Showing posts sorted by relevance for query john kerry. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query john kerry. Sort by date Show all posts

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

ZOMG! Teresa Heinz Kerry Released the 'First Two Pages of Her 2003 Tax Return' — How Dare You Deflect Attention, Mitt Romney, How Dare You?

I guess it's working, a little bit, at least. Recall my report yesterday, "Mitt Romney Hits Back Against Obama's Shameless Dishonest Attacks." Romney mentioned that John Kerry's wife, Maria Teresa Thierstein Simões-Ferreira Heinz Kerry, one of the worlds richest women, never released her taxes in 2004. Well, here's the correction to that, at the Boston Globe, "John Kerry’s office blasts Mitt Romney over inaccurate claims about tax returns" (via Memeorandum):

Teresa Heinz Kerry
In an interview on Fox News Channel Monday morning, Romney -- under pressure from not only the Obama campaign but also some in his own party to release additional tax returns -- suggested he is the victim of a double standard.

“John Kerry ran for president; you know, his wife, who has hundreds of millions of dollars -- she never released her tax returns,” Romney said. “Somehow this wasn’t an issue.”

In fact, Heinz Kerry’s reluctance to release tax returns, which she files separately from her husband, was a major story line during the 2004 presidential race. She eventually made public the first two pages of her 2003 return, which showed she earned $5.1 million that year, almost all of it from interest and dividends on investments. She paid $627,150 in federal taxes in 2003, only 12.3 percent of her total income.
Well, blow me down!

The first two pages! Neener, neener! Mitt Romney liar, liar pants on fire!

And checking back over at Memeorandum, the progs are all over this like it's the biggest scandal since Monica Lewinsky serviced Big Bill. And they're lying about it, at the aptly titled Crooks and Liars, for example:
While Romney is correct that Teresa Heinz Kerry declined to release any tax returns when her husband, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), ran for the White House in 2004, a candidate's wife is not usually held to the same standard as the candidate.
Oops! Not true, sorry. John McCain was under vicious pressure to release his wife's returns, and the Soros-backed Media Matters used the same lame Teresa Heinz Kerry comparison, "Several media outlets advanced comparison between Cindy McCain's and Teresa Heinz Kerry's release of tax info, ignoring key distinction." And Media Matters even deleted some of its smears, but the cached version of this one's still available, "Double Standard for Candidate Spouses."

Not such a double standard after all, it turns out. Ultimately, the McCain campaign released Cindy McCain's full 2006 tax returns, not just the first two pages: "Campaign releases 2006 tax filing for Cindy McCain."

Maybe some of the progs can set record straight? And kudos for Mitt Romney on turning back the left's false narratives. It's just a start though, so Team Romney better get cooking.

PHOTO CREDIT: Maria Teresa Thierstein Simões-Ferreira Heinz Kerry via Wikimedia Commons.


Monday, September 9, 2013

Secretary of State John Kerry Remarks with U.K. Foreign Secretary William Hague

Here's the full video and text via the State Department's page, "Remarks With United Kingdom Foreign Secretary Hague."

And at the New York Times, "Kerry’s Comments on Syria Are a Shift Over Strike":


WASHINGTON — When Secretary of State John Kerry dangled for the first time on Monday actions that President Bashar al-Assad of Syria could take to avoid a military strike, it seemed an acknowledgment that Congress, America’s allies and the Russians were all looking for an off-ramp for what a week ago seemed like inevitable military action against Syria.

The concept has taken on many permutations in the past five days, but its essence is this: force Mr. Assad to turn his huge stockpile of chemical weapons over to some kind of international control and recognize the international ban on chemical weapons. The appeal of the idea is that, if successful, it could create a far more lasting solution than a brief strike on Syria’s chemical weapons infrastructure, especially a strike that Mr. Kerry characterized Monday morning as “unbelievably small.”

Yet, experts on chemical weapons and the Syrian government said that it would be next to impossible to know with certainty where all of Mr. Assad’s sprawling, constantly moving arsenal is residing, much less who is controlling it. And flying it out of the country is not as simple as picking up nuclear components — as the United States did in Libya in late 2003 — and moving them to a well-guarded site in Tennessee.

Though Mr. Kerry also expressed skepticism that the Syrians would take up the idea, his comments were notable because as recently as the middle of last week he was not talking about any diplomatic initiatives to secure the stockpile. A proposal by Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, both junior members of the Democratic caucus, to give Mr. Assad 45 days to sign on to the Chemical Weapons Convention and begin to turn over his weapons had yet to catch Mr. Kerry’s attention.
There's more at the link. And see, "Video of the Kerry Remark Russia Seized Upon in Game of Diplomatic Chess."

And from Stephen Hayes, at the Weekly Standard, "The Way Out?" (via Memeorandum):
Is this the beginning of the White House turn?

At this point, it’s risky and probably futile to try to understand the ad hoc decisionmaking and zig-zagging public rhetoric of the Obama administration’s handling of Syria. But even before Barack Obama shares his latest thoughts on the crisis with the American people, in television interviews today and a speech tomorrow night, a new proposal and the administration’s eager response suggest another zig (or zag) might be coming.

Although State Department officials quickly moved to downplay Kerry’s comment, saying he was speaking extemporaneously and wasn’t making an actual proposal, the Russians leapt at the comments and offered to help Assad comply.
Plus, here's the controversy over the "unbelievably small bit, at Politico, "John Kerry under fire for 'unbelievably small' comment." Plus, "John McCain: John Kerry ‘unbelievably unhelpful’."

These people are all messed up, lol.

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Secretary of State John Kerry Excoriated for Israel 'Apartheid' Slur

Wow.

It's all over the place. Democrats, leftists, Beverly Hills liberals: It's just hate, hate, hate. Nonstop hate.

At the Daily Beast, "Exclusive: Kerry Warns Israel Could Become ‘An Apartheid State’."

Also from Erika Johnsen, at Hot Air, "Ted Cruz: John Kerry should resign over that “apartheid” comment."

A bunch of Democrats have even condemned Secretary Lurch.

See especially Jonathan Tobin, at Commentary, "Kerry’s Apartheid Slur Sabotages Peace":

Last Friday while speaking to a closed meeting of the Trilateral Commission, Secretary of State John Kerry raised the ante in his bid to keep his Middle East peace initiative alive. While lamenting the latest collapse of the talks, Kerry cast blame for the outcome on both Israel and the Palestinians but made it clear that the consequences for the former would be far more serious. In the recording of his comments, which was obtained by the Daily Beast, Kerry not only repeated his past warnings that if peace wasn’t reached Israel would be faced with a new round of violence from the Palestinians as well as increased boycott efforts. He went further and said that the alternative to an Israeli acceptance of a two-state solution was that it would become “an apartheid state.”

In doing so, Kerry exploded the notion that he is an evenhanded broker since he is, as he has done previously, effectively rationalizing, if not justifying the next intifada as well as the continued efforts of the BDS—boycott, divest, sanction—movement against Israel. The point here is that if the maintenance of the status quo will make Israel an apartheid state, then it must already be one. Given the odious nature of such a regime, that would not only justify the boycotts but also violence on the part of the Palestinians against Israel...
Keep reading.

But seriously. Democrat Party racism and eliminationism goes right to the top. Mindboggling.

More at the Daily Beast, "Kerry Apologizes for Apartheid Comments."

And at Twitchy, "‘If I could rewind the tape’: John Kerry clarifies ‘apartheid’ remark."

Friday, August 30, 2013

Secretary of State John Kerry Statement on Syria

At the Los Angeles, "John Kerry says Syria chemical attack killed at least 1,429 people":


WASHINGTON -- Unveiling a U.S. intelligence report on Syria’s use of chemical weapons, Secretary of State John F. Kerry said Friday the evidence shows President Bashar Assad’s government killed at least 1,429 of its own citizens in a “crime against humanity” that demands an international response.

Kerry, trying to overcome doubts about the Obama's administration’s anticipated military strike on Syria, said the intelligence community has documented with “high confidence,” from “thousands of sources,” that Syrian forces prepared for days to attack entrenched rebel forces and then, on Aug. 21, fired gas-filled shells that killed at least 426 children, as well as adults.

“This is evidence,” Kerry said in an appearance at the State Department. “These are facts. The primary question is what are we ... going to do about it?”
Kerry’s statement came at a time when the British government has pulled back its earlier support for any U.S.-led retaliatory strike, and some other governments and U.S. lawmakers are demanding more time to consider whether the evidence justifies an attack on Assad. But while some American and foreign officials have concluded that the evidence is not airtight, Kerry insisted that it is.

He said the intelligence community has evidence of the Syrian army’s careful preparations for the attack, including the way it ordered soldiers to put on gas masks.

Evidence also shows that the rockets were fired only from government-controlled areas, and only struck rebel-held zones, Kerry said. Also discovered was a record of a senior Syrian official confirming that the government used chemical weapons, he said.

Kerry added that the Obama administration has other evidence it can’t reveal to the public or lawmakers because it would put at risk intelligence “sources and methods.”

U.S. officials have signaled that a retaliatory cruise-missile attack on Syria could begin as early as Saturday night.
Also, at the Washington Post, "FULL TRANSCRIPT: Secretary of State John Kerry's remarks on Syria on Aug. 30." (Via Memeorandum.)


Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Israel Rejects Hamas Cease-Fire Negotiated by Obama's Terror-Enabler John Kerry

From Josh Rogin, at the Daily Beast, "Inside the Kerry-Israel Meltdown":


On Monday, Secretary of State Kerry took to the podium at the State Department to say that he was working with Israel and Hamas to negotiate an extension of their temporary ceasefire.

“Today, we are continuing to work toward establishing an unconditional humanitarian ceasefire, one that…will stop the fighting, allow desperately needed food and medicine and other supplies into Gaza, and enable Israel to address…the threat posed by tunnel attacks—and to be able to do so without having to resort to combat,” Kerry said.

An hour later, the Israeli military sent a text message to all Palestinians to stay in their homes and resumed strikes inside Gaza.

The resumption of violence was the latest example of just how disconnected Kerry’s whirlwind diplomatic efforts have been from the combatants he’s trying to get to stop fighting. The Israeli government has been particularly vocal in its criticism of Kerry’s peacemaker attempts. But in the Palestinian camps, there has been public discontent, too.

Ever since Kerry left the region Friday for Paris, he has been scrambling to patch together a series of short-term humanitarian ceasefires: first 12 hours, then another 4 hours. He was working on an extension Monday when the two parties decided to move on and resume their fighting. Kerry seemed unaware—or unwilling to admit—that his latest plan for a ceasefire extension was about to be rejected.
And the fact is, Kerry was pushing the Hamas cease-fire. At Free Beacon, "Israeli Officials, Press Criticize John Kerry’s Ceasefire Proposal: Kerry 'completely capitulating' to Hamas' demands."

Saturday, August 30, 2014

John Kerry's Demand for 'Global Coalition' Signals Cowardice, Weakness, and Appeasement

It's almost like a bad joke, although sadly this is for real.

The headline of Secretary Kerry's op-ed at the New York Times says it all: "To Defeat Terror, We Need the World's Help: John Kerry: The Threat of ISIS Demands a Global Coalition." (Via Memeorandum.)

Kerry proclaims the need for "a broad coalition" nearly a half a dozen times. And he tries to lend authority to his case by calling on the memory of "the first President George Bush and Secretary of State James A. Baker III," who raised a truly broad international coalition behind 500,000 American troops to evict Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991. The U.S. today would be lucky to get 500 "special advisers" in Iraq to coordinate the precipitous withdrawal of all American diplomatic and humanitarian personnel.

Kerry's essay is the modern equivalent of the "peace in our time" diplomacy of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in 1938. It's a statement of avoidance-at-all-costs foreign policy that is the hallmark of the Obama presidency.

Pamela Geller has more, "Hiding From Behind: “Global coalition needed to stop Islamic State”":
More weakness and cowardice from the jihad sympathizer in the White House.

In the wake of Obama’s catastrophic failure in Iraq and Syria, the Obama administration is laying off on everyone else. The “Junior Varsity” team has conquered whole swaths of the Middle East and there is no stopping them. At least not while Hussein is in the White House.

Obama’s Secretary of State John Kerry, a NY Times editorial, which I am sure the Islamic State reads every morning over the pile up of heads and corpses,  is a “global coalition using political, humanitarian, economic, law enforcement and intelligence tools to support military force.” Obama has no global coalition. He has alienated every ally we had. Unlike George Bush who had a “Coalition of the Willing” of 48 countries.

This is just another embarrassing example of Obama’s impotence. The rise of the Islamic State is a direct result of Obama’s foreign policy — the disengagement and dismantling American influence and power in the Middle East and the world. The spread of jihad is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever jihad wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles (paraphrasing Ayn Rand).

We have the military, cultural, and moral superiority to defeat jihad. We choose not to. A global coalition needs a leader. Has anyone called Stephen Harper?
And don't miss Tom Maguire, "Save It For The Funny Papers, Or, The Long Slow Flip-Flop Into Light."

(Via Memeorandum.)

BONUS: Fox News reports, "Kerry: The Threat of ISIS Demands a Global Coalition."

Thursday, July 4, 2013

Our Government in Action: State Department Denies John Kerry Yachting During Egyptian Coup

Look, it's 4th of July. Why not just say Secretary Kerry is staying in contact with all the relevant personnel and be done with it? It's not like he's going fly to Cairo and calm the waters, or anything. But in line with this administration's MO, it's lying liars all the way.

At Twitchy, "Twitter user: ‘Kerry sailed right by me yesterday on the Nantucket sound’ [photo]; Update: Boston Herald confirms Kerry is on Nantucket."

Also, "Cavalcade of conflicting info: Where in the world was John Kerry as Egypt lurched into chaos?" And at the Blaze, "CBS PRODUCER REFUSES TO RETRACT JOHN KERRY YACHT STORY — AND THERE’S A VIDEO THAT COULD HELP HIS CASE."

UPDATE: The dude Sam Hodges pulled his tweet, most likely due to Democrat harassment on Twitter. But the Boston Herald has this, "Kerry vacationing on Nantucket amid Egypt turmoil."


Monday, June 23, 2014

Nouri al-Maliki Commits to Formation of New Government in #Iraq

At the Wall Street Journal, "Iraqi Leader Commits to Steps on Forming New Government: No Word on Whether Prime Minister, Fallen From U.S. Favor, Will Seek a Third Term":


BAGHDAD—Secretary of State John Kerry said he received a commitment from Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to begin the process of forming the next national government in Baghdad by July 1.

Mr. Kerry met with Iraq's leader for nearly two hours Monday to stress the need for a new Iraqi government to unify its Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish communities against the mounting threat posed by the al Qaeda-linked militia, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, that has gained control of large swaths of western Iraq in recent weeks.

The top U.S. diplomat, in an unannounced, one-day stop in Baghdad, also met with top Shiite and Kurdish leaders Monday to press the same point.

"The goal of today was to get clarity," Mr. Kerry said. "Prime Minister Maliki firmly, and on multiple occasions…affirmed his commitment to July 1 when the Parliament will convene."

The Iraqi leader didn't immediately comment on his conversation with Mr. Kerry.  Mr. Kerry said at a news conference that it isn't Washington's place to choose the next Iraqi leader. But senior U.S. officials privately have said that Mr. Maliki, a Shiite, should not serve a third term because his policies alienated Sunnis and Kurds during his eight years in office.

The Iraqi leader hasn't commented in recent days on his commitment to a third term or if he'd be willing to step aside.  Iraq held parliamentary election in April, and the results were ratified by the country's judiciary last week. Under the Iraqi constitution, parliament must convene and first elect a legislative speaker and national president, before then choosing a prime minister.

Mr. Maliki's party won a plurality of seats in Iraq's 328-seat party and will need to form alliances with Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish parties to win the prime minister a third term.

Mr. Kerry's meeting with Mr. Maliki at his private office took place as ISIS seized control of shared Iraqi border crossings with Syria and Jordan in recent days, and consolidated its control over major Iraqi cities, such as Mosul.

"This is clearly a moment when the stakes for Iraq's future couldn't be higher," Mr. Kerry told reporters following his day of meetings in Baghdad. "ISIS is not fighting, as it claims, on behalf of Sunnis. ISIS is fighting to divide Iraq. ISIS is fighting to destroy Iraq,"  Mr. Maliki's leadership also has been questioned by Iraq's most powerful Shiite voice, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who indicated Friday that Mr. Maliki should recast his approach or consider stepping down.

"The things that the Iraqis need to do to kind of pull their country together are really things that the next government needs to do," said a senior U.S. official traveling with Mr. Kerry in Baghdad Monday. "It's a little late for the outgoing government, when there's no parliament, to do things to kind of pull the country together."
More.

Also at CNN, "Kerry assures Iraqis of U.S. support if they unite against militants."

ADDED: At the Hill, "Iraq gives US military advisers immunity."

Thursday, June 18, 2009

We're All Neocons Now

As I noted in a tweet last night: "It's clear by now that neoconservatism has been vindicated by events in Iran."

Well, here comes James Taranto,"
We're All Neocons Now":
Each day President Obama's blasé business-as-usual attitude toward Iran seems more out of touch with reality. Today's New York Times reports that the president "is coming under increased pressure from Republicans and other conservatives who say he should take a more visible stance in support of the protesters." But if you read on, it turns out "Republicans and other conservatives" are far from the only ones bothered by Obama's what-me-worry policy:
Even while supporting the president's approach, senior members of the administration, including Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, would like to strike a stronger tone in support of the protesters, administration officials said.

It sounds as though Biden and Mrs. Clinton are "supporting the president's approach" in only the most pro forma way. It is extraordinary that the two most senior administration officials apart from the president himself are airing their objection to his policies in this way.

True, the Times claims "other White House officials"--no names--"have counseled a more cautious approach." The argument these nameless and faceless officials make is that "harsh criticism of the government or endorsement of the protests could have the paradoxical effect of discrediting the protesters and making them seem as if they were led by Americans."

But who said the criticism had to be "harsh"? The trouble with Obama's comments is not that they are insufficiently belligerent in tone but that they are craven in substance. If the president spoke with clarity and firmness, his doing so calmly would be a plus.

Obama's insouciance does not seem to have appeased the Tehran regime:

So far, Mr. Obama has largely followed that script, criticizing violence against the protesters, but saying that he does not want to be seen as meddling in Iranian domestic politics.
Even so, the Iranian government on Wednesday accused American officials of "interventionist" statements.

Meanwhile, Obama has some of his liberal-left supporters sounding like frustrated neoconservatives:

Many Iran experts lauded Mr. Obama's measured stance just after the election. But some of that support evaporated on Tuesday when he said there was not much difference between Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Moussavi.
"For Barack Obama, this was a serious misstep," said Steven Clemons, director of the American strategy program at the New America Foundation. "It's right for the administration to be cautious, but it's extremely bad for him to narrow the peephole into an area in which we're looking at what's happening just through the lens of the nuclear program."
Mr. Obama's comments deflated Mr. Moussavi, who is rapidly becoming a political icon in Iran, even supporters of Mr. Obama's Iran policy say.
"Up until now, the president had very thoughtfully calibrated his remarks on Iran, but this was an uncharacteristic and egregious error," said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "People are risking their lives and being slaughtered in the streets because they want fundamental change in the way Iran is governed. Our message to them shouldn't be that it doesn't make much difference to the United States."

The Times's own Roger Cohen has written a column almost every day this week in an apparent effort to atone for his months of shilling for the regime. He has a ways to go but is definitely making progress:

The Islamic Republic has lost legitimacy. It is fissured. It will not be the same again. It has always played on the ambiguity of its nature, a theocracy where people vote. For a whole new generation, there's no longer room for ambiguity.

President Obama has said not a single word in acknowledgment of this new reality--paralyzed, perhaps, by the fear that in speaking the truth, he would antagonize the regime with which he dreams of negotiating. He would do well to consider the advice of blogress Ann Althouse: "When you think of what you might lose if you do something, remember to take account of what you might lose if you don't do it."

What could Obama say? How about something along these lines:

We are all inspired by Iran's peaceful demonstrations, the likes of which have not been seen there in three decades. Our sympathies are with those Iranians who seek a more respectful, cooperative relationship with the world.

The author of these words: John Kerry *. It's not as good as it sounds, though. Kerry, in a New York Times op-ed, says these things as a prelude to saying that no one should say such things. Which just goes to show that even John Kerry realizes no one cares what John Kerry says.

But Barack Obama is president of the United States. People do care what he says, and it is past time that he did his duty and spoke the truth.

* The haughty Massachusetts Democrat who by the way served in Vietnam. We omit "French-looking" out of respect for the French. As The Wall Street Journal noted in an editorial yesterday, France's Nicolas Sarkozy has taken a firm stand where his American counterpart has fallen limp.

See also, Stephen Hayes, "John Kerry, Neocon."

Plus, see my post from yesterday, "
It's Hard Out Here For Barack..."

More
debate at Memeorandum.

Monday, August 26, 2013

'Moral Obscenity' — Secretary of State John Kerry Slams 'Undeniable' Syria Chemical Weapons Atrocities; U.S. Prepares Options for Military Intervention

There have been numerous allegations of chemical weapons use in Syria over past year, but for some reason or another, the administration is ramping up the bellicose rhetoric in preparation for some kind of armed response. I can't help but think this is insincere (at least on President Obama's part) and that airstrikes and other military actions would serve as a classic "diversionary war" scenario designed to lift the president's horrifically sagging public approval ratings.

Listen to tough-talking John "Ditch-My-War-Medals" Kerry in this State Department press conference below.

And at the Wall Street Journal, "U.S., Citing 'Moral Obscenity' in Syria, Weighs Response: Kerry Calls Attacks 'Undeniable'; U.N. Reaches Attack Site After U.S. Issued Caution Over Mission":


U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that the use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians is a "moral obscenity," delivering the clearest indication yet that the Obama administration is preparing to attack President Bashar al-Assad's regime.

In a forceful statement delivered in Washington, Mr. Kerry called the attacks "undeniable" and said the administration has developed conclusive evidence that chemical weapons were used last week in the suburbs of Damascus, killing hundreds of civilians. Syria's delays in allowing international monitors to reach alleged attack sites implies its guilt, he said, adding that the U.S. and its allies are "actively consulting" on how to respond.

"Make no mistake: President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world's most heinous weapons against the world's most vulnerable people," he said. "Nothing today is more serious, and nothing is receiving more serious scrutiny."

Mr. Kerry's remarks represented the administration's opening statement as it contemplates military action, likely to consist of cruise-missile strikes on Syrian targets. A senior defense official said the strikes under consideration would be conducted from ships in the eastern Mediterranean using long-range missiles, without using manned aircraft.

"You do not need basing. You do not need overflight. You don't need to worry about air defenses," the official said. The goal of the strikes, the official said, would be to "deter and degrade" Mr. Assad's capabilities to prevent him from using chemical weapons again.

Mr. Kerry's statement came as United Nations inspectors faced gunfire from unidentified snipers as they set out to investigate reports of the chemical-weapons attack in a Damascus suburb.

The U.N. team turned back, but later in the day made it to Mouadhamiya, where one of the suspected chemical-weapons attacks took place. The team visited two hospitals, interviewed survivors and doctors, and collected samples, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in a statement Monday.
Well, by themselves, I doubt cruise-missile strikes will enough to achieve U.S. objectives, so in one way or another Americans should expect a major escalation of the U.S. military presence in Syria.

More at the link, in any case (via Memeorandum).

Monday, June 23, 2014

U.S. May Launch Airstrikes Ahead of Forming New Government in #Iraq

Following-up from my last entry, "Nouri al-Maliki Commits to Formation of New Government in #Iraq."

Now here's Michael Gordon, at the New York Times, "Kerry Says ISIS Threat Could Hasten Military Action":
BAGHDAD — Winding up a day of crisis talks with Iraqi leaders, Secretary of State John Kerry said on Monday that the Sunni militants seizing territory in Iraq had become such a threat that the United States might not wait for Iraqi politicians to form a new government before taking military action.

“They do pose a threat,” Mr. Kerry said, referring to the fighters from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. “They cannot be given safe haven anywhere.”

“That’s why, again, I reiterate the president will not be hampered if he deems it necessary if the formation is not complete,” he added, referring to the Iraqi efforts to establish a new multisectarian government that bridges the deep divisions among the majority Shiites and minority Sunnis, Kurds and other smaller groups....

While the political consultations continue behind closed doors, ISIS has become a growing regional danger. Its fighters have basically erased Iraq’s western border with Syria, which is expected to strengthen their position there. They have also taken the town of Rutba in western Iraq, which sits astride the road to Jordan and could head south from there to Saudi Arabia....

So great are the concerns that Mr. Kerry stressed on Monday that if American action is taken soon — President Obama has said that he is considering airstrikes — it should not be interpreted as a gesture of political support for Mr. Maliki’s Shiite-dominated government, but rather as a strike against the ISIS militants. Such a decision by Mr. Obama, Mr. Kerry said, should not be considered to be an act of “support for the existing prime minister or for one sect or another.”
I think there's more to it than that. Maliki is on edge, knowing that not just his government's on the line, but his life. No doubt he demanded prompt U.S. military action against ISIS, especially since Obama's precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces has created the worst nightmare scenario on the ground.

More at Telegraph UK, "Iraq crisis: John Kerry vows 'intense, sustained' US support in fight against Isis," and at the BBC, "Iraq crisis: Kerry vows 'intense support' to counter Isis."

And here's this tidbit from the Guardian UK:
A close ally of Maliki has described him as having grown bitter towards the US in recent days over its failure to provide strong military support.

Barack Obama agreed last week to send up to 300 US special forces troops as advisers, but has held back from air strikes requested by the Iraqi government. The gains made by Isis – backed by disaffected Sunni tribes and former Baathists – has forced the US to look to Iran as a potential ally.
Obviously, the U.S. doesn't want to give ISIS advance warning of pending U.S. military action, but strong victories on the battlefield should be a prerequisite for the formation of a new government. Note too that despite the administration's eagerness for a rapprochement with Tehran, for decades U.S. policy had been to bolster a strong Iraq against the revolutionary Shia Islamist regime in Iran.

Expect updates throughout the day.

Saturday, March 8, 2008

Did McCain Flip? Round Two With the New York Times

Here's the video of John McCain's confrontation yesterday with New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller (via Ann Althouse):

For the full story, check this MSNBC article, including this text:

Elisabeth Bumiller of the New York Times asked, “Senator, can I ask you about Senator Kerry. I just went back and looked at our story, the Times story, and you told Sheryl Stolberg that you had never had a conversation with Kerry about being about vice president...”

McCain testily replied, “Everybody knows that I had a private conversation. Everybody knows that. That I had a conversation. There’s no living American in Washington -- that knows that, there’s no one.”

Bumiller: “Okay.”

McCain: “And you know it, too. You know it. So, I don’t even know why you ask.”

Bumiller: “Well, I ask because I just read…”

McCain: “You do know it. You do know it.”

Bumiller: “Because I just read in the Times in May of ’04 you said….”

McCain: “I don’t know what you may have read or heard of, I don’t know the circumstances. Maybe in May of '04 I hadn’t had the conversation…”

Bumiller: “But do you recall the conversation?”

McCain: “I don’t know, but it’s well known that I had the conversation. It is absolutely well known by everyone. So do you have a question on another issue?”

Bumiller: “Well can I ask you when the conversation was?”

McCain: “No. nope, because the issue is closed as far as I’m concerned. Everybody knows it. Everybody knows it in America.”

Bumiller: “Can you describe the conversation?”

McCain: “No, of course not. I don’t describe private conversations.”

Bumiller: “Okay. Can I ask you…”

McCain: “Why should I? Then there’s no such thing as a private conversation. Is there (inaudible) if you have a private conversation with someone, and then they come and tell you. I don’t know that that’s a private conversation. I think that’s a public conversation.”

Bumiller: “Okay. Can I ask you about your (pause) Why you’re so angry?”

McCain: “Pardon me?”

Bumiller: “Nevermind, nevermind.”

McCain: “I mean, it’s well known. Everybody knows. It’s been well chronicled a thousand times. John Kerry asked if I would consider being his running mate.”

Bumiller: “Okay.”

McCain: “And I said categorically no, under no circumstances. That’s very well known.”

The 2004 New York Times piece in question ends in this way: "If Mr. McCain is offered the vice-presidential spot, people close to Mr. Kerry say, the request will come from the candidate himself and not through the campaign's vice-presidential vetting process."

"Asked if Senator Kerry had made such an offer, Mr. McCain said no without hesitation. But asked if the two men had ever discussed it, even casually, he paused for a moment. 'No,' he said finally. 'We really haven't.'"
Well, no wonder McCain's exasperated. The media's trying to take him down a bit, to help the Golden Child to a victory in November.

The whole thing's been blown out of proportion,
according to Captain Ed:

I agree with Michelle about learning a lesson in dealing with the mainstream media. Obviously Elizabeth Bumiller wanted to trip his circuits; she pulls out a story in 2004 about the invitation from John Kerry to join his ticket, hoping to get a reaction. She’s not looking out for his best interests, quite obviously, but trying to be deliberately provocative. After all, wouldn’t that be a question to ask before he had sewn up the nomination?

But his reaction seems rather mild, under the circumstances. He’s annoyed, sure, but hardly spitting and cursing. By the time she asks “Why are you so angry?”, the question is so inappropriate that he asks her to repeat it — and she declines, hopefully out of embarrassment.

Interestingly, the Times now has tried twice to get his goat, and for the second time, they’ve wound up with egg on their face.
That's a reference to the McCain lobbying smear. This isn't the last round, to be sure.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

How Will Barack Obama Confront Evil?

Noemie Emery compares and contrasts John McCain and Barack Obama's conceptions of and responses to evil in the world.

Questioning and confronting the nature of evil presents a fundamental challenge and responsibility for the next president, and from
Emery's essay, it doesn't look like Obama's up to the task:

The idea of America as a force for morality predates the founding of the nation. The first European settlers saw America as a noble experiment, a do-over for the corrupt and compromised cultures of Europe, and a chance in an unspoiled terrain of endless abundance to start the world anew. The Puritans saw themselves as the Children of Israel in a new iteration, delivered from bondage (in Egypt and England), escaped by the way of a perilous voyage (through the Red Sea, and over the ocean), and settled at last in their own land of promise, where their work for the Lord could begin. The Puritans built a religious community that they believed would serve to the world as a model of piety, under the terms of a covenant detailed by John Winthrop in 1630 that served as a template for the next 300-plus years of American history: "He hath taken us to be His, after a most strict and peculiar manner, which will make Him the more jealous of our love and obedience. .  .  . For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us."
Emery continues, suggesting that American exceptionalism was a touchstone of bipartisan foreign policy throughout U.S. history, most recently in the presidencies of both Kennedy and Reagan. Then she notes this:

For most of our history, American exceptionalism has run in the veins of both parties, with the Democratic presidents of the first two-thirds of the 20th century being among its most noted proponents, vigorously asserting American power in the name of transcendent ideals. Franklin Roosevelt was quick to define the Axis powers as evil, and to declare, the day after Pearl Harbor, that "the American people in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory," and succeeding Democrats, such as Truman and Kennedy, would carry through on his values.

But after Vietnam, something broke in the Democrats, who took that costly miscalculation as a paradigm for crusading done anywhere, and came to believe that power was dangerous, that assertion was folly, and that patriotic displays were signs of a slavish obedience, simplistic thinking, unwarranted arrogance, and extremely bad taste. Hubert Humphrey, a Cold War liberal who ran and lost narrowly in the 1968 presidential contest, was perhaps the last nominee of his party to be wholly at home with the World War II language of righteousness and victory. In 1972, Democrats nominated George McGovern, a World War II hero who had evolved into a born-again pacifist and believed the United States had "blood on its hands." From then on, presidential elections tended to be conducted between a Republican who was an American exceptionalist and a Democrat who seemed to be less so, with the three elections in which the contrasts were least striking--1976, 1992, and 1996--being the three that the Democrats won. In 2000, though, the year of the tie, Al Gore, seen as a defense expert and hawk, was pitted against George W. Bush, who talked of a foreign policy that was "humble but strong." But by 2004, Bush had become Woodrow Wilson with bells on, and defeated John Kerry, who championed "nuance" in foreign relations and deference to international bodies and European elites.

Kerry had once served as lieutenant governor under Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis, who in 1988 had run against George Bush's father in a classic campaign derided by critics as simple-minded but was based on a series of symbols relating to the concepts of evil, of force used against evil, and of America's mission and role in the world. One symbol the Bush campaign seized on was Dukakis's veto of a bill requiring teachers to lead students in public schools in the Pledge of Allegiance, which Dukakis saw as protecting a right of dissent, but others saw as a tacit endorsement of the belief that the country did not deserve having allegiance pledged to it. Another issue was crime, symbolized by a program Dukakis defended in which convicts ostensibly serving life sentences without parole were allowed out on unsupervised furloughs, in the course of which one murderer had raped a young woman and stabbed and beaten her fiancé--Dukakis refused to apologize or talk to the victims, though he had met often with prisoners and their families, leaving the impression he had a hard time telling the difference between predators and prey. He compounded this impression in the second presidential debate when, asked if he would support the death penalty if his wife should be murdered, he replied calmly, "I've opposed the death penalty .  .  . I don't see any evidence that it's a deterrent, and I think there are better and more effective ways to deal with violent crime." In the words of Roger Ailes, then the communications director for the Bush operation, "He became the defense attorney for the murderer and rapist of his wife." The public decided it preferred a prosecutor. Obama's meandering response to the question of evil at the Saddleback Forum seemed in some ways a Dukakis answer, unwilling to commit to the use of force in the containment of evil, and unsure of where moral lines lie.

John McCain betrays no similar doubts. "I know of no other country in the world with the generosity of spirit and the concern for fellow human beings as the United States of America, and I think that goes back to the very beginnings," he told a public service forum at Columbia University on September 11, 2008. "We are the only nation in the world that really is deeply concerned about adhering to the principle that all of us are created equal and endowed by our creator with certain rights. And those we have tried to bring to the world." But McCain was no longer speaking for all the Americans, as a candidate uttering those beliefs would once have been. The pollster Scott Rasmussen in the course of the 2004 election discovered a deep partisan divide on the issue of American exceptionalism. "Bush voters agree, by an 83-to-7 percent margin, that America is generally fair and decent," Michael Barone summarized Rasmussen's findings. "Kerry voters also agree but only by 46 to 37 percent. Fully 81 percent of Bush voters believe that the world would be a better place if other countries were more like the United States. Only 48 percent of Kerry voters agree. Almost all Republican voters believe in American exceptionalism. Only about half of Democratic voters do."

This explains the campaign of John Kerry, who tried to run both as the heroic vet and as the protester who had called out his country for sinister actions. When criticized for the latter, he complained (as had Dukakis) that Republicans were questioning his patriotism, which was not really the case. Anyone running for president must love his country, in that he wishes the best for it, and wants it to prosper. The question is whether Kerry and Dukakis were American exceptionalists, who believed in the civil religion of greatness and mission. And there is reason to think they were not.

Is Obama a patriot, like Dukakis and Kerry, in that he wishes the best for his country, and would do his best for it? Certainly, yes - the doubts about him involve his qualifications and his ideas, not his intentions. Is he an American exceptionalist, in the tradition of the Roosevelts, Reagan, and Kennedy? Probably not. On much of the evidence, he seems to share the beliefs of that half of his party who define the country in terms of its flaws and shortcomings, see force as a problem, and are embarrassed by patriotic displays. His wife has called the country a "mean" one, and said it had done nothing to give her pride in it until her husband had started to rise in the polls. He sees the country's tale less as a glorious effort to fulfill a great destiny than as a catch-up effort to atone for failures, which have always been numerous: "What makes America great has never been its perfection, but the belief that it can be made better," he has said, never quite saying it is good in this moment, or good when compared with what others were doing, or that it ever can be quite good enough....

Obama's notorious speech in Berlin reinforces these elements: Hope can solve anything, values are relative, and power has nothing to do with the ultimate end. Berlin was saved, he says, because "Germans and Americans learned to work together and trust each other less than three years after facing each other on the field of battle." In fact, the Germans had little chance to do otherwise: They tried to conquer the world, were bombed into rubble, were occupied, and then faced being overrun by the Soviet Army. Good and evil are relative: "The two superpowers that faced each other across the wall of this city came too close too often to destroying all we have built and all that we love." But it was only one superpower that caused all the problems, that "liberated" the countries conquered by Hitler by conquering them in turn; that tried to starve Berlin, and force the West into submission, that put up the Wall, put up the barbed wire, and shot those who tried to escape. And, of course, hope conquers all: "People of the world--look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one."

In fact the world has never stood "as one," so it has never faced a challenge of any description, and has never done a thing for its suffering people, in Berlin or anyplace else. During the Cold War, the world was as two (or sometimes it seemed at sixes and sevens) and Berlin was saved only when one side beat the other, after more than four decades of testing and tension, by the threat and the pressure of force. Berlin was saved because Truman sent in the Air Force, because Kennedy was willing to risk war over Cuba, and because Reagan went ahead with his defense buildup and missile deployment, while liberals screamed every step of the way. Hope can do wonders, but the American military has been a more reliable agent of human deliverance. "Conflict-resolution theory posits there are no villains, only misunderstandings," writes Victor Davis Hanson, but military history suggests otherwise. The Berlin speech was marked by "reoccurring utopian assumptions about cause and effect--namely, that bad things happen almost as if by accident, and are to be addressed by faceless, universal forces of good will." This has not been the view of America's heroes, who have always believed that evil exists, and the United States exists to confront it. How will America--and the world - fare with a president who rejects this tradition? We may be about to find out.

How does all of this play out in foreign policy? Recall Melanie Phillips' comments earlier:

Obama thinks world conflicts are basically the west’s fault, and so it must right the injustices it has inflicted ... the real source of evil in the world is America....

There are, alas, many in the west for whom all this is music to their ears. Whether through wickedness, ideology, stupidity or derangement, they firmly believe that the ultimate source of conflict in the world derives at root from America and Israel, whose societies, culture and values they want to see emasculated or destroyed altogether. They are drooling at the prospect that an Obama presidency will bring that about. The rest of us can’t sleep at night.
This is why an understanding of traditional notions of American exceptionalism is crucial to the occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Friday, June 26, 2009

Palin Hammers Kerry! "Why The Long Face?"

Via Conservatives for Sarah Palin, "Sarah Palin Talks to Camp Bondsteel Soldiers, 26JUN09"

Good stuff - thanked the troops, spoke about military spending and issues that concern people in uniform, mentioned that she will head to Germany to visit wounded troops...and stick through all the way to the end for a response to John Kerry's "joke":

Senator John Kerry makes this joke..I don't know if you saw this...but he makes this joke saying "Well, shoot, of all the governors in the nation to disappear, too bad it couldn't have been that Governor from Alaska."

Well, when he said it he looked quite frustrated, and he looked so sad, and I just wanted to reach out to the TV and say "John Kerry, why the long face?"

(laughter)
Governor Palin's on Twitter, and she is hot for freedom!

Love it to death!

Related: "
Sarah Palin, Neoconservative." And, Ben Smith, Memeorandum, RCP.

Friday, January 17, 2014

The Myth of the Poor, Oppressed Jihadist Never Dies

From Michelle Malkin, "John Kerry, Jihad Coddler":
The myth of the poor, oppressed jihadist never dies. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is the latest Obama administration official to peddle this odious narrative. Cue John Lennon’s cloying “Imagine,” don your plaid pajamas, and curl up with a warm cup of deadly naivete.

While meeting with Catholic Church officials at the Vatican in Rome on Monday, Kerry expounded on their “huge common interest in dealing with this issue of poverty, which in many cases is the root cause of terrorism or even the root cause of the disenfranchisement of millions of people on this planet.” In other words: If only every al-Qaida and Taliban recruit had a fraction of Kerry’s $200 million fortune, they’d all be frolicking peacefully with infidels on jet skis sporting “Coexist” bumper stickers.

This wasn’t a one-off. Kerry delivered a similar Kumbaya-style discourse at the Global Counterterrorism Forum last fall: “Getting this right isn’t just about taking terrorists off the street. It’s about providing more economic opportunities for marginalized youth at risk of recruitment.” Naturally, the Foggy Bottom apple doesn’t fall far from the Pennsylvania Avenue terror-excusing tree.

President Obama subscribes to the very same “midnight basketball” theory of counterterrorism. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Obama asserted that jihad “grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.”

The chronic cluelessness of the root-cause apologists of jihad never ceases to amaze. Britain’s MI5 reported in 2011 that two-thirds of the U.K’s jihad suspects were from middle-class backgrounds, “showing there is no simplistic relationship between poverty and involvement in Islamist extremism.” Thorough reviews of the empirical evidence shows, as the RAND Corporation reported, that “(t)errorists are not particularly impoverished, uneducated or afflicted by mental disease. Demographically, their most important characteristic is normalcy (within their environment). Terrorist leaders actually tend to come from relatively privileged backgrounds.”

Here’s a refresher cheat sheet...
Continue reading.

Monday, February 11, 2008

McCain's General Election Advantage

Remember when Kos lobbied Michigan Dems to cross over and vote Romney in January? The effort was futile in stopping the Straight Talk Express, but the episode helps to preview the abject fear of John McCain among the hard-left Democratic base.

As McCain's now the presumptive GOP nominee, look soon for some of the most vicious, radical anti-McCain smears to begin, especially after more and more reports emerge suggesting the Democrats enjoying
no prospects of a slam dunk in November.

For an awesome primer on the Democrats' problem, check out
John Fund at the Wall Street Journal, who nicely illustrates why McCain's the left's biggest nightmare this year (via Memeorandum):

The conventional wisdom is that Republicans start at a serious disadvantage in trying to hold the White House. A still-unpopular war and a softening economy certainly represent challenges. So far, most of the enthusiasm in the primaries has been on the Democratic side, with some 13 million voters casting Democratic ballots and fewer than 9 million picking a GOP one.

But despite these obstacles, John McCain will now begin to assemble his fall election team with surprisingly good poll results. The average of all the recent national polls summarized by RealClearPolitics.com show the Arizona senator leading Hillary Clinton by 47% to 45% and trailing Barack Obama by only 44% to 47%. Both results are within the statistical margin of error for national polls, so it's fair to say Mr. McCain starts out with an even chance of winning.

How could that be? The answer is that the same maverick streak and occasional departures from conservative orthodoxy that make conservatives queasy have the opposite effect on independents and even some Democrats. Mr. McCain's favorable numbers with independents exceed those of Barack Obama, who has emphasized his desire to work across party lines.

All of this plays out in the Electoral College map that is the key to victory in November. One candidate or the other must win at least 270 electoral votes. The assumption has been that Democrats have an advantage because they can supposedly win every state John Kerry took in 2004 plus Ohio, which has fallen on hard economic times and seen its state Republican Party discredited. That would give the Democratic nominee at least 272 electoral votes.

But Mr. McCain's rise to the GOP nomination throws that calculation out the window. He is the only potential GOP candidate who is clearly positioned to keep the basic red-blue template of how each state voted in 2004 intact and then be able to move into blue territory.

Let's assume that Ohio goes to either Mr. Obama or Ms. Clinton. It's at least as likely that Mr. McCain could carry New Hampshire. The Granite State went only narrowly to Mr. Kerry, a senator from a neighboring state, and Mr. McCain has unique advantages there. New Hampshire elections are determined by how that state's fiercely independent voters go, and Mr. McCain has won over many of them in both the 2000 and 2008 GOP primaries. He spent 47 days in New Hampshire before this year's primary and is well-known in the state. If Mr. McCain lost Ohio but carried New Hampshire and all the other states Mr. Bush took in 2004, he would win, 270-268.

It's true that Democrats will make a play for states other than Ohio that Mr. Bush won. Iowa is a perennially competitive state that could go either way this fall. Arkansas polls show that Hillary Clinton might well be able to carry the state where she served as First Lady for over a decade.

But Mr. McCain's roots in the Rocky Mountain West complicate Democratic efforts to take states in that region. His fierce individualism and support for property rights play well in Nevada and Colorado, which were close in 2004. New Mexico, next door to Mr. McCain's Arizona, gave Mr. Bush a very narrow 49.6% to 49% victory in 2004. But Mr. McCain's nuanced position on immigration marks him as the GOP candidate who is most likely to hold the Hispanic voters who are the key to carrying New Mexico.

Mr. McCain also puts several Midwest battleground states in play. Should he pick Minnesota's Gov. Tim Pawlenty as his vice presidential choice, he might have a leg up on carrying both Minnesota and Wisconsin, which went narrowly for Mr. Kerry in 2004.

"The media markets in western Wisconsin get Minneapolis television and are oriented to their news--Pawlenty would be a plus there," says Rep. Paul Ryan, a Republican. "McCain's independent stands would play well in that region--which is exactly where GOP presidential candidates have done poorly enough so that they lost statewide by 12,000 votes or so in both 2004 and 2000."

Mr. McCain can be competitive in other blue states. Michigan went Democratic in 2004 by only 3.4% of the total vote, and Oregon by just over 4%. The latest Field Poll in California puts Mr. McCain and Hillary Clinton in a statistical tie. If Democrats have to spend valuable time and resources holding down California, it will make it more difficult for them to take states they lost in 2000 and 2004.

Mr. McCain could even make a foray into the Northeast, where his support from Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Democratic Party's 2000 vice presidential candidate, could put Connecticut in contention. Ditto New Jersey, which Mr. Bush lost by only 53% to 46% in 2004.

Then there is Pennsylvania, which John Kerry carried by only 2.5% points in 2004. Michael Smerconish, the most popular talk-show host in Philadelphia, believes Mr. McCain has a real chance to carry the state. While Mr. Smerconish is a conservative who didn't support Mr. McCain, he thinks "the conservative blasting of McCain is good publicity around here." His independence and maverick status are exactly the qualities that could help him carry the tightly contested Philadelphia suburbs that voted to re-elect GOP senator Arlen Specter, a moderate, in 2004 but rejected conservative Rick Santorum in 2006.
I love this analysis!

I've noted many times that a runaway victory for the Dems this year is a fantasy.


Campaigns are always hard fought, and early polls end up being just snapshots in time.

I often cite the 1988 election as an example of what can happen, when we saw Michael Dukakis and the Dems resting on a nice double-digit lead heading into the fall campaign. The October Surprise that year was the decidedly evil mugshot of Willie Horton, an image that raised legitimate fears of the Democratic Party's revolving-door justice system in Massachusetts under Dukakis. G.H.W. Bush went on to beat the former Massachusetts Governor handily, taking 53.4 percent of the popular vote - and that's not mentioning the GOP's near Electoral College landslide, 426 to 112!!

Fund mentions the 1988 precedent, and throws in a little 2000 election data for good measure:

When you hear that the demise of the Republicans is a foregone conclusion, remember that when the campaign is joined this fall and voters will have to make real choices about the direction of the country, the result is likely to be close. Recall that pundits were ready to crown Michael Dukakis the winner of the 1988 election after he opened up a 17-point edge over George H.W. Bush. In 2000, they declared the race over around Labor Day after Al Gore opened up a clear lead over George W. Bush.
I identified the 1988 G.H.W. Bush/Dukakis comparison here.

Given this analysis, Republican partisans of all stripes - including those of the recently notorious irrrational right, see
here and here - have all the more reason to unify and rally behind the McCain ascendency.

Time's a wasting!!

We've got a campaign to be won, and the stakes are too high for folks to stay home (a point the radical netroots hordes haven't forgotten).

Sunday, November 10, 2013

Secretary of State John Kerry Has 'Doubts' Lee Harvey Oswald Acted Alone in Assassination of President John F. Kennedy

How bloody stupid.

This reminds of 22 years ago and the wild conspiracies of Oliver Stone's "JFK."

I swear leftists are the freakin' worst conspiracy theorists. And John Kerry's a flaming ghoul.

At CNN, "Kerry doubts Warren Commission report." (Via Memeorandum.)

He's clamming up now, the asshole, "Kerry won't talk about Kennedy conspiracy" (at Memeorandum).

And for a reminder, Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. There is no conspiracy except in the minds of radical leftists. See Gerald Posner's book, Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK.



Monday, March 31, 2014

U.S., Russia Talks Fail to Ease Crisis

At WSJ, "Kerry's Talks With Russia's Lavrov Fail to Ease Ukraine Crisis: Kerry Pressed his Russian Counterpart to Pull Troops Back From the Ukrainian Border":

PARIS—Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart appeared to make no major advances Sunday in a four-hour meeting aimed at easing the standoff over Ukraine, raising the specter of a prolonged crisis that threatens to bring broader instability to Europe.

Mr. Kerry, in remarks after the negotiations, said he received no assurances from the Kremlin that it would pull back thousands of Russian troops amassed on Ukraine's eastern border.

The chief U.S. diplomat and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov also didn't appear to reach any major common ground on discussions aimed at revamping Ukraine's political system. Mr. Kerry said his counterpart pledged Russia's desire to de-escalate tensions over Ukraine but offered no specifics.

"Any real progress in Ukraine must include a pullback of the very large Russian force that is currently amassing along Ukraine's border," Mr. Kerry said. "Tonight I raised with the foreign minister our strong concern about these forces."

Mr. Kerry said he would bring back to Washington proposals laid out by Mr. Lavrov on behalf of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

After the talks, Mr. Lavrov told Russian television that although the U.S. and Russia disagreed on the causes of the Ukrainian crisis, they agreed to "seek common ground to resolve the situation in Ukraine."

The Russian diplomat said he and Mr. Kerry had discussed "constitutional reform, in favor of which we stand together with the Americans."

Sunday's meeting was viewed by the U.S. as a test of whether Russia's surprise overture on Friday, when Mr. Putin called President Barack Obama to discuss a diplomatic resolution, was a genuine effort to start talks or a delaying tactic before another assault on Ukraine's borders. The outcome appeared to leave Russian intentions no less clear...
More.

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

The Worst Day in Diplomatic History

Here's Ambassador Charles Crawford, at Telegraph UK, "Syria, chemical weapons, and the worst day in Western diplomatic history":
Monday 9 September, 2013, was the worst day for US and wider Western diplomacy since records began...
And following a bit on John Kerry's bumbling statements about Assad giving up his WMD, Crawford continues:
Chemical weapons are relatively easy to make and store (and fire), but much harder to dismantle safely. The chemicals themselves are fiendishly dangerous and need to be destroyed with specialist equipment without creating environmental hazards. Plus the explosive part of the delivery shell needs careful handling. Destroying CW stocks is therefore a complex and expensive operation, even under calm conditions. Both the United States and Russia have both heavily failed to meet internationally agreed deadlines for destroying their massive Cold War legacy chemical weapons stocks.

There is no precedent for attempting anything like this in a country wracked by civil war. It just can’t happen. No Syrian chemical weapons will be destroyed or "handed over" quickly.
It's been a whirlwind couple of days, that's for sure.

And now the Wall Street Journal rakes the president over the coals, "Obama Rescues Assad":
What could be worse for America's standing in the world than a Congress refusing to support a President's proposal for military action against a rogue regime that used WMD? Here's one idea: A U.S. President letting that rogue be rescued from military punishment by the country that has protected the rogue all along.

That's where President Obama now finds himself on Syria after he embraced Russian President Vladimir Putin's offer to take custody of Bashar Assad's chemical weapons. The move may rescue Mr. Obama and Congress from the political agony of a vote on a resolution to authorize a military strike on Syria. But the diplomatic souk is now open, and Mr. Obama has turned himself into one of the junior camel traders.

What a fiasco. Secretary of State John Kerry, of all people, first floated this escape route for Assad on Monday in Europe where he was supposed to be rallying diplomatic support for a strike. The remark appeared to be off-the-cuff, but with Mr. Kerry and this Administration you never know. In any case before Mr. Kerry's plane had landed in the U.S., Russia's foreign minister had leapt on the idea and proposed to take custody of Assad's chemical arsenal to forestall U.S. military action.

The White House should have rebuffed the offer given Russia's long protection of Assad at the United Nations—a fact noted with scorn on Monday by Mr. Obama's national security adviser Susan Rice. Instead Mr. Obama endorsed the Russian gambit as what "could potentially be a significant breakthrough." The Senate immediately called off its Wednesday vote on the military resolution. By Tuesday Assad had accepted the offer that he hopes will spare him from a military strike.

France will press for a U.N. Security Council resolution supposedly for U.N. inspectors to supervise the dismantling of Syria's stockpiles, though Russia will no doubt try to put itself in the lead inspecting role. On Tuesday Russia was even objecting to a French draft that would blame the Syrian government for using chemical weapons. Mr. Putin also insisted the U.S. must first disavow any military action in Syria, even as he and Iran make no such pledge.

On second thought, fiasco is too kind for this spectacle. Russia has publicly supported Assad's denials that he used sarin gas, but we are now supposed to believe it will thoroughly scrub Syria of those weapons. We are also supposed to believe Assad will come clean about the weapons he has long denied having and still denies using.

Oh, and we can be confident of this because U.N. or Russian inspectors or someone will be able to locate the entire chemical arsenal, pack up arms that require enormous care in transport, and then monitor future compliance in the continuing war zone that is Syria.

Even if you believe this will happen, or is even possible, Assad will emerge without punishment for having used chemical weapons. He can also be confident that there will be no future Western military action against him. Mr. Obama won't risk another ramp-up to war given the opposition at home and abroad to this effort.

Oh, and we can be confident of this because U.N. or Russian inspectors or someone will be able to locate the entire chemical arsenal, pack up arms that require enormous care in transport, and then monitor future compliance in the continuing war zone that is Syria.

Even if you believe this will happen, or is even possible, Assad will emerge without punishment for having used chemical weapons. He can also be confident that there will be no future Western military action against him. Mr. Obama won't risk another ramp-up to war given the opposition at home and abroad to this effort.

Assad will also know he can unleash his conventional forces anew against the rebels, and Iran and Russia will know they can arm him with impunity. The rebels had better brace themselves for a renewed assault. At the very least, Mr. Obama should compensate for his diplomatic surrender by finally following through on his June promise to arm and train the moderate Free Syrian Army. Otherwise he runs the risk of facilitating an Assad-Iran-Russian triumph.
Continue reading.

This is perhaps the most devastating WSJ editorial ever. This sentence near the end really encapsulates things:
A weak and inconstant U.S. President has been maneuvered by America's enemies into claiming that a defeat for his Syria policy is really a triumph...
And:
America's friends and foes around the world will recalculate the risks ahead in the 40 dangerous months left of this unserious Presidency.
An utterly unbelievable disaster. What's not unbelievable is the total mendacity of the Obama operatives in the leftist press. I guess if anyone could wring a "victory" from the jaws of defeat it's the king of the juicebox mafia, Ezra Klein. As I tweeted:


It's almost like a dream, a really bad dream. But then again, as WSJ notes, we have 40 months left of this leftist-presidential nightmare.

Sunday, November 16, 2008

The GOP and the Latino Vote

Robert Stacy McCain minces no words with regard to the "archictect" of the GOP's presidential victories in 2000 and 2004: "To Hell With Karl Rove."

Why send Rove to the fiery depths? The "architect" says the GOP needs to get right with Latino voters. Here's
Robert's reply to Rove's suggestion that we need comprehensive immigration reform:

Transparent pandering on the wrong side of an issue is not a politically viable strategy for Republicans, since liberal Democrats can always outpander the GOP. If a majority Hispanic voters are not supporting the Republican Party, the reasons have more to do with socioeconomic factors than with a monomaniacal support for amnesty among Hispanics. If the only way to get more Hispanic votes is to endorse subversive policies, then the GOP ought to be happy with the support of whatever minority of Hispanic voters oppose subversion.
Rove doesn't specifically mention amnesty in the passages Robert cites, although just to mention the word "comprehensive" must throw base-conservatives into fits.

Beyond that, Robert's addtional comments border on stereotypical ignorance of Latinos.

As I point out in
my essay today at Pajamas Media, at least 20 percent of Latino voters are traditional conservatives with deep religious affiliations. The GOP blows off this constituency at its peril, and that's not even in the context of immigration issues.

But note the interesting point raised by Duncan Currie in his piece, "
Hispanic Panic":

Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart, a Cuban-American Republican from the Miami area, puts it bluntly: "We have a very, very serious problem." He is referring to the GOP's lack of support among Hispanics, which could derail the party's future presidential hopes.

In a September 2007 Washington Post column, former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson noted that "a substantial shift of Hispanic voters toward the Democrats" in five states - Florida, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico - "could make the national political map unwinnable for Republicans." All five of those states went for George W. Bush in 2004, and all but Arizona went for Barack Obama in 2008. Democratic pollster Fernand Amandi of Bendixen & Associates, which specializes in Hispanic public opinion, says that "the Hispanic vote played a crucial role, if not the determinant role" in helping Obama carry Florida, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico.

The numbers in Florida were especially striking. According to the exit polls, Bush won Florida Hispanics by 12 percentage points (56-44) in 2004, while John McCain lost Florida Hispanics by 15 percentage points (57-42) in 2008. In other words, between 2004 and 2008, the Hispanic presidential vote in Florida swung by 27 percentage points.

What explains that? Among other things, a decline in the relative strength of the Cuban vote, which remains heavily Republican. An increasingly large share of Florida's Hispanic population is made up of Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Mexicans, Nicaraguans, Colombians, -Venezuelans, Argentines, and other non-Cubans. Indeed, according to Bendixen & Associates, non-Cubans now account for a majority of Latino voters in the Sunshine State. (Just 20 years ago, says Amandi, Cubans represented around 90 percent of Florida's Hispanic voters.) It appears that Obama also did noticeably better among Florida Cubans than John Kerry did four years ago, thanks to the younger generation of Cuban Americans, though McCain still received a huge majority of the Cuban vote.

What about Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico? In each of these states, Latinos made up a significantly bigger portion of the electorate in 2008 than they did in 2004. The Pew Hispanic Center reports that the increase was 5 percentage points in Colorado, 5 percentage points in Nevada, and 9 percentage points in New Mexico. In 2008, Latinos accounted for 13 percent of the electorate in Colorado, 15 percent in Nevada, and 41 percent in New Mexico.

According to the exit polls, Obama ran 16 percentage points ahead of Kerry among Nevada Hispanics and 13 percentage points ahead of Kerry among New Mexico Hispanics. In Colorado, Obama actually ran 7 percentage points behind Kerry among Hispanics, but he still won 61 percent of the Latino vote and ran 8 percentage points ahead of Kerry among white voters.

Even in McCain's home state of Arizona, Obama won Hispanics by 15 percentage points (56-41). In Texas, Obama won Hispanics by 28 percentage points (63-35). James Gimpel, an immigration expert at the University of Maryland, predicts that Arizona and even Texas will soon become "blue" states thanks to their large and rapidly growing Hispanic populations. (In 2008, Hispanics were 16 percent of the electorate in Arizona and 20 percent of the electorate in Texas.)
There's more at the link.

Nationally,
67 percent of Latino voters turned out for the Democratic ticket on November 4th.

Frankly, no one was talking about immigration in 2008. It was all economy, all the time. Once Wall Street crashed, the GOP's strengths on character and national security went down the drainpipes. Thus, a good number of Latinos shifted to the Democrats this year on the basis of cyclical, even ephemeral, issues (not the least of which was the ethereal campaign of "The One"), and it's simply not good politics to write off the fastest growing demographic in American politics.

I'll certainly have more on this topic going forward.

In the meantime, the Politco's got a new piece up on the Latino vote, "
GOP Back to Square One With Hispanics."