Tag: John Kerry

Categories
Accountability government transparency international affairs

John Kerry, Super-Villain

John Kerry, Kiefer Sutherland, Iran, diplomacy, international affairs

Whistleblowers and unclassified emails inform us that when he was the secretary of state under Obama, John Kerry thwarted arrests of Iranians illegally acting on behalf of the Iranian state.

While in the United States.

According to Senators Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson, “whistleblower disclosures” reveal that while the Obama administration was negotiating with Iran to “prevent” it from acquiring nuclear weapons, “then-​Secretary of State John Kerry actively interfered with [the FBI’s executing of arrest warrants] on individuals in the U.S. illegally supporting Iranian efforts … to develop weapons of mass destruction and its ballistic missile program.”

FBI agents were frustrated because, they said in emails, they had to ask field agents “to stand down on a layup arrest … and wait until the U.S. and Iran negotiations resolve themselves.”

At least one of the protected suspects was on a terrorism watch list.

Seriously?

We need John Kerry to play the bad guy in a revival of 24, trying to stop super-​agent Jack Bauer from taking out terrorists because the U.S. is in the middle of shipping pallets of cash to the terrorism-​sponsoring government. A very delicate operation that must be executed with hair-​trigger precision and without antagonizing the terrorism-​sponsoring recipients.

Kerry’s most recent job: Weather Envoy. He retired from it this year. Apparently, tweaking global climate isn’t as easy as he’d thought.

Could have been worse. This dour, long-​faced pillar of pretense, Kerry, almost became President of the United States. 

We must keep reminding ourselves of this.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability national politics & policies

Bombed into Submission?

Russia, Syria, Air Base, bombing, John Kerry

Was the United States of America recently bombed into submission?

In the Battle of Britain, the Brits survived the German blitz. The North Vietnamese persevered through storms of our B‑52s, for years. Bombing alone never seems to conquer an opponent.

But Russian air strikes against U.S. positions in Syria sent Secretary of State John Kerry scurrying to the negotiation table.

In June, but just reported last week, Russian planes bombed a “secret base of operations for elite American and British forces” in Syria. (No Brits were at the base at the time, only Americans.) Putin’s planes also attacked “a site linked to the Central Intelligence Agency.”

“U.S. military and intelligence officials” told the Wall Street Journal that the strikes were “part of a campaign by Moscow to pressure the Obama administration to agree to closer cooperation over the skies in Syria.”

It seems to have worked. Sec. Kerry quickly struck a deal with the Russian Federation – but “over Pentagon and CIA objections.”

Those critics complained that “the White House gave in to Russian bullying,” and also “doubt[ed] that Moscow would abide by the terms of the agreement,” according to the Journal.

“Officials close to Mr. Kerry said he shares the skepticism of military and intelligence officials about Russian intentions, which is why he inserted a clause during negotiations to allow the U.S. to suspend cooperation with the Russians if they started bombing U.S. allies again.”

What a deal! Kerry sure knows how to lead from behind.

Does anybody think our Middle East policy makes sense?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Russia, Syria, Air Base, bombing, John Kerry

 

Categories
national politics & policies

Deep Thinker Kerry

John Kerry, Charlie Hebdo, Paris Attack, terrorism, Common Sense, Illustration

Comparing Friday’s horrific shootings by Islamist terrorists to the events of last January, one-​time presidential candidate John Kerry noted that there is “something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo… . There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of — not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, ‘OK, they’re really angry because of this and that.’ This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate. It wasn’t to aggrieve [sic] one particular sense of wrong. It was to terrorize people. It was to attack everything that we do stand for.”

Yes, Kerry pulled himself out of the fire pretty fast, but, even if he earnestly believes that (as Reason characterized it) “killing cartoonists is less appalling than killing concertgoers,” this was a thought better left unexpressed.

What could Kerry have been thinking?

Here’s a guess: John Kerry sees himself as a reasonable man. Reasonable men try to understand things. And in the course of trying to understand things, a reasonable man will likely explore all sorts of ideas, make uncomfortable comparisons, follow challenging arguments wherever they lead.

But Mr. Kerry does have a job: Secretary of State. This makes him a key mouthpiece for the United States of America … to the world, and about world events.

A Secretary of State should know that standing up for rights is his public duty. It is not spinning theories about motivation that could ominously pass as justification for slaughtering some folks but not others.

His statement may betray him mid-​thought, but hey: “everything we stand for” includes free speech and the press.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

John Kerry, Charlie Hebdo, Paris Attack, terrorism, Common Sense, Illustration

 

Categories
Accountability national politics & policies

Aeschylation

“In war,” the Greek dramatist Aeschylus told us, “truth is the first casualty.”

This came to mind when Secretary of State John Kerry testified in the Senate last week.

The new Iraq War has been pitched exhaustively to the American people as “only air strikes” and “absolutely no boots on the ground” — even as the Obama Administration continues to send additional U.S. military advisors to place their boots on Iraqi sand (and, at least once thus far, to engage ISIS directly via Apache attack helicopters hovering above Iraqi ground.)

Kerry again assured senators that the president “has been crystal clear that his policy is that U.S. military forces will not be deployed to conduct ground combat operations against ISIL.”

Strangely, however, the Secretary most adamantly urged Senators not to pass an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that would restrict President O from doing precisely what he has so often and emphatically pledged not to do: put combat boots on the ground in Iraq.

The fact that the Obama Administration has foreclosed any possibility of putting US troops on the ground to fight, according to Sec. Kerry, “doesn’t mean that we should preemptively bind the hands of the commander in chief or our commanders in the field in responding to scenarios and contingencies that are impossible to foresee.”

Impossible to foresee? Yeah, right. The “no boots” promise provides all the stability of leaves in the wind.

Having any trust in this administration is impossible to foresee.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies

Atrocity Logic

It’s a strange world. Russian President Vlad Putin may have saved the day, preventing U.S. military action against Syria … all because a reporter had the temerity to ask Secretary of State John Kerry for a list of demands before the U.S. went firing missiles in Syrian President Assad’s direction. Shocked by such a sensationally sensible question, Kerry mumbled something about giving up all their chemical weapons.

So Putin rang up Assad, and the next thing you know, Assad said, “Sure.”

Do you want fries with that?

It may indeed all be a ploy on the part of Putin and Assad, but it provides a breather, a timeout before Congress votes to give President Obama the approval he has asked for ( but which he says he doesn’t need) to strike Syria … and which he may choose to ignore if he feels like it, which may soon all be moot anyway.

In any case …

Gas attacks are extremely unpleasant.

The Obama Administration released film of Syrian victims of Sarin gas attacks. CNN played the footage so citizens could see “what Senators and members of the House are being shown as they make their decision.”

Last night, Mr. Obama called on “every member of Congress, and those of you watching at home tonight, to view those videos of the attack.”

Oh, come on. Opposition to a military strike isn’t predicated on a lack of empathy. Were suffering the measure, we’d be at war in dozens countries all the time, including in Syria more than a year ago, since over a 100,000 people have died in the civil war where both sides have committed atrocities.

To suggest that we should decide the best course for U.S. policy by watching acts of violence and the resultant human suffering is simple-​minded and demagogic.

There’s something wrong when Russia’s dictator-​president looks better than ours.

This is Common sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies

Acting Accordingly

Last week, the British Parliament declined to support Prime Minister David Cameron’s call for joining a military action against Syria — an effort to punish the regime for its alleged use of chemical weapons against its own citizens.

Afterwards, asked on the floor of the House of Commons to confirm that he would not use force against Syria under “royal prerogative,” Cameron assured his country that, despite his strong belief

in the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons … I also believe in respecting the will of this House of Commons. It is very clear tonight that … the British Parliament reflecting the views of the British people does not want to see British military action. I get that. And the government will act accordingly.

How refreshing for a national legislative body to actually reflect the interests of the people, and for the government to abide by the will of the people. Perhaps this positive example from the Brits helped convince President Obama to seek congressional approval for the military strike he urges.

Process is important and, though Congress doesn’t do much of a job of representing us, I applauded the president’s decision.

Why the past tense? Because Time magazine reports that “Obama’s aides made clear that the President’s search for affirmation from Congress would not be binding. He might still attack Syria even if Congress issues a rejection.”

Yesterday on CNN, Secretary of State John Kerry said President Obama “has the right to do this no matter what Congress does.”

The Brits have authentic citizen-​controlled government. Is ours just for show?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.