Kerry says he'd consider bending over & naming James Baker a Mideast envoy

Vowing to reverse President Bush's foreign policies, Democrat John Kerry is outlining new plans to stem "a widespread and widening network of terrorists," such as targeting Saudi Arabia for sanctions and naming a special ambassador to the Mideast - perhaps Bill Clinton.

The presidential candidate from Massachusetts, in a speech Wednesday to the Council of Foreign Relations in New York, said there are a handful of people he would consider naming to the post, including former Democratic Presidents Clinton and Carter as well as James Baker, secretary of state in the first Bush White House.

<snip>

Kerry said American can't neglect its role in resolving the Israeli- Palestinian conflict in the Mideast, a breeding ground for terrorist activity. He pledged to appoint a presidential ambassador to the peace process, who would report directly to him and to the secretary of state.

"There are a handful of uniquely qualified Americans I would consider appointing - President Carter, President Clinton or, in the interests of bipartisanship, James Baker," he said.

<snip>

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031203/APN/312030664

Anyhow, why the hell would he James Baker there? The guy basically helped Bush win the election in 2000 during the recount.

Might as well send Carter, a man who actually has results in the region.

The Presidency is no place for a pink tutu.

That is my main beef against Kerry.

I admire his record and the man but on this point I will not be persuaded to believe otherwise.

anyone who defends bush and the saudis is not a defender of freedom

to think a year ago he was my first pick.How the mighty have fallen.

If he's interested in bipartisonship there are some better Repubs to choose than that shitheel,corrupt Baker.

Good god, why not throw in Kissinger too? I mean, if we are going to troll the extremist right for bipartisanship, why not make it a twofer?

That is my opinion of Kerry hitting rock bottom.

Baker is the fixer for the Bushes. So much for my vote.

Kerry obviously does not "get" the level of disgust that so many progressives and democrats feel for the Bush crime family...and that's putting it nicely.

This is no longer politics as usual for too many of us since the election theft 2000.

Surely his political "handlers" are somewhat aware of that. So this is a real slap in the face.

...are you still crying in your teacup over 2000? That's so september 10th...

Damn straight 2000 is still an issue! Baker has been a Bush family "fixer" for decades. This guy shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the levers of power.

and leaves no fingerprints. ;-)

Julie

Baker has always got the Bush's out of trouble. What is with Kerry? These people who voted for the was power act are not doing so well.

I don't like Baker, but he did pressure Bush to go to the UN and warned him about how he was handling Iraq last August. Besides, Kerry hasn't even given this speech yet, it's scheduled for later today.

after you call the campaign.

You give me much too much credit.

I don't know the purpose of the statement. I don't know if he's even seen the speech yet. It might just be in there to differentiate neocons from people like Jim Baker, and there is a difference, even though I don't like Jim Baker any better.

has been released to the AP, and you are questioning whether Kerry has even seen it?

I don't enjoy it when my morning coffee is forced out of my nose by spontaneous laughter.

Why? You're grassroots aren't you? I've called my candidate a few times when I thought it was important. Alone, it makes no difference of course, but if they hear the same thing from several, it will be heard.

Post it on the blog. They read the blog, don't they and take supporters ideas and opinions into account? Don't sell Kerry short.

Think the Oslo Accords were a good thing? Thank Baker. He has the trust and respect of Arabs. Sometimes you have to get over your prejudices and realize that the right guy is the right guy, Republican or not. There is no Democrat who has anywhere close the level of trust with the Arabs that Baker does. Maybe we should just turn the whole thing over to Dean 's guy Danny Sebright, though. You know Sebright -- he wrote all of Dean's foreign policy until quite recently. Sure, he works for William Cohen (Republican), worked for the DoD overseeing the Afghan war (iow, worked for Bush), and was in charge of secret arms sales to Israel and other ME countries, but hey, consistency doesn't count here, does it?


I heard that the word on the Dean blog went out, and you people think Kerry is a dead horse, and the marching orders are now to get Clark, Gep and Edwards. Didn't you get the memo?

And you'll be pleased to know that it was easy to find, if you're a frequent news reader/hunter. No marching orders needed. Heck, the Kerry campaign put out the quotes before the speech.

I don't think this cooks his campaign, but you'll soon find that there's a lot of DUers here who aren't "over it"--and they're not all Deanies.

Enter the Man Who Gets Things Done

James Baker was uniquely situated to fulfill Cheney’s commission, for among the many hats he wears, he is legal counsel to the Carlyle Group, one of the nation’s largest defense investment firms whose board consists of former high level government officials, including George Bush senior. Baker was also the “hired gun” for George W. Bush’s campaign in Florida, along with Karl Rove. But among the hats he wears, none is more valuable than his ability to become invisible and leave no fingerprints behind. James Baker courts the press and is hailed a statesman; he also serves as the honorary chairman of the James Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, a think tank that was involved in aiding the George W. Bush presidential transition teams.

Equally intriguing is the fact that Baker has ties with both the Bushes and Ken Lay. Years earlier, in 1993, after Baker stepped down from his stint as Secretary of State, he and Robert A. Mosbacher—Bush senior’s commerce secretary—signed a joint consulting and investing agreement with Enron. The two men began a lucrative career making joint global investments with Enron on natural gas projects. Baker Botts LLC, James Baker’s law firm, flourished in its specialty of international oil and gas counseling.

Since Baker walked in their circles, when he set out to select an energy team to advise the White House, he filled it with leaders of the oil, gas, and power industries. Three appointees stand out: Kenneth Lay from Enron, who was working on the Bush Energy Transition team under Dick Cheney at the time; Chuck Watson, the then Chairman and CEO of Houston’s Dynegy Inc., and Dynegy’s General Counsel and Secretary, Kenneth Randolf. Both firms were deeply involved in illegally manipulating the California energy market at the time and eventually faced criminal investigations.

The oilmen selected for the task force were Luis Giusti, a Shell non-executive director, formerly CEO of Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A.; John Manzoni, regional president of British Petroleum; David O’Reilly, Chief Executive of Chevron/Texaco; and Steven L. Miller, Board Chairman, CEO and President of Shell Oil.

and so much more....

http://www.yuricareport.com/PoliticalAnalysis/FraudinWhiteHouse.htm

I recommend you read this report before you go defending Baker.

Julie

Anyone with a double-digit IQ knows that Baker is wrapped up with the Bushes (gee, he ran Papa Bush's presidential campaigns three times, and served as Sec State and Chief of Staff for daddy Bush, kind of a hint).

Sebright, your guy's guy, also has dirty hands. There are no clean hands in international politics. Not Carter's, not Clinton's -- nobody's. You want to get things done? You need someone with Arab trust. That's Baker. Somehow, I doubt that a special envoy in charge of diplomacy will be in a position to make secret deals with the BFEE or whatever other paranoid conspiracies you people will spin.

Congrats to Kerry for knowing who can get the job there done, and for having the guts to say it because it's the truth, not because it might spare him criticism from some misguided leftists tossing off conspiracy theories and ignorance with equal aplomb.

don't change a thing! :-)

Julie

But light on the arguments, so it all balances out.

You should read that report before you go defending Baker.

For that matter, I never thought I would see James Baker defended here at DU. That is one sad sight.

Julie

thanks for the insults.

Yes, realpolitik isn't black and white, but can you appreciate for a moment that many, many people in this country might be more than a leeeetle bit pissed that Baker helped to manufacture the Bush coup?

If that makes me a leftist, then I guess this country is more fucked up than I ever imagined...that I might, as a principle, oppose someone who was intimately instrumental with putting this nation in the fucking mess it is right now.

You know, I wasn't committed to one candidate or another, but you have done much to sway me away from Kerry, if you are a typical supporter of his.

Obviously you think this is politics as usual.

Just one more reason for me to want to get the fuck out of this country and go live somewhere were democracy actually matters, since it doesn't seem to matter to too many people in this country nowadays.

Of course Baker has the Arabs' trust--they're his clients!

<snip> As reported by Wayne Madsen in the Online Journal on January 16, 2003, Western Sahara -- illegally occupied by Morocco in 1975 -- is now reporting significant finds, and U.S. oil companies like Kerr-McGhee, fronted by former Bush I Secretary of State and consummate oil man James Baker, are signing offshore exploration agreements with the Moroccan government. Baker and his law firm Baker-Potts turn up in every major oil development from Kazakhstan to the Balkans to Africa. </snip>

http://fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/051503_saudi_africa.html

<snip> He says the government shouldn't overreact to corporate scandals. He led the campaigns of the last four Republican presidents. He watched the September 11 attacks at the Ritz-Carlton with the Bin Laden family. He's defending the Saudi's against a trillion-dollar lawsuit brought forth by the September 11 families.

Some say he's the most powerful lawyer in the world. He may be one of the busiest. Who is he?

He's the Senior Counsel for The Carlyle Group, a company that invests pension funds in defense and telecommunications companies around the world. The Carlyle Group is the nation's 10th largest defense contractor, with extensive ties to Enron, Global Crossing, Arthur Andersen, the Saudi Royal Family, and the Bin Ladens. </snip>

http://www.hereinreality.com/baker.html

is more likely the right guy the Arabs would most likely trust.

http://www.progressive.org/Media%20Project%202/mpas2302.html

Chances are those more inclined to champion Republicans never heard of him, right Bunter?

You started out funny and you're just getting more and more hilarious. I think of you fondly as Mr. Smarty Pants!

Anybody who's ever read the Dean blog (which I bet you have, haven't you ... come on, fess up!) knows that there have never been any marching orders, planning of group movements against other candidates, memes against other candidates or anything else of the sort that so many supporters of other campaigns are so fond of. The many trolling Clarkies who show up there are fun to make sport of though, and deserve much of the credit for busting our latest troll goal. (That's the one where we donate "cha ching" to a special fund for Dean whenever a troll shows up on the blog. Self-policing, ya know.)

We're just too busy having a great time organizing and working our hearts out on the ground in real life, supporting our candidate in a hugely positive. Real life, Billy? Remember that? Try it some time. It's fun.

and FAST! Damn, how soon we forget! James Baker, "We'll take this to the Supreme Court and have this idiot who can't speak english appointed", James Baker? The--I'm connected to the Carlyle Group, James Baker? Not a smart move on Kerry's part.

That was Kerry's message to us all as we complained about the stolen election.

Maybe this inclusion of Baker is part of the healing process.

Yeah, let's call in the perpetrators to conduct the surgery. Sheesh! :eyes:

of some of these comments. ;-)

Julie

. . . nothing like kissing the butt of the BFEE. Baker is one of several Bush Sr. henchmen who was instrumental in aiding and abetting Hussein with arms/weapons back in the late 80s/early 90s. One small example (enter "james baker" iran-contra in google for much more): http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/speeches/clinton.dir/c129.txt

John, you are the weakest link. good-bye.

And THIS is EXACTLY what I mean about Kerry being in bed with the BFEE.

Kerry is PANDERING to the BFEE.

It was James Baker who, according to John Loftus, who said to Bush- "Fuck the Jews, they won't vote for us anyway"

Baker's resume is so overflowing with bloody shit that THIS is the PERFGECT example of why my claims that Kerry is reallt BFEE friendly makes perfect sense.

JEEESH!!!


Keryy, Kerry, Kerry. WHAT PARAQUAT were YOU smoking and why did you drop the SOAP in the Council on Foreign Realtions shower? YOU must LIKE that.

BUT you will NOT get US f*cked and the Jews and Israelis and Arabs F*cked by the likes ofd BAKER, homie!

Go BACK in your elitist hole and stay away from our presidency (AND the Vice Presidency(

And where in the F--- is Will Pitt on this?

Indefensible forever!

I mean, it is early and all. Trust me in this: he's already got a heads up on this one, even though he's not checked in yet.

But, with this announcement by him, I've got to say that whatever the worst you thought of him and said on this Board, has turned out to be true. That John Kerry could speak that man's name as in any way being an envoy for Democrats to send into the Middle East, shows that those of us who were uneasy about him from the beginning, were correct to have misgivings. It's more than misgivings. Anyone who would consider having Baker involved in the ME doesn't deserve the Presidency, and I wouldn't vote for him if he was ABBB!! I would not vote for him if he was the last man standing! This is shocking to me!

Nope... :wtf: Kerry? James Bakkker? :wtf:


In the interest of bi-partisianship? If you play by the bi-partsian rules of the Republicans you would only nominate a Dem.

obviously suffering from some mid-life crisis. So glad that he won't be a contender and he has only himself to blame. The encouraging news is the Dem base isn't buying whatever it is he thinks he is selling.

He is the worst slime.

Kerry is SOOOOO Toast.

Thanks John.

Adios

against the Sept 11 families in their litigation.

would be political suicide for Kerry, IMHO.

Obviously Kerry has been playing the game for too long, with too many friends in high places and can no longer tell the difference between the bad guys and the good guys.

Somebody better send him a clue before he gives this speech and really puts his foot in it. He just lost my vote.

Right behind Wesley Clark.

running for the door.

Is there any better way to get Baker to expend all of his time in Iran and Turkey and Kazakhstan struggling against Russian scheming, rather providing competence to efforts furthering the Bush family agenda?

Sending your most competent enemy off to work on an intractable problem in a place where he can't do you any harm is a vaunted tradition. Especially when he's perfectly willing.

I can't believe the lack of savvy and maturity I'm seeing here. Here's a clue: 'emotional thinking' is not thinking. Confusing the tool with the end it was used for is associationism of Limbaughian dimensions. Do you guys ever get over yourselves, or for that matter anything your percieved political rival campaigns do or say? Aren't ever ashamed of going as low in the insinuations as you do?

Btw 'pruner', are you identical with 'Closer'?

I'm sorry that you approve.

that you get your buttons so easily.

Kerry would not appoint James Baker because he wishes to weaken the evil Bush family agenda. He would appoint a Mideast envoy who he thought would be successful.

1) James Baker goes and fails.
2) James Baker goes and succeeds.
3) James Baker doesn't go.

Which of these is the best and which the worst scenario?

rather than dealing with the reality.

The "emotional attack" argument is a typical tactic in lieu of any substantial position--rather the accuser adorns himself with the self-proclaimed status or reason or logic to counter opposing views

Oh, please. You've got to be kidding? Where ever that snake crawls he does harm.

and do not think. Thank goodness for those posters - like you - who think and have the maturity to want what is best for this country. We also need candidates like Kerry that have the HISTORY and EXPERIENCE in foreign policy affairs.

Why would Baker, a known Bush "janitor", come in and help out--and I actually mean HELP OUT--an administration that has kicked a Bush family member out of office? Would you really trust someone with Baker's background into doing the right thing when he's done nothing but the wrong thing for his entire political life?

This guy?

SPEAKERS LIST: JAMES A. BAKER, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE

BAKER: Thank you very much. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you, Governor Whitman.

Ladies and gentlemen, I can sum up the Clinton administration's foreign policy in one sentence. Bill Clinton has done for foreign policy what Hillary did for health care.

(APPLAUSE)

Over the last four years, the Clinton administration has made over 25 trips to Damascus to pay court to Syria's dictator and they've come up with exactly zero.

So when they write the history of Bill Clinton's foreign policy, they're going to call it "Gullible's Travels."

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

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/conventions/san.diego/transcripts/0814/baker.fdch.shtml

Kerry is the BFEE's other go to guy if Bush flunks out to protect them. Baker, a Carlyle principal with the Bin Ladens, will PROTECT the evil connections and Kerry would let him.

Kerry is brain dead or worse - a total sellout.

(The other go to guy for the BFEE is Clark IMHO)

So that's not exactly what I was looking for. ;-)

But it answers the question of why Kerry would or is already sold out to the BFEE and CFR mafia

Beers (?), Wilson and Cleland were absorbed into Kerry's campaign. Has anything revelatory worked its way out of that association yet?

I know Wilson still has some low key speaking engagements that I've noticed tangentially in the last few weeks. But when Cleland quit the 911 Commission for an admin appointment, I was really stymied. Has there been any kind of reason offered for that?

Kerry will be the Dem nominee. Wait and see. If he's connected with Baker, Carlyle, Bfee, Mr. Oil Man of the ME, Crime Incorporated, and boldly suggesting that he would work with him in his administration, then we've lost it. Baker is probably the most powerful guy in America now, next to Henry Kissinger.

Anyone remember Stephanopolis's exclusive interview with Baker in Baker's office where Baker sat behind his desk with American Flags in the background looking like the President. It was just after we invaded Iraq, and it was bizarre. Why was Steph going to Baker's office for an exclusive interview, which was about Nothing, really. It creeped me out because it looked like Baker was the real President, and didn't fit in with the rest of Steph's show that Sunday. I thought something was up, but never have figured out what that was except some signal to the Repugs that Baker was fully in charge and don't pay attention to the Chimp, because what he was doing was "fully backed" in Iraq. IOW to quell Repugs who were nervous about the Invasion. That's the only explanation I could come up with.

And, just in case anyone thinks it was just me and I'm a conspiracy theorist, my hubby who's very non-conspiracy theory and knows more about politics than I do, thought the same thing. It was very creepy!

Baker has a long history way back to Nixon and before of having his hand in everything disruptive the Repugs have done. No way he should be looked on as some "kindly interventionist" doing good works for his Country for no reward.

More unilateral bipartisanship. Thanks for reminding me John.

Chief of BFEE? Founder of the Bush Dynasty and Chief Enabler? Does Kerry think we Democrats out here are stupid??? Does he think we don't know who he is?

You must be kidding. It can't be that James Baker! Kerry couldn't be that clueless that he would wave a red flag in our face!

Can this guy get any worse?

I wonder whom he will endorse after he drops out. Perhaps Clark.

n/t

How else are you going to stay out of Bush's draft?

Oh yeah. You're pinning your hopes on Ho-Ho.

Har dee har har.

Ten-hut!

Clinton's a swell idea. I liked the idea when Dean had it.

But BAKER? You'd defend the idea of a Dem admin hooking up with James Baker?

Go ahead and take Kerry's comment out of context. I welcome the opportunity to do the same to Ho-Ho, who's done more talking than anything truly Democratic in his career.

You don't think Kerry would like to get James Baker behind bars? Baker is one of the turds Nixon said he'd never fire — the Texans (Mosbacher and Poppy Bush being the others). All their names go back to Dallas on 22 Nov 1963.

BTW: Like most of what he says, Dean borrowed the idea of using Clinton as special Middle-East envoy. You probably forgot that Clinton was asked, several times, to send Jimmy Carter. Clinton declined. The following exams possible reasons why:

Clinton's Strangely Homogenous Middle East Peace Team

by Eugene Bird

EXCERPT...

Carter himself was the ultimate key to making that first lasting peace. He was tough enough to see that both sides had to respect his power or there would never be a peace along the Suez Canal. Both at Camp David and in later shuttle negotiations, he got personally involved and he did not leave to the Arabists or to his Jewish advisers (who never were in charge of the sensitive Middle East peace process) the details of brokering the Egyptian-Israeli peace. Begin had to give up the entire Sinai and move out the settlers. Egypt had to reciprocate for the full Israeli withdrawal with a full peace.

But Carter already had a record of firmness with Begin: He had once threatened to cut off aid to Israel if the Israeli prime minister did not get his tanks and guns back across the Israeli side of the border with Lebanon within one afternoon. This successful action by President Carter was very different from the "incrementalist" approach of the Clinton team, or the equally unique solo Middle East performance of America's first Jewish secretary of state, Henry Kissinger.

Henry Kissinger once told us in 1971 that the Rogers plan of 1970 (which looked remarkably like the Camp David Agreement of 10 years later) had no chance of being implemented because "there was no support for it in the White House." As national security adviser, of course, Kissinger was the White House at that point. Nixon wasn't making decisions anywhere unless Henry supported them.

Kissinger also claimed that he had left Nixon administration Middle East policy up to Secretary Rogers "because of my background." Of course Kissinger himself was manipulating everything in the background, and Rogers did not survive long into the second term. When Kissinger then moved to the State Department to succeed Rogers he insisted on taking the NSC hat with him, which left him in sole charge of every U.S. initiative in the Middle East.

CONTINUED...

http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0497/9704013.htm

Hell, why even change pResidents? That's crossing the line big time, to even hint at such a thing as sending that snake(Baker)anywhere! We'd better see who is donating to Kerry's war chest!

CFR is just a slightly more rational version of PNAC

"The presidential candidate from Massachusetts, in a speech Wednesday to the Council of Foreign Relations in New York, said there are a handful of people he would consider naming to the post, including former Democratic Presidents Clinton and Carter as well as James Baker, secretary of state in the first Bush White House."

I would hope any logical, thinking, presidential candidate would CONSIDER using ANYONE to get us out of our current foreign policy mess.

Let's not let the rage and anger of some candidates - who, BTW, have absolutely NO foreign policy saavy - influence what is good for our country.

Rules to start discussion threads in the General Discussion forum.

1. The subject line of a discussion thread must accurately reflect the actual content of the message.

2. The subject line of a discussion thread and the entire text of the message which starts the thread may not include profanity, excessive capitalization, or excessive punctuation. Inflammatory rhetoric should also be avoided.

3. If you post an article or other published content which is from a conservative source or which expresses a traditionally conservative viewpoint, you must state your opinion about the piece and/or the issues it raises.

4. If you wish to start a vanity thread (ie: a discussion thread in which the sole purpose is to share your personal opinion) you must state your opinion in a non-inflammatory manner which respects differences in opinion and facilitates actual discussion.

5. You may not start a new discussion thread in order to continue a current or recent flame war from another thread. The moderators have the authority to lock threads in order to contain flaming on a particular topic to only one thread at a time.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation,
TahitiNut - DU moderator