Tag Archives: John Kerry

Uncategorized

JFK or the Gipper today? Forget about it!

Jeff Jacoby, the Boston Globe’s conservative columnist, believes John F. Kennedy’s name would be mud in today’s Democratic Party.

Perhaps so, given that JFK was no flaming liberal a la Barack Obama, John Kerry or Al Gore Jr.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/10/19/would-jfk-never-liberal-still-find-home-democratic-party/ZrxV7lJYHrvWxOjXItAuZJ/story.html

But allow me to finish the rest of that argument.

Just as Democrats wouldn’t embrace JFK today, the current Republican Party seems out of step with some of its own stalwarts — such as Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon and, dare I say, Ronald Wilson Reagan.

All this is evidence of just how polarized the political climate has become in America. It’s become a place where working across the aisle is anathema to the so-called “true believers.” The result has been a government that no longer works as it should for the good of the entire country.

Kennedy was a pro-defense hawk. He hated communists. JFK sought to govern with muscle and was unafraid to threaten to use military force against our foes if the need presented itself … e.g., the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962. A romantic thought has been kicked around for 50 years that had he lived and been re-elected in 1964 the Vietnam War would have ended much sooner, that Kennedy would have realized our involvement there was a mistake. I’m not quite so sure of that. Besides, who can know for certain what he would have done?

If we’re going to examine our partisan icons of the past, it’s good to look at all of them.

Goldwater is the father of the modern conservative movement. He became a classic libertarian who despised government interference in people’s private lives. Is that the GOP of today? Hardly.

Richard Nixon’s administration created the Environmental Protection Agency, one of the bogeymen that modern conservatives today want to abolish.

Ronald Reagan? Well, he made working with Democrats in Congress a virtual art form. His friendship with House Speaker Tip O’Neill became legendary, even while both men were at the height of their power.

They were icons in their day. Of the three GOP leaders of the past, only Reagan conjures up warm memories among today’s conservatives. My own view is that the Gipper would be disgusted at the open animosity his political descendants are exhibiting.

Uncategorized

POTUS faces key moment if Congress says ‘no’

Secretary of State John Kerry says President Obama can bomb Syria even if Congress votes against authorizing him to do so.

Not so fast, Mr. President.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/john-kerry-congress-syria_n_3881200.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

Kerry makes the point in an interview with the Huffington Post that the president, as commander in chief, retains the authority to authorize military strikes even if he doesn’t have the backing of the legislative branch of government. Yes he does, but …

There is a huge political calculation at home the president must consider, which the Huff Post notes. It is that the Republican-led House of Representatives seems almost certain to push ahead with impeachment proceedings against President Obama. That, in my mind, would be a grotesque overreaction. It is, however, part of today’s political reality in Washington. Those who oppose the president really detest him and his policies.

I happen to believe the United States must strike at Syria to punish the government there for using Sarin gas on civilians. Obama has threatened to strike at Syrian military targets; the military has drawn up plans; Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel says the military machine is ready to strike when it gets the order.

The strikes must be surgical, effective and must get the job done in short order. There must be a commitment that U.S. troops won’t storm into Damascus once the bombing stops.

However, the president is having a tough time selling this strike to reluctant lawmakers.

Should he act on his own, without their authorization? No. As the president himself said, in addition to being commander in chief, he also is the leader of the world’s largest representative democracy.

Uncategorized

Follow John Kerry’s lead, Mr. President

I’m beginning to think President Obama needs to change the way he views his administration.

Instead of referring to everything and everyone who works within the administration in the first person singular — as in “my national security team” or “my administration” — the president needs to start using the first person plural.

Bill McKenzie, a columnist and blogger for the Dallas Morning News, is on point with his view that Secretary of State John Kerry has been more “out front” on the Syria crisis than the president.

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2013/09/obama-needs-the-moral-clarity-of-john-kerry-but-what-are-conservative-isolationists-thinking.html/

Obama needs to follow Kerry’s lead.

To do that, though, he’ll need to start adapting to the view that the administration and its policies don’t belong to the man at the top. It’s a shared responsibility. “Our administration,” or “our national security team” would be the more appropriate way to define the team that occupies the White House, the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom and all the other institutions that comprise the massive federal government.

It’s all been a part of one element of Barack Obama’s tenure in the White House that has bothered me. The president tends to treat the government he administers a tad too personally — as if it all belongs to him. He took ownership of the presidency the moment he took the oath of office. The reality, though, is that the office actually belongs to us, the people.

I’m sure y’all have heard him use the first person singular perhaps a bit too liberally during his more than four years in office. Well, he’s now facing arguably the worst crisis of his time in the White House since the very beginning, when he walked into a financial firestorm.

The Syria crisis is testing the president’s resolve. His secretary of state, however, seems to be speaking with tremendous moral authority, not to mention outrage over the Syrians’ use of chemical weapons.

The man in charge of things in D.C., Barack Obama, ought to adopt John Kerry’s outlook — while understanding that everyone on duty at this moment has a shared responsibility to find a solution to this crisis.

Uncategorized

Did POTUS pull rug out from Kerry’s feet?

U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., poses an interesting theory that might open up some questions about the relationship between the president of the United States and his top diplomat.

Secretary of State John Kerry delivered an impassioned, emotional speech about the need to make Syria pay dearly for its use of chemical weapons on civilians — and then President Obama decided to ask the Congress for authorization before taking any action.

Rangel thinks Kerry should be “embarrassed” by the sudden switch.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/319883-rangel-of-course-its-embarassing

I have to agree with Rangel.

The timing of the two events does seem odd and more than a little clumsy. Kerry’s speech has been labeled one of the finest of his public career. Obama, meanwhile, had been talking tough and appeared to have been ready to strike at Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad’s forces. Then he stopped. Did the president flinch? Has he left the secretary of state, to borrow a phrase from the Watergate era, “twisting slowly in the wind”?

We’ll know in short order whether the juxtaposition of these events has damaged one of the Obama administration’s most critical relationships.

Uncategorized

Syria strike mission must send clear message

It took Dallas Morning News editorial writer and blogger Todd Robberson some space and time to make his point, but his fundamental message on a potential strike against Syria is spot on.

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2013/08/if-not-a-punishing-blow-to-syria-then-what.html/

We’ve got to hit the Syrians know that gassing their civilian population is unequivocally, without a shadow of a doubt and utterly wrong — and never must be repeated.

President Obama has laid down the marker. He said Syria crossed the “red line” when it used chemical weapons on civilians, namely women and children. He’s called it a violation of “international norms.” Secretary of State John Kerry called it a “moral outrage.”

The British Parliament has voted against Great Britain taking part in a military strike, which leaves the United States with the option of pursuing this mission basically alone.

Critics here at home, on the left and the right, are questioning the wisdom of such a strike.

But as Robberson says in his blog, U.S. credibility is on the line if it doesn’t do what it seems to be preparing to do.

Robberson writes: “Some warn that we shouldn’t intervene in Syria unless and until we have a clear military objective. We actually do have a clear military objective: To hit key Syrian military outposts, cripple their air force and send an unmistakable message to Assad that he will suffer severely if he ever contemplates using chemical weapons again. We’re not talking about putting troops on the ground or helicopters and planes overhead. Nor are we talking about lobbing a few cruise missiles into an open field the way we did in Afghanistan.

“We are talking about very precise, very loud and very destructive missiles capable of delivering an unmistakable message to a mass murderer.”

The commander in chief has a capable military apparatus at his disposal. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has said his warriors are ready when they get the order to strike.

We must hit the Syrians hard.

Uncategorized

Syria should present unifying threat

Suppose the president of the United States orders aerial strikes against Syria.

And suppose those strikes involve manned aircraft, piloted by young American servicemen and women who are thrust into harm’s way by their commander in chief’s order.

What will be our national response? Are we going to rally behind our commander in chief or will we second-guess, armchair quarterback and be openly critical — if not hostile — toward those who issue the order?

I’m hoping for a unifying effect.

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20130827-editorial-time-for-consequences-in-syria.ece

President Obama is weighing his options carefully. He’s meeting with congressional leaders, the very folks who insist that the president consult with them before taking action. He’s calling allies around the world, enlisting others to join in a coalition to strike against Syria, which used chemical weapons against its own people. Secretary of State John Kerry called it a “moral outrage,” and no national leader anywhere with a conscience can — or should — condone such an act.

It’s not yet clear whether we’re going to become involved in an all-out shooting war in Syria. Obama’s stated mission would be to punish the Syrians for violating a widely accepted tenet of international behavior. The use of chemical weapons crosses that so-called “red line” the president said exists in that conflict.

The late U.S. Sen. Arthur Vandenberg, R-Mich., once said that partisan disagreements must stop “at the water’s edge.” Will we heed the wise man’s words?

Uncategorized

No regime change? Yeah … right

White House press secretary Jay Carney says “regime change” would not be a goal if the United States were to launch a military strike against Bashar al Assad’s forces in Syria.

But if it happens, do you think the White House high command would mope over the outcome? Not for a minute.

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/318989-white-house-were-not-after-regime-change-in-syria

The Obama administration is clearly outraged over Syria’s use of chemical weapons against its people in the bloody civil war that has killed more than 100,000 people. Secretary of State John Kerry calls it a moral outrage. President Obama says use of the weapons crosses a “bright line” that separates diplomacy from military action.

The administration is consulting with congressional leaders now to assure them of its plans. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said today the military is ready to go if and when the order comes from the commander in chief.

Syria needs to be punished badly for this vicious attack on its own citizens, including children. The videos of Syrian children writhing in agony is almost too difficult to watch.

But if a military response is strong enough to bring about Assad’s downfall, then so be it.

Then comes an even more dire concern: Who will replace him?

Uncategorized

Why not visit Panhandle, Sen. Cruz?

It just occurred to me today, after commenting on Sen. Ted Cruz’s schedule of town hall meetings, that he’s not coming to the core of his support in Texas.

I’m talking about the Panhandle.

Cruz’s itinerary will keep him down state during his meet-and-greet tour. He’ll be talking to politically friendly audiences.

If that’s going to be his modus operandi during the congressional break, then he needs to come to where his support is really — as in really, really — strong. The Panhandle is known to be a hotbed of tea party support for any statewide candidate. Cruz has taken the next important step and actually won a statewide office.

As the junior Republican U.S. senator, he’s made a big name for himself talking tough about shutting down the government and questioning the commitment of real-life Vietnam War heroes, such as Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, to our national defense. I feel compelled to insert at this point that Cruz has never worn his country’s uniform, let alone in battle — as Kerry and Hagel have done.

So, what say you, Sen. Cruz? Can’t you find some time in your busy schedule to drop in on, say, Amarillo, for some flesh-pressing with those who just think you’re the bee’s knees?

If you come this way, I might even find time to attend your session and when you open the floor up to questions, I might even challenge you to explain why you believe shutting down the federal government is good for the country.

Uncategorized

Kerry to get Nobel Peace Prize?

Israel and the Palestinian Authority have commenced peace talks in secret.

If the talks prove successful and the ancient enemies — the Israelis and the Palestinians — actually forge a working peace agreement, I have a candidate for next year’s Nobel Peace Prize: Secretary of State John Kerry.

http://news.yahoo.com/israelis-palestinians-kick-off-peace-talks-182226376.html

Kerry managed to persuade the two sides to restart talks that would seek a so-called “two-state solution” to the longstanding conflict. The Palestinians want an independent state next to Israel. The Israelis are now talking about that outcome being acceptable — under certain conditions. One of them would be that the Palestinians would stop shelling Israeli homes. The two sides have until October to seal the deal.

Meanwhile, Kerry and the Israelis will need to hammer out some solution to the continuing construction of settlements in territory that Israel captured during the Six-Day War in 1967. The Palestinians say the settlements are a barrier to a peace agreement; the Israelis say they are necessary to keep the Palestinians at bay.

I’m not an expert on Israeli-Palestinian relations, but I have seen up close just how precarious the situation is within Israel. I’ve visited cities — such as Sderot and Ashkelon — that have been shelled by Palestinians living in Gaza I understand the Israelis’ fear of continuing attacks on civilians. I’ve been able to peer into Gaza from just outside the region’s border with Israel.

Gaza is governed by Hamas, the infamous terrorist organization dedicated to Israel’s destruction. Whatever comes out of these peace talks, there must be some accounting for how to handle Hamas and to reel in the terrorists who continue to rein violence down on Israel.

Secretary Kerry has many decades of international experience under his belt. He knows the players on both sides personally. The civilized world, therefore, should be pulling for a successful resolution to these talks. Peace must come to the Holy Land.

If it does, John Kerry should start working on his Peace Prize acceptance speech.

Uncategorized

RNC concern for fairness: real or contrived?

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus has issued a stern warning to NBC and CNN: Don’t air films about Hillary Rodham Clinton to avoid being shut out of Republican presidential debates during the 2016 election season.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315513-rnc-warns-nbc-cnn-to-drop-clinton-projects-or-lose-2016-debates

I can’t pretend to know what’s in anyone’s heart, but Priebus says showing such a film would create an unfair advantage for the former first lady/senator/secretary of state were she to run against a Democratic Party primary field. Oh, he also mentions the advantage she’d have against the Republican nominee in the fall campaign, were she to be nominated by the Democrats.

“This suggests a deliberate attempt at influencing American political opinion in favor of a preferred candidate,” Priebus wrote. “I find this disturbing and disappointing.”

You know what? I think he might have a point. I wonder, though, about the wisdom of cutting the networks out of the debate process by showing the film. CNN is planning a feature-length film about HRC’s public service career; NBC is planning to air a four-part miniseries.

A couple of questions need fleshing out, however. Will these films look at the bad along with the good? No one in the know is saying how HRC will be portrayed. The best option would be characterize her in a neutral light — which wouldn’t be nearly good enough for those on the right who despise her so deeply. It might not be good enough, either, for those on the left who support her so ardently.

Make no mistake that Hillary Clinton is a compelling public figure. Still, it’s not yet been determined whether she’s actually going to run for president in 2016. Everyone with an opinion on the matter seems to think she is a shoo-in to seek the White House one final time.

Stranger things than a surprise announcement to the contrary, though, can and have happened.

Stay tuned.