Posted on PowerLine... John Kerry has always been a traitor.

John Kerry disgraced himself yet again earlier today, when he launched a salvo against the Bush administration at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. (What is it about Davos that brings out the worst in temporarily expatriate Americans?) This Power Line Forum thread addresses Kerry's latest folly. You could spend a long time taking apart Kerry's attack on President Bush, but let's just focus on one aspect of it:

“When we walk away from global warming, Kyoto, when we are irresponsibly slow in moving toward AIDS in Africa, when we don’t advance and live up to our own rhetoric and standards, we set a terrible message of duplicity and hypocrisy,” Kerry said.
Speaking of duplicity and hypocrisy...Kerry himself has actually had the opportunity to vote on the Kyoto carbon emissions treaty. Forum member ironman administers the coup de grace:

this says it all…
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 105th Congress - 1st Session

Vote Date: July 25, 1997, 11:37 AM

Question: On the Resolution (s.res.98 )

Declares that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997 or thereafter which would: (1) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex 1 Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period; or (2) result in serious harm to the U.S. economy.

YEAs 95
NAYs 0
Not Voting 5

Kerry (D-MA), Yea

Duplicitous and hypocritical: that pretty well sums up John Kerry.

I have been sharing letters written by Mike Walker, an ex-Marine Colonel who spent multiple tours in Bosnia and Iraq. Today there is one more and an important read concerning the perceptions of our "new" government and Iraq.

All,

Clueless in the Capitol

Mike

Clueless in the Capitol

Let me see if I got this right? The folks arguing
that the only solution to what they insist on calling
the “unwinnable” war in Iraq is by cutting and running
because:

1. We are putting US soldiers into the middle of a
civil war.

2. Our intervention into an Islamic country ruled by a
ruthless authoritarian regime, once suspected of
having WMD and ties to al Qaeda has weakened the US
abroad.

3. We have grown very uneasy over all the deaths
associated with the civil war.

4. The country of Iraq is a mess. There is
wide-spread lawlessness, corruption, and an
ineffective police. The infrastructure is in
disarray. There are thousands of invaluable
archeological artifacts that are being looted. There
are radical Islamists preaching a “Hate America”
message from their mosques across the country. It is a
breeding ground for al Qaeda.

5. Even though the United Nations had failed in all
its previous attempts to bring about a peaceful
resolution it was a mistake for the US to take the
lead in pushing through a resolution in that body that
allowed us to act.

So when I saw the whole of Congress, both those in the
Senate and the House, give a standing ovation when
President Bush spoke to “…save the people of Darfur”
during the State of Union Address, it was enough to
make the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.

What did you know about Iraq in 2002? Were you all up
on Muqtada Sadr, Shi’a, Sunni, Kurds? Basra and
Baghdad, Mosul and Fallujah? How about al Anbar, an
Najaf or an Fal? Did you know about IED’s and
Oil-for-Food?

So what do you know about Darfur in 2007? Gee, your
response to that question alone should be enough to
give us all a long pause before we contemplate
intervening there.

I bet you don’t know about the Darfar Liberation
Front, the Sudan Liberation Army, the Sudan Liberation
Movement, or the Sudan People's Liberation Army? How
about anamism, the Umma party, janjaweed, Baggara,
Masalit?

Here is some more information about Darfur, based on
the five points made above about Iraq, which should
make you wonder about the competency of the whole mob
in Washington DC:

1. We will be putting US soldiers into the middle of
an Islamic civil war in the Sudan that began in
February 2003 and is still raging. Hmmm, sound
familiar, don’t it? Oh, and don’t let this civil war
in the Sudan confuse you with the First Sudan Civil
War (1955-1972) or the Second Sudan Civil War
(1983-2001). Might need a score card.

2. So let me get this straight, intervening into the
Sudan, an Islamic country ruled by a ruthless
authoritarian regime, once suspected of having WMD
(President Clinton ordered the bombing of a suspected
WMD facility there in August 1998) and ties to al
Qaeda (Usama bin Laden had his headquarters there
before he move to Afghanistan) will not weaken the US
abroad while, to repeat myself, intervening in Iraq,
an Islamic country ruled by a ruthless authoritarian
regime, once suspected of having WMD and ties to al
Qaeda has weakened the US abroad? Hard to follow that
one…

3. We have grown very uneasy over all the deaths
associated with the civil war. In January 2007, the
UN Assistance Mission in Iraq stated they believed
over 34,000 Iraqis died during the fighting there in
2006. In the Darfur region of the Sudan, the UN
reported 50,000 killed there in 2004 and in September
2006 the UN News Service put the number at 400,000.

It seems that the Sudan civil war is far more violent
and deadly than the war in Iraq. So let me see if I
can follow this logic, if 34,000 die in a civil war in
a year we are supposed to begin a phased withdrawal of
the Marines but if 50,000 or more die in a year in a
civil war we are supposed to send in the Marines?
Does that mean that the Congress will rally around a
troop build-up in Iraq if the number of civilian
casualties can just break the 50,000 per annum mark?

4. The country of the Sudan is a mess. There is
wide-spread lawlessness, corruption, and an
ineffective police. The infrastructure is in
disarray. There are thousands of invaluable
archeological artifacts that are being looted. There
are radical Islamists preaching a “Hate America”
message from their mosques across the country. It is
a breeding ground for al Qaeda.

This is a more than apt description of the situation
in the Sudan and the Darfur region. Heck, the Sudan is
so broken that it makes Iraq look downright modern and
efficient. Also add in that it has a thriving market
in buying and selling human beings, it used to be
called slavery. When we go into the Sudan are we
going to take on that “nation building” problem too?

5. Even though the United Nations had failed in all
its previous attempts to bring about a peaceful
resolution it was a mistake for the US to take the
lead and to push through a resolution in that body
that allowed us to act in Iraq. As for the Sudan there
have been repeated UN Security Council Resolutions,
reports, briefings, studies have been made ad nauseum
and UN nabobs have come and gone (déjà vu all over
again, Yogi?), but now, says the cheering Congress, we
need to go into the Sudan? Oh yeah, did you also know
the Chinese have quietly shut down every robust UN
proposal on the Sudan and they have the “Veto.” The UN
can’t even use the word “genocide” in regards to the
Sudan.

So is the “Quit Iraq Now” crowd urging the US to take
the lead in pushing through a UN resolution that will
allow us to intervene in the Sudan? I guess they also
need to get to work on making some “Quit the Darfar
Now” placards for use in the near future.

We do need to look seriously at the situation in the
Sudan and perhaps we will find that the best solution
is to intervene there, but this time let us do our
homework before putting more Americans into harm’s
way.

If “saving the people of Darfar” brings Congress to
its feet in cheers but when the President speaks to a
similar goal in Iraq we find them sitting mutely, then
“Clueless in the Capitol” ought to be the new motto
for that organization.

Gentlemen,

I supported the changes that took place in the
November elections and voted accordingly because I was
led to believe that we would have a unified leadership
that ensured a broader debate on and greater oversight
over how to win the global war on terrorism to include
Iraq and Afghanistan.

But, despite some solid actions on the domestic front,
these so called first 100 hours are a major
disappointment as it regards the global war on
terrorism:

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer:

“Even as the White House announced Bush's plans,
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi released a letter to the president urging
him to begin pulling troops out of Iraq in four to six
months.”

Most Americans I know supported change in order to WIN
not change to CUT AND RUN.

I do not belong to any political party so I am not
obligated to be loyal to any party or any one of its
office holders for sake of being loyal. As one of
those who fought in this war I can tell you I feel
betrayed by the comments made by the political leaders
above.

As another aside, while I have been frank and frequent
in my criticism of the way President Bush has handled
parts of the war he still deserved the respect from
the press that is afforded to any President. If
"Senate Majority Leader" and "House Speaker" are
written with capitals then the lousy AP editors and
Mr. Robert Burns should show a modicum of
professionalism and capitalize the word "President."

Semper Fi,

Mike (Mike Walker, USMC Col. retired)