Why Kerry?

Discussion in 'Military' started by Flanders, Mar 14, 2012.

  1. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,560
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,581
    Foreign policy is the most neglected branch of political science. So neglected it usually resides at the bottom of every list of voter priorities if it is even mentioned. Paid pundits assure us that only five percent of American voters care about foreign policy.

    I accept the five percent for one reason —— most Americans believe they do not have to worry about foreign policy. Americans trust federal government bureaucrats, the US military, Congress, the media and, of course, the president to protect this country from foreign governments as well as protect the country from foreign armies. Leon Panetta and General Dempsey’s recent answers to the questions asked by Senator Jeff Sessions is proof the trust Americans give to those people is often misplaced:


    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zNwOeyuG84&feature=player_embedded]Obama Admin Cites 'Int'l Permission,' Not Congress, As 'Legal Basis' For Action In Syria - YouTube[/ame]

    Were it not for John Kerry I would be more confident foreign policy would move up the list of voter priorities. Why Kerry? Answer: Presidential candidate Kerry advocated the same positions Panetta and Dempsey stated. As far back as the 1970s Kerry was saying that American troops should not be deployed without the UN’s approval.

    In the same vain, Candidate John Kerry lost enough votes to cost him the presidential election because of his stated commitment to the UN. Yet Panetta and Dempsey must believe that Kerry’s position is now acceptable to a majority of voters. If not, why would they announce where the Administration stands; especially in an election year? The only answer I can come up with is: They are betting that betraying this country to the United Nations will win votes for Hussein whereas it lost votes for Kerry. That’s political science 101.

    NOTE: It’s been reported that John Kerry has designs on the Secretary of State job when Clinton steps down. I’ve no doubt Hussein, if reelected, will nominate him. Will the Senate confirm him as it confirmed Panetta? then act surprised when he betrays this country to the United Nations? That, too, is political science 101.

    Here are a few interesting tidbits about Kerry worth considering in relation to foreign policy:

    Kerry, like every other Vietnam Era Communist, got away with simply saying he opposed the war. He never said what he stood for.

    John Kerry said he had serious questions about John Bolton's commitment to the UN.


    And best of all was presidential candidate Kerry admitting that abortion is about population controls not a woman’s Right to choose.

    Hussein & Kerry

    Hussein has been compared to so many presidents, I am starting to think that this country only had one president who keeps changing bodies. The fact is that Hussein is a carbon copy of John Kerry.

    In Hussein-Kerry doublespeak, deploying the American military is not absolutely necessary after an attack. Hussein, like Kerry, never defines absolutely necessary. The question the MSM should be asking is: Who decides absolutely necessary? Panetta and Dempsey answered the unasked question: The UN will decide.

    Both Hussein and Kerry were always clear about not defending this country against every enemy. Kerry originally refused to fight communism (after he returned from Vietnam). Kerry was a bit slower in coming to the defense of radical Islam in Iraq. He eventually got there by giving the enemy hopes for a political victory as he did in Vietnam. Not wanting to fight radical Islam, or, at the very least, not wanting radical Islam defeated decisively came easily to Hussein.

    In defiance of the Constitution, Hussein claims the commander in chief’s constitutional Right to define America’s enemies. A president with the sole authority to define enemies sounds good on paper. Most Americans understand that it is suicidal to have a bunch of people manipulating the definition of enemy. That’s why self-defense is the only criterion that stands the test of time. The problem arises when national sovereignty is abolished. That’s when common men lose the Right of self-defense. Conversely, rulers strengthen their Right of self-defense because the police and the military will defend them and them alone.

    So long as there are sovereign nations the only problem is in deciding when to defend against an enemy. That is whether or not to take the fight to the enemy as America did in Korea, and Vietnam, or wait until the enemy mounts an attack on American soil as Muslim fundamentalists did on 9-11-2001. Hussein, like Kerry, would hand that decision to the UN.

    Hussein is a Communist, but he was too young to defend communism in Vietnam in the same activist way as did Kerry. Hussein did not have to. The American Left removed communism from the enemies list during the Vietnam War. Today, communism stands in that netherworld between a military threat, and a genial supplier of cheap products.

    NOTE: Lest you be fooled into believing that Preacher Hussein is a pacifist at heart know that he has no aversion to Americans dying in touchy-feely UN wars.

    Hussein is the most extreme advocate for UN dominance this country has ever put in the White House. Even more extreme than the Clintons. It’s no wonder that Hussein dredged the Clinton sewer to populate his administration. Anyone less anti-American than a Clinton reject would refuse to betray America’s sovereignty.

    As I’ve said many times, every decision coming out of Washington is based on what is best for the UN. Once you understand that basic fact predicting the way a foreign policy decision will go is as easy as pie.

    Also, Hillary Clinton is making noise about women in an effort to bring out women voters for Hussein. Here’s the question: Why should any American woman vote for the man who is accommodating those Muslim countries that brutalize women? The answer is beyond my understanding. Every one of those countries is protected by the UN that is so-loved by Hussein & Company.

    Whenever Clinton speaks about women she is speaking for her kind. Women are individuals; some good some not so good. It’s always been that way. Most American women are more feminine than Clinton’s feminazi sisters —— hellbent on establishing an emasculating matriarchy. Does anyone remember Philip Wylie’s 1942 book Generation of Vipers about that very thing? That’s where the term “Momism” originated. Unfortunately, Muslim men think that all western women are like Hillary Clinton. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Finally, year after year Hillary Clinton is touted as the most admired woman in the world. Polls imply that she speaks for all of the women of the world. Frankly, I don’t believe the polls taken to establish her magnificence. Back in 2002 one lady, General Suhaila Siddiq, practically told then-Senator Clinton to mind her own freaking business:


    Obviously, none of Hillary’s puff polls are taken in Afghanistan:

    Click on the Link and scroll down for the full story:

    Female Afghan General Blasts Hillary Over Monicagate

    Shameless Hillary
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2012

Share This Page