Kerry Dismantling Coalition

Kendra17

"Kendra17" is a consortium of political analysts a
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Is this how a candidate for President is supposed to act during war time? Prior to the debates, Diana Kerry--John Kerry's sister and acting member of the Kerry campaign was in Australia attempting to campaign against Prime Minister John Howard. . .a FRIEND of America's. Mark Latham, the opposing candidate, has stated he will bring all the troops home from Iraq if he wins the election.

So, what does the Kerry campaign do?
John Kerry's campaign has warned Australians that the Howard Government's support for the US in Iraq has made them a bigger target for international terrorists." So reports the Weekend Australian (september 18)

This has been largely ignored by the United States press.

I thought Kerry was for broadening the coalition. . .

:confused:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10797507%5E2703,00.html

US 'endangers Australians'
Roy Eccleston, Washington correspondent
September 18, 2004

JOHN Kerry's campaign has warned Australians that the Howard Government's support for the US in Iraq has made them a bigger target for international terrorists.

Diana Kerry, younger sister of the Democrat presidential candidate, told The Weekend Australian that the Bali bombing and the recent attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta clearly showed the danger to Australians had increased.

"Australia has kept faith with the US and we are endangering the Australians now by this wanton disregard for international law and multilateral channels," she said, referring to the invasion of Iraq.

Asked if she believed the terrorist threat to Australians was now greater because of the support for Republican George W. Bush, Ms Kerry said: "The most recent attack was on the Australian embassy in Jakarta -- I would have to say that."

Ms Kerry, who taught school in Indonesia for 15 years until 2000, is heading a campaign called Americans Overseas for Kerry which aims to secure the votes of Americans abroad -- including the more than 100,000 living in Australia.

In the 2000 election, analysts say absentee votes cast overseas tipped the balance to Mr Bush in the decisive state of Florida. Domestic votes put Mr Gore ahead by a few hundred votes, but Mr Bush won by 537 after overseas ballots were included.

In this election, which is decided according to the states won, the Kerry campaign says overseas votes could also determine the result given there are a dozen states where victory might be measured by a few hundred to a few thousand votes. About 5million American voters live overseas and interest in this election was high, Ms Kerry said. About 350,000 absentee ballots were distributed in 2000, but more than a million had been sought this time.

"My belief is US citizens living overseas are very concerned about the current direction of the US, particularly in regard to international affairs," she claimed. "They are on the front lines of the decline of US respect and reputation; they hear it and feel it on a daily basis."

A poll by the Washington-based Pew Centre for People and the Press found that in March this year only 58 per cent of Britons, 37 per cent of French and 38 per cent of Germans had favourable opinions of America, down by more than 20 percentage points in each country from before the Iraq war.

Quizzed on US opinion polls that showed Senator Kerry's campaign flagged through August and that he was now running behind Mr Bush, Ms Kerry said her brother would win the November 2 election.

"He responds well to challenges and has the reputation of fighting well from behind," she said.

More opinion on this event:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040924/news_lz1e24krauth.html

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/knippenberg/04/diplomacy.html
 
Originally posted by The Edge
What does it matter? Kerry has no chance of winning. Right?

I don't think he'll win, but that's besides the point. He could win, and Kerry's campaigning could have an effect on the outcome of the Australian election.

Why would someone who wants to be President of the United States campaign for the Australian candidate who is opposed to United States' action and against the incumbent who supports our action?

This would make sense if his most current remarks were that he was going to pull the troops out, but as I remember it, his most current stance has been that he is going to (paraphrasing here) broaden the coalition. Of course, he also mentioned that if his plan was followed, he could begin pulling troops out in six months, but then he stated he would broaden the coalition.
 
What does it matter it's just his sister, right? I thought Neil Bush was irrelevent because he was JUST 'his' brother? Is this different somehow?
pirate:
 


Originally posted by Peter Pirate
What does it matter it's just his sister, right? I thought Neil Bush was irrelevent because he was JUST 'his' brother? Is this different somehow?
pirate:

Diana is officially part of the Kerry campaign, PeterPirate. She is speaking officially in behalf of John Kerry. So, the circumstances are completely different.

Even so, had she been accused of adultery or drug use or anything else, this would not be an issue. . .she herself is not running. SHe is acting as a representative of Kerry.
 
Oh, I see. Being a brother or a sister isn't relevent but working for your siblings campaign makes you relevent. Do you suppose Neil ever worked for george?

pirate:
 
Now the right is worried about Kerry's sister?? First it was
the so called "cheat sheet" incident at the debate, which
proved to be a sham, then it was the so-called "quotes"
provided by the Fox News reporter.....now it's Kerry's
sister?? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The current administration is doing a fine job of dismantling
the coalition all by themselves (see Poland).
 


Just as Americans got all upset when a Korean businessman gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to Clinton as a personal gift (or as a "campaign contribution"), ones can suppose that Australians would have similar response watching an American politico interfere in their election.

Why? Because it has the character, if not the substance, of foreign influence in our elective process. We don't want our leaders answering to, or owing anything to, a foreign national on any matter of American policy. If Clinton had been found wanting in his explanations of that money, that donation alone could very well have gotten Clinton impeached and we would never have had to suffer through all that Monica baloney.

Kerry's activities in Australia--in attempting to influence their elective process, is nothing less than interference. It leaves a very bad taste in one's mouth and, if there weren't a law against it, there ought to be.

Kerry's undermining an active American ally during time of war can't help but make one think of the T-- word. Certainly, this can't be what Kerry was talking about when he speaks of coalition building!
 
Originally posted by Peter Pirate
Oh, I see. Being a brother or a sister isn't relevent but working for your siblings campaign makes you relevent. Do you suppose Neil ever worked for george?

pirate:

No, but good old Neil did help himself to taxpayer dollars via Silverado Savings during the S & L scandals.
 
Originally posted by Kendra17
Just as Americans got all upset when a Korean businessman gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to Clinton as a personal gift (or as a "campaign contribution"), ones can suppose that Australians would have similar response watching an American politico interfere in their election.

Why? Because it has the character, if not the substance, of foreign influence in our elective process. We don't want our leaders answering to, or owing anything to, a foreign national on any matter of American policy. If Clinton had been found wanting in his explanations of that money, that donation alone could very well have gotten Clinton impeached and we would never have had to suffer through all that Monica baloney.

Kerry's activities in Australia--in attempting to influence their elective process, is nothing less than interference. It leaves a very bad taste in one's mouth and, if there weren't a law against it, there ought to be.

Kerry's undermining an active American ally during time of war can't help but make one think of the T-- word. Certainly, this can't be what Kerry was talking about when he speaks of coalition building!

It must be something in the water. :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by Kendra17
Kerry's activities in Australia--in attempting to influence their elective process, is nothing less than interference. It leaves a very bad taste in one's mouth and, if there weren't a law against it, there ought to be.

It's arrogance personified.
 
Originally posted by Peter Pirate
Oh, I see. Being a brother or a sister isn't relevent but working for your siblings campaign makes you relevent. Do you suppose Neil ever worked for george?

pirate:

Neil Bush also might have had a sex change operation. There's another non-sequitir for you. It DOES matter if Kerry's sister is representing the Kerry campaign. I'm baffled as to why you can't see the obvious relevance.
 
Originally posted by ThAnswr
No, but good old Neil did help himself to taxpayer dollars via Silverado Savings during the S & L scandals.

Relevance? Roger Clinton was a cocaine addict. So what?
 
To the OP - I find it amusing that in one post, you accuse Kerry supporters of being "blinkered" by the media yet in this post, you are very quick to use the media as support of your viewpoint. How is your belief in the accuracy of these reports any different than those of us who are "blinkered"? Is it because this isn't the so-called "liberal media" and, therefore, more reliable?
 
I really do not believe we will change any hearts or minds in here. People have made up their minds. People who are saying they are undecided, just want the attention. That is my belief anyway.
President Bush has turned the economy around. He has been strong on the war on terror. He has stated his reasons for his actions from the beginning and has been steadfast. Terrorists are in Iraq as well as Afghanistan, and many other places yet to be rooted out. We are at war! You can't win a war by prosecution lawyers or fast talking debating. I pray for our country that President Bush is re-elected and we have four more years with a great President, who is not afraid to make unpopular decisions when he thinks its the right thing to do!
Thank you

::MinnieMo
 
I pray for our country that Bush is sent back to the ranch!
 
I cannot see the point of rudeness. People have political opinions, and if you do not agree, thats fine, but why are you liberals so rude and nasty. Look into viagara maybe, for a suggestion. hahahahaha put that in yer pipe
 
Originally posted by MinnieMouse51
I cannot see the point of rudeness. People have political opinions, and if you do not agree, thats fine, but why are you liberals so rude and nasty. Look into viagara maybe, for a suggestion. hahahahaha put that in yer pipe


Look at who is being rude? You said you pray Bush gets elected, I pray he doesn't and I am rude? And then your PERSONALLY ATTACK ME?

I don't have a pipe and I amnot sure what kind of reaction I would have with Viagra.

I don't understand why some people get sooffended when people don't like Bush and feel the need to personally attack people.
 
Originally posted by LisaZoe
To the OP - I find it amusing that in one post, you accuse Kerry supporters of being "blinkered" by the media yet in this post, you are very quick to use the media as support of your viewpoint. How is your belief in the accuracy of these reports any different than those of us who are "blinkered"? Is it because this isn't the so-called "liberal media" and, therefore, more reliable?

Diana Kerry's presence, actions, and statements have not been disputed, LisaZoe, nor denied. That she was formally representing the John Kerry campaign is not deniable, either.

Are you doubting the veracity of the Australian article? If so, which part? If you believe her actions have been reported truthfully and that she has not been misquoted, why does this not alarm you?

Does it matter that Kerry has spoken about creating and/or broadening the coalition and yet supports the opposing candidate who has publicly stated he will pull Aussie troops out if he is elected? You do or do not find this hypocritical on Kerry's part?

How can one state they support Kerry when it is clear he wavers on key issues or acts in a contradictory manner? Since his views remain so ambiguous, I am wondering WHAT Kerry supporters actually support. . .and I am pretty certain that you don't even have a clear idea. Unless, of course, it's the whole Anyone But Bush sentiment.

Except, with Kerry's contradictory actions, how can you even comfortably believe, then, that he won't act just like Bush if he's elected?

Please, in light of this article, and in light of his statements at the debate, please tell me what you believe his position is regarding the War on Terror.
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!











facebook twitter
Top