SUMMARY: Outgoing Secretary of State John Kerry joined other Obama administration officials for an event Tuesday at the U.S. Institute of Peace focusing on the importance of a smooth political transition. Judy Woodruff sat down with him to ask about the Trump transition and the problems the world faces today.
JOHN KERRY, Secretary of State: What troubles me a little bit is that people are not separating a remarkable transformation that is taking place globally [and] naturally, from things that we’re really responsible for.
Let me give you an example, Arab Spring. We didn’t start the Arab Spring. We couldn’t have stopped the Arab Spring, particularly with respect to Syria. And I think there are some things that might have been able to have been done.
But that had nothing to do with the red line. And let’s make that absolutely clear, folks. President Obama never retreated from his red line. He never changed his mind about his readiness to bomb Assad to make it clear, you don’t use chemical weapons, never. There’s a mythology that’s grown up around this.
One of the greatest challenges we all face right now, not just America, but every country in the world, is, we are living in a factless political environment. And every country in the world better stop and start worrying about authoritarian populism and the absence of substance in our dialogue, if you call it that.
SUMMARY: The White House confirmed that U.S. commandos are going into Northern Syria as part of a coalition aimed at dismantling the Islamic State, marking a shift from President Obama's previous stance against committing ground troops. Meanwhile, Secretary of State John Kerry attended talks on finding a diplomatic solution in Syria. Judy Woodruff learns more from Greg Jaffe of The Washington Post.
JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour): The United States steps up its mission in Syria, part of a coalition aimed at dismantling the Islamic State, as leaders from the U.S., Russia, and Iran meet in Vienna trying to find a political end to the civil war.
Confirmation that commandos are going into Northern Syria came at the day’s White House briefing.
JOSH EARNEST, White House Press Secretary: The core of our military strategy inside of Syria is to build up the capacity of local forces.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Spokesman Josh Earnest gave few details on whether the U.S. effort will aid Kurdish or Arab fighters or both.
JOSH EARNEST: The President did make a decision to intensify that support by offering a small number of U.S. special operations military personnel to offer them some advice and assistance on the ground as they take the fight to ISIL.
JUDY WOODRUFF: That small number, Earnest said, is fewer than 50. And he insisted they will not be on a combat mission.
JOSH EARNEST: The responsibility that they have is not to lead the charge to take a hill. It still means that they’re in a dangerous situation. It still means that they will have all of the equipment that they need to protect themselves if necessary.
JUDY WOODRUFF: U.S. special operations troops have conducted raids inside Syria, but this will be their first sustained presence. It comes amid Russia’s month-old air campaign in support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. And it marks a shift for President Obama. He had said repeatedly he wouldn’t commit ground troops in Syria.
The military developments came as Secretary of State John Kerry was in Vienna for talks on a diplomatic solution in Syria. There was no agreement on the future of Assad, but the U.S., Russia and other nations directed the U.N. to try again to bring Syria’s government and opposition groups to the table.
SUMMARY: How significant is the Obama administration decision to send special forces into Syria to help combat the Islamic State? And how does the move impact diplomatic efforts to end the war? Judy Woodruff gets reaction from Joshua Landis of the University of Oklahoma and Michael McFaul of Stanford University.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s response to concerns about her use of email, the letter sent by Republican senators to Iran’s leadership, and the fallout from a video capturing a racist chant at the University of Oklahoma.
JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour): Let’s talk about Hillary Clinton’s…Let’s talk about Hillary Clinton’s e-mails.
Mark, did she answer all the questions out there with her news conference this week?
MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated columnist: No, of course not, Judy.
The questions will keep coming and keep coming. But there was one result of it that just hit me so hard. And that is the great advice, beware of any national leader — and I don’t limit this to Secretary Clinton, by any means — but who doesn’t have close to him or her contemporary friends and confidants who can tell them when necessary they’re absolutely wrong and go to hell.
And very few Presidents — Jerry Ford did, to his everlasting credit. He was an enormously emotionally secure man. Ronald Reagan chose Jim Baker to be his chief of staff, who had run two campaigns against him, as examples of that sort of emotional security and stability.
I just ask Mrs. Clinton, who in your retinue, among your group of advisers, when you had the idea of having a personal computer e-mail service of your own, an individual one, who didn’t say, are you out of your “expletive deleted” mind? This is politically indefensible and probably morally indefensible and may be legally problematic.
And I guess that is what really bothers me. And I think that’s a question that persists even after all the details, whether the relevance or irrelevance of the e-mails turns out to be anything at all legally or substantively. That is a real problem.
JUDY WOODRUFF: What about the questions? Did she answer any of the questions?
MICHAEL GERSON, Washington Post: Well, I think the proper word for the press conference, it was really brazen. It was bold. She went out there. She had total control over her e-mails in a private server while she was serving in government.
She decided — she and her people decided what should be revealed and what should be eliminated. ----- MARK SHIELDS: Well, I think this is a question that is going to nag at Democrats. Is this going to be — we’re seeing it right at the outset, that relations with the press are frosty, to the point of arctic, and that there is a sense, not simply from this, but that we’re going back into let’s go to the barricades. It’s let’s circle the wagons.
There’s a certain mentality that way. We’re not going to take anything. And I think in a nation that is as polarized politically as we are, as acrimonious as it has become, I think this is really not the atmosphere that you want to create. She is not the only person who has an e-mail problem, by any means. Every candidate on the Republican side has an e-mail.
And they have made unilateral — Governor Bush made unilateral decisions on what was personal. Governor Walker has persistent problems. But I’m just talking about the approach.
And Michael’s seat 22 years ago sat David Gergen, who went over to the White House having worked for President Reagan, Bush and Ford to work for President Clinton. Whitewater was then the big thing. ----- JUDY WOODRUFF: Let’s talk about another — another story that was very much out there this week, the letter, Mark, 47 Republican senators sending a letter to the leadership in Iran saying, be careful, don’t sign a nuclear deal with the United States.
Was this — were they well-advised to sign this, to do this?
MARK SHIELDS: A respected national columnist with impeccable conservative credentials wrote of this letter, “In timing, tone and substance, it raises questions about Republicans’ capacity to govern.”
And just by accident, Michael happens to be here, the author of those words.
(LAUGHTER)
MARK SHIELDS: I think he said it very well.
This, Judy, was more than a faux pas or a slip-up. I think it is a reflection of Mitch McConnell in a really negative way, that his leadership is defective. The fact that he didn’t even consult with the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of his own party, who opposed this and was trying to put together a bipartisan coalition of Democrats who had doubts and skepticism about the Iranian deal, that he just steamrolled it ahead and made it a matter of party loyalty and party unity, and essentially put us in a position where we’re at odds with our European allies, who are now doubting the United States and whether, in fact, we’re substantive, I mean, it just — whether we’re — we can be relied upon in this.
And to sabotage bipartisanship, it was done, effectively, in the Senate, and to sabotage the hopes of any kind of a deal to limit the nuclear building of the Iranians. ----- On Iran nuclear deal
MARK SHIELDS: Judy, just one point. There are seven nations involved here. I mean, this isn’t just the — Barack Obama and the Republican Senate Caucus. This is France and Great Britain and Germany and China and Russia and the United States and Iran trying to come to a deal.
That is a remarkable achievement, if you can pull it off, with those seven countries all agreeing on inspections and a timetable. That’s important.
JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour): Our chief foreign affairs correspondent, Margaret Warner sat down with Ford today, on the first day he has agreed to be interviewed on television since his departure, to discuss the election and what he sees as the failures of U.S. policy.
MARGARET WARNER (NewsHour): Ambassador Ford, thank you for joining us.
ROBERT FORD, Former U.S. Ambassador to Syria: It’s my pleasure to be here.
MARGARET WARNER: So, President Assad seems to be coasting to another victory in an election. What’s going to be the impact of that, both on the political situation and the battlefield situation?
ROBERT FORD: I don’t think it will have much impact on the battlefield. I have no indication that the opposition and the armed opposition groups are going to stop fighting, so I think the election will have no result on that.
Politically, it will cheer Assad’s supporters. I have seen pictures today of celebrations in Syria. But it really is simply a signal. The election is a signal to us to, to other countries in the region, to Europe, et cetera, that Assad is not leaving, he is staying, deeply entrenched in the capital in Syria, even as other parts of the country remain outside his control.
MARGARET WARNER:And so is it time for us to recognize that, in fact, he’s going to be there a long time, that the whole strategy both of the opposition and the Western- and Gulf- and neighbor-backed efforts has not worked?
SUMMARY: Secretary of State John Kerry weighs in on the U.S. response to the crisis in Ukraine, a terror resurgence in North Africa, the long, bloody war in Syria and a Mideast peace process that ground to a halt just a few weeks ago. He joins Gwen Ifill for an extended interview on current foreign policy challenges and why he thinks President Obama doesn’t get sufficient credit for successes.
SUMMARY: Secretary of State John Kerry voiced frustration with Iran's role in the Syrian civil war, ahead of upcoming peace talks in Switzerland. But some Iranian diplomatic progress has been made. Gwen Ifill reports on an interim nuclear deal that asks Iran to dial back fuel enrichment in exchange for easing of financial sanctions.
SUMMARY: The U.S. and Iran have finally settled on the details of an interim nuclear deal, with talks for a final agreement slated for February. Gwen Ifill talks to chief foreign correspondent Margaret Warner about diplomatic relations going forward with Iran, including the Syrian peace efforts and pressure on Capitol Hill for sanctions.
I am Retired U.S. Navy (22yrs) and a Vietnam Veteran. After my Navy retirement I was in the computer related industry, now retired. In 2000 I was a registered Republican and voted for George W. Bush. Six months of having Bush in the Whitehouse forced me to re-evaluate my political stance. I had always thought of myself as a Moderate Republican, but was a Republican by "default" NOT because of close examination of the GOP. Due to what has happened in America since 2000, I now consider myself a progressive, and registered as a Non-Affiliated voter.
*Anti-First Amendment policies that attempt to turn America into a theocracy by enshrining ANY religious belief as law.
* Any attempt to suppress human or Constitutional rights.
* Any law or policy that supports discrimination based on religion, ethnicity, race/color, gender, sexual orientation, or any law that does NOT support Equal Treatment under the law.
*Any law or policy that attempts to suppress Freedom of the Press or Free Speech.
LINK DISCLAIMER:
There is no guarantee that any link provided in this blog will always work, especially for older links. The validity of any link is governed by the source-site policies. Some sites will archive articles and require subscription to access. Very small sites, such as a local town newspaper, may not archive at all.
