Share This Page

John Forbes Kerry, throne-sniffer

| Saturday, Feb. 16, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

John Kerry has now taken over as secretary of State. Mainstream newspapers and the networks labor to convince Americans that he is yet another goodfellow, a centrist Democrat and a measured, distinguished figure for our foreign ministry. All the evidence points to the contrary.

Kerry, 69, is a lifelong political careerist, a Massachusetts liberal of poor character, who, to paraphrase G.K. Chesterton, has poured righteous indignation into all the wrong things in his decades on the public stage.

Sen. Jim Inhofe told The Washington Post that his vote against Kerry was “an easy call. ... I told him I never agreed with him on anything, going all the way back to the Sandinistas,” the Nicaraguan leftists and criminals over whom Kerry publicly slobbered.

As Jay Nordlinger said in National Review back in 2004, Kerry was an important player in a group of left-wingers who were known as “Dear Commandante Democrats” because of the throne-sniffing letters they regularly sent to Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega.

In April 1985, the newly elected Sen. Kerry flew to Managua on a trip arranged by the hard-left Institute of Policy Studies (IPS).

You might not recall IPS (which exists to this day) but Kerry was thick with it in that decade. As the New Zealand Libertarian Trevor Loudon said that day, “IPS is one of the most subversive and destructive organizations in the U.S.” Loudon described the low-key group as “the Forrest Gump of socialism.”

As his plane touched upon the runway in Nicaragua, the future U.S. secretary of State, a relentless publicity hound who had taken mainstream news people with him, said to The Post, “Look at it. It reminds me so much of Vietnam. The same lushness, the tree lines.” He droned on with criticisms of the CIA and of America. “I see an enormous haughtiness in the United States trying to tell them what to do.”

“Haughtiness”? Please. This man is the epitome of the word. He has worked to give the impression of inherited money. Listen to his pompous, deceitful recorded testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971, available on the Internet, when he smeared the American military, using a phony Brahmin-like accent. It's pathetic.

Kerry was an insecure man from a middle-class branch of a rich, prominent family (the Forbeses of Boston) who grew up a Roman Catholic in the WASP world of that time and could never get over it.

Said Kerry, on that same plane landing in Nicaragua, “These are just poor people, no money, no food, just like in Vietnam. They are just trying to stay alive. They just want peace. They don't want their daughter getting blown away on the way to teach. Or their sons disappearing. It's just terrible. I see the same sense of great victimization. The little kids staring wide-eyed and scared. It really hits home the same way as Vietnam.”

All that from a man on a moving airplane peering through a small window who's now our secretary of State. Remarkable.

Richard W. Carlson, a former U.S. ambassador to the Seychelles and former director of the Voice of America, is vice chairman of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.