Tag Archives: John Kerry

national news, political news

McCain might run again … for the Senate

John McCain confounds me .

The Arizona Republican is at once an admirable man, a genuine war hero, an annoying gadfly, a petulant loser and a real-life expert on foreign policy.

The senator, who’s 78, says he might run for a sixth term in 2016 but observers say he’s going to get a serious tea party challenge if he suits up for another senatorial campaign. He got a stout challenge in 2010, but thrashed former U.S. Rep. J.D. Hayworth by 25 percentage points.

McCain gets ready for race of his life

I think he ought to run at least once more if he’s up to it.

McCain’s biography is well-known. He was a Navy aviator, shot down over Hanoi during the Vietnam War and held captive for more than five years. He suffered terrible torture at the hands of his captors.

His career in public office has been marked by amazing ups and downs.

McCain has run twice for president, nominated by the GOP in 2008, when he lost to Barack Obama.

He’s been a friend of the “liberal” media, which has ticked off conservatives to no end. He’s no liberal, however. He’s voted consistently with the right wing of his party throughout his lengthy career.

Yet … when he carps about President Obama’s decisions he sounds like a sore loser.

Still, he maintains friendships with colleagues on the other side, particularly those with whom he shares combat experience. He has defended the character of his friends John Kerry and Chuck Hagel, both of whom now serve in the president’s Cabinet.

Indeed, my favorite McCain moment might be the time he scolded Senate newcomer Ted Cruz, R-Texas, when Cruz questioned Hagel’s patriotism when Hagel was being examined by the Senate to be defense secretary.

McCain is one of those senators I’d like to meet one day. It won’t happen. If I had the chance I’d likely ask him: Senator, do you confound and confuse some of us intentionally, or is that just a byproduct of a complex personality?

International news

Not the U.S. fight alone

President Obama said it correctly.

The fight against the Islamic State does not mean the United States wages this battle alone. ISIL presents a worldwide threat and therefore the world — or at least those nations closest to the threat — must step up.

Five of them have done so as air strikes have begun in Syria.

http://news.msn.com/us/obama-says-arab-support-shows-this-is-not-americas-fight-alone

It is to the great credit of Secretary of State John Kerry that he was able to cobble together a coalition of Arab states to take part in this fight alongside American service personnel. French fighter aircraft already have joined U.S. pilots in hitting ISIL targets in neighboring Iraq.

Obama said, “America is proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with these nations. This is not America’s fight alone.”

So the fight has been joined with the Islamic State in Syria. Does this mean we’re now cozying up to Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian dictator who remains an enemy of the United States? Not in the least, although U.S. commanders did alert Assad in advance that the air strikes against ISIL targets would commence.

The pressure must remain on the Arab states to stay in the fight for as long as it takes to put down these terrorist monsters, who have made it clear they intend to target Americans for future heinous acts.

Yes, the fight will take some time to complete. It must be done.

International news, national news, political news

Why so many speeches at these hearings?

This is not exactly a scoop, but I thought I’d ask it anyway: Why do members of Congress have to make speeches when they’re assembled to seek answers to questions from key government officials?

http://www.politico.com/livestream/

It’s happening as I write this brief blog post.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is quizzing Secretary of State John Kerry about the U.S. plan to defeat and destroy the Islamic State. But without fail, from senators on both sides — Democrats and Republicans — are embarking on long-winded soliloquies before getting to whatever question they want answered from the nation’s top diplomat.

Kerry, of course, knows the score. He served in the Senate for nearly three decades and engaged in some tiresome speechmaking while grilling witnesses before the very committee he once chaired.

Many of out here in the Heartland know what gives, too. Politicians by definition usually are in love with the sound of their own voices. So they want to hear themselves being heard, yes?

I’m reminded of the time during Senate confirmation hearings to decide whether Samuel Alito should join the U.S. Supreme Court. The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee gave each senator 30 minutes to “ask questions” of the nominee. Then it came to Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del. CNN put a clock on Biden, who then pontificated for more than 28 minutes.

Biden eventually asked the question and Alito had less than two minutes to respond. Time ran out and the chairman called on the next senator.

I’d much rather hear what a witness has to say hear for the umpteenth time what a senator of House member thinks about this or that issue.

International news, national news, political news

Did we abandon an ISIL captive?

My heart breaks for Diane Foley, whose son James was beheaded by Islamist terrorists.

Accordingly, I can understand her bitterness that the U.S. government perhaps could have done more to save her son’s life.

Perhaps.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/12/us/james-foley-mother-us-response/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Is it fair, though, so soon after this terrible tragedy to suggest the government failed to do all it could do to secure the journalist’s release?

It’s been revealed that in July the U.S. sent a Special Forces team into Syria to rescue Foley. It failed. The team arrived at where it thought Foley was being held but discovered only an empty building.

Diane Foley now alleges that national security officials threatened her with prosecution if she continued to raise money to pay a ransom for her son. Indeed, U.S. law now prohibits the government from negotiating with terrorists. It’s unclear — to me at least — just how Ms. Foley intended to pay the money if she was able to raise the amount the terrorists demanded.

Secretary of State John Kerry — who’s in Turkey seeking to build an international coalition to fight ISIL — adamantly denies any personal knowledge of a prosecution threat. Kerry told reporters: “I can tell you that I am totally unaware and would not condone anybody that I know of within the State Department making such statements.”

Quite clearly nothing can bring James Foley back. As for U.S. law prohibiting negotiating with terrorists, it needs to stay on the books.

A mother’s grief is overwhelming. A nation still mourns her son’s gruesome death. But let’s not overlay that grief with an understanding of what the government did — or couldn’t do under the law — to secure her son’s freedom.

Let’s concentrate instead on finding the murderers and administering battlefield “justice,” which is what the president and secretary of state already have vowed to do.

International news, national news, political news

OK, it's official: We're at war

Is it war or is it a counter-terrorism campaign?

I’d thought out loud in an earlier blog post that the terminology didn’t matter. We’re going after the Islamic State with heavy weapons. Secretary of State John Kerry — who’s been to war … in Vietnam — was reluctant to use that term. Now the commander in chief, Barack Obama, says we’re “at war” with ISIL.

http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-makes-official-us-war-220808683.html

Let’s be mindful, though, of what this “war” actually means, or doesn’t mean.

It doesn’t mean we’re going to take over a foreign capital, run up the Stars and Stripes and declare victory. Nor does it mean we’re going to receive surrender papers from a foreign government aboard some warship. It won’t result in our rebuilding (I hope) some nation that we’ve blown to smithereens trying to root out and kill terrorists.

What the “war” means is that we’re going to be in this fight for perhaps well past the foreseeable future. I suspect we’ll still be fighting this “war” when Barack Obama leaves office on Jan. 20, 2017. He’ll hand the battle plans over to his successor, wish that person good luck and then the new commander in chief will be left with trying to kill all the ISIL fighters our military can find.

The war against terrorism is something we launched after 9/11. Everyone in America knew the war wouldn’t have an end date. Heck, there really wasn’t an strategy to conclude the war when President Bush declared it after the terrorists killed thousands of Americans on that terrible Tuesday morning 13 years ago.

I still don’t give a damn what we call this conflict. If it’s war, then we’re going to have to redefine how we know when it’s over.

First, though, we’ll likely have to redefine when it ends. Good luck with that.

International news, national news, political news

War or counter-terrorism effort?

We’re beginning now to parse the meaning of the word “war” and whether our effort to destroy the Islamic State means we’ve entered yet another armed conflict.

Secretary of State John Kerry disputed that terminology, declaring that the United States is embarking on a comprehensive “counter-terrorism” campaign to eradicate the hideous terrorists.

It doesn’t matter one damn bit to me what we call it.

All of this harkens back to when we declared “war” on international terrorism. President Bush reacted to the 9/11 attacks by tossing out the Taliban in Afghanistan. In doing so, he said the nation would be waging a multi-front war against terrorists, hunting them down wherever they lurked or hid.

Indeed, the 9/11 attacks on Washington and New York served — if you’ll pardon the use of this term — the Mother of All Wakeup Calls to this country. We’ve known about terrorists. We’ve understood intellectually they can do us harm. However, the 9/11 attacks were so brilliantly conceived and executed — and it pains me terribly to say it that way — that we were forced to ratchet up our vigilance to unprecedented levels.

So the war goes on.

Our campaign now to eradicate the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant can be called a war, or it can be called a counter-terrorism offensive.

I don’t care what they call it. The strategy just announced by President Obama is a continuation of what we’ve been doing ever since the terrorists committed their heinous act 13 years ago.

It’s a new kind of conflict with a new kind of enemy. I’m still hoping to learn how in the world we’ll ever be able to declare victory.

Uncategorized

Iraq crisis produces huge scramble

It’s becoming harder to keep up with all the competing interests in the burgeoning crisis in Iraq.

Consider the complexity of it:

* The Sunnis want to take the government back from the Shiites. Saddam Hussein was a Sunni Muslim. The current Iraqi prime minister is a Shiite.

* The insurgents fighting the government, led by ISIS, are deemed to be more violent than al-Qaeda, which has disavowed any association with ISIS.

* Iran is an Islamic republic governed next door to Iraq by Shiites also, but the Iranians detest the United States, which is involved up to its eyeballs in trying to broker a political solution.

* U.S. officials now are considering asking Iran for help in negotiating a deal.

* ISIS also is involved in the Syrian civil war, with rebels seeking to overthrow the dictatorship run by Bashar al-Assad.

* President Obama has ruled out “ground troops” returning to Iraq, but is sending in about 300 “advisers” to assist the Iraqi military in its fight against ISIS.

* The Kurds in northern Iraq also want a say in a “unity government,” which could include Sunnis and Shiites.

I need to keep sitting down. My head is spinning.

How in the world does a regular human being navigate his or her way through this mess?

http://time.com/2916436/kerry-back-in-iraq-meets-kurdish-leader/

Uncategorized

'Incomprehensible' to leave soldier behind

Secretary of State John Kerry couldn’t be more correct in validating the decision to bring Bowe Bergdahl home from his Taliban captivity.

“What I know today is what the president of the United States knows, that it would have been offensive and incomprehensible to consciously leave an American behind, no matter what, to leave an American behind in the hands of people who would torture him, cut of his head, do any number of things,” he said in an interview with CNN. “And we would consciously choose to do that? That’s the other side of this equation. I don’t think anybody would think that’s an appropriate thing to do.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/208598-kerry-released-gitmo-detainees-could-return-to-fight

The debate over Sgt. Bergdahl’s release is raging. I, too, have questions about it. I want to know if he deserted his post. I want to understand the circumstances surrounding his captivity.

We’ll get those answers in due course.

However, the notion that Americans might consciously leave someone behind as we wind down our war effort in Afghanistan chills me to the bone. Yet some of Bergdahl’s harshest critics have pronounced him guilty of treason — without due process — and said that a traitor should be left to rot.

It’s clear the Obama administration mishandled many aspects of this matter. It’s been a public relations nightmare.

The bottom line, though, is that an American soldier is safe.

If he did something wrong, then let the military adjudicate it.

Uncategorized

Let the man practice law

Byron York, a conservative columnist and commentator for Fox News, thinks it’s somehow the public’s business that John Edwards has returned to his first passion: personal-injury law.

Big deal.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/john-edwards-chasing-ambulances-again/article/2548894

Edwards once was a U.S. senator from North Carolina. He ran for vice president on a Democratic ticket led by John Kerry. They lost in 2004 by a narrow margin; a swing of some 70,000 votes in Ohio (out of more than 5 million cast in that state) would have elected the Kerry-Edwards ticket over the George W. Bush-Dick Cheney ticket.

Then came another run for the presidency four years later, the adultery scandal, the birth of Edwards’s daughter to a woman other than his wife, his separation from Elizabeth, who then died of cancer.

Edwards’s political career is finished. That, I submit, is a very good thing.

I personally don’t care what he does with his private life or his private law practice.

In fact, I would prefer he’d disappear from public view.

If only his notable right-wing critics would just allow it.

Uncategorized

Speak carefully … always

Secretary of State John Kerry is the latest victim of the urge to record everything everyone says every time they say it.

That does not for a moment excuse what he said the other day in what was supposed to be a closed-door meeting, which is that Israel may be turning into an “apartheid state” if it doesn’t hammer out a peace agreement with the Palestinian Authority.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/04/john-kerrys-private-remarks-taped-by-reporter-187578.html?hp=l8

The term “apartheid” is poison in polite international policy company. South Africa implemented that disgraceful policy for many decades in which it denied the black majority living there the rights of citizenship. Whites and blacks couldn’t interact with each other. The policy ended with the release from prison in the early 1990s of the late Nelson Mandela. The rest is history.

Kerry’s use of the term at the very least was careless. It well may have damaged U.S.-Israel relations beyond repair.

Why wasn’t he smarter than to make his point another way? Didn’t he learn from recent history, such as the time Mitt Romney was caught on an audio recording at a fundraising dinner making his infamous “47 percent” remarks about how nearly half of Americans are going to vote Democratic because they depend on government subsidies and handouts? Didn’t he learn from the video recording of Congressman Vance McAllister making out with his staffer? There are countless other instances of people in high places being caught saying and doing things they regret because someone had a recording device hidden somewhere.

A Daily Beast reporter recorded Kerry’s statements the other day, getting past detection and apparently not heeding ground rules stipulating the meeting wasn’t open to the public.

In this world of instant communication where everyone has a set of electronic eyes and ears, the only response simply is: Too bad.