John Kerry: Still Wrong After All These Years

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


A year and a half before Osama bin Laden was found living in a compound at the heart of Pakistan’s military establishment, Senator John Kerry was celebrating the passage of the “Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act,” also known as the Kerry-Lugar Pakistan Bill. Under either name, Kerry was offering a rather sizable giveaway to a government that had a long history of ties to the Islamic terrorists that the United States was fighting.

Kerry, along with the bill’s co-sponsors, issued an explanatory statement to clarify why they would be directing 1.5 billion dollars a year over five years to a state sponsor of terrorism.

“The core intent of the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act is to demonstrate the American people’s long-term commitment to the people of Pakistan. The United States values its friendship with the Pakistani people and honors the great sacrifices made by Pakistani security forces in the fight against extremism…  There are no conditions on Pakistan attached to the authorization of $7.5 billion in non-military aid.”

A year and a half later, after the Bin Laden raid, the man whom Pakistan’s top diplomat in D.C. described as a “steadfast friend of Pakistan” was sent once again as an envoy to the terrorist state. It was not the first time in his long career that Kerry had been dispatched to make nice with an enemy of the United States.

In 1971, 40 years before he flew off to Pakistan, Kerry had headed the Vietnam Veterans Against the War delegation that met with the Viet Cong in Paris. It was the first time that the future senator, presidential candidate and Secretary of State would meet with enemy leaders. It would not be the last.

Over the next forty years Kerry would reinvent himself numerous times, transforming from an anti-war activist disgusted by the uniform to a war hero reporting for duty as he sought to corner both sides of the market, but his flirtation with tyrants and tyrannies, particularly those hostile to the United States, never changed.

The murderous Viet Cong gave way to the Sandinistas of Nicaragua. Ho Chi Minh gave way to Assad. Vietnam gave way to Pakistan. But at no point during those long 40 years, a biblical number often linked to transformation and change, did John Forbes Kerry learn anything at all from his countless mistakes.

Kerry had hardly managed to win his first term in the Senate when he was back on a plane, this time to Nicaragua for a meeting with another Communist terrorist group. The Sandinista anthem called the “Yankee” the enemy of mankind and a year before Kerry’s visit, Daniel Ortega had threatened the United States with war while crowds of his supporters had chanted, “Here or There, Yankees Will Die Everywhere.”

The Sandinistas had ethnically cleansed the Miskito Afro-Indians and destroyed Nicaragua’s Jewish community. But none of that deterred Kerry from shaking hands with Ortega and urging Reagan to make a deal with him.

“We negotiated with North Vietnam… they just want to get rid of them [the Sandinistas], they want to throw them out, they don’t want to talk to them,” Kerry whined. And Kerry did want to talk them. To the Viet Cong, to the Sandinistas and to anyone else who hated the United States and wished us harm.

Of FARC, the Colombian Marxist Narcoterrorist group, Kerry said that they had “legitimate complaints.” When it came to Cuba, Kerry killed democracy funding for the island just last year and complained that the United States clings to a Cuba “policy that has manifestly failed for nearly 50 years.” By that Kerry meant the Castro embargo, which he had steadily opposed for as long as he had been in the Senate.

But Kerry wasn’t just wrong when it came to Latin American Marxists; he was equally wrong in the Middle East.

In 2009, Kerry visited Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad and described Syria as “an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region.” Kerry’s visits to Syria and gushing about Assad grew so torrid that even the Washington Post described him as a “prominent admirer” of Assad.

Last year at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Kerry bragged about his close relationship with Assad and gushed, “Syria will change, as it embraces a legitimate relationship with the United States and the West and the economic opportunity that comes with it and the participation that comes with it.”

But then Kerry had a long history of getting the Middle East wrong, of supporting tyrants and terrorists.

Two years ago, Kerry wrote a letter of support for Code Pink activists bound on a mission of support for Hamas. “My staff has met with members of the group and is impressed with their ability, dedication and commitment to the peace process.“  The letter was used to allow a political march from Egypt into Gaza and a meeting with Hamas leaders.

And there’s Iraq, an enduring part of the Kerry legend, because in few places did Senator Kerry get it as wrong, as often, as he did in Iraq. While it’s famously believed that Kerry flip-flopped once on Iraq, going from pro-war to anti-war, he actually shifted gears and directions a dizzying number of times.

Before the original Gulf War, Kerry urged Bush I to give Saddam Hussein room to back off, negotiating an Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait in exchange for allowing Iraq to make a claim on some Kuwaiti territory and proposing some Israeli concessions as well. He claimed that threatening Saddam “stiffened Iraq’s resolve and weakened America’s.”

After the war, Kerry turned into a hawk, saying of Bush that, “The administration has basically sided with Saddam Hussein” and demanded that Saddam be tried for environmental terrorism. During the Clinton Administration, Kerry called for using ground troops to force Saddam out of power. It was no surprise at all when during the Bush Administration, Kerry flipped in reverse, going from a strong supporter of the war to a strong opponent of it.

In the spring of last year, Senator Kerry met with Mohammed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s new tyrant in Egypt, and said that, “in our discussions, Mr. Morsi committed to protecting fundamental freedoms, including women’s rights, minority rights, the right to free expression and assembly.”

Six months later, Morsi’s thugs were beating political opponents in the street and ‘Always Wrong’ Kerry had another notch in his belt.

“How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” Kerry had asked during his Senate testimony, and throughout his decades in the Senate, with the power of the same committee that he had once testified before behind him, he had done his best to see to it that Americans and people from all nations would die for his mistakes.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • JanSuzanne

    Daniel…I saw John Kerry back in the late 60's when he came to the huge anti-Vietnam rally in Central Park in NYC and spoke to the thousands of anti-Vietnam demonstrators. I was close up to him, documenting the event, and could see where he was really coming from. He was preparing himself, as early as 1968, to become President. He is a liar, a manipulator, an opportunist and a traitor! I rallied against his presidential bid almost as much as I did against President Obama. Now we have to rally against him becoming Secretary of State. Hillary out, Kerry in…they have the same agenda, and both traitors to our country. The only problem is that Obama has no intention of nominating anyone that any person, other than a leftist, would approve of. Kerry is better than Rice!

    • OldmanRick

      Just to keep the record straight, scary Kerry – besides being a marxist – is a sorry sack of siberian sheep droppings(PC). He is anything but an American patriot.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    In the spring of last year, Senator Kerry met with Mohammed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s new tyrant in Egypt, and said that, “in our discussions, Mr. Morsi committed to protecting fundamental freedoms, including women’s rights, minority rights, the right to free expression and assembly.”

    Just like 0'Bama and Chamberlain.

  • pierce

    John Kerry is better than Susan Rice for this job, but that does not mean he is good for this job. He does not look at the world thru lenses that see the world thru, but then the left never could see the world the way it is. In 2004, he wanted in the worst way to become President, but it was not to be. The Swift Boat Vets saw to that.
    Now, even though it is still wrong, there is no way we can deny our president (Obama) what he wants. If he feels that strongly about Kerry, let it be, but if it were me, it would never happen. It is hard to imagine how much this world has changed in the few short years since 2009, but the Muslim Brotherhood has seen to that.

  • http://twitter.com/USnavy1967 @USnavy1967

    As we discuss the issue of weather Kerry is or is not right for the job, the POTUS sits on his throne and laughs. He will be confirmed as Sec. of State and again he will make an A– of himself and our country. The leftist/Marxist government that is in power will make sure of this with the every lovable Harry in the Senate. We are becoming a leftist/socialist/Marxist country.

  • VanZorge

    i thoroughly oppose rewarding kerry for his lifetime of treachery. even though he is a perfect match for obama, there are principles involved here. kerry betrayed his bothers in arms while they were dying in the fields of VN; he has consorted with the enemies of america; he has consistently changed his political positions in order to further his own gain. for these reasons alone we cannot sit quietly by and say that there is nothing that we can do about opposing him.

    • Elaine

      And for all of the reasons you cited, that is why Obama chose him. The agenda of Obama is to crush America because America is the child of British colonialism which in his view, is the source of the world's conflicts. In Obama and Kerry's view, all of the terrorists, despots, dictators and mass murderers of the world are simply fighting against British colonialism. That is why the left always defends them and why Obama is working so hard to destroy all of America's allies and bring to power the most anti-America leaders throughout the world.

  • Asher

    If Kerry still things our troops were the abusers in the fashion of Ghengis Khan, then he is unfit for the position!

  • Daphne

    Why do you think that John Kerry is "wrong". I think that he is clearly doing exactly what he wants to do in accordance with his own ideology.

  • Ed Shick

    Why do we even consider a man whose friends are all enemies of the United States ,, I know our president looks for this type as I have never heard of a Friend of Obama as being a good Christian , they are all rev. Wright or lower , Even to see him you have to go through Valleri Jarrot , born in Iran , Holder is so corrupt , but our congress just ignores it. , What is happening with Benghazi investigation? fast & furrious , actually Voter fraud , why would any one vote for any of the top democrats today ,, seems they are more interested in being for the rest of the world ,,,, They love UN ,, we should get out of it ,,

  • poptoy1949

    Absolutely the wrong man for the job. But given this is the Obama Administration I am not surprised. Will Jane Fonda become his assistant? GOD help us and we have 4 more years of this!!!!!

  • STEVE CHAVEZ

    ION PACEPA has a great article on the real John Kerry. Google; John Kerry World Peace Council KGB. Article from FPM.

    BARACK OBAMA is another person described by Pacepa since Obama was also a dupe of the KGB while a college student. Amazing how these college protesters are now leading the United States!

  • southwood

    Daniel, if you are trying to maintain that Assad should be replaced by the rebels then you are truly nuts.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      I am in the pox on both their houses division.

      • southwood

        I am no great fan of Assad, neither was one of Mubarak or Gaddafi, but in all three cases, removing them was/would be to unleash the ravening wolves of Islamic violence.

  • elixelx

    "Before the original Gulf War, Kerry urged Bush I to give Saddam Hussein room to back off, negotiating an Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait in exchange for allowing Iraq to make a claim on some Kuwaiti territory and proposing some Israeli concessions as well."
    Israeli Concessions? What the Hell had Israel to do with Saddaam's invasion of Kuwait?
    THIS is the insidious anti-Israel Kerry; If India and Pakistan sit down over Kashmir and Israel makes some concessions there will be peace. If Syria and the rebels do ditto, ditto. AND MOST OF ALL: if Israel makes concessions America and Iran can defuse the entire nuclear kerfuffle!
    Well, Mr Prognathous! There will be no more concessions on our part!
    Disappointed? You must be, given the long face….

  • DrBukk

    Anastasia O'Grady also has a good article on his record in Latin America in the WSJ today. She reminds us of Kerry's exaltation of Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega was "flacking for jackboots". There is a panoply of Kerry's friends and admirers whose names must be hung around his neck in these hearings.

  • SocialistBill

    If President Obama were serious about putting a new face on his foreign policy, he'd nominate someone like Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader. Failing those, Chuck Hagel would be a good choice. The days of American supremacy are coming to a close, and it's time that the United States plays by the rules of the international community. No more capitalist exploitation of developing countries. Immediate ratification of all international climate treaties. Destruction of American nuclear stockpiles. Dissolution of the CIA. An end to all American military presence around the world and a drastic reduction in the Department of Defense. An immediate end of aid to Zionist Israel and an American-led boycott on the Tel Aviv regime until it ends the occupation and recognizes Palestine. These measures are the only ways to ensure the continued safety and prosperity of the American people in the 21st century.

    • BS77

      those who are truly brainwashed never know it. Sound familiar? You are one of the indoctrinated leftist shills , clueless, irrational and delusional.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "No more capitalist exploitation of developing countries"

      Deluded freak.

      "Destruction of American nuclear stockpiles. Dissolution of the CIA. An end to all American military presence around the world and a drastic reduction in the Department of Defense. An immediate end of aid to Zionist Israel and an American-led boycott on the Tel Aviv regime until it ends the occupation and recognizes Palestine. These measures are the only ways to ensure the continued safety and prosperity of the American people in the 21st century."

      Deluded communist on lysergide.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "These measures are the only ways to ensure the continued safety and prosperity of the American people in the 21st century."

      You're clearly insane, but this statement is hilarious. A completely insane communist imagining "prosperity of the American people" after all of the productive citizens are eliminated. It's the epitome of black comedy.

    • Omar

      "SocialistBill", nobody wants to hear your Communist/Islamist propaganda. The world has had enough of Communist/Islamist exploitation of the world's countries. There should be a boycott of the Hamas/Hezbollah/ Iran/Muslim Brotherhood regimes in the Middle East. Why don't you denounce the Communist Chinese occupation of Tibet. Unlike "Palestine" (which is a geographical region, not an ethnicity), the Tibetans are an actual ethnic group and Tibet was an actual country. Why don't you denounce the KGB's successor, the FSB. Quit repeating leftist/Islamist propaganda and learn from facts.

    • Ghostwriter

      Sorry,SocialistBill. That's not going to happen any time soon. And I hope your Christmas ISN'T merry.

  • reader

    "These measures are the only ways to ensure the continued safety and prosperity of the American people in the 21st century."

    …this is a proud product (of an american educational system being dumbed down the sewer) speaking. Orwellian through an through, and with straight face.

  • LEE

    Reading all the above blogs gets me to thinking: If all the bloggers that don't trust Obama or Kerry actually voted for Romney we wouldn't be faced with the treasonous Kerry appointment.

    To be honest, why complain so much since we all know 50% of Catholics and 71% of Hispanics, a majority of single women and college kids, a majority of union people and nearly all black voters voted for Obama. If he had only received 50% of the above vote Romney would be President today.

    So, stop complaining and put your vote were your mouth is in 2016 and we may get a conservative thinking person as President. Votes count and complaining is useless..

    • jacob

      Only if we purge the media from the leftist scum controlling it and if we can't, then boycott it…..

  • Omar

    One of the things that Kerry doesn't realize is that there is no embargo on Cuba. There is only limited sanctions. To learn the truth about Cuba, people should read Humberto Fontova's books and articles.

  • Ghostwriter

    It's a shame we can't give Senator Kerry a fool's cap or a dunce cap. He richly deserves both.

  • Jasmin

    With his unflinching support of Pakistan, Indians call him John Kerrorist. Think about it for a minute, if you would.

  • CLB

    hmmmm….taps pencil on desktop while thinking…..Obama since the beginning of his presidency has worked very hard at and told his companions that he wants to be a dictator, has shoved Congress
    aside to pass the obamacare, is asking and probably will think of the way to get the "blank check" he has
    asked for, enraged the Catholic Religion when he freely gave out condoms and pills to people, word has it that his wife was divorcing him before he ran for president, interferes in our personal religious beliefs, has taken the God name out of the Pledge of Allegiance, Courts etc., paid an enormous amount of money to
    entice the latinos to vote for him, etc etc etc. He is a liar, cheater and traitor in things he has done. Now why would anyone question that he appointed the cruel, evil Kerry to be his play mate?

  • jacob

    If it is true that birds of a feather flock together, we must not forget Mrs. HEINZ…..er KERRY

  • LewWaters

    November 9, 1997 Kerry delivered a Senate Floor Speech he titled "WE MUST BE FIRM WITH SADDAM HUSSEIN."

    In it, he said in part, " Even after the overwhelming defeat that the coalition forces visited upon Iraq in and near Kuwait in the Desert Storm conflict, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's truculence has continued unabated. In the final days of that conflict, a fateful decision was made not to utterly vanquish the Iraqi Government and armed forces, on the grounds that to do so would leave a risky vacuum, as some then referred to it, in the Middle East which Iran or Syria or other destabilizing elements might move to fill."

    He doesn't admit that it was he who urged such a "fateful decision."

    He also said in the same speech, "Plainly and simply, Saddam Hussein cannot be permitted to get away
    with his antics, or with this latest excuse for avoidance of international responsibility," and "We must recognize that there is no indication that Saddam Hussein has any intention of relenting. So we have an obligation of enormous consequence, an obligation to guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot ignore the United Nations. He cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation. If he remains obdurate, I believe that the United Nations must take, and should authorize immediately, whatever steps are necessary to force him to relent–and that the United States should support and participate in those steps."

    After calling for a strong UN Military response, he went on to say, "Should the resolve of our allies wane to pursue this matter until an acceptable inspection process has been reinstituted–which I hope will not occur and which I am pleased to say at this moment does not seem to have even begun–the United States must not lose its resolve to take action."

    We all know what his actions were when we did have the resolve to take action.

  • omar kahlid

    Kerry has a very strange life. The shame he must feel for lying about everything for his whole life must be immense. A lie for a service record, lies before congress, lies as a member of congress that took an oath. A lifetime lie of being a husband when he was there for the money.Although not even near Obama's ability to lie, cheat and deceive, Kerry no less will die in shame the same as Murtha, Kennedy and soon to be Frank. Poetic justice will be Frank getting down with HIV and having his backside cut out.

  • ealha3

    This is merely another example of the disaster we suffer from the election and our fall in to an abyss. I have no doubt the administration would have chosen Jane Fonda as either an Ambassador or Under Secretary of State if they had thought of it because, in the words of Clinton, "… they could." This is an administration that will execute any order it desires because there is no meaningful opposition, either by the media or any relevant political party. Our form of government makes impeachment a political possibility only and there is no political will to hold this administration accountable for any criminal act either foreign or domestic. One wonders as we suffer the crash, if it's even worth the effort to fasten the safety belt.

  • JacksonPearson

    "John Kerry: Still Wrong After All These Years"
    Any person that hates America and our military, can NEVER get it right. I blame the Progressives in Massachusetts that keep voting this dirt bag into office.

  • Geoffrey Blake

    As I recall. Kerry during his testimony before Congress about his experiences in Viet-Nam said that in 1968 he and his group enterred Cambodia, and as they set up camp for the night, they tuned in the radio and heard Nixon deny that they were there. Strange that a Yale graduate did not know who was President in 1968. As Nixon was a candidate for the office of President, it is unlkely that he would have known of Kerry's entry into Camodia on the very day that entry occurred. Had he known he would have used it as ammunition against the Democrats rather than denying that the incursion occurred

  • Gordon

    What is next- – - – -Jane Fonda for Secretary of Defense.