Secretary of Statements?

“I’m an Internationalist; I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”; The Harvard Crimson, 1970. Guess who? Give up? Why it’s Secretary of State John Kerry in his younger days. Allowing for the maturation of age and experience the question is, has Mr. Kerry moved beyond his early far Left belief system?

John Kerry’s view of global warming, oops, climate change as the most serious threat that confronts us is no surprise. While name calling is avoided here he continues to provide proof positive that he is a comprehensive dope. Maybe if it’s true, it’s not name calling.

Mr. Kerry has failed to generate a rational deal in Syria; the deal that was struck has fallen apart as Mr. Assad knew it would gaining time and space. Mr. Kerry continues to pursue a Palestinian / Israeli peace deal when both sides have delivered the clear message that it is impossible in the current context. Mr. Kerry has failed to execute a deal with Iran, as the deal was no sooner executed than the Iranian political elite went public with ‘clarifications’ essentially saying that the deal represented no change in Iranian behaviors or goals. Iran has, once again, demonstrated that the West is easily duped and buys yet more time as they prepare to cross the red line.

Venezuela and the Ukraine are burning, the EU is having difficulty keeping itself together, Iran is on the path to a nuclear weapon, Israel is being hung out to dry, Putin is exercising ever increasing power over former Soviet Republics and Europe and what has our Secretaries’ attention; global warming, oops, climate change. Despite the fact that, depending on the poll you look at, Americans do not put global warming on their personal agenda of things to be concerned with. In one poll it was 19th out of 20 in terms of what Americans were concerned about. No matter to Mr. Kerry. Of no small significance is that Terrrrazzzzza not only funds Mr. Kerry but also a variety of global warning, oops, climate change advocacy groups. I’m guessing that Mr. Kerry does not want a whipping when he gets home.

Mr. Kerry has long executed one of two options. Option one; be on the wrong side of threat assessment and the tools necessary to confront those threats. Option two; take multiple contradictory positions; no wonder the President wanted him at State he’s a kindred spirit absent an obvious center. Iraq is the best example. July 29th 2002;”I agree completely with this (Bush) administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq.” October 10th 2002; “I believe the record of Saddam Hussein’s ruthless breach of international values and standards of behavior is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force if necessary.” One month later, November 10th referring to President Bush; “a failure of diplomacy of a massive order has occurred and left the country on the brink of war.” Two months later in response to a question as to whether he was an anti-war candidate; “I am, yes in the sense that I don’t believe the President took us to war as he should have.” All of these comments predate; “being for the war, before he was against it.”

We had a warning as to how Mr. Kerry would operate as Secretary. Prior to becoming Secretary of State Mr. Kerry ‘interviewed’ by taking on the occasional oversees assignment for the President, Pakistan is an excellent example. Mr. Kerry, in his wisdom, having put together an aid package for Pakistan, flew in to bask in the glory. One problem: he so totally upset the Pakistani military with his attachment of unexpected conditions that they were ready to run him out of the country on a rail. Mr. Kerry demonstrated a comprehensive misunderstanding of the Pakistanis view of their self-interest. He also demonstrated an ignorance of our own self- interest as well as a considerable portion of the operations in Afghanistan we’re supplied from Pakistan. It was shortly thereafter when supplies started to be held at the border.

By his own statements it is clear that Mr. Kerry does not see terror, Russia, China, unrest in Central and South America and radical Islam as existing in the same universe as the threat from global warming, oops, climate change. His youthful statements to the Harvard Crimson in 1970 became Kerry policy throughout the 1990’s as he consistently voted to freeze or slash Defense spending. He argued for severe manpower reductions. Among the many programs that then Senator Kerry opposed were the B2 Bomber, tactical fighter wings, missile defense systems, the F16, the M1 Abrams Tank, Patriot Missiles, Apache Helicopters, Tomahawk cruise Missiles and the Aegis Air Defense Cruiser; all current mainstays of our military capabilities.

Had John Kerry had his way in the 1990’s the ability of America to project power would have been out of the question in a post 9/11 world; we would not have had the manpower or equipment necessary to do so.

In Venezuela, the Ukraine and Africa Mr. Kerry doesn’t have much to say. What about Chinese incursions in the South China Sea? Silence. What about denunciation of terror, nope; no strong positions there. How about Christians under siege in the Islamic World? Nary a comment. But fear not! He’s on the offensive against the real threat that faces us; global warming, oops, climate change. You can’t make this up!

  • Bob

    Well President Obama is giving the good Secretary another chance because he drew another “RED LINE” in the Ukraine.

    In addition Landreaux don’t forget to add to your list the good Secretary believed in a foreign policy of a “World Test” before the United States took action in any foreign interventions during his 2004 presidential campaign. He was always big on the United Nations as are most Progressives.

    In fact the Obama administrations doctrine has been that if the United States is to have any influence or standing on the world stage it must give up it’s interest and allies.The favorite code word is “honest broker”. Notice there is no difference between this and the supposed job of the United Nations when it comes to human rights intervention, global mediation and stability and promoting the welfare of the third world. This leaves America as a tool for the United Nations only with a great deal of wealth and it’s own military.The United Nations was designed to be a forum in which nations pursue their own interest not to have interest or allies of it’s own.The United States is a nation and is meant to have both interest and allies. The Obama administration dispensed with American allies and pursued relations with it’s enemies.It has been standing on the side lines of world events with little influence.It responds belatedly to events from the outside world and then attempts to take credit for it.America has no foreign policy! and it’s leaders act like they are General Secretary of the U.N.rather than looking out for American interest.They speak for global consensus on human rights and democracy while the world laughs at them because by abandoning American allies in Eastern Europe we didn’t create a new relations with Russia but simply got out of their way.The same thing happened around the world. Only by abandoning your own interest can a nation become a honest broker. When we act as a “Honest Broker” we have devalued any idea of an alliance and acting as a honest broker to two warring nations will not bring any benefit and infuriate both sides.The Obama administration objective is to overcome a history of American power and replace it with multinational powerlessness.The Obama’s and Clintons want to get away from being the elected representative of farmers and businessmen to the unelected leaders of the world. They have lowered their status in the world by doing so and if it wasn’t for American aid or military strength the international community would think even less of them. By abandoning power it can’t give you more power.This is the future of America !

  • Bob

    I’m sure you heard of the British saying that we seem to see everywhere today “Stay Calm and ……” well here is one the White House follows:

  • Bob

    Below is an article entitled : “White House Takes Credit for Ukraine Deal”***

    ***Britian,France, and even Poland were there but no mention of the United States. See my 20th February 2014 @2:06 PM post where this follows what I said about the administration sitting on the side lines and taking credit.