I Thought Diplomats Were Supposed To Be Diplomatic

The U.K. Telegraph posted an article today about Secretary of State John Kerry’s recent remarks about Israel.

Yesterday the Washington Times reported on John Kerry’s remarks:

Mr. Kerry told senior officials during a closed meeting on Friday that a two-state solution is the “only real alternative” for Israel and the Palestinian territories, “because a unitary state winds up either being an apartheid state with second-class citizens, or it ends up being a state that destroys the capacity of Israel to be a Jewish state,” The Daily Beast first reported.

It might be a good idea to mention at this point that Arabs who live or work in Israel have more freedom than their brothers anywhere else in the Middle East.

The U.K. Telegraph explains the problem with Secretary Kerry‘s remarks:

The use of such undiplomatic language also distracts from the very real difficulties the Israelis face in trying to reach an agreement. From the outset, Israel’s security concerns have dominated the discussions, with their negotiators offering to make painful territorial concessions in return for cast-iron guarantees concerning the future safety of Israeli citizens. But Mr Abbas’s refusal to allow Israel to maintain a limited military presence in any future independent Palestinian territory, together with his recent accord with Hamas, has meant that no such pledges have been forthcoming, thereby causing the talks to stall. Israel argues, with some justification, that there is little likelihood of reaching an agreement with an organisation such as Hamas, which remains committed to the destruction of the Jewish state. If Mr Kerry still wants his bold peace initiative to succeed, then he would be better advised to address these and other concerns than to use language that is guaranteed to cause offence to Israel.

Secretary Kerry says that he wants peace in the Middle East. What he does not seem to understand is that only one of his negotiating partners shares that goal. Before accepting the Palestinians as good-faith negotiators, Secretary Kerry needs to take a close look at their educational system. The Palestinian schools include terrorist training for kindergartners, maps without Israel, and teaching anti-Semitism. In a rational world, that would disqualify them as acceptable negotiators for peace. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration does not live in the rational world.

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Sort Of Thing Might Be Part Of The Problem With America’s Image Around The World

Steven Hayward at Power Line posted an article today about recent remarks by Secretary of State John Kerry on the subject of climate change. Secretary Kerry was speaking to an audience in Indonesia.

The article reminds us of a few basic facts:

Let’s see if I’ve got this straight: Secretary of State John Kerry, owner of five multi-million dollar mansions along with a luxury yacht, has seen fit to lecture Indonesians (average income in 2012: $3,420) about why global warming climate change is “perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.”

…Incidentally, according to World Bank figures, Indonesian per capita greenhouse gas emissions are 1.8 metric tons. The United States: 17.6. Like Al Gore, John Kerry’s per capita emissions are surely a multiple of this, which suggests an obvious first step.  What Indonesia is most vulnerable to is following the policy prescriptions of mountebanks like Kerry.  The good news it that they know that.  India, China, Indonesia, and other developing nations have consistently told our diplomats a version of the following: “We don’t understand you Americans; you expect us to remain poor forever?”  Or: “You Americans got rich on fossil fuels.  When we’re as rich as you, then maybe we’ll talk about emissions reductions.”

Secretary Kerry’s comments are simply offensive. Aside from the poverty Indonesia is dealing with, the country also has a problem with Muslim terrorists. I really don’t think shrinking their carbon footprint is a very high priority in Indonesia. It is a shame that the Secretary of State was not more aware of or more sensitive to the needs of the country he was addressing.

Enhanced by Zemanta

With Friends Like These…

Regardless of what has been said by the White House, the Obama Administration has not been a friend of Israel. Under President Obama, America  has tried to force Israel into a peace deal that would mean the end of Israel.

Breitbart.com reported today on Israel’s response to the Obama Administration’s latest threat to her security.

The article reports the American Secretary of State John Kerry suggested that Israel could face “delegitimization” and “boycott” campaigns without a peace deal with the Palestinians. I need to mention at this point that Secretary Kerry‘s peace plan includes the dividing of Jerusalem and a return to the 1967 borders.

There is a video posted at YouTube that helps explain why that peace plan would not bring peace:

Please understand that Israel needs to defend its small piece of land. It would be nice if America chose to be part of that defense instead of refusing to acknowledge that reverting back to the 1967 borders would bring war–not peace.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Disturbing Path That John Kerry Took To Become The Secretary Of State

I am not happy about John Kerry becoming Secretary of State. As the wife of a Vietnam-era veteran, his nomination is disturbing to me. Front Page Magazine posted an article today that clearly states many of my concerns.

After being discharged from the Navy in early 1970, Kerry joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) and became a major figure in the so-called “peace” movement, whose hallmarks were a deep wellspring of hatred for the United States coupled with sympathy for America’s Communist enemy. In May 1970, Kerry, without government authorization, met personally with North Vietnamese and Viet Cong delegations in Paris to discuss a list of “peace” proposals enumerated by Nguyen Thi Madame Binh, the top Viet Cong delegate to the Paris Peace talks. In the aftermath of that illegal meeting, Kerry strongly advised the U.S. Senate to accept Binh’s proposals.

At that time, Kerry himself acknowledged that his visit to Paris was “on the borderline” of legality. Actually, it extended far beyond that “borderline.” A federal law known as the Uniform Code of Military Justice prescribed severe punishment (including, in some cases, the death penalty) for any person who “without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly.”

…Army reports that were unearthed decades later resoundingly discredited the claims of Kerry and his fellow VVAW members, proving those claims to be essentially a pack of lies. When Kerry was running for U.S. President in 2004, the publication U.S. Veteran Dispatch noted that Kerry’s 1971 Senate testimony had “occurred while some of his fellow Vietnam veterans were known by the world to be enduring terrible suffering as prisoners of war in North Vietnamese prisons.” Similarly, retired General George S. Patton III charged that Kerry’s actions had given “aid and comfort to the enemy.” And the organization Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry stated:

“As a national leader of VVAW, Kerry campaigned against the effort of the United States to contain the spread of Communism. He used the blood of servicemen still in the field for his own political advancement by claiming that their blood was being shed unnecessarily or in vain…. Under Kerry’s leadership, VVAW members mocked the uniform of United States soldiers by wearing tattered fatigues marked with pro-communist graffiti. They dishonored America by marching in demonstrations under the flag of the Viet Cong enemy.”

There was a time in America when John Kerry’s actions would have landed him in jail–not in Congress.

I know that was a long time ago, and that people change. But I don’t remember ever hearing Senator Kerry apologize or express regret about his actions. I live in Massachusetts, and knowing what I know about Massachusetts politics, I can understand John Kerry’s being elected to Congress. I just don’t understand why he would even be considered for Secretary of State.

My heart goes out to all of the Vietnam veterans and Vietnam-era veterans who are watching Senator Kerry become Secretary of State. It is a shame that your country has spit on you again.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Exactly What Does ‘Swiftboating’ Mean ?

People who understand the way the political game is played will tell you that the person who controls the vocabulary controls the debate. That is why conservatives talk about politicians who are “Pro-Life” and liberals describe the same people as “Anti-Abortion.” There are other examples, but that is one of the more obvious.

The media has used the term ‘switfboating’ to describe attacks on Senator John Kerry‘s military record when Senator Kerry ran for President in 2004. The implication is that the attacks are false. An examination of the facts shows that the attacks were valid. Now the media is using the term ‘swiftboating’ to describe the attacks on President Obama regarding the leaking of national security information. Again, the media would like to convince the public that the attacks are false. They are not.

Yesterday Paul Mirengoff at PowerLIne posted an article with some interesting insights into the claim that President Obama is being swiftboated.

The article reports:

There are also differences, though. The dispute about Kerry’s Vietnam service was entirely about the past. The issue had nothing to do with policy or national security. It was relevant only because it pertained to Kerry’s character and because Kerry had made his service a talking point in the campaign.

Obama’s “dishonorable disclosures” are another matter. The current critics contend that Obama is jeopardizing our national security and the lives of our operatives by talking about U.S. operations in order to enhance his image. This constitutes a potentially more explosive charge than any leveled by the Swift Vets.

It is also important to remember that Senator Kerry, after he got back from Vietnam, was part of a dishonest smear campaign to tar all Vietnam veterans as brutal, uncivilized soldiers. There are many of us with close ties to people who served in that war who truly resent that implication. The way the Vietnam veterans were treated when they came home is still a national disgrace, and Senator Kerry added to that disgrace.

Meanwhile, back to the matter at hand. I posted the video of the military people who have spoken out against the security leaks on Thursday at (rightwinggranny.com).

Please watch the video and decide for yourself.



Enhanced by Zemanta

Some Details On Congressional Insider Trading


U.S. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts

Image via Wikipedia

Big Government posted an article today showing documents it has obtained detailing some of John Kerry’s stock trades during the debates before the passage of Obamacare. Oddly enough, the trades took place in pharmaceutical stocks and were executed in such a manner to insure significant profits. Was he just a really good investor?

The article reports:

Sen. John Kerry’s position on the powerful Senate Finance Committee’s Health Subcommittee gives him direct access to critical information regarding health care policy. In July 2009, pharmaceutical industry representatives met with key members of Congress to flesh out the Obamacare bill. Then, in November 2009, with the bill’s passage was looking more likely, the Kerrys’ portfolios reflect a drug stock buying spree.

The article also cites some of the Kerry family’s trading during the negotiations on the prescription drug plan:

The Kerrys’ investment funds bulked up on:

  1. More than $500,000 of Johnson & Johnson
  2. As much as $1 million of Pfizer
  3. At least $200,000 in Oxford Health Plans
  4. Between $500,000 and $1 million in United Health Group
  5. At least $100,000 of Cardinal Health
  6. At least $240,000 of Merck

The result: after the bill was signed into law in 2004, some of the Kerrys’ investments were sold, which netted between $100,000 and $1 million from Oxford Health Plans, plus tens of thousands from Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and Cardinal Health.

Please follow the link to the article in Big Government to read the entire article and see the documentation of the trades.

This sort of behavior on the part of our elected officials is simply unacceptable.

Enhanced by Zemanta