Kerry on Russia: “You just don’t” invade another country “on a completely trumped up pretext”
Source: Salon
Secretary of State John Kerry made the round of Sunday shows this morning to condemn Russias incredible act of aggression in Ukraine, warning Prime Minister Vladimir Putin that the country faces harsh economic sanctions from the international community.
It is really a stunning, willful choice by President Putin to invade another country, Kerry said on Face the Nation.
advertisement
But in the seriousness of the situation, the irony of Kerrys next comments may have gone missed. You just dont in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext, he said.
He went on to repeat the assertion on Meet the Press, keeping a straight face as he told host David Gregory: You just dont invade another country on phony pretext in order to assert your interests.
Read more: http://www.salon.com/2014/03/02/kerry_on_russia_you_just_dont_invade_another_country_on_a_completely_trumped_up_pretext/
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)warrant46
(2,205 posts)Didn't think so==
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)warrant46
(2,205 posts)A real "Profile in Courage"
I guess Colon Bowell at the UN convinced him
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)Replacement medals for the ones he foolishly tossed after Vietnam???
warrant46
(2,205 posts)I for one thought that was a childish way to make a statement.
It was a slap in the face to his subordinates who actually were killed and awarded purple hearts
His problem is people like me think he is a hypocrite especially when he voted for Bush's War
olddad56
(5,732 posts)He and to vote for Bushes war and he had to lose to him in 2004. He couldn't afford to cross his secret buddy.
rwsanders
(2,596 posts)I thought his performances in their debates was pitiful. It was obvious he was holding back for some reason and letting Bush get away with outrageously ridiculous statements.
wisteria
(19,581 posts)so to speak. What debates were you watching? Certainly not the Kerry vs Bush debates.
2banon
(7,321 posts)if he wanted to.
I was screaming at my tv when Kerry put on that miserable performance each time.
Gary 50
(381 posts)was poor. Bush's performance would have had to improve several levels to hit pathetic. The media called it a tie or said Bush won.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)Not to mention, before the first debate, it seemed that Bush was coasting to a big win. The first debate alone moved the race into one that was competitive. The fact is that ONLY in his convention and the debates was the public able to see Kerry unfiltered by a mostly negative TV media. The fact is that Bush went into 2004 in better shape than any President in decades - and would have lost had there been enough voting machines in Ohio cities.
wisteria
(19,581 posts)It is sad to see so many try to rewrite history. We we there, we were active in the campaign, yet some posters still tell us we are incorrect. I suppose some people simply believe what they want.
2banon
(7,321 posts)wisteria
(19,581 posts)Go do some research, history does not support your point of view.
2banon
(7,321 posts)Which alternate universe are you living in? Oh, wait.. you forgot to remove those rose tinted glasses, it seems. There's no history revision. To say Kerry gave a less than adequate performance would be putting it mildly. The Town hall debate was certainly the worst Of course, it bares repeating that Bush was being fed his lines, vis a vis an earpiece. His three word phrases, pause, short phrase, pause... largely ignored by the media.
Yes it was a hostile media as it is now. But I watched them very closely, as an activist very much involved in the anti-war movement and other progressive issues. I wanted Kerry to hand bush's ass to him, but he gave up his own on a silver platter.
wisteria
(19,581 posts)Kerry won two of the three debates hands down, and if you would like, I will provide numbers and press reports. The only media I would think would have reported the debates as you seem to remember them is Fox News.
7962
(11,841 posts)blm
(113,043 posts)mightily because their owners did NOT want Kerry in the WH.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 2, 2003
Kerry Seeks to Reverse FCC's "Wrongheaded Vote"
Commission decision may violate laws protecting small businesses; Kerry to file Resolution of Disapproval
Washington, DC - Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a "Resolution of Disapproval" as a means to overturn today's decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules.
Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect America's small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete.
As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCC's decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in today's media marketplace.
In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCC's decision, Kerry said:
"Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Today's wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests.
"Today's vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the public's access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With today's vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy."
Alcibiades
(5,061 posts)The war was still ongoing at the time when Kerry supposedly tossed his medals, which is why he tossed them.
But it seems they belonged to someone else anyway.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=123495
John Kerry had it both ways. There was then, as now, a big difference between the decorations earned by an officer being groomed for higher things, and those earned by the other ranks. My father spent much of my childhood in combat in Vietnam, two long tours and three short tours, and never earned a silver star, but Kerry did it in a few months. The swiftboat people were wrong, of course he did what was claimed, but it's doubtful a pfc or nco would have earned that award for those acts.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)What I meant was after Kerry's time in Vietnam.
blm
(113,043 posts)holds so much sway over the narrative, even with the left.
BTW - Kerry was organizing the protest in DC. When the idea came up to toss the medals it was too late for him to go back to Boston, especially since he was the spokesperson for the group and representing the protest with the press.
Interesting that there are so many lies made up, planted, and spread to smear Kerry - the one person who has investigated and exposed more government corruption than any other lawmaker in modern history.
Alcibiades
(5,061 posts)If he could apply some of that investigative talent to the Iraq War, for example, before he voted to authorize force, or now, when the people who took America to war on a phony pretext are still free, or at least have some desire to avoid what some would call hubris when decrying Putin's use of a "phony pretext" when he occupies the office Colin Powell did when he went before the UN.
And yes, I worked my ass off for him when he was our nominee. Still wrong.
blm
(113,043 posts)because it was proven that force was not needed.
I think it is irresponsible of anyone who cares about the historic record to target Kerry as not credible and continue the mockery and degradation that has been key to the Establishment DC who have wanted him completely discredited since Vietnam and especially since he exposed IranContra, BCCI, S&Ls, and CIA drug running.
You never noticed the inordinate amount of vitriol that Kerry gets heaped on him by agitators from the right, left and middle? It's been going on for 4 decades...you never really noticed or were you too busy jumping on the bandwagon to think abut it?
warrant46
(2,205 posts)To make thousands of Gold Star mothers who cry daily over their children who died for NOTHING
blm
(113,043 posts)those incapable of discernment continue to attack him for it more than any other lawmaker. Corpmedia wins with most people.
You'll not get through the pro-Putin BS here, or the false equivalence of the Iraq=Ukraine comparison, where somehow because the Cheney/Bush administration invaded Iraq, the Obama Administration cannot decry the invasion of Ukraine. The apt comparison here is Germany and the Sudetenland.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)I am sure Kerry knew that before voting. I knew that and I was a teenager.
Judi Lynn
(160,516 posts)regarding the event in Washington D.C. when soldiers threw their medals, ribbons, etc. over the fence at the White House, but, rather, chose to spread the right-wing lies idiot Republicans spewed in place of the easily recognized facts. Hard to believe this is STILL being perpetrated, regardless of common knowledge of the truth.
For anyone who actually has no clue what happened, please do read this short article which throws light on the subject:
Wednesday, Apr 28, 2004 05:18 PM CDT
Why Kerry threw his ribbons
The veterans who tossed their medals at the steps of the U.S. Capitol in 1971 just wanted to wake up their country to the disastrous tragedy of Vietnam.
Douglas Brinkley
http://www.salon.com/2004/04/28/medals/
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)But yes he voted for the Iraq War, as Bush had already decided Saddam was not "going to comply" and the writing was on the wall. It is incredibly naive to think that Kerry didn't know it at the time.
treestar
(82,383 posts)You can't have it both ways. Either Bush lied, and so Kerry thought there was a reason for the war, or Bush didn't lie, and you are saying you were against the war even if Saddam had WMD. However, your slam at Kerry is not justified.
arikara
(5,562 posts)all knew it. Most of the world knew it. If Kerry didn't know it then he's plain stupid and doesn't belong in the position he has. He voted for the war because he was toeing the S&B line.
treestar
(82,383 posts)How do the millions protesting in the street have this magical knowledge? If you believed Powell, you were fooled, and that happens. One doesn't have to be stupid. Then everyone is stupid, since no one has a crystal ball or infallible knowledge.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)I knew it was total bullshit.
-p
treestar
(82,383 posts)Not from Massachusetts, but somehow, I think in the choice between you and Kerry, hmmm..
Phlem
(6,323 posts)At least I can tell who pays their salaries but if your going to buy into that, guess what? You win the Pony!
They are not Saints or made of Stardust, they are REPRESENTATIVES that WE EMPLOY.
FFS
-p
Phlem
(6,323 posts)Everything else is bullshit.
Look it up.
-p
Edim
(300 posts)or any other political body. One has to be a scoundrel and stupid/naive.
arikara
(5,562 posts)None of it. Not Afghanistan, but especially not the crap leading to the butchery in Iraq. And I repeat, millions saw through it. I was out on the street with the thousands in my city several times. Nobody wanted that invasion to happen except the neo cons and their enablers. Kerry voted for it and that makes him either one or the other because I really don't think he's a stupid man.
So that he can go on about Russias incredible act of aggression regarding Ukraine with a straight face is surreal, one couldn't be faulting for thinking this article came right out of the Onion.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)If you were smart, you wouldn't have been duped.
But you have to be smart.
Besides even if they did have WMDs, plenty of other 'rogue' states have them. That doesn't make starting a war the prudent thing to do.
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)warrant46
(2,205 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)Judi Lynn
(160,516 posts)TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)Wrong when we do it, wrong when anyone does it.
femmocrat
(28,394 posts)Oh, the irony.
JVS
(61,935 posts)dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Last edited Sun Mar 2, 2014, 08:04 PM - Edit history (1)
on managing to keep a straight face.
Adam051188
(711 posts)Adam051188
(711 posts)he could say something like "This is a domestic affair within the nation of Ukraine, who has previously shown interest in joining the European union and thus should be permitted to determine it's political fate without outside intervention." that would make more sense. it would also make sense for the politicians within the Ukraine to not persecute the ethnic Russians in the region that seems interested in rebelling. This whole affair stinks to high heaven.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)The only thing that I would tweek a bit would be to ask Ukrainians of all ethnic and linguistic groups to treat each other with the utmost respect and civility during these difficult times. It may not be a good idea to single out any one group as the victim and any one group as the persecutor here, IMHO.
mike_c
(36,281 posts)THIS, from an American Secretary of State?
Let's just toss credibility out along with moral authority.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)We's da biggest, baddest Sum Biches in the solar system! What WE do is exempt from scrutiny - while the rest of the system has to play by the rools!
Bill76
(39 posts)but WE can do it because America.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)cstanleytech
(26,281 posts)that the whitehouse was presenting back then about the alleged WMD program which we now know was a load of horseshit.
But back this current topic.............yes the irony is thick over a US official saying something like this after the mess we made in Iraq.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... including many Democratic congresspersons, did not buy into the obvious lies and voted against the IWR. But not Kerry, an action for which he can try to forget but I won't.
Skittles
(153,147 posts)frwrfpos
(517 posts)Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)frwrfpos
(517 posts)Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)How did they do that?
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)...for the life of me I can't imagine who it could be though...
ladjf
(17,320 posts)Deep13
(39,154 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)ReRe
(10,597 posts)How was it possible for him to say that? We must live in different worlds, that's all I can say.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)tclambert
(11,085 posts)Why do you hate tradition? You have to make up a phony one because who would support the true reason, which for us is always oil? Say it's for freedom. Everybody says they love freedom. Even slave owners supported freedom--the freedom to own slaves. If not for phony pretexts, how would we ever get to fight a war?
quadrature
(2,049 posts)Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)and laughed out loud as I poured pancakes on the griddle.
Nanjing to Seoul
(2,088 posts)blm
(113,043 posts)and was the only IWR voter to speak against Bush's decision to invade after the weapon inspectors' report.
Of course, the corporate media controls much of what everyone thinks, while truth has to hang on via life support.
Psephos
(8,032 posts)daleo
(21,317 posts)Most of the world simply won't take the west seriously any longer, on this point.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)trublu992
(489 posts)ooh hurts doesn't it
heaven05
(18,124 posts)just ask bush et al;
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)joshcryer
(62,269 posts)"Well, yes, I even said before the Ukraine-Russia conflict in 2015 where Russia had killed twenty thousand ethnic Ukrainians before Poland joined the fight and the US mobilized carriers that trumped up pretexts were not a reason to invade a country. So, yes, Bush belongs in the Hague. I fully support President Hillary Clinton in her endeavor to see the evidence and a just trial."
Funny how political traipsing works.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)lead that effort. (Not to mention, JK was more negative on Bush's actions in 2003, than the Clintons were.)
2banon
(7,321 posts)right?
please say it is... please.
aquart
(69,014 posts)Nihil
(13,508 posts)Indignant hypocritical bluster usually translates to "We're not in a position to do anything about it".
No illusion that this time is any different.
I have mixed feelings about Kerry (mostly disappointment these days) but he's in a bit of an
impossible position thanks to:
a) A long US military history of invading other countries on a trumped-up pretext.
b) The (lack of) political credibility in any SoS over the last few decades.
c) The total insanity of any non-diplomatic resolution that he can put forward.
arewenotdemo
(2,364 posts)To be honest, after seeing the level of support here for attacking Syria, I didn't know what to expect.
The Wizard
(12,541 posts)and reflect on the immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq that you voted to support. Bush destroyed our morals and compromised our position on the International stage. Who can we criticize with a straight face? It will take generations to remove the Bush cartel taint from the United States.
emsimon33
(3,128 posts)toby jo
(1,269 posts)it really hits hard.
reddread
(6,896 posts)could have been done without bipartisanship?
that anyone in the beltway believes anything they said?
cant say I do.
frylock
(34,825 posts)FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)Try the veal.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)... against it?
This makes my head hurt.
blm
(113,043 posts)Kerry voted for the $87 billion funding bill that was paid for by ending Bush's tax cut for the richest.
When the GOP knocked that bill down he voted against the $87 billion supplemental funding of the Iraq war.
You all are so clever to further the Rovian spin.
PS - Almost EVERY vote in Congress and the Senate is a vote for or against a bill, and then a vote for or against the alternative bill. Hooray for RW propaganda that keeps America's public informed with THEIR version of reality.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)abakan
(1,819 posts)Our officials, elected or appointed say crap only they can believe, giving them zero credibility. The rest of the world knows crap when they see it. Mr. Kerry, may not invade another country, but we do and he knows it.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)davekriss
(4,616 posts)Thank you George Bush, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, yes you too Powell - thus is the price of sacrificing our nation's moral standing for your personal (deluded) ambitions.
Our crying "no pretext for war!" is laughed at by the world.
fedsron2us
(2,863 posts)dflprincess
(28,075 posts)-p
blm
(113,043 posts)in the public arena after the weapon inspectors began reporting on their findings in January and February of 2003?
reddread
(6,896 posts)blm
(113,043 posts)There isn't any revisionist history you can post that will change the truth and all the details involved in that truth.
There is a pack of you intent on getting your Kerry hate on - and I think that shows that you are not very steeped in the actual facts regarding Kerry's decades of service to this country.
You certainly CAN'T name one person in the last 4 decades who investigated and exposed more government corruption than Kerry. Can you?
reddread
(6,896 posts)love the Edwards hangers on.
Hindsight to the blind.
Hindsight to the blind.
Aint got no time for Kerry hatin.
Too busy wondering why people accept their crimes and want to move on...
blm
(113,043 posts).
reddread
(6,896 posts)suston96
(4,175 posts)In the OP:
"Secretary of State John Kerry made the round of Sunday shows this morning to condemn Russias incredible act of aggression in Ukraine, warning Prime Minister Vladimir Putin that the country faces harsh economic sanctions from the international community."
blm
(113,043 posts)Funny how this silly 'report' from her has so many here hanging their hat on her view of it.