Democrats are running on overdrive in an attempt to derail Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s upcoming address to Congress. What started as an attempted Democrat caucus boycott has morphed into a halfhearted-if-vocal D minority boycott bolstered by efforts from the White House to temper enthusiasm for what is sure to be an indictment of the Administration’s current policy toward Iran.
Now, Secretary of State John Kerry has lashed out against Netanyahu’s opposition to a proposed deal between the U.S. and Iran about Iran’s budding and controversial nuclear program.
Via Talking Points Memo:
“Israel is safer today with the added time we have given and the stoppage of the advances in the nuclear program than they were before we got that agreement, which by the way the prime minister opposed,” Kerry said during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing. “He was wrong.”
Kerry was later asked to address Netanyahu’s criticism of a hypothetical deal with Iran as a threat to Israel.
“The prime minister was profoundly forward-leaning and outspoken about the importance of invading Iraq under George W. Bush,” Kerry replied. “We all know what happened with that decision.”
The secretary of state again pointed out that while Netanyahu opposed the interim deal reached with Iran in 2013, that accord froze the country’s nuclear program. He warned that the prime minister shouldn’t make another premature judgment about the nuclear talks going forward.
“We won’t take a backseat to anybody in our commitment to the state of Israel, but [Netanyahu] may have a judgment that just may not be correct here,” Kerry said.
Expected diplomatic bluster from a man who is nothing if not consistent in his willingness to downplay the dangers of a fully nuclear Iran.
The only problem? Kerry also supported the invasion of Iraq even as he criticized Bush’s handling of the occupation:
As a Democratic presidential primary unfolded in which the war was unpopular, Kerry kept up his criticism of Bush’s handling of the war. But he still said at a 2003 debate that he thought it was “the right decision” to disarm Hussein and that “when the president made that decision, I supported him.” In 2004, he said he would vote to authorize force all over again.
It’s clear Kerry opposed the president’s handling of the war, and perhaps the president’s decision to “go into Iraq” militarily at the time he did. He suggested diplomatic opportunities were squandered. But he did vote to authorize force, and he said later he supported the president’s decision to disarm Hussein. It was a nuanced position — one too nuanced to be summarized accurately by a claim as blunt as having “opposed the president’s decision to go into Iraq.”
Hindsight is 20/20, and this type of gaffe is too expected to come as a shock; but coming from Kerry, especially given his history of support for action he now claims to have opposed, this is doubly myopic. Trying to prevent the kind of cluster that Kerry believes ensued during the occupation of Iraq is exactly what Netanyahu is trying to prevent. It’s why he opposed previous deals, and will continue to oppose this one:
Earlier this week, Netanyahu said, “This agreement, if indeed it is signed, will allow Iran to become a nuclear threshold state. That is, with the consent of the major powers, Iran –- which openly declares its intention to destroy the state of Israel –- will receive a license to develop the production of bombs.”
He added, “It is my obligation as Prime Minister to do everything that I can to prevent this agreement; therefore, I will go to Washington to address the American Congress because the American Congress is likely to be the final brake before the agreement between the major powers and Iran.”
Perhaps Kerry should pay a little more attention to the facts on the ground, as opposed to the narrative his own party has so carefully crafted for him to trip over.
h/t The Daily Beast
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Obama Security Advisor Susan Rice: Netanyahu Visit Is “Destructive” to US-Israel Relationship (VIDEO)
—GateWay Pundit
Riiiiiight…
Bibi is being the Mr. Destructo here. HE’s the guy who has politicized this visit.
And this from the lying Bitch of Benghazi. Well, the OTHER lying Bitch of Benghazi.
I gotta find a wastebasket. I’m gonna hurl…
They really are just petulant little children who don’t like it when they have a Bibi-sitter telling them what to do, don’t you think?
Yeah, their Emotional Developement is stalled at 15 to 24 months development – according to experts.
They can’t even imagine that others have a right to exist and have a right to their own say – let alone their own way.
But that’s the Kerry, Biden, Obama Clown Show…….
Snark Snark!
Never Forget Obama’s 2008 Victory Taunt. Obama: “I One!”
You forgot to add “corrupt.”
Thumbs up for the “OTHER Lying Bitch of Benghazi” reference. Nicely played.
When are American Jews going to smarten up and start pulling the ‘R’ lever? [Of course these days, very little difference between the levers admittedly ….]
What a buffoon.
Kerry’s not stupid; he is evil, a rank opportunist.
After putting himself in for his Purple Hearts, he first dipped his toe into politics as a proud returning veteran. When that didn’t get liberal Boston excited, he suddenly became the antiwar crusader who threw his, er, someone‘s medals over the White House fence in protest and accused his fellow soldiers of unspeakable atrocities he could not have been anywhere near.
Then he managed to position himself to marry not one, but two filthy-rich widows, the second the wife of a close friend in the Senate.
He returned to Proud Vet mode to approve Bush’s AUMF and be “reporting for duty” to support the Iraq War as a candidate, when that was the popular opinion to have, only to switch back when things got tough.
Kerry is a lying, conniving, evil manipulator, but he is no buffoon.
I will never forget his blatant attempt to paint himself as a faithful veteran when he ascended the podium at the Democratic National Convention, saluted, and crowed, “Reporting for duty!”
I still get mad when I think of that.
I’m not clicking your Daily Beast or Huffington Post links. They don’t deserve the traffic of an upstanding blog like LI.
As a Democratic presidential primary unfolded in which the war was unpopular, Kerry kept up his criticism of Bush’s handling of the war. But he still said at a 2003 debate that he thought it was “the right decision” to disarm Hussein and that “when the president made that decision, I supported him.”
Kerry has never made an unequivocal decision in his life. But quite likely he took his cues in 2003 from the earlier position of the Clinton Administration and numerous members of Congress, the official US policy was “a regime change in Iraq”.
That is, before he and the Democrats, having voted for the Iraq invasion, gave their media allies enough time to poison public opinion about military activities, then turned and stabbed the US in the back by clamoring for five years to cut and run and abandon the enterprise.
“The prime minister was profoundly forward-leaning and outspoken about the importance of invading Iraq under George W. Bush,” Kerry replied. “We all know what happened with that decision.”
I forget. Tell us what happened, Kerry.
John Fonda Heinz Kerry is a traitor. prezbo pulled out all the troops after refusing to negotiate a status of forces agreement. Obiteme gloatingly touted the success of Iraq in 2010. Where are the tapes going round and round on that? preezy was in Florida today and stated that ICE agents who went against is executive amenesty would pay consequences. Where did this tool come from? Who will stop him? He has his phone, his pen, AF1 and an ego that knows no bounds. I could slap the crap outta him.
693 more days.
And how did you cast your vote on the matter, [then] Senator?
No, I think they really believe this. Not so much about Netanyahu speaking as about the possibility that Congress might want to increase sanctions on Iran. Iran is telling them how can they believe sanctions will be reduced if Congress is ready too increase them.
The whole policy is completely wrong here, but maybe Iran will save the Administration from making a bad deal.
Did he wear his Lucky Hat©? A serial liar, pompous doofus and asshat
Between Harf, Kerry, and the Redhead UnitedUkraine hashtag lady, this State Department the has to be by far the least intelligent collection of bureaucrats in the history of the world. Really, how do these people have these jobs? they are completely out of their depth. it’s god damn embarrassing.
Psakis and Harf are there precisely to draw sympathy from young people and women.
Kerry is no more or less unqualified than Hillary Clinton was, so it made no real difference. The bad policy comes from the White House anyway; our State Department might have more international respect with George Schultz or Condi Rice leading it, but the Obama policy is the big problem.
‘Shot himself in the foot…’
Next time, we can only hope he aims higher.
The only things John F-ing Kerry pays attention to are his own words and his hair…oh and Teresa’s money.