John Kerry Still An Idiot
Posted on July 24, 2006
U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D- Mass., who was in town Sunday to help Gov. Jennifer Granholm campaign for her re-election bid, took time to take a jab at the Bush administration for its lack of leadership in the Israeli-Lebanon conflict.
“If I was president, this wouldn’t have happened,” said Kerry during a noon stop at Honest John’s bar and grill in Detroit’s Cass Corridor.Bush has been so concentrated on the war in Iraq that other Middle East tension arose as a result, he said.
“The president has been so absent on diplomacy when it comes to issues affecting the Middle East,” Kerry said. “We’re going to have a lot of ground to make up (in 2008) because of it.”
It is all Bush’s fault that a mad man has come to power in Iran who wants to usher in the apocalypse and wipe Israel off the map? It is all Bush’s fault that Iran has armed radical terror networks and that they kidnapped two Israeli soldiers? Does he really believe his diplomatic skills would have been good enough to convince these jihadists to calm down their hate for Israel? He really is full of himself.
Kerry reminds all of us why his candidacy went off the rails in 2004. He did much the same thing on Iraq, blasting Bush on his prosecution of the war, and then failing to propose any different strategy or tactics. Kerry keeps revealing himself as an empty suit, an anklebiter with nothing but criticism for others, lacking any kind of original thought or leadership.
The US is powerful, no doubt, and the US president regardless of the current domestic polls is the world’s most powerful official because we’re the richest country and we swing the biggest military stick–but that doesn’t mean he can just order, persuade, cajole or threaten enemy states like Iran into doing his bidding. They won’t. They have their own agenda, it’s counter to ours most of the time, and it’s arrogant to assume you can just do this or that and fix the problems we have with them. Negotiations are of limited utility with civilized states; with the mullahs, negotiating is often taken for weakness. That’s a lesson the John Kerrys of the world will never learn, so it’s best just to keep them as far away from presidential power as possible.
One other thing: If John Kerry were president, John Bolton wouldn’t represent the US at the UN. Think about that.
The bottom line is that if Kerry really wants to see Hezbollah destroyed, then what’s happening in the Middle-East right now is a good thing. On the other hand, if Kerry believes keeping the peace is more important than crippling Hezbollah, then he should be opposed to the Israeli attacks. However, just as he did all during the 2004 elections on Iraq, Kerry wants to be on both sides of the argument. He wants to argue that Hezbollah should be destroyed, while simultaneously opposing attacks on Hezbollah. That’s why John Kerry is the wrong man, at the wrong time, in the wrong party to lead this country in the war on terrorism.
Others:
Rightwing Nuthouse
Right Winged
Don Surber
Wizbang
OTB
Sister Toldjah
Expose The Left
» Filed Under News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
8 Responses to “John Kerry Still An Idiot”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Kerry is the village idiot for sure.
It’s so refreshing to see that Republicans have kept their stand on the “all issues can be distilled into two sides” issue. You’re either for-Hezbollah or for-Israel. I really hope Kerry doesn’t get the nomination only because I don’t think I can take 8 years of moronic Republican catch phrases.
In reality though, I hope he doesn’t get the nomination because we need a real Democrat who reflectes the real liberal values of our nation. Not another hawkish neo-con who’s a little bit softer on social issues. We need a Democrat who will tell the truth. The War in Afghanistan was wrong. The War in Iraq was wrong. Not enganging in talks with nuclear powers is wrong. War is evil, and as the greatest world power, it is our moral obligation to help keep the world at peace. That is a true Democratic platform.
There are too many Democrats right now who see Bush’s abject failure as a warmonger and think they could do better, rather than realizing that the biggest mistake he made was going to war at all.
You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”. But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:38-39, NRSV)
tthomas, you need a good slap upside the head. Are you telling me that if I were to do that you would offer me the other side to slap too? Just curious…because you really need it.
Yes.
Of course what Jesus was referring to was individuals like us. If I were to slap you upside the head because of what I deem as your ignorance that violence would be uncalled for and if you were to follow Jesus’s teachings and turn the other cheek that would be the right thing to do.
Don’t twist what Jesus was talking about into what you want it to be. He was talking about individuals, not nations. Throughout the scriptures God led the Jews to defeat many evil empires in war.
Do you think that Jesus would want you to just allow someone to kill you? Would you disapprove of some cop shooting at a criminal that was trying to kill you? Are you saying that the correct approach to 9/11 would have been to do absolutely nothing. Just turn the other cheek and pretend like it didn’t happen? Make a strong statement that what the terrorists did was wrong, but we forgive them and they can do it 7 times 70 times and we will continue to do nothing?
How would we maintain a free nation if we turned the other cheek everytime someone attacked us? The evil dictators would take over. Are you really suggesting that a nation shouldn’t practice self defense? Seriously, you need to be slapped upside the head.
It’s obvious your solution is violence. I really don’t have any interest in having a Biblical debate here, but I would contend that you have a strongly Old Testament view. My point in using that quote is that the middle east has been following the “eye for an eye” doctorine for centuries now. Things are obviously going well, but perhaps they might consider a change?
To address my first post, though. We were attacked by a terrorist organization. We retaliated by attacking a sovereign nation. A sovereign nation that did not attack us. You believe this was justified because the nation provided support for the terrorists. I do not.
We were attacked by a terrorist organization. We retaliated by attacking another sovereign nation. A sovereign nation that was a pain, but did not attack us. We attacked them because we believed they had the potential to attack us. You believe that was justified. I do not.
You ask if the right response to 9/11 was to do nothing. No, I think we should have used the political good will we had around the world to start a worldwide manhunt to capture Osama Bin Laden and dismantle his terror apparatus.
Invading two sovereign nations and allowing many terrorists to escape was definitely not a good solution. Creating two breeding grounds for terrorists where there previously was one, definitely was not a good solution.
You believe that invading Afghanistan has made you safer. I believe it has made me less safe by creating thousands of new terrorists. This is why war must be waged carefully. Our response to 9/11 did not fit the crime (what are we at? Almost 20 times the number of civilian and military deaths?). If you look at the wars of the 20th century that have ended well they have almost always been us aiding an ally against an agressor. It is very hard to tell the difference between extracting justice and enacting revenge. I believe in Afganistan and Iraq we simply enacted revenge, and per your interpretation of the Bible, we are left with only one eye and a blind world is scrambling to pluck it from its socket.
So tthomas48, the correct thing would have been do nothing? World history disagrees with you. History has shown that sword has solved more conflicts than words. I agree that war is a horrible thing, and should not be taken lightly. However, it is a necessity from time to time. Using the same logic that you have stated, the Revolutionary War would have consisted of the U.S. politely asking for England to leave it alone. World War 2 would have been the U.S. giving a serious talk to Germany.
All that is necesary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -Edmund Burke
The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it. -Albert Einstein
So instead, we should stick our heads in the ground and hope it all goes away- or ‘negotiatie’ and hope the UN’s ’sanctions’ fix the problem.
We used this theory for the twenty-five years before 9/11, and that’s what got us in the position we were on 9/11.
As for attacking the ’sovereign nation’ of Afghanistan, you seem to forget that they were knowingly harboring and supposrting the same terrorist organization that planned and executed the 9/11 attacks. If we don’t do something about the nationa harboring terrorism, attacks will continue.
As for the war in Iraq- I’d rather have our army fighting Al Queda there, than be fighting them here- because that was their plan after 9/11. They planned to use the same kinds of attacks they use in the Middle East (car bombs, armed assaults on cvilians, etc), except use them HERE. Though I am a gun owner and ex-military, that doesn’t mean I’d want to have to worry about being attacked by terrorists every time I went to the shopping mall.