↓
 
Home » John Kerry advocates talking with the enemy: again

John Kerry advocates talking with the enemy: again

The New Neo Posted on by

John Kerry has a piece in today’s Washington Post that champions Obama’s policy of talking to any and all comers, friend and foe alike.

It’s full of Kerry’s overheated and outraged rhetoric towards the opposition. Bush’s mention of appeasement in his Knesset speech was “slander” towards Obama (even though he didn’t mention his name), and “toxic rhetoric” as well. I’m surprised Kerry didn’t label it “swiftboating,” but perhaps he’d like us to forget that particular episode in his own past.

Of course, there are other even more relevant episodes in Kerry’s past that he’d like us to forget, although he once seemed quite proud of them. I refer to his own talks with the enemy—this time, an enemy in a hot and ongoing war: Vietnam.

Kerry testified before the Senate in 1971 that he had met with the North Vietnamese in Paris in 1970:

In a question-and-answer session before a Senate committee in 1971, John F. Kerry, who was a leading antiwar activist at the time, asserted that 200,000 Vietnamese per year were being “murdered by the United States of America” and said he had gone to Paris and “talked with both delegations at the peace talks” and met with communist representatives.

Kerry, now [in 2004] the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, yesterday confirmed through a spokesman that he did go to Paris and talked privately with a leading communist representative.

This issue was briefly raised during Kerry’s 2004 campaign, but it never got a whole lot of traction. Although Kerry had tried to play up his involvement back in 1971, in 2004 he was eager the play it down; in lawyerly fashion, his spokesman said that Kerry did not actually engage in “negotiations.”

Well, he couldn’t have, not being an official negotiator; he had no power to make concessions. Kerry is a lawyer and is no doubt aware that some consider his actions in talking to the North Vietnamese Communists to have been in violation of US statutes prohibiting private citizens from “negotiating” with foreign powers, so that’s why he’s so eager to disclaim the word.

During his 2004 campaign Kerry also backtracked on another statement he made during that same 1971 hearing:

Asked about the appropriateness of Kerry’s saying that the United States had “murdered” 200,000 Vietnamese annually when the United States was at war, Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan said “Senator Kerry used a word he deems inappropriate.”

All that misspeaking again, surprising in a man as careful with words as Kerry. I have little doubt he meant to say exactly and precisely what he said in 1971, and he also meant to disown his prior words in 2004 because it was politically expedient. And, since the press was on his side, he knew he didn’t really have to explain what he did mean when he used that word:

[Kerry’s spokesperson] Meehan said Kerry “never suggested or believed and absolutely rejects the idea that the word applied to service of the American soldiers in Vietnam.” Meehan then declined to say to whom Kerry was referring when he said that the United States had murdered the Vietnamese; Kerry declined to be interviewed about the matter.

The title of Kerry’s present piece is “The Wisdom in Talking;” although, from the evidence above, at other times he’s clearly seen the wisdom of not talking—to the press.

Among other flaws, Kerry’s entire piece sets up a strawman; it’s not as though anyone has categorically ruled out talking to Iran under any circumstances, if there is something to be gained from it and the circumstances are right. It is Obama’s statement that he would talk to people such as Ahmadinejad without preconditions, as though talk itself were always a good thing, that’s been criticized.

Kerry wants us to talk with Iran because not talking “hasn’t worked.” This is an illogical position; if something hasn’t worked, it does not mean its opposite will, nor does it mean its opposite can’t have even worse consequences.

Kerry isn’t upset about the possible enhancement of the prestige of the leaders of Iran as a result. He dismisses that contention in an odd way, by saying that critics’ description of Ahmadinejad as an important threat is already raising his stature, as though the two enhancements are equal in force and meaning. And he somehow thinks that a talk with Iran’s leaders would be a good way to give a message of support to the people of Iran in their struggle against those very leaders. Odd.

Kerry is also interested in talks with Iran because they let the world know we “reclaim the moral high ground.” That this might in some way matter in the power struggle between the US and Iran seems dangerously naive and remarkably ignorant of the way the world of nations actually works.

And if someone can explain this sentence of Kerry’s I’d be much obliged; for me, it seems to come from Looking-Glass World:

Dialogue helps us isolate Ahmadinejad rather than empowering him to isolate us.

Oh, and what did Kerry advocate as a result of his own talks with the North Vietnamese enemy? Why, he adopted and promoted all of their demands in his “People’s Peace Treaty.” A record of which to be proud.

Comments

John Kerry advocates talking with the enemy: again — 64 Comments

  2. Perf dem: thanks for that link.

    Krauthammer, also, in the article neo linked yesterday, well-described the strategic situation

    A meeting with Ahmadinejad would not just strengthen and vindicate him at home, it would instantly and powerfully ease the mullahs’ isolation, inviting other world leaders to follow. And with that would come a flood of commercial contracts, oil deals, diplomatic agreements — undermining precisely the very sanctions and isolation that Obama says he would employ against Iran.

    Sergey, also, well described a strategic aspect

    But one thing is certain: [totalitarian] leadership strive for international recognition and legitimization to keep its grasp of society. So to undermine it from within it is crucial to deny it such recognition, so all direct talks and official contacts with Western politicians would be used as propaganda tools to prolong its life.

  3. The title of Kerry’s present piece is “The Wisdom in Talking;”

    If there is some “wisdom in talking”, then why does Kerry himself persistently prove the opposite?

  4. Neo, et al

    Let me ask your forgiveness in advance for the rancor to follow. My excuse? John Kerry lying to my face every time he opens his mouth makes my blood boil.

    As to your query for help with:

    “Dialogue helps us isolate Ahmadinejad rather than empowering him to isolate us.”

    Sorry, I got nothin. Hand waving to distract the crowd? I don’t know. It is plain nonsense though, for what that’s worth.

    I ask: what is the substance Sen. Kerry offers to talk over with the Iranian “powers that be”? I think you are right that the whole piece is a (nasty, unworthy) rhetorical strawman. But as to substance? I find the only place in the aricle to look for it here:

    “The first is between our leaders and Iran’s. From nonproliferation to counterterrorism, frankly, Iran won’t care for much of what we have to say — but at the right moment, it is not unreasonable to think Tehran would cut a deal in exchange for economic incentives, energy assistance, diplomatic normalization or a noninvasion guarantee.”

    First, he will concede to us that, “…frankly, Iran won’t care for much of what we have to say…”. Well then, we think, what little thing that we have to say will they care for? Kerry says nothing specific. Nothing.

    Ah! Then it is timing: “at the right moment”…”Tehran would cut a deal…”. But we are asking, what does timing have to do with it when “in exchange for economic incentives, energy assistance, diplomatic normalization…” [I do not know about a “noninvasion guarantee”, is there something magical about noninvasion guarantee?] are already and have been for months if not years, offered the Iranians by the EU3, the US and Russia? What is new here that would change the Iranian leaders mind? And what in “the deal” to be cut is the other side of this ledger? What precisely are we, the US, our allies and the interested but bystanding other nations of the world to “get” from this “deal”? Kerry says nothing specific. Nothing.

    And if “timing” is the thing, the all-in-all of his proposal, what defines the “right moment”? How are we to know when “the right moment” has arrived? Or has passed? Or is yet to come? Kerry says nothing specific. Nothing.

    In short, I think we must conclude that either Sen. Kerry has nothing of substance to offer us, or that he intends to keep whatever substantial thought he does have well concealed.

    It is perhaps too facile to call this fellow, Sen. Kerry, an empty bag of gas, but really, is it wrong?

    And if it isn’t wrong, what has gotten into the citizens of Massachusetts that they keep sending him back to the Senate?

  5. Sorry again. The only words embolded should be “but at the right moment….”

  6. The sensible position is to talk on the phone or exchange diplomatic-style notes. Don’t give the terrorists a photo-op but keep yourself aware. But this is an election year and sensible things matter less. They can record the phone calls, so watch what you say.

    Threats may be more effective in person, though.

    It isn’t really that hard.

  7. It is interesting that that Kerry wants us to “reclaim the moral high ground” and that Zand-Ervin and Zand-Banazzi say that “Iranians believe the only country who has the moral authority and is able to support them is the United States of America.” I guess it depends on whose opinion you are worried about. For my part, I am sick and tired of the hypocrites of the world using our faults and failings, which get 24/7 coverage in the world media, to divert attention from their own problems. Kerry believes that the world will give us credit for our good deeds. While the man in the street might be disposed to do that, he will never know because the ruling elites, the intellecuals, and the media only present our failings. Kerry is a fool.

  8. Barack is lying when he implies the U.S. is unwilling to talk with Iran at any level. Sec. Rice is actively seeking diplomatic talks.

    U.S. Iraq Ambassador Crocker met with Iranian officials on May 28, 2007. Well before and after, Sec. Rice expressed desire for more extensive diplomatic meetings with Iran. Iran (possibly with behind the scenes encouragement from Russia) has been stalling extensive meetings.

    From U.S.A Today, before Ambassador Crocker’s May 28, 2007 meeting:

    When Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, meets Monday with Iranian officials in Baghdad, it will be the highest-level publicly acknowledged meeting between the two countries in 27 years. Both sides are downplaying expectations, saying they will only discuss Iraq, where both support the Shiite-led government but accuse each other of contributing to violence.

    From The Guardian, after the meeting:

    The US and Iran finally broke the ice yesterday to hold their first formal talks since Washington broke off diplomatic ties in 1980 during the embassy hostage crisis.
    […]
    the two sides met in Baghdad for discussions described by both as “positive”. Iran held out the prospect of a further meeting within the next month.

    From Jan 24, 2008 Stratfor

    Summary
    U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker issued statements Jan. 24 expressing Washington’s willingness to talk with Tehran, and pointing the finger at Iran for holding up the negotiating process. Despite U.S. attempts to entice Iran into another round of talks, a number of issues probably will keep Iran from coming to the negotiating table in the near future.

    Analysis
    Washington favors a “more normal” relationship with Tehran as long as Iran halts its uranium Barack is lying when he implies the U.S. is unwilling to talk with Iran at any level.
    enrichment program, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Jan. 24 at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Rice also reiterated her offer to meet with her Iranian counterpart “any place, any time, anywhere to talk about anything.” When asked why the United States would not diplomatically engage Iran’s government, she retorted, “Why won’t Tehran talk to us?” U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker echoed Rice’s sentiments in an interview with Reuters, saying, “We’re set to go, we have communicated that to the Iraqis, and the Iranians for whatever reason are holding back ….”

    Anyway: my point is: Barack is lying when he implies the U.S. is unwilling to talk with Iran at any level.

  9. remember thelma didnt stop her from driving over the cliff, she supported her.

  10. The US has never had presidential talks with people like this. It has been decades since an American president met with the leader of Iran or Cuba. It is not as if it is Bush policy, it is an American policy.

  11. Why don’t any of these idiots publically ask “Gee.. why is it that we stopped talking to Iran.. and when did that happen?”

  12. J. Peden Says:
    If there is some “wisdom in talking”, then why does Kerry himself persistently prove the opposite?

    ROTFL How aware is Obama of the years of negotiation between countries in the EU, and Iran re the nuclear issue, and of the utter futility of same?

  13. Total bs… yes.
    Dialogue with [i]everyone else[/i] would help isolate them…

  15. Pingback:House of Eratosthenes

  16. “There are too many Chamberlains and not enough Churchills, perhaps none at all. Things are bad, very bad, for the West right now. The beginning of repairing those strategic fortunes is to recognize that fact.” – The last line from a superb article, “The Fall of Lebanon”, at 1913 Intel, the link: http://www.1913intel.com/2008/05/24/the-fall-of-lebanon/

  17. gcotharn, well summarised the talks with Iranians with different levels the highest was Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker.
    If we say let not talk with rough state we laying on ourselves here, Iran for twenty years living with slogan “Death to America” what happen after 2003 US invasion of Iraq let unleashed the Genie out of the bottle by installing parties people midwifed by Iranians and they do playing on both side of the fence to give pleasure for their handler in Teheran.

    Saying “Don’t give the terrorists a photo-op” you already did by inviting Ahmadinejad to US although it’s not in higher level but still its is a photo-op.

    While The US has never had presidential talks with people like this. It has been decades since an American president met with the leader of Iran or Cuba. The difference is very big here Cuba did not threatening US and her allied any where in the world as much as Iran and their Genie’s behaviours for more than 20 years.

    Finally the sanctions that imposed on Iran is not really effective and is laughable just go and see the loss words and rules that those list of section included.

  19. John Kerry proves that he is unworthy of the people who died for his freedom. He is unworthy of the people who are prepared to die for his freedom. Even I, cossetted and cowardly, can try to imagine what it is like to live in North Korea, or Iran. Darfur and Somalia are beyond my imagination, but that does not prevent me from knowing that no human being should have to live like that, and none has the moral right to force another to do so. Kerry, apparently, cannot or will not recognize true evil. He cannot or will not accept that the troublesome people on the other side of the world are monsters the equal of the worst in human history. And by that failure, he makes himself their tool and their junior.

  20. “Kerry, apparently, cannot or will not recognize true evil”
    Such words as “evil” are verboten from Dem lexicon. It is imposible to think realistically, when your language is ideologically severed.

  22. It’s amazing how many traitors keep popping up when you don’t execute traitors.

  23. The troublesome people on the other side of the world are monsters the equal of the worst in human history.

    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.”

    Samuel P. Huntington

  24. America ended NAZIism and Japan militancy by the superior application of organized violence and I’m damn proud of it!

    Lets it hear it for American application of organized violence … there is no greater good in the world than that.

  25. Truth: You’re in Syria or somewhere, right?.. Maybe you can enlighten us.. what has your shithole of a country contributed to humankind lately?

  26. I was with John Kerry on his swiftboat that fateful Christmas in Cambodia, when we met with N. Vietnamese representatives and laid the framework for peace with honour. It was a moving and memorable time.

    Now John Kerry volunteers to pilot his swiftboat once again, this time carrying Barack Obama into Iranian coastal waters for talks with Iranian leaders. Who will stand with Senator Kerry, in his mission for peace in our time? Who will stand with this man who was cheated by Diebold in Ohio from his rightful place as president, like Al Gore before him?

    Only Barack Obama can lead this great nations, since the repukagains nominated a senile old man to run for office. I will ride the great swiftboat once again, oh my friends. Will you?

  27. “what has your shithole of a country contributed to humankind lately”

    Damascus steel – about 1100 A.D. That’s recent, isn’t it?

    As to John Kerry’s “peace treaty” – it sounds a whole lot more like a declaration of surrender than a peace treaty. In fact, just reading it I felt morally offended. It bascially says, in so many words, we agree to run away this instant and we’ll trust you (a Communist country who never had, like all Communist countries, shown any respect for democratic processes) to openly give the decision about self-determination to the South Vietnamese we just abandoned. That’s naivete at its absolute, amoral worst. How he is or ever came to be a U.S. senator still boggles my mind.

  28. abu: How did you feel about being ordered to Cambodia in 1968 by Nixon? I bet it’s seared in your memory.

  29. Vince P
    Don’t be hypocrite with histrionic commenting here.
    Before you write your crap here you should forwarded to your thinker Samuel P. Huntington. These things said by your own people about your country and society.

    Grownup man

    BTW, your list “shithole” countries Syria much better of others.

  30. “Don’t be hypocrite with histrionic commenting here.”

    Im not being a hypocrite.. I agree with Huntington.

    I am not apologizing for the West’s military power and technolgy.

    Would the nations of Western Europe ever had to resort to the oceans to reach the Far East had a certain group of people who behave like Klingons not shut down the Silk Road?

    You poor Muslims.. always the victim… let me weep.. let me weep for the fact that all your actions result in your own degradation. Inshallah!

  31. It’s prety funny if you think about.. the Muslims have forced their enemies to invest in improving and advancing their technologies in order to defend themselves against the muslims… or the Muslims forced certain political events which led to the advancement of the enemies of Muslim.. and yet the Muslims remain in their stagnant , barabaric conditions.

    I’m just realizing that it’s very possible that the West may have never colonized practically the whole world had the Muslims not forced Columbus to sail West.

    The United States may have never felt sufficiently vulnurable and impotent under the Articles of Confederation had not the naval forces of North Africa Jihad attacked the United States as it was born

    It’s probably to India’s benefit that England’s control of it forced most Muslims into Pakistan when the partition came. (Too bad there’s so many Muslims in India left behind and the Hindu people’s blood flows like rivers)

    The Muslim collaboration with Nazi Germany has resulted in the Jewish peopel having soverignity in their land for the first time in thousands of years.

    What a great religion Islam is… (except for the 260million non muslims it killed)

  32. resulted in the Jewish peopel having soverignity in their land for the first time in thousands of years.

    More and more hypocrite with histrionic comments here by Vince P

    Its was a gift and promise by Bulfore on behalf of His Majesty’s Government and in the same time there was same promise to Hussein Bin Ali, but one promise went on the second was a lie.

  33. I would correct you.. but why bother.. I have no energy for it.

    I dont know what’s more tiring. having to give history lessons to Muslims or to Leftists.

  34. Im not being a hypocrite.. I agree with Huntington.

    What then you call this attitude?

    Why you attack me for mentioning it then from first place?

  35. history lessons

    Aha… keep your “shithole” history for yourself don’t bother I will ignore all of its.
    your history book self created full of…….

  36. Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut grilled Petraeus on Iran’s anti-U.S. activities in the region. Sen. Daniel Akaka of Hawaii plaintively asked about the utility of negotiations with Iran. And Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia pressed Petraeus on what he meant by the need to “counter malign Iranian influence” and the “consequences for its illegitimate influence in the region.”

    The general, whose confirmation as head of U.S. Central Command was stake in the hearing, did his best to pacify the men and women who held his appointment in their hands, emphasizing his support for “the three rounds of negotiations that have taken place” between Iran, Iraq and the U.S. in Baghdad over security issues. But the Senators’ questions how how persistent the concern is on Capitol Hill that President Bush could be secretly planning a military strike against Iran.

    Bombing Iran: The Clamor Persists

  37. I bet you are very concerned about the possiblity of an attack on Iran.. .. there goes your country’s money train right? I bet the North Korea Nuclear Facility didn’t come with a Guarentee Policy.

  38. he possiblity of an attack on Iran.. ..

    Let’s tell you some thing, during the crises “Axis of Evil” the outcome was attacking the lowest threat country to US as far as now we know.

    Now We have Iran Syria? which one you think will be next?

  40. will be the United States by Iran.

    read gcotharn comment well… before been out of the blue.

  41. Hi Vince, I’m back from Israel, truly inspiring, very interesting, perhaps more hopeful than I was expecting… Up from a nap I noticed your little dialogue here. Too bad life “ain’t perfect”, and all the world’s problems couldn’t be solved in five years, must be Bush’s fault… People don’t have enough respect for the profound accomplishments in Iraq since 2003, and eventual hope for the future for millions of people there and in that proximity. It has diffused, if only modestly at this point, but profoundly, a significant potential danger point at a strategically critical location in the geography as well as the geopolitical “equation”. No doubt some fool will ask me to justify, explain and extrapolate how I can make that general comment. But history will vindicate Bush’s leadership on this war. The Iraqi people have a fighting chance now, if the dims don’t blow it, as they appear to be planning. The assumption that the pre-2003 stand-off, status quo, with Saddam was a preferable and reliable long-term situation is just shallow, pure naivete. No doubt, once Saddam had eventually lost power, just by old age alone, Iraq would have been prime pickings for Iran and it’s Iraqi allies. Imagine our forces (or Israel alone) facing a united Iraq-Iran in another two decades, a very real scenario, this war would look like a cake dance. It’s 1938 again, but this time at least a few people have learned from history. We’re so lucky to live somewhere where we can have these kinds of free dialogues, on a blog like this, and with the freedom to carry a gun, if absolutely necessary, when someone emails death threats…

  42. hi PD.. Isn’t Israel amazing place to visit? It’s been 10 years since I was there.

    I’ve come to the conclusion that the Democrats

    1 – are totally ignorant of history and truely are blind to the diaster they will cause if they cause a premature surrender

    or

    2 – They know but just dont’ care because they are madly driven by a lust for power.

    I think it’s number 2.

  44. if absolutely necessary, when someone emails death threats…

    I wish to believe this very confident felling.

    The terrorist OBL still a live and still not charged in his home country for his crimes only he striped from his citizenship.

    I hope we hear soon with the freedom to carry a gun, if absolutely necessary some one shoot him or bring him to the court to stop his ugly fanatic videos and massages

  45. I’m sure it’s #2, the current state of the Democratic Party is a national tragedy, an embarrassment for America.

  47. Truth, where do you live? Can you tell us?

    In this world village somewhere where we can have these kinds of free dialogues, on a blog like this, with sensible mindset and wisdom view be shared with all respect of other views without bulling where learning of human interactions built on love and respect without personal attack.

    If I tell you where I am living in x-land did that make difference to you?

  48. “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.”

    Samuel P. Huntington

    The paradox is that the superiority in applying organized violence came not from greater cruelty but from greater virtue, as Victor Hanson ably proves in Carnage and Culture. The corallary is that when we no longer have the virtue, we will eventually fall to those whose life strategy is greater cruelty.

  49. Truth Says:

    “Don’t be hypocrite with histrionic commenting here. Before you write your crap here you should forwarded to your thinker Samuel P. Huntington.”

    Cut the projection. He’s rude but has a point. Don’t use the tone to dodge the question.

    Yes, western culture creates well organized militaries that tend to win. So what? What’s wrong with that? Does than mean they shouldn’t win? Why not / as in why should other sides be winning?

    Syria is a messed up dictatorship. Instead of fighting American philosophy as a form of imperialistic western thought that uses well applied force… maybe consider if it wouldn’t help your shit hole country to embrace it… Read up on Jefferson and Madison… instead of Chomskyite bs…

  50. “x-land”? Yes, it makes a difference, for depth of perpective and understanding. I’m from Denver, Colorado, USA. Are you afraid to say where you live, just approximately, because you fear your government moniters your internet connections?

  51. Why not / as in why should other sides be winning?

    Did I say they shouldn’t?

    I think people went far in their claims and bulling here.

    whoever have the power and imitative to run the show then go forward, but let be honest here if you and other talking here about the wining and power master then labeling other historical power as murders, savages all these claims looks dodge of history of power start winners, isn’t?

  52. Read up on Jefferson and Madison… instead of Chomskyite bs…

    Go and read The Code Of Law written by Hammurabi and here

    When Marduk sent me to rule over men, to give the protection of right to the land, I did right and righteousness in . . . , and brought about the well-being of the oppressed.

  53. Someone should invent a game .. I dont know what you would call it.. but you have to debate an unseen/unknown person and then at you have to guess… is he a muslim or a Leftist

  54. Vince P:

    In Re: “Truth”

    I quote Ms Lucy vasn Pelt in “Peanuts” referring to Ali bin “Truth”…

    “Have you ruled out stupidity?”

    And speaking of shit-holes, Ali bin Truth, just what shit-hole do you inhabit?

  55. Just shows how some people from civilized world are mirroring themselves by their own words like those troublesome people on the other side of the world

  56. Imagine our forces (or Israel alone) facing a united Iraq-Iran in another two decades, a very real scenario, this war would look like a cake dance. It’s 1938 again,

    Iran’s Nuclear Case

  57. “is he a muslim or a Leftist”

    We know them to be both (by some past posts) so they aren’t that unknown. However I’m not sure that gender has been established.

  58. str: i meant a random person.. I know Truth is a Muslim.

    I’ve been on a few things where the person arguing with me has not revealed where he is coming from ideologically. and it’s really hard to tell sometimes if he’s a Muslim or a Leftists when they dont give enough info.

  60. Truth Says:

    Syrians are oppressed. Iraqis were and we’ve been working on liberating them (obviously the work is not done). How about you read it and maybe take it to heart.

  61. Truth Says:

    “whoever have the power and imitative to run the show then go forward, but let be honest here if you and other talking here about the wining and power master then labeling other historical power as murders, savages all these claims looks dodge of history of power start winners, isn’t?”

    Lets be honest… your the one talking about power. My vision of a ‘win’ would be for Iraq to be both free and a successful / powerful country… an enormous win would be for the other countries in the region to demand the same (and overthrow their dictatorships, themselves, in favor of classical liberalism)….

    You can’t let go of power (empire?) narrative… which you project onto our actions and intentions…

  62. Ah, John Kerry. What an embarrassment he must be to thoughtful Americans.
    Here he is, sounding like a complete idiot, in what is quite possibly, the most ignorant and ill-informed political endorsement I have ever heard – see if you agree. http://youtube.com/watch?v=T71c2FXsbEw

    apologies to those who have read this twice – I first posted in the wrong thread

  63. Lets be honest… your the one talking about power. My vision of a ‘win’ would be for Iraq to be both free and a successful / powerful country… an enormous win

    I wish too this, in my deep heart I will dance if that happen but what we saw I thing we fool ourselves by saying this for now.

  64. Link exchabge is nothuing else excespt it is only placing tthe otrher person’s webpage link on your page at propedr place and ther person will also doo saame in supportt of
    you.

    Alsso visit mmy blopg post: yahoo.com (Ellis)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑