Democrat Would Name Top Envoy to Mideast Process

Democrat Would Name Top Envoy to Mideast Process
By REUTERS

Published: December 3, 2003


Filed at 2:12 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic White House hopeful John Kerry said on Wednesday he would quickly appoint an ambassador to the Middle East peace process -- and named two former presidents and an ex-secretary of state as likely candidates -- if he won the 2004 election.

The Massachusetts senator is one of nine Democrats vying for the right to challenge President Bush as he seeks a second term next year. Kerry said among ``the handful of uniquely qualified'' Americans he would consider for the post were past Democratic Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, as well as Republican James Baker, a former secretary of state.

``Leaders of good will on both sides -- private citizens as well as public officials -- are working to advance the peace process, with some of them offering the outlines of a final settlement,'' Kerry said in remarks prepared for delivery at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

Laying out his foreign policy plans for the first 100 days of a Kerry administration, the senator said he would move immediately to rebuild U.S. alliances and define a global security strategy that was collective, not ``imperial.''

MORE...............

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-politics-kerry.html

James Baker? James Baker?? James Baker???

since Dean mentioned sending Clinton there about, what, 6-9 months ago?

But James effin Baker? Was John not paying attention to the FLA recall when JB was down there working for Team Bush?

We are so lucky Dean is on OUR side.

"Baker also proved masterful at insulating himself from trouble. In the 1980 campaign, Baker prepped Reagan for debates with a briefing book lifted from the Carter campaign. But Baker bore no responsibility for "Briefingate," laying the scandal off on William Casey. As treasury secretary in the late '80s, Baker didn't act against the emerging S & L crisis, leaving the mess for his successor. When Bush chose Dan Quayle as his running mate in 1988, campaign chairman Baker made sure to tell reporters that he disagreed with Quayle's selection. Baker supervised Bush's savage '88 campaign but allowed Lee Atwater to take credit for it, thus ducking accountability for its nastiness. As secretary of state, Baker rightly won credit for constructing the Gulf War coalition, but he never shouldered any blame for the shortsighted policy that encouraged Iraqi adventurousness in the first place. (Baker allowed the American ambassador to take the fall for U.S. friendliness toward Saddam Hussein.)"

From a great Baker bio on Slate:

http://slate.msn.com/id/93754/

He's also Carlyle Group.

It was Baker who pushed Bush1's foreign policy that Dean praised as "excellent" ....are you being disingenuous or didn't you know Dean said that? Personally, I disagree with Kerry that Baker should even be considered.

Dean also said Powell would be a great Sec. of State for anyone, and should have been listened to on Iraq, yet it WAS Powell who promised the Dems in committee that war was a last resort and full diplomatic measures would be employed first. No inconsistency there for Dean?


http://www.msnbc.com/news/1000254.asp

 MATTHEWS: Do you have any confidence that this president is calling the shots?
       DEAN: I think the president does make the last decision. I do think that. I think he gets a lot of advises. The problem is that the people he gets advice from are people he ought to not be paying so much attention to. If he paid more attention to Colin Powell and less attention to Dick-
       Donald Rumsfeld, we wouldn’t be in Iraq right now.
       (APPLAUSE)
       MATTHEWS: Do you think he would be a good secretary of state for you, Colin Powell?
       DEAN: I think he would be a good secretary of state, period. He is a loyal person. He knows, what he is doing. And he has what-let’s get back to the question...
       MATTHEWS: Do you agree with him on foreign policy, Colin Powell?
       DEAN: In many cases I do. I read his books. I like them a lot. You don’t go into a place with no exit strategy. We clearly went into Iraq with not exit strategy.
       Let me answer the question about Kerry’s comments about my foreign policy.
       MATTHEWS: Sure.
       DEAN: Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, Edwards and Wes Clark at first, all of us were in favor of this resolution that was a preemptive unilateral attacks on Iraq. I was not. We all had information from the papers. They presumably had some intelligence information, with the exception of Wes, who may have had some or not. He was out of the government by them. I came to a different conclusion because a lot of what is required of a president for foreign policy is judgment and patience. If I came to a different conclusion than they did, given the amount of trouble we’re now in Iraq, given the fact that al Qaeda is in Iraq now and it wasn’t there before, it seems to me that their kind of foreign policy experience is not the kind we want in the White House and mine is.
       

          MATTHEWS: That’s it? You are a cold man.
       George Bush Sr., Herbert Walker Bush?
       DEAN: Excellent on foreign policy. Not to great on domestic policy.

Kerry just gave a BIG SLAP in the face of anyone who thinks that the Bushies stole the election.

That won't go away either.

Kerry's speech was about foreign policy, and he threw out a bone to the conservatives longing for a more mature foreign policy. I disagree with Baker even being "considered" smart politics or no smart politics.

But, this is ALL about foreign policy and Dean praised Poppy's foreign policy as administered by James Baker. And Powell is a great Sec. of State, too, according to Dean and I happen to disagree with him vehemently on both counts. Do you?

However, as Dean mentions, Powell is ignoring one of his own ideas--never go into a war without an exit strategy. It's clear that Dean isn't happy with Powell now. He's talking more about loyalty there.

Now as to your first statement: no, I never said that Baker did it all on his own and you know I didn't. I remember the late night press conferences, the "riot", and all the other stuff that Baker's dirty little hands have been in. Powell may be an idiotic Bushies at this point in his career, but he's nowhere near as dirty as Baker.

As I said: SLAP right in the face of people who think the Bushies stole the election.

Praise for Poppy by Dean is applauded and Kerry saying he'd merely "consider" Baker as an envoy for a point of bipartisanship is a slap in the face? WHERE is the consistency in your outrage my dear buddy?

And Powell is the cover up king for the BFEE. He covered up in Vietnam, and covered up the illegalities in Bush's wars in Central America, including the murders of peace activists and nuns and clergy there. You know, the wars that Dean had "mixed feelings" about because he sure as hell wouldn't stand against Reagan when asked.

Kerry is throwing a bone out there for real conservatives to contemplate now. Those who PERCEIVED that Bush1 had a mature approach to foreign policy. It doesn't mean that Kerry is going to do it, just would "consider" it in the SPIRIT of bipartisanship.

I'm just laughing at those who lambaste Kerry for this and give Dean a pass for his praise of Poppy and Powell and THEIR foreign policy.

Dean, Dean, Dean, Dean, Dean!

Kerry fucked up here, not Dean. And I know you know that as you can't defend his pick of Baker. Instead you have to try to deflect the thread to a totally unrelated topic.

Kerry has picked Baker as a possible choice for the ME Peace Process. Live with it. Dean had nothing to do with Kerry making a half-assed choice.

Kerry.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm

Shoulda listened to Poppy.

Dean did well on Hardball, I thought.

GENIUS! GENIUS!

But why stop there?

Paul Wolfowitz for Sec of State!

Neil Bush for SEC chief!

Richard Perle for Sec of Defense!

Kerry will excite Democrats with Carter and Clinton and perhaps turn the heads and open the ears of moderate republicans and independents with Baker.

It gives a positive, foward thinking approach to an issue that bush is obviously screwing up. It's nice to see the media focusing on Kerry's approach to policy rather than campaign shakeups or the latest drudge gossip.

He helped orchestrate the coup in 2000, defended the Saudis against the suit of the 911 families and has carried water for bushco for decades. It is a total sellout, imo.

"perhaps turn the heads and open the ears of moderate republicans and independents with Baker."

Did you really just say this? I am aghast, replused, appalled, floored, gobsmacked, and left speechless.

James Fucking Baker?

The fucking patriarch of the Bush coup? The fucking A #1 ASSHAT assigned to steal the election?

Sorry Gloria you need to get some glasses and a fucking hearing aid.

You haven't seen or heard the roar of DEMS who are still not over it.

Memo to Gloria:

Baker is a fucking CRIMINAL. He is an evil twisted fuck. Good move my fucking ass. You need to wake the fuck up.

Yes I am swearing a lot because stupidity just does that to me.

Had to let him know to fire the advisors who came up with James Baker.

Immediately, I received an automated reply...I was so impressed.

Let's see if I get a REAL reply!

one of the worst run campaigns I've had the displeasure of witnessing.

Fucking Baker? Yeah...good idea John :eyes:

Forkboy: perhaps a re-wording?

That dumb fucking Baker? Well, that's a peachy idea, Kerry!

but

Fucking Baker? Yeah...good idea John.


Far be it from me to give sexual suggestions to Baker & Kerry...but, all I have to say about the way I initially read your post is
:puke: . Although, it would look cute on the cover of the Enquirier!

good point :)

.

So...you decide to bring in a canidate that's not even involved with the story to prop Kerry up a bit?

I can understand you bringing Dean in, IF he had been involved with breaking this story.

But Kerry made the choice himself. He's the one who picked Baker...and NOTHING Dean has done or will do in the future will take away the fact that it was Kerry who fucked up here.

Nope.

I am intellectually honest when I say that I disagree with Kerry throwing that bone to the conservatives and that he would even "consider" Baker is a horrid thought to me, even if it is smart politics.

My point in that reply is to direct those who are lambasting Kerry on this "consideration" to Dean's remarks which are far worse in scope and meaning. It's called integrity and consistency, khephra, and I'd like to see a shred of it from those who weigh in against Kerry while giving Dean a free ride.

The known is unknown and Kerry is really unknown and if he speaks of James Baker then we aren't really in the land of unknown but in the land of unknown known and we have integrity and consistency and let's toss scope and meaning into the debacle because the buzz words works when one is talking shit and please let us add lambasting into the mix because it sounds so poshly known.

Sorry BLM Kerry fucked the duck on this one.

My point is against those who attack Kerry while giving Dean a pass on praise for Bush1 and Powell.

Just about every Democrat in Congress has praised Shrub at one time or another. Read Carville and Begala's "Suck Up...etc" and maybe you'll understand why.

Your bitterness is shining through. This isn't about Kerry fucking up, this is about Dean getting a free ride.

(shakes head)

Glass houses and all that rot, BLM.

And considering someone in the spirit of bipartisanship (or for political perception) is easier to take than praising the very policies that created the blowback against this nation we are experiencing today. It seems Kerry fought AGAINST Reagan and Bush policies for most of that time.

Does Kerry need a salvia test or what? Or is Kerry trying to piss me off? James A. Baker the third??

He can't be serious on this one, or does that tell us that he also has ties with the Carlyle thugs?

I used to have some respect for Kerry, now I really have little. I wish he would go away already, he honestly DOES think the Democratic base is stupid and clueless. Sure seems like his new team knows what they are doing. :crazy:

or the DLC is even worse than some of us thought, and is totally in bed with the Repugs. It's the most bizarre statement, I can imagine coming from a Democratic Candidate. Kerry is sophisticated enough not to make such a statement unless it means something. Whatever it means we should be very worried about this campaign. There's more there than meets the eye or the ear.

since the other thread is locked

Kerry has to listen to his wife's suggestions. Not a great idea electing a republican first lady..

Your claim that Baker is tight with Theresa Heinz-Kerry? That would be very troubling to me.

until falling for Dudley Do-right.

That would be embarrassing to have a widow of a Repuke congressman as the First Lady for a Democratic administration.

you want some laura bush type that takes orders from the guys and doesn't speak her mind ? and do you know anything about the late senator john heinz ? he wasn't right wing. do you oppose jim jeffords also ? do you dislike lincoln chafee for being republican ? do you like zell miller just because he is a democrat ?

1. Could be trying on the "big tent" idea.
2. Testing for Dems response (such as here) to the idea.
3. Getting Carter or Clinton to go OMG, yes I'll take it you give me no other choice.
4. Getting some attention from the press.

Kerry to the bottom of my list. Now WAaaaaaaaaaaay behind Lieberman.

The fuckhead...

peace plan in the M.E. it's necessary to nominate persons with credibility from both camps.
Carter and Clinton are no-brainers in this respect...however the pool of available GOP meat is somewhat gamier....Kissinger can't leave the country without being arrested, General Haig is a nut, no one has heard anything from George Schultz in years and that party's ex-presidential contingent are all approaching senility.
Hence Baker is on the list by default it seems...the rest of the country couldn't care less about who Kerry nominates only that he is prepared to push the issue once he is President.


www.chimesatmidnight.blogspot.com

Hypothetical situation:

Kerry wins.

Kerry appoints Baker.

Baker is a Bush fixer.

Kerry had to beat Bush to get in office.

The Bush family has never been known to lose gracefully.

Kerry is just going to put the fate of the ME Peace process in the hands of the person most likely to fuck them up out of loyalty to the Bushies and it's all going to work out for the best?

ROTFLMAO.

:kick: