Where in the world is Sen. Kerry? Foreignpolicy.com really wanted to know:

[beachmom]

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/05/18/where_in_the_world_is_sen_kerry

They thought it was some big secret; had they checked the JK forum here, they would have known he was at the World Economic Forum. They could have even checked out the webcast. A few things I didn't know, though (as to where he went next, and where he wasn't):

Afterwards, Kerry stopped off in Rome for meetings in preparation for the Copenhagen climate change negotiations to be held at the end of the year.

While some Hill folk wondered whether Kerry might have also stopped in at the secret Bilderberg Group meeting being held in Athens (deputy secretary of state Jim Steinberg and U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner are reportedly among those attending), Jones said Kerry absolutely did not go to Bilderberg.

Kerry is pulling back into Washington this evening.

Apparently, he and Lugar are going to meet with Israeli P.M. Netanyahu tomorrow morning.

Anyway, I thought that was a funny post. They almost sound like us. :) Where is he ????

[Mass]

1. Seems more like the traditional Hill rumor mill than anything else .

I read that as "Was Kerry at the Bilderberg meeting, which is typically relatively discreet. I guess that, given the fact the trip coincided with it (and the fact that more and more people see Kerry as a point man for the Middle East, true or false), some staffers were curious and this was the source of this post.

I have to say it irritated me a little bit, probably because of the way this was written. While it is no big deal, the tone of this post sounded weird.

[karynnj]

2. It is clearly playing on "Where in world is Carmen Sandiego?

The fictional detective who seemingly can be anywhere in the world at any given time. The fact is that since Obama's election, Senator Kerry has been in more trouble spots, having serious meetings or attending conferences than I can remember him or any Senator having been to. Look at the list - he was at the Poznan Conference, Georgia, India and Pakistan in December - and was seen as an informal Obama representative, as well as a Senator. In February, he was in Gaza, Israel, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. More recently, he was in Pakistan and the Sudan. I'm sure I missed some, but these are enough to make the point. In reality, this would be an impressive list if he were Secretary of State and that were his primary job.

He clearly is a point man on the Middle East, though I would love to hear George Mitchell. Kerry was very good at the Jordan conference, in spite of arriving directly from the airport about a half an hour into it.( Not to diminish Valerie Jarrett, who did represent Obama - Kerry was clearly the more significant American there and the only one on this panel.) The most impressive part to me was about 41 minutes in where he makes comments so beautifully balanced that even though he called the Arab nations on the game of having official maps without Israel and not supporting moderates in Palestine, that he was enthusiastically applauded. King Abdullah later agreed with Kerry and referred to his comments as eloquent. In addition, Kerry made an ebullient case for the gains for the Arab community if they moved to peace. This is a master negotiator showing what is a win/win solution, but doing it honestly speaking of non-productive things done.

Anyone could have gotten applause by pandering, but that accomplishes nothing. I know there were comments on blogs that spoke of Biden getting more applause when speaking of the two state solution and the settlements than Kerry. (They both got great applause in other parts of their speeches.) The comments tried to establish why Kerry got less. One took the easy answer that Kerry was the worse speaker - which is not true. The obvious answer is Biden is the VP, but there is another reason IMO.

Biden simply stated these two goals. Kerry made the case for each and spoke descriptively of things like the lack of freedom that Palestinians have in the West Bank. This probably touched a nerve - which needed to be touched. One group of people who were among the first to rally to the Civil Rights movement here and to the anti-Apartheid movement were Jews. Every Passover themes of freedom are renewed, but there is a blind spot for many Jews - especially those in AIPAC, for Israel's treatment of Palestinians. Kerry's descriptions were honest and were said to a group that needed to hear them - just as the things said in Jordan to the Arab world had to be said. These are truths that need to be seen and changed to change the situation.

What is impressive is that overall, he was very well received in both places and NOTHING he said to one partisan group contradicted what was said in the other. In both communities, he has been there long enough that he is trusted.

[beachmom]

3. I think you are reading WAY too much into the post.

Mostly Kerry is nearly 100% ignored in the MSM. I don't know why. So crumbs are all we've got, even if they are not straight up stories. I am beginning to refer to the Senator as John Kerry, the Invisible. I'll give you a recent example.

Joe Klein has been writing some interesting articles about Afghanistan and Pakistan, yet the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee never gets quoted or alluded to EVER. Now before this turns into a bashfest of Joe Klein, this is typical. John Kerry has been erased from traditional media -- we are talking typical newspapers, network news, mainstream magazines you can buy on the newsstand. He has disappeared. And, you know, this is not by design. I am sure he wouldn't mind getting some publicity for the interesting work he is doing. And frankly, an article in the Globe won't do. When is he going to be featured in Time or Newsweek again? Look at this article by Joe Klein, who to me it looks like he goes out of his way to make sure the Chairman does not even get mentioned:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1898092,00.html

This article is about the leaders of Pakistan and Afghanistan, and how unimpressive they are. So pertinent to what I just wrote:

And yet, the rude truth of the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan was revealed at a lunch the Presidents of both countries attended with 27 U.S. Senators, an event that really did merit a few over-the-top encomiums like "unprecedented" and "brutal." The climax came when Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee asked President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan what the purpose of the U.S. mission was in his country. Karzai filibustered, and Corker told him, in no uncertain terms, that his answer was incomprehensible. At a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing a few days later, Corker confronted Holbrooke about the lack of credibility both Presidents shared. According to the Obama Administration, Corker said, the Karzai government "is taking more of the illegal moneys than the Taliban ..." In Pakistan, "the leader was formerly called 'Mr. 10%,'" referring to Asif Ali Zardari's alleged practice of taking kickbacks on contracts when his wife Benazir Bhutto was in charge.

...

"You've got to go with the incompetents you've got," a Senator who supports the Obama Administration's policy told me. "We have no alternative." Holbrooke made a similar point during the hearing. Yes, he said, this situation resembled the war in Vietnam, harking back to his earliest service, as a U.S. diplomat in Saigon. "Structurally, there are many similarities — the enemy sanctuaries across the border, the governance, corruption ... but there is one core difference: 9/11," he said. "There was no threat from Vietnam to the U.S. homeland."

When I started reading the article, I thought it was more focussed on the executive branch. Yet here we see Klein did cover the Senators' lunch with the two presidents (and probably the press conference afterward), and could not manage to mention who is organizing a lot of this stuff. Instead, we have Corker prominently featured (yes, like Cornyn was prominently featured in a story about Army recruiters committing suicide, and the praise Jim Webb received for his prison reform proposal in The Economist). Was Kerry the anonymous Senator quoted in the later paragraph? I don't know. But here is the bottom line: it is not good when you are NEVER featured in any of the mainstream publications that people typically are more likely to read in, say, the doctor's office. I guage things on what my parents would know. What they know is that John Kerry has fallen off the face of the Earth. If you are never reported on, then your constituents (who in growing numbers do NOT read the Boston Globe) will not think you are doing any work. This is a problem, when Cornyn and Corker are getting better mainstream publicity than the former Democratic nominee.

[Mass]

4. I am actually reading very little in this. This was the point.\nt

[beachmom]

17. Actually you are right about the Bilderberg thing. It is now going viral.

It is so stupid.

[TayTay]

5. Yes and no on the publicity end of things

Americans, even ones in Massachusetts, by and large do not follow or care acutely about foreign policy. This is considered a game for the experts and it is very, very difficult to relate foreign policy to what happens in the lives of ordinary Americans. Foreign policy is something that the "egghead policy wonks" do and is often seen as a way to get money from the pockets of working people into the hands of greedy foreigners. This is, of course, incorrect, but it is how foreign policy is often perceived.

Sen. Kerry is a serious person doing a serious job right now. That job is NOT going to be recognized at the level that is desired in this post. It has not happened in the past and there is little indication that, baring a new war, it will happen in the future. Why is this?

Most news organizations have cut or eliminated their foreign news operations. They take a single feed from the wire services or the NYTimes service. The Boston Globe and the Boston Herald have cut their coverage of foreign countries. There is simply no money available for this. This means that there is very, very little being done in the way of analysis right now. The analysis that is being done is very basic and tends to follow the same "horserace" approach that is used in political campaigns. The emphasis is on the personalities involved and whether or not they are perceived to be winning or losing an argument at a given point in time. Nothing more. Also, it is expensive to send out reporters to do analysis of issues. It is cheaper if the analysis is confined to just a few people considered to be "players" on any given scene. That this may not reflect reality is of no concern to the cash-starved news organizations.

Sen. Kerry's role as Chair of SFRC is unsuited to this kind of news coverage. He is methodically pursuing a 3 year plan to get a treaty signed at Copenhagen this Dec. That kind of careful deliberation does not create visuals for the news. It creates the rapidly decreasing "think pieces" in the news that require attention to detail and knowledge of an issue.

Coverage of what is going on as far as Sen. Kerry is concerned is going to be better online than in any MSM. Sen. Kerry can't change that. He is not the President of the United States, he is not a famous Sec of State, etc. He is a serious person doing a serious job that does not lend itself to visuals or quick "30 second" analysis. And, to be fair, he doesn't need the publicity anymore.

[beachmom]

7. My Joe Klein reference disputes that though. In fact, there was a very

long article about Pakistan in my current Time magazine as well:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1898251,00.html

How Pakistan Failed Itself
By Aryn Baker / Islamabad

Clearly, Time magazine employed a journalist to report from Islamabad. Joe Klein attended that luncheon the Senators attended. And Joe's article was not about American politics, but rather the politics of Pakistan and Afghanistan in terms of what we can expect.

I guess, I don't think the web is that great on foreign policy either. It really is magazines that are covering foreign policy, and you can still buy those magazines from the newsstand or go to a library to read them. You do not need the internet for that. I did not use the internet for news until late 2004; before that, I read magazines (which I still read).

Newspapers are not very good on F.P. -- I agree. But there are a variety of MSM outlets one can read or watch, and none of them are covering Sen. Kerry, even the serious ones who are covering F.P. in depth. Not Jim Lehrer, not BBC, nobody.

[karynnj]

6. I agree

It also does seem to be widespread. It is pathetic that Corker is given so much play here and reminds me that around the time of the first attempt to bail out the auto makers, Corker (elected in 2006) was clearly being pushed as a future fast track Republican. But, even the idea that Obama speaks for Democrats and they need to get other voices to speak for Republicans.

The sad think is that the only time any senior Democratic Senators have gotten much coverage was when they got in trouble or could be mocked. I agree that Senator Kerry deserves far more coverage and that it is sad that he gets far better coverage internationally than here.

The sort of good thing is that media cover really is really not that important to his foreign policy contributions - which are considerable - and happen with or without publicity. From the press conference of that lunch, it was clear the 2 Presidents knew who set it up and it was clear that some in the media knew that the format was unusual, innovative and considered a success. I assume that it could lead to Kerry having an easier time getting support on that bill. Not to mention, it is impressive that short speeches by Kerry shot down all 4 Kyl amendments related to foreign policy that were proposed for the budget. Some were the kind that have gotten knee jerk approval in the past - so I assume Kerry was the one who stopped them.

The lack of coverage does impact the level of credit he gets by regular people. (I know I react every time some jerk writes that Kerry does nothing and has done nothing as a comment on EVERY BG article, when I doubt there are many working harder or better.) But he will not run for President again (most likely) and I believe Tay Tay that he really is a Senator for life. If Obama succeeds on these foreign policy issues and Kerry plays an important role even that might not be seen by many, but it will still have happened.

I suspect that part of the Kerry blackout is because of Clinton allies (not Joe Klein, who has his own problems with Kerry) in the media still being furious at him. It might even be that some super cool reporters don't want to face that not only was Bush a disaster, but Kerry a very good potential President - and they allowed him to be smeared and his accomplishments denigrated. It was not an even choice or even a case of the lesser evil.

[beachmom]

8. Actually, I think I know why they don't cover Kerry.

He is boring. Meaning he is not making gaffes they can make fun of, and he isn't in attack mode. He isn't going to run for President (which seems to instantly make a politician more interesting to them. Why I do not know). He is just doing his job, and trying to help hone future policies. BORRIINNNGGG. But even boring publications and outlets aren't covering him. AT ALL. I find that frustrating.

[karynnj]

9. Actually that makes sense

I hope he can stay gaffe free and like that his demeanor on the SFRC and in the Senate is pleasantly free of any attacks. He gave Obama an enormous gift by being a leading attack dog, as he did for the 2006 candidates and in 2004 when few Democrats would do it for him. It is good that he can now return to his serious efforts of policy making.

[beachmom]

10. Yes, it makes his life more peaceful. And if I were his advisor (maybe

we should do a thread about that!), I would not advise him to start appearing on cable in order to make a splash. I do wonder, though, why he hasn't made any Sunday appearances lately. I think if he was asked on to specifically talk about foreign policy (and even newspapers), that would be interesting. Maybe, though, they just want to talk about torture and Nancy Pelosi, and he doesn't want to talk about that. He would not be the best voice against torture, given his past protesting Vietnam as well as his decision not to make Abu Ghraib a campaign issue in '04.

[TayTay]

11. I think he's been busy

Sen Kerry has been traveling and hosting some pretty heavy duty SFRC hearings lately. I think he's busy and hasn't had the time to be on the Sunday or Chat shows.

I think he will go back to them in a short time. Nothing to worry about.

[karynnj]

12. I think that Kerry is an excellent voice speaking out against

torture, but I don't think that is needed now. Obama has says that there will be no torture. That means that people will not be speaking out against torture as much as playing a blame game, which I think would be counterproductive.

I also think, Joe Klein and Andrew Sullivan to the contrary, that Kerry DID speak of Abu Gbhraib as much as he should have. In fact, he spoke of it FAR more than Joe Klein wrote about it at the time. He spoke of it more than any other candidate running in the primaries. In addition, in the general election, he spoke often of the Geneva Convention, international law and restoring America's moral leadership in the world. That was the generalization of things like Abu Ghraib. Just as Bush did not need to speak of blow jobs when he spoke of restoring honor and decency, Kerry did not need to list what we did that was immoral. Not to mention Kerry's history there made it less necessary to say anything other than we should obey international law.

In fact, it was not until after November 2004 that Joe Klein criticized Kerry more for NOT making Abu Ghraib a bigger issue than he made of the fact that Bush did these things. The fact is that the Abu Ghraib pictures were shown so often they became iconic. Even for people who missed Kerry's early contemnations, Kerry's comments on Geneva Convention and his history - that the right replayed often in ads, made it clear that he did not agree with Bush on this issue. It is hard to believe that even one person for whom torturing was an important issue would have had difficulty seeing there was a difference.

Also consider that where Kerry was saying in speech after speech in 2006 - no torture period, Obama NEVER went that far before the election. HRC even conceded to the NYDN that there were cases that justified it. Kerry was on the extreme of all 2004 and 2008 candidates in speaking on this issue. More could be said by 2008 - and it wasn't. There is no reasonable way that Kerry could have made Abu Ghraib more an issue in 2004 unless he wanted to give Bush a landslide. Joe Klein likely would have condemned him for it in 2004.

[beachmom]

13. I guess I can't agree. He was saying good stuff in 2006,

but now he has made it clear that he is not going to speak out on this issue. Given his history back in 2004 to punt on Abu Ghraib, it's now clear to me that this was simply not a topic he wanted to really talk about. Therefore, he is not an ideal spokesperson on torture. He made the choice, not me.

Re: Abu Ghraib. That scandal broke via 60 Minutes II in April 2004. I don't really understand how he could have spoken out on a scandal before it erupted. He had already clinched the nomination by April.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse#60_Minutes_II_broadcast_and_aftermath

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004#Democratic_Party_nomination

My beef with Joe Klein and Andrew Sullivan was that they essentially said Kerry said NOTHING about it when that was not true. But Kerry did make a conscious decision NOT to make Abu Ghraib a campaign issue. Now politically, maybe it would not have helped him. But it wasn't exactly a moment of moral courage.

Karynnj -- the presidential election is over. The full scale bashing of Kerry era has ended as well. I see no reason to defend Kerry on this.

[karynnj]

15. I was wrong on the time line , though it did start before 2004

There were Red Cross reports of abuse in late 2003 and the army started an investigation in January, 2004. http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory/signal/iraq/abughraib-timeline.htm

As you say, Kerry DID speak about it - and to me it is very clear that it was the type of thing eluded to by Kerry's MANY comments on America's moral leadership. I will defend Kerry on this because it goes to the core of who he is. Give me ONE serious candidate in the last 50 years who said as much as Kerry did. Just as McCain is given a pass on issues of torture, it seems to me, that even more Kerry deserves one on war time abuses. If there was one person, who did not need to make detailed comments on his position on that, it was Kerry. EVERYONE knew what he meant when he spoke of the Geneva Convention and International law and everyone knew he risked even having a political career speaking out in 1971 on just those things.

It was not a lack of moral courage. Using that issue in a more direct way would have guaranteed Bush a landslide. I know people still angry that Kerry criticized the way the war was fought at all. In 2004, making the election about whether to torture or not torture would have been a disaster. In the first place, Bush himself criticized what happened and said it was a "few bad apples". So, it would not have been over whether what happened at Abu Ghraib was wrong - everyone conceded that. Should Kerry have questioned that it was just a "few bad apples" - when there was no real proof it wasn't at that point in time? Remember that many voters Kerry needed to win still respected and liked Bush. Not to mention many did not want to believe the story was worse than it was and there was no clear case that it was systemic. To a huge number of people, that would have sounded like an unfair attack on Bush and on the US Military. The information on the torture memos was not out until, I think, 2006 at the earliest.

The reason I challenge this has nothing to do with primary Kerry bashing. To me, this is an unfair charge that takes from Kerry the credit he deserves for taking the stands he did in the 1970s and 1980s - and since. Have you seen ONE charge against Obama, for never saying in a clear way that he would not torture? Where was John McCain on Abu Ghraib - Mr "I am the expert on torture" said far less than John Kerry and he wasn't running for President. Kerry said more in 2004 than the Clintons and most other Democrats.

Kerry has said that he wants the truth to come out and he recommended a non-partisan panel - something Obama, who has the power to do it doesn't want. Do you prefer Whitehouse, who left his own hearing - after getting huge press on it - to fly to NYC while the Senate was still in session and there were votes ongoing - possibly so he could be in the studio with Keith Olberman? (He might have had something else in NYC, but it is weird as that was a day with votes.) That panel incidentally was highly partisan and other than some good testimony, not very productive.

Who in Congress has more standing on torture than Kerry?

[beachmom]

16. Kerry has shown through his actions that he does not wish to

fight for accountability on torture. Whitehouse, who I am less impressed with, IS fighting for it even if his motives are not entirely pure. Now part of this has to do with committee assignments, but I have not seen Kerry talking about this except when asked directly on USA Today.

In 1971, Kerry spoke out about what he perceived as war crimes that happened in the combat theater. He did not spend time talking about torture (at least not that I am aware of), as in prisoner abuse while being detained in a prison. I loved his Dissent speech, as did a lot of astute writers who quoted him at the time, what he said was so good. However, his speaking then and throughout the 2008 presidential election as a surrogate for Obama was only so the Democratic party could come to power and end the torture. That is what Pelosi said the other day, actually, even if she was inartful in how she spoke about it. Criticizing Bush on torture was part of the case being laid that the GOP should be thrown out of power. But accountability? It wasn't in the speech. Good for Kerry that he would like a Truth Commission, but since he is not lifting a finger to make that happen, I guess I am not going to give him credit where it is not due.

I agree that when you are comparing Senator Kerry with Senator Obama, Kerry is better. But now that Obama is President, those comparisons are unfair. Kerry has it a lot easier to go out on a limb than Obama. That is reality when you are President -- you've got a big target on your back and have to calculate so much before you do or say anything. I am hoping that over time Obama will be pushed into sanctioning a Truth Commission. But it is up to the people, Independents like Jesse Ventura who make the case well, and CONGRESS to get Obama to do it.

I think there are good reasons why Kerry doesn't want to get into this issue. But OTOH, I am not going to call him a champion against torture. It is not just having the right position. It's also about using one's power and influence to push the ball down the field.

[karynnj]

18. I would position Obama and Kerry exactly opposite from the way you do

Kerry does not have the power to set up an independent non-partisan committee. Obama can do this. Not to mention, Kerry did say it should happen and he has said he thinks there has to be accountability. I assume he has said the same to Obama in private. Obama, not Kerry, has the ability to do this. The only thing Kerry could do on his own is a series of hearings in the SFRC. But, he has said that he does not think it should be in the partisan world of Congress. Not to mention, it would displace hearings on the ME, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc and global warming. Both of these and the question of jurisdiction are reasons he might not think it a good idea to do so. What - in his power - do you think he should do that he hasn't. Sponsor a resolution asking Obama to create such a commission?

The fact is that Obama's far greater power comes with greater responsibility and the ability to make his case to people over the heads of the media. He does not need anyone to force him to do it and in fact, they can't.

As to 1971, most of the things he described to the Senate were things done to people they captured. Does it matter if they were in a prison or on the way to a prison? Frankly I saw a link between his words on the Geneva Convention in 1971 with the words in 2004.

My comparison of Obama to Kerry compared the times each were the nominee. If anything that is unfair to Kerry as the country was far more likely to accept it in 2008 - after there were stories of the Hu memo. The fact is Kerry said more in 2004 than Obama in 2008.

I think what Kerry said was not just to win - nor was it just as an Obama surrogate, as he said the same things in 2006 when it was likely he would run. I think it was a heart felt believe - and it was stronger than what any other major politicians was saying.

Who do you feel is a champion against torture? It is hard to find anyone who spoke in more absolute terms 2006-2008 than Kerry. I was not saying he was a champion against torture nor that he wanted to be - but I reject the idea that he lacks the standing to do so. That is what your first comment said to me.

[beachmom]

19. Interesting post in The Economist blog re: Pelosi:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/05/a_pelosi_ropeadope.cfm

He thinks Pelosi is the one sticking her neck out:

Indeed, the media coverage here has been strange. Does anyone think that the only victim of the torture debate would be Nancy Pelosi? No, and neither does she. Not being a fool, she realises that her relatively low profile (she has never quite become a self-promoting, Newt Gingrich-ian figure) can risk some damage as the rest of her party pushes for the president's agenda. In the end, anything that brings former Bush administration members to heel and changes policy on torture is worth it to her, and not something she believes will hurt the Democrats. The way this is being covered on, say, Fox News—as the speaker in meltdown, dogged by calls for her resignation—is almost science fiction.

Karynnj: since the torture memos have come out, Kerry has answered one question on it, and has not made any statement at all. He is not going to fight for this issue.

[karynnj]

20. I agree -

I would guess that it would be a losing battle to get Obama to change his mind - and only Obama can do what Kerry thinks should be done. Seriously, what exactly would you like to see him do that he has the power to do?

[TayTay]

21. What I don't understand is why you want him to

That doesn't make any sense to me. Sen. Kerry has an overflowing plate at the moment. He is working on Middle East peace, sticking his neck out of the Two-State solution in Israel/Palestine, working on peace in Sri Lanka, working on the Sudan, working with the Russians and the Indians and the Chinese on a variety of issues including finding solutions to the problems associated with climate change.

In addition to that he is a member of the committee charged with financing the enormous, decades-in-the-making, health care reform. He also has a lot to deal with on communications and tech issues that is currently on the back burner for a while until some of these other things get some sort of resolution.

What do you want him to drop in order to go investigate torture? Drop working on helping to get food to the starving people in the Sudan? Tell Israel and Palestine that we don't care what you do as long as it doesn't make the papers?

I do not understand the criticism here. What is wrong with having other Senators lead on an issue? Why can't Feingold, Boxer and Whitehouse do some quality work on torture, an issue they have an expressed issue and passion and committee jurisdiction on?

I don't get it.

[Luftmensch067]

14. Speaking of "boring publications"

Although none of us here considers it boring, of course!!! I am DEFinitely reading too much into this, but I haven't been able to help noticing the little writeups on the online C-SPAN TV schedule, especially the SFRC hearings they've been showing recently (and believe me, I'm grateful that they have been showing them!) Often, it's seemed that they never or barely mention the Chairman in the blurbs. One time I actually saw something like "a meeting was convened" as if it had happened by magic, just so they wouldn't have to give him credit for convening it!

I do agree that he is JK the Invisible where the MSM are concerned and even some "boring publications" but we can clearly see from the various hearings just how respected he is by the witnesses and how impressed they are by his knowledge and skill as a leader.

It frustrates me that he doesn't often get the credit I think is due him, but I am so happy to see him working so hard and so well and truly making a difference for the better with his many talents put to their best use.