Sunday Levity: He’s called John Kerry

The fine art of qualification

“I support a nuclear deal with India, in principle. There is a strong democracy in India and they abide by the principles of non-proliferation,” [Sen. John Kerry] said, adding, “I hope things with Pakistan are moving in the right direction and Pakistan too is given equal treatment, if it meets certain standards.” [DT/ emphasis added]

This led Pakistan’s Daily Times to announce “Kerry for equality between India, Pakistan”. The Indian press was more cautious. “Kerry cautiously backs N-deal”, the Times of India wrote, while the Indian Express reported “Kerry meets PM, positive on Indo-US civilian N-ties”. Only The Statesman helped un-equivocate Kerry. “Pro-India Kerry backs nuke deal”, it boldly told its readers.

The ‘BBC’, that well-known exponent of inverted-comma-scepticism (that’s single-quote-scepticism, in the American usage), did get it right this time. “Kerry ‘backs’ India nuclear deal”, it said.

3 thoughts on “Sunday Levity: He’s called John Kerry”

  1. This bozo tries to pass off as an intellectual. His rich wife seems to think she’s married to a genius (“someone who can handle complexity” – a snub at W). Truth is this guy has an IQ within a few points of W (both in the 90’s). There’s a good reason he’s called John Flip Kerry one day and John Flop Kerry the next. God help the nuclear deal if he wins in 2008.

  2. John Kerry is a politician and like any politician in a democracy, he needs to stay relevant to world affairs. One should concede that from just being a senator looking for whats good for the American people, he is now aspiring to becoming a world leader of his own stature. I think this should see as a re-allignment of his minor principles. Even during, the last democratic primaries and presidential elections npt was not his main election plank.

    I think this re-alignment and future re-alignments are not just correct, but also necessary.

    Being democratic (by nature) is not just participating in polls, but also open in your mind to ideas and having the conviction to re-align your opinions. I dont think this is in anyway wrong. When we can accept doctors, engineers, technocrats and literally everyone in civil society as being ambitious, why then the blinker view on politicians. Afterall they come from civil society.

    Do we hold different standards for different people ? I think its hypocritical for the middle class to stand in judgement of a politician. He has the guts to change. We dont credit that quality. Worse than being hypocritical is being undemocratic.

    I see the middle class as becoming mroe and more autocratic in their opinions.

    Its ok to change.

    vasu

  3. President Kerry would have been a disaster for Indo-US relationship – much worst than pre-Kargil Clinton.

Comments are closed.