Kerry Blasts Netanyahu: He's 'Wrong' On Iran Deal Like He Was On Iraq War

[DonViejo]

Source: TPM

Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday slammed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's opposition to a potential nuclear deal with Iran, calling it as wrongheaded as the prime minister's backing of the Iraq War.

"Israel is safer today with the added time we have given and the stoppage of the advances in the nuclear program than they were before we got that agreement, which by the way the prime minister opposed," Kerry said during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing. "He was wrong."

Kerry was later asked to address Netanyahu's criticism of a hypothetical deal with Iran as a threat to Israel.

"The prime minister was profoundly forward-leaning and outspoken about the importance of invading Iraq under George W. Bush," Kerry replied. "We all know what happened with that decision."

-snip-

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kerry-netanyahu-iran-talks-iraq-war

---

“... there is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking and is working and is advancing towards the development of nuclear weapons -- no question whatsoever. If you take out Saddam, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.”

[Purveyor]

1. Ouch...that'll leave a mark!

[yeoman6987]

3. Kerry was wrong on Iraq war too.

[Kingofalldems]

5. Sneak attack on the VP.

This thread is not about Kerry and Iraq. Perhaps you could start your own thread on how Kerry was wrong on Iraq.
Be sure to include the liars Bush and Cheney.

[yeoman6987]

21. It certainly is and Kerry is not VP

[JI7]

32. interesting as you had a problem when Bush was being attacked over iraq

But have no problem going after kerry

[Kingofalldems]

37. Correct.

[yeoman6987]

46. Facts are obvious an issue.

You stated that Kerry is VP. He's not. He ran for president in 2004 supporting Iraq. Sorry but I am a facts guy.

[JI7]

47. bs .he did not run on supporting it. but you have a problem

With the fact of what Bush did and people going after Bush for it.

[yeoman6987]

48. Bush isn't part of the OP

I think you maybe confusing stories and politicians. You thought Kerry was VP and now you are saying Bush is in the story in stead of Netanyahu. Can you verify that you are replying to the right story?

[JI7]

49. I'm not confused with anything. when Bush was part of the story you had a problem

With him being attacked on the issue.

[yeoman6987]

55. Bush is not part of the story though

This is about John Kerry who ran for President AGAINST President Bush in 2004 which is where you confused him with the Vice President who is Joe Biden who was a Senator along with John Kerry in the past. I can see why you are having trouble with the principles of the OP due to their similar backgrounds. I hope this helps. Good luck. It isn't easy keeping up which is why only a few of us are really into politics. Please don't quit cuz I have confidence you can fit the players in the right spots. Just takes time. Have a good night. I am so glad you are here. More should try and learn like you are.

[JI7]

56. you are the one who is having trouble with who you are responding to

but i do know you had a problem with going after Bush on Iraq .

[Kingofalldems]

38. Okay SS. He's a Democrat though. That's the key.

[Reter]

44. So Democrats can do no wrong?

You won't criticize a Democrat? Ever?

[Kingofalldems]

51. That was not my point and don't need to explain it to you.

[rhett o rick]

40. The OP is about Kerry saying that Netanyahu was wrong on Iraq. It certainly is fair to point

out that Kerry also was wrong on Iraq. The fact that Bush and Cheney were liars is irrelevant. H. Clinton also promoted the same lies.

[KittyWampus]

63. It's also fair to point out how obsessed some DU'ers are w/attacking Kerry in this thread

and totally ignore the CURRENT situation and Netanyahu's hawkishness.

It's also fair to point out that when talking about the past, some DU'ers always ignore the totality of facts.

SO- do you have anything to say about Netanyahu?

[rhett o rick]

65. It was Kerry that brought up support of the Iraq War which was in the past.

I agree with Kerry that those that supported that terrible war should be held accountable. Some people think that only those they don't like should be held accountable.

With regard to Netanyahu, I don't like his hawkish stance. But I also don't like the hawkish stances of American politicians.

[blm]

9. I'm sure Kerry regrets giving Netanyahu benefit-of-the-doubt then, too.

Of course, once weapon inspectors began reporting that there were no WMDs being found, Kerry sided with them and against Bush's decision to invade.

Perhaps you've forgotten that?

[karynnj]

18. He was wrong in Oct 2002 voting for the IWR - but he spoke against rushing to war in Jan 2003

Bush himself said the vote was not to go to war -- however, it gave Bush the right to determine if the requirements to go to war were met. It was the wrong vote because it prematurely gave consent to go to war even though there was not justification to do so.

[rhett o rick]

41. Kerry knew what he was voting for. Bush didn't fool anyone but the idiot Republicon grassroots. nm

[yeoman6987]

45. I don't know if I agree with that

Running for President in 2004, he was in support of the war.

[JI7]

50. bs you lie about kerry and want no criticism of Bush

[karynnj]

52. No he wasn't

Iraq speech - September 2004 - NYU - he said specifically if he would have been President he would not have gone to war with Iraq. Many times in 2004 he said "It’s the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time.” Kerry BEFORE the IWR vote in September 2002, argued that we should only go to war as a last resort. The comment that the war was not a "last resort" was repeated very often. Those are not just random words -- they mean to an educated Catholic (and Kerry was a good friend of Jesuit priest Father Drinan )that it is not a just war.

Remember in the foreign policy debate, where Kerry spoke of a "global test" - what he was referring to was essentially the definition of just war by St Augustine. (I thought that back in 2004, and learned I was right when he spoke of religion and politics at Pepperdine University - where he listed the same things he listed through 2003 and 2004 and related them to "just war". http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/18/AR2006091801046.html The just war part is on page 5 - and reading it you will hear many echos of things Kerry said in 2004 when he listed how Bush mislead us into war.)

- He spoke of how Bush mislead us into war, failing to exhaust the diplomacy, failing to allow the inspectors to complete their job, failing to plan for the aftermath. He said hundreds of times that it was not a "war of last resort".

Anyone who actually listened to many of his speeches heard these things day in and day out. Part of what happened was that in the primary, Trippi worked hard to label Kerry just based on his vote --- ignoring that the media in early 2003 referred to both Kerry and Dean as "anti war". It was fair to use the IRW vote - even though the Fall 2002 comments of Dean were at least as aggressive as Kerry's comments. Just as it was fair to argue that governors did not have foreign policy experience.

One aide in 2004 spoke of how votes are always "yes" or "no" when positions are always "yes, but" or "no, but". Kerry's vote was wrong - whether it was political or whether he thought it would help Bush with diplomacy. (Consider the REAL threat that the US might attack DID lead Kerry to negotiate with Russia the removal of Syria's chemical weapons - something that would not have happened without that threat. The US had pushed Russia on that when Kerry first met with Lavrov.)

He has said that he regrets it repeatedly. What is saddest about that vote is that Kerry was a strong voice for diplomacy and against war when it could be avoided all his career. However, wrong as the vote was -- he was never prowar.

[candelista]

67. No matter how you try to fog it up with a bunch of verbiage....

John Kerry, as a US Senator, voted in favor of the US invasion of Iraq on October 11, 2002.

And he is still at it:

Secretary of State John Kerry asked Congress on Tuesday for new war powers in the fight against the Islamic State, but said lawmakers should not limit U.S. military action to Iraq and Syria or prevent President Barack Obama from deploying ground troops if he later deems them necessary.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2867479/Kerry-New-flexible-war-powers-needed-fight-IS.html

[karynnj]

69. It was not a vote to invade --- although it gave authority for that

As to "still at it", the war powers that OBAMA has asked for actually put limits on what he can do. They do limit it to fighting ISIS for three years -- and as to ground troops the language allows limited use of some ground troops if needed. This is NOT like either the Afghanistan or Iraq war powers.

What is clear is that Kerry has worked hard on diplomacy with the countries in the region and the Iraq government.

Do you honestly think the US should do nothing against ISIS?

[Kingofalldems]

2. He's anti-Israel!!

[Bluenorthwest]

4. This would be an even stronger statement if Kerry had not also voted Yes on the IWR.

Because Kerry was wrong too. He speaks as if he was one of the 21 Democrats, 1 Republican and 1 Independent in the Senate to vote No, but he was a Yes voter. Just for the record.

[YvonneCa]

23. Many Dems wanted to avoid war by...

...presenting a strong, united front against Saddam. Their motivation was much different than Bush, Cheney and the neocons. Kerry and Hillary were in that group.

[KittyWampus]

64. Do you have anything to say about Netanyahu? Anything to say that doesn't criticize a Democrat

what is actually IN politics and has to make REAL decisions?

LOL.

Typical.

[24601]

6. Interesting comment. I've just reviewed the record of the 2003 vote for the Iraq AUMF.

While PM Netanyahu wasn't on the list, Senator Kerry was.

I'd judge it differently if it was evident Sen Kerry voted out of conscience. I do, however, believe that he opposed the AUMF at his core but voted for it to preserve his viability as a candidate for President in 2004. He's not alone on that list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

[Kingofalldems]

7. Bush claimed there were WMDs.

[blm]

10. and Netanyahu backed up those claims

.

[24601]

16. He did. No doubt about it - and no doubt that that he wan't alone in this belief. Indeed,

it was incorporated into thew AUMF a well (I've cut & pasted from the actual text and
highlighted with bold).

The resolution cited many factors as justifying the use of military force against Iraq.
An active WMD Program was not the only error.

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against
Iraq. <<NOTE: Oct. 16, 2002 - [H.J. Res. 114]>>

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and
illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition
of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the
national security of the United States and enforce United Nations
Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a
United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq
unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver
and develop them, and to end its support for international
terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States
intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that
Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale
biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear
weapons development program that was much closer to producing a
nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify
and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal
of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that
Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened
vital United States interests and international peace and security,
declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take
appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant
laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its
international obligations'';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of
the United States and international peace and security in the
Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach
of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing
to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its
civilian population thereby threatening international peace
and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or
account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq,
including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property
wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations
and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing
hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush
and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and
Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and
safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001,
underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of
weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist
organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of
mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either
employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United
States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international
terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that
would result to the United States and its citizens from such an
attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend
itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes
the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security
Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions
and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten
international peace and security, including the development of
weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United
Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security
Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population
in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688
(1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations
in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution
949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President
``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations
Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve
implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664,
665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677'';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it
``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent
with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against
Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its
civilian population violates United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,
security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that
Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United
States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet
our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary
resolutions,'' while also making clear that ``the Security Council
resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and
security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on
terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist
groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction
in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and
other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it
is in the national security interests of the United States and in
furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use
of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on
terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested
by the President to take the necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,
organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take
all appropriate actions against international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such
persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take
action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism
against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint
resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law
107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to
restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress <<NOTE: Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. 50 USC 1541 note.>>assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

(Omitted the rest about reports, etc.)

[sulphurdunn]

29. That may be the longest

lie ever composed in political doublespeak in American history.

[blm]

36. What happened AFTER weapon inspectors reported their findings?

Kerry said Bush would be wrong to go to war when weapon inspectors were proving military force was NT needed.

How many IWR yes votes joined him in siding with weapon inspectors AGAINST decision to invade?

Corpmedia sure wasn't interested in THAT turn of events, were they?

[karynnj]

20. Not to mention no inspectors had been in Iraq for 4 years since they left prior to Clinton bombing

Many people ignore that it was AFTER the vote in October 2002 that the inspectors entered Iraq and found there was no evidence of WMD - something that happened prior to the actual decision to invade in March 2003.

It is fair to say that the IWR vote was wrong, but it was nowhere near as wrong as the calls in 2003 to invade AFTER the inspectors found no WMDS or even worse the decision to invade then.

What surprises me is that anger by the left on the vote has led many to ignore the 5 month gap between October and March.

[YvonneCa]

25. Some were motivated by their belief...

...which I agree with BTW, that we are stronger when united as a country. In the case of IWR, I believe some in our government were not given the full truth.

[blm]

11. Many forget Kerry was lone IWRyes vote who sided AGAINST Bush's DECISION to invade

once weapon inspectors began reporting back that there were no WMDs being found.

He took the hits from both sides on that.

People prefer to see history the way they want to see it, and ignore the actual details.

[MBS]

12. + 100

Thank you, blm

[Bluenorthwest]

14. In the Senate, 21 Democrats, 1 Independent and even 1 Republican voted No. Kerry voted Yes.

What he said later is not really relevant to the fact that when his discernment mattered most, he was among those who made the wrong choice, the choice to authorize war.

[24601]

39. At the time of this vote, Democrats controlled the Senate with 50 Dems plus Independent Jeffords of

Vermont.

And it's not accurate to equate an AUMF with a war vote since declaring war is a power delegated exclusively to Congress while an AUMF is a bill that Presidents sign, veto, pocket veto or let become law without signature.

No administration has held that the War Powers Act is constitutional, yet most have agreed to comply with the reporting requirements. Although not all presidents have sought Congressional Approval (e.g. Clinton and Serbia), I believe PBO, with the Libyan Air Campaign, postulated that it takes ground operations to trigger provision of the War Powers act, which has not been before SCOTUS and no one (except perhaps me) would like it's constitutionality decided.

But pretty much all Administrations, acting through the Office of Personnel Management, hold that operations under AUMF do not trigger myriad springboard laws that take effect during war, for example: War Service Creditable for Veterans Preference

"In the absence of statutory definition for "war" and "campaign or expedition," OPM considers to be "wars" only those armed conflicts for which a declaration of war was issued by Congress. The title 38, U.S.C., definition of "period of war," which is used in determining benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, includes the Vietnam Era and other armed conflicts. That title 38 definition is NOT applicable for civil service purposes.

Thus the last "war" for which active duty is qualifying for Veterans preference is World War II. The inclusive dates for World War II service are December 7, 1941, through April 28, 1952."

The Congressional Research Service compiled a detailed review these laws. (http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31133.pdf)

[Kingofalldems]

15. Good job.

Too bad the other posters ignored that fact.

[karynnj]

22. + 100000000

Not to mention Kerry has said often that his own vote was wrong - long before others did. Even before the decision to invade, Kerry spoke against rushing to war. (January 23, Georgetown University)

[Duval]

28. I remember that. Thanks. nt

[BeyondGeography]

26. Well now, that's adding nuance

It's so much easier for people to say Kerry has nothing credible to say for the rest of time about Iraq because of that one vote. No lifting at all, heavy or otherwise, involved.

[karynnj]

53. They forget that Kerry/Feingold only got 13 votes -- then became the basis of every

2008 candidate's exit strategy. (except Biden - who sponsored the Gelb/Galbraith plan to split Iraq - a plan that sounds better in retrospect than it did in 2007/2008. )

[Martin Eden]

19. I haven't forgotten.

Or forgiven.

[karynnj]

27. No he hasn't -- and it does not diminish his point

Kerry spoke not just of the Iraq war, but Netanyahu's argument that the interim Iranian agreement was a bad deal - when it has in fact been a very good deal.

Netanyahu did argue very strongly for the invasion of Iraq - something Kerry NEVER did. Kerry's vote, made before the inspectors were there and before Bush opted not to get the UN approval as he was supposed to, was said by him in 2003 to have been given to provide Bush with the leverage (of having the Congress behind him) that could then be used to find a diplomatic solution. (It is possible that it also was that politically, he saw a "no" vote as a death knell to a Presidential run -- though, if that were the case, it ignores that he then spoke against going to war.)

[LeftishBrit]

17. Kerry is quite right ... but, er, didn't HE also back the Iraq war?

[karynnj]

24. No he didn't -- he spoke against rushing to war before the war started

He did - and he has repeatedly said he was wrong - vote for the IWR. However, that was a vote in October 2002, when he spoke of going to the UN and getting the inspectors in - as Bush said he would do. The inspectors had left in 1998.

After the vote, the inspectors went in and they and the IAEA found no weapons programs. At that point, Kerry did speak out against rushing to war - saying that if Bush did it would not be a war of last resort. (That phrase is important as it means that it would not be a just war)

The vote was wrong because although it listed conditions, it left Bush as the one to decide if they were met. Bush, Blair and the Spanish Prime Minister opted NOT to return to the UN but met in the Canary Islands. Bush ignored that with the inspectors' reports which had the proof that there was no justification at all to go to war.

[LeftishBrit]

35. Thanks. At least he had more sense than our own dear Tony!

[asiliveandbreathe]

30. You can blather on about Kerry's vote in 2002

As a left leaning Independent from Massachusetts - I will never vote for a republican in the WH (I didn't last time, as well, if you think about that - the SCOTUS selected the POS with jebbies help in FL)...Bush and company stirred the hornets nest - put us in the mess we are in right now - Jebbie will do it again - considering his foreign policy gurus as we speak -

This will keep the republicans out of the WH for many years to come..guess what - they know it!

OS - I applaud Senator Reeds move today to hold any vote on DHS until Johnnie makes his move

OS - I applaud President Obama for his veto of Keystone XL....

I applaud and thank President Obama for all that he does, against all odds - and oddballs....

[MisterP]

31. sooooo, why'd Kerry listen to him back then?

[JI7]

33. he Didn't

[bemildred]

34. +1. nt

[quadrature]

42. so how much Uranium, does Iran get to keep? ...nt

[BillZBubb]

57. It doesn't matter how much Uranium ore they keep.

What matters is how much they can refine and to what level. The proposed agreement has strict limits on refinement and level of refinement. There are methods of testing to verify compliance.

[quadrature]

60. enough to fuel how many 'research' reactors?

50
100
10000
?

[BillZBubb]

61. Are you serious?

Why don't you do a little research instead of being childish?

[geek tragedy]

43. Classic DU, the reaction is to pile on Kerry instead of going after Putinyahoo

for the fact that he's warmongering now in the same way he warmongered ten years ago.


Netanyahu has no credibility--he has no interest in learning from his past mistakes, because they were not really mistakes.

[BillZBubb]

58. Yep, that's the way it is whenever Israel is questioned.

Even a scumball like Netanyahu gets defended, sort of like O'Reilly.

[Comrade Grumpy]

54. Good for Kerry. Netanyahu really needs to fuck off.

[BillZBubb]

59. Two of the highest ranking diplomats in the US government

have now slammed Netanyahu on his underhanded move. Hopefully, the voters in Israel are paying attention.

[KittyWampus]

62. Those DU'ers who use this thread to attack KERRY expose themselves for what they are-

ideologues without a clue who ignore the totality of actual facts and pick only those that allow them to hate any Democrat who isn't pure enough.

There is a realistic need for ideologues to balance the pragmatists… but ultimately its the ideologues who are willing to watch a building burn down because the bucket brigade doesn't all use the exact shade of blue bucket they deem suitable.

It's fucking 2015 people and situation NOW Is restraining the NeoCons and the warhawks.

Kerry was never a warhawk pushing for UNNECESSARY aggression. He has always been pro-diplomacy and restraint.

[rhett o rick]

66. Not hypocrites.

[rhett o rick]

68. Looks like what you are saying is that those of us that opposed the war and think it

appropriate to hold those that supported it accountable, are "ideologues"? And those that supported the war are "pragmatists"? What stands do the Left take that would make them "ideologues"? I want to stop the wars that are devastating our troops and economy. Tell me how a pragmatist would think about that.

[Corey_Baker08]

70. Secretary Kerry Would Have Made An Excellent President.