Kerry Makes Case That Syria Used Chemical Weapons
Source: New York Times/MSNBC
Secretary of State John Kerry said on Friday there is "clear and compelling evidence that the government of President Bashar al-Assad used poison gas against its citizens, as the Obama administration released an unclassified intelligence report on the use of chemical weapons in Syria.
Read for yourselves the evidence from thousands of sources, Mr. Kerry said. This is the indiscriminate, inconceivable horror of chemical weapons. This is what Assad did to his own people.
Mr. Kerry said that more than 1,400 people were killed in the chemical attack, including more than 400 children.
He said the administration has high confidence in the intelligence, much of which was being released to the public as he spoke. But he vowed that the government has carefully reviewed the evidence to avoid the kind of intelligence failures that preceded the Iraq war.
We will not repeat that moment, he vowed.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/world/middleeast/john-kerry-syria.html
Captions from MSNBC:
Secretary of State Kerry Calls Aug 21st Attack 'Crime Against Humanity'
Confirms It Was a WMD Attack by Assad That Killed 1,429 Syrians.
Any Actions Would Not Be 'Boots On The Ground' Or 'Open Ended.'
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)The Syrian regime maintains a stockpile of numerous chemical agents, including mustard, sarin,and VX and has thousands of munitions that can be used to deliver chemical warfare agents.Syrian President Bashar al-Asad is the ultimate decision maker for the chemical
http://www.scribd.com/doc/164269962/U-S-Syria-Intelligence-Assessment
jessie04
(1,528 posts)the seizures and the shutdown of the nervous system are amazing.
And we cant lift a damn finger to help to people.
bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)Israel yep that's right I wouldn't trust that right wing Prime Minister as far as I could throw him. This might be a total setup to make Obama look bad remember he supported Romney in the 2012 Presidential election.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)As the FSA is made up of defecting Syrian soldiers, who is to say that they didn't just take the chemical weapons when they had the access to them.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)This feels like too much of a rush to war.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)You expressed my thoughts on Syria better than I could ever have.
In summary, no despot should ever go unpunished for using the horrible
chemical WMD's on civilians, children and women. Not in the 21st century.
Number23
(24,544 posts)The posts I've been seeing here lately have been absolutely astounding. I cannot believe there are people that are PISSED that this administration refuses to do nothing while Assad gasses and murders his own people.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)rushing into aggressive military action without giving the UN inspectors time to finish their job and without having a clear objective.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)Last edited Fri Aug 30, 2013, 07:45 PM - Edit history (1)
for the attack. That is essential to a finding of governmental culpability that must be present if the US or anyone else is going to launch a punative military action against Syria.
Here's what the "declassified" document just released does not contain: any specific information, or reference to specific information, that in any way ties officials at the Minister of Defense or higher level in the planning and execution of this attack. What it does say is that the the Syrian Minister of Defense upon learning of the attack ordered it to cease.
Furthermore, the specific information provided by other sources shows that the Minister of Defense personally spoke with the unit commander after the attack, and the Minister is characterized as being panicked by the news he receives. Foreign Policys magazine The Cable reported on August 27: http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/27/exclusive_us_spies_say_intercepted_calls_prove_syrias_army_used_nerve_gas
That report goes on to express the uncertainties that have arisen in assigning culpability for the incident:
Nor are U.S. analysts sure of the Syrian military's rationale for launching the strike -- if it had a rationale at all. Perhaps it was a lone general putting a long-standing battle plan in motion; perhaps it was a miscalculation by the Assad government. Whatever the reason, the attack has triggered worldwide outrage, and put the Obama administration on the brink of launching a strike of its own in Syria. "We don't know exactly why it happened," the intelligence official added. "We just know it was pretty fucking stupid."
The UK National Post-Telegraph reflected that assessment that there is no certainty as whether this attack was ordered from above or the unauthorized work of a lower-ranking officer in the field:http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/08/28/intercepted-phone-call-helped-convince-u-s-that-syrian-regime-was-responsible-for-deadly-chemical-attack/
The intercepted message does not conclusively establish who gave the order to use chemical weapons and could mean it was a mistake, analysts suggested.
Furthermore, another factor to consider is the accuracy of the assessments that have been produced. the source of the key intercepts was IDF Unit 8200, the Israeli NSA. This is from a report the following day in The Guardian (08/28): http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/28/israeli-intelligence-intercepted-syria-chemical-talk
The 8200 unit of the Israeli Defence Forces, which specialises in electronic surveillance, intercepted a conversation between Syrian officials regarding the use of chemical weapons, an unnamed former Mossad official told Focus. The content of the conversation was relayed to the US, the ex-official said.
The 8200 unit collects and analyses electronic data, including wiretapped telephone calls and emails. It is the largest unit in the IDF.
Israel has invested in intelligence assets in Syria for decades, according to a senior government official. "We have an historic intelligence effort in the field, for obvious reasons," he said.
Israel and the US had a "close and co-operative relationship in the intelligence field", he added, but declined to comment specifically on the Focus report.
Senior Israeli security officials arrived in Washington on Monday to share the latest results of intelligence-gathering, and to review the Syrian crisis with national security adviser Susan Rice.
Finally, we observe, Susan Rice and the Administration have been sitting on these Israeli-based intercepts for five days. Why does this report lack any direct reference to the Israeli NSA-based information which formed the basis for White House decisions. The Obama Administration can not credibly claim a need to protect sources and methods, particularly when in this case they have already been publicly described in several news media reports.
Why are we, the people who must bear the responsibility for the costs and consequences, intended and unintended, of Obama's reprisal attack, not being shown this critical evidence?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)specific evidence of Assad's culpability, something concrete that proves beyond reasonable doubt that the Syrian government deliberately targeted civilians with sarin gas. All of that is absent.
I don't really care to here the Secretary of State wax tragic over the horror of chemical weapons - that's a given, and only serves to prompt people to react out of emotional response rather than use reason.
arewenotdemo
(2,364 posts)An "overzealous officer" who may or may not be on the CIA payroll, or who decided not to defect in order to pull off just such an action.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Assad's blast-crippled brother. A strange sort of fraternal coup that brings international intervention, and a possible trip to The Hague, in its wake. But, that may just be DEBKAfile black humour. Or, as you say, it could have been a double-agent sleeper in the chemical corps.
The possibilities for speculation are boundlessly entertaining.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)Althoigh that has been part of the story from the very beginning.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)are not George Bush by a long shot. They will not lie to us.
They have no reason to. Bush had a thing about Saddam because
Saddam had tried to kill his father. DO you know any such vendetta
the president or SOS or SOD are carrying?
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)I could go on, but I am sure you get the point.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)This is completely different. There is no political gain for the president
and his cabinet to lie on Syria. Politicians lie only when they have something
to gain politically or such. They are all displaying statesmanship, pure and
simple.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)Since when haven't politicians had just about everything to gain from going to war? lol
Read history at all? How does one derive such a Pollyanna vision of our country and of our leaders given our track record?
That is what I want to know.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)and why did you vote for them, if you have no faith in ANY politician?
frylock
(34,825 posts)to recently discovered oil and gas reserves in Syrian territory. Political gain is not the only reason to destroy a nation. If this is statesmanship, I am a banana.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)I do agree, this is a far cry from statesmanship or diplomacy.
valerief
(53,235 posts)golfguru
(4,987 posts)May be I am different, because I draw a red line when anyone murders innocent civilians including women & children using inhumane methods such as chemical poisoning. If napalm or chemicals are used strictly in a active war against SOLDIERS, that is still very ugly but it does not transgress my red line.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)with anyone who murders innocent civilians including women and children using "humane" methods such as drone strikes?
Selective outrage is not compelling. I might take you more seriously if you posted with the same passion about children killed by our own military.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)That I am against any killing method which causes deaths of innocent people with drones. I would much rather our military kill the bad guys using similar methods as killing Osama Bin Laden. His wives and children were not killed.
But that method is way too expensive compared to a drone attack. So the president has opted drone killing over capture and torture of individual bad guys. I was not happy when Alwaqi's underage son was droned along with his father who was a well documented terrorist.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)There would be some severe collateral damage going after those areas, Mr. Panetta said last week.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)such as gassing civilians with chemical WMD's. sometimes only hard choices are available as options. If the bad guys hide behind women and children and religious places, as they often do in the middle-east, it is THEY who are responsible for collateral deaths. If such dastardly deeds go unpunished, where does it stop? How many more despots will be encouraged in the future?
President Roosevelt had the difficult choice of bombing cities chock full of civilians in Germany. President Truman had the most difficult choice of incinerating 2 big cities with nuclear bombs to end further carnage of our troops and usher in surrender by the intransigent enemy and end of WWII.
Peace and civilized behavior is never achieved by wishing. Sometimes the choices are very difficult. Leaders with courage take actions, cowardly politicians only worry about the next poll and the next election.
Response to golfguru (Reply #78)
daleo This message was self-deleted by its author.
daleo
(21,317 posts)But nuking them was ok, because it was a difficult choice - courageous even.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)President Truman was in a declared a war against an enemy who attacked us first at Pearl Harbor, was fanatical and extremely intransigent. It was either nuke them or have hundreds of thousand more US soldiers become casualties. However personally I would have been opposed mass killings of any civilians.
Now it is the 21st century. If Bashar Assad used chemical weapons against a defenseless bunch of civilians breaking laws on the books of the world body and if sufficient proof exists of his culpability, he should not be allowed to go unpunished. Civilized behavior is a must in this century.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Pathetic.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)chemically incinerated later by bad guys. Nothing is pure in life. It is better to amputate a diseased limb than sacrifice the whole body later. Life is full of compromises. There is no utopia or Camelot. Don't believe anyone who tells you otherwise.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)We'll drop 100+ cruise missiles and kill more than 12 civilians. How is that going to prevent a retaliatory chemical weapons attack? If we target chemical weapon stockpiles with our missiles, the result has the potential to be as bad or worse than the recent incident to which we are responding.
Spare me your Internet Hard Man nonsense.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)strategy. Doing nothing when very bad atrocities are done is counter-productive. Imagine if Roosevelt had let Hitler run amok in Europe. There were those who said at the time "it is not our problem, Hitler has not attacked USA".
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Neocons trotted out the "Saddam is Hitler!" schtick before we invaded Iraq.
I have not advocated "doing nothing." I am simply dead-set against dropping bombs on people because our State Department can't find anything better to do.
It is still not clear who is responsible for the chemical attack. There are conflicting reports, and the UN team has not released its findings. You are choosing to take the Administration's word on it, which is a mistake because the Administration has a vested interest in the outcome.
Even if it's determined Assad launched the attack, the proposed "limited strike" will not prevent future atrocities. All it will do is kill people, and I'm not so cavalier as you regarding collateral damage.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)The had access to all the same weaponry. That's why proof needs to be displayed. The last time the CIA told the Secretary of State to trust us he went before the UN and made an idiot of himself. And plenty of dems that we all voted for went along with that botched war plan. "Trust us" isn't good enough anymore. Show us might work better. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Syrian_Army
golfguru
(4,987 posts)and therefor the entire congress needs to vote on this. Then there can be no complain that our elected reps were not shown the proof.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)...has consistently opposed GWB's playbook. Do some research. I suggest C-Span's video library as a good place to start.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)A partisan loyalist defending the tribe on a message board, or my own lying eyes?
YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)...do some research. That's how one should form opinion...not by believing me, or Kerry, or anyone else.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I have every confidence in my ability to analyze evidence - it's what I do for a living.
arewenotdemo
(2,364 posts)He has no moral ground to stand on.
Seeing him lecture about "inhumane" ways of killing is disgusting.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)Kerry not only voted for IWR, but twisted himself in knots justifying that callous, political-finger-in-the-wind vote during the 2004 campaign. And to those who say he trusted shrub or was mislead by him, that's a lot of hooey, too. Knowing about PNAC, any trust of shrub shows foolishness and/or stupidity. And as if that was not enough, having investigated Iran-Contra, he knew the Bushes - both father and son - were liars.
Kerry's a tool who lost his moral compass age ago, as he climbed the political ladder and married the uber rich Mrs. Heinz
arewenotdemo
(2,364 posts)To think that I used to admire him during the Nicaragua contra affair.
During the Senate SOS confirmation hearings, he proudly rattled off the string of American military interventions that he had supported. Practically all of them. I should have known.
And AFAIK he never expressed any remorse for his IWR vote. I just gave him the benefit of the doubt when he ran in 2004.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)as I can see.
A lot of the "evidence" is questionable. There is apparently some surveillance video showing movement of equipment. Then there were the attacks. How they ascertained that the attacks were definitely accomplished by rockets is unclear to me? How large were the rockets? Do the rebels or does any group among the rebels have access to rockets or the ability to use them?
I would have a lot of questions about this "evidence."
If you accept it as true a priori, then it is quite convincing.
But I would like to see someone argue against the points made because I think that without any physical evidence or data, there is a strong argument that the conclusions rest on very big assumptions.
It appears that the statement that the chemical weapons attacks occurred is true.
How the chemical weapons were delivered is not clear.
Arguments and facts that do not support the Obama administration's theory that Assad is behind the attack are not raised and dealt with. So that is an untrustworthy aspect of that excuse for a document.
On the other hand, as time passes and we do not hear (at least in our media) Assad protesting that he is being falsely accused, the Obama administration's conclusions become much more persuasive. Failing to claim innocence certainly suggests guilt. Failing to respond point by point to the conclusions of the Obama administration make it much more likely that Assad's regime did the killing.
So I lean more toward believing the Obama administrations conclusions than I did, but I see a lot of problems with their presentation on this. If they are honest with themselves, prople who are not analytical will not care. People who think analytically will not be persuaded that we should take action.
We are tired of being tricked into war.
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)jessie04
(1,528 posts)finally
Jessy169
(602 posts)When George Bush and coherts lied to me/us about the "reasons" for needing to attack Iraq, I got suckered by those lies the same as millions and millions of others.
When I learned the truth, I became deeply cynical of any other "justifications" for bombing and/or going to war in foreign lands. I just didn't think I would ever be told the truth.
I still doubt that I am being told the "whole truth".
But I trust Kerry's character and I trust Obama's character. Despite having been lied to so many times (mostly and almost exclusively by Republican politicians and presidents), I choose to believe that Kerry and Obama are telling me the truth on this, and that they have exhaustively considerd all other possibilities to what might be "the truth" in this case.
I KNOW FOR A FACT that Assad has on many prior occassions used significant blunt force (scuds, artillery, etc...) to clear out population areas of non-combatants that he perceived as supporting the "rebels".
There have been several prior occassions where Syria "most likely" used chemical weapons, but Obama and his admin were not convinced.
In this case, I believe Obama and his admin ARE convinced. I take them at their word.
Whether the "wise" and "prudent" thing to do is to shoot cruise missles at Syria, drop a nuke and be done with it, invade or WHATTHEFUCKEVER, I do not know, and either does anybody else posting here on DemocraticUnderground whether you think you do or not. There are extremely complicated issues involved.
When we can't trust politicians like Obama and Kerry to tell us the truth, or at least lie to us for beneficial reasons, then we are truly one hundred percent F-U-C-K-E-D. In this case, I choose to believe. I don't feel that I have any other choice.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)from lying to THEM as well, for instance.
None of that answers questions, even if all the allegations are true, whether we should stick our necks out and drop bombs on them.
Jessy169
(602 posts)I personally do not believe that anybody is lying to Kerry and Obama and duping them into believing those lies, especially on a subject this important. If you choose to believe that Kerry and Obama are being suckered by lies on this subject, that's your choice, and not a very good one IMO.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"Our high confidence assessment is the strongest position that the U.S. Intelligence Community can take short of confirmation. We will continue to seek additional information to close gaps in our understanding of what took place."
That speaks volumes to me. Too many people have too much invested in this option for me to be confident that an objective decision is being made without bias.
AND, even if the allegations are 100% true, that still does not answer the question of why we are invested in being the party to intervene. Kerry is making the claim it is a threat to us. No such threat is demonstrated. There are only 5 non-signatories to the treaty. This is not an example of a signatory breaking the treaty, nor is it an example of a non-signatory attacking another nation.
The only thing that MIGHT be on the table here, is the possible allegation of deliberately targeting civilians, which would then make this Kosovo MKII, and not a 'chemical weapons' issue specifically.
Which means, the UN needs to be the intervening party, not just France and the US.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)arewenotdemo
(2,364 posts)carla
(553 posts)Choice involves alternatives. You are falling for the same old shit again. That is why you feel you have no other choice...because you want to believe. Shame.
daleo
(21,317 posts)Gorbachev had it right - trust but verify.
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)maddezmom
(135,060 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)They've been right about these types of things, so far.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)SpankMe
(2,937 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I found a transcript of Kerry's statement here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/27/world/middleeast/text-of-kerrys-statement-on-chemical-weapons-in-syria.html?_r=0
The title of your post is incredibly misleading: Kerry does NOT "lay out evidence" - he simply waves the bloody shirt with this kind of rhetoric:
The only mention of evidence is here:
All that Kerry is saying is "chemical weapons are bad" (true) and "trust us - we have evidence." (yet to be shown).
Mosby
(16,158 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)A headline, and no story, which is SOP for the Times until they have the full story.
I updated the headline with the final headline, when the Times posted the story.
Some DUers don't know how LBN works.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)It was all Google News had for the New York Times, Kerry and Syria.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)jessie04
(1,528 posts)just a great man
carla
(553 posts)it is short on facts, contains NO scientific data such as chemical composition of claimed munitions. It obfuscates the shelling by Syrian Army units with chemical shelling. It claims to have thousands of interviews and independent confirmation, yet will not reveal any sources or data, not a single name. It is completely plausible that after the discovery 2 weeks ago of chemical weapons claimed to belong to FSA fighters, the Syrian Army shelled the suspected storage site of more chemicals. I will not be convinced unless they present scientific evidence and stop playing us all with the issue of suffering and moral outrage. I find it outrageous that Kerry and his wife had a nice intimate dinner with the Assads in 2009. This is Kerry's "Glaspie Moment". I remain opposed to the use of military force and am quite concerned that the USG is working to pull the wool over our eyes, as always.
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)mazzarro
(3,450 posts)karynnj
(59,474 posts)If that were the case, it would mean the Kerrys told Assad that the US would not care if they killed thousands of people - some by chemical warfare - that the US would look the other way.
In fact what Kerry did was to meet with Assad to try to convince him that he and Syria would benefit from stopping their support of Iran and Hezbollah and to reform his own government. Had Kerry's attempt worked,we would not be at this point.
You might be interested to know that thanks to Chelsea Manning, we KNOW what Kerry said to Assad and other leaders. As the Boston Globe summarized - what he said in private was consistent with his public comments, He was one of the few diplomats who came out looking good.
Not to mention, it is mainly the RW who think there was anything wrong in that picture. It was a diplomatic effort - and Teresa Heinz Kerry was helping her husband.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)do not agree on is what the consequences of a military style attack will be. I am with Jimmy Carter - the consequences will not be good. It has a very strong possibility of turning Syrian people to our enemies even more than they already are.
Sand Wind
(1,573 posts)Not like a couple of you who take their information from Sana, PressTV and amateur CT videos from YouTube.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)John2
(2,730 posts)Tunisia and has been on here beating those War Drums ever since he became a member. He has known Kerry is an honorable man ever since he got to know him, so what does a person or veteran like me know whose family served in the Civil War, World War II, North Korean War and with Mr Kerry in the Vietnam War? Kerry is capable of lying and so is President Obama when the price is right. They are both Politicians, and most if not all of them lie.
Kerry is playing on people's emotions. As a person who is use to killing in War, it doesn't fly with me. I'm going to quote someone President Obama loves to cite, "War is Hell," when General Sherman marched through the South. On the one hand you kill women and children with bombs or Drones, and justify it. We gased the hell out of Vietnam and North Korea, and killed thousands of woman and children. Kerry and John McCain can't play that game with me.
We are supporting the worst killers and liars in the history of modern Warfare, when it comes to Al Nusra, Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Does John Kerry even cares or mentioned one word about the car bombs or those massacres by these paid killers? He has the audacity to threaten and place preconditions on the Palestinians when it comes to their Human Rights and just gives a lecture to Netanyahu about forced settlements and ethnic cleansing. So don't talk to me about honorable character when it comes to Mr Kerry. The only thing he worshipps is power and the mighty green dollar. It is no different than his Arab Allies in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, or those greedy people on Wall Street that wants to strip the safety net from American citizens that are poor.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)Sand Wind
(1,573 posts)Happened...
Politicub
(12,163 posts)And is the refuge of people who have nothing of substance to say.
Colin Powell and Kerry are two different people. Kerry is a good man, and to discount him because you have this image in your head that he's the same as Powell is ridiculous.
Politicub
(12,163 posts)And believe that the Assad regime is disgusting.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)Because they are so bad, should we invade them as well? Or does your support of war mongering by us require the presence of oil or Israel before you give it?
Are we the world's police officer? I sure hope not.
Politicub
(12,163 posts)But we can't.
Should we turn a blind eye because there are bad things that happen in other countries?
My opinion isn't fully formed about Syria yet, but I'm not basing it on the idea of being the world's police. That's the UN's job, which it needs to do better.
mike_c
(36,213 posts)The_Casual_Observer
(27,742 posts)arewenotdemo
(2,364 posts)If he only wasn't a war criminal that should be in prison instead of giving expert analysis on the news.
Skittles
(152,963 posts)The_Casual_Observer
(27,742 posts)That's good enough for me.
arewenotdemo
(2,364 posts)I'll wait for Richard Engel reporting from rebel HQ.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)Response to onehandle (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)arewenotdemo
(2,364 posts)Thank you, Gore Vidal.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)Love me some Gore Vidal.
k&r
frylock
(34,825 posts)David__77
(23,214 posts)And then, if the wrong decision is made, Obama would personally have the blood on his hands of the babies that would inevitably be killed from US missiles (thankfully, no such thing has yet happened!). I am hopeful that the president will do the right thing - not launch any attack.
elias49
(4,259 posts)Kerry strikes me as old and tired. And so conventional...predictable.
Will Washington ever be peopled with fresh faces and new ideas??
leveymg
(36,418 posts)And, John does look tired. But, who wouldn't be in his situation.
karynnj
(59,474 posts)Kerry has likely been working around the clock. Iassume that Rice looks tired as well. Not to mention - how should a caring person look speaking of this.
Do you honestly think Susan Rice would have gotten Israel and Palestine to talks? Kerry is far far better.
elias49
(4,259 posts)I'm talking about ideas. We have to take government out of the hands of 70-year-old white men. Seriously...it's time for a shot of dynamism. Kerry's not a bad man. Just been there too long. Corporatist. Traditional. It's the 21st century...let's move forward.
karynnj
(59,474 posts)For instances, he had the mental flexibility to listen to both the Israelis and the Palestinians - earning praise from both. In Pakistan, where the norm is NO American is liked, he has been respected and even liked - because as the NYT magazine article said, he unlike anyone else (in 2010/2011) LISTENED to what they had to say.
Here is a link to an Aug 1 story that indicates the US will have high level talks with Pakistan. http://dawn.com/news/1033392/us-pakistan-to-resume-high-level-negotiations In recent news, the conviction of the doctor who helped in the capture of OBL was overturned. As that conviction was because Pakistan was embarrassed and angered by the US, it seems reasonable that the good meeting had something to do with the new government overturning it.
Now, think back to what is known of Rice. Do you think that she has the same ability to LISTEN or to work with others? There are many examples of Kerry doing this over his career. I saw NONE given of Rice when her named was floated and such an example would have diffused a major negative. (The other major negative is that many in Congress - on both sides - already had negative opinions of working with her - in spite of most thinking her brilliant.)
Kerry's vision of foreign policy has always been different from other Democrats (and certainly Republicans). Even as a student at Yale, he spoke of the need to understand cultural differences and to respect other countries. Madeline Albright excerpted his Yale speech in a 2006 book - and spoke of how current it then sounded. (More importantly, Kerry's present day speeches are mature, more informed versions of those ideas.) One reason his view of the world is somewhat unique is that a major influence was his father, Richard Kerry.
It is true that Rice is both black and female, she is also the daughter of Emmett J. Rice (19192011), Cornell University economics professor and the second black governor of the Federal Reserve System;[4] and education policy scholar Lois (née Dickson) Fitt, currently at the Brookings Institution. She went to an exclusive private DC high school and then to Stanford University. That is a pretty privileged background - not the direct descendant of the first governor of Massachusetts - but someone who grew up very connected to the DC elite.
Other than just declaring it, can you actually defend - by anything other than the fact that she is black and female, that she has newer, fresher ideas on foreign policy? Not to mention, Obama, the first black President, chose Hillary Clinton and then John Kerry over her - and he actually knows all of them.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)With Iraq they had been beating the war drum for well over 6 months before the actual invasion. They not only claimed WMD they claimed al-Qaeda was in Iraq. Bush clearly stated we would invade Iraq, there was no claim of limited action or bombing. The problem with Syria has been going on for awhile, but there was no serious talk about intervening directly until the chemical weapons attack.
Powell had quite a bit more military experience as he was a high ranking officer before becoming SoS, John Kerry was a LT junior grade in the military for 4 years before his 30 years as a Lt. Governor and Senator. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were looking for a reason to invade Iraq, Iran, Syria, and several other countries. Obama has consistently resisted the idea of an invasion of any country, which is why we didn't put troops in Libya.
Response to davidpdx (Reply #98)
Post removed
underpants
(182,271 posts)well said
Lonr
(103 posts)Please refer to the following site:
GLOBAL RESISTANCE /Anti-War Taskforce / No War with Syria Global Rallies
https://www.facebook.com/events/554832307905905/