KERRY APOLOGY LETTER TO IRAN'S LEADERS & TERRORISTS (Kerry's Axis)

Washington Times ^ | 3/14/2004 | Diana West

[Steven W.]

... on Feb. 8, the Tehran Times published in full an e-mail sent by the Kerry campaign to a government news agency promising that a President Kerry would try to restore relations "at risk" due to "the actions and attitudes" of the Bush administration. "Disappointment with the current U.S. leadership is widespread," the e-mail said, "extending not just to the corridors of power and politics, but to the man and woman on the street as well." If that's not giving aid and comfort to an enemy, it's certainly meddling with U.S. diplomacy in a time of war.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Who is going to do this? Dan Rather, Wolf Blitzer? They have already crowned Kerry president. This story has been floating around for a few weeks, and other than FR, no one else touched it. Why? Because Kerry's audience was only supposed to be the Mullahs, not Joe-Six Pack in Iowa. Joe doesn't need to know anything.

[Steven W.]

Americans revile Iran, in fact the Iran Contra scandal found resonance because people did not support President Reagan extending an olive branch to Iran.

Actually, my impression always was that Americans did appreciate the effort to try and reach out to the moderates in Iran and didn't even mind the diversion of funds given the fact Ollie, Casey + Poindexter made sure everything was truly legal assured Reagan got a pass - it was that, ultimately, when you looked at the whole thing from above and in retrospect, it did appear as though there could be the impression of arms for hostages which violated Reagan's principles.

[Steve_Seattle]

I think there's been a shadow State Department and a shadow CIA throughout the Bush administration. There are clearly elements in both those organizations who are working at cross-purposes with the administration.

[cwb]

I agree. In fact, my tagline line sums up my feelings on the matter.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Socratic]

"...State Department...CIA.... There are clearly elements in both those organizations who are working at cross-purposes with the administration."

I agree, but how much is attributable to bureaucratic entrenchment? Administrations come and go, but the career government employee is forever.

[not-alone]

I just watched the White House briefing and was thinking that they may want the press to follow up on this.For some reason they are pushing this foreign leader thing hard. But something is strange no coverage on this story.

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[BunnySlippers]

Is anyone able to get onto the Tehran Times link above?

[kt56]

I tried your Tehran link and got the following
Due to technical problems you can not see TehranTimes at the moment.
Please try again later.

They're probably scrubbing the page as we speak..

[B-bone]

http://www.tehrantimes.com/archives.asp

Try this link and do a search on "Kerry" on Feb 8,2004

[nuconvert]

When asked whether removing Saddam Hussein was worth the cost, Mr. Kerry replied: "If there are not weapons of mass destruction — and we may yet find some — then this is a war that was fought under false pretenses." "So," said Time, "if we don't find WMD, the war wasn't worth the costs? That's a yes?" "No," said Mr. Kerry. "I think you can still — wait, no. You can't — that's not a fair question, and I'll tell you why. You can wind up successful in transforming Iraq and changing the dynamics, and that may make it worth it, but that doesn't mean [transforming Iraq] was the cause [that provided the] legitimacy to go."

Right. LOL! ...QUICK!.........Do the ends justify the means in this case? Yes or No.?

[PhilDragoo]

When asked whether removing Saddam Hussein was worth the cost, Mr. Kerry replied: "If there are not weapons of mass destruction — and we may yet find some — then this is a war that was fought under false pretenses." "So," said Time, "if we don't find WMD, the war wasn't worth the costs? That's a yes?" "No," said Mr. Kerry. "I think you can still — wait, no. You can't — that's not a fair question, and I'll tell you why. You can wind up successful in transforming Iraq and changing the dynamics, and that may make it worth it, but that doesn't mean [transforming Iraq] was the cause [that provided the] legitimacy to go."

And now we have Waffle Boy butt-kissing Khamenei who makes Irani democracy advocates "disappear" in prisons and torture chambers.

And here comes the Kerry response:

"It's none of your business."

Now we're talking: the dictatorship of the proletariat is too important to entrust to the little people.

Jihad al Querry: supported by foreign leaders Kim Il Sung, Ayatollah Khamenei, Syria's Assad, Cuba's Castro, to name a few.

Oh, and this guy:

[ladyinred]

The terrorists were ignored by Clinton. This made them angry because they committed their acts with the intention of getting credit for them. Bubba pretended they were just crimes, had them arrested, and continued with his charade that we were living in peace and prosperity. Each time he ignored them, they escalated the attack until finally we reached 911 something they knew couldn't be ignored. Is this the terrorist policy Kerry will bring us?

[doug from upland]

None dare call it treason.

[Mrs Zip]

ping

[MeekOneGOP]

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Exactly. Kerry doesn't want the "little people" determining what American Foreign Policy should be. He is trying to position himself, before the election, as the alternative to Bush, that the world should turn to.

As someone said last night... "Why for the love of all things good, should foreign leaders have more say over America's policy, than American voters?"