Dan Senor and William Kristol's institute feel Kerry is too open to negotiations with North Korea

[karynnj]

The Policy Iniative, whose board of directors include Dan Senor, William Kristol, and Robert Kagan are unhappy with John Kerry's "tone".
( http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/about/staff )

From the Christian Science Monitor,

Has the US relaxed the conditions under which it might talk with North Korea?

That question arises due to statements made by Secretary of State John Kerry over the weekend. In Tokyo on an East Asia swing, Secretary Kerry said Pyongyang would find a “ready partner” in the US if it began to give up its nuclear ambitions. Kerry added that he might dispatch a US representative to discussions in North Korea or talk through backchannels if North Korean officials first made the right concessions.

“I’m not going to be so stuck in the mud that an opportunity to actually get something done is flagrantly wasted because of a kind of predetermined stubbornness,” Kerry told US-based reporters.

For instance, the conservative Foreign Policy Initiative on Monday issued a statement titled “Kerry’s Dangerous Overtures on North Korea.”

Here is a link to their article that the Christian Science Monitor gives - http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/content/fpi-bulletin-kerry%E2%80%99s-dangerous-overtures-north-korea

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2013/0415/North-Korea-nuclear-talks-Did-John-Kerry-soften-conditions-video

Here, the article points out that nothing Kerry said could be seen as policy change, but they are concerned that his tone suggests a willingness to use diplomacy -- something a diplomat really should do. Their article calls on Obama to rebuke Kerry for suggesting that the US could decrease (the recent additional missiles) - and lies about the condition Kerry stated - that China is successful in getting NK to move to denucleurization.


Their alternative appears to be uniting with China to affect change. Apparently, they ignore that that was EXACTLY what Senator Kerry was speaking of. This suggests that they simply want to paint Kerry - and through him - Obama as weak. The fact that these are among the people Romney would have turned to - you can imagine the number of wars we would be in had Romney won.

[bigtree]

1. Kristol's the danger

. . .twisting Kerry's words out of context.

The condemnations and warnings came first; the reconciliation was led by South Korean officials and Kerry was just affirming our current policy of being open to talks IF North Korea agreed to abandon their nuclear and antagonistic military policy and stance.

[karynnj]

3. Exactly, but note that he is not able to twist the actual words out of context

So, they complain of tone and they claim he said something that he did not say - this is pretty weak, but I hope that the State department reiterates what Kerry actually said.

In a war weary country, I suspect that Kristol has very little to gain here. The other danger is that (a la Iraq) he is taking the ONE study that suggests what most experts disagree with as PURE TRUTH. It may be that the big story of this trip is that the Obama administration is NOT taking one piece of questionable analysis as justification for a military strike.

I think Obama and Kerry are due praise for:

1) NOT throwing gasoline on an already explosive issue
2) Carefully working with China, South Korea and Japan - and I suspect, Russia
3) The world expected a missile launch yesterday - and it could still happen - but if it doesn't that is significant.

[blm]

8. Majority of us voted FOR Dem use of diplomacy over GOPs dumb warmongering

in 2008 and 2012. Señor wants to go back to the Bush way. Bush would have had a North Korea War Group in place months ago.

[malaise]

2. People listen to Dan Senor

Give me a break please

[karynnj]

5. No one here will - but Romney did have him as a lead foreign policy surrogate

and his (and Kagan and Kristol's) neo-con hawkish nonsense does get coverage from the media. It is worth looking at the fact that Obaam/Kerry did seem to - at least moderately - tamp down the rhetoric here AND that the RW wants to ramp it up.

[alcibiades_mystery]

4. Oh well...if only they had gotten elected and had a say

Too bad, so sad.

Besides, after Dan Senor and his incompetent cronies at the Coalition Provisional Authority basically set off the Iraqi insurgency, I really wouldn't trust the guy to speak on foreign policy, like, ever.

[karynnj]

7. Sometimes who your critics are is a badge of honor - as it is here nt

[spanone]

6. when they're in office, i might give them a listen, otherwise...pfffft

[karynnj]

9. Well - it does remind us WHY they should not be in office.

It is also good to see attacks as they start. They are actually positioning moderate success as a NEGATIVE here - and real success - not likely as it is - as a failure.

[GoCubsGo]

10. Yeah, they felt the same back in 2001, and look where that got us.

Instead of talking to them, they spewed their "Axis of Evil" bullshit. They spouted this kind of idiotic rhetoric, instead of dealing with North Korea. Then they ignored them for years. That worked out well, didn't it? Kristol and Senor need to just shut the hell up and then go fuck themselves.

[librechik]

11. Gotta be a good idea, then. Kristol is never anything but wrong.