John Kerry gave what I thought was a very nice hour plus rebuttal to Netenyahu's claim that the U.S. was the organizer of the Security Council's resolution on settlements in the West bank. Though it seems clear to me, Matthew Yglesias gives a very nice summary, but he doesn't seem to understand why Kerry gave the speech. Don't expect Netenyahu, who seems to be Prime Minister for life, to give thanks for all the aid the US. has given Israel. We need to remember there is no doubt that Israel has a right to exist as it was formed by the UN in 1948 so it is proper for the U.S. to help assure their existence. So we need to keep our balance with Israel in spite of Netenyahu.
With the country in the middle of an essentially unprecedented political crisis, there's a kind of eerie normalcy to the speech on Israel and Palestine that John Kerry delivered Wednesday afternoon. The remarks themselves were unusually harsh, as was the United Nations resolution on Israeli settlements last week that the administration allowed through. But US presidents and secretaries of state have been talking about the issue for literally decades without much changing.*
Kerry
says at one point that Israel can have a one state solution andit can
either be a Jewish state or a democratic state but not both.
I'm not sure a two-state solution has ever been in the cards since the 1967 war. in which Israel captured the West Bank after being attacked See West Bank Fiasco ** But there may be reasons that Israel doesn't want to formally annex the West Bank. There are an estimated 1,658,000 Arabs in Israel as of 2013 (roughly 20% of the population of Israel) of which many have Israel citizenship and can run for the Knesset. and there usually is one or more elected Many others have refused citizenship so are permanent residents and can run in local elections but not the Knesset.*** If Israel doesn't formally annex the West Bank, then they don't have to give the Arabs an option of becoming Israel citizens and can remain third class occupants.
As of July 2015 it has an estimated population of 2,785,366 Palestinians,[3] and approximately 371,000 Israel Settlers. [3] and approximately another 212,00 Jewish Israelis in East Jerusalem.**** Not al Arabs are Muslims and about 9% of the Israel population is Christians.****
If the West Bank is formally annexed, the Palestinian population will be something like 45% of the Israel population. I suspect that having such a large population of Arabs in Israel is a scary prospect to them. Thus Israel may be happy to leave the West Bank as an informal annexation. And as I have said elsewhere, the West Bank gives Israel importantdefensive qualities.
* http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/29/kerrys-bombshell-israel-speech-is-one-of-the-most-puzzling-things-i-have-seen-in-politics-commentary.html
** http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2016/12/west-bank-fiasco.html
*** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel
**** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank \
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Christians
Showing posts with label John Kerry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Kerry. Show all posts
Thursday, December 29, 2016
Tuesday, December 1, 2015
CONFESSIONS OF A RECOVERING MORNING JOE ADDICT
I used to watch the 3 hr political morning news show called Morning Joe (Scarborough) since its inception. I would record it so I could speed through the advertisements. As the first 20 min. of the program is usually repeated in the third hour, I would also speed through that too. Sometime in 2015 I got tired of Morning Joe's rants (usually negative) that went on and on and were repeated during and future programs. As the year went on, I found I was speeding through more and more of the program as they discussed things like Donald Trump ad nauseam.. It finally got so I could race through the 3 hrs in about 1 hr. The final straw, however, happened when guests on the program started ranting like Morning Joe. For example, one referred to a TV statement by Sec. John Kerry that he should "shut up" and get some sleep. Yes, he did look tired and it could have been said so in polite terms rather than the terms used by "red meat" Republicans ("bed wetting" liberals should "Sit Down And Shut Up," they like to say).
So I removed the recording of the program from my VCR about a week ago and have made due with CNN since, though I don't watch it like I used to watch Morning Joe. It seems there is little new news around so they repeat what little they know about things like the Russian fighter shot down by the Turks, the shooting of the Planned Parenthood building in Colorado, and the shootings of unarmed African Americans (well I guess one had a knife, but he was walking away when shot 16 times). So I don't record CNN as they seem to report a limited number of events over and over.
So I removed the recording of the program from my VCR about a week ago and have made due with CNN since, though I don't watch it like I used to watch Morning Joe. It seems there is little new news around so they repeat what little they know about things like the Russian fighter shot down by the Turks, the shooting of the Planned Parenthood building in Colorado, and the shootings of unarmed African Americans (well I guess one had a knife, but he was walking away when shot 16 times). So I don't record CNN as they seem to report a limited number of events over and over.
Monday, June 15, 2015
ATTACK YOUR OPPONENT'S STRENGTH
Carl Rove in 2004 developed what seemed to be a strange and self defeating strategy in the 2004 reelection bid of President George W. Bush against Democratic hopeful John Kerry. that is, attack your opponent at his strength. In Kerry's case it was to demean the value of military medals in what became known as Swift Boating. The approach seemed to be effective though it annihilated military honors as being worthless.
So with Hillary Clinton we see the attack on the Clinton Foundation, an organization developed to try to do good. To what extent this procedure will have on the value of non-profit organizations remains to be seen, but I hope it does not annihilate non-profits as being self service organizations.
This attack seemed to be too much for even some conservatives who came to the defense of the Clinton Foundation.*
By Christopher Ruddy,* founder of the conservative Newsmax: I was drawn to him largely for the very same reason he and his wife are being criticized today: the Clinton Foundation. Over time, I was impressed enough with its work that I even became a donor.
...........................................................
After watching the Fox program, it became clear to me the only thing "tangled" and "blurred" are the numerous unsubstantiated, unconnected, and baseless allegations being made about them.
...........................................................
But let’s get back to the matter of the Clintons and their foundation. I have been involved with the foundation for over seven years now. During that time, I have always found it nonpartisan. I have never felt the whiff of politics from either its staff or any of its activities.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/clinton-foundation-cash-controversy/2015/04/27/id/640856/
So with Hillary Clinton we see the attack on the Clinton Foundation, an organization developed to try to do good. To what extent this procedure will have on the value of non-profit organizations remains to be seen, but I hope it does not annihilate non-profits as being self service organizations.
This attack seemed to be too much for even some conservatives who came to the defense of the Clinton Foundation.*
By Christopher Ruddy,* founder of the conservative Newsmax: I was drawn to him largely for the very same reason he and his wife are being criticized today: the Clinton Foundation. Over time, I was impressed enough with its work that I even became a donor.
...........................................................
After watching the Fox program, it became clear to me the only thing "tangled" and "blurred" are the numerous unsubstantiated, unconnected, and baseless allegations being made about them.
...........................................................
But let’s get back to the matter of the Clintons and their foundation. I have been involved with the foundation for over seven years now. During that time, I have always found it nonpartisan. I have never felt the whiff of politics from either its staff or any of its activities.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/clinton-foundation-cash-controversy/2015/04/27/id/640856/
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
THE BREADBASKET OF EUROPE IS NOW A BASKET CASE
The title of this piece, that regards Ukraine,* is not original with me, but I couldn't resist using it. But I am getting increasingly upset with certain politicians who insist on undermining our President in foreign relations. Prominent, of course, is senile John McCain who seemingly never saw a war he didn't like; however, when pressed by Charley Rose as to what should be done over the Soviet, I mean Russian, occupation of the Crimea said that the first thing he would do is to freeze the foreign assets and visas of the Russian oligarchs, something that Secretary John Kerry has mentioned as a possibility.
I'm also disappointed in Lindsey Graham, Senator of South Carolina, for his comments making fun of the President in a serious international incident, as, at times, he has shown some statesmanship. Supposedly the reason he is doing this is because of his Tea Party challenge in his reelection bid. Unfortunately, this puts his reelection ahead of his country. He seems to think that we should have bombarded the leader of Syria even after the promise of getting rid of the poisonous gases. Unfortunately, there are no good solutions in Syria as if Assad is overthrown the real civil war will begin with the likelihood that the country will become a conservative Muslim state like Iran. As awful as the situation is in Syria, perhaps the best state is a status quo.
At the age of 82, I do remember some things in the lead up to WW-II, and the Russian occupation of the Crimea to "protect" the Ukrainian citizens of Russian heritage reminds me a lot of the Nazi occupation of the Sudetenland** to protect citizens of German heritage at the very beginning of WW-II. I don't recall any news about threats to the Russian speaking peoples anywhere in Ukraine. And Putin does seem to be trying to generate an excuse for more occupation of Ukraine by having some of his soldiers shoot over the heads of some Ukrainian troops:
But not every scene was so calm. Video showed more than 100 unarmed Ukrainian troops trying Tuesday morning to return to Belbek air base north of Sevastopol, only to have Russian forces fire warning shots over their heads.***
As the situation in Ukraine is still in flux, I have little more to say at this time.
History of Ukraine:
Crimea has had a long and complex history but more recently for more than 300 yrs it was a part of Turkey, then in 1783 became a part of Russia, more or less, and then of the Soviet Union. Mysteriously, Kruschov gave the Crimea to Ukraine in 1954. Speculation is that he was drunk at the time. Crimea has spent little time as an independent nation though it was called the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. It became recognized as a part of Ukraine by Russia in 1997. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Crimea).
Eastern Ukraine has been largely Russian since late in the 17th century. In 1991, 75% of ethnic Russian said they no longer identified themselves as Russian and 55% voted for Ukrainian independence. Many Russian speaking Ukrainians bemoan the fact that Russian is not an accepted official language of Ukraine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians_in_Ukraine)
Western Ukraine likewise has a complicated history and was a part of Poland most of the time for several hundred years which ended in 1939. After WW-II, Ukraine became the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic with some independence from the Soviet Union. West Ukraine is largely west looking. Though the country is largely of the Eastern Orthodox religion, around 4 million Roman Catholics are present, mainly in western Ukraine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Ukraine; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ukraine)
* http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/bread-basket-europe.html
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_Czechoslovakia
*** http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/04/world/europe/ukraine-russia-tensions/
I'm also disappointed in Lindsey Graham, Senator of South Carolina, for his comments making fun of the President in a serious international incident, as, at times, he has shown some statesmanship. Supposedly the reason he is doing this is because of his Tea Party challenge in his reelection bid. Unfortunately, this puts his reelection ahead of his country. He seems to think that we should have bombarded the leader of Syria even after the promise of getting rid of the poisonous gases. Unfortunately, there are no good solutions in Syria as if Assad is overthrown the real civil war will begin with the likelihood that the country will become a conservative Muslim state like Iran. As awful as the situation is in Syria, perhaps the best state is a status quo.
At the age of 82, I do remember some things in the lead up to WW-II, and the Russian occupation of the Crimea to "protect" the Ukrainian citizens of Russian heritage reminds me a lot of the Nazi occupation of the Sudetenland** to protect citizens of German heritage at the very beginning of WW-II. I don't recall any news about threats to the Russian speaking peoples anywhere in Ukraine. And Putin does seem to be trying to generate an excuse for more occupation of Ukraine by having some of his soldiers shoot over the heads of some Ukrainian troops:
But not every scene was so calm. Video showed more than 100 unarmed Ukrainian troops trying Tuesday morning to return to Belbek air base north of Sevastopol, only to have Russian forces fire warning shots over their heads.***
As the situation in Ukraine is still in flux, I have little more to say at this time.
History of Ukraine:
Crimea has had a long and complex history but more recently for more than 300 yrs it was a part of Turkey, then in 1783 became a part of Russia, more or less, and then of the Soviet Union. Mysteriously, Kruschov gave the Crimea to Ukraine in 1954. Speculation is that he was drunk at the time. Crimea has spent little time as an independent nation though it was called the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. It became recognized as a part of Ukraine by Russia in 1997. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Crimea).
Eastern Ukraine has been largely Russian since late in the 17th century. In 1991, 75% of ethnic Russian said they no longer identified themselves as Russian and 55% voted for Ukrainian independence. Many Russian speaking Ukrainians bemoan the fact that Russian is not an accepted official language of Ukraine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians_in_Ukraine)
Western Ukraine likewise has a complicated history and was a part of Poland most of the time for several hundred years which ended in 1939. After WW-II, Ukraine became the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic with some independence from the Soviet Union. West Ukraine is largely west looking. Though the country is largely of the Eastern Orthodox religion, around 4 million Roman Catholics are present, mainly in western Ukraine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Ukraine; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ukraine)
* http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/bread-basket-europe.html
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_Czechoslovakia
*** http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/04/world/europe/ukraine-russia-tensions/
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE 2ND IRAQ WAR
There is abundant discussion of the misrepresentation of information that brought us into the Iraq War-II. There has been less discussion of the ruthless manipulation of mass hysteria in the dark age leading up to the war. The French, for example, that were with us on Afghanistan were demeaned because they were not with us on the Iraq War-II. Remember even the childish renaming of French fries to Freedom fries in the congressional dining rooms? Anyone who spoke against the war was implied to be unAmerican and cowed the opposition. And then there was Presidential candidate John Kerry who was for the war before he was against it.* There were some congressmen who did manage to say that it was an "optional war" and get away with it. The administration exercised a masterful manipulation of mob psychology over using "bogus facts" to promote an uncalled for war. There was the chilling announcement by Condoleezza Rice** that we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud when there was no evidence of an Iraq effort on making nuclear weapons. The period should rank beside McCarthyism as a dark period in modern U.S. history, but will it?
So we entered a war where 1-1/2 times our troops were killed as died in 9/11 with more than 30,000 injured, many with life changing disabilities at a huge financial cost of more than a trillion dollars.
The way it looks today is that Iraq will eventually split into three countries: a Shiite country, a Sunni country and a Kurdish country. Perhaps there will be some lose confederation between them or maybe not, but the outcome won't be what we wanted. Despite our objections, for example, the Iraq administration still permits overflights of Iran arms to the Syrian regime.
* http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-646435.html
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleezza_Rice
So we entered a war where 1-1/2 times our troops were killed as died in 9/11 with more than 30,000 injured, many with life changing disabilities at a huge financial cost of more than a trillion dollars.
The way it looks today is that Iraq will eventually split into three countries: a Shiite country, a Sunni country and a Kurdish country. Perhaps there will be some lose confederation between them or maybe not, but the outcome won't be what we wanted. Despite our objections, for example, the Iraq administration still permits overflights of Iran arms to the Syrian regime.
* http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-646435.html
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleezza_Rice
Sunday, November 22, 2009
VIETNAM AS A POLITICAL ISSUE
During my paid career, I had little time for movies, maybe saw one every other year. Since I have retired, I have been catching up during the last four years. I saw Platoon and Apocalypse a few years ago. Awhile back I got around to seeing Deer Hunter. It occurred to me while watching this movie that Vietnam as a political issue was over. Oh, I'm sure there are those around my age who will carry the hurt of Vietnam the rest of their lives. To them it will be an issue, but to the bulk of the voters, it is no longer one.
During the 2008 election, a lot of effort was made to try to tie Barack Obama to Bill Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground back in the 1960s, which could be labeled a terrorist organization. It was true that they did know of each other and served on a panel together, but, to say that Barack Obama knew Bill Ayers (who after all is a professor of education now at the University of Illinois at Chicago) and thus was not qualified to be president was a stretch, and voters, in general, rejected it.
Actually, no Vietnam veteran has been able to become president. For reasons I don't understand Vietnam War veterans do not support Vietnam veterans for president. The time for John McCain was in the 2000 election, but perhaps as a result of some dirty campaigning, could not even get the Republican nomination for president. Though McCain was to be accepted as a Vietnam War hero in the 2008 election, that was not the case in the 2000 election. Thus the Vietnam War hero was a two time loser. Admittedly, I probably would not have voted for John McCain in 2000, but I wouldn't have felt badly had he won. Alas, in 2008, he was over the hill and the surprise was how close he came to being elected.
I had several experiences of being in Senate hearings and other meetings with Al Gore and found him most impressive. I thought he couldn't become president, however because of his academic way of speaking. I didn't bother me, but I thought it would with most voters. Actually, he came closer than I ever thought he would. Like McCain, Gore was a Vietnam veteran, but the knock was that he was not involved enough in the battle. As the son of a long-time representative and senator, you can imagine that Gore's commanding officer sweated bullets the whole time Gore was in Vietnam.
And then there was John Kerry who had two tours in Vietnam and was a decorated veteran. Of course, a group was formed that became known as the Swift Boaters (on whom Kerry had served) who did their best to destroy the meaning of military medals in the eyes of the public. I do understand that these veterans were hurt by Kerry eventually turning against the Vietnam war.
Briefly, Bob Kerrey, former senator from Nebraska, and an injured Vietnam War veteran made a run for the presidency, but it turned out he was unacceptable because, well, he was too involved in the Vietnam war.
I suppose it is still possible for a Vietnam veteran to be elected president, but, so far as I know, none of the leading Republican or Democratic hopefuls are. And past history shows that even if one of them were, Vietnam veterans probably would not support them. Perhaps the most attractive Republican candidate who is a veteran is Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, but he is not a Vietnam War veteran, though he has served briefly in both Iraq and Afghanistan in non-combatant roles. One assumes at this time, that President Barack Obama, not a veteran, will run for reelection.
During the 2008 election, a lot of effort was made to try to tie Barack Obama to Bill Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground back in the 1960s, which could be labeled a terrorist organization. It was true that they did know of each other and served on a panel together, but, to say that Barack Obama knew Bill Ayers (who after all is a professor of education now at the University of Illinois at Chicago) and thus was not qualified to be president was a stretch, and voters, in general, rejected it.
Actually, no Vietnam veteran has been able to become president. For reasons I don't understand Vietnam War veterans do not support Vietnam veterans for president. The time for John McCain was in the 2000 election, but perhaps as a result of some dirty campaigning, could not even get the Republican nomination for president. Though McCain was to be accepted as a Vietnam War hero in the 2008 election, that was not the case in the 2000 election. Thus the Vietnam War hero was a two time loser. Admittedly, I probably would not have voted for John McCain in 2000, but I wouldn't have felt badly had he won. Alas, in 2008, he was over the hill and the surprise was how close he came to being elected.
I had several experiences of being in Senate hearings and other meetings with Al Gore and found him most impressive. I thought he couldn't become president, however because of his academic way of speaking. I didn't bother me, but I thought it would with most voters. Actually, he came closer than I ever thought he would. Like McCain, Gore was a Vietnam veteran, but the knock was that he was not involved enough in the battle. As the son of a long-time representative and senator, you can imagine that Gore's commanding officer sweated bullets the whole time Gore was in Vietnam.
And then there was John Kerry who had two tours in Vietnam and was a decorated veteran. Of course, a group was formed that became known as the Swift Boaters (on whom Kerry had served) who did their best to destroy the meaning of military medals in the eyes of the public. I do understand that these veterans were hurt by Kerry eventually turning against the Vietnam war.
Briefly, Bob Kerrey, former senator from Nebraska, and an injured Vietnam War veteran made a run for the presidency, but it turned out he was unacceptable because, well, he was too involved in the Vietnam war.
I suppose it is still possible for a Vietnam veteran to be elected president, but, so far as I know, none of the leading Republican or Democratic hopefuls are. And past history shows that even if one of them were, Vietnam veterans probably would not support them. Perhaps the most attractive Republican candidate who is a veteran is Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, but he is not a Vietnam War veteran, though he has served briefly in both Iraq and Afghanistan in non-combatant roles. One assumes at this time, that President Barack Obama, not a veteran, will run for reelection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
