Kerry's hypocrisy

So the CP never says anything that isn't on the website?

 

Can anyone back up CMG's statement?

 

While Peroutka and the CP is such a complete non-entity in politics, this isn't worth much time, but I did a quick search and came up with the following that seems to support CMG's assertions:


* Q: Should the US continue to provide leadership in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process? A: No.
* Q: Should the US support the creation of a Palestinian state? A: No.
* Peroutka says, "Nowhere in the entire US Constitution was the President [or Congress] granted the authority to intermeddle with the affairs of one nation for the benefit of these United States. If I am elected President, American foreign policy will no longer include so many foreign entanglements.

Source: Vote-smart's NPAT 2004 presidential quiz Mar 15, 2004

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Michael_Peroutka_War_+_Peace.htm


No financial aid for Israel

In contrast with President Reagan's oft-repeated statement that the U.S. has a "special relationship" with Israel – a core policy with which subsequent presidents have generally agreed – a President Peroutka would not treat the Jewish state any differently than other sovereign nations.

"Israel is a foreign country; it's not the United States of America," he told WND, "and it would be treated with respect and dignity just like any other foreign power. But it would not receive foreign aid because no other country would receive foreign aid from the U.S. either."

Saying the president is not the "president of the world," Peroutka stressed that Israel would not get preferential treatment over Arab countries in the Middle East.

"Protecting American interests … is the point, not being the world's policeman or Big Brother."

http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?action=eventview&event_id=200

 

That is not surprising since the neo-cons in the Bush administration push an Israel First foreign policy. </font>[/QUOTE]We should all be glad that Bush is the biggest supporter of Israel since it became a nation. Do you see anything else going on in America today that would keep God's hand protecting and blessing us as it is now? I certainly don't. The Bible tells us that the Lord will curse those who curse Israel and bless those who protect Israel. Can't argue scripture. God help us if we ever stop protecting Israel. If Kerry is elected, we will no longer be a soverign nation. Kerry and Edwards are "UN men" and have both been quoted saying that they would never take us to war without the approval of the UN. As kindly as possible, dern that! We don't need anybody's approval, opinion, or 2 cents worth if someone attacks us. America should make that decision, not a bunch of global government minded communist idiots from the UN.

 

Abject fatuity, nothing more.
John Kerry spoke out against a war. Jane Fonda actually aided an enemy. Unless you can provide us with pictures of the Senator "in drag with a bayonet," then kindly cease with the juvenile contumely.

You can run but you can't hide.</font>[/QUOTE]
I can run, but I can't hide? YOU are the one who interjected President Clinton, yet I can run but I can't hide?

The subject is/was "Kerry's hypocrisy." Are you saying that I hijacked this discussion?</font>[/QUOTE]I am saying that you have failed to show us how Oliver North demonstrated his "loyalty and patriotism" by KNOWINGLY supplying weapons to an enemy of the US, and then KNOWINGLY breaking the law by diverting the profits to the Contras. At the time I am typing this (early morning, September 7th), you still have not shown us how this demonstrates "loyalty and patriotism."

Furthermore, I NEVER said that you "hijacked this discussion." Perhaps you can stop interjecting statements that nobody has offered and prove the contention you made.........

 

Topic closed while I edit. It probably won't be opened back up, if this last page is indicative of the whole thread.
Gina

 

Well, that wasn't as bad as I thought. Which is good.
Topic opened again, with a reminder to stay on the topic, and that the forum rules will be strictly enforced. If you're unfamiliar with them, go read them again.
Gina

 

He was, however, right. Those things did happen. I doubted him myself, but I have to admit that they happened.
</font>[/QUOTE]Yes. There were atrocities in Vietnam... as well as every other war that Americans have fought in. Ever heard of Sherman's march to the sea? And that was an act of official policy.

That isn't a point of dispute as much as you would like to set up that straw man. The dispute is over whether they were widespread and a matter of established policy- and whether Kerry himself was in a position to have first hand knowledge of the atrocities he claimed.

 

askM,

Do you care whether the stuff you post is true or not?

 

quote:
Originally posted by askM:
If Kerry is elected, we will no longer be a soverign nation. Kerry
and Edwards are "UN men" and have both been quoted saying
that they would never take us to war without the approval of the
UN. As kindly as possible, dern that! We don't need anybody's
approval, opinion, or 2 cents worth if someone attacks us.
America should make that decision, not a bunch of global
government minded communist idiots from the UN.

QUOTE: 'I agree with your post above; Senator Kerry did say these things.
Where would we be now if the late President Kennedy had waited until Cuba pushed the button, releasing the nuclear missiles on our largest cities? Do you think that he should have waited for a formal release from the U.N. before he took action? I say vaporize the terrorists where they are trained and schooled in their unthinkable acts. The option is to let them hit more of our commercial or political centers.'

Dr. Berrian

 

Ray Berrian,

You're quoting yourself in the second paragraph, right? So you're saying the Sen. Kerry did say that he would never take the US to war without UN approval? Would you please tell me where I can find the reference?

What if Kennedy had waited - to do what? Send the "advisors" to Vietnam? To threaten Castro?

 

Daisy,

QUOTE: I meant that the late, President John F. Kennedy formed a blockade of our Naval ships including submarines between the Russian ships and Cuba which were transporting nuclear parts and explosives so close to our southern state of Florida. There was almost a nuclear war in the 1960's.

John F. never got clearance from the United Nations to protect our beloved nation.

We have the technology and power and our former allies, like France, Germany and Russia had their own financial agendas with Saddam and the access to the oil they needed. Neither Senator Kerry or President Bush would or will be able to transform the hearts and minds of these liberal socialists who only want to appease and get along with the terrorists.

While we should try to get a larger coalition, it is an up hill effort for our leadership. Maybe France, Germany and Russia will eventually realize that terrorists will also be meddling in their beloved countries.

While no red-blooded American wants to see any death when we go to war, nevertheless, we are living in a wicked world.

We have lost only 1,000 Americans in liberating the Iraqi people. 4,000 airmen were lost during W.W. II., not including the other thousands of men in the Army and Marines. This is no less a war; it is however, a different kind of conflict that will not soon go away for any nations in our world.

Dr. Berrian

 

Ray Berrian,

Ok, thanks, but do you have a source for your claim that Kerry said he would never go to war without the UN's approval or is it just something you remember hearing somewhere?

 

askM,

Do you care whether the stuff you post is true or not? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I do care. And yes, what I post is true. What exactly are you referring to and suggesting is false please? If you have turned on your television set or your radio in the last three months, you can't miss the quotes from John Kerry and John Edwards

 

"...On November 8, 2002, the day the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1441 calling for Iraq to disarm per earlier Security Council resolutions, President Bush stated: "America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution or not?... If Iraq fails to fully comply, the United States and other nations will disarm Saddam Hussein."

"..."[C]ombat forces of the United States, Great Britain, Australia, Poland and other countries enforced the demands of the United Nations...."

SOURCE


...‘‘Today in Baghdad," President George Bush told reporters at a June 1 Rose Garden press briefing, "U.N. Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, and Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, announced the members of Iraq’s new interim government."

SOURCE


Finally, a quiz question:

President Ronald Reagan, because of the anti-Christian tendencies of UNESCO, wiselhy withdrew the US from the organization.

Which president reversed the policy and got us back in:

A) George Bush Sr.
B) Bill Clinton
C) George W. Bush

 

Good, just checking. A lot of people just repost slanderous emails or repeat Limbaughisms without ever considering that they might be mistaken or somewhat less than accurate.

"Kerry and Edwards are "UN men" and have both been quoted saying that they would never take us to war without the approval of the UN."

Now, neither man is the smartest or most cagey man in this country, but still! It just doesn't seem likely that they would be foolish enough to say - or even mean - that they would never go to war without UN approval.

I can't help wondering if they haven't been misquoted. This is where a good source would really be useful.

Evidently, you can if you pass on talk radio and Fox News. I watch the first hour of Washington Journal on C-Span most mornings and I listen to NPR mostly during my commute forth & back yet, sadly, I seem to have missed those particular quotes.

So, if you would be so kind as to supply a reliable source these quotes (I take it they did not speak in unison), I'd really appreciate it.

 

Okay, you're gonna have to give me a little time. I honestly can't remember which news channel I heard it on recently, probably fox since they are the only news channel that I believe gives fair representation of all opinions. I have a test due tomorrow, so bear with me. Here's one quote, I'll find you some more recent ones.

From The Harvard Crimson:
“I’m an internationalist,” Kerry told The Crimson in 1970. “I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1194017/posts

 

Surely a 34 year old quote isn't what you're basing that on!

Take your time and good luck on your test!

 

askM,

The above quotes of Bush that I provided are just the tip of the iceberg.

Kerry, of course, is also an internationalist and a fan of the UN, but if you are trying to use that as points against Bush, you are sadly mistaken.

Either one of them will continue to destroy our sovereignty and independence.

 

I don't understand. Are you claiming that someone in the National Guard can simply not show up for months at a time without repercussians? I don't believe that. </font>[/QUOTE]I am saying exactly what I said. I was an officer in the Reserves.

I have no idea what the Texas NG might have req'd of him nor if there might have been some sort of special orders.

If GWB was under orders, a copy of those orders should still exist somewhere.

I rec'd an ROTC scholarship. After college, I attended my basic course. My requirement afterwards was 5 years of active reserve service and 3 years of individual ready reserve service. The reserves have a points system to determine service that can be satisfied without ever being assigned to a unit. You simply have to find enough 2 week assignments or military schools (including correspondance) to achieve your points requirement.

The only time I was under orders and subject to the full scope of UCMJ was during annual training or active duty for training. During monthly weekend drills, I was not under orders. The only real discipline we had over weekend attendance was pay, retirement points, annual evaluations, promotion points, and the threat of being replaced.

If someone quit or was administratively replaced without fulfilling their contractual obligations, the Reserve Personnel Center in St Louis was able to pursue them for repayment of bonuses, forced assignment, or active duty. I served during the late 80's and early 90's and never heard of this happening. In fact, I left my unit and went IRR after 7 years. St Louis didn't notice for about 3 or 4 years.