Dem triumph could elevate Kerry to Foreign Affairs Chairman

Politico reports that the Senate might play a game of musical chairmanships should Barack Obama become President.

Among the changes that may occur would be the elevation of John Kerry to the position of chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. This might concern those who have qualms about the virtues of extreme multi-lateralism and the prospects of the outsourcing of American  foreign policy to the United Nations.

Kerry famously said that there should be a "global test" regarding our foreign policy. We should seek approval from other nations before undertaking action. This would clearly be the triumph of hope over experience since reliance on such bodies as the United Nations has been, and would continue to be, harmful to American interests given that body's history over the last several decades (and given the veto power exercised by China and Russia in the Security Council)/ The abandonment of the concept of American sovereignty might be the dream at Cambridge and Hyde Park (the ones both in England and America) but might be a nightmare for many in America and some of our overseas allies. Once enshrined in international treaties and by the placement of key people in our State Department this would be a change that would be difficult to undo.

From Politico:
 (the article focused on Robert Byrd being eased away from the Appropriations Chair, which would trigger a cascade of changes in the chairs of various Senate Committees):
If Dodd walks away from Foreign Relations, that chairmanship would go to Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.).

“Dodd is the middle of everything,” said one top Democratic adviser. “He has a lot of options.”
This realignment might pose particular challenges to our ever beleaguered ally Israel since our support for that nation would fail such a "global test". We know how the globe feels about Israel.

But there may be further reasons for supporters of the American-Israel to be concerned should John Kerry assume chairmanship of the Foreign Relations Committee. 

From an article 4 years ago:

 Kerry not only would seek to partner with these nations but he has said that he has 'cards' that could be played to garner support from them regarding Iraq. Since he clearly wants to create alliances and more cooperation with the Europeans, the chances are that in building that relationship, Europeans will demand less American support for Israel. Is that the 'card' Kerry will play? Given some of his past statements, and his list of advisers whom he intends to invite to the card game, Israel appears to be the joker in the deck.
 
Kerry spoke negatively about Israel's security fence before the Arab—American Institute last year, when he bemoaned 'how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government's decision to build a barrier off the Green Line, cutting deeply into Palestinian areas' and went on to say that 'We do not need another barrier to peace... and that provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israel's security over the long term.' Of course, the fence has actually lead to fewer deaths among both Palestinians and Israelis, and has been the number one cause of the reduction in terror casualties.

Kerry also denounced the 'endless cycle of violence and reprisals' — thereby equating Israel's defensive measures to root out killers to the murder of innocent Israelis by Palestinian terrorists.

Kerry supporters point to a seemingly solid Senatorial record on votes for Israel, but this is a specious argument. It does not take much to have a solid record on Israel, since most of the Resolutions regarding Israel are painless offers of moral support.

In a devastating article, 'John Kerry on Israel: Second to Several' ,  Rick Rickman pointed out that Kerry was not a strong supporter of Israel. In 2000, for example, he did not join 60 co—sponsors of the 'Middle East Peace Process Support Act' — a bill calling on the President not to recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state. He also failed to co—sponsor a pro—Israel 'Peace Through Negotiations Act.'  In 1993 he failed to join 55 Senators in signing the Grassley/Lautenberg letter to the State Department, demanding that Hamas be listed as a terrorist organization. He did not support the assassination of Sheikh Yassin, often called  'the Palestinian Osama bin Laden' for his exhortations to violence.



If you needed any more reason to oppose a Kerry Foreign Affairs Chairmanship...


Politico reports that the Senate might play a game of musical chairmanships should Barack Obama become President.

Among the changes that may occur would be the elevation of John Kerry to the position of chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. This might concern those who have qualms about the virtues of extreme multi-lateralism and the prospects of the outsourcing of American  foreign policy to the United Nations.

Kerry famously said that there should be a "global test" regarding our foreign policy. We should seek approval from other nations before undertaking action. This would clearly be the triumph of hope over experience since reliance on such bodies as the United Nations has been, and would continue to be, harmful to American interests given that body's history over the last several decades (and given the veto power exercised by China and Russia in the Security Council)/ The abandonment of the concept of American sovereignty might be the dream at Cambridge and Hyde Park (the ones both in England and America) but might be a nightmare for many in America and some of our overseas allies. Once enshrined in international treaties and by the placement of key people in our State Department this would be a change that would be difficult to undo.

From Politico:
 (the article focused on Robert Byrd being eased away from the Appropriations Chair, which would trigger a cascade of changes in the chairs of various Senate Committees):
If Dodd walks away from Foreign Relations, that chairmanship would go to Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.).

“Dodd is the middle of everything,” said one top Democratic adviser. “He has a lot of options.”
This realignment might pose particular challenges to our ever beleaguered ally Israel since our support for that nation would fail such a "global test". We know how the globe feels about Israel.

But there may be further reasons for supporters of the American-Israel to be concerned should John Kerry assume chairmanship of the Foreign Relations Committee. 

From an article 4 years ago:

 Kerry not only would seek to partner with these nations but he has said that he has 'cards' that could be played to garner support from them regarding Iraq. Since he clearly wants to create alliances and more cooperation with the Europeans, the chances are that in building that relationship, Europeans will demand less American support for Israel. Is that the 'card' Kerry will play? Given some of his past statements, and his list of advisers whom he intends to invite to the card game, Israel appears to be the joker in the deck.
 
Kerry spoke negatively about Israel's security fence before the Arab—American Institute last year, when he bemoaned 'how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government's decision to build a barrier off the Green Line, cutting deeply into Palestinian areas' and went on to say that 'We do not need another barrier to peace... and that provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israel's security over the long term.' Of course, the fence has actually lead to fewer deaths among both Palestinians and Israelis, and has been the number one cause of the reduction in terror casualties.

Kerry also denounced the 'endless cycle of violence and reprisals' — thereby equating Israel's defensive measures to root out killers to the murder of innocent Israelis by Palestinian terrorists.

Kerry supporters point to a seemingly solid Senatorial record on votes for Israel, but this is a specious argument. It does not take much to have a solid record on Israel, since most of the Resolutions regarding Israel are painless offers of moral support.

In a devastating article, 'John Kerry on Israel: Second to Several' ,  Rick Rickman pointed out that Kerry was not a strong supporter of Israel. In 2000, for example, he did not join 60 co—sponsors of the 'Middle East Peace Process Support Act' — a bill calling on the President not to recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state. He also failed to co—sponsor a pro—Israel 'Peace Through Negotiations Act.'  In 1993 he failed to join 55 Senators in signing the Grassley/Lautenberg letter to the State Department, demanding that Hamas be listed as a terrorist organization. He did not support the assassination of Sheikh Yassin, often called  'the Palestinian Osama bin Laden' for his exhortations to violence.



If you needed any more reason to oppose a Kerry Foreign Affairs Chairmanship...