Let’s assume that he was merely a sucker who fell for Soviet and Cuban propaganda. Does a similar knowledge deficiency explain why, when he ran for president in 2004, he told a Boston audience that the Colombian guerrillas, famous for killing and maiming civilians, “have legitimate complaints”?
Silvio Canto, Jr.
American Thinker
12/26/2012
Last spring, President Obama attended a meeting of Latin American leaders. We remember that meeting because of the Secret Service scandal. It was also the meeting when Latin American leaders complained that the Obama administration does not have a policy toward the region.
I was very happy to see that Mary Anastasia O’Grady of The Wall Street Journal posted an article about the nomination of Sen Kerry to be Secretary of State. She pointed out that Sen Kerry has been on the “left” side of every major event in the last 40 years:
“Mr. Kerry’s record of promoting American values abroad is dismal. It isn’t that he opposes U.S. intervention-far from it. The trouble is that he has a habit of intervening on behalf of bad guys. A left-wing world view and an earnest conviction that it is his destiny to impose it on others may make him a perfect fit in the Obama cabinet. But it won’t be good for poor countries or for U.S. interests.”
* Mr Kerry supported “the Sandinistas” over “the Contras”.
* In Honduras ’09, Mr Kerry supported Sr. Zelaya, an ally of Chavez, trying to violate the country’s constitution.
* Add to this Mr Kerry’s opposition to free trade agreements, from the very successful NAFTA to Colombia, Chile, etc.
Mr Kerry will be our next Secretary of State. They will probably cheer in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela and scratch their heads in Mexico, Colombia and Chile…
The article continues at American Thinker.
Related: Report: GOP senators won’t confirm Kerry until Clinton testifies on Benghazi
