Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
Sun Mar 2, 2014, 11:59 AM Mar 2014

Kerry: "This is a time for diplomacy..."

‘This Week’ Transcript: John Kerry

<...>

STEPHANOPOULOS: Sir, are there any military options on the table? During the crisis with Georgia, President Bush moved military warships to the region, sent humanitarian aid on a military aircraft. Is the U.S. prepared to do that now? Anything more?

KERRY: George, the hope of the United States and everybody in the world is not to see this escalate into a military confrontation. That will not serve the world well, and I think everybody understands that. The president has all options on the table, but the president’s preference was clearly stated yesterday in his hour and a half conversation with President Putin. President Obama made it clear that we are prepared to work with Russia. We understand that Russia has interests in Crimea. The Ukraine government is prepared to respect the base agreement. Nobody threatened those Russia interests. And we are prepare to stand up against any hooligans, any thuggery, any individual efforts with Russians in order to create stability in Ukraine and allow the people of Ukraine to make their choices for the future.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But do you have any indication at all that President Putin is taking heat (inaudible) as President Obama is saying?


KERRY: Well, they just had the conversation yesterday, and the president invited in to engage with the government. I understand there may have been one phone call. We’re going to continue to engage diplomatically. This is a time for diplomacy, and we will engage diplomatically as much as we can in order to steal this away from the increase in the tension of the level of the crisis. Nobody wants this to spiral into a bad or worse direction. The fact is that there are many options available to Russia, by which Russia can see its interests met. And the most important thing to remember here is, this is not or should not be East-West, Russia-United States, Russia versus Europe. This is about the people of Ukraine, people who stood up against snipers, firing at them from the roofs, who are fighting against the tyranny of having political opposition put in jail. And President Putin I think needs to think carefully about Russia’ real interest here. You know, Russia may be able to invade Crimea, but in the end, Russia will isolate itself, there will be a cost to the economy of Russia, cost to Russian businesses, cost to Russia individuals, and ultimately I think Russia will isolate itself on a global stage that it just spent $60 billion through the Olympics to try to present a different face on. It seems to me that if Russia were to step back and look at where its interests are, we ought to be able to work this out through the diplomatic process. If Russia chooses not to, there will be serious repercussions.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do those repercussions include the U.S. not going to the G8 summit in Sochi come this summer, sir?

KERRY: It is a distinct possibility. We would hope rather that Russia will choose to engage with us, to work with the government of Ukraine, choose a different direction.

Russia has cooperated with us on the START treaty ,on Afghanistan, on Iran. It ought to be possible to find legitimacy in this particular moment in order to be able to deal in a way that serves the world much better than this choice they’ve made. We’re open to that. We encourage that. President Obama made it clear he prefers that. But the choice is really up to Russia at this point.

-more -

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-john-kerry/story?id=22720806&singlePage=true


45 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Kerry: "This is a time for diplomacy..." (Original Post) ProSense Mar 2014 OP
Kick! n/t ProSense Mar 2014 #1
Another! n/t ProSense Mar 2014 #2
Amazing what a difference eleven years makes Fumesucker Mar 2014 #3
"Military confrontation is now bad evidently." ProSense Mar 2014 #4
I'm just going by Kerry's vote eleven years ago, military confrontation was good then Fumesucker Mar 2014 #5
No, it was not, and Kerry never said it was. In fact ProSense Mar 2014 #6
Eric Shinseki famously told Congress Iraq was going to need far more troops to hold the peace Fumesucker Mar 2014 #7
Yes, ProSense Mar 2014 #8
Things would have "turned out differently" if we hadn't invaded Fumesucker Mar 2014 #9
Bush invaded Iraq, and you seem to want to ProSense Mar 2014 #11
I didn't support the invasion of Afghanistan *or* Iraq Fumesucker Mar 2014 #13
Well, good for you. n/t ProSense Mar 2014 #14
Here's why the claim ProSense Mar 2014 #24
Or Dennis Kucinich for supporting the Afghanistan War resolution... Drunken Irishman Mar 2014 #37
We knew the Tonkin Gulf resolution was based on a lie at the time? Fumesucker Mar 2014 #43
LOL! n/t ProSense Mar 2014 #45
Learning a valuable lesson is now a bad thing? JaneyVee Mar 2014 #10
Kerry of all people should have known better eleven years ago Fumesucker Mar 2014 #12
Your opinion of Kerry is your opinion. That doesn't change ProSense Mar 2014 #15
I personally think diplomacy is the right way to go Fumesucker Mar 2014 #17
Absurd. ProSense Mar 2014 #19
Advocating diplomacy while voting for war is remarkably hypocritical Fumesucker Mar 2014 #44
I guess you missed that Kerry called for Bush not to rush to war in January 2003 karynnj Mar 2014 #16
If Kerry didn't know Dim Son was going to invade he was a fool Fumesucker Mar 2014 #18
"I have a bit more respect for Kerry's intelligence than you evidently do." ProSense Mar 2014 #20
Look... greytdemocrat Mar 2014 #29
President Obama also opposed the Iraq war. n/t ProSense Mar 2014 #23
Here are some of Kerry's statements from that time ProSense Mar 2014 #26
And cool heads ... eom BlueMTexpat Mar 2014 #21
Kick! n/t ProSense Mar 2014 #22
Of course~ Then there's "economic war" if that should fail. Cha Mar 2014 #25
What, no "Munich Moment"? Scootaloo Mar 2014 #27
Reminds me of when ProSense Mar 2014 #28
Well, at the time Kerry was calling Assad Hitler Scootaloo Mar 2014 #30
No, he wasn't. n/t ProSense Mar 2014 #31
"This is our Munich moment" Scootaloo Mar 2014 #33
No, ProSense Mar 2014 #34
Semantic point, but noted Scootaloo Mar 2014 #35
No, ProSense Mar 2014 #38
Except that's not it at all Scootaloo Mar 2014 #39
Yes, that was it. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. n/t ProSense Mar 2014 #40
Too bad we're not talking about opinions Scootaloo Mar 2014 #41
Yes, ProSense Mar 2014 #42
"The World Speaks" including SOS Kerry Tweets on Putin Invading the Ukraine.. Cha Mar 2014 #32
Thanks for posting. ProSense Mar 2014 #36

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
5. I'm just going by Kerry's vote eleven years ago, military confrontation was good then
Sun Mar 2, 2014, 01:25 PM
Mar 2014

And that military confrontation cost America dearly in blood, moral standing and treasure as a crapload of people just here on DU predicted.

I'm so fucking weary of the blatant hypocrisy.

Not to mention Dim Son is still walking around a free man.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
6. No, it was not, and Kerry never said it was. In fact
Sun Mar 2, 2014, 01:31 PM
Mar 2014

"And that military confrontation cost America dearly in blood, moral standing and treasure as a crapload of people just here on DU predicted. "

...if things had turned out differently in 2004, the Iraq war would have ended several years before it did.

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
7. Eric Shinseki famously told Congress Iraq was going to need far more troops to hold the peace
Sun Mar 2, 2014, 01:43 PM
Mar 2014

You might recall that Rumsferatu canned his ass for telling the truth.

http://articles.dailypress.com/2006-09-08/news/0609080088_1_central-command-defense-secretary-donald-rumsfeld-iraq



FORT EUSTIS — Army Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, an early planner of the war, tells about challenges of invasion and rebuilding.

Months before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld forbade military strategists from developing plans for securing a post-war Iraq, the retiring commander of the Army Transportation Corps said Thursday.

In fact, said Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, Rumsfeld said "he would fire the next person" who talked about the need for a post-war plan.

Rumsfeld did replace Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff in 2003, after Shinseki told Congress that hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed to secure post-war Iraq.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
8. Yes,
Sun Mar 2, 2014, 01:47 PM
Mar 2014

"Eric Shinseki famously told Congress Iraq was going to need far more troops to hold the peace

You might recall that Rumsferatu canned his ass for telling the truth. "

... I remember, but what does that have to do with the OP or my comment that Kerry would have ended it years earlier had things turned out differently in 2004?

Gen. Shinseki is currently Secretary of Veterans Affairs.









Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
9. Things would have "turned out differently" if we hadn't invaded
Sun Mar 2, 2014, 01:54 PM
Mar 2014

But we did, no thanks to Kerry or Hillary either for that matter.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
11. Bush invaded Iraq, and you seem to want to
Sun Mar 2, 2014, 02:00 PM
Mar 2014

use the Iraq war to deflect from the fact that, as you said, "military confrontation is now bad evidently."



Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
13. I didn't support the invasion of Afghanistan *or* Iraq
Sun Mar 2, 2014, 02:04 PM
Mar 2014

And my statement was ironic in nature.. Hence the

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
24. Here's why the claim
Sun Mar 2, 2014, 07:28 PM
Mar 2014

of "hypocrisy" is flawed. By that logic, Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern had no credibility to speak out against war.

Both voted for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution (1964)

This joint resolution of Congress (H.J. RES 1145) dated August 7, 1964, gave President Lyndon Johnson authority to increase U.S. involvement in the war between North and South Vietnam.
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc_large_image.php?flash=true&doc=98
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=98

There is no hypocrisy in speaking out against war. That should a charge left to those who want war.

 

Drunken Irishman

(34,857 posts)
37. Or Dennis Kucinich for supporting the Afghanistan War resolution...
Sun Mar 2, 2014, 08:26 PM
Mar 2014

The only pure politician in that regard is Barbara Lee, who voted against both the Afghanistan and Iraqi conflicts.

 

JaneyVee

(19,877 posts)
10. Learning a valuable lesson is now a bad thing?
Sun Mar 2, 2014, 01:57 PM
Mar 2014

God forbid people change their minds due to historic evidence.

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
12. Kerry of all people should have known better eleven years ago
Sun Mar 2, 2014, 02:01 PM
Mar 2014

In fact I think he did know better and lacked the moral courage to do what he knew to be the right thing.

Either that or he's too damn stupid to breathe without being constantly reminded to do so.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
15. Your opinion of Kerry is your opinion. That doesn't change
Sun Mar 2, 2014, 02:10 PM
Mar 2014

the fact that he never advocated that "military confrontation was good then."

He never did, and the fact that you can't accept that he's pushing diplomacy says more about you than him.

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
17. I personally think diplomacy is the right way to go
Sun Mar 2, 2014, 02:12 PM
Mar 2014

Kerry's saying that now after his IWR vote simply smacks far too much of hypocrisy for a reasonable person to ignore it.

But then not everyone on DU is reasonable.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
19. Absurd.
Sun Mar 2, 2014, 02:15 PM
Mar 2014

"Kerry's saying that now after his IWR vote simply smacks far too much of hypocrisy for a reasonable person to ignore it."

Kerry has always advocated diplomacy. The fact that you're saying "a reasonable person" should "ignore" his push for a diplomatic solution demonstrates flawed thinking.

karynnj

(59,504 posts)
16. I guess you missed that Kerry called for Bush not to rush to war in January 2003
Sun Mar 2, 2014, 02:11 PM
Mar 2014

His vote was wrong, but it was given to give Bush leverage internationally. (Note how he used American power as leverage to get Syria to give up chemical weapons.)

He said it 2002 - and repeated it many times after that the US should never go to war except as a last resort. This is where he was from 1971 onward.

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
18. If Kerry didn't know Dim Son was going to invade he was a fool
Sun Mar 2, 2014, 02:14 PM
Mar 2014

I have a bit more respect for Kerry's intelligence than you evidently do.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
20. "I have a bit more respect for Kerry's intelligence than you evidently do."
Sun Mar 2, 2014, 02:20 PM
Mar 2014

Sure you do. That's why you're all over this thread name calling and making absurd statement.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024590090#post12




ProSense

(116,464 posts)
26. Here are some of Kerry's statements from that time
Sun Mar 2, 2014, 07:41 PM
Mar 2014
We Still Have a Choice on Iraq
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/06/opinion/we-still-have-a-choice-on-iraq.html

Kerry Says US Needs Its Own 'Regime Change'
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0403-08.htm

KERRY, A SENATOR from Massachusetts, first said Thursday that Rumsfeld should step down, saying he proceeded in Iraq “in an arrogant, inappropriate way that has frankly put America at jeopardy.”

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3087318


And the truth is that George Bush has made America weaker by overextending the armed forces of the United States, overstraining, overstraining our reserves, driving away our allies and running the most arrogant, reckless, inept and ideological foreign policy in the modern history of our country.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/03/se.13.html


<...>

As our government conducts one war and prepares for another, I come here today to make clear that we can do a better job of making our country safer and stronger. We need a new approach to national security - a bold, progressive internationalism that stands in stark contrast to the too often belligerent and myopic unilateralism of the Bush Administration. I offer this new course at a critical moment for the country that we love, and the world in which we live and lead. Thanks to the work and sacrifice of generations who opposed aggression and defended freedom, for others as well as ourselves, America now stands as the world's foremost power. We should be proud: Not since the age of the Romans have one people achieved such preeminence. But we are not Romans; we do not seek an empire. We are Americans, trustees of a vision and a heritage that commit us to the values of democracy and the universal cause of human rights. So while we can be proud, we must be purposeful and mindful of our principles: And we must be patient - aware that there is no such thing as the end of history. With great power, comes grave responsibility.
<...>

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/issues/kerr012303spfp.html


He also promised America that he would go to war as a last resort.

Those words mean something to me, as somebody who has been in combat. "Last resort." You've got to be able to look in the eyes of families and say to those parents, "I tried to do everything in my power to prevent the loss of your son and daughter."

I don't believe the United States did that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_0930.html


 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
30. Well, at the time Kerry was calling Assad Hitler
Sun Mar 2, 2014, 07:57 PM
Mar 2014

There was a whole lot of fucking nonsense going on, wasn't there?

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
33. "This is our Munich moment"
Sun Mar 2, 2014, 08:13 PM
Mar 2014


Do you have the first clue what that's referring to, ProSense, "our Munich moment"?

When you advocate hitting a state militarily (missiles are not a "political solution," for fuck's sake!) and try to urge support for doing so by referring to the opportunity as a "Munich moment" as Sec. Kerry does there, that is drawing a direct comparison between the person you are targeting, and Adolf Hitler. It's not the only time Kerry drew such parallels:


“Bashar al-Assad now joins the list of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein who have used these weapons in time of war,” Kerry told NBC’s “Face the Nation.”


So, yes, Kerry certainly was drawing such comparisons.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
34. No,
Sun Mar 2, 2014, 08:19 PM
Mar 2014
“Bashar al-Assad now joins the list of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein who have used these weapons in time of war,” Kerry told NBC’s “Face the Nation.”


So, yes, Kerry certainly was drawing such comparisons.

...you said he called "Assad Hitler." He said Assad "joins the list" of people who committed a specific atrocity. That's not calling him Hitler.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
35. Semantic point, but noted
Sun Mar 2, 2014, 08:22 PM
Mar 2014

I presume you will tell me he had something else in mind with te "Munich Moment" comment? Perhaps he was thinking of starbeirzeit?

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
38. No,
Sun Mar 2, 2014, 08:26 PM
Mar 2014

"I presume you will tell me he had something else in mind with te 'Munich Moment' comment? Perhaps he was thinking of starbeirzeit?"

...I'm not going to tell you that because he made a point, which was about looking away.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
39. Except that's not it at all
Sun Mar 2, 2014, 08:37 PM
Mar 2014

He was drawing a direct comparison to the Munich Agreement in which Assad is cast as Hitler and those opposed to pounding Syria with tomahawk missiles as Chamberlain-esque "appeasers" of this new Hitler.

it had nothing to do with "looking away" and everything with trying ot shame people against military action by casting them in this way... And the EU - to whom kerry was speaking - flatly rejected the comparison and implied accusation against them.

It was a fucking load of nonsense, and frankly it made me embarassed to have voted for the man in 2004.

But as i said, so long as he's learning that diplomacy comes before saber-rattling, it's progress.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
41. Too bad we're not talking about opinions
Sun Mar 2, 2014, 09:03 PM
Mar 2014

Kerry drew a fucking dumb comparison that likened Assad to Hitler and the EU to Neville Chamberlain in an effort to pressure the EU to supporting military strikes against Syria. It didn't work. Them's facts, not opinions.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
42. Yes,
Sun Mar 2, 2014, 09:06 PM
Mar 2014

"Too bad we're not talking about opinions...Kerry drew a fucking dumb comparison that likened Assad to Hitler and the EU to Neville Chamberlain in an effort to pressure the EU to supporting military strikes against Syria. It didn't work. Them's facts, not opinions."

...we are. Frankly, the reason you consider it a "fucking dumb comparison" is that you're spinning it to suit your narrative.

"It didn't work"? Reality says fucking otherwise.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
36. Thanks for posting.
Sun Mar 2, 2014, 08:25 PM
Mar 2014

There is something disingenuous and twisted about attacking a call for diplomacy.

I mean, the media and RW are beating the drum for war. Why exactly would calling for diplomacy be met with such disdain?

It's bizarre too, especially given the administration's attempts to preserve the diplomatic process with Iran in the face of attempts to sabotage it with a vote for stronger sanctions.

What is it about Russia that puts some people on the defensive?


Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Kerry: "This is a ti...