Kerry more popular abroad? I don't think so...

If Kerry is serious about his belief that he is more popular abroad, as supported by various polls and surveys, why hasn't he used his influence with these other countries to get support to help end what he calls "a crisis of historic proportions"?

Could it be that he doesn't actually have any influence?

Hypothetically, lets say he does. Lets say he has had his secret meetings with Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroder, and Kofi Annan, and they assured him that they will support him fully. Let’s say all of Kerry’s boasts are true and he can fix out relations with other nations.

I can think of no better way for Kerry to prove to the American people than for him to go off, meet with the French, and conduct foreign policy that will improve our horrid plight.

I know some may think that Kerry cannot do that. After all, he is not president – yet. But I don’t accept this reasoning though.

After all, Kerry was still on inactive duty as a commissioned officer when he went to Paris in May of 1970 and met with the Vietcong – for those that were are young and went to public school, we were still at war with the Vietcong in 1970 – which is very close if not over the line of a willful act of treason.

If Kerry has no fear of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Navy’s Judge Advocate General which could have charged him with giving comfort to the enemy and is a capitol crime(1), then why would he not show is character; show himself as someone that could not help but lead, and bring his allies and friends, the French, into Iraq and save us from ourselves?

In the same way Jimmy Carter went off half cocked and saved us from ourselves by fixing that nuclear threat we had in North Korea back in 1994, Kerry could save us in Iraq... if he had some influence over his friends.

Kerry more popular abroad? I don't think so. If he was he would evidence it in actions and that would get him elected in a landslide.

The socialists of the world may well fear Bush, but who ever said that was a bad thing?

(1) “Any person who without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly; shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.” - Article 104, Section

Two people in the debate...

"On Thursday, there are going to be two people in that debate. One will be on the offensive, and the other will be on the defensive," Mr. Cooper said.

and Kerry will be both of them...

Cheney changed his view on Iraq - He said in '92 Saddam not worth U.S. casualties

[http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/192908_cheney29.html]

Charles Pope and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer just don't get it.

Pope says, "Dick Cheney more than a decade ago defended the decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the first Gulf War, telling a Seattle audience that capturing Saddam wouldn't be worth additional U.S. casualties or the risk of getting `bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.'"

Really? I wonder what changed Cheney's mind? Could 3000 dead Americans and the newly adopted doctrine of preemption have something to do with it?

Charles, your grasping at straws man...

Looks like the Dems are setting up the excuse

[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/29/politics/campaign/29military.html]

The NYT is running another votes are getting disenfranchised infomercial again. This one titled "Hurdles Remain for American Voters Who Live Overseas" by MICHAEL MOSS takes a line from Jimmy Caters embarrassing op-ed the other day forecasting doom and gloom for Florida.

If you missed it, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52800-2004Sep26.html

It would seem that these boys have nothing better to do than generate excuse after excuse for Kerry.

If you missed it, take a look at Peter Kirsanow in NRO yesterday. He did a good job of answering Cater - again: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/kirsanow200409280830.asp

You will continue to see this type of voter disenfranchisement "reporting" so that the opponents of the president will continue to justify there "lack of mandate" rhetoric for another four years.

The following italicized text has been extracted from a Nader/Camejo campaign email titled "Nader/Camejo Debate Challenge" which I received on October 5th. It got under my skin so I had to make an answer to a couple of the statements made.

The email was sent in the name of Peter Miguel Camejo, VP Candidate running with Ralph Nader... I have no idea what party exactly they represent.


"The fact that over 30 years, 90% have received no increase in their income. When adjusted to inflation, in spite of the greatest growth in the economy ever in the history of the United States, they will not mention that corporations are no longer paying their taxes, estimated to be as high as $300 billion per year."

Hey Peter - do you really think corporations pay taxes? Are you really that dense or is it just a show to motivate ignorant people? Corporations NEVER pay taxes. If you hand them a tax bill those costs are passed on to the consumers - you and me - and we pay them.

Stop the class warfare. It keeps people ignorant and angry which is not healthy nor helpful to a legitimate debate of the matters of the state.

Corporations are not the boogie men you paint them to be. They provide jobs, goods, and services that make America work. Raising taxes on corporations is tantamount to raising taxes on the consumer. Or, if not look at the job losses. The corporations will always make money, one way or another.

Tell me where I am wrong...


"...You will never hear one word of how the US supported Saddam Hussein for twenty years, supplied him with poison gas, sent Donald Rumsfeld to Iraq to give him hugs and kisses, or George Bush's public statement about what a good job Saddam Hussein was doing in Iraq. The fact is that their policies through the whole Middle East will never be discussed. Only one thing: How to get control of Iraq, how the US military can get domination and consolidate the dictatorship that it is establishing in Iraq."

Not exactly correct here, but I will let that go.

I will say that pre-September 11 we had a US policy, Republican and Democrat of what is vulgarly stated as "My enemy's enemy is my friend." That changed as of September 11. Tell me where I am wrong... OK ... I will grant Pakistan


"... You will not hear one word of how every single country in Europe, the Arab world, Latin America, Asia, and Africa opposes US policy. And you will never hear mention that Ralph Nader's positions are those of the overwhelming majority of the people of the world regarding Iraq and the Middle East."

Ralph, here is an idea for you: When "Europe, the Arab world, Latin America, Asia, and Africa" start to get it right then we will listen to them. Until then, no.

If Europe (you mean France of course) and the Arab world are upset with us I argue is a good thing. The last thing I would like to do is listen to a bunch of Frenchies that have been utterly irrelevant in world affairs other than as a play ground for the Germans, and camel jockeys that think it is a wonderful thing for their daughters to have their clitoris cut out, circumcised we say so it sounds more antiseptic, so they are sure to not enjoy their life, that is up until they blow themselves up killing Jews and Christians that have done nothing to them.

Tell me where I am wrong...


"You will never hear one word of how the entire world supports the Kyoto protocol and the World Court and the United States alone opposes them—opposes even the concept of the rule of law in the world."

Their is a reason - Kyoto punishes the United States and does nothing for the environment. In shor, Kyoto is garbage. Russia has backed out of it as well as some others. It punishes the cleanest countries and builds up the developing nations that cause the majority of pollution. Not to mention it is founded in really shoddy science to begin with.

Tell me where I am wrong...


"You will not hear anything about the fact that all of Europe has universal health care, but the United States, the wealthiest country in the world, doesn't have it."

Every nation you mentioned is a socialist failure in the making. The medical systems stink. They are all failing and going bankrupt. Golly gee... I wonder why we didn't support Hillary care. Talk about a dog that won't hunt. This dog can't even stand up.

Tell me where I am wrong...


"... If a party gets twenty percent of the vote, they don't get 20 percent of the seats, like in almost every country of Latin America and Europe. The United States stands alone with the most under-developed electoral system, one that denies the people a real voice, or to hear the real choices."

And you guys want to be in elected office? You do not live in a democracy but a representative republic. Civics Ralph. Stop by most any middle school in the country - usually a 7th grade class.

The governments of Latin America and Europe are in even worse shape than our own. Do we have problems? Sure. Would they be fixed by splitting up the seats? No.

A long email guys and not one good point in any of it. No wonder you do not stand a chance at getting anywhere - you have no viable idea's. Sure, your are real effective with the druggies and fiends, but useless for the rest of the 95% of the country.

Tell me where I am wrong Ralph...