Obama considering John Kerry for job of defense secretary

page: 1
5

log in

join

posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Previous one left after a controversial affair and post election surprise. What will Kerry bring to the table? Does he have any expertise in Intelligence Community? I thought he wanted to the POTUS at one point and obviously lost the election too.

President Obama is considering asking Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) to serve as his next defense secretary, part of an extensive rearrangement of his national security team that will include a permanent replacement for former CIA director David H. Petraeus.

Although Kerry is thought to covet the job of secretary of state, senior administration officials familiar with transition planning said that nomination will almost certainly go to Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

LINK
Your thoughts/comments/opinions/viewpoints please.




posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
I think it's as tone deaf as anything humanly possible to the concerns or feelings of the Military. I don't know how everyone would feel but the ones in my family and those I met around them were vehement about Kerry and as hard against the man as one can get over the Vietnam stuff. Not just his particular duty station but details on conduct and other things. It's not worth dredging up unless he gets nominated and then Fox or others will by the truckload.


Maybe that's the point..... Stir the pot more, keep people pissed at each other.

He could pick dozens...maybe hundreds...of good, left democrats and ones who the Military would all respect or just not know enough to have an opinion. Why him though?? I honestly can't imagine another high profile figure with an equally muddy rep. Earned or not, perception is what matters and this is .... Secretary of Defense for goodness sakes. It matters a lot, IMO.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   
John Kerry as Secretary of Defense? Surely this has to be a joke right?


Seriously, how about someone like Wesley Clark?



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   
"Change" you can believe in


Guess he's a democrat though, so it makes up for all of Obama's other neo-con cronies amirite?
edit on 12-11-2012 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by hp1229
 


Oh come on! Really!?

WTF!?

Just....really. I mean seriously?

I quit.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by hp1229
 

?
Good lord, John Kerry? Did I just time travel back to 2004? What a terrible choice he would be, but then again, it's like I have any trust at all in any of the politicians in Washington DC. Corrupted and fake they are, yes.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   
I miss the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Ready for round 2



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by solidguy
 


I thought he was going to be Secretary of State, after Hillary?

I guess it's his turn in the round-a-bout to prove how incompetent the liberals are.

This is why I hope Texas and other states really do secede. I'll move there - I have skills, I don't expect anyone to take care of me.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Here comes the change we can believe in...

Crappy change, first we get the UN Arms Treaty suck fest within 24 hours of the election announcement now this crap.

Honestly, I think that this administration is now officially off the reservation; Heart of Darkness style.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely - hold on to your hat's there may not be a United States in 4 more years.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   
For being sold as the new kid with new ideas he sure has had a long history of appointing the good 'ol boys in Washington positions of power.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   
They might decide to bypass Kerry.

He would leave an open U.S. Senate seat.

They would need a "guarantee" of a Democrat appointment (if possible?).

A special election might bring back Scott Brown.

Too risky for the 2014 plan.


I guess John Bolton is not being considered ?



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Yes indeed, why him? Why a man that spoke out against the war crimes being committed by the US military? Why a man that advocated for Veterans returning from that nightmare of a war? Why a man that shined a floodlight on the US deliberately NOT doing anything conducive toward the release of American POWs. What a bastard, that guy.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 

Kali, c'mon. We're talking about a man who is personally and STRONGLY offensive to a fair % of the American public and absolutely to men who have and are still serving this nation in uniform. As I noted,...I honestly cannot think of a man MORE repugnant and offensive for that specific position than Kerry would be. I suppose we could have Jane Fonda as asst Secy of Defense...but I don't expect you'd even appreciate that reference for the truth in details that makes it so derogatory to suggest.

Kerry hates war? Fine... The State Dept has openings. Putting a peacenik in charge of the fighting forces of our nation is like putting a warmonger in charge of State. If predetermined outcomes are the point, it couldn't be more clear what the intention is.

Frankly, President Barack Obama is the Commander and Chief of the United States Armed Forces. He isn't it's destruction. That isn't his job or title and if he's confused on that topic.......I suppose he'll get the message when he starts getting outright jeered and booed when showing up around anything military. Appoint Kerry...and that sad shameful scene may actually play out with a U.S. President around U.S. troops.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Ah, Secretary of Defense should be a war monger...
gotcha.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Ah, Secretary of Defense should be a war monger...
gotcha.


I wouldn't say a warmonger but most certainly he should be possessed of a warrior spirit - no warrior wants to be led by anyone who accepts defeat and "sees" the honor in the enemies cause.

No one abhors war more than a warrior; we fight them up close and personal. However, once war is the only option left leave it to them to prosecute it without bounds. You can’t win a good war there is no such thing. It is dirty and sad… Get it done quickly and leave politics out of it.

A leader of warriors should be a warrior with a "my team first" attitude - the attitude of a leader not a manager or politician.

Sorry, warriors will not respect this man...

I respected Bush and Cheney and even Rumsfeld (sp?). I have zero respect for Obama and his policy of appeasement and apology for America.

How do you think a sports team would do if their coach rooted for the other team because he respected their point of view or spirit? No one wants to get on the field with a coach who appreciates the struggle of the other team.

No team can be successfully coached by a man who doesn't want his team to win, which is why the military is not doing as well under Obama. His dicked up ROE and waging war as a police action with rights and Miranda warnings is getting a lot of good men killed. Those deaths are on his hands and while I don't believe in god I hope there is a special after life for scum like him.

Warriors want to take the field with a leader or coach who wants to crush their enemies and leave nothing but burning bodies in his wake.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I think it's as tone deaf as anything humanly possible to the concerns or feelings of the Military.

He could pick dozens...maybe hundreds...of good, left democrats and ones who the Military would all respect or just not know enough to have an opinion. Why him though?? I honestly can't imagine another high profile figure with an equally muddy rep. Earned or not, perception is what matters and this is .... Secretary of Defense for goodness sakes. It matters a lot, IMO.


I agree - this would be like if Romney won nominating Todd Akin for Secretary of Health and Human Services... It’s a rub salt in the wounds type action that I can only interpret as meant to inflame tension and division.

Clearly this walking abortion of a POTUS wants more division...perhaps he even wants to undermine the morale of the military for some reason? So he can create his "civilian force as equally well funded", I wouldn't put any machinations past this man.






top topics



 
5

log in

join