Why the Senate Shouldn’t Give John Kerry a Pass

In nominating John Kerry for Secretary of State and Chuck Hagel for Defense, Barack Obama has highlighted both men’s combat service in Vietnam. In doing so Obama repeats the common fallacy that combat experience necessarily qualifies someone to make decisions about when, why, and how to conduct a war, decisions that in our political system are reserved for citizens and their representatives whether veterans or not. In fact, though, often those same experiences––whatever they teach about the horrors of combat, or reveal about the bravery and character of those who experience it––can distort someone’s judgment about the larger aims and purposes war serves, leading to dangerous policies.

A dramatic example of how combat experience can distort foreign affairs can be found in England’s disastrous foreign policy after World War I. The gruesome carnage of that conflict obsessed the British in the Twenties and Thirties. Numerous novels and “trench reminiscences” written by veterans, as historian Corelli Barnett writes, “had an immediate relevance to the present and the future. What began as an epitaph ended as a warning. As a warning, the war books seemed to say that war was so terrible and futile that the British ought to keep out of another one at any cost.” The result was the pacifism, reckless disarmament, and misplaced faith in diplomacy to forestall conflict that emboldened Germany and lead to World War II.

Vietnam has often played a similar role in American foreign policy over the last 40 years, as can be seen in Obama’s picks for defense and Secretary of State. Hagel’s more egregious and frequently discussed track record of blunders will no doubt raise more questions and invite more scrutiny during his confirmation hearings. But the Senate’s clubby bonhomie that often sacrifices principle for amity will probably make Kerry a shoo-in. A closer look at his foreign policy record, however, reveals that his Vietnam-shaped vision of American power will ensure he carries out Obama’s program to change America from a global leader to a “partner mindful of his own imperfections,” as candidate Obama wrote in Foreign Affairs, one more comfortable with “leading from behind.”

The politicized history of Vietnam, which many veterans legitimized with their personal wartime experiences, has frequently distorted U.S. foreign policy. The narrative that America had “lost” the war because it was an unjust, neo-colonial interference in a civil war in which we backed the corrupt side, and a mismanaged conflict marked with unprecedented brutality and atrocities against civilians, created a “never again” mentality redolent of many British politicians in the 1920s and 1930s. The “lessons” of Vietnam taught that given our unjust conduct of the war, we should avoid such adventurism by raising the bar so high for American intervention that in effect the U.S would never respond militarily except to a direct attack on the homeland. Instead, multilateral diplomacy, non-lethal sanctions, a focus on human rights, and trusting the U.N. and other multinational institutions became the only legitimate means for protecting our national security and pursuing our interests. As a result, during the 70s when Jimmy Carter endorsed this philosophy, the Soviet Union went on a geopolitical rampage that didn’t end until Ronald Reagan was elected and for a time restored our nerve.

That narrative, of course, was in the main a left-wing fable. The brutality of Vietnam was not exceptionally excessive, the Soviet Union and China were indeed aggressively attacking the West and its allies through proxies in order to extend communism’s reach, and in fact the war was not lost militarily, but thrown away politically. The true lesson of Vietnam is that a conflict won on the field of battle can still be un-won by feckless politicians.

Which brings us to John Kerry, who has pursued and endorsed policies that follow from that erroneous “lesson” of Vietnam. Kerry, of course, notoriously began his public career by slandering his fellow veterans in his April 1971 Senate testimony. There he decried the “war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.” He went on to catalogue these crimes in which U.S. soldiers “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, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.”

Kerry then went on to recycle the false left-wing “lesson” of Vietnam: that “there is nothing in South Vietnam, nothing which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy.” Rather than a pushback against communist aggression in the defense of freedom, the conflict was “a civil war, an effort by a people who had for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence.” He then placed Vietnam in the larger context of the leftist view of the Cold War currently being recycled in Oliver Stones’ Showtime series: the “United States is still reacting in very much the 1945 mood and postwar cold-war period when we reacted to the forces which were at work in World War II and came out of it with this paranoia about the Russians and how the world was going to be divided up between the super powers.” Thus in Vietnam “right now we are reacting with paranoia to this question of peace and the people taking over the world,” and the “so-called Communist monolith.”

Influenced by this narrative, Kerry’s subsequent foreign policy career in the Senate has been marked in the main by being on the wrong side of just about every issue. He voted against the authorization of force for the 1991 Persian Gulf War, arguing instead for sanctions as Hussein’s troops brutally plundered Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia. Despite his initial vote authorizing the 2003 war in Iraq, he later called the liberation of Iraqis from a psychopathic mass-murderer the result of “the most inept, reckless, arrogant and ideological foreign policy in modern history.” Like then Senator Obama, he opposed the 2007 “surge” in Iraq, calling it “a tragic mistake” that “won’t end the violence; it won’t provide security; . . . it won’t turn back the clock and avoid the civil war that is already underway; it won’t deter terrorists, who have a completely different agenda; it won’t rein in the militias,” predictions all falsified by the success of the surge. Later in 2007, he voted in favor of a Senate resolution to withdraw all U.S. troops within 90 days. Here too he agreed with Senator Obama, who also opposed the surge, which he called “a mistake” and a “reckless escalation.” In his Foreign Affairs article of the same year, he called the war in Iraq a “civil war” and Vietnam-like “morass.” As for Afghanistan, last June Kerry called that conflict “unsustainable” and prodded Obama to hasten our withdrawal, something the president just announced he intends to do. The result will be a repeat of the failure of Vietnam: hard-won military success will likely be squandered as Iraq falls under the influence of Iran, and Afghanistan once again provides a haven for the jihadist Taliban.

On other issues Kerry’s aversion to military force and preference for diplomatic outreach, symptoms of the “Vietnam syndrome,” have led to foreign policy blunders. He called Bashar al-Assad’s Syria “an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region” and made 6 visits to woo that thug regime even as it was hosting and arming terrorist outfits like Hezbollah, cozying up to Iran, and facilitating the transit of terrorists into Iraq, during one period over 90% of jihadists travelling to Iraq to kill our troops. He’s endorsed the received wisdom on Israel, obsessing over settlements as obstacles to a two-state solution, calling Israel’s defensive fence that has dramatically reduced terrorist attacks a “barrier to peace,” and telling Middle Eastern leaders that Israel should return the Golan Heights to Syria. During the 90s, when al Qaeda launched its series of attacks on U.S. interests that culminated on 9/11, Kerry was supporting massive cuts in the intelligence budgets and pledged to “almost eliminate CIA activity.” When he ran for president in 2004, he called terrorism a “nuisance” like prostitution, and just recently asserted that a dubious global warming is as dangerous as 9/11 or Iran getting nukes.

As Kerry’s record of flip-flopping statements shows, much of his behavior can be explained by political opportunism. But his foreign policy vision is one reflecting the so-called “lessons” of Vietnam forged by the left 40 years ago. It is a vision that doubts America’s rightness to be the dominant global power, that distrusts America’s military power, and that privileges multilateral diplomacy and unaccountable multinational coalitions over the will of the American people as expressed through their elected representatives. In short, as America’s chief diplomat Kerry will be a faithful servant of Barack Obama’s foreign policy of American retreat and decline.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    Kerry is as post-American, in his views, as Hagel. In fact, both heart with tyrants and unabashedly position themselves on the side of anti-western policy. Moreover, one should rightfully argue, his wife's activities surely should disqualify him, being that her Tides Foundation is in bed with every manner of anti-western activity.
    However, the fact that Kerry and wifey are "in bed" with George Soros renders him as a natural pick for the Radical/Islamist-in-Chief.
    As such, radical revolutionaries do what they do best – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/10/07/when-authenti
    Bottom Line:Barack HUSSEIN Obama is going for broke.
    Adina Kutnicki, Israel – http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

    • EthanP

      Legally, the question is "will Kerry serve to impliment the policies of the President." The answer must be "yes". The fact that you and I agree that Kerry is a radical leftist and possibly a traitor is, unfortunately irrelevent. So is the sitting President. Elections have consequenses. Obama won. He is now free to complete the destruction of the Republic. The only way to stop him is to elect a truelly conservative majority in the House ans Senate!

    • JacksonPearson

      I think there's an issue that everyone is missing about Hanoi John. Because of the size of his large face, it takes him an extra long time to shave in the morning, and would make him late for work. /Sarkmark

  • objectivefactsmatter

    "Which brings us to John Kerry, who has pursued and endorsed policies that follow from that erroneous “lesson” of Vietnam. Kerry, of course, notoriously began his public career by slandering his fellow veterans in his April 1971 Senate testimony. There he decried the “war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.” He went on to catalogue these crimes in which U.S. soldiers “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, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.”"

    Only in this environment if having several generations of anti-American voters can such a man be elected to any political office in this nation. He's a member of the Democratic Party? What a surprise.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    "Thus in Vietnam “right now we are reacting with paranoia to this question of peace and the people taking over the world,” and the “so-called Communist monolith.”"

    Read the Soviet archives, idiot.

    • Mary Sue

      I would posit to you that Kerry is, himself, paranoid.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "I would posit to you that Kerry is, himself, paranoid."

        It's a huge part of the leftist delusion to imagine conspiracies at work by the "Evil Empire" i.e. the USA. When they mocked others for being concerned about the Soviets, it wasn't because they were exceptionally skeptical but rather because they blamed all of the Soviet aggression on the "evil conspiracies" of the USA.

        IOW, I agree with you.

  • David Gebhardt

    Bruce Thornton's limited education and youth apparent with his misspelling of shoo-in. Oldsters like me know its correct form is: shoe-in.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      Be sure to inform everyone else. Thanks
      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shoo-in

      • Pam Dale

        David Gebhardt is correct, and MW is w-r-o-n-g. It comes from the infamous jockey, Willie Shoemaker. Put your money on any horse he was riding 'cause it was a shoe-in to win.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "David Gebhardt is correct, and MW is w-r-o-n-g. It comes from the infamous jockey, Willie Shoemaker. Put your money on any horse he was riding 'cause it was a shoe-in to win."

          He was making a pun. Did he spell it out over the PA system?

        • objectivefactsmatter

          http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-sho1.htm

          This one is spelled wrongly so often that it’s likely it will eventually end up that way. The correct form is shoo-in, usually with a hyphen. It has been known in that spelling and with the meaning of a certain winner from the 1930s. It came from horse racing, where a shoo-in was the winner of a rigged race.

          In turn that seems to have come from the verb shoo, meaning to drive a person or an animal in a given direction by making noises or gestures, which in turn comes from the noise people often make when they do it.

          The shift to the horse racing sense seems to have occurred sometime in the early 1900s. C E Smith made it clear how it came about in his Racing Maxims and Methods of Pittsburgh Phil in 1908: “There were many times presumably that ‘Tod’ would win through such manipulations, being ‘shooed in’, as it were”.

          –Where was Willie in 1908?

    • mlcblog

      I agree, and details can matter. I applaud your care of our beautiful, versatile, and easy (once mastered) English language that can flow and adapt but does have rules and correct conventions that protect it.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "I agree,"

      With what?

      "and details can matter."

      Yes they do. This one doesn't, except it exemplifies how confident people are even when they're wrong about such silly things. I personally thought he was joking.

      "I applaud your care of our beautiful, versatile, and easy (once mastered) English language that can flow and adapt but does have rules and correct conventions that protect it."

      OK then. David was either joking or ignorant.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    John Kerry serves only John Kerry first and leftist, communist, socialist and Islamist agendas
    for the purpose of having and adoring base while Patriotic Americans are suspect and should
    be under government control in his feted mind. It would be possible to go on endlessly hammering
    a rat like Kerry but to what point, he is a prime example of all that is wrong with our elected
    elites, our enemies from within………………………William

  • Asher

    Kerry, Hagel, and Jack Lew are all lousy choices…all are radicals committed to the Communist Empire. When you want drastic destructive change, you put radicals in your cabnet.

  • Argus

    The breadth of Kerry's sordid record has yet to be exposed. Only recently, buried in a December 21, 2012, Boston Globe article ( http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/… ), we learn that the United States Navy TWICE petitioned the Nixon administration to COURT MARTIAL John Kerry (quite plausibly for TREASON) but were restrained from doing so by political expediency.

    Think about that. We are now about the business of elevating an individual to Sect. of State who would have been COURT MARTIALED by his branch of service.

    It is incumbent upon any confirmation committee to fully review John Kerry's record of service to include the ENTIRETY of his military records. To do less will be an abrogation of the oath they swore upon assuming office.

    • EthanP

      We have a Manchurian President. Is he not entitled to a Manchurian Sec of State? One traitor deserves another.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "We have a Manchurian President. Is he not entitled to a Manchurian Sec of State? One traitor deserves another."

        In the morality of traitors, of course. In Western morality, they're each shot when discovered.

    • VanZorge

      please view the anti-kerry video that i made, and pass it along to your friends.
      note that while the comment section is reserved exclusively for veterans, non-vets can view, "like", and share the video.
      i am asking that when vets post that they give their DATES OF SERVICE – i want kerry to know that the vets are still breathing down his wretched neck!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWlHojVRH7g

    • objectivefactsmatter

      http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/

      “It takes a certain period of time to get over losing the presidency, but eventually he accommodated quite well,” said Tom Hayden, a political activist and former California legislator who has known Kerry since their days protesting the Vietnam War. “The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is not like a presidency in the wings, but its reach, its powers, its personnel, is enormous. In his mind, he was operating a virtual secretary of state office.”

      That's all that matters to these radical hippies; as long as they're imagining the politically correct visions they ought to be able to imagine a great Utopian future in to reality (somehow). Make him president, secretary of state, whatever. Just visualize peace, "social justice" and love for all mankind. And don't get in our way or you'll end up dead.

    • Walt

      Bruce didn't go quite far enough in his military profile of John Kerry. Kerry was 'proven' to be a liar and a coward by hundreds of his shipmates in Vietnam! He self-inflicted his 'wounds' (3 – which never required a doctor or corpsman, only a band aide) because he knew that three Purple Hearts got you removed from combat/Vietnam. If I am not mistaken, he was only in Vietnam about three months! Going by what the real sailors on the Swiftboats said, they were happy to get rid of his cowardice azz.

      After leaving VN, supposedly throwing his medals (they belonged to someone else) over the White House fence and then bad-mouthing the US in Paris, Kerry attained the vaunted status of Jane Fonda – the darling of left even to this day.

      When Kerry was running for president against President Bush, he 'promised' that he was going to release ALL of his US Navy records. That was 2005 – it is now 2013 and still no sight of those records; Congress should at least demand those records during confirmation hearings.

      CPO, USN, Ret. 1955-1974
      Vietnam 1967-1968

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

    Cause he is a yellow liar and a braggart.

  • watsa46

    In the mean time the US has lost every single war except for Granada!!!!!!! Afghanistan will be a loss.
    Obama gave Iraq to Iran hoping to engage the Iranians. We know what is going on and the probability that Iran will get the Nuke technology increases by the day.

  • EthanP

    While I certainly agree with you about Kerry (and Hagel for that matter) Obama won the election. He is entitled to his picks for the cabinet. And Kerry (and Hagel) exemplify the Presidendts disdain for America. I have no doubt they will serve to impliment Administration policy. Unless they are crooks they are eligable.

    • http://www.clarespark.com clarespark

      It is true that Obama won the election, but the Constitutional process requires that his appointments be ratified by the Senate. And Senators can worry about re-election if their constituents raise hell. The process is called separation of powers/checks and balances. Would you prefer a dictatorship?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Would you prefer a dictatorship?"

        The one quickly approaching?

        • http://www.clarespark.com clarespark

          You just reversed yourself. Who are the dictators? Did you mean the Senate or the House of Representatives? Senators could block the nomination, while the House could insist on spending cuts before the debt ceiling is raised. In either case, would you consider their process dictatorial or deliberative?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You just reversed yourself."

            How so?

            "Who are the dictators? Did you mean the Senate or the House of Representatives?"

            You mentioned dictatorship and I was asking which you referred to. The one in the imagination of Ethan, or the one 0'Bama is creating?

  • Stephen_Brady

    John Kerry? We just as well have Hanoi Jane …

    • VanZorge

      please view the anti-kerry video that i made, and pass it along to your friends.
      note that while the comment section is reserved exclusively for veterans, non-vets can view, "like", and share the video.
      i am asking that when vets post that they give their DATES OF SERVICE – i want kerry to know that the vets are still breathing down his wretched neck!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWlHojVRH7g

    • WilliamJamesWard

      Well Stephen I think he has done enough to be called Hanoi John…………..Regards…..William

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "John Kerry? We just as well have Hanoi Jane"

      Until his sex-change operation, we'll just refer to him as Hanoi John.

      • Stephen_Brady

        Hanoi John it shall be …

  • http://www.clarespark.com clarespark

    John Kerry's career would have been lauded on Pacifica Radio and NPR. I reviewed the Pacifica ideology here, and it is both historical and a memoir of my decades there as program producer, listener, and program director of the Los Angeles station. Lately, it has gotten even whackier than ever. See http://clarespark.com/2010/10/21/links-to-pacific…. "Links to Pacifica memoirs." What is most frightening is that the liberal establishment, not just the New Left, enabled it, and still does.

    • mlcblog

      Exactly. See my comments below.

  • PAthena

    John Kerry's dishonesty was shown in the book about him, The Swift Boaters. His lies about Vietnam led to Congress not giving South Vietnam the military aid promised by President Nixon when he ended the war. The boat people – Vietnamese refugees, and the millions dead in Cambodia under Pol Pot show, at the very least, how ignorant he is, as well as a liar.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "John Kerry's dishonesty was shown in the book about him, The Swift Boaters. His lies about Vietnam led to Congress not giving South Vietnam the military aid promised by President Nixon when he ended the war. The boat people – Vietnamese refugees, and the millions dead in Cambodia under Pol Pot show, at the very least, how ignorant he is, as well as a liar."

      But, but, he's a hero…to anti-American traitor wannabes and peers alike. Too bad he's not president, then maybe we could call out his treason without being called racists.

  • cxt

    I'd want Kerry to explain if he actually meant it when he admitted to commiting war crimes back in Vietnam or was it, as he explained later that he was just being an "angry young man."

    Under oath I'd make him explain if he was lying about his statments then–and if so then how can we belive ANYTHING he tells now.

    If he wanted to with the "angry young man" excuse–then I would ask him if the "older and wiser–and presumbaly less angry adult John Kerry" owes the men and women that served in that conflict a personal apology for his "youthful" excesses.

    If he sticks by his statements then I would ask him to explain why he was not jailed for committing such crimes–the more so since he admitted them on tape?

    It would make for delightful TV. ;)

    • VanZorge

      please view the anti-kerry video that i made, and pass it along to your friends.
      note that while the comment section is reserved exclusively for veterans, non-vets can view, "like", and share the video.
      i am asking that when vets post that they give their DATES OF SERVICE – i want kerry to know that the vets are still breathing down his wretched neck!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWlHojVRH7g

  • mlcblog

    When I was in the left, organizing for "peace," misguided by lunatics or at least by those who did not appreciate our beautiful way of life in America, our Constitution and/or our valor and sensibilities, I was counseled, as a radical organizer, to just make stuff up and that it was OK…because IT COULD BE TRUE. It has always rung true to me that this is exactly what Mr. Kerry did in his gross misstatements and obvious exaggerations against our military in the 1971 Senate hearings. It was straight out of The Nation magazine and I.F. Stone's Weekly of that era. It actually shocked my own sensitivities to read such abhorrent and obvious, blatant charges against our people, but I was hardened and deluded and went along with it. Imagine. I was taught to lie about the gravest concerns, to slander people's reputations. Horrific. Needless to say, I am glad I saw the light, was able to escape this hellish way of conducting oneself.

    • http://www.clarespark.com clarespark

      I never was told to make stuff up while at Pacifica. I was among true believers, who distrusted everyone and let their imaginations run wild. But when I was purged, my boss did make stuff up in order to get support for my firing. And his fellow communists engaged on a mendacious campaign to stop community protest to the purge, which went on the next year with others.

    • VanZorge

      please view the anti-kerry video that i made, and pass it along to your friends.
      note that while the comment section is reserved exclusively for veterans, non-vets can view, "like", and share the video.
      i am asking that when vets post that they give their DATES OF SERVICE – i want kerry to know that the vets are still breathing down his wretched neck!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWlHojVRH7g

      • Western Canadian

        You are really very annoying posting this same bloody post as often as you do. YOU POSTED IT, NOW SHUT UP OR SAY SOMETHING ELSE.

        • mlcblog

          How about — live and let live? Back off, I think. We all have our styles.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      " I was counseled, as a radical organizer, to just make stuff up and that it was OK…because IT COULD BE TRUE."

      Precisely. These liars lie in degrees, convincing themselves that the only source of truth is "the heart." But only if your heart happens to pump out politically correct thoughts. I can't tell you how many times I've busted these liars and it turns out they were using "illustrations" of what "could be true" according to their theories. As long as illustrations conform with their dogmas, they present them as facts. You can't trust a single word from a leftist. They don't even know that most of their claims are in fact lies. Just compare Oliver Stone's claims to the facts of history and you have a prime example of leftist propagandists. The others are just less successful at being heard. They all lie the same way.

  • tagalog

    There are no lessons from Vietnam that anyone in power in the United States is paying attention to. Everyone wants to forget it. I have now read two books about our armed forces docrine that have informed me that the United States armed forces have deliberately refused to train our troops in how to deal with the kind of low-intensity conflicts involving large irregular forces that we are getting into now, throwing out the invaluable data they accumulated on counterinsurgency conflict from Vietnam in a knowing and willful effort to train our forces to fight conventional wars, something they haven't done since Korea. We're unmatched in rolling our tanks up the road to Baghdad, and not so great at dealing with the effect of sending a defeated army home. This willful trashing of our counterinsurgency data base is highly disturbing: our armed forces have always been very good about trying to shape military doctrine from the perspective of knowledge and realistic appraisal of political realities in the world. Hopefully, the NCO class, who do the actual hands-on training, are taking up the slack. But of course they only know what experience has taught them, so they're OK on the tactical level, but not so effective on the operational and strategic levels, which all of us look to the officer class to handle.

    And of course our political leaders, most of whom never served in any branch of our armed forces, know nothing about how to fight a war, and depend on our officer leaders, who have deliberately blinded themselves, to instruct them on what to do and how to do it.

    • mlcblog

      I know, and now they are nominating a mere foot soldier (not that those do not have their dignity, but hardly the experience or perspective) to do the job of — is it Sec'ty of Defense, saying that because he was in the military he is qualified. Shades of the old Red China where washerwomen were thrown into an operating room and told to work on live patients or be shot. You are now a doctor!! You are now a qualified Sec'ty of Defense.

  • VanZorge

    please view the anti-kerry video that i made, and pass it along to your friends.

    note that while the comment section is reserved exclusively for veterans, non-vets can view, "like", and share the video.

    i am asking that when vets post that they give their DATES OF SERVICE – i want kerry to know that the vets are still breathing down his wretched neck!!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWlHojVRH7g

  • BLJ

    John Kerry is a disgrace. He should go back to one of his mansions and let his old lady boss him around.

  • Richard Guthrie

    John Kerry is a proven Traitor. Even considering him to represent the United States is a supreme insult to the American People

  • Ghostwriter

    I'm not sure that John Kerry should be in the State Department. It seems a little unnecessary to me.

  • pierce

    BECAUSE OF SEN KERRY'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE SWIFT BOAT CONTROVERSY AND HIS DISPOSITION REGARDING THE VIETNAM WAR, I DO NOT FEEL HE IS QUALIFIED TO UNDERTAKE PERHAPS THE 2ND MOST CHALLENGING POSITION OF ANY PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENT.
    HE IS BEING SHOVED DOWN THE THROATS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY THIS PRESIDENT LIKE IT IS MY WAY, SO EVERYBODY ELSE CAN'T QUESTION MY SUPREME AUTHORITY. LIKE BLJ SAYS, JOHN KERRY IS A DISGRACE.

    • mlcblog

      Haven't you noticed? The Pres likes to make us eat nasty stuff.

  • wt johnson12
  • Asher

    Kerry, Hagel, and Lew are all wrong and should never be confirmed…Lew is another compulsive spender, even worse than Geithner…Hagel blames Israel for Palestinian terrorism, and Kerry is an apologist to everyone but American troops.

  • D.D. Mau