« Jimmy Carter: Meta-Liar | Main | Eco-Idiots »

John Kerry: some things never change

One of John Kerry's more notable characteristics is his tendency to "flip-flop," to change his position on an issue when it becomes convenient. It's also rather remarkable how he can rationalize it as not contradictory, but entirely consistent and logical and correct.

But in many other ways, Kerry is remarkably unchanging. In those ways, his fundamental character just shines through.

My superb colleague Kim yesterday talked about WHAT John Kerry did in Davos. As the site's resident New Englander, who's lived in the state next door to Kerry's home of record all my life, I thought I would give it some context and show that his actions are entirely typical for him -- and why he (as always) doesn't see why anyone would be upset with him.

As almost everything in his life does, it all goes back to Viet Nam. More specifically, to the 3 months John Kerry spent there, because nearly everything he's done since has been built on those three months.

After Kerry returned from Viet Nam, he threw himself into the anti-war movement. And, I think, he's always trying to relive those heady days, to recapture the time when he was the toast of the town.

There's an old tradition that's dying out here in America -- that politics ends at the water's edge. We fight and squabble and bicker among ourselves, but we keep the arguments "at home" -- we don't duke it out in public, out on the world stage. We keep our disagreements within our borders, and don't take it to other countries. It's a good tradition, and I think we're poorer for it.

In 1970, John Kerry was discharged from active duty in the United States Navy and entered the Naval Reserve. Later that year, he travelled to Paris and met with the leadership of the Viet Cong's political wing (there for official negotiations with the United States). Those contacts helped him win a role in crafting "The People's Peace Treaty," a pie-in-the-sky fantasy Kerry and others "negotiated" with the Viet Cong and then tried to push on the United States government. This was not only a violation of the Logan Act, which forbids private citizens from intervening in foreign policy by negotiating with foreign governments, but a serious violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which Kerry (as a Naval Reserve officer) was bound by.

Now, in 2007, Kerry (currently a United States Senator) has attended a world economic summit in Switzerland and denounced the actions of the United States.

In 1971, Lt. John F. Kerry (USNR) testified before Congress about the Viet Nam war. He said that American troops. Quoting other soldiers, Kerry said that

"(T)hey had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war."

Kerry also said he had committed war crimes, specifically participating in "free fire" zones.

Many of those whom Kerry quoted were later exposed as liars and frauds. He, in effect, was using his standing and credibility to give credence to their frauds.

In 2007, in Davos, Switzerland, Kerry denounced the Bush administration's opposition to the Kyoto Accords on greenhouse gas emissions. Here, Kerry is using his "credibility" as a United States Senator and presidential nominee (who just barely lost in 2004) to give cover to those who choose to rewrite history.

Yes, President Bush has opposed the Kyoto Accord. He did so when he was first running, and he hasn't changed his position since. But what does that really mean?

Not a hell of a lot.

The Kyoto Accord first came up for approval in 1998. And as the United States Constitution requires of all treaties, it must be ratified by the United States Senate. At that time, President Clinton opposed it, citing that far too many developing countries were specifically excluded from its mandates. President Clinton directed Vice President Al Gore to sign it on behalf of the United States, but purely as a symbolic act -- he did not want to commit the US to it until it covered all nations, developing as well as industrialized.

At the same time, the Senate passed a measure (co-sponsored by Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) stating the Senate's opposition to Kyoto as written. The measure was utterly meaningless, as President Clinton never submitted the treaty for formal approval, but it was a clear indicator that the Senate did NOT like it. The resolution passed with 95 votes in favor, five abstentions, and zero votes supporting the Kyoto Accord.

Not even John Kerry's.

Finally, Kerry lambasted President Bush's efforts to fight AIDS and other diseases in Africa. Apparently the good senator has not been informed that Bush has directed the spending of a great deal of money on just that problem -- not only several times more than President Clinton did, not only far more than any other president, but quite possibly more than EVERY other president. What's more, it's not just "throwing money at the problem" -- it's getting results.

A while ago, I wrote a piece wondering why the hell the United States should do anything -- anything at all -- for Africa, and came up with a sound reason, one firmly rooted in enlightened self-interest. It's comforting to see that the Bush administration agrees with me.

If I had the time and resources to investigate it, I would like to see just how that funding got through Congress -- and how Senator Kerry voted on the measure. The cynic in me wonders he didn't remember it because the bill came up while he was running for president, and missing over 80% of Senate roll-call votes.

Glenn Reynolds, He Who Needs No Linkage, opined: "Like Jimmy Carter, he'll never forgive America for rejecting him, and he'll console himself with the approval of America's enemies."

It's a great observation, and I think it applies quite nicely to Carter. But I don't think it's what's behind Kerry -- or, at least, to a great extent. Kerry's behavior is entirely consistent with his actions dating back over 35 years.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference John Kerry: some things never change:

» Doug Ross @ Journal linked with Can you spot the international pariah?

» Old War Dogs linked with Bill's Nibbles

» The Thunder Run linked with Web Reconnaissance for 01/29/2007

Comments (29)

One of your less objectiona... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

One of your less objectionable posts, but since Kerry is as popular as the bubonic plague, what's the point?

BryanD, in 2004 Kerry damne... (Below threshold)

BryanD, in 2004 Kerry damned near won the presidency. He is also a very prominent United States Senator, and was invited to a very prestigious forum. He's also from the state next door to me.

I would be thrilled beyond words if Kerry (or, for that matter, nearly every single Massachusetts politician) were to quietly retire and fade into oblivion. But they JUST WON'T GO AWAY.

Bob Dole did it right -- after 1996, he pretty much got out of politics. Kerry seems (or, perhaps, seemed) convinced that he DESERVED to be president, and won't let anyone forget about him.

J.

ditto Bryan. Another of the... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

ditto Bryan. Another of the irrelevant, meaningless puff pieces about irrelevancy that the bangers seem so eager to post these days.

Points for style though Jay.

P.S.Jay:... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

P.S.

Jay:


if you'd just admit KDS it would be the first step to recovery. Everyone knows you suffer from it and there is a way to put it in remission.

So, Hugh and Bryan, just wh... (Below threshold)

So, Hugh and Bryan, just when did John Kerry transition from "the choice of the Democratic Party" to "irrelevant?" Who made that decision? Where was the pronouncement? And how did I miss it?

It's so damned easy to dismiss the Democrats' idiots as irrelevant, but hard to show just how that works. Michael Moore and Jimmy Carter were given prominent seats of honor at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, but we aren't allowed to draw any sort of conclusion from that. Jesse Jackson is given tons of concessions and even more money to "campaign" for every Democratic presidential nominee, but he doesn't count. Charlie Rangel's obsession with the draft is "nothing," yet he's been made chair of one of the most powerful committees in the House.

The Republicans, at least, know how to marginalize some of their own nutjobs. Pat Buchanan's never been elected to anything, and NOBODY listens to Pat Robertson.

As far as my "obsession," it's hardly on Kerry. It's Massachusetts politicians in general, best exemplified by Kerry and Kennedy. In Massachusetts, we can see just how bad things can get when one party holds a monopoly on power. Currently, the Dems hold both Senate seats, all ten House seats, the governorship, and over 85% of both state Houses. The results speak for themselves.

J.

Here's something funky (off... (Below threshold)
mikem:

Here's something funky (off topic though, sorry). I googled "Micah Wright" of phony Ranger fame just to see if the "war hero" had ginned up any more controversy in the last year or so. Jim Treacher's website, no surprise, appears on the first page a couple of times with the following caveat from, apparantly, Google itself: "This site may harm your computer" The underlying link talks about malware etc.
I googled "Jim Treacher" and sure enough, same warning. Now, I'm no fan of Jim Treacher. Believe me. But how is it that I google for and visit all sorts of online game sites and funny video sites, the normal gathering or hunting area for malware bastards and have NEVER seen this warning before, but it shows up at his website link at google?
Has anybody else ever seen this warning? Is there a logical pattern, rather than "political"? (And no, I'm not going near his website to get his email address. That's why I posted here.)
Again, sorry JT. Obviously I don't have a blog of my own to post this at.

Jay:KDS did refer ... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Jay:

KDS did refer to both of them. You couldn't miss your obsessive hatred of them both.

Just wanted to be clear.

By the way your second step to recovery is to recognize that you can be restored to recovery. Keep up the good work.

As for Kerry and my view of him as a democrat. I didn't vote for him. I don't like him, never did and am thrilled he's gone from the national scene.

See that's the difference between an objective view an obsessive KDS.


P.P.S. You ought to work on getting a sense of humor.

So, I guess we'll never get... (Below threshold)
Robert the original:

So, I guess we'll never get those miltary records now and an explaination about how he got an honorable discharge after those negotiations you write about.

Nor are we likely to find out about those mysterious medal add-ons, claimed by Kerry but never issued by the Navy in that form.

Both events somehow were transformed in the records during the black hole that was the Carter Administration.

Yet I still wonder, every other Presidential candidate in history has released his full military records, except Kerry. Hmmm...

But the three band-aids and out trick, that was original.

Hugh, if I did nothing but ... (Below threshold)

Hugh, if I did nothing but attack those two worthies, you might -- MIGHT -- have a case. But I've said nice things about both Kerry and Kennedy when they've deserved it. I also defended Kerry over that "insulting the troops" bit from last November.

But you're playing your old game again, and I almost let you get away with it. This isn't about me, and it shouldn't be.

Nicely played. I can't believe you pulled it off as well as you did.

J.

I'm sure Jay is laughing ri... (Below threshold)
robert the original:

I'm sure Jay is laughing right now.

jay tea! Calling Pat Buchan... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

jay tea! Calling Pat Buchanan a nutjob? He's pro-American in EVERY way, but disagrees with Dear Leader...beam me up, Scotty!

Thanks Jay....I did get ya ... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Thanks Jay....I did get ya didn't I?

H

Now you're at the third setp of your recovery.

December 27th, 2006:... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

December 27th, 2006:
Hugh "I will only engage in debate from now on. I will not call any one name(s), nor will I be sarcastic or caustic."

Good post, Jay Tea.

That's rich. Hugh telling ... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

That's rich. Hugh telling Jay to get a sense of humor. What next, BryanD lecturing people on becoming more religiously tolerant?

He was the consensus choice... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

He was the consensus choice of the Dimocrapic Party.

Doesn't a Party's choice tell you about those in the Party? Isn't it significant he could have been President.

It's hardly beside the point.

And it is seared, seared in... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

And it is seared, seared in my memory, the re-treads in the Democrat Party who Hugh and ilk would toss off as "irrelevant," who are still in power, leading the charge in the Senate.

Remember Kerry and Dodd meeting with Ortega at the height of his dicatatorial power? The fierce protestations of them, as well as the other re-treads, Rangel, Kennedy, Frank et al, when Reagan took it to the Soviets, and ended their tyranny?

It's the same old stuff from their leadership, often wrong, history leaving them in the dust (with their socialist friends--remember Kennedy trying to assist the Soviet PR machine?).

I guess it makes it easier if you are distracted by irrelvancies like "Halliburton" "War for Oil" "Kyoto now!" "Bush is a dictator, depriver of rights" etc.

But this simply proves the ignorance of the speaker. The fact that he favored those in the Dim. Party discredited by history further proves the point.

Kerry is but one of a breed supported by the foolish, like our liberal friends complaining on this blog.

"So, Hugh and Bryan, jus... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"So, Hugh and Bryan, just when did John Kerry transition from "the choice of the Democratic Party" to "irrelevant?" Who made that decision? Where was the pronouncement? And how did I miss it?

Pay attention, Jay. These things happen quickly -- along the same lines as Newt Gingrich's fall from power. One day the guy is at the front of the line, leading the asshat brigade as they take out a contract on America, and the next day no one can (or at least "wants to") remember his name.

I'm with High and Bryan on this one. Nice form, no substance. Just KDS.

Wondered how long it would ... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Wondered how long it would take old "pucker puss" (lee lee) (resident turd polisher) to chime in with his "ditto" key. Amazeing how you can read two or three words from a moonbats post such as p'p',hughie and bryanDumbass and tell who wrote it. Also if you saw them in person, you could tell that they were sKerry lovers by the "brown" ring around thier noses. Anyone that tries to makes excuses for sKerry is a frigging traitor himself. Bring it on.

jay tea! Calling Pat Buc... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

jay tea! Calling Pat Buchanan a nutjob? He's pro-American in EVERY way, but disagrees with Dear Leader...beam me up, Scotty!

Pat Buchanan?

"Pro-American"?

I guess you can overlook the homophobic commentary, the anti-Semitism, and the hatred of all people different than he provided he disagrees with Bush. How much did his abysmal speech in 1992 doom the GOP?

Damn, never thought I'd see the day we have a liberal standing up for Pat Buchanan.
-=Mike

I'd like to officially go o... (Below threshold)

I'd like to officially go on record as despising Pat Buchanan long, long before I ever heard of George W. Bush.

J.

I am amused by bryan and Hu... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

I am amused by bryan and Hugh 's effort to avoid facing the fact about the comptemptible modern liberals. John Kerry is trying to curry favor with his Dem base of radical liberal leftists by slandering America. That 's what he thinks would make the liberals happy. That 's what is contemptiable about modern liberals.

Oh boy!here we go again.The... (Below threshold)
jainphx:

Oh boy!here we go again.The republican party has it's idiots,but we eliminate them you keep electing yours over and over again.Body's in Oldsmobiles,90k in freezers,Dishonorably discharged,KKK grand whatevers.Show your true colors every time you speak.Kerry called me and mine child killers,terrorist,and scum.Let me tell you I would fight to the death for these same Child killers,but not raise one finger for the likes of Kerry or you.

Hmmm....Unlike the... (Below threshold)
BC:

Hmmm....

Unlike the fraudulent "Bush Derangement Syndrome" charge that gets trotted out by right wingers whenever someone points out what an incompetent, lying ass President Bush has been, "Kerry Derangement Syndrome" seems to be a genuine psychological malfunction. Unlike the charges against Bush, which are reality-based and are VERY easy to back up and document, the charges against Kerry all seem to have a certain, shall we say, "scent du feces" attached to them.

What I suspect is that this last round of Kerry-smearing is no more than a messed-up and ultimately hopeless attempt to still justify voting for Bush. I guess the "reasoning" goes something like, "Well, Bush may not have done that good of a job, but evil, brain-eating Winter Soldier Kerry the traitor would have been far, far worse and would have brought upon the Apocalypse. Thank God I voted for Bush."

No.

If you voted for Bush, especially this last time around, not only did you vote for a guy much, much worse than Kerry, you voted for a guy probably worse than the next falling down drunk guy you see coming out from a sports bar, and it will surely rank as one of the most stupid things you'll have done in your entire life, and no amount of "KDS" is going to help you.

There's a difference betwee... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

There's a difference between a derangement syndrome and just relishing in pointing out that the Democrat's Primary winner, supposedly the best they had to offer, is an Ass.

You see we don't need to make up or exaggerate Kerry's actions in order to muster contempt for him. He supplies those on his own.

And there is always, 'glad we dodged a bullet there' euphoria.

jpmToo bad the 300... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

jpm

Too bad the 3000+ american soldiers and ungodly and unknown number of Iraqis didn't dodge Bush's bullets. I think his "bullets" are just a tad more significant than whether Kerry won or lost.

John Irving:

Like most of you folks on the right you should try just a little to find a sense of humor. Now if this is a violation of my resolution...oh well. I say to you with are seriousosity quit taking yourselves so godamn serious.

jhow66 knows all about brow... (Below threshold)
slingshot:

jhow66 knows all about brown rings on people's noses, don'tcha, big guy? aren't you really the one who's a traitor?

Hugh is still trying to mak... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Hugh is still trying to make excuses for the liberals and to diver the attention from their contemptible behaviors. Liberal journalists complained that there were not more dead soldiers in Iraq. The dishonesty of liberals is unbearable when they mentioned the 3000+ soldiers dead in Iraq while they are quite willing to slander these brave men/women. How many American soldiers were tortured, killed in VN because of his slanderous testimony in 1973? How many more American soldiers have been killed in Iraq because the encouragement ther Dems/liberals have given to the terrorists and their sponsors allied in Iraq?
Hugh is simly not honest enough to face this reality.

Hugh, I guess I consider my... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Hugh, I guess I consider my word a lot more seriously than you do yours.

You stated clearly you would engage in debate. You specifically excluded snark and sarcasm as well. You obviously did not mean it, as you have demonstrated clearly multiple times in less than a month.

Most trolls aren't self-critical enough to recognize the kind of damage they do to debate with their behavior. You've indicated that you do, with your Wizbang Blue post, and then you've gone to prove you just don't care. So ou've demonstrated that you're the kind of person who breaks their word, knows it, and does not feel the slightest bit bothered by it.

JohnWith all due r... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

John

With all due respect please read the definition of satire. Then try and understand it. Sorry you miss the point. Also, maybe you should try not gneralizing. After all, no one believes "most" righties are ignorant nor liars.

H




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy