Vinegar John Kerry Talks about Thinking about Iran?? Did Jimmy Carter Think out his plans?

Abstract: John Kerry makes a fool out of himself by dissing members of the opposition for mild and unobtrusive comments on the instant Iranian Revolution. His essay, founded squarely on his unfamiliarity with thinking processes, reveals the scope of  his insufficient cognitive skills in this critical area to discuss this topic in public although it becomes one of his better propaganda pieces, to be fair. One conclusion is that this screed was written for him by some loyal lackey in his camp. Another possibility is that his façade is peeling off thus revealing his debilitating imbecilities. The most promising is that he is just a hate-twisted loser with a mandate to vent.

The New York Times—aka the Walter Duranty Papers [1] operates like a drug-laced lazy Susan for characters like Vinegar John Kerry[2] to ‘offer some thoughts’ on some important subject--this time Iran--and write some nasty propaganda screed. Hop on, dance the Dunciad, and hop off with flair. This one, however, reads oddly like a sophomoric polemic penned in delirium or haste.  Proffered as some mysterious glow cascading down upon us from his lofty seat on Olympus[3], he only attacks Republicans, in his accustomed manner, thus his analysis might have to be rendered as worthlessly biased as the bulk of his prattle has been for a few decades.[4] But, he might just wander away from his ditch and make some sense and surprise us.  So, we must be alert. If you filter out his wart-squeezings and other mental hysterics, driven simply by the existence of more than one conservative on this planet, his advice is actually a self-deprecating treatise on folly. He has to say something as Obama has mangled his foreign policy over some anti-meddling nostrum in Iran’s case although he meddles quite candidly in the politics of Iran’s first future nuclear weapon’s military target.[5] Johnny to the rescue; Johnny reports for duty.

His theme booklet was probably placed in his wrinkled hands in a fill-in-a-few-blanks format by some doting staffer under the pressing mandate that his boss sorely needs some fresh face time and reassuring applause from the loyal liberals and also based on the urgent compulsion to ‘clarify’ some talking points on the Iranian revolution now smoothly in progress by hammering the political opposition. That is good politics in Massachusetts. It is the image—not the words that count.  Puff yer stuff John!

Sifting with a coarse sieve, we can get this much from this fluff:

“If we actually want to empower the Iranian people, we have to understand how our words can be manipulated and used against us to strengthen the clerical establishment, distract Iranians from a failing economy and rally a fiercely independent populace against outside interference. Iran’s hard-liners are already working hard to pin the election dispute, and the protests, as the result of American meddling. On Wednesday, the Iranian Foreign Ministry chastised American officials for “interventionist” statements. Government complaints of slanted coverage by the foreign press are rising in pitch.”[6]-- With Iran, Think Before You Speak By John Kerry Op-Ed Contributor. Published: June 17, 2009 [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

Interestingly, the “interventionist” statements cannot be clearly identified in the link Vinegar John uses in this op-ed[7]although we find the Canadians and some EU types were summoned to Allah’s carpet to hear such complaints. It would help the reader to understand what an “interventionist” statement looks like and who made it, but clarity of thought [or textual accuracy] is not the strong suit of John Kerry and his followers. But, using the usual sandbox political logic peculiar to leftists, we can inspect this comment from John McCain cited in this article:

“… Senator John McCain… denounced President Obama’s response as “tepid.” He has also claimed that “if we are steadfast eventually the Iranian people will prevail.”-- John Kerry quoting McCain.

This is interventionist?

I thought this rather tepid too if we can compare it to: “Mr. Gorbachev —tear down this wall!”—President Ronald Reagan June 12, 1987 at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin.

That was interventionist in my view—a little light given the history of the Soviet social maggots—but very strongly interventionist. Perhaps the translation of this, taking a few months to circulate, precipitated the stock market crash in 1987 and even the USSR crash in 1989—a potential talking point for Democrats. [8] Can we blame Reagan for both crashes?? Perhaps we can blame Reagan for the Polish uprising too.

Looking back on some liberal history, we might raise the question of whether Jimmy Carter influenced the course of events in Iran when he made the following thoughtful comments and worked a few political levers some behind the scenes:

[a] “Carter pressured the Shah [e,g, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi ] to release "political prisoners", whose ranks included radical fundamentalists, communists and terrorists.” [This link[9]  includes quotes and is used for this list].

[b] “Carter pressured Iran to permit "free assembly", which encouraged and fostered fundamentalist anti-government rallies.”

[c] “…the Carter Administration reportedly ordered the Central Intelligence Agency to stop $4 million per year in funding to religious Mullahs who then became outspoken and vehement opponents of the Shah. “

Perhaps if we are ‘steadfast’ the American people will find out if Obama is a citizen or not or whether he took in 100 million dollars in bribes  in $200 dollar bundles from the Middle East terrorists disguised as ‘contributions’  in the last election. Can we please be ‘tepid’ like ACORN? Should we cut off funds to North Korea?

So, channeling back into the logic stream here, we are counseled that we can ‘empower’ the Iranians by watching out how our ideological enemies or, more accurately, propaganda crafters in Iran might use our ‘words.’ We cannot rattle our sabers.

Extending this feverish unilateral notion, can we wonder if Obama provoked the North Koreans with some of his words?

Here is a somewhat ‘tepid’ set of words from President Obama:

“WASHINGTON -- Declaring North Korea a "grave threat" to the world, President Obama on Tuesday pledged the U.S. and its allies will aggressively enforce fresh international penalties against the nuclear-armed nation and stop rewarding its leaders for repeated provocations.”[10]--President Obama Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Apparently, either Vinegar John has not read these words, or, more likely, cannot comprehend them in any objective context, but someone of a more objective persuasion might see significant differences between counseling Iran to remain “… steadfast …[then] eventually the Iranian people will prevail”  and more forceful language. Can we compare this comment with words like "grave threat" or “….the U.S. and its allies will aggressively enforce fresh international penalties against the nuclear-armed nation…” No saber rattling here?

I would imagine, in my own little world, that propaganda wordsmiths in North Korea might create some interesting overtones from these flames. To empower the North Korean people perhaps Obama might avoid “interventionist” rhetorical diatribes like this, but what do I know? As a Democrat, representative of my party, I know little of diplomacy. If Obama keeps silent maybe the North Koreans will get to eat a sufficient amount of food for a change.

It is okay for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to publicly announce he would ‘wipe Israel off the face of he earth’ and build nuclear weapons to enforce this threat, but John McCain’s comments are considered provocative and supply fodder for propaganda machines that thwarts opposition to the newly elected Iranian leader. John is an impediment to peace, whatever that word now means in the feverish minds of a liberal. I don’t want to waste any more time lecturing the left on diplomacy, logic or morality.

Confusing—is it not? It seems that John Kerry, of three Purple Hearts fame, is being inconsistent in his analysis of what is confrontational and undiplomatic about comments by his party and those of the opposition. Is this merely a hereditary mental problem or is it due to his old age?  Was he wearing his lucky tie? Or, is this just another example of John’s sleazy and hypocritical attacks on others? Apart from his lack of abject public alcoholism, he smells talks and acts like the other senator from Massachusetts.

Was John thinking when he wrote, or perhaps just signed, this piece? We might speculate as to the particulars of what he authorizes us to do to empower the Iranian people. I think he would wildly support any criticism, especially self-criticism by our elected ‘leaders,’ of the former US policies as he has done for decades.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com