Kerry and Cornyn (ugh) will be on Sunday's "This Week"

[karynnj]

Tensions rise in the Middle East and an environmental catastrophe spreads in the Gulf of Mexico.

In a “This Week” EXCLUSIVE, anchor Jake Tapper will ask Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry and National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn about how the U.S. should move forward after Israel’s controversial raid on a flotilla attempting to break the blockade of Gaza. And will the BP oil spill provide momentum for Sen. Kerry’s energy and climate bill? As the spill threatens his home state of Texas, will Sen. Cornyn continue to support a “drill, baby, drill” approach to oil? Senators Kerry and Cornyn debate America’s energy future, only on “This Week.”

Plus a powerhouse roundtable with George Will, Markos Moulitsas, the founder of the Daily Kos, Arianna Huffington of the Huffington Post and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Liz Cheney of Keep America Safe. As efforts to contain the blowout continue, can the White House control the gusher of political problems stemming from the oil spill? Will Israel’s deadly flotilla raid scuttle U.S. efforts to revive the Middle East peace process? And George Will on whether an almost perfect game should change American’s favorite pastime. That and all the week’s politics, Sunday, only on “This Week.”

You won’t want to miss it.

It will be interesting to hear what Kerry, who went to Gaza, has to say about the blockade. He has been to the left of the administration on this - as well as other Israeli issues. The energy question should be very interesting. It will likely be Jake and Cornyn against Kerry - but that's nothing new.

[blm]

1. Sadly, I fear that Kerry will have to defend whatever Obama, Biden, and Clinton decide...

and, I don't like it ONE BIT!

Having a hawk like HRC as Sec of State was a BAAAAAAADDDDDD move on Obama's part. She and Bill are NOT the honest brokers in that region many have been led to believe. Bill became one of Bibi's Boys long ago.

[karynnj]

2. I don't think that Kerry will have a problem

If there are differences in his postion and theirs, I suspect that he will do what he did in 2008 as a surrogate for Obama, when he disagreed on the energy bill. He gave Obama's position as fairly as he could giving the best arguments for it, then when asked gave his own opposite opinion and the reason he was for that. Now, he is not a surrogate for Obama, but an ally and a loyal Democrat (which sadly others were not for him in the short time when he was the titular head of the party.)

I suspect that he will emphasize where they agree. The Obama administration and Kerry all strongly back a 2 state solution and some have spoken of the blockade as untenable. In reality the best thing that Obama/Clinton could have done in 2009 was to question the blockade more than they did. Kerry is still the highest level official who went to the West Bank. He questioned the blockade then and brought up the issue that they were excluding pasta with the Israelis and got that changed.

Kerry in many public speeches has taken a very balanced position. He has often spoken of seeing young children playing in the ruins of what were buildings and has spoken of the lack of freedom of movement of West bank Palestinians. His speech before AIPAC went further than Biden's in challenging AIPAC's positions. His voice matters in the Middle East, because he is seen as honest by the moderate Arabs. Other than Mitchell, I'm not sure anyone else from the US is - other than hopefully the President. Between his ability to meet with Syria's President, his wonderful Doha speech ( http://acommonword.com/en/a-common-word/11-new-fruits-of-a-common-word/395-text-of-senator-john-kerrys-remarks-at-the-us-islamic-world-forum-in-doha.html ) and his very down to earth, straight comments at the Jordan financial forum ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=157426&mesg_id=157426) This is a credit that Kerry worked hard to earn and it is valuable to the country. I seriously doubt he will throw that away.

His own statement was not that far from where the administration was at that point - "I am saddened by the tragic loss of life in the waters off Gaza. At this point, it is unclear what happened and there must be a thorough investigation. This unfortunate incident underscores the necessity of resolving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians." http://kerry.senate.gov/cfm/record.cfm?id=325362

I suspect that Kerry will speak both of plight of the people of Gaza and the real security threats to Israel - he has mentioned many times of speaking in Gaza of the fact that no country could tolerate its neighbor shooting rockets into it - even using Quincy and Boston as an example. I suspect that he will speak of the necessity to prevent weapons from entering the Gaza strip as a valid Israeli concern. I hope he will speak of the fact that the blockade is greatly harming the people. I would guess that he has been internally pushed and may be why they are calling the blockade untenable.

(I suspect that people on DU will not be happy as he will take a more moderate, balanced position than they like.)

This really is a PR nightmare for Israel. It is clear that overall goal of the people on the boat was to end the blockade. By responding as Israel did, it has put a spotlight on the blockade - and it is hard to defend.

I posted the J Street response on DU P, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=8460947 Their position is where I would like the administration to be.

[beachmom]

3. Yup, and he knows the truth about things. Remember this when Kerry visited the Gaza strip?

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/clinton-warns-israel-over-delays-in-gaza-aid-1.270882

However, an incident occured last week at a crossing into the Gaza Strip that gave a very different impression to a senior observer. When Senator John Kerry visited the Strip, he learned that many trucks loaded with pasta were not permitted in. When the chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee inquired as to the reason for the delay, he was told by United Nations aid officials that "Israel does not define pasta as part of humanitarian aid - only rice shipments."

Kerry asked Barak about the logic behind this restriction, and only after the senior U.S. official's intervention did the defense minister allow the pasta into the Strip. The U.S. senator updated colleagues at the Senate and other senior officials in Washington of the details of his visit.

I have been thinking about this ever since the flotilla incident. The Israelis have repeatedly said that the blockade does not impede humanitarian aid. That aid can be given to the Israelis and it will be given to the Gazans. Well, the above incident shows that this really has not been the case. Pasta isn't humanitarian aid? Huh? Kerry knows this. But he will say very little on Sunday. I hope he is not as bad as Biden but I have zero faith that he will speak the truth of what he saw. Read Andrew Sullivan. A lot of good commentary on why criticism of Israel is not allowed. It is bad for us, and bad for Israel.

[karynnj]

4. Kerry did speak of what he saw in Gaza before AIPAC

In addition, he is not one of the 79 Senators who have signed the AIPAC pushed letter. Given his prominence as the chair of the Senate Foreign relations Committee, he likely had many people pushing him to sign it.

It is true that he did not condemn Israel in terms that would make him very popular on GD, but he did speak of the need for people to have freer movement on the West Bank and of the need to improve conditions in the Gaza strip.

(Like you I dug out that same article of Kerry and the Gaza strip.)

[beachmom]

5. I tweeted the article to Jake Tapper. I think this should be brought up.

I think it is highly relevant to the flotilla incident because there is this notion being spread by the neocons that all is hunky dory in Gaza, and that they are getting plenty of humanitarian aid. I just don't think that's true. The Israelis got caught because John Kerry happened to be there. But what about when no one is looking?

As to "making GD happy", I am not saying speak like a hack to please the left wing of the party. I am talking about speaking the truth. I want JK to surprise me on Sunday with some plain speaking. He knows what's going on, but I doubt he will speak up in a forceful way. He will speak lawyerly and as dully possible. U.S. politicians are not allowed to criticize Israel other than in parsing tones.

And I will amend what BLM says, and say this is not just the Clintons. It's everyone.

[karynnj]

7. I want exactly what you want - but, I will not be that surprised

He was plain spoken before AIPAC. I do think that it is fair to balance Israel's need for security - as long as he argues - as he has in the past, that Israel needs to change towards the Palestinians. Remember that he has seen the impact of Hamas terrorism in Israel as well.

I agree that ALL politicians in all parties are reluctant to criticize Israel. But, if Haartez can criticize Israel and J Street, whose first statement was better than that of any US politician, can do, politicians should be willing to give measured criticism. Kerry has often gone further than Clinton, Biden and certainly the Republicans in the past, but any criticism is always measured.

Part of the reason is that the situation is complicated. Hamas really is a terrorist organization and they are controlling the Gaza Strip. (This was the result of an election Israel wanted to postpone, but Rice and Bush insisted.) I don't call it parsing when a politician brings up the sins of both sides - even if the current issue is pretty much against one side. (I realize that in the US, this is not symetrical. Had there been a terror attack on Israel, no politician would have any difficulty condemning it. ) I respect that Kerry said the same thing in both places.

Great idea tweeting that story. I hope that he uses it. It was very good that Kerry went to Gaza and worked to get pasta in - so the story makes him look good - for taking the risk of going to Gaza and questioning that ridiculous rule. Starting there, it likely would push Kerry to speak more about the problems of the blockade.

[beachmom]

8. It's two sided as far as the intentions of both sides in the Middle East conflict.

However, Israel has all the weapons, all the power. I suppose if the shoe were on the other foot, perhaps the Palestinians would be just as brutal if not more. But at this point, Israel can destroy any country in the M.E. if it so chooses simply by ordering it to happen. No other country (yes, including Iran) is capable of that. To me when you have that power, responsibilities go with it. I am sad about the whole situation. But in this particular case, Glenn Greenwald and Andrew Sullivan have been making sense to me. I guess to me it is a cop out to say, well, since the other side has no scruples our lack of scruples doesn't matter. It's like saying America can torture since al Qaeda beheads people. Well, I just don't like the idea of being defined by a barbaric organization. Same with Israel -- their actions in the recent past doesn't jive with the values they are supposed to be standing for like peace, democracy, honor, and so on.

One thing that Glenn has pointed out is that both Israel and the United States kill a lot of civilians. A lot more than the terrorist organizations we fight against do. Now I disagree with him on drones to a certain extent -- they seem to be effective at killing terrorists with a smaller percentage of civilian deaths than how it is depicted in screaming headline stories. BUT, well, he kind of has a point. And that depresses me. Are we doing the right thing or is it overkill?

[ProSense]

6. OT: Interesting

piece by Kerry here.

[Mass]

9. I missed him, but I unfortunately got to see the Round Table and wanted to yell.

Markos and Huffington were totally ineffectual (aside from being anti-Obama). Markos stayed mostly silent, and Huffington cannot get off her talking points.

Here is the transcript of the interview

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-allen-kerry-cornyn/story?id=10838756

[wisteria]

10. Thanks, I missed some of the interview.

I have my problems with Democrats, but I still support Senator Kerry.

[Mass]

11. If somebody has the transcript of the interview, please post it.

My link only covers the Allen part and Tapper has an excerpt that is so substance empty that I have no clue what it means without context.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/06/kerry-israel-not-becoming-a-strategic-liability-for-the-us.html

[ProSense]

12. The media truly suck.

Report from The Hill and link to transcript here.

[ProSense]

13. Here's a good

piece.

[beachmom]

14. I actually got my act together and DVR'd This Week, and I think JK did a GREAT job.

He just hit everything out of the park. He easily outdebated Cornyn on the energy issue. I have no clue what The Hill is talking about -- Kerry took Cornyn's analogy of "singles" and blew it out of the water, saying you go for a home run. He talked about how it would create jobs. He also defended the Obama Administration's response on the BP spill and talked about the 8 years of the Bush Administration where the energy companies wrote legislation and they had secret meetings with the government.

On Israel, well, um, Jake Tapper must have read my tweets.

Here is what I tweeted:

@jaketapper @JohnKerry was told only rice allowed. Only after JK's involvement did that food reach Gaza. Relevant to flotilla incident?
4:04 PM Jun 4th via web

@jaketapper @JohnKerry was in Gaza in '09 when pasta was not allowed through. He had to complain to Israeli officials about this.
4:02 PM Jun 4th via web

@jaketapper Ask @JohnKerry about Gaza http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/clinton-warns-israel-over-delays-in-gaza-aid-1.270882
4:01 PM Jun 4th via web in reply to jaketapper

Here is the transcript:

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-allen-kerry-cornyn/story?id=10838756

TAPPER: If I could just interject for one second, Senator, if I could, you were there; you were in Gaza in 2009. You found that they could not even bring pasta into Gaza. It was on a list of prohibited items. You went to the Israelis and you said, what gives? They -- I think they bent on that and allowed pasta in.

What is the situation in Gaza that the Israelis won't even let pasta in?

KERRY: There are still items -- there's confusion in the process. And I've talked to Prime Minister Netanyahu. I've talked to Defense Minister Ehud Barak about this. I believe that Israel is working now to try to put together -- and we need to work with them to make this happen. We need to guarantee that the supplies for building can go in to Gaza for reconstruction but that they are not going to be able to be used by Hamas either to build rockets or bunkers or to augment Hamas's position in Gaza.

So I think there is a way to do this. I think that what we need to do in the days ahead is put out a list of the things that cannot go in and have a clarity for those groups trying to get things in as to what can go in, and get back to the movement and access cooperation that existed previously, where we really have a better flow of goods.

Let me just tell you, it is in Israel's interest in its security and national defense interest, to deal more effectively with the Gaza situation.

Right now, you have Hamas building a seaside resort using goods that are smuggled through the Rafah tunnels, while the United Nations entity in Gaza has 40,000 kids on a waiting list to go to school, and they're trying to build 15 schools this year.

That is not in Israel's interest, in our judgment. And so I believe we need to work with Israel diligently in these next few days and get those goods moving.

But we also need to remember that -- that Iran is trying to foment a next intifada. There's nothing they'd like more than to create a violent explosion. And the tension is real enough that there is the threat of war in the Middle East. We need to work extra-hard in these next days to bring the parties together and to try to move the proximity talks to final status discussions as fast as possible.

Nothing would do more to address the concerns expressed by General Petraeus, to build trust and to diminish the ability of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and others to cause mischief than to get to the final status issues as fast as possible.

I feel pretty good that they used this. It changed the conversation to the humanitarian situation in Gaza which Sen. Kerry clearly feels strongly about.

Finally, Tapper brought up Blumenthal and Kirk and he really wanted Kerry to say something against Blumenthal. "How did he feel personally about it." Kerry repeatedly dodged the question, finally saying that Vietnam is the gift that keeps giving. He said it was up to local voters to decide and that Blumenthal has a great record in Conn.

I didn't watch the roundtable based on Mass's take. Maybe I'll watch it later but I thought Sen. Kerry did so well, I want to end it on a high note.

[karynnj]

15. Congratulations!

That story to my knowledge never made an American media source, so it had to be your tweet. It was an excellent question - and Kerry's response was excellent. I agree with you - it did change the subject to the humanitarian issues which Kerry has felt strongly about for a long time. It also gave a way to implicitly constructively criticize Israel. I am really really glad that he did not do what Biden did, which was to implicitly accept the blockade.

(I didn't see it as Eric and I were at a synagogue program that we were the ones responsible for - so we just got home.

[beachmom]

16. Go to Jake Tapper's Twitter account. He has all the links to video

so you can watch it.

[karynnj]

17. Thanks

[blm]

18. Well done, beachmom....

well done

[karynnj]

19. I agree

Beachmom's input made Tapper looked very informed. I wonder if it also was partially responsible for Tapper taking the position he did - questioning the blockade, which few in the media have. (I was more surprised at Tapper than at Kerry, whose answers were close to what I expected. His questions were excellent and they brought out a possible resolution (or partial resolution) to this situation. I was also surprised and pleased that Tapper, not Kerry, spoke of the US insistence on the election that put Hamas in power. Kerry has pointed this out often in the past, but from a Democrat, it could be dismissed as just blaming Bush.

If Israel agrees to a reasonable list of items - weapons mainly, it does give the flotilla a victory. They really will have changed the blockade. At least implicitly, Israel would have conceded that the blockade was harmful. It is important that the blockade change and lives in Gaza are improved - and they really seriously work for a two state solution. Here, Israel needs to see the obvious - time is not on their side. The demographics determine that.

I really hope that it is not just Kerry pushing Israel on the blockade, but Mitchell, and the entire Obama administration. Biden's comments, unless he was off message, suggest that at least when Biden spoke, that it was not their policy. That Biden completely defended the blockade suggests that Kerry's 2009 experience was largely ignored by the Obama administration or they thought that loosening the blockade should be saved as a bargaining chip.

Off topic, I bet if Israel does change the blockade, this will lead to endless NEEDED soul searching in the American Jewish press. I hope some would question whether Israel could have been pushed to this change without the flotilla if J Street were seen as representing a large part of American Jewish thought. From a poll they commissioned, about 80% of American Jews preferred their positions to AIPAC's, but they have been marginalized as many have bought AIPAC's argument that Jews have more say if they speak with one voice - AIPAC's.

[beachmom]

21. All very interesting (I didn't know that 80% support J Street's positions)

By any chance did you read Beinart's piece on the future of Israel and how it has put liberal Jews in a tough spot?

Also, I have to admit I really didn't want to hear Kerry speaking about the situation anywhere near Biden's. Or sort of boxed in to talk that way. That is part of the reason I fed the question to Jake Tapper. But honestly, I really was interested in hearing JK's answer. I think he struggled slightly with it because he was trying to defend Israel but had to concede that the humanitarian aid situation was not going very well. He also rightly criticized Hamas which is taking some of that aid and living like Kings while children starve.

As to Jake Tapper, well this is an example of a reporter who will listen to constructive criticism and concede some points in this case on Twitter. For example, Jay Rosen put on Twitter and on his blog that the Sunday shows should do some kind of fact checking. Jake thought it was a great idea and got Politifact to do it. He oftentimes engages with people via Twitter as well. Interestingly, he never responded to me, but was repeatedly responding to some conservatives who were DEMANDING that he condemn Helen Thomas's remarks (which as an aside, I saw the video of and was shocked and stunned by them. I am relieved to see she has resigned, but it is sad that her career has to end this way). Jake rightly responded that it is not his job to condemn (where would it stop?) but to report on facts. Well, this conservative literally stalked and harrassed Jake to the point that he had to block the person. My point is there is a way to engage and influence reporters if you do so calmly and armed with facts and good arguments, not incendiary mean spirited comments.

I think overall, individual liberals and more prominent liberal bloggers are doing a much better job getting their message to reporters than conservatives. Conservatives don't argue very well and aren't very resourceful. They are better at "scalping" and screaming around which works at Fox News but not when trying to engage with serious journalists. The Helen Thomas situation had nothing to do with liberals, the left, Democrats, etc. It went way beyond anything in American politics and has easily resolved itself it was so abhorrent. I did see some liberals remark on how conservatives get a free pass saying things and Thomas was immediately taken out. Still, I think her remarks were really bad, and even worse when you see the video.

[karynnj]

22. Beinart's piece is good

The basic idea is very much a major topic in the Jewish community. The editor of our local Jewish paper wrote, "What shall we tell the children?", which dealt with what to say when our values and Israel's actions are incompatible. He speaks of how liberal Jews have difficulty speaking of Israel. http://njjewishnews.com/article/editors-column/what-shall-we-tell-the-children

This editor spoke at our synagogue recently and the topic was essentially who speaks for American Jews. He gave a very neutral program explaining how AIPAC has fought to remain the only voice - arguing that there is more power in having just one voice. They also have argued that as we don't bear the consequences, we should never oppose the Israeli government. He pointed out that when Israel had a non-Likud government, AIPAC felt quite free to disagree with them. (Sounds like that RW tenet is similar to what was said here - concerning a President in time of war.) He also spoke of the efforts J Street was making with a fraction of the money and lobbyists.

On the 80%, I did not see the poll - it was just mentioned in his presentation. I assume that they could have written the AIPAC positions in language that made them less attractive and written theirs to sound more reasonable. However, one thing that backs this number as being somewhat reasonable is that the percent voting for the Democrat is always in the mid to high 70s. Their positions on Israel have been closer to the liberal Democrats than to the Republicans (plus Lieberman and Schumer). AIPAC is closer to the Republicna.

[karynnj]

20. Now for something completely different - Here is the transcript of Senator Brown speaking to AIPAC

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2010/06/brown_launches.html?comments=all#readerComm

This is a prepared speech - and it shows none of knowledge, understanding or thoughtfulness of the Senior Senator's off the cuff responses on This Week.