Sec. Kerry to be on This Week (Stephanopoulos) this Sunday

[MBS]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/abc-news-exclusive-secretary-state-john-kerry/story?id=29275676

This Sunday, March 1st on “This Week,” Secretary of State John Kerry speaks live to Chief Global Affairs Correspondent Martha Raddatz in an ABC News exclusive. The interview is his first since the identity of ISIS member “Jihadi John” was revealed, and comes two days before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses Congress on the nuclear threat from Iran.

[karynnj]

1. It seems clear that the Obama administration is using Netanyahu's speech as

a reason to get its own case out for a possible (likely?) Iranian deal first. It may turn out that Netanyahu having made this a high octane political fight has handed the WH an incredible opportunity. Without the visit, Obama would have had to fight a back scenes effort by allies of Netanyahu and neo cons without the same ability to publicly deal with their spurious arguments. (I hope by the time this is over, Netanyahu will realize he should NEVER have made a Republican operative his ambassador)

The focus now may well be on the calm, sane voices of President Obama and Secretary Kerry to make the case vs Netanyahu. Netanyahu via his strange 2012 UN appearance with his bomb poster speaking of Iran getting a bomb in 6 months and his outrageous claims against the interim sanctions is not the serious image many have of Netanyahu. (You do not even need to throw in his Iraq warnings -- but they do add to his lack of credibility.) In the process of defending the administration's years of diplomatic effort (and that of 5 other countries), it is absolutely required to do what Kerry did in the hearing -- go after Netanyahu's credibility on Iran.

My observation of why Netanyahu has had previous success speaking in the US is that he sounds (if you ignore the words) soft spoken, articulate and not like Ted Cruz. However, this is a chance to show that for whatever reason he is irrationally against ANY diplomatic agreement here. What is interesting here is that vs Obama/Kerry, it is Netanyahu who is the hot, wild eyed opponent - and they will have set up the impossible question for him -- what happens if he wins and the agreement fails.

This is incredibly high stakes -- both for an Iranian deal and the Israeli elections. One annoying thing in the coverage is that the former is - by far - the more important, but the media is more comfortable speaking of politics. I was surprised by at least one article in a RW Israeli source (JP) that actually suggested it would be "dirty politics" if Obama announced the outlines of a deal before Netanyahu's speech or the election - completely ignoring that the March deadline was set well before Dermer/Boehner/Netanyahu orchestrated his speech. If the powers get agreement on the framework, this is a major WORLD accomplishment - not something done to make Netanyahu look ineffective.

So far, his arguments have been "you can't trust Iran" (though they complied in the interim agreement) and the agreement is "only" for a decade -- ignoring that 10 years down the road if there are problems, certainly the world can do something and that in the short term, it is not "trust", but monitoring.

The NYT has an article today that speaks of how the administration has started a proactive counteroffensive. It sounds like one focus is that Netanyahu has offered no other solution.

Just four days before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to a joint meeting of Congress, the Obama administration sought on Friday to refute the Israeli leader’s expected critique, arguing that he has failed to present a feasible alternative to American proposals for constraining Iran’s nuclear program.

In a briefing for reporters, senior administration officials contended that even an imperfect agreement that kept Iran’s nuclear efforts frozen for an extended period was preferable to a breakdown in talks that could allow the leadership in Tehran unfettered ability to produce enriched uranium and plutonium.

“The alternative to not having a deal is losing inspections,” said one senior official, who would not be quoted by name under conditions that the administration set for the briefing, “and an Iran ever closer to having the fissile material to manufacture a weapon.”

<snip>
While the United States has taken the lead in the nuclear talks with the Iranians, the negotiating partners also include France, Britain, Germany, Russia and China. European officials have suggested in recent days that an agreement is closer than the “50-50” assessment by Obama administration officials.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/world/middleeast/white-house-offers-rebuttal-before-netanyahus-speech-on-iran.html?_r=0

This is a really interesting article that shows that the WH is using the high road - while highlighting that Netanayhu has been in the wrong repeatedly.

[MBS]

2. really good thanks.

Last edited Sat Feb 28, 2015, 02:50 PM - Edit history (1)

"calm, sane" -- we are so lucky to have Obama and Kerry at the helm as we steer through these multiple international crises right now.

[karynnj]

5. Agree wholeheartedly

Not to mention, I was really pleased to see how personable and down to earth Kerry was in speaking to the House Foreign Relations Committee - even though the committee reflects the highly gerrymandered districts. No one could fault him for not being respectful of them or the process. (The same could not be said for some of them!)

It is interesting that from both hearings the right got very little which with to attack Kerry. One thing the right has tried to use - though it may bother us - I think backfires. That is Kerry speaking of Netanyahu predicting the Iran war would be good. The right has had a field day pointing out Kerry's vote --- but they have NO video or audio of Kerry saying anything remotely like what Netanyahu said. Not to mention, it doesn't change the point that Netanyahu was very wrong and it brings up the specter of war. In fact, in their desire to attack Kerry, they gave huge coverage to what Netanyahu said then and also what he said re the interim agreement.

The other was a little aside near the end of a hearing speaking of all the chaotic problems, noting the fact was that the world has less violence today than it averaged in the last century. He did say this was counter intuitive. I heard Steven Pinker, who has carefully measured the probability of dying due to violence, speak at a UVM speech - http://archive.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20131009/NEWS0213/310090017/UVM-guest-speaker-Steven-Pinker-theorizes-about-the-decline-of-violence It is an interesting perspective and it does put in context the idea that what we are currently facing is far worse than anything in the past. (even looking at the Bush years vs now, the number of people killed in the middle east was obviously higher the days of shock and awe and 2006/2007 civil war than now - though the ISIS barbarity gets more coverage.) The RW has had a field day with this - misinterpreting it to be speaking just of terrorists.

[YvonneCa]

4. Excellent, thorough post. Thank you...

...karynnj.
You probably saw this from TPM, but Josh Marshall had an interesting take on Kerry's comments in the hearing regarding Netanyahu. And he makes the point you often make about Kerry's IWR vote.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/kerrys-clean-hit

[karynnj]

6. Thanks for the link

I hadn't seen it, but he is correct. I also suspect that he is not 100% fair even then - as if I remember right he was an adviser - possibly someone pushing Kerry to vote yes.

In 2004, in the debates, Bush used even Kerry's reluctance on the war to argue in the first debate he could not lead the effort to fight it as CIC. The sad thing is that the vote was a cynical means to force Democrats to vote yes as it WAS held up as what Bush needed to get invasive inspections. Also, given that Kerry had forcefully argued for Bush to go to the Congress and the UN and to use diplomacy first AND Bush was agreeing to do all of these things rather than start a war immediately, it could have been spun as not giving him the backing to do that.

The biggest problem is that the media - while absolving themselves - have conflated the vote in October 2002 with the March 2003 decision to go to war. The problem with the resolution was it prematurely gave authorization --- that many (certainly Kerry) would have withheld had it been voted on in March 2003 after the inspectors found nothing.

As Marshall points out, Netanyahu was an advocate of the war -- Kerry never was.

[YvonneCa]

8. I agree with every word...

...you say here. Seeing this on TPM gives me some hope that your take on this will start to become mainstream in the media. Hope, hope...

[karynnj]

9. I hope so, but in this case - Kerry's vote is irrelevent

He has repeatedly said it was wrong -- and it is Netanyahu's comment that is pertinent now as the Republicans are pushing him as the most expert voice there is --- on negotiations he is not even part of!

It is galling that Kerry is accused of being "for" the war -- and that is a consequence of his vote. However, it was clearly obvious in 2004 that he was against the war --- how many times did he speak of "misleading us to war" and "wrong war"?

Those on the right arguing otherwise, are just trying to play a gotcha game to distract from the main point - Netanyahu is not known for pushing diplomacy -- anywhere at any time.

[YvonneCa]

11. I also think 'the national/global stage' is a...

.. factor now. In recent months...particularly since becoming SOS...Kerry has had more control over the right's ability to spin his words and create their caricature of him as they did when he was a Senator and 2004 Presidential candidate. He has been in the public eye a LOT both with his words (written and spoken) and his actions on foreign policy issues. More of the public is able to see the real person we here have seen for a long time. That is a good thing, IMHO, for both the country and for advancing his ideas about the way forward in FP.
Just judging by the last two hearings in the Senate and later the House, no one hearing the actual discussion on policy could buy the spin constantly on display at Fox.
Even if one disagrees with Kerry on policy, his reasoning is clear. I think the more the public sees and hears what he actually proposes and the manner in which he makes the case, the less power Fox watchers and Netanyahu have to pull the wool over peoples' eyes.

[karynnj]

12. I agree

It brings back Deval Patrick's words on Kerry losing in 2004 - the country never got to know him.

It is amazing how completely unlike the Fox stereotype he really is in each and every hearing. Far from the elitist leftist they want to paint him as - he is respectful almost to a fault and nearly impossible to anger. Not to mention, he has a ready sense of humor - as when he simply smiled and said he was happy to sit quietly listening to an hour of questions after Royce told the Congresspeople that if they used all their time Kerry would have to answer in writing.

I was surprised when ultra conservative Rep Smith of NJ actually said of Kerry re child abductions to foreign countries that he knew he had a "good heart". Kerry responded by noting he was a key person on this in the House. It brings back the fact that unlike some candidates (McCain), no one on either side of the aisle had any real personal issues against Kerry.

[YvonneCa]

20. And those personal...

...attacks have, historically, been their 'go to' and only weapon when Kerry acts in a way they don't like. Whatever will they do if that weapon is no longer available?

[YvonneCa]

3. Thanks for letting us know. I like...

...Martha Raddatz as a reporter on foreign policy. She knows the issues and asks great questions. A knowledgeable leader like Kerry will be able to shine in such an interview (unlike Scott Walker whose ignorance on FP was on full display).

[karynnj]

7. I'm glad that is her rather than Stephanopolis

She really is good. I have always thought that Kerry is at his best answering hard, governmental questions - especially if he is given the time to give detailed answers. (Although even when severely limited time wise in the House, he was good on this.)

[YvonneCa]

10. He is great at the Q and A...

... essay questions. And he is getting better and better at getting the important points delivered concisely even when they try to cut him off.
I, too, am glad it will be Raddatz doing the interview. I like Stephanopolis, but he often doesn't follow up when necessary. That's one reason I think Raddatz was able to decimate Scott Walker on foreign policy.
What would be great in a future show would be to post Kerry and Walker's answers to FP questions side by side...it would demonstrate the vast lack of knowledge on the part of Walker vs Kerry, FP Master.

[MBS]

13. starting here- looks really good so far

This is a special edition of ABC News on all the current world crises (Nemtsov, ISIS, Netanyahu speech, GOP DHS funding), moderating by Martha Raddetz. JK just came on.

[YvonneCa]

14. Just starting in CA...

...now.

[YvonneCa]

15. JK did a great job.

...as usual.
I was a little disappointed in the overall interview, but it was not because of what was actually discussed. I didn't like the setup at all. The delay caused by having Martha Raddatz on location in the ME was very distracting to both her interview style and Kerry's, IMO.
I think Raddatz is a good reporter. She is knowledgeable, asks great questions and does follow up well. And we all know how good Secretary Kerry is on Q and A. But the satellite delay inhibited her interview style and made it uncomfortable to watch. I think Kerry handled it well, but it would have been a better interview if they had been in the same room.. or at least the same country.
This is only speculation, but I would guess that ABC wanted to bolster Raddatzs credentials by having her on location (understandable after Williams/OReilly). But I think it was not helpful to the overall interview. JMHO.

[MBS]

16. I agree.

Also, the interview was too short. And, though I really like Martha Raddatz, she was more into yes-or-no/black-white approach than I remember as usual for her. Got tired of her harping on the "are we making as much progress on ISIS as the administration says?" question, with JK and others. Also, JK seemed a bit tired (no wonder, given how much he's been traveling and what's on his plate these days!) and impatient (with the format? anxious to get to his meeting? maybe I'm wrong. and even if I'm right, I totally sympathize with him!).

[YvonneCa]

17. It was too short. The format today...

...with the little timeline graphic across the bottom of the screen was very limiting. They tried to fit too many stories into one hour instead of the in depth interviews, at which both Kerry and Raddatz excel.
That said, Kerry handled the situation better than most. It had to be a little frustrating though.

[MBS]

18. Exactly.

And I share your and their frustration.

[YvonneCa]

19. ..

...