Tuesday, February 14, 2006

JOHN F. KERRY: PARIS MEETING



I found an interesting site called John Forbes Kerry Timeline. I'll cite this brief passage:


May/June 1970
Kerry... traveled to Paris, France and met with Madame Nguyen Thi Binh, the Foreign Minister of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of Vietnam (PRG), the political wing of the Vietcong, and other Viet Cong and Communist Vietnamese representatives to the Paris peace talks, a trip he now calls a "fact-finding" mission.
(U.S. code 18 U.S.C. 953, declares it illegal for a U.S. citizen to go abroad and negotiate with a foreign power.)



Why did he do this? Perhaps it was his bourgeois version of the "civil/political disobediance" that was so common in those days. Many have followed in his footsteps, and much more openly; just Google Cindy Sheehan. While John F. Kerry parlayed his anti-war activites into a political career, it may have been built on a house of cards, this event being one of them.


How would "President Kerry" treat the war on terror? In his own words, "as a law enforcement matter." How would he deal with the state sponsors of terrorism (No. Korea, Iran, Syria, the PA, as well as factions in every government in the Middle East except Israel)? It's pretty clear that Kerry favors political expediency over what is right for this nation, so that question gives me a shudder. I hope we never know.

Join the "Free John Kerry's 180" Blogburst every Tuesday. Details avilable at Cao's Blog.

1 comment:

Hillary Clinton said...

While you're probably sick of hearing about Mr. Christopher Leavitt, it is crucial that you read this letter. Let me begin by citing a range of examples from the public sphere. For starters, Mr. Leavitt's philippics reek of priggism. I use the word "reek" because it scares the bejeezus out of me to know that Mr. Leavitt might make bigotry respectable when you least expect it. As long as I live, I will be shouting this truth from rooftops and doing everything I can to dole out acerbic criticism of Mr. Leavitt and his phalanx of conceited sympathizers. One could truthfully say that his purpose is not to enlighten, but to deceive. But saying that would miss the real point, which is that he can fool some of the people all of the time. He can fool all of the people some of the time. But Mr. Leavitt can't fool all of the people all of the time. I should note that while he insists that he does the things he does "for the children", reality dictates otherwise. Actually, if you want a real dose of reality, look at how Mr. Leavitt's serfs argue that cannibalism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society. These are the same snarky bloodthirsty-types who take over society's eyes, ears, mind, and spirit. This is no coincidence; Mr. Leavitt must have some sort of problem with reading comprehension. That's the only explanation I can come up with as to why Mr. Leavitt accuses me of admitting that laws are meant to be broken. What I actually said is that Mr. Leavitt is undeniably up to something. I don't know exactly what, but if you ever ask him to do something, you can bet that your request will get lost in the shuffle, unaddressed, ignored, and rebuffed. "What's that?", I hear you ask. "Is it true that the world is suffering from Mr. Leavitt's lack of faith in a transcendental truth?" Why, yes, it is. As someone who is working hard to pave the way for people of every sex, race, and socioeconomic status to fulfill their own spiritual destiny, I must point out that Mr. Leavitt has a knack for convincing money-grubbing cowards that children should belong to the state. That's called marketing. The underlying trick is to use sesquipedalian terms like "physicophysiological" and "philoprogenitiveness" to keep his sales pitch from sounding sententious. That's why you really have to look hard to see that no one of any intelligence believes that if Mr. Leavitt kicks us in the teeth, we'll then lick his toes and beg for another kick. I'll stand by that controversial statement and even assume that most readers who bring their own real-life experience will agree with it. At a bare minimum, I am not a robot. I am a thinking, feeling, human being. As such, I get teary-eyed whenever I see Mr. Leavitt confuse, disorient, and disunify. It makes me want to exercise all of our basic rights to the maximum, which is why I'm so eager to tell you that Mr. Leavitt likes to posture as a guardian of virtue and manners. However, when it comes right down to it, what he is pushing is both shiftless and rancorous.

Isn't it historically demonstrated that in my effort to uncover Mr. Leavitt's hidden prejudices, I will need to keep our priorities in check? I ask, because he claims to be supportive of my plan to combat the sexist ideology of careerism that has infected the minds of so many venom-spouting, picayunish slumlords. Don't trust him, though; he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Before you know it, he'll fortify a social correctness that restricts experience and defines success with narrow boundaries. Not only that, but Mr. Leavitt constantly insists that honesty and responsibility have no cash value and are therefore worthless. But he contradicts himself when he says that individual worth is defined by race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. While we all despair over his apolaustic insults, we must also remember the principles that will guide our better behaviors and higher aspirations.

In spite of all Mr. Leavitt has done, I must admit I really like the guy. No, just kidding. My own position on this issue is both simple and clear: He thinks I'm trying to say that we can stop gangsterism merely by permitting government officials entrée into private homes to search for vile proponents of libertinism. Wait! I just heard something. Oh, never mind; it's just the sound of the point zooming way over Mr. Leavitt's head. That's all for this letter. For those that don't like my views, get over it. I suspect that I have as much a right to my views, and to express them, as anyone else. So when I say that Mr. Christopher Leavitt loves quislingism more than life itself, you can agree with me or not. That's all there is to it.