Sen. John "Frankenstein" Kerry is once again going to meet with the government of enemies of the United States to give aid and comfort.
Story
We all know about his 1971 actions in Paris, France. Seriously, this man has betrayed his country time and time again. Arrest him and charge him with treason.
MERRY CHRISTMAS
Categories:
Democrats/Liberals,
Insanity,
Law,
Middle East,
Politics,
War On Terror
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I couldn't agree more - of course, I've been agreeing for 35 years.
So you don't like the guy, fair enough
...but there isn't anything treasonous about the visit described in the article. The fact that there is tension between the USA and Syria is even greater reason for a diplomatic visit. The claim that such a visit is treason or inappropriate, just demonstrates ignorance of the role of a diplomat
A Senator in the current case and a citizen in the previous case, cannot appoint themselves diplomats. Can you imagine the confusion if we did? Thank you for showing your total ignorance about who gets to be a diplomat - they have to be appointed by the President and accepted by the country being visited, as such, prior to discussions. What is going on with Kerry is treasonous meddling.
And, surprise, surprise, you name leads to "unknown"
Um, firstly Lebanon is not an enemy of the US. Second paragraph of the article:
Kerry and Dodd met with U.S.-backed Prime Minister Fuad Saniora...
Secondly, the Bush administration has already begun negotiations with Syria to get them to help in Iraq. They suggested negotiating with Iran in the same direction also.
So where's the controversy here?
flag gazer
I think you are confusing the greater role of a diplomat with the fixed posting of an 'ambassador'.
An 'ambassador' is only one type of diplomat, and fits the discription you give, but 'diplomat' also describes a politician or similar who embarkes on any mission of 'diplomacy'.
Anyhow, za seems to have covered it.
"And, surprise, surprise, you name leads to "unknown""
what?
are you suggesting that logging in with a 'gmail account' is somehow dodgy?
as someone without their own webpage/blog, it is either 'gmail' or 'anonymous'.
I consider 'anon' really bad manners, so I use my email address, which is the only other option. Sorry to get you excited over nothing
...I think you'll find that JohnK posts under similar circumstances, is there something wrong with this, or does one have to maintain a webpage/blog to have a say?
Actually I dont have a blogger account or any other of that type. I dont have any type of link to my identity; I just type my name and mark "other".
"I dont have any type of link to my identity; I just type my name and mark "other"."
Sorry, I didn't read the bit about 'web page' being optional to post by this method, so I used my gmail account, which is one of the options.
I still don't see what the big deal is how confirm my id when posting
There is no big deal; I think Flag Gazer was just disappointed to track your name and not find out more about you.
Post a Comment