John Kerry helped break the logjam in US/Syria relations and Hillary Clinton followed up

[karynnj]

David Ignatius in the Washington Post wrote:

The long-stalled U.S. diplomatic engagement with Syria is moving forward -- thanks to an unusual bit of mediation by Sen. John Kerry.

<snip>

Kerry reportedly played a key role in breaking the logjam between the two countries, which had worsened after the Obama administration announced last month that it was renewing sanctions against Damascus under the Syria Accountability Act. The Syrians had been expecting that move, but they were upset by a presidential statement accompanying the renewal, which repeated harsh Bush administration language that said Syria posed an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.” The Syrians said that unless this sharp language was withdrawn and the bilateral relationship improved, they wouldn’t provide the security assistance that Centcom wanted.

A mini-breakthrough in U.S.-Syria relations came Sunday in a telephone conversation between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem, according to U.S. and Syrian sources. Moallem said that Syria would welcome a visit by U.S. Central Command officers to Damascus this month to discuss joint efforts to stabilize Iraq. In return, Clinton promised to develop a joint “road map” for improving bilateral relations between the two countries.

<snip>
Kerry’s role in all this is intriguing for two reasons: First, it shows that the former Democratic presidential candidate is carving out a role for himself as a foreign-policy player -- courageously taking on issues that are sensitive in political and policy terms. Second, it shows a fluid and creative foreign-policy process in the Obama administration, in which people outside the White House inner circle are able to get the president’s attention and push the envelope.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/06/_the_long-stalled_us_diplomati.html

That last paragraph says it all - both in terms of Kerry's role and Obama's willingness to listen to people outside his administration.

Middle Eastern peace has always been an elusive goal. Obama's approach here is interesting. In selecting George Mitchell, he picked someone respected in both the Arab and Jewish worlds, rather than picking someone seen as closer to Israel. In the last month, there have been several things that seemed designed to reach out to BOTH sides to assure them of support, while demanding the same things whether speaking to Arabs or Jews.

The first, that I saw, was the AIPAC talks, where both Biden and Kerry called for an end to expansion of settlements, the right of Arabs to move freely in the West bank and for a two state solution. ( http://cspan.org/Watch/Media/2009/05/05/HP/A/18231/Vice+Pres+Biden+Sen+John+Kerry+DMA+Remarks+at+AIPAC+Annual+Conference.aspx - start 11 minutes in)

A second less well covered event was Kerry's participation at the Jordan Economic Forum. It is interesting that he got substantial applause and praise from King Abdullah even as he called on the Arab nations to take actions they have been unwilling to take. (http://www.weforum.org/en/knowledge/Events/KN_SESS_SUMM_28780?url=/en/knowledge/Events/KN_SESS_SUMM_28780 - go 41 minutes in.) What is clear is that over the years Kerry has built up trust and respect from the Arab states. It was also clear there that Kerry's willingness to go to Gaza was a big deal to them.

Many people have said that the window may be closing on getting a two state solution in Israel - but President Obama's image and personal history, with George Mitchell leading the effort aided by other people like Senator Kerry developing relationships of trust may allow them to succeed on this really impossible problem. What is clear is that through President Obama, VP Biden, SoS HRC, many envoys and people like John Kerry, there has likely already been more diplomacy in Obama's administration than in all 8 years of Bush.

(edited to add the link)

[blm]

1. So thankful Kerry took the lead away from HRC on Syria...both Clintons were glued to Bush on Syria

and have made inflammatory statements during the Bush years, while Kerry spent the Bush years HAVING a dialogue with Syria's leaders with the express purpose of AVOIDING conflict and military confrontation.

Kudos to Kerry....though, most of the media will credit Clinton completely ignorant of the facts of the situation over the years. You can bet that Syria's president was aware of every remark the Clintons made that aligned with Bush and Cheney, though, and THAT is why she is in the back seat here.

for those who have trouble remembering the truth about Bush-Clinton policy in recent years: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1276161#1276209

[karynnj]

5. I assume that Kerry's actions may not get the credit in the media that they deserve, but at this

point, that is not important. Clinton, as Secretary of State, will by virtue of her job, will make the official moves and will do what Obama wants on policy. She, not Kerry, will be in the cabinet meetings and she will often get credit for policies that she may not have designed. That is true for all administration people and it is a mixed blessing.

However, DC is full of inside stories - like this one. President Obama clearly knows what Kerry did and from the last paragraph, this DC insider is saying that Kerry had the President's ear. (It is also clear to me that the back to back Kerry/Biden AIPAC speeches were too close in recommendations to be coincidental. Biden has in the past been more pro-AIPAC than he was here - suggesting he has shifted or he was representing the President, thus constrained to give the administration's position. The one person we haven't publicly heard from is Mitchell, who may be taking the lead on this.)

I also thought it was very interesting that since Obama became President, Teresa Kerry has accompanied her husband to the Middle East, Pakistan, Sudan and recently to China. As she is a very busy woman, I suspect that she went because she and JK thought her presence would be helpful. Kerry helped move the resumption of aid at the level it was at in Sudan. He also created a lunch forum attended by the SFRC, the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the Intelligence committee Senators to meet with the Presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

What seems clear is that Kerry has made a great start as Chairman of the SFRC and could well become one of the best - and there have been many very good chairs. Between important hearings that have interested the Obama administration, the diplomacy he has helped, and the investigations he has sponsored, he has done a lot of good work already.

[blm]

8. Something media wouldn't talk much about in 2004, Teresa worked as interpreter@UN for some years

skilled in languages, and she and John had a very close friendship with Kofi Annan.

She and John had spent decades BOTHERING to get to know world cultures and how those cultures and their various religions influenced a region's governments.

Media had NO INTEREST in touting that as a beneficial trait in a president - they needed Bush to stay in office just as their corporate masters ordered.

[karynnj]

17. The media distorted Teresa even more than it did JK

The work she did through her foundation on environment, health, and women's issues is amazing - and all done very quietly. Every time I hear Clinton speak of how his foundation will have a big impact on green buildings, it annoys me that those words get more attention than Teresa's more than a decade of actions on this issue, where she led by example demonstrating the benefits of a green building by making her office one. This eventually led to the first green convention center (in Pittsburgh). The work she supported on toxins, women's health and cancer is very important - as is the annual forums bringing people together on them.

It is amazing to me that people were able to paint this soft spoken, charming woman into something she never was.

[Jennicut]

10. Kerry is doing a great job imo. I am glad he was the one to take over on the SFRC

[ObamaKerryDem]

38. Completely agree. He is very much in his element and is doing a fantastic job. Proudly K&R! :D

[ClarkUSA]

12. Thanks for keeping us apprised of the facts re: Kerry's unheralded foreign policy involvement.

Senator Kerry is an experienced statesman and a most trusted ally of President Obama, no doubt about it.

[ClarkUSA]

2. Obviously, Kerry and the special envoys are doing the heavy lifting in hotspots. 5th K&R.

Because Hillary clearly hasn't got the experience to do it herself. She will always be "following up"...

"Clinton has tended to leave the heavy lifting in the world's most volatile hotspots to seasoned special envoys like Richard Holbrooke, who is tackling the Afghanistan-Pakistan problem, and Dennis Ross, special adviser on Iran and the Persian Gulf."
Link: http://mobile.newsday.com/infomo?view=page8&feed:a=newsday_5min&feed:c=politics&feed:i=46434575&nopaging=1

Perhaps this is why: "Hillary Clinton's diplomacy raises some eyebrows"
Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-clinton24-2009may24,0,6159398.story

[blm]

7. Remember that Bushlike tirade Bill made against Syria in 2005? His blog removed it after it posted

here at DU..... I can guess who removed it since it was first posted when Clinton was being discussed for here for Sec of State. But, it's still here in an old post...

from an old DU post:

Kerry's been the key person dealing with Syria

Edited on Sat Mar-07-09 07:30 PM by blm

Kerry maintained a relationship with Assad throughout Bush's terms and even as both Clintons were sided with Bush on his Syria policy. Bill Clinton even advocated military action against Syria.

I have no doubt Syria's leaders are well aware of who sided with who and who reached out and listened to them over the years. Syria is open to solutions for their region, but, certainly no thanks to Clintons and their proBush position.

This page from Clinton's Daily journal was scrubbed since last week when it was posted here at DU, but, others copied it - Clinton was on the same page as Bush and would have helped sell war n Syria with the same vigor he helped Bush sell war in Iraq.

http://billclintondailydiary.blogspot.com/2005/03/i-can...


Friday, March 04, 2005


I can't sleep


I can't sleep. I took two sleeping pills. They didn't work. I can't take any more, because I'm also using heart medicine. I tried
playing internet poker, but I can't focus. Right now there is nothing I can do. I have to wait till after the speech, which is at
about lunch time here on the West coast. After that I have the meeting with the former police officer.

There is something I wanted to say a long time ago, but I didn't have the time, because of my visit to Asia.

I would like to offer my deepest condolences to the family of my close friend and former prime minister of Lebanon, Rafiq Hariri.
His death was a shock to me. I was horrified. I know exactly who did it and why. More about that later.

I called his family to tell them how shocked I was. I wanted to be present at the funeral, but the secret service vetoed that idea.
It wasn't safe, especially not with Hezbollah still armed to the teeth.

Mr. Hariri, lovingly called Mr. Lebanon by his fellow countrymen, was the driving force behind the reconstruction of Lebanon after
the civil war. Lately he was also the driving force behind the movement to ask the Syrian government to pull its soldiers and secret
service agents out of Lebanon.

That's the reason the Syrians killed him. If Syria has to pull out of Lebanon, it will be pretty much encircled by enemy states.
NATO member Turkey to the north, American troops in Iraq to the East, pro-American Jordan to the south (By the way Syria is
occupying a large amount of Jordanian land, which King Abdullah wants back) and Israel to the south west.

The Syrian government killed Rafiq Hariri, because they are afraid that Lebanon would not just be sovereign if they pulled out their
forces, but might in time be dominated by another power, be it Israel or the US, which is more likely.

Another reason is strategic depth. The capital of Syria is just a few miles from the border of Lebanon. And also just a few miles
away from the Israeli occupied Golan Heights. Which is probably the reason Israel chose to occupy the Golan Heights. Standing on the
mountains of the Golan Heights you can see Damascus in the distance. The Syrians know this. It's a great deterrent against any
Syrian adventurism.

This is the reason the Syrian government always uses the Hezbollah, a Lebanese group to attack Israel instead of attacking Israel
itself.

Aside from a national defense dimension there is also the economic dimension. Syria has a hybrid half communist, half capitalist
economic system. Syria is bankrupt and has been ever since the end of the Soviet Union. Without the economic power of Lebanon, Syria
will fall apart economically.

Syria is also under economic sanctions by the US. Lebanon isn't, so products Syria needs are bought by Lebanon, then transferred to
Syria. There are also one million Syrians working in Lebanon. If they have to go back to Syria, Syria will see a lot of social
problems with these unemployed young men.

In other words, without Lebanon, Syria will be boxed in from a military point of view and an economic point of view. Syria without
Lebanon would be weak and exposed.

>From the Syrian's point of view Rafiq Hariri had to die, because he wanted them to leave. And he as a billionaire had the clout to
gather international support for this idea. He was the one who asked the US and France to support United Nations Security Council
Resolution 1559, which calls upon Syria to leave Lebanon.

Some US commentators say the Hariri murder might have been organized by Syria's old guard without the knowledge of Syria's young,
inexperienced president Bashar Assad. This is an old myth dictators create to deflect responsibility.

Go back into history and you will see texts in old Roman books saying, the emperor had raised taxes for instance and the population,
who didn't want or dare attack the emperor for his mistake, they would say the emperor's underlings had made the mistake without the
emperor knowing.

I read books in which Germans, whose family members had been hauled off to concentration camps by the Nazi's, said "If only Herr
Hitler knew about this situation, he'd do something about it". Well Herr Hitler knew about it and had actually ordered it.

It's an old trick. The dictator can make mistakes and deflects taking responsibility by giving the impression he isn't his own man
and the population can criticize the dictator's policies without criticizing him personally.

Bashar Assad ordered the death of Rafiq Hariri. Bashar Assad is in control of Syria.

People in the media should stop making up infantile excuses by saying the real power behind Bashar Assad killed Hariri. Assad is the
power.

There are also people, who think you need to give Bashar Assad incentives to behave more responsibly, to make him stop supporting
terrorists in Lebanon and Israel. This is nonsense. It took me almost eight years to understand that our way of thinking is not
their way of thinking. Their way, I mean a country's dictator's way of thinking.

A dictator wants to stay in power. That's all. A dictator doesn't care about his population, war, peace. He only wants to stay in
power. Everything else is negotiable.

You have to understand the Syrian tyranny. Syria's president Bashar Assad belongs to a minority religious sect called the Alawis, a
sub-group of Islam. The top government and army officials belong to the same sect, which only 10 percent of Syria belongs to. In
other words 10 percent of the population is lording over the 80 percent of Syrians, who are Sunni Muslims.

Syria can not be a normal country, because that would mean, the minority Alawis giving up power to the vast majority of Sunnis. This
is the reason, why Syria has to be always in a state of turmoil if Bashar Assad and his cronies want to stay in power.

As long as there is an external enemy, like Israel occupying the Golan Heights, as long as there is Turkey "occupying" according to
Syria the province of Hatay, the Biblical Antioch, there are external enemies, which focus the majority populations' attention on
these external enemies.

Were these external enemies to disappear, the majority would have the time to consider their own plight. That is a dictator's worst
nightmare, because thinking about a problem and thinking about ways to solve the problem are very closely connected. This is the
reason a minority government like Bashar Assad's Syrian dictatorship needs chaos and turmoil to exist. It doesn't want peace with
its neighbors. It doesn't want its people to be prosperous and content and have time to think about their situation.

The only way to stop Syria from being a constant threat and stop them from spreading chaos is to topple the minority government of
Bashar Assad and let the majority of Syrians rule.

President Bush did this in Iraq and now that the majority Shia are in power, Iraq is looking inwards, trying to make the lives of
its people better. That is what democracies do, they look inward instead of threatening their neighbors, the United States or Israel
or the oil supply and with that the world economy. Majority rule means peace. Minority rule, like Bashar Assad's dictatorship means
chaos, terrorism and war.

[ClarkUSA]

9. No surprise there, given the praise Bubba gave Bush's Iraq war policy early on...

No wonder Dubya considers Bill Clinton his "brother". :puke:

I wonder if Google has a screen grab of that blog post?

[blm]

11. google at DU does....you can bet Bill needed it removed before Hillary's SoS hearings.

.

[ClarkUSA]

13. lol! I'll bet he did.

Would you mind PMing me the link? Thanks.

[blm]

19. here's a past DU link....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5204565

[ClarkUSA]

20. Thanks.

[Metric System]

28. "Because Hillary clearly hasn't got the experience to do it herself." Ugh. So predictable.

[Beacool]

29. That's why I stayed away from this thread.

It's full of responses from people who suffer from chronic cases of CDS.

:eyes:

[karynnj]

32. As the OP, I resent your idiotic assertion of a non-existing diagnosis

The responders I recognize include many who respect Senator Kerry and many I rarely have seen. Many have been serious posters on real issues. Unless you include anyone who doesn't think the Clintons walk on water, there are very few who are anti-Clinton. (Before you say it, neither Obama or Kerry walk on water either - though if it below 32 degrees, Kerry is great at skating.) Of the Kerry people, all of them I know want Obama's foreign policy to succeed - even if HRC does it or gets credit for it. The world is a mess and who gets credit is not important - repairing the world is. You have posted unflattering Obama articles, yet now have the chutzpah to knock a thread that makes Kerry, Obama and Clinton look good on a very important issue. I would say that I wish for your sake that every thread was filled with comments on HRC's beauty, grace and brilliance - the fact is that even the President does not get constant praise here.

Read the WP article in the OP, it says NOTHING that could be taken as negative about either Clinton. Nothing in my comments added to it even mentions the Clintons - other than including Hillary as one of the people who I listed as potentially working on middle eastern peace. Some of the posters wrote of past comments by Bill Clinton, that they said could have made it harder for HRC to do this had she tried. The fact is EVERY American foreign policy expert decried the death of the Lebanese PM and many questioned the involvement of Syria. If you had a problem with the facts there, you should have refuted them.

This is an excellent story of a senior Democratic statesman working WITH the Obama administration to achieve a diplomatic opening - one that HRC pursued. If this ends up making Syria less of a problem, it gives peace more of a chance.

[ClarkUSA]

41. +1

:applause:

[Beacool]

46. Oh, please...........

The guy clapping at your reply is one of several ones on this thread who are very anti-Clinton and never miss an opportunity to put them down. If you would hold your outrage in check long enough, you would notice that I didn't say anything against the WP article or your post. Furthermore, I voted for Kerry. I'm not against him.

:eyes:

[karynnj]

49. The fact is that you could have done one of three things rather than bash this thread

1) You could have positively responded to the substance - even only the HRC part if you chose. (In fact, this is one of the few articles on the Middle East that speaks of the role she is playing here.)

2)You could have countered the posts of the 2 people who you can fairly say were negative about Clinton.

3) You could have ignored the thread - as it was a substantive thread about real diplomacy in the Middle East - and one of the very few mainstream American media articles that covered or gave Kerry any credit at all for the work he is doing. As their are daily threads on how HRC is the best SoS ever, when such assessment is very premature - though for the sake of the world, I actually hope it will become true or that Obama and the envoys can successfully accomplish the tough things that need covering.

Kerry was the Democratic nominee - I would assume it highly likely that any Democrat would have voted for him - just as I voted for Clinton - twice - even though he was about my fifth choice in 1992. (He was too conservative and, even in the primaries, it was clear he was willing to lie and scapegoat others - which bothered me.) But I certainly wasn't going to not vote against Bush or Dole.

You completely missed that this was a wonderful example of Kerry coordinating with the Obama administration - something I suspect that HRC appreciated. Look at keopeli's wonderful post - which POSITIVELY points out that HRC sending others who are better skilled (the envoys, not Kerry, who she did not and could not send - separation of branches of government and all.) is the sign of good leader.

[blm]

53. you feel anti-Clinton sentiments are undeserved because you are of the group who doesn't CARE

about their right to open government and accountability of that government to the people. You still haven't bothered to READ the BCCI report and don't care that it was deepsixed by the Clinton administration.....well....I do.

You think both Clintons were HELPFUL to the Syria issue when they stood with Bush and had nothing but condemnation for Syria at the same time Kerry was defying Bush and engaging Syria's leaders? Would you prefer Bush-Clinton's views on Syria prevail or Kerry's?

[karynnj]

31. I know you are responding to the poster, but the story is a FAR BETTER one

The story is how Kerry and the Obama administration worked together in a creative way. Here, Kerry used his reputation as a straight shooter that he built over years and the trust that many leaders have in him to create an opening - one that the Obama administration, in the form of HRC, was then able to pursue. This reflects well on Senator Kerry, the Obama administration and HRC, which is why I wrote the subject as I did and posted it here, rather than LBN where I would have to use his title- the coordination is essential to Kerry's actions mattering. (Read the last paragraph in the article)

Improving our relationship with Syria, if it happens, is a big deal. It takes away an ally of Iran and could convert a major troublemaker in Lebanon to less of a problem (anything more might be too much to hope for.) It will still take a lot of work that MANY people will be involved in - including Clinton - and this is just a small, but important step. My guess is that George Mitchell will be the key player here. This takes nothing away from Clinton, who can't personally deal with every country. With all the current problem spots, I doubt any one person could - even a career diplomat like Holbroke or a career Senator with decades of experience in foreign policy, like Biden or Kerry - all of whom would start with greater knowledge than HRC.

[keopeli]

47. Isn't deference to skilled players a sign of a strong leader?

Full Disclosure: I supported Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Edwards and Obama.

I have had problems with Hillary in times past, but I don't understand your criticism at all. It makes absolutely no sense.

In any business, any communication structure, the best leaders are the ones who can delegate well. If Hillary is sending in the best players and all the chips are falling into place well so far, well that's a damn good sign of a damn good leader somewhere doing something damn right.

Please. Everyone. Health care. Discuss.

peace

Keo

[karynnj]

50. Exactly

Not to mention the sheer number of hot spots needing immediate attention would have made it necessary to assign very skilled envoys to the biggest ones. This would have been true had Obama picked Mitchell, Holbrooke, Kerry or Biden (obviously having selected a different vp) - who are among the Democrats with the greatest foreign policy experience.)

Herr, though, it is very unlikely that Kerry was sent by HRC or Obama. He went as chair of the SFRC and he had previously gone to Syria in January 2005 and December 2006, as chair of the relevant SFRC subcommittee. I seriously doubt Bush sent him then - the difference is that Obama (and HRC) were obviously more interested in his observations.)

[blm]

54. Bush did NOT send Kerry in 05 and 06. Kerry went on his own to engage Assad at a time when

Bushes and Clintons were railing against Syria and blaming them for what was likely a covert operation to incite public backlash against Syria.

Kerry was one of the few who would engage Syria and get the fuller story that the HAWKS didn't want the public to hear....especially if they saw a future opportunity to invade that country, too.

[karynnj]

56. I meant "I doubt" as an understatement

Bush not only didn't send him, the administration blasted him and the others for going - in spite of Kerry having asked Rice if there were questions she needed answers to.

[blm]

58. I know....I wanted to make sure that those not paying attention at the time understood more fully

that Kerry was working diplomatic angles with Syria at a time when Bushies and both Clintons were ranting and UNHELPFUL hawks.

[ClarkUSA]

55. Hard to say. Many thought so when Bush II deferred to Cheney.

I am not being critical; I am stating the facts. I gave a sourced link from a foreign policy expert who said the same things and another article that backs up the original sentiment. And to be clear, it's President Obama "sending in the best players" not Hillary. The names of special envoys were decided on before Hillary was SoS.

In a departure from past presidents, 44 also keeps in touch with the special envoys directly, which means he directs their strategic negotiations as well, not Hillary. Overall, President Obama has done a fine job of putting his foreign policy players in place and they're doing the jobs they were selected for, more or less.

Obama names envoys for troubled regions: http://itn.co.uk/8891eca8f10f16a2eb04c501ef12eefc.html
Obama chooses Sudan envoy: http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE52H05Q20090318

Since President Obama and Senator Kerry have been close friends and allies since before the SC primary, I have no doubt that Kerry's trip was mutually agreed upon. And Senator Kerry deserves big kudos now for helping move the Middle East peace process forward.

[karynnj]

59. I think Kerry's trip was independent

It was Kerry's job as part of providing oversight and as others pointed out he has made similar trips before. It was also to Obama's advantage for Kerry to be independent. I am not sure an administration official could have made the Gaza trip. At the Jordan World Economic Forum, Kerry spoke of not being able to take his security when he and Teresa went with the UN people into Gaza. I am not sure a SoS or even the special envoy would have been allowed to make that decision - which did put the Kerrys at some risk.

Kerry has spoken of speaking to the President and to Clinton before and after he went. I assume that Obama - who used him as his top surrogate on foreign policy during the election - was completely briefed by Kerry on things he heard and saw. It is very clear that on Syria, Obama likely gave Kerry a green light to continue sounding out positions with Syria's leader and when they reached a place where there was agreement, the Obama administration (HRC) took it from there - which is completely appropriate.

Kerry's independence is an advantage - he can say things without them being seen as the President's policy. In addition, he has the luxury of politely disagreeing with Obama's positions. If you listen to the very end of the hearing with HRC - Kerry repeats the concern mentioned in her hearings - very politely and discretely - about the size of our "footprint" in Afghanistan. From other hearings, it is clear that he favors the lightest footprint possible. His hearings provide reasons backing his position. It is clear that some in the administration- Jim Jones, especially, mentioned the first Afghanistan hearing he had in a positive way. He clearly did not win on this issue, though he might have had some impact.

[ClarkUSA]

61. I believe it was his idea.

I hope he writes an autobiography someday. He's led a fascinating life. No doubt, his best days as a public servant lie ahead.

[karynnj]

62. I hope he does write an autobiography

In 2004, as I read more about his life it seemed to be filled with bigger than life stories - the obvious ones were as a war hero, Iran/Contra, and BCCI. It almost seemed like if his life were fiction, you would edit out parts, because it was too much to be believable. Kerry's personality or New England reserve seemed to keep him from bragging about any of these things - think back to the almost modesty where he told Rassman, anyone would have done it, when Rassman spoke of Kerry risking his life to save him. (Now, think of how much Clinton or Edwards would have used an accomplishment like that - Yes I know Clinton whined that Kerry spoke of Vietnam too much, but I know of just one time where Kerry mentioned his medals - and that was before the Firefighters saying the Navy gave them to him - and even then he did not speak of the heroics that earned them.)

Then after 2004, when he was contemplating running again, he clearly examined his own reserve and desire for privacy. Out of that came a very personal speech - at Pepperdine where he spoke of the role faith played in his life - http://www.pepperdine.edu/pr/releases/2006/september/kerry.htm This speech provided a glimpse of the deeply held principles that guided many of his positions. This and a 2008 speech on Muslim/Christian relations and a speech on foreign policy all explained many very good foreign poliicy speeches which all were based in an obviously well developed, well thought out view point on foreign policy.

I can more easily see him writing a book on foreign policy - as he and Teresa did on the environment, but it would be great if he felt comfortable enough to weave all the things he has done in his life into an autobiography. If he keeps the Chair of SFRC and continues the type of work he has initiated on trips, hearings and investigations, either would be fascinating. From speeches he has written (he wrote the Faneuil Hall speeches he gave preparing for 2008) and his 2 books, he writes very well. (In fact, as Teresa went to Gaza, Syria, Jordan, Pakistan, Sudan and China with him - a joint book in the future would be awesome to get both of their views.)

The odd thing is that in spite of being a 2 term President, Clinton was clearly motivated last year by the need to enhance his legacy. If Kerry, who came incredibly close to a major upset, but failed to win the Presidency, were to retire tomorrow, which he is extremely unlikely to do - his legacy exists and it is one to be immensely proud of. It exists in his brave actions fighting against the Vietnam War, fighting bad policies like supporting the Contras, exposing the danger of international financial systems aiding terrorists and defining many of the issues in 2004 that with a bit of tweaking became the Democratic platform in 2008. Hillary Clinton echoed 2004 Kerry on many issues more than she echoed her own husband. His endorsement and defense of Obama was likely critical - as was Kennedy's.

[ClarkUSA]

68. Yeah, his is an extraordinary life. So is Teresa's.

The odd thing is that in spite of being a 2 term President, Clinton was clearly motivated last year by the need to enhance his legacy... Hillary Clinton echoed 2004 Kerry on many issues more than she echoed her own husband. His endorsement and defense of Obama was likely critical - as was Kennedy's.

I agree on all counts. There's something about those senators from Massachusetts... something very fine and good. I deeply admire and respect them both.

[Douglas Carpenter]

3. it would be hard to overstate the importance of this

improved relations with Syria could help completely change the political dynamics of the Middle East and improve greatly the possibility for stability, peace, improve the situation with Lebanon, decrease the threat and perceived threat coming from Iran and help immeasurably in increasing the plausibility of a just and lasting solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict.

[gauguin57]

4. You had your chance, America. Instead, you gave us four more years of Bush eff-ups.

(And yes, I mean that American voters made it close enough for Bush to steal Ohio).

[ClarkUSA]

16. Actually, Ken Blackwell via Karl Rove did that. But I get your gist.

[YvonneCa]

65. ...

...:7

[MBS]

22. yep, I agree that American voters deserve a good part of the blame

for the 8-year nightmare of W. The Bushies got away with election fraud and their many unconstitutional and outrageous acts because our fellow citizens chose sleep and fear over awareness and courage.

[YvonneCa]

66. Your words "...our fellow citizens chose sleep and fear over awareness and courage"...

...are perfect. That's how they got away with it.

[DoBotherMe]

37. I said that same thing last night

for the thousandth time. We had our chance for a new day, instead we got a clustereff. Dana ; )

[redqueen]

6. I wonder what the reaction from Bush's WH would have been

if a senior Republican had taken such courageous and creative actions. I imagine it would not be welcomed.

[karynnj]

15. Couldn't happen, because Bush himself was not in favor of diplomacy

Although Kerry has no formal role as a diplomat, he is someone who is known to have the respect of the President and similar policy goals. Dick Lugar, the senior Republican foreign policy person was likely closer to Kerry's foreign policy views in 2004 than to Bush's - so I doubt he could have negotiated anything- even if he had the ability and desire to do so. To his credit he held two hearings on how oil impacts our foreign policy.

Kerry has negotiated things in the past with permission from Republican or Democratic Presidents - he negotiated the US ability to essentially go anywhere and see anything without prior approval in Vietnam (something that amazed McCain in his book) when Bush was President and under Clinton, he suggested the solution used to have Cambodian war crimes tribunals.

[blm]

70. Bush didn't NEED Republican senators to carry his water - wellknown Dems hawked against Syria along

with Bush and the neocons.

[AtomicKitten]

14. Nice high-five to Senator Kerry for his tireless yet often unsung efforts. n/t

[MBS]

23. .. what you said. n/t

[Mass]

18. It is good to see Ignatius recognize Kerry's job, but he is only continuing the job he has started

in 2007, when he became chair of the subcommittee in charge of the Middle East. He then went to Syria (as did Pelosi and a few others), to the great dismay of the right.

What changed since 2007 is that we have a Democratic President and a Democratic SoS, that agree with him on the need of talking to other countries, contrarily to the precedent administration.

[karynnj]

25. True - I remember the frustration in his voice when he spoke

of having tried to convince the Bush administration to get involved in diplomacy or helping leaders leaning to our side only to have his words fall on deaf ears. It sounded like that was what bothered him the most about losing - he didn't have the ability to create change in any of the failed policies.

Like in this clip expressing his frustration with not being able to help Abbas, who could have become a leader who could have negotiated with Israel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXd66eae9K8

[blm]

27. Kerry's been sounding the alarm for decades about that entire region - when this nation's

government and its corporate media sees REAL PATRIOTISM at work it would do everything possible to crush any momentum it had.

[MBS]

21. very, very nice--thanks!

Kudos to John Kerry, and thanks also to these journalists for recognizing (finally!) Kerry's courageous work for what it is.

[YvonneCa]

39. EXACTLY. It is wonderful to see journalists finally...

...report on the work that John Kerry continually and relentlessly does for this country. Thank you, Senator, for all you do. :patriot:

[Uzybone]

24. Great job by Kerry

a tireless worker behind the scenes.

[karynnj]

26. true

He has been amazingly busy this year.

[politicasista]

34. Yep

:patriot:

[blm]

36. his tireless work has gone unheralded by corpmedia for two decades...

deliberately so.

[politicasista]

30. Kick for productive work

Senator Kerry is doing a very nice job as SFRC chair. And having an independent voice outside the Obama adminstration can really make a difference and have a strong impact on foreign policy.

:kick: :patriot:

[karynnj]

44. So true

:hi:

[politicasista]

45. Yep.

:hi:

[jillan]

33. K & R for a great leader.

[karynnj]

35. I love your signature nt

[karynnj]

40. kick

[wisteria]

42. I hope he continues to be a huge player in foreign policy matters. He is the best. n/t

[karynnj]

43. Well, he already filed papers for re-election in 2014

Looking at the wide range of hearings that he has held since he took over and watching a some would show that he really is likely to be seen as one of the great chairs of that committee.

[saltpoint]

48. John Kerry is just outstanding. He's a public servant with his eye on the

needs of the public.

And "the public" in this case is the whole world.

[YvonneCa]

51. Here is another eye-opening article from Bloomberg...

...about Senator Kerry:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a_BsfBiU9zyA&refer=home

He is one BUSY public servant...and I, for one, am grateful.:)

[karynnj]

52. Me too - he really is making incredible use of his role as chair of the SFRC

There was also the progress he got in restoring full aid to Darfur - on a trip he made there (again with Teresa).

Here is the best collection of posts on that:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8351510

In addition, he has held a series of amazing hearings -

Here's a link to the hearing page - http://foreign.senate.gov/hearing.html

The hearings cover a huge range of issues and have a wonderful congenial tone between Kerry and Lugar.

Some highlights are:

A roundtable on Afghanistan - http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2009/hrg090205a.html (which really brought up interesting ideas) and a later one with people who fought in Afghanistan.

and a series of interesting global warming hearings - from Gore and Carter to one that included business men and national security experts FOR global warming. (The latter one is fascinating and points to how Kerry wants to win over sufficient Republicans.)

He is well on the way to being a historically great Chair of the SFRC. (less than he hoped in 2004, but given the better environment now - he may actually accomplish more at this less important position than he could have with a very hostile Republican House and Senate in 2005.)

[blm]

64. Kerry's hearings are must-see TV for serious policy watchers....

.

[saltpoint]

63. Hi, Yvonne. You said it. I'm on board with your assessment,

no question.

[jonestonesusa]

57. Excellent article - thanks

I did not know about John Kerry's diplomatic role here or much about Theresa Kerry's nonprofit work. Very helpful to know...

[YvonneCa]

67. They don't much fit the image projected...

...by the media and GOP in 2004, do they? What a loss for our country that the truth was blocked from the American people.

[blm]

69. Kerry developed a dialogue with Assad years ago while hardline Dems like Clintons sided with Bush

and even attacked Syria directly and....unfairly....based on and sympathetic to Bush's goal to target Syria.

[PufPuf23]

60. Kerry is a great man. Thanks for a fine thread. nt

[politicasista]

71. kick for diplomacy n/t