V
Why should we be surprised to discover John "Swift Boat" Kerry to have any backbone? We have, essentially, a deserter and traitor for Secretary of State. Here is a man who was awarded three Purple Hearts -- an amazing feat since none of the injuries caused him to miss a single day of duty, all three were described by swift boat crewman as "scratches," and the third of which he virtually put himself in for so he could bail on his command in Vietnam.
The rule is, three PHs and you're outta there. But Kerry's "wounds" were questionable at best, so while it's not quite desertion, it's darn close. Less than a year later the showed up in Paris to give aid and comfort to the enemy by supporting North Vietnamese negotiators at the peace talks -- that's the traitor portion of the story.
Now we see him doing the exact same thing, abandoning his duties as the U.S. Secretary of State, a position in which he is supposed ot represent our best interests. Instead, he says to Iran, "You must do this," they reply, "No, we don't," and his tough negotiating stances is "Oh, all right, we're fine with that." Just so he can claim to have made a "deal" -- one which accomplishes absolutely nothing, gives Iran a clear path to a nuclear weapon, and likely triggers a Mideast nuclear arms race and eventually, Armageddon.
He's never been anything but a coward, and he remains firmly entrenched in the persona today.
Even more importantly, who among us thought we had elected the man in 2008 who would trigger the Tribulation?
The rule is, three PHs and you're outta there. But Kerry's "wounds" were questionable at best, so while it's not quite desertion, it's darn close. Less than a year later the showed up in Paris to give aid and comfort to the enemy by supporting North Vietnamese negotiators at the peace talks -- that's the traitor portion of the story.
Now we see him doing the exact same thing, abandoning his duties as the U.S. Secretary of State, a position in which he is supposed ot represent our best interests. Instead, he says to Iran, "You must do this," they reply, "No, we don't," and his tough negotiating stances is "Oh, all right, we're fine with that." Just so he can claim to have made a "deal" -- one which accomplishes absolutely nothing, gives Iran a clear path to a nuclear weapon, and likely triggers a Mideast nuclear arms race and eventually, Armageddon.
He's never been anything but a coward, and he remains firmly entrenched in the persona today.
Even more importantly, who among us thought we had elected the man in 2008 who would trigger the Tribulation?
