and most of us are getting poorer.

not paying much in taxes as they hide their money/investments, the middle class shrinking and lower income people increasing. Kerry is REALLY out of touch but what do you expect from a 1%-er married to a Heinz fortune?

Could be because you elite rich bastards have made it a poor nation? As for the "new" isolationism, check your history books, John. The US was an isolationist nation for a good portion of it's history. It would be a good thing to explore the nature of governance, Secretary, and not just give in to the tendencies dictated by the MIC. And you, YOU, came back from Viet Nam to channel an anti-war movement amongst vets? I see you are more corrupt than you ever thought you'd be. Shame on you and your privileged friends. Your adventurism is no solution and you know it, but you just have to keep the money machine rolling, don't you?

I challenge you to name any another lawmaker who has investigated and exposed more government corruption than John Kerry has over the last 3 decades.

traffic in Boston would now be far tougher than it is! I assume you prefer that a MA Senator would have taken a Chris Christie like action and worked against a major transit project for the state - to its detriment.

Kerry did support money for the project - as did Kennedy and the entire MA Congressional delegation. The problem with the Big Dig was NOT the proposal, but the implementation. That was done by the STATE government, not their federal delegation. The Republican governors and the people they put in charge were guilty of graft and mismanagement - and maybe because of this - the project greatly exceeded its original budget. That the Senators and Congressmen then got more money is not bad - it was necessary.

I do not live in Boston, but do drive there regularly to visit a daughter who lives there. I also have many friends who do live in MA. One once mentioned that a section of Boston, that we were then walking in, was totally transformed by the Big Dig. It was a pretty, light filled area in the process of gentrification. She spoke of the area having been in the shadows of overpasses replaced by tunnels.

what has he exposed?
He is married to the widow of a fellow who was on the flight that made the payment.
I tend to think he knows all about what happened.
Does America?

Even if true, you are speaking of 1980 - Kerry married Teresa in 1995. Even if true - and even if John Heinz told Teresa and she told John Kerry - what should he have done 15 years after the fact?

Look at Kerry's OWN actions on BCCI and the Contras from the time he first became a Senator thru the early 1990s - when the Senate took away his SFRC subcommittee. Without Kerry's committee's hearings on the Contras, it is possible that Iran/Contra would have been just about Iran payments and the Lebanese hostages. (A combination that would have been less bad for Reagan/Bush.) Not to mention, most of the perjury indictments - including Elliot Abrabms - were for lying to Kerry under oath.

funny thing about how stories/links that old can disappear from the internet.
but then funnier still how some things remain-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x292769

GHWB's personal lawyer passed a multi-million dollar check to
CONTINUE THE CAPTIVITY OF AMERICANS!! in Iran.

Nothing else comes close to the level of treason and tampering.
Kerry could have told you this.
The Senate could have exposed this in 1991.
figure it out.

The Bush Family would have been destroyed, and 2000-on would
NEVER HAVE HAPPENED.
Kerry is a made man.

If your SOLE connection for Kerry is Teresa - this is before he really knew her. Not to mention, if true and if she had proof, I doubt Teresa would have betrayed her first husband's memory. She loved him and has three sons of his. (No one in 1996 (a more likely time than 1991) could have predicted that GWB would become President.)

Go read the Kerry report on BCCI written about that time.

I KNOW there are tons of conspiracy theory nonsense - however none bother to explain the FACT that Kerry fought powers that be in both parties going after BCCI. (He was called by both Carter and Jackie Kennedy to stop that investigation).

Kerry contributed as much anyone in government in going after Iran/Contra - but it was the economy, not that scandal, that defeated GHWB in 1992. The Iran/Contra issue MIGHT have been raised more if the Democratic nominee was not the governor of Arkansas - however, it is likely that ANY Democratic nominee would have seen that a positive campaign on hope and change was likely to be more successful.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile1.html

come on.
are you buying, or selling?

claiming he was too zealous. Kerry countered by demanding Senate leader allow him to pursue BCCI.

IMO, only someone interested in smearing Kerry would get the story that wrong.

No Senate committee is mentioned. The hearing Kerry was undertaking in that interval was on BCCI. He had investigated the Contras - but was not included in the bicameral Iran/Contra committee.

Read your own links.

.

investigations and Lawrence Walsh was Special Prosecutor. Kerry was forced off the Senate IranContra investigation by Bush for being 'over-zealous', the same way Bush got Robert Parry fired from his job after his investigative reporting that led to the uncovering of many of the IranContra stories.

the S&L scandal.

And he did it pretty much on his own and at great cost to one of his personal goals.

tell me about the results.
Id give Gonzalez some props there.
Not Kerry.

scandal, the senate leader gave in to GHWBush and kicked Kerry off the senate panel claiming he was overzealous. Kerry demanded he be allowed to pursue BCCI in exchange. He ended up uncovering BCCI, CIA drug running and S&Ls all in the course of his original pursuit of IranContra. BTW....Henry Gonzalez doggedly pursued IranContra in the House after the initial uncovering of the early facts by Kerry. Gonzalez also pursued Iraqgate after Lawrence Walsh took over as Special Prosecutor in IranContra.



How did you manage to get the facts so wrong and why pretend that you have a grasp of the facts when you clearly do not?

Kerry could have spilled the beans.
he didnt.
married them.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair

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

participating on Senate IranContra committee did you find difficult to comprehend?

http://www.salon.com/2004/07/22/kerry_36/

poor fellow.
Meanwhile,
Bush V Gore
IWR.

.

you own history

.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.sirota.html

Follow the Money

How John Kerry busted the terrorists' favorite bank.
By David Sirota and Jonathan Baskin

Two decades ago, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) was a highly respected financial titan. In 1987, when its subsidiary helped finance a deal involving Texas oilman George W. Bush, the bank appeared to be a reputable institution, with attractive branch offices, a traveler's check business, and a solid reputation for financing international trade. It had high-powered allies in Washington and boasted relationships with respected figures around the world.

All that changed in early 1988, when John Kerry, then a young senator from Massachusetts, decided to probe the finances of Latin American drug cartels. Over the next three years, Kerry fought against intense opposition from vested interests at home and abroad, from senior members of his own party; and from the Reagan and Bush administrations, none of whom were eager to see him succeed.

By the end, Kerry had helped dismantle a massive criminal enterprise and exposed the infrastructure of BCCI and its affiliated institutions, a web that law enforcement officials today acknowledge would become a model for international terrorist financing. As Kerry's investigation revealed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, BCCI was interested in more than just enriching its clients--it had a fundamentally anti-Western mission. Among the stated goals of its Pakistani founder were to "fight the evil influence of the West," and finance Muslim terrorist organizations. In retrospect, Kerry's investigation had uncovered an institution at the fulcrum of America's first great post-Cold War security challenge.
>>>>

But legislation is only one facet of a senator's record. As the BCCI investigation shows, Kerry developed a very different record of accomplishment--one often as vital, if not more so, than passage of bills. Kerry's probe didn't create any popular new governmental programs, reform the tax code, or eliminate bureaucratic waste and fraud. Instead, he shrewdly used the Senate's oversight powers to address the threat of terrorism well before it was in vogue, and dismantled a key terrorist weapon. In the process, observers saw a senator with tremendous fortitude, and a willingness to put the public good ahead of his own career. Those qualities might be hard to communicate to voters via one-line sound bites, but they would surely aid Kerry as president in his attempts to battle the threat of terrorism.

From drug lords to lobbyists

Despite having helmed the initial probe which led to the Iran-Contra investigation, Kerry was left off the elite Iran-Contra committee in 1987. As a consolation prize, the Democratic leadership in Congress made Kerry the chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations and told him to dig into the Contra-drug connection. Kerry turned to BCCI early in the second year of the probe when his investigators learned that Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega was laundering drug profits through the bank on behalf of the Medellin cartel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The Kerry hearings were in his small SFRC subcommittee that he started when he was approached by vets, who trusted him because of 1971, telling him they were recruited to fly guns to the Contras and to fly cocaine into the US on the return which would pay for the operation. Kerry knew that this would be a lose/lose thing to do - even risking his Senate seat. However, he thought it was an important thing to do and the right thing to do.

He went to Lugar, the chair of the committee, and was told that he would be given a subcommittee (with the subpoena power that comes with it) if he could get a Republican to co-chair it. This itself should have ended things, but Kerry persuaded Jesse Helmes(!) to back him - even though he thought the Contras were heroes - because he was very anti-drugs.

Kerry hired - as his personal staff - many people who were investigators, most notably Jack Blum. He supported them even as he received death threats and withstood planted media reports that smeared him. He had problems with the Republican staff on the committee leaking stuff to the President and the RW media. However the witnesses - that the US government tried to discredit - were vindicated when a plane involved in this crashed in Central America - and it matched the description given of the plane. They then verified that it had flown out of Mena, Arkansas.

The report that Kerry's committee wrote which was blasted by the mainstream media detailed that the CIA had turned a blind eye to these flights - and they did illegally give arms to the Contras and bring drugs into the US. I KNOW there are conspiracy theorists who use the wealth of data in Kerry's report who then criticize Kerry for not going further and calling it a CIA led effort. In fact, Kerry's report contained everything he could PROVE. His background as an exceptional prosecutor shows in this. The report led to things like Newsweek calling him a "randy conspiracy nut". In the 1990s, the CIA - to avoid another investigation on this - stated that the Kerry report was accurate. (Note that the media is guilty - maybe because they were uncomfortable with US wrong doing - quickly "forgot" this happened - and it certainly is not part of the accepted story of the Reagan years. ) In all likelihood, it was Kerry's work and the crash of the plane that allowed them to prove the witnesses were telling the truth that put a stop to this despicable plan. (Consider the impact that had on the inner cities of the US in the late 1980s.)

As to the big Iran/Contra hearing, it is generally considered to have been poorly run and included a lot of people grandstanding before the cameras. There had been almost no coverage of Kerry's serious grillings on his committee. They gave immunity to many people before they testified making it impossible to then try them. (It was lying to Kerry that led to the perjury charges of people like Elliot Abrams - something the media should (but doesn't) note every time he blasts Kerry.) The result was that where the scandal did shock many, it also created many right wing heroes - most notably Oliver North. It is true that most books on the Iran/Contra hearings speak mostly of the very public hearings and the indictments of Walsh.

I got your back, Carla. I'd write more in support, but I gotta go....

Um, nice of you to finally notice...

the trade agreements that has contributed greatly to the poor economy.

Nothing worse than a poor guy acting like he's rich. ..same goes for nations.

Senate Democrats, in interviews today with National Review Online, roundly praised the “Occupy Wall Street” movement. Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.), for example, identified himself as an ally of the cause. “I’m very, very understanding of where they’re coming from,” he said. “I think there’s a lot of frustration and a lot of anger, and I’d been sort of anticipating that before long, people were going to start demonstrating it in various ways.”
>>>>

He was talking about Iran and Syria.

TPTB don't appreciate our complaining about our jobs being shipped offshore and oil that's going to pollute this country only to be exported anyway.

Does he have a memory problem ?

if you have to buy them?

America engages in international prostitution.

Meanwhile, we are the ones getting fucked at home.

Where is the extended unemployment? Where are the jobs?

Where is our financial security beyond a 9mm retirement plan?

America first!

four or five trillion dollars.

My great-great-great grandkids are still gonna be paying for these adventures.

Defense contractors, Boeing, Halliburton, Carlisle the Banks and much of the 1%

The ones who didn't are the men and women who died or had their legs and arms blown off.

85 people have more wealth than 3.5 billion people, half the planet's population.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world

We don't need an empire. We need to repair our bridges and replace our water mains.

Obama backed his infrastructure bank proposal - but it went nowhere with Republicans, including some who were cosponsors!

What Kerry, as Secretary of State, is speaking for is the State Department budget. This is his job - and it is long held belief in diplomacy having a positive impact as well.

... in jobs.

Kerry's world view is fine, but we have bigger fish to fry RIGHT HERE AT HOME. And when we can't even offer subsistence to the long term unemployed, YES WE ARE ACTING POOR.

Congress is so clueless they don't notice as they're driven to the Capitol by their drivers.

We're oh just a wee bit over involved as is.

Bring it home.

Let the Chinese clout themselves blind for awhile.

clear to me. Is he railing at Congress, the President, the DoD for cutting its budget? The American people for being tired of overseas interventions? He's aware we've been through a crippling recession, right?

for their lack of action on Syria and their complaints about progress with Syria.

I could not find a video of this particular meeting with the press or any full, in context quotes.

But here is an article that breaks it down a bit more sensibly

http://news.yahoo.com/kerry-decries-isolationism-says-u-acts-poor-nation-033932577.html

The day before he was also using the term isolationism when referring to congress/republicans and Syria.

The American people didn't want it, few in Congress wanted it, and the Pentagon didn't want it.

Kerry had been working with Lavrov on Syria before the chemical weapon attack. They have always been on the same page reSyria. The dogandpony show was necessary to make it happen.

the airstrikes. He was really gung-ho about those ideas--it wasn't a bluff or an act. It's clear he's frustrated about Syria and wants to do more--but someone or some people in the WH (possibly including Obama) have held back. At the end of the Munich conference, he supposedly told McCain and a handful of other Senators that he considered Obama's Syria policy a failure and that he still wanted to arm the rebels more. That's not to discount his diplomatic efforts in Geneva, but let's not pretend he hasn't been pushing for more intervention in Syria.

He and Lavrov knew exactly what they intended for Syria. Kerry intervened personally with his trips to meet with Assad in an effort to stop Bush from invading Syria back when Bush had MANY Dems supporting it, including both Clintons.

Let's be honest, you are depending on conclusions drawn from a lazy-minded media that ignored Kerry's efforts to prevent the expansion of war into Syria that go back to 2005. They never put Kerry's efforts in context.

spokesperson, who was there with them said that he did NOT say that - THEY did. Senator Murphy (D, CT) who was there also denied it. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/us-denies-kerry-said/978456.html (Note that Jen Psacki's rejection of McCain's claim was in the original articles, but the media wrote the story from McCain's side.

Kerry was always leery of giving arms due to not knowing if the weapons would end up with AQ.

After years of expensive foreign adventures and large budgets for CIA, NSA etc it might be time to try a bit of isolationism. In case you did not notice we cannot afford the American Empire anymore, because -like other empires in the past - we overextended ourselves.

Unfortunately, this country can no longer afford to be the wet nurse for the world. Charity begins at home.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024523398#post10

We have all felt the sacrifice of OUR little lambs who died for this country

enough is enough

Not to mention, he is working to avoid war.

Read the article - even the RW Moonie Press is accurate on that. The whole idea is that DIPLOMACY might avoid future wars.

This country is becoming a poor nation. And years of unending war is one big reason why.