I could never understand why the people of Massachusetts would vote for John Kerry as their senator when he has never done one good thing for the good of the country...and you argue with some of the folks who still support him and you get aswers like, "I'll go look it up." Huh? Look it up? Hell if you voted for the SOB you shouldn't have to look up anything... you should know! Aah, there's the rub, the people in Massachusetts only know one thing about Kerry, he's a Democrat! Perhaps they should know a thing or two about him, albeit a bit too late now that he's no longer their senator. Maybe the devil is in the details → see →Norman E. Hooben
The Inane Policies of John Kerry on (for example) Syria
Source
I’m flabbergasted as I watch the ineptitude with which John Kerry is conducting the foreign affairs of the United States. I could start with his flippant dismissal of the possibility that Syria would give up its chemical weapons short of NATO bombing, his preferred solution, but I won’t. I could mention how he insisted the Syrian opposition had no access to chemical weapons only to have the UN report that the opposition had almost certainly used such weapons on multiple occasions, but I won’t. I’ll refer only to the latest absurdities surrounding the Geneva negotiations for a transitional government in Syria. First the US dropped the ball on Iranian participation, allowing our clueless UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon to invite the regional power-broker officially into the talks. The South Korean is right, of course — how can you get any kind of realistic or enforceable agreement without Iranian participation? In any case, I guess the Obama administration forgot to give Ban Ki Moon his marching orders, because after the invite went out and became public, Kerry demanded that the invitation be withdrawn. At the same time, in the name of the US Emperor, he decreed that Assad had to agree that he was a goner and no longer could serve as president of Syria if there were to be an agreement. That’s quite an incentive to offer Mr. Assad in return for his cooperation. It reminds me of how we treated Moammar Qaddafi after he swore off weapons of mass destruction under US pressure. (We killed him, for those who forgot.) The cowardly Ban Ki Moon withdrew his invitation, no doubt with much annoyance and embarrassment and resentment, and now, suddenly, Kerry is thinking maybe having Iran in the negotiations is not such a bad idea. This is a case of Kerry being against the invitation to Iran before he was in favor of it. But he still tells Assad he’s finished (not adding, “and a prisoner in the Hague”). He presumably thinks this tempting offer will attract the full good will of Assad and his allies.
Instead of telling Mr. Assad to leave power (or what?), the US Secretary of State should give a good think to what the US fundamental interests are and then try hewing to a consistent line. Listening to Assad’s side of the story might be one way to start. We don’t want Al Qaeda to win there, or do we?
______
Conservatives on Fire
First, Hillary, and now Hanoi John. The Bamster sure knows how to pick them. Thanks to the Leader From Behind our friends don’t trust us and our enemies don’t fear us. Way to go, Barry!