Tag Archives: John Kerry

national news, political news

Who will join Cruz in stopping Trump?

cruz

Ted Cruz has a problem.

He wants to become the “anti-Trump” candidate for president of the United States. He’s seeking a way to get Ohio Gov. John Kasich to bow out. He believes he can coalesce enough “true conservatives” behind him to derail Donald J. Trump’s march to the Republican Party presidential nomination.

The junior U.S. senator from Texas, though, needs some help from his colleagues in the Senate. But as Politico reports, he is nearly universally detested by his fellow senators. And that’s just the Republicans with whom he serves.

Cruz needs to build some relationships. I don’t mean “rebuild.” He’s got to start from scratch.

He’s been in the Senate for slightly more than three years. He’s halfway through his very first term in the very first elected public office he’s ever held.

As Politico reports: “Cruz’s relationship with his colleagues is now a central paradox of his campaign: He’s openly arguing for the party to rally behind him, but Republican senators are plainly wary of going anywhere near him. Those who feel burned by Cruz in the past say he’ll come to them only if he decides it’s in his self-interest. ”

The man who leads the Senate — the body’s top Republican — once was on the receiving end of a barrage that Cruz leveled at him. Remember when the Cruz Missile called Majority Leader Mitch McConnell a “liar” in a speech on the floor of the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body?

How does McConnell put that epithet behind him? How does McConnell gather the forces to help one of their own take down this “interloper” named Trump.

Moreover, Sen. John McCain — the GOP’s 2008 presidential nominee — has taken Cruz to task in public for his intemperate remarks about a couple of fellow Vietnam War combat veterans, John Kerry and Chuck Hagel.

Finally, he’s been campaigning against the very “Washington establishment” where he works these days. He’s an “outsider,” he says.

Something tells me Cruz’s efforts to put distance between himself and his Senate colleagues ain’t going well with the ladies and gents with whom he serves.

 

military news, national news, political news

GOP fretting like crazy over Trump, Cruz

republican-elephant-668x501

The drama being played out in the inner circles of the Republican Party national network is among the most fascinating things I’ve ever seen.

Two men have emerged as co-favorites for the GOP presidential nomination — and the party brass is none too happy about either of them.

Donald J. Trump has managed to insult his way to the top of the still-large GOP heap; U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas antagonized his Senate colleagues to the point that it’s no generally understood that, well, no one on Capitol Hill likes, or even respects, the junior senator.

Republican statesmen, such as Robert Dole, say a Cruz nomination would bring “cataclysmic” losses to the party; it could cost Republicans control of the Senate and bring Democrats within striking distance of getting control of the House.

Aw, but today’s firebrands label the likes of former Sen. Dole as “has been,” “loser,” “RINO.”

That’s their view. It’s not mine.

Trump is now calling himself a conservative. His prior public statements about such things as abortion and universal health care betray his claim, according to so-called “true conservatives.”

But there he is. Looking down from atop the GOP heap. He’s going after Cruz’s eligibility to run for president. He’s feuding with a broadcast journalist. He’s managed to insult Iowa voters, Hispanics, Muslims, our allies abroad, every working politician in Washington, D.C., women, reporters and editors . . . and others I can’t even think of at the moment.

Hey, it’s all OK with those who think Trump is “fresh.”

Wow!

As for Ted Cruz, well, he took his senatorial oath in January 2013 and began hunting for every open microphone he could find. He had his presidential ambitions planned out even before winning a contest in his first political election . . . ever!

He’s trampled over Senate colleagues, broken long-established Senate rules of decorum by calling the body ‘s majority leader a liar. He questioned whether decorated Vietnam War veterans, such as Secretary of State John Kerry and former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, had a true appreciation for the military; and this came from someone who never donned a military uniform!

The Republican Party has a problem, all right.

What will the GOP do? How will it deny either of these men its presidential nomination?

Given that so few of us have ever seen such intraparty angst, I’m afraid the Grand Old Party is on its own.

Good luck, ladies and gents.

 

environmental news

Why is cutting carbon emissions so bad?

banner_emissions

President Barack Obama is singing high praise for the worldwide climate deal brokered in Paris this past week.

No surprise there, right? The president believes, as many of us out here do — me included — that human activity has contributed to the worsening of our worldwide environment.

However, you know what? I’m not going to debate that point. Skeptics of the climate change crisis have their minds made up; those of us on the other side have made up our minds, too.

So, we’ll go on with the rest of the discussion.

The agreement calls for reducing carbon emissions, those pollutants that come from fossil fuels. They increase carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and create a gradual warming of the atmosphere.

Beyond that, though, why is it a bad thing — as some interested parties contend — to cut those fossil fuel emissions.

This deal, they say, is “no better” than the Kyoto Protocol worked out during the Clinton administration in 1997. It never was ratified by Congress. President George W. Bush, Bill Clinton’s successor, said the agreement would cost American jobs and would give emerging powers — such as China and India — a free pass.

I keep coming back to the notion, though, that reductions in these emissions — which are indisputably harmful to Earth’s ecosystem — will produce a net positive impact on the future of the planet.

We can conserve those fossil fuels, which are a finite resource. We can invest in alternative energy sources, such as wind, solar and — yes! — nuclear power.

As Politico reports as well, there was some water down of the language in the agreement, which initially stipulated that developed nations “shall” cut those greenhouse gases; Secretary of State John Kerry got the conferees to change that language to “should” with the hope it would stand a better chance of being ratified by the Republican-controlled Congress.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/paris-climate-talks-tic-toc-216721

Shall or should? Whatever.

The goal remains the same: to reduce greenhouse gases that harm the only planet we have.

How can that be a bad thing?

 

International news

Jihadi John might have been turned into a pile of ash

jihadi-john-jpg

The late, great heavyweight boxing champ Joe Louis once said of an opponent, “He can run, but he can’t hide.”

So it is with terrorists. So, indeed, it might be with a particular monster who — one can hope — has been incinerated in a drone strike in Syria.

Mohammad Emwazi has been dubbed “Jihadi John.” He’s the guy on the viral videos seen beheading captives. To say he is an evil monster is to commit a gross understatement.

A U.S. drone reportedly hit a target where it is believed Emwazi was holed up. Secretary of State John Kerry and British Prime Minister David Cameron cannot guarantee he was there.

Emwazi is — or let us hope was — a British citizen. He was born in Kuwait, moved to the U.K. as a youngster, was raised in a middle-class family, got a good education and then became a radicalized Muslim. He joined the Islamic State and became the voice of the terror organization; he hasn’t been the face, because he hides behind a mask whenever he is recorded committing those barbaric acts.

Let’s be clear on one thing. If Emwazi in fact was vaporized in that air strike, we shouldn’t high-five each other for very long. There will be others who’ll take his place. Just as others have stepped up to replace Osama bin Laden, the world is full of men with evil intent in what passes for their hearts and one of them would step into Jihadi John’s shoes.

Still, let them continue to run. They all must know they cannot hide forever.

 

national news, political news, State news

Sen. Cruz draws outrage … from the GOP!

cruz

Ted Cruz has had this problem almost from the day he joined the U.S. Senate in January 2013.

He thinks much too highly of himself and too little of his colleagues, many of whom have much more time in the senatorial saddle than the junior Republican from Texas.

The Senate leadership, led by Cruz’s fellow Republicans, has shot him down yet again.

And to think the leadership did so after Cruz called Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell a liar on the Senate floor earlier this year. Shocking, I tell ya! Shocking!

Cruz in trouble in Senate

He wants to shut down the government over Planned Parenthood funding. He’s griped about GOP senators being too willing to work those dreaded Democrats. He once accused former GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel of consorting with communist North Korea while Hagel was seeking to become defense secretary in the Obama administration. He once said John Kerry — a decorated Vietnam War veteran — lacked sufficient appreciation of the military; Cruz, by the way, never wore his country’s uniform.

Now the Cruz Missile is running for president of the United States and he’s running into trouble among his colleagues.

They keep pushing back on this young man’s efforts to obstruct whenever and wherever he gets the chance.

Cruz has his fans on the right and the far right. They’re with him in his efforts to shut down the government. They like his fiery rhetoric. They believe he’s capable of fixing whatever ails the nation.

A legislator, though, has to cooperate — even with those in the other party. If he fails to learn that fundamental truth about legislating — which is the making of laws — well, nothing’s going to get done.

Ted Cruz then will have nothing to show for his bombast.

 

International news

Iran deal is ‘approved’ by Senate … sort of

obama and kerry

It’s quite clear that President Obama cannot call his “victory” in securing the Iran nuclear deal a “mandate.”

It is, instead, a technical victory. Senate Democrats gathered up enough votes to head off a Republican-sponsored resolution opposing the deal. Thus, the president won’t have to veto the resolution.

GOP senator say they’ll keep bringing the deal up for a vote. Good luck with that.

Deal gets approved

I’m glad the deal is headed for “ratification,” if you want to call it that.

I’ll fall back to this notion in defense of the deal.

Israel is Iran’s target were it to build a nuclear weapon. The deal prevents Iran from obtaining a nuke. The United States has pledged repeatedly since the founding of Israel in 1948 to stand behind our nation’s most dependable Middle East ally. The pledges have come from presidents of both parties.

Whatever intention Iran has to wipe Israel off the planet would be met with severe force by any president who comes along in the future, regardless of political party.

It is better to talk our enemies out of doing something foolish than it is to bomb them into oblivion.

And, yes, you trigger-happy foes of this deal: Diplomacy always has its place.

International news

Nuke deal becomes partisan numbers game

iran nuke deal

There once was a time — it seems like an eon or two ago — when foreign policy decisions weren’t divided along party lines.

Those days are gone. Maybe they’ll be back. Eternal optimist that I am, I remain hopeful for a return of sanity in our federal government.

The Iran nuclear deal is the most glaring example I’ve seen of how partisanship now supersedes national unity in the face of threats from adversaries.

U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, became the 31st Democrat to endorse the deal brokered by Secretary of State John Kerry and officials from five other great powers. Its aim is to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Iran has insisted it intends only to provide energy for its people; of course, no one believes that.

Congressional Republicans appear united in their opposition to the deal. Democrats are mostly united in favor of it, although some have declared their intention to vote “no” when the issue comes up for a vote.

Merkley said something quite wise in announcing his support of the deal: “The future, whether we approve or reject the deal, is unknowable and carries risks. But the agreement offers us better prospects for preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and more tools and leverage to ensure that outcome.”

We cannot predict the future with absolute certainty, he said.

Democrat backs Iran deal

Is the deal perfect? No, but then again, when have we ever struck the perfect foreign policy agreement with anyone?

The agreement aims to derail whatever intentions the Iranians have of developing a nuclear bomb. It allows inspections of sites. It dismantles centrifuges. It allows the rest of the world to bring back strict economic sanctions if the Iranians are caught cheating on the deal.

None of that is enough to persuade Republicans to back it.

So, the world’s greatest military power is now showing to the world that its foreign policy team is being undercut by partisan political divides when it should be demonstrating an unflinching resolve to stand united against a rogue nation.

It’s turning instead into a numbers game, with Democrats seeking to pile up enough votes to filibuster Republican opposition to the deal while also gaining enough votes to sustain a certain presidential veto of any GOP rejection of the deal.

This is no way to conduct foreign policy.

 

International news

Netanyahu says it’s ‘not my job’ to dictate Iran vote

FILE - In this March 3, 2015, file photo, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gestures as he speaks before a joint meeting of Congress on Capitol Hill in Washington. House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, left, and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, listen. Relations between President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans have hit a new low. There has been little direct communication between Obama and the GOP leadership on Capitol Hill since Republicans took full control of Congress in January. Obama has threatened to veto more than a dozen Republican-backed bills. And Boehner infuriated the White House by inviting Netanyahu to address Congress without consulting the administration first. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — I dare say — is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

He told a delegation of congressional Democrats visiting him in Israel this week that it’s “not my job” to tell them how to vote on the Iran nuclear deal hammered out by Secretary of State John Kerry and representatives of five other world powers.

However, that doesn’t quite square with what he did earlier this year when, at the invitation of Republican U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, Netanyahu stood before a joint congressional session and — yep — told them in effect how they should vote on a deal designed to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Lawmakers visiting Netanyahu said the prime minister was respectful and frank.

He doesn’t like the deal. In many ways, I understand Netanyahu’s reluctance to deal with the Iranians. Their regime has declared its intention to wipe Israel off the face of the planet. The Islamic Republic of Iran isn’t to be trusted at any level, according to Netanyahu.

But President Obama, Kerry and all the participants say the same thing about the deal: It blocks “every pathway” Iran has to obtain a nuclear weapon.

Congress is going to take up the issue next month. A resolution calling for defeat of the deal is likely to pass. It’s also likely to lack the votes to overturn an expected veto from the president.

Never mind, though, that the Israeli prime minister isn’t telling members of Congress how to vote.

Wink, wink.

Actually, yes he is.

 

military news, national news, political news

Politics of ‘personal destruction’ bites the GOP

1 Comment

This comes from Bill Press, a noted Democratic Party loyalist, TV commentator, author, pundit and partisan gadfly.

He posted this on his Facebook feed today.

“You might say: ‘What goes around, comes around.’

“In 2004, it was OK for Republicans to attack war hero John Kerry. But suddenly in 2015, it’s not OK for another Republican to attack war hero John McCain. I’m sorry. That doesn’t work. To murder yet another aphorism: “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

“Don’t get me wrong. I think Donald Trump’s comments about John McCain are disgusting. I like McCain. I believe he’s the real thing: a genuine American war hero, who deserves the respect and gratitude of every American, no matter what you think of his politics.

“But Republicans can’t have it both ways. They can’t practice one kind of politics – and then whine and moan when somebody plays the same kind of politics against them.

“Two lessons to be learned here. First, the Republican Party should do what I suggested a month ago: Disown Donald Trump and throw him out of the party.

“Two, Republicans should stick to the issues and stop playing the politics of personal destruction. Because, eventually, it’ll turn around and bite you in the ass. It just did.”

I’ll add only this.

John Kerry and John McCain happen to be close friends. Their Vietnam War combat experience is their common bond. They worked together in the U.S. Senate to help establish diplomatic relations between the United States and Vietnam.

And Kerry, who’s now secretary of state, has strongly condemned the comments that Trump made about his friend.

International news

Diplomacy ought to trump war every time

2 Comments

Barack Obama could have invoked the late, great Winston Churchill at his press conference today.

Churchill once said it is better to “jaw, jaw, jaw than to war, war, war.”

So it is with President Obama’s defense of the deal struck with Iran that seeks to end Iran’s quest to acquire nuclear weapons.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/obama-iran-deal-defends-press-conference-120154.html?hp=lc1_4

I remain more or less undecided on the merits of the deal, but the president has posed a fascinating challenge to his critics.

Is it better to take military action to remove Iran’s nuclear capability, or is it better to use diplomacy to rid them of their nuclear ambitions?

Critics, Obama said, haven’t offered a credible alternative to the deal that struck by Secretary of State John Kerry and his team of international partners. They blast the 159-page deal with words like “appeasement,” “disaster,” and “historic mistake.”

So, what do they suggest? Do we send in squadrons of fighter-bombers to blast the nuclear plants into oblivion? Let the Israelis do it? Do we risk all-out war?

The great Winston Churchill had it right: It’s better to talk than to drop bombs.

Always.