John Kerry, Master of the ad-lib, Wants to be Helpful with Iran

"Did I say something wrong Ollie?"

As some of you know, I have a particular and personal fondness for John Kerry. He really is the jackass of the Senate. The idea that this fool would pick this time to go to Iran is a testament to his vanity and lack of understanding of the current situation in Iran.

The Obama Administration, allowing this to happen is absolutely clueless. It would only give credability to a regime on its way out.


______________________________





DECEMBER 24, 2009
Kerry Floats Plan to Visit Tehran

White House Wouldn't Oppose Trip, First by Top U.S. Official in 30 Years, to Chagrin of Iran's Opposition

By JAY SOLOMON WSJ

WASHINGTON -- Sen. John Kerry has suggested becoming the first high-level U.S. emissary to make a public visit to Tehran since the 1979 Islamic revolution, a move White House officials say they won't oppose.

The funeral procession for Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri drew thousands to the holy city of Qom on Monday.
WSJ.com/Mideast: News, video, graphics
The offer comes as mass protests against Iran's regime are resurfacing and a U.S.-imposed deadline nears to broach international sanctions against Iran.

"This sounds like the kind of travel a chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee would -- and should -- undertake," said a White House official, adding it would be at Sen. Kerry's own behest.

It's unclear whether Iran would welcome the visit, and it would be controversial within both countries. The Iranian government has rebuffed other recent White House efforts to establish a direct dialogue.

The Obama administration hasn't decided whether to make Sen. Kerry its official representative if he goes, but as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Kerry can visit if the White House and Tehran both approve.

Many opponents of Tehran's regime oppose such a visit, fearing it would lend legitimacy to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at a time when his government is under continuing pressure from protests and opposition figures. Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators took to the streets again this week to voice their opposition to the government following the death of a reformist cleric.

"We've eschewed high-level visits to Iran for the last 30 years. I think now -- when the Iranian regime's fate is less certain than ever -- is not the best time to begin," said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran analyst at Washington's Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

"The wrong message would be sent to the Iranian people by such a high-level visit: The U.S. loves dictatorial regimes," said Hossein Askari, a professor at George Washington University and former adviser to Iranian governments.

A trip by Sen. Kerry could provide the Obama administration a last-minute chance to directly convey its views to Iranian leaders before the U.S. moves to increase financial pressure on Tehran in an effort to derail Iran's nuclear programs.

A spokesman for Iran's mission to the United Nations didn't respond to requests for comment on the potential visit. In Iran, officials have been dismissive of the idea since the magazine Foreign Policy said Friday in a blog post that Sen. Kerry was considering it.

The former presidential candidate has undertaken a string of diplomatic initiatives over the past year in coordination with President Barack Obama. The Massachusetts Democrat played a high-profile role in brokering an end to Afghanistan's postelection political crisis this October through his negotiations with President Hamid Karzai. He also has been serving as an intermediary between the White House and Syrian President Bashar Assad, and traveled to Damascus last February for direct talks.

If he goes to Tehran, it would be the highest-level mission by a U.S. official in three decades. Lower-level meetings have taken place recently between the U.S. and Iran in third countries, which also could still be an option for Sen. Kerry.

Oliver North, a national security council staffer for President Ronald Reagan, secretly visited Tehran in 1986 for talks on trading arms for U.S. hostages in what became known as the Iran-Contra scandal. But other than that, the highest-level U.S. official to visit was James Billington, the former head of the Library of Congress, who went for a six-day cultural exchange in 2004.

Sen. Kerry and his staff, according to people briefed on the deliberations, have explored the idea of Sen. Kerry writing to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to assess his office's interest in the senator meeting senior Iranian leaders.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff also has considered proposing a parliamentary exchange with the Majlis, Iran's principal legislative body. Its speaker, Ali Larijani, was formerly Iran's chief nuclear negotiator and remains an important player.

Mr. Obama has given Iran until year-end to respond to international calls for direct negotiations over Tehran's nuclear program before facing new economic sanctions. Many U.S. and European officials believe the window for diplomacy with Iran is rapidly closing, as Tehran has largely balked.

Frederick Jones, a spokesman for Sen. Kerry, said he couldn't discuss any deliberations between the senator and the White House. Mr. Jones stressed, however, that no trip has been scheduled. "Is he planning now on going to Iran? The answer is no," said Mr. Jones.

The White House has already sent two letters to Mr. Khamenei seeking a more direct dialogue on the nuclear issue, and has received little of substance in return, according to U.S. officials.

Iran last month shot down an offer from the U.S., Russia and France that would have had Tehran ship out most of its low-enriched uranium for reprocessing overseas in return for nuclear fuel usable in an Iranian research reactor. The White House viewed the fuel swap as an important confidence-building measure that could have led to other dialogue.

Late last year, the chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Rep. Howard Berman, also tried to arrange a meeting with Mr. Larijani on the sidelines of a security conference in Manama, Bahrain, according to officials involved.

Mr. Berman went as far as arranging a flight to the Persian Gulf country for the meeting, which had been brokered by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. But at the last minute Mr. Larijani back out. Officials involved said they believed the Iranian leader feared he would have been attacked in Tehran for meeting with an American lawmaker.

Write to Jay Solomon at jay.solomon@wsj.com

Shocking, simply shocking, Kerry Report: Osama bin Laden was within reach of US troops in Afghanistan

It is obvious that the US missed capturing bin Laden at Tora Bora. It is also obvious that this report , by the most amazing of coincidences, appears the weekend before Obama makes his big move in Afghanistan, eight years after the deed.

The architect of the report is John Kerry, a man who has no credibility whatsoever. If Ted Kennedy was the "lion of the senate" then John Kerry is the "liar of the senate."

The entire purpose of the timing and the report is to give cover to Obama, and allow Obama to once again claim it is all the fault of George W. Bush.

It can be argued with equal vehemence that Bill Clinton had many more opportunities to kill Osama, before 911 ever started.

There is no evidence that US air and ground troops, available at the time, would have captured or killed Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora. Kerry has no more proof that we would have found bin Laden than Kerry could prove he was in Cambodia, which he also has claimed, and was not.

At the time of Tora Bora, there was cause and reason to use tactical nuclear weapons, but no guarantee that they would have 100% guaranteed success. Neither Clinton, Bush, Obama and certainly not John Kerry would have ever made that call.



I have personal experience with the testimony of John Kerry on the contra affair. During the Contra Hearings, John Kerry misrepresented facts and lied. He ruined reputations and caused loyal Americans to lose their personal fortunes.

Kerry is not a serious man. He is a serious politician and an opportunist. Take the report for what it is, not much more than a political document from a documented liar.

_____________________________

Published: 10:00AM GMT 29 Nov 2009
Telegraph

Osama bin Laden was within reach of US troops in Afghanistan when military leaders made the decision not to pursue the terrorist leader with massive force, a Senate report has said.

The document says the failure to kill or capture the al-Qaeda leader in the mountains of Tora Bora in Afghanistan at his most vulnerable in December 2001 has had lasting consequences.

Bin Laden's escape laid the foundation for the reinvigorated Afghan insurgency and inflamed the internal strife now endangering Pakistan, it says.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Democratic majority prepared the report at the request of the chairman, Sen John Kerry, as President Barack Obama prepares to boost U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Mr Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, has long argued the Bush administration missed a chance to get the al-Qaeda leader and top deputies when they were holed up in the forbidding mountainous area of eastern Afghanistan only three months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The report puts part of the blame for the state of the war today on military leaders under former President George W Bush, specifically Donald Rumsfeld as defence secretary and his top military commander, Tommy Franks.
"Removing the al-Qaeda leader from the battlefield eight years ago would not have eliminated the worldwide extremist threat," the report said. "But the decisions that opened the door for his escape to Pakistan allowed bin Laden to emerge as a potent symbolic figure who continues to attract a steady flow of money and inspire fanatics worldwide.

"The failure to finish the job represents a lost opportunity that forever altered the course of the conflict in Afghanistan and the future of international terrorism."

The report states categorically that bin Laden was hiding in Tora Bora when the U.S. had the means to mount a rapid assault with several thousand troops at least.

It says that a review of existing literature, unclassified government records and interviews with central participants "removes any lingering doubts and makes it clear that Osama bin Laden was within our grasp at Tora Bora."

On or about Dec 16, 2001, Bin Laden and bodyguards "walked unmolested out of Tora Bora and disappeared into Pakistan's unregulated tribal area," where he is still believed to be based, the report says.

Instead of a massive attack, fewer than 100 US commandos, working with Afghan militias, tried to capitalise on air strikes and track down their prey.

"The vast array of American military power, from sniper teams to the most mobile divisions of the Marine Corps and the Army, was kept on the sidelines," the report said.

At the time, Mr Rumsfeld expressed concern that a large US troop presence might fuel a backlash and he and some others said the evidence was not conclusive about bin Laden's location.

John Kerry, chairman of the Senate foreign relations, tells Financial Times, Iran has right to uranium enrichment.

Right on cue, Kerry throws his weight behind the Obama opening to Iran. At a minimum Iran will be building nuclear power plants. Too bad the Democrats are not as enthusiastic for nuclear power plants in the US.

_______________

Senator opens Iran nuclear debate
By Daniel Dombey in Washington Financial Times
Published: June 10 2009 23:33 | Last updated: June 10 2009 23:33

One of the most senior Democrats in Washington has dismissed a key element in the west’s long standing strategy on Iran’s nuclear programme as “ridiculous”. His comments throw open the debate about how far the US and its partners should go in seeking a compromise with Tehran after on Friday’s presidential election.

John Kerry, chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee and the Democrats’ 2004 presidential nominee, told the Financial Times in an interview that Iran had a right to uranium enrichment – a process that can produce both nuclear fuel and weapons grade material.

The US and the world’s other big powers have repeatedly demanded that Tehran suspend enrichment – a policy pioneered by the former Bush administration that has since been given the force of international law by successive United Nations Security Council resolutions.

“The Bush administration [argument of] no enrichment was ridiculous . . . because it seemed so unreasonable to people,” said Mr Kerry, citing Iran’s rights as a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. “It was bombastic diplomacy. It was wasted energy. It sort of hardened the lines, if you will,” he added. “They have a right to peaceful nuclear power and to enrichment in that purpose.”

His comments come as Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, Iran’s president, faces off against Mir-Hossein Moussavi, his main challenger in an increasingly intense re-election battle, with the first round of voting taking place on Friday. They also come amid increasing nervousness in Israel about the US stance on Tehran, in light of a series of warnings by Obama administration officials against an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, which Washington believes would be counterproductive.

Enrichment – championed by Mr Ahmadi-Nejad, but supported by almost all of Iran’s political class, with wide popular backing – is at the heart of the Iranian nuclear dispute.

Although the UN Security Council resolutions demanding Iran suspend enrichment date back to March 2006, Tehran has systematically accelerated its nuclear programme, producing 1.3 tonnes of low enriched uranium hexaflouride – more than enough, if further processed, for one nuclear device.

Mr Kerry argues that in the wake of the former Bush administration’s failure to enforce the “red lines” it set Iran, Barack Obama needs to build an international coalition around an enforceable demand that at the minimum would provide more information about the nature of Iran’s programme.

He added that he had sent Mr Obama his suggestions in a memo.

The president himself, who Mr Kerry helped rise to national prominence, has steered clear of specific statements favoured by former president George W. Bush over whether Iran should cease all enrichment. Instead he has stressed his goal of ensuring Tehran does not become a nuclear weapon state and called for negotiations, which Washington hopes will begin once the Iranian elections have concluded.

“We are willing to have direct negotiations with the Iranians . . . without preconditions,” Mr Obama said at the weekend, arguing Tehran needed to give the world confidence it was not seeking nuclear weapons.