states whose costs were most impacted - in the end they still did not have 60 votes - and even though they had a few Republicans.)

What causes me to respect a statesperson is that, for the most part, I agree with their world vision and - looking over a long career I can see that they are being true to who they are. That is true in both Sanders and Kerry - and was true of my former Senator Lautenberg. I was lucky enough to see Lautenberg a couple of times. The most memorable was at a Democratic Morris County meeting when he was working to insure that Menendez would win in 2006. Morris County is the most Republican county in the state - so this was a relatively small 50 - 100 people event.

After his formal GOTV speech, he just talked to everyone. The most telling conversation was when one couple said that they were from Paterson and the husband's parents knew his family back in the old days. He recognized the name and then started to talk about Patterson and that time. He spoke of the reason he got into politics - and that was to fight for people who could not. He told us that his dad, who worked in a Patterson silk factory told him to study hard and that he did not want him to work there because it killed people. His dad spoke of being able to see filaments in the air and made the connection between breathing all that in and the early deaths. His dad died quite young and Lautenberg went to college on the GI bill. You could see that he was still passionate on so many of the things he fought for.

Here, I looked and tried to find a more complete version of the comments. I also had already gone through what many people went through more recently with Obama and their own queasiness with the drone policy. That was when Kerry did not speak against the attacks in Pakistan. I did realize that if you looked back to how he recommended fighting terrorism in 2004 - when much of the country thought it was too dovish and not aggressive enough. He spoke of a time when non state terrorism would be dealt with by international intelligence and law enforcement and occasionally - preferably in conjunction with the country they are in - military. The "military" he spoke of was to be specialized and very targeted.

To me, nothing he says here deviates from that position - given at a point where he was saying how he would lead the country. At that point, to me it was the sanest and the most optimistic view of the future that anyone was expressing. With the contrast of what others were proposing, it was easy to lose sight of the fact that while it was not Bush or McCain (or even the much softer HRC) hawkishness, it was far from pacifistic. If anything, its only flaw was it was too clear eyed and unemotional for a traumatized country where the first reaction was to fight - ironic as it was exactly what was needed.

[treestar]

85. As for killing other people than the intended target

Bombs do a lot more of that.

[Doctor_J]

69. Did he really say that this was "self-defense"??

and that this was an "imminent threat"???

Our leaders aren't even trying for plausibility any more

[closeupready]

82. He was against drones before he was FOR them, though.

[Ash_F]

93. I guess we don't get to see evidence.

Kerry says drones have killed dozens of highly-trained al-Qaida commanders, trainers, bomb makers and operatives. He says drones have disrupted plots against planes, U.S. transit systems, European cities and American troops in Afghanistan.

Kerry says, quote, “Those strikes have saved lives.”

Proof? Nope because SUPER SECRET SPAI STUFF!!!

I guess it is a coincidence that all of these strikes are being carried out in Waziristan, against an ethnic minority that has been fighting for autonomy from Pakistan? I'm sure the drone program has nothing to do with protecting the massive corporate and taxpayer investments that the US has made in Pakistan. A unified Pakistan.