Kerry - Wiki"reckless action which jeopardizes lives by exposing raw, contemporaneous intelligence."

[Still a Democrat]

The political panic late last year over WikiLeaks announcement that it was beginning to publish some of the 250,000 U.S. diplomatic cables it claims to have was significant.


Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) called the release a "reckless action which jeopardizes lives by exposing raw, contemporaneous intelligence."

...

In Libya, the longtime U.S. ambassador there, Gene Cretz, was recalled to Washington last month after his name was attached to a cable revealing embarrassing personal details about Col. Muammar Qaddafi, the Libyan leader. Officials say he is unlikely to return.

...

That incident is the biggest visible change within the government caused thus far by WikiLeaks. However, the Times reports there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest the harm is wider spread.


An American diplomat in Central Asia said recently that one Iranian contact, who met him on periodic trips outside Iran, told him he would no longer speak to him, the Times reports. Sarah Holewinski, executive director of the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict, said people in Afghanistan and Pakistan had become more reluctant to speak to human rights investigators for fear that what they said might be made public, according to the report.


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20027744-503543.html

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. Kerry sold out long ago.

[derby378]

102. His 2004 Presidential campaign was ample evidence of that

Kerry did a lot of great things once upon a time. But I think the younger Kerry that opposed Vietnam would have had a lot more in common with Julian Assange than the older Kerry is willing to admit.

[Major Hogwash]

120. I didn't get that impression.

But then, I actually worked on his campaign, I didn't just sit by and watch.

[derby378]

139. You, too?

Ginny and I threw every spare moment we could into the campaign, but I could already see cracks forming in the foundation.

[Bragi]

2. Article says the number of lives jeopardized by leaks = zero

Read the article carefully, and what it says is that there is no evidence whatsoever that anyone has come to any harm as a result of Wikileaks.

[Still a Democrat]

4. "Article says the number of lives jeopardized by leaks = zero"

Jeopardized lives at zero? Quote please.

[Bragi]

5. Huh? The article is clear

While some diplomats have been shuffled around, over a month since the first cables went public, no reports of any actual harm coming to anyone mentioned in the cables have come to light.

You're welcome.

[stevenleser]

9. Yeah, because we always hear about intelligence moles who disappear and are never heard from again

:sarcasm:

:eyes:

[stevenleser]

11. Wrong place

[gratuitous]

16. I have to say that "Trust us when we say lives have been lost"

Isn't really persuasive in light of the misinformation, disinformation, misleading, prevarication, half-truth, innuendo, omissions, and outright lies that are detailed in the limited documents released so far. I recognize it as a personal shortcoming that I distrust the word of a proven liar, and I resolve to be more trusting in the future.

But not today.

[stevenleser]

17. It's really very simple inductive reasoning

1. When their presence is directly or indirectly revealed, sources of intelligence are often killed
2. Wikileaks indirectly revealed sources of intelligence
3. Some of those intelligence sources are likely either dead, or will be

[Luminous Animal]

19. Please cite the sources that Wikileaks provided. You can use Wikileaks to back up your claims.

[stevenleser]

21. How many do you want?

[stevenleser]

25. Here is 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0ZcyM-A610

From the video text:

A new WikiLeak cable is out and it puts Chinese officials in hot water...

"The newly leaked cable shows U.S. contacts accusing China of ordering hacking attacks against Google. Now, I should emphasize that it's not the American diplomats blaming China, rather it's their sources who say top Chinese officials gave the order for Google to be hacked and oversaw the effort. One cable says a Chinese official demanded action on Google after he Googled himself and found criticism and other unflattering results." (MSNBC)


The New York Times, which has access to the WikiLeaks reports, says Li Changchun is that top official and also the person behind the plot.

"One cable, dated early this year, quoted a Chinese person with family connections to the elite as saying that Mr. Li himself directed an attack on Google's servers in the United States, though that claim has been called into question."
-------------------------------------------------

The intelligence source is the Chinese person with family connections to the elite.'

How many more do you want? I'd bet a years salary that this "Chinese person with family connections to the elite" is either dead or will be soon.

[Luminous Animal]

35. Get back to me when that happens.

Your response is pure speculation and a waste of time.

Make believe danger can't hold a candle to real oppression.

"(Chinese Human Rights Defenders, December 9, 2010) – On December 10, Human Rights Day, the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony will celebrate the dedication and personal sacrifices of 2010 laureate Liu Xiaobo (刘晓波), one of China's leading voices for rights and democracy. Yet the day will be marked as well by the Chinese government's escalating campaign to silence these voices. The Nobel Peace Prize ceremony will take place with the recipient’s chair unoccupied, as Liu Xiaobo remains in jail serving an 11-year prison sentence for “inciting subversion” and his wife, Liu Xia (刘霞), relatives, and some of his close friends and associates held incommunicado illegally. None of the invitees to the ceremony from mainland China are believed to be attending the event, as the Chinese government has construed attendance by any Chinese citizen as a subversive act. (For a full list of the 143 invitees, and the restrictions preventing them from attending, please see the attached .pdf file.) "

[stevenleser]

45. Its plain as day, you just dont want to see it. I'm happy with what I have posted thus far speaking

for itself.

[gratuitous]

40. That would be a neat trick

The sensitive Chinese official involved, Li Changchun, is sufficiently touchy that after Googling himself he apparently put out a hit on the messenger, in this case Google. While I have no doubt there are erratic individuals in positions of power all over the globe, it's hardly the fault of Wikileaks to publish a memo explaining just how touchy the likes of Mr. Li are. Head far enough down that path (and it doesn't look too far from where we stand now), and you're into the personality cult that surrounded folks like Pol Pot, Lavrenty Beria, Nero and other paranoids.

Mr. Li sounds unstable enough that he could use any pretext at all to have a traitor - real or imagined - assassinated just because he felt threatened. While Senator Kerry seems solicitous of Mr. Li's tender feelings, I have to say I'm less so. Accommodating the murderously deranged is not a good policy, and there are millions of real, actual bodies piled up through history to back up that assertion, rather than one speculative person who may or may not have been killed, possibly attributable (or not) to Wikileaks.

[sabrina 1]

43. Who is this Chinese person? I have been following this story

and up to yesterday, there is no evidence of anyone being harmed, or named as the source.

Nice try. That in fact, was one of Wikileaks better leaks from a U.S. POV. Hard to have it both ways. It totally exposed the Chinese Govt. willingness to hack into US computers and I'm sure our intel. people were very pleased to get that information.

All this 'concern' about Chinese dissidents. Wikeleaks was started by Chinese dissidents because the U.S. certainly did nothing to help them. In fact, the U.S. business dealings with China harmed dissidents after Tiananmen Square. Rather than protest the slaughter that took place, the U.S. sent over two envoys to secretly negotiate with the brutal, Chinese Government to further trade agreements with them. They did nothing to stop the crackdown on the dissidents. Then, we gave them 'Favorite Nation' status basically condoning the slaugher of those unfortunate students and the continued incarceration of anyone involved in that admirable and courageous attempt to fight for democracy.

So before you try to blame Wikileaks for the current situation of Chinese dissidents, you should know what you are talking about. A new Chinese Wikileaks has just launched, no doubt those people are in grave danger of being discovered, but when a Government is as oppressive as our #1 Trading Partner, a partner we do not want to upset by addressing their abhorrent human rights record, people will risk their very lives and have throughout history.

You work very hard to shift the blame for the slaughter and loss of lives that is now in the millions, the torture, the maiming, the persecutions, that is caused by the wars and corruption of THIS government, onto the messengers.

You apparently fail to understand that when people stand up to powerful oppressors, which is how the U.S. is viewed now world-wide, lives will be lost. Some people understand that and I'm sure, do not want you to try to use their sacrifices to protect the very forces they were fighting.

[karynnj]

60. Read the article - the news papers scrubbed most of the names

This should minimize the risk.

Kerry's comment was made within days of the release - before it was known what would and wouldn't be in the papers. Not to mention it is one sentence and Kerry said far more. The comments were made at the start of a SFRC hearing. Part of problemt is that the reports are often not complete or fully accurate. Many are the summary by an ambassador and his staff of a meeting - where they might have not understood completely the conversation.

[sabrina 1]

26. If Kerry was worried about 'intelligence moles' he must be furious

about the loss of lives caused by the Cheney gang's exposure, ACTUAL exposure, of an undercover agent. I don't recall hearing much from him about that now that I think of it. But he does defend the Empire and their criminal wars. Speaking of loss of life!

[karynnj]

61. He WAS furious and was one of 3 people willing to join Feingold's

resolution to censure Bush over the FISA stuff - Harkin, and Boxer were the other two.

[sabrina 1]

109. I was speaking about the Valerie Plame affair.

No one has been held accountable for the exposure of an undercover agent and I do not recall Kerry raising the issue in Congress. Libby received a slap on the wrist for obstructing justice. Congress should have taken up the matter considering the people involved. But as we know, nothing was done and no one knows how many lives and careers were affected. Nor does anyone seem to care.

Kerry voted for the illegal wars and has supported them ever since. He is really not someone who should be talking about anyone else 'risking lives'. His votes for this war risked the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people and as we know, the dying continues to this day. Maybe he should concern himself with those lives we KNOW are endangered and move to end that risk to untold numbers of innocent people.

[karynnj]

123. Kerry did raise the issue of Valerie Plame in teh 2004 election!

The IWR was not a vote for war - and war was not entered into for 5 months. The votes to fund the war were because their is a responsibility to do so when troops are committed - and Kennedy and others voted for them as well. Not to mention he did lead the effort to set a deadline - and in teh end BUSH committed to a deadline and that is why we are getting out.

As to trying to help people endangered - maybe you should look where he is now. He is in Sudan trying to prevent a recurrence of violence.

[sabrina 1]

129. Well, it's very nice that we can sit here eight years of carnage later and defend

our politicians for their participation in the destruction of lives and property of other nations. But the mothers and loved ones whose children and parents were blown to bits, the lost babies, the maimed, the generations being born deformed. We are not the victims of these decisions.

He voted for it and he voted to fund it. That is on his conscience. Let him try to explain those votes to and actual victim, and talk about his duty to OUR troops. Tell it to a mother who picked up her child's shattered remains while they waited for the DEADline. A good name for it. What do you think that mother would have to say to him about his vote FOR the war that killed her child"

Sorry, I have not changed my views as a democrat, but the party I supported has changed radically from the words they spoke.

[Still a Democrat]

18. The article is clear, but you aren't

No actual harm is different than no one being jeopardized.

[EFerrari]

27. We can't and won't know if someone is put in danger. But

we do know that what Wikileaks is publishing is not contemporaneous intelligence and we know it is being filtered by established media outlets. So Kerry was incorrect in this statement.

[stevenleser]

28. Established media outlets are not intelligence experts and do not know what to look for.

The one I cited above clearly got past them.

[EFerrari]

30. But their process proves that Kerry is wrong. n/t

[stevenleser]

33. No, it doesnt. What I posted above shows he is right. n/t

[EFerrari]

37. No raw contemporaneous intelligence has been published.

Plus, the White House has been given every opportunity to advise redactions. No one is reading Wikileaks and getting co-ordinates to strike an informer.

And, btw, in many cases, those "informers" are committing treason. Surely you don' support treason?

[stevenleser]

44. LOL, it is plain as day that you are wrong

First of all, you are saying "raw contemporaneous intelligence" like it matters in what we are talking about. It doesnt.

If you publish enough of the intelligence picture to put a person or operation in danger, you have screwed up. That is what has happened multiple times with the latest wikileaks releases.

Second, sure, I support treason by people of other countries if it supports the interests of the US and our allies now, just as I would have supported German soldiers and citizens during WWII turning treason, Japanese, Italians, etc.

Why would you even think that is a question worthy of asking? You wasted your time and mine on an inane question.

[Luminous Animal]

53. Happened numerous times, eh?

You are silly.

[EFerrari]

59. Um, it matters because that was Senator Kerry's statement.

And, btw2, do you know who was killed in Afghanistan today? In Iraq? In Yemen? In Colombia? In Honduras?

At least you admit to your undemocratic double standard.

[girl gone mad]

111. Obviously it isn't "plain as day"..

when you appear to be the only person here who sees it.

[karynnj]

66. No it doesn't

Kerry was speaking of the necessity of being able to keep statements said in private by world leaders private - at least while they are current. It should be expected that historians will have access. One example was that Mubarak of Eqypt was quoted as saying that the Iranians are liars. Now, I assume this statement is no surprise, but there is a political cost for this statement being out in the open. It is not likely a statement that Mubarak would make in public - nor is it something that Kerry and Dodd (who it said to - along with the then Eqyptian ambassador) would have repeated.

[Luminous Animal]

70. Kerry said it jeapordizes lives. He did not say it jeapordizes the right to say stupid things.

[EFerrari]

80. No, Kerry said Wikileaks published raw contemporaneous intelligence.

I wish he'd be as assiduous about real threats to human life, like the ongoing slaughter of trade unionists and journalists and community organizers in Honduras and less interested in covering the State Department's @ss for the stupid things they put in cables.

[Luminous Animal]

38. You mean that unnamed source whose life maybe probably might be in danger?

[stevenleser]

46. See my #45

[Luminous Animal]

52. "Chinese person with family connections to the elite"

You post that as if there exists in this world only one Chinese person with family connections to the elite.

[stevenleser]

55. See my #45

[Luminous Animal]

56. I don't need to see it again to acknowledge that you stand by your ficitonal scenario.

In other news... I might grow butterfly wings!

[stevenleser]

140. See my #45

[sabrina 1]

48. Are you saying that there should be no exposure of war crimes,

torture, corruption, because of the possibility of harm coming to a few, not even the certainty? That people should remain silent about the millions who die in our wars, in oppressive countries around the world, that they should continue to die rather than take a slight risk?

When Wikileaks exposed the corrupt, murderous government of Kenya, people were dying, as they are in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan eg, every day. Civil rights lawyers fighting that brutal regime, died. And there was a risk that those trying to get the information out about that regime, could be harmed. But the exposure ended that regime's reign of terror against its own people.

What you are saying is that Wikileaks should remained silent and left things as they were, hoping for some miracle to stop the carnage?

Because if it wasn't for Wikileaks, the 'disappeared' there would still be disappearing. Was anyone harmed in the process of trying to stop it? Yes, long before Wikileaks got involved.

People are being harmed RIGHT NOW, by our criminal wars. What SHOULD we do to stop the carnage? Any ideas?

Btw, don't say 'elect democrats' we already tried that which was the usual response to 'how do we expose the criminals and stop the wars'. So, what now, how do we save the lives of those innocent civilians our government is killing every day? Do they matter?

[karynnj]

68. The vast majority of what Wikileaks exposed was not war crimes

There were some in the earlier dumps, but most of what was in the state department leaks was normal diplomacy.

You would have had a better case to say this if the leaks were only about things that were war crimes.

[sabrina 1]

134. You clearly are not familiar with the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs.

As for 'having a better case' if the leaks were only about war crimes? Since when does a news organization publish only information about war crimes? What they publish is news, about public figures. What the Embassy Cables have revealed is of incredible value to the people of the world, not just of this country. These are public figures, from governments around the world, as well as here, and what we have discovered is the extent of the lies told to the people of this country and others, by their leaders.

If you don't mind your government lying to you, then these revelations will be of no value to you. But to millions of people around the world, they now have information that can help them choose their leaders more carefully.


And I hope that many of the governments, especially in Europe, of countries who thought they were democracies, will fall during their next elections. These governments are revealed to have been working against the interests of their citizens. And those citizens now understand why it was that no matter how unpopular an issue was, their governments ignored them and pushed it through, such as the War in Iraq. The vast majority of those citizens do not want their leaders following the orders of a foreign government. Now they know the extent to which their governments were operating against their interests.

This is what news ought to be about. Keeping governments honest. As Putin said, despite the negative image portrayed of him and his government by the leaks, he at least recognized that what Wikileaks has done is real journalism and suggested they be given a Pulitzer Prize. That of course, doesn't mean he would not like to see them silenced, but facts are facts, he recognizes a worthy foe when he meets one.

[karynnj]

137. Kerry is not speaking of the Iraq Afghanistan leaks - he was speaking of the later

leak of unconnected state department cables.

[sabrina 1]

57. So, should we just censor all of the press? We are better off

not bothering our pretty little heads with what our government is doing? Wait, the solution is already here. FOX, Fox would never support exposing corruption in our government. Just let Fox decide what news is good for public consumption. The rest of the media 'are not intelligence experts' and might harm the empire.

Btw, since when was being intelligence experts a requirement for the free press in any democracy? I thought being a journalist was all that was required?

And FYI, our media, sadly, has long been infiltrated by the intelligence community, one of the major problems that has led to the need for organizations like Wikileaks, free from intelligence agencies' interference around the world.

[karynnj]

62. Kerry's comment was made BEFORE all the leaks were out

and there were cases where diplomats were withdrawn over the leaks. Much of the Wikileaks did deal with recent stuff - there were accounts of meetings with various middle eastern leaders and that is still on going. Here, the damage was often in what the Arab leaders said of each other. This could lead to less willingness to speak openly with the US.

[EFerrari]

77. That statement is from last Fall as Prosense notes below. n/t

[karynnj]

122. exactly - when the state department leaks started

and that is what he was referring to. It was long after the first dump on Iraq and Afghanistan where his comments were more ambiguous.

[EFerrari]

124. The problem is the cable leaks were filtered, not dumped.

And the White House could have helped redact them but they refused.

[Bragi]

132. Number of people proven to be in jeopardy due to WL = zero

I'm sure we can all agree that the above subject line is a fact-based statement. Moving on from there, one of the things we've learned so far in the new era of Wikileaks is that the diplomatic system seems to be quite resilient. It has not gone grid-lock in consequence of the new transparency rules.

[mike_c]

3. Kerry adds yet another reason for his irrelevancy....

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bragi]

7. We are now down to lying about lying about lying.

[karynnj]

69. Kerry is not saying anything of the kind

You likely saw only that one sentence - and that sentence says nothing about dumping data indiscriminately.

[xchrom]

8. Had you been so fierce in 04. Nt

[politicasista]

74. Knew that was coming

(though not suprised).


Thanks a lot ineffective campaign handlers. Thanks much!

[EFerrari]

10. Except Wikileaks doesn't publish real time contemporaneous intelligence.

Where were you, Senator, when the coup was torturing journalists in Honduras?

[Still a Democrat]

32. So if it's about past events

it can't impact anyone? Pretty silly.

[EFerrari]

41. It is silly to claim these leaks can cause real time damage. n/t

[Still a Democrat]

75. " real time damage"

Not sure what the devil you're trying to say now.

[karynnj]

73. It isn't

There are accounts of various middle easternern leaders speaking of the leaders of other countries and the various parameters of any peace initiative. Several were from 2009 - do you think that so ancient that it being out did not have at least some impact? Could it make a leader feel less free speaking to an American diplomat?

[EFerrari]

88. Why should anyone feel free speaking to an American diplomat?

Just today, our DoJ has started to harrass an Icelandic MP over her past support for Wikileaks. Which is thuggery and not in their job description. Why would anyone want to promote that?

Like it or not, this country acts like a bully and all over the world. The State Department, as we have seen thanks to Wikileaks, acts as the outside sales people for multinational corporations and not so much as an envoy that advances the interests of the American people.

[karynnj]

71. He was calling it a coup and writing op-eds - which was more than anyone

else in the Congress. The only other person doing nearly as much was Berman.

[stevenleser]

12. And under the bus goes Kerry...

the anti-Obama/pro-wikileaks crowd is nothing if not consistent. Anyone who has the temerity to disagree with them or provides inconvenient truths goes under the bus regardless of past accomplishments or anything else.

[Luminous Animal]

14. You are absolutely right. We should trust our beloved leaders even when they tell bald-faced lies.

[karynnj]

78. What "bald faced" lie are you accusing Senator Kerry of saying

I read the Wikileaks that he is captured in - and his comments to foreign leaders are exactly what he says to media here and in the SFRC. In fact, Time had an article that said that Kerry was a rare "Wikileaks winner" - in that he looked very good in the accounts.

You can disagree with him on whether leaks are harmful - but he has as much right to an opinion and a LOT more knowledge on the impact than you do.

[Luminous Animal]

91. The Wikileaks cable release is not raw intelligence. That is the lie.

[Robb]

99. Not to us, no.

It qualifies as raw intelligence to non-US intelligence agencies and other interested parties, I expect. :D

[karynnj]

105. The cables are raw data

Many of them from many people, plus any debriefing of the diplomats themselves and other information are all input into coming up with a picture of what the situation is for a country or an issue. Each one is a data point that might reinforce the narrative they have or challenge it. Some will be outliers that are ignored because there is reason to doubt them (ie it was in the vested interest of the person to say it)

[EFerrari]

20. So we should support Kerry when what he's saying is factually incorrect?

I know Republicans do that. Democrats do that now, too?

[karynnj]

83. I don't think it is "factually incorrect"

It is RAW data - and as such it can be incorrect or incomplete. In addition, it often includes privileged information of comments candidly made by other leaders. Now, these comments are not necessarily correct and it is also likely the diplomat would not have argued with the leader. (As to inaccurate - there was a several year old claim that the Ayatolla had only months to live. ) This was not the Pentagon papers which were a series of policy documents that were the best analysis of a Pentagon group.

I have seen some distorted in that way - there are right wing sites that have taken positions of Arab leaders to Kerry to be Kerry's position - even when he pushed back with questions on those positions in the very cable they were looking at. (I read mostly the ones with Kerry - and he has no reason to be concerned as he comes out as good diplomat - and his public positions are consistent with what is in Wikileaks - so the problem is not that he was "burned" by Wikileaks.

I would have NO problem saying that he was wrong - if I believed he was - but I agree with him here. From what I saw looking at the leaks, there are confidences betrayed - and I could imagine that will make people less willing to speak candidly for fear that the US can not protect the security of the information.

[EFerrari]

95. What is "privileged information", in your opinion?

I know you are protective of Kerry and that's fine with me. In general, I have come to understand that he is a good man.

But this is akin to Howard Dean going out in the last few days selling Daley. It's obviously not true. Wikileaks hasn't given any real time intelligence out. And the minor inconvenience to some State Department collaborators is far out weighed by the information that, for example, our government sent Special Forces into Pakistan illegally, bombed Yemen and lied about it, obstructed multiple human rights cases in Spain, tried to force Monsanto on the EU, recruiting Peace Corps volunteers to spy in Bolivia, blackmailing other countries to sign on in the Copenhagen disaster. And that's just off the top of my head.

I'm sorry. This is the political elites covering for their class. Kerry is better than that most of the time.

[superduperfarleft]

24. Why is simply disagreeing with someone considered "under the bus?"

Melodramatic much?

I greatly respect Kerry, but he's dead wrong on this. Of course, I wouldn't expect someone of his stature to publicly support wikileaks anyway.

[TheKentuckian]

114. Some folks have a great enough faith in certain politicians/personalities that it changes their

own beliefs, principles, values, and goals to reflect the view of the "hero".
Such folk project this system on others and then assume strong disagreement is betraying the "hero".

[politicasista]

100. +1 n/t

[ProSense]

13. Kerry said this in November

Statement By Chairman Kerry On Leaked State Department Documents

Monday, November 29, 2010

"The release of classified information under these circumstances is a reckless action which jeopardizes lives by exposing raw, contemporaneous intelligence. This is not an academic exercise about freedom of information and it is not akin to the release of the Pentagon Papers, which involved an analysis aimed at saving American lives and exposing government deception. Instead, these sensitive cables contain candid assessments and analysis of ongoing matters and they should remain confidential to protect the ability of the government to conduct lawful business with the private candor that's vital to effective diplomacy."

The media attempting to fan outrage.

[EFerrari]

23. They're trying to discredit Wikileaks.

You don't seriously believe they give a damn what the left thinks, do you? :)

[ProSense]

36. Oh

it's both, and it works.

[EFerrari]

39. Well, yeah it works. Agreed. n/t

[sabrina 1]

128. Only for people in this country who are easily manipulated.

The rest of the world are not influenced by U.S. propaganda and are now finding out why, despite huge public opposition to U.S. wars their own governments ignored them. This is a very good thing. They will throw out their compromised governments, as they have in Iceland and IReland, and hopefully take back their countries and begin prosecuting their leaders who dragged them into wars, who helped collapse their economies while ignoring the will of the people.

[karynnj]

86. Poor little Wikileaks!

Do you see any need for privacy in diplomacy?

[EFerrari]

89. What exactly are you defending, so I can be clear?

[karynnj]

94. As I pointed out in other posts, the leaks include comments from

various leaders on their opinions about various conflicts and difficulties between their neighbors. Those comments were given in many cases more candidly than the leaders spoke in their press. Those comments now can color the relationships between the leaders and those they spoke of.

[EFerrari]

97. But it's their job to deal with that. It always has been. n/t

[sabrina 1]

65. And he was wrong. But he's been wrong before, like when he

voted for the War in Iraq and supported every supplemental since then.

Is there some reason why we should be impressed with a wrong statement from someone who has shown a propensity for being dangerously wrong on some major, life-threatening issues in the past?

He has been right on some things, and he will get credit when he is right.

On foreign policy his positions are the same as his Republican colleagues. He was my last choice when he ran because of that and Bush was not even an option. I hope he never runs for president again so long as he supports the war machine.

And, btw, for anyone who supported those truly dangerous wars where over one million human beings have been killed and tortured and maimed and more have had their lives totally destroyed, to make a statement about anyone else possibly harming people, is simply ludicrous and hypocritical beyond belief.

Did he think of all those he was sentencing to death each time he voted for Bush's Wars?

What lives is he worried about? He's certainly worried about Afghans and Iraqis and U.S. troops or he would never have been foolish enough to fall for the Bush lies. I cannot trust anyone who fell for those lies.

He should get back to us, when Wikileaks has harmed as many people has his votes have helped to harm. We begged him not to support those wars because of the lives that would be lost. He refused to listen, I have zero respect for his opinion on how to protect lives from harm.

[ProSense]

76. Kerry was one of the

few prominent voices who spoke out against the invasion in the months before Bush launched it. He never once minced words about his opposition to the war.

And the truth is that George Bush has made America weaker by overextending the armed forces of the United States, overstraining, overstraining our reserves, driving away our allies and running the most arrogant, reckless, inept and ideological foreign policy in the modern history of our country.

link

In fact, shortly after the launch, while many shifted to lauding Bush, Kerry never let up.

Kerry Angers GOP in Calling For 'Regime Change' in U.S.

<...>

"What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States," Kerry said.

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) led the chorus of GOP critics who attacked Kerry for challenging Bush during wartime. "Senator Kerry's remark, equating regime change in Iraq with regime change in the United States, is not what we need at this time," Hastert said. "What we need is for this nation to pull together, to support our troops and to support our commander in chief."

<...>

[sabrina 1]

126. Words V actions.

His actions did not match his words, did they? We are getting used to that. He voted for the war. That's what tells what he really thought. Words mean nothing.

And he still supports it.

The days are gone when people are fooled by the words of politicians. Or by the game being played by both parties. Over a million people have lost their lives as a result of those votes. I would not want to have tat on my conscience.

We had a choice between Bush the unapologetic war supporter and Kerry, the kinder, gentler war supporter. For the victims of that illegal war, there is little difference, they died regarless.

[politicasista]

131. Point proven in this thread

He was better off voting no. He would have looked better doing so and on the right side of this issue.

[karynnj]

90. Edwards and Gephardt - not to mention Lieberman were

cheerleaders of a war that Kerry BEFORE it started said was not a war of last resort and we should not rush to war. The fact is that Trippi completely distorted Kerry's position to position Dean as the only viable anti-war candidate.

As to the war supplementals, Kerry's votes were not different than Ted Kennedy's.

Kerry's foreign policy opinions are not at all similar to the Republicans - and more than almost any Democrat, it is clear that had he been President we would not have gone to war in Iraq - and our efforts in Afghanistan would have been quite different.

[sabrina 1]

127. Did he vote for it or did he not?

All he had to do was vote 'no'. I remember that night, and will never forget it. Sen. Byrd matched his words to his vote. Kerry did not nor did Hillary, Gephardt, Edwards or Lieberman. All those Democrats that was a devastating night for proressives as they cast those ignominious votes, after having given us hope that at least the Democratic party would stand firm against that crime.

So, explain that vote, if he was so against the war. Other Democrats voted against it, why did these people vote for it?

[politicasista]

85. + 1 about the media n/t

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabrina 1]

22. The reckless actions that cost lives were the two illegal wars

Kerry was my last choice for president in 2004 because of his support for the War. I got behind him only because of how bad the Bush administration was. But with the passage of time, I look back now and a lot has become clearer regarding our two political parties. I used to think it was just the Bush gang, but it's not.

Can't say I'm surprised or disappointed in Kerry's defending of the empire. There are two sides in all of this, and few or our elected officials from either party, are on the side of the people, in fact they are a threat to people everywhere with their wars, their corrupt financial institutions, their torture policies and their defense and protection of war criminals everywhere.

[superduperfarleft]

29. Two illegal wars that Democrats overwhelmingly voted for.

People here like to forget that fact in their purely partisan smearing of wikileaks.

[sabrina 1]

49. Yes, I remember every vote!

Only a few sincerely tried to stop them.

[stevenleser]

141. No, they didnt. That is a bald faced lie. More democrats voted against the Iraq war resolution than

voted for it.

Even beyond that, we can get into what the Iraq War Resolution is about, something else I am sure you dont want to talk about.

[hulka38]

93. You may have seen this already.

If not i's worth a look.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/15/hugh-shelton-book-clinton-iraq-war-albright_n_764403.html

[sabrina 1]

135. Thank you, no I had not seen it. I always liked Shelton

He appeared to be a man of principle. But wow, they, someone there, was willing to kill a U.S. pilot to get their war going!

At one of my very first breakfasts, while Berger and Cohen were engaged in a sidebar discussion down at one end of the table and Tenet and Richardson were preoccupied in another, one of the Cabinet members present leaned over to me and said, "Hugh, I know I shouldn't even be asking you this, but what we really need in order to go in and take out Saddam is a precipitous event -- something that would make us look good in the eyes of the world. Could you have one of our U-2s fly low enough -- and slow enough -- so as to guarantee that Saddam could shoot it down?"

I liked his response:

"Why, of course we can," I countered. "Just as soon as we get your ass qualified to fly it, I will have it flown just as low and slow as you want to go."

Unbelievable. And while all this was going on, we were busy defending Clinton against the sex scandals.

Thank you, I would like to read Shelton's book. I remember he was opposed to the war and airc, resigned, or maybe he had already done so, but the media stopped talking to him.

[FLPanhandle]

31. I guess only the smart politicians can handle that data

We stupid citizens can't comprehend it properly. We must trust the power brokers to do this for us.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. Kerry is so smart that he voted for Bush's war. And, still supports Obama's war.

[Autumn]

42. Not a bit surprised he would say that,

there are a lot of things our government does that could also be called a "reckless action which jeopardizes lives". Such as 2 illegal wars based on pure lies, which Kerry supports. So his opinion is not important to me. :shrug: I wonder who in our military Kerry would like to be the last man to die for a lie?

[whatchamacallit]

47. I find it fascinating when DUers post "opinions of prominence"

as if it's going to make people go "Well then, if so-and-so says so, everything I believe is obviously wrong. I'm going to reverse my position immediately!". :rofl:

[ProSense]

50. Most likely posting is for informational purposes, but

"as if it's going to make people go 'Well then, if so-and-so says so, everything I believe is obviously wrong. I'm going to reverse my position immediately!'."

...why is that funny? Dean's opinion of Daley has had some sway.

Are you saying that no one respects the opinions of anyone?

[whatchamacallit]

54. If Kerry provides factual evidence to back his condemnation I'll give his opinion consideration

As it stands, it sound like the protestations of one more washington fox guarding the henhouse.

[ProSense]

58. That's a separate point from the previous comment. n/t

[karynnj]

98. Kerry's comments reflect a concern with the documents

Here is a hearing where he speaks about it. http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=d8605299-5056-a032-5273-667a814db0c8 His comments start at 35:22 time point.

He says not to overhype or get overly excited about the documents.

[EFerrari]

51. Hey, hey, hey -- don't mess with a good flame.

lol

:)

[politicasista]

79. Yep. Don't mess with it when it comes to Kerry or Obama

People will never get over anything, 04, 03 or even 08 primaries.

[EFerrari]

84. That isn't my experience at DU.

:)

[politicasista]

87. You keep it civil

:)

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Catherina]

64. As opposed to reckless votes for illegal wars that last over a decade eh JK? n/t

[walldude]

67. So the worst thing so far was a document about how

Qaddafi poops his pants? And that is jeopardizing lives?

Yeah Assange and his wiki flunkies should be hung. :eyes:

[marmar]

72. He's just being a good foot soldier in the defense of the Empire.

And a posterchild for our worthless political class.

[politicasista]

81. Catch 22

Defend Obama: You are a sellout corportist.

Be against Obama: You are progressive hero.


Go figure.

[EFerrari]

82. When the Honduran coup was in full swing and when journalists started

to be kidnapped, tortured and dumped out on the road as a warning, some of us here and elsewhere attempted to contact Kerry and Boxer. We had real time raw intelligence and of course, were ignored.

Iirc, the New York Times was a week behind us.

So, even though this statement of Kerry's is old and even though it's likely put out there to ding Wikileaks and to outrage the left, I'm still pissed about the ongoing situation in Honduras and I don't believe Mr. Kerry is very concerned with protecting people in real time.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[karynnj]

101. You completely discredit yourself with your inane charge

[cbc5g]

96. How many lives were lost because Kerry decided to vote for war?

He voted, along with our secretary of warstate, to send soldiers to Iraq to kill and be killed. All based on a lie, a warcrime.

[karynnj]

103. He voted for a resolution that he thought could possibly help

give Bush the leverage he needed for invasive inspections - that could avoid a war that Bush was already going to start.

[cbc5g]

104. I'm not buying that...he knew what he was doing

And he was doing it for political purposes because Americans were pushing for war since Bush , republicans AND democrats, repeatedly lied on television about WMD and mushroom clouds over New York.

[karynnj]

106. Believe what you want but Kerry's reasons were consistent

from 2002 on.

Not to mention - Dean's own preference, for a resolution would have been even easier for Bush to have violated.

Here is what he said on Face the Nation on September 29, 2002, shortly before the IWR vote.


HOWARD DEAN: It's very simple. Here's what we ought to have done. We should have gone to the UN Security Council. We should have asked for a resolution to allow the inspectors back in with no pre-conditions. And then we should have given them a deadline, saying, If you don't do this, say, within 60 days, we will reserve our right as Americans to defend ourselves and we will go into Iraq.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/...
(I can't find the FTN interview as it appears to no longer be on line. This is a link to David Swanson's post of many Dean statements. Swanson was a co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org - so this should be an acceptable source for a quote that was in the mainstream media back in 2002.

Dean said he would support Biden/Lugar, Kerry's preferred resolution and there was no quote I could find in 2004 where Dean said before or even shortly after the IWR that he would vote against it. Both Kerry and Dean ruled out invasion for regime change. The biggest difference was that Kerry had to vote.

Kerry never said there were WMD - he spoke of the danger if it were true - the same thing Kennedy and Feingold said when they voted no. His goals were inspections - the inspectors had not been there for 4 years. The correct vote was no - because it was premature - no matter what the stated conditions were - to give Bush the authority to say if they were met.

[ProSense]

107. Bush launched the war, not

Kerry or any of the Democrats who voted for the resolution as a means to check the administration.

Kerry knew what he was doing, but not too many people care about the facts: The IWR was designed to restart the inspections and diplomatic efforts. To launch the war, Bush lied after the IWR, violated its terms and illegally invaded Iraq.





Edited for clarity.

[politicasista]

112. True, but he should have stuck with

Uncle Ted, Graham, Feingold, Boxer on this. He didn't need to go along just to get along.

[ProSense]

113. To those who know all the facts,

like all those Senators voted for one or more of a few similar resolutions at the time, and most spoke of regime change and their belief that Iraq possessed WMD, there was no one to stick with. Does anyone believe, for example, that the Byrd resolution, would have stopped a March 2003 launch?

In fact, Kerry and Kennedy made a team of on going on the offensive before the launch of the war.

[politicasista]

115. Depending

on who you talk to, Byrd voted against the IWR. Don't know about his resolution, but Bush was going to go to war anyway.

But unfortunately, people see it as Kerry voted for it, Kennedy voted against it, and that is what they and history will always remember, no matter what the facts are. Look at people repeating how Kerry voted for an illegal war. He was on the wrong side, and people will never forgive him for that, regardless of what good he still does.

[ProSense]

116. "no matter what the facts are. "

True. Like I said, people don't care about the facts. Also, some people don't know all the facts.

Still, among those who do, many have long moved beyond the IWR because they know that Bush is responsible for launching the war. This is the reason that people, including those with expert knowledge of the situation, want Obama to launch a war crimes investigation against Bush, not the Senators who voted for the IWR.

[politicasista]

117. Ok.

But still Kerry didn't need to go along with that mess. Kennedy, Boxer etc didn't. Maybe if he had voted no, he would be more appreciated in MA for standing against right (even though he does) instead of labeled as a bought off, DC establishment pol.

As for Obama lauching a war cimes investigation against Bush, hope that it goes some where, but people still won't forgive or forget the Senators that voted for IWR. Guess that's just the way it is?.

[ProSense]

118. OK

this discussion is going in circles. Senator Kerry has done many excellent things since that vote and won two elections since that vote, it is irrelevant except as a point for handwringing.

[politicasista]

119. Ok. Will leave it at that

Still think that no matter what excellent things he does, it will never be good enough, but more power to him to keep working for progress.


:hi:

[karynnj]

125. not true -

No one stood against the first Gulf War, which was a war for oil and the root of all of this, more than Kerry. He did because the bill set a date beyond which we would attack - even if diplomatic options remained. That made it by definition not a war of last resort, thus an immoral war. Kerry read anti war poetry on the Senate floor - very well, I might add.

That did not make him popular in Massachusetts - nor did standing against the entire power elite on BCCI. But, the fact is that in every election when push comes to shove - they respect him. He is considered to be honest and decent - and he is definitely not considered "bought off". As to DC establishment - he is a high ranking 5th term Senator - of course he is DC establishment, but that does not have anything to do with his values.

[politicasista]

130. Too young to remember the Gulf War

but did see in DU archives yours and other posters that said he voted against the GW, but because Bush is so hated, if not the most pathetic, worst president ever, that makes the Iraq war vote more painful (if not head-scratching). (Maybe or maybe not)? Maybe he gets the "bought off" label because he has lot of dough, but Obama gets that too, so not surprising.

He gets brownie points for taking unpopular stances (i.e. BCCI, etc), in MA, but as a whole, maybe having never been on lived in MA or the Northeast, just hear more cynicism from the urban residents (but if he got a good percentage of the urban vote (i.e. Dorchester, Mattapan, etc), good :)), and it doesn't help when Porno Brown is touted as the most popular pol in MA :puke:. Being popular isn't all that, so maybe that will blow up his ego and be his downfall. We can only hope.

[stevenleser]

142. That is total bullshit. No President had done what Bush did and it is not reasonable to assume

that Democrats "would have known" that Bush intended to go to war based on what the IWR said.

In fact, it is MUCH more reasonable to assume that Bush intended to go to war regardless of whether IWR passed. One only needs to look at his signing statements regarding any bills passed that intended to have congress control parts of the military. He believed the President had full control of the military and would have acted that way.

[politicasista]

110. Looks like people will still believe that he is a

"warmongering corporatist." regardless of what the vote for war. To them, a vote for a resolution is a vote for war. (even though that may not have been his intent). It was just another example of the other race sticking together in crunch time.

The Senator should have stuck with the cool ones like Uncle Ted, Graham, Feingold, Boxer etc., but hindsight is 20-20 and lesson learned.

[Hippo_Tron]

133. Just as many as if it had passed 76 to 24 instead of 77 to 23

[Rex]

108. If only I had a shred of respect left for John K.

Sadly, it all left me in 2004.

[eridani]

136. Credit him with consistency anyway

http://news.blogcarnival.com/archives/john_kerry/index.html
He did complain about the Plame outing as well.

[WinkyDink]

138. THIS Kerry? "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

It's even worse for him now when one reads the entire speech from then:
http://hnn.us/articles/3631.html