Diana Kerry Speaks Australian (putting DK straight!)

The Weekly Standard ^ | 09/20/2004 4:00:00 PM | Amanda Sokolski

[Byron_the_Aussie]

John Kerry's sister thinks U.S. policy is endangering the people from Down Under.

IN COMMENTS to the Weekend Australian, Diana Kerry, the younger sister of the Democratic presidential candidate, has expressed concern for the safety of Australians facing an increased terrorism threat brought on by the U.S.-led intervention in Iraq. The Bali bombing and the more recent attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta, according to Ms. Kerry, showed the danger to Australians of being allied with the United States in the war on terror: "Australia has kept faith with the U.S., and we are endangering the Australians now by this wanton disregard for international law and multilateral channels."

Ms. Kerry's expression of concern for Australians' welfare might be touching for some. For others, and particularly those who are Australian, her remarks are patronizing at best. Indeed, they reveal how little regard the Kerry entourage has for America's allies--other than France and Germany.

As an ally of the United States, and one that was by its side in every major conflict of the 20th century, Australia certainly felt in some measure obliged to support the United States in Iraq. However, Australia is a sovereign state with an independent and democratic government. It is fully capable of exercising its own judgment in such a serious matter as going to war. In the case of Iraq, the Australian government did just that. As a mature and responsible state, it has no need now to indulge in recriminations against the United States over its decision.

To support her claim that Australians are in greater danger, Ms. Kerry refers to Bali nightclub bombings two years ago, which killed 88 young Australians, and the September 9, 2004, attack by Jemiah Islamiah (JI) on the Australian embassy in Jakarta. Such loose play with facts is in keeping with the Kerry campaign's lack of seriousness on issues of Iraq and terrorism. The Bali bombings took place in October 2002 well before the Iraq war and Australia's involvement in it. It is also well recognized that JI had been targeting Australian interests in the Southeast Asia region since long before Australia's involvement in Iraq. Take for example the foiled plot by JI terrorists to bomb the Australian embassy in Singapore in January 2002.

Australia is a target for terrorists because of the ideals and beliefs that Australia shares with the United States and other Western countries. Would Ms. Kerry have Australians give those up to remain safe?

The Kerry campaign has argued that the Bush administration had too few allies going into war and claims that only Kerry would have the credentials to generate wider support for U.S. efforts in Iraq and around the world. How does it intend to do this if it seeks to scare off those allies who do support Washington?

Amanda Sokolski is a former Australian diplomat now living in Washington, D.C.

[Clemenza]

When will these people just GO AWAY! November 3 is NOT SOON ENOUGH!

[Boundless]

> "Australia has kept faith with the U.S., and we are
> endangering the Australians now by this wanton
> disregard for international law and multilateral channels."

Translation: It's OK for Kerry Kampers to assert that Bush
is making the world more dangerous, but Cheney had better
not even suggest anything similar about Kerry.

Is this the sister that was bit by a moose once?

[luvbach1]

So the implication is that if the Aussies were unallied with the US the terrorists would avoid them? Extending that logic, all the nations of the world need do is sever themselves as allies of America and voila, no more terrorism except against the US and Israel.

[singfreedom]

Thank you for posting this article. I must admit, I was a bit concerned when I heard about Ms. Kerry's remarks. Realizing the Australians are very independent, free thinking folks, I was fairly certain her remarks would not be well received.

The writer does, indeed, seem to have a pretty good handle on Mr. Kerry and his campaign!

[Bogey78O]

Cheney said America would be less safe if Americans make the wrong choice in November.

Kerry and his ilk have said worse.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..when will these people just GO AWAY!...

I know just what you mean but we have to stay frosty and not become complacent Clemenza. The Dems will be working on Plan 2 for their October Surprise about now. Just keep thinking how good the FR party will be, on Nov 3. :)

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..so the implication is that if the Aussies were unallied with the US the terrorists would avoid them?...

Yeah. Can you believe it? I think they call that one the Spanish Strategy.

[NationSoConceived]

Australia is a target for terrorists because of the ideals and beliefs that Australia shares with the United States and other Western countries. Would Ms. Kerry have Australians give those up to remain safe?

Yes. Yes she would.

As would her brother. As would every terrorist-kissbutt out there. Not that it is a big stretch for the left to give up American ideals and beliefs. Its hardly a new idea for them.

[Watery Tart]

Aren't there federal laws against this sort of thing?

And does she think (or wants others to think) that she speaks for the US? And can she get any more condescending?

As with the rest of her clan (and the clan married into) she has NO CLASS. Among other things.

[fish hawk]

Does anyone know if the Kerry's mother and father were first cousins?

[Watery Tart]

Title 18, USC, Section 953 (aka Logan Act) provides:


"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

Provided by FReeper Time4Atlas2Shrug on another thread.

[NationSoConceived]

Aren't there federal laws against this sort of thing?

And does she think (or wants others to think) that she speaks for the US? And can she get any more condescending?

I dont think she's there in any official capacity, so she can bloviate all she wants to any and all who want to listen. That's one of the drawbacks of a free society: nothing to keep the idiots from yapping.

BTW, I love your screen name. There are simply too few Python fans out there.

[Watery Tart]

I would think that a nominee and his family would have a little more decorum than this. I would think she'd grow a pair and do her public whining here, where she can take her proper criticisms.

I believe there are people abroad who'd think she speaks for the US.

And I must call my friend Zoot and her sister Dingo at the Castle Anthrax. Thanks for reminding me. ;o)

[KangarooJacqui]

Australia is a sovereign state with an independent and democratic government. It is fully capable of exercising its own judgment in such a serious matter as going to war. In the case of Iraq, the Australian government did just that. As a mature and responsible state, it has no need now to indulge in recriminations against the United States over its decision.

Well, at least the journalist got it right, even if Diana sKerry didn't.

Dear goodness... who dragged this nonentity out to lay an egg on Australia's foreign policy?

Can dear ol' Diana even find Australia on a map? can she find her backside with both hands and a map? I sincerely doubt both.