In kerrys own words.........

[Rich in Ohio]

Dying for the United Nations

Why is John Kerry no Clinton-Lieberman Democrat? Easy. His obeisance to the U.N.

by William Kristol

10/20/2004 11:45:00 AM

 

 

 

 

 

WHO WOULD HAVE EXPECTED the Washington Post to inflict real damage on John Kerry's faltering presidential campaign? Yet they have.

 

Here is the third paragraph from today's front-page article by Helen Dewar and Tom Ricks on Kerry's foreign policy record:

 

 

Kerry's belief in working with allies runs so deep that he has maintained that the loss of American life can be better justified if it occurs in the course of a mission with international support. In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, "If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no."

 

When the Bush campaign talks about John Kerry's wanting a "permission slip" from the U.N., many commentators dismiss it as rhetorical excess. But Kerry really does believe that the United Nations is a fundamental, legitimizing body for the use of U.S. force. One hears this deference to the U.N. all the time in European capitals, but it is rare to hear it even among mainstream American liberals. In this respect, as in others, Kerry really is a throwback. He still shares the McGovernite distrust of U.S. force and suspicion of the judgments that are arrived at by the American body politic.

 

John Kerry is not a Clinton-Lieberman Democrat. His near obsession with gaining the approval of the U.N., and for that matter of France and Germany, for the conduct of U.S. foreign policy would make him the riskiest commander in chief of any presidential candidate since George McGovern--and surely makes Kerry unsuitable to govern in a post-9/11 world.

[nobody]

It's called a "world view" - not requiring the US to be the world police for every little crisis. Do you want the US to be the only country that has to stop every crisis or shouldn't other countries have to do their share.

 

If it directly involves the US then I'm all for using our power at will. If it's some civil war in the middle of nowhere let's get the UN involved.

[DC Tom]

It's called a "world view" - not requiring the US to be the world police for every little crisis.  Do you want the US to be the only country that has to stop every crisis or shouldn't other countries have to do their share.

 

It would be nice not to be the world police. Problem is, when we do police every little problem area we're being "imperialistic". When we don't (e.g. Rwanda, Bosnia), we're "not exercising our leadership".

 

If it directly involves the US then I'm all for using our power at will.  If it's some civil war in the middle of nowhere let's get the UN involved.

77840[/snapback]

 

As a matter of principle, I agree. As a practical matter, I don't think the rest of the world does.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

If it directly involves the US then I'm all for using our power at will.

77840[/snapback]

 

 

And that's exactly why we're in Iraq. It WSA in our interest to remove Saddam, WMD or not. (There ARE WMD, I believe, they're just in Syria right now.) But he was a menace, and a person who could not be dealt with diplomatically. Force was necessary and right. As for the handling of the post-war Iraq, that's a different story. I think we're being TOO LENIENT. We should have knocked heads harder and sooner, but hindsight's 20/20.

[Mickey]

Dying for the United Nations

Why is John Kerry no Clinton-Lieberman Democrat? Easy. His obeisance to the U.N.

by William Kristol

10/20/2004 11:45:00 AM

 

 

WHO WOULD HAVE EXPECTED the Washington Post to inflict real damage on John Kerry's faltering presidential campaign? Yet they have.

 

Here is the third paragraph from today's front-page article by Helen Dewar and Tom Ricks on Kerry's foreign policy record:

Kerry's belief in working with allies runs so deep that he has maintained that the loss of American life can be better justified if it occurs in the course of a mission with international support. In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, "If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no."

 

When the Bush campaign talks about John Kerry's wanting a "permission slip" from the U.N., many commentators dismiss it as rhetorical excess. But Kerry really does believe that the United Nations is a fundamental, legitimizing body for the use of U.S. force. One hears this deference to the U.N. all the time in European capitals, but it is rare to hear it even among mainstream American liberals. In this respect, as in others, Kerry really is a throwback. He still shares the McGovernite distrust of U.S. force and suspicion of the judgments that are arrived at by the American body politic.

 

John Kerry is not a Clinton-Lieberman Democrat. His near obsession with gaining the approval of the U.N., and for that matter of France and Germany, for the conduct of U.S. foreign policy would make him the riskiest commander in chief of any presidential candidate since George McGovern--and surely makes Kerry unsuitable to govern in a post-9/11 world.

77746[/snapback]

 

William Kristol? please, why not quote Rush instead? You could hardly find a less credible attack dog of the right. Where do I start? His roommate at Harvard was Alan Keyes. He was Bill Bennet's chief of staff at the Dept. of Education and he was Quayle's handler until Clinton kicked their butts in '92. He then was hired at ABC by Dorrance Smith, Bush's communications director. After that he got Rupert Murdoch to fund his conservative rag, The Weekly Standard which still loses money with its paltry circulation of 60,000. ABC even fired him from "This Week". One of his peers described him thusly:

 

"He's become part of Washington's circulatory system, this half-pol, half-pundit, full throated advocate with the nice guy image...who is wired to nearly all the Republican Presidential candidates."

 

You might as well be quoting Karl Rove. He is more of an honorary Bush than Prince Bandar.

[Chilly]

I hate posting politics on this board. Everyone is so partisan its ridiculous.

 

But I just had to post in response to this. Rich, your claims here are ridiculous. I am a Kerry supporter over Bush, I will not lie. However, come on man, are you going to completely throw out everything Kerry said at the debates?

 

Bush's campaign is being awful when taking the "global test" thing out of purportion. Yes, he mentioned a global test, but it was about whether we were whether we are being honest with the rest of the world.

 

Kerry would take preemptive action against anyone that was an immediate threat to the US. He's stated this, and every president thats commander in chief would.

 

To think otherwise would be like believing Kerry that Bush would reinstate the draft.

 

JoeSixPack, how do you justify going into Iraq over Saudy Arabia, in which the large majority of 9/11 highjackers come from and who has the highest links to terrorism out of any country? How do you justify going to Iraq over Iran, who now has nuclear weapons programs running again? Thats why it wasn't in America's best interest to invade Iraq.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

 

JoeSixPack, how do you justify going into Iraq over Saudy Arabia, in which the large majority of 9/11 highjackers come from and who has the highest links to terrorism out of any country?  How do you justify going to Iraq over Iran, who now has nuclear weapons programs running again?  Thats why it wasn't in America's best interest to invade Iraq.

78711[/snapback]

 

Saddam Hussein signed a cease-fire with us in 91. He broke that cease-fire. he deserved to go.

[Rich in Ohio]

William Kristol? please, why not quote Rush instead?  You could hardly find a less credible attack dog of the right.  Where do I start?  His roommate at Harvard was Alan Keyes.  He was Bill Bennet's chief of staff at the Dept. of Education and he was Quayle's handler until Clinton kicked their butts in '92.  He then was hired at ABC by Dorrance Smith, Bush's communications director.  After that he got Rupert Murdoch to fund his conservative rag, The Weekly Standard which still loses money with its paltry circulation of 60,000.  ABC even fired him from "This Week".  One of his peers described him thusly:

 

"He's become part of Washington's circulatory system, this half-pol, half-pundit, full throated advocate with the nice guy image...who is wired to nearly all the Republican Presidential candidates." 

 

You might as well be quoting Karl Rove.  He is more of an honorary Bush than Prince Bandar.

78676[/snapback]

 

 

Umm mickey, Bill Kristal aside, what do you think about kerrys own quote? Really why can't you just deal with the facts at hand? You have tt attack the messanger all the time. The point is kerrys own quote, the quote was not made up by Bill, just reported.

 

So here we go again...let me break this down as simply as possible. Please try to respond to kerrys own quote.

[Rich in Ohio]

I hate posting politics on this board.  Everyone is so partisan its ridiculous.

 

But I just had to post in response to this.  Rich, your claims here are ridiculous.  I am a Kerry supporter over Bush, I will not lie.  However, come on man, are you going to completely throw out everything Kerry said at the debates?

 

Bush's campaign is being awful when taking the "global test" thing out of purportion.  Yes, he mentioned a global test, but it was about whether we were whether we are being honest with the rest of the world.

 

Kerry would take preemptive action against anyone that was an immediate threat to the US.  He's stated this, and every president thats commander in chief would.

 

To think otherwise would be like believing Kerry that Bush would reinstate the draft.

 

JoeSixPack, how do you justify going into Iraq over Saudy Arabia, in which the large majority of 9/11 highjackers come from and who has the highest links to terrorism out of any country?  How do you justify going to Iraq over Iran, who now has nuclear weapons programs running again?  Thats why it wasn't in America's best interest to invade Iraq.

78711[/snapback]

 

Hey bluefire, welcome to the bigs pal.

 

Hey I did not put any words in kerrys mouth here. There are his own words and the reason I posted them here is because this clearly shows (in his own words) what many others have claimed about him. I happen to think that it is perhaps one of the most dangerous sides of kerry. This type of thinking IMO is noy healthy in a post 9-11 world, and you will not hear this information on the evening news. Basically because the talking heads agree with kerry on these points.

 

By the way, the purpose of this forum is to have opposing viewpoints and to discuss them on some level of civility. Of course people on both sides are passionate.

[ubhockey]

It's called a "world view" - not requiring the US to be the world police for every little crisis.  Do you want the US to be the only country that has to stop every crisis or shouldn't other countries have to do their share.

 

If it directly involves the US then I'm all for using our power at will.  If it's some civil war in the middle of nowhere let's get the UN involved.

77840[/snapback]

 

The thing is, who comes crying to the US when these civil wars and genocides happen. Its ok for us to fight for something that doesn't affect our country but its not ok to fight for our security? The UN is crap.

[boomerjamhead]

William Kristol? please, why not quote Rush instead?  You could hardly find a less credible attack dog of the right.  Where do I start?  His roommate at Harvard was Alan Keyes.  He was Bill Bennet's chief of staff at the Dept. of Education and he was Quayle's handler until Clinton kicked their butts in '92.  He then was hired at ABC by Dorrance Smith, Bush's communications director.  After that he got Rupert Murdoch to fund his conservative rag, The Weekly Standard which still loses money with its paltry circulation of 60,000.  ABC even fired him from "This Week".  One of his peers described him thusly:

 

"He's become part of Washington's circulatory system, this half-pol, half-pundit, full throated advocate with the nice guy image...who is wired to nearly all the Republican Presidential candidates." 

 

You might as well be quoting Karl Rove.  He is more of an honorary Bush than Prince Bandar.

78676[/snapback]

 

Thanks to Bill Kristol and PNAC, the world is becoming a better place. It's OK for you to waver on your support of OIF Mickey, because you fail to accept the broader objective. It's people like Bill Kristol and John Bolton who hold and have held the vision to make our world better and safer.

[Mickey]

Umm mickey, Bill Kristal aside, what do you think about kerrys own quote? Really why can't you just deal with the facts at hand? You have tt attack the messanger all the time. The point is kerrys own quote, the quote was not made up by Bill, just reported.

 

So here we go again...let me break this down as simply as possible. Please try to respond to kerrys own quote.

78739[/snapback]

 

Why don't you provide a link for Kerry's entire statement from 1994 rather than just the snippets cut and pasted by Kristol and then I'll respond. By the way, do you want me to respond to what Kerry actually said or do you want me to respond to Kristol's "interpretation" of what he said? Can I compare what Kerry said with what others have said on the same subject to demonstrate that his postion then was no different than the one held by President Bush I? I know you like people only to respond the way you want them to rather than to think for themselves so I thought I would lay out the ground rules first. Lastly, if I respond to this will you finally answer the question I have been asking and you have been dodging now for days? How many Americans were killed by Saddam between 9/11 and when we invaded?

[Mickey]

Thanks to Bill Kristol and PNAC, the world is becoming a better place.  It's OK for you to waver on your support of OIF Mickey, because you fail to accept the broader objective.  It's people like Bill Kristol and John Bolton who hold and have held the vision to make our world better and safer.

79081[/snapback]

I very much want OIF to succeed which is why I want to replace the group that have screwed up so bad so far. I don't know how many times I have to say that this election is not a referendum on going to war with Iraq, that is a done deal. The election is a referendum on who is the best leader to win it. To that extent, Bush's record in leading us in to this war and the results so far are perfectly relevant. I think he has failed pretty miserably, bad enough that I want him out. Numerous republican leaders pretty much accept that as fact though they still want him in to keep trying. You think we will be better and safer with him, I think we will be better and safer with a different leader. Pretty simple and you know what? Neither my view nor yours can be summed up or petulantly dismissed by reference to yet another talking head apparatchik from the right or left.

[Alaska Darin]

How many Americans were killed by Saddam between 9/11 and when we invaded?

79201[/snapback]

That's an interesting question from someone who supported the war.

[Mickey]

That's an interesting question from someone who supported the war.

79252[/snapback]

 

I am not afraid to investigate evidence that weighs on a question even when there is a chance it might not support my own position. I like to think that such a course would be considered more objective than the alternative which would be to ignore any evidence that might prove me to have been wrong.

[Alaska Darin]

I am not afraid to investigate evidence that weighs on a question even when there is a chance it might not support my own position.  I like to think that such a course would be considered more objective than the alternative which would be to ignore any evidence that might prove me to have been wrong.

79261[/snapback]

Where was Abu Nidal when he committed suicide (if shooting yourself in the head 4 times can be considered suicide)? AP reporter S. Yacoub reported that Nidal arrived in the country with the full knowledge of the Iraqi government. Ever take the time to wonder why Nidal would shoot himself in the head 4 times? Can't be because he refused to reengage in his prior activities at the behest of his hosts. Nah.

 

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was known to be in Iraq before the war and was treated in Baghdad for injuries suffered in Afghanistan.

 

Ramzi Yousef traveled to America on an Iraqi passport.

 

Abu Abbas was captured in Baghdad

 

It is a well documented fact that the Iraqi government paid $25K to the families of suicide bombers. 11 Americans are known dead because of these bombings.

 

Khala al Salahat who furnished the semtex that killed 189 Americans on Pan Am 103 surrendered to the 1st Marine Division in IRAQ.

 

Coalition Troops shut down at least 3 terrorist camps including Salman Pak, a base 15 miles from Baghdad. There was a full mock up passenger plane there used for training terrorists. The camp specialized in training terrorists from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States according to PBS' Frontline and testimony from Iraqi's in front of Congress in the spring of 2002.

 

The Phillipino government expelled a high ranking Iraqi diplomat after seizing cell phone records showing conversations between the official and leaders of Abu Sayyaf.

 

Farouk Hijazi was captured by US forces near the Syrian border this year. He admitted to meeting with Al Qaeda on Saddam's behalf various times since 1994.

[Mickey]

Where was Abu Nidal when he committed suicide (if shooting yourself in the head 4 times can be considered suicide)? AP reporter S. Yacoub reported that Nidal arrived in the country with the full knowledge of the Iraqi government.  Ever take the time to wonder why Nidal would shoot himself in the head 4 times?  Can't be because he refused to reengage in his prior activities at the behest of his hosts.  Nah.

 

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was known to be in Iraq before the war and was treated in Baghdad for injuries suffered in Afghanistan.

 

Ramzi Yousef traveled to America on an Iraqi passport.

 

Abu Abbas was captured in Baghdad

 

It is a well documented fact that the Iraqi government paid $25K to the families of suicide bombers. 11 Americans are known dead because of these bombings.

 

Khala al Salahat who furnished the semtex that killed 189 Americans on Pan Am 103 surrendered to the 1st Marine Division in IRAQ.

 

Coalition Troops shut down at least 3 terrorist camps including Salman Pak, a base 15 miles from Baghdad. There was a full mock up passenger plane there used for training terrorists. The camp specialized in training terrorists from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States according to PBS' Frontline and testimony from Iraqi's in front of Congress in the spring of 2002.

 

The Phillipino government expelled a high ranking Iraqi diplomat after seizing cell phone records showing conversations between the official and leaders of Abu Sayyaf.

 

Farouk Hijazi was captured by US forces near the Syrian border this year. He admitted to meeting with Al Qaeda on Saddam's behalf various times since 1994.

79299[/snapback]

 

Without going into the veracity of these points or what they mean as far as Iraqi complicity in terrorism is concerned, I still want to know how many Americans were killed by Saddam between 9/11 and when we invaded. I suspect it is zero and if so, then even accepting the above and some of the implications of that information, the plain fact is that as bad as Iraq might have been, it hadn't resulted in the death of Americans. Compare that with how many have died since the invasion and the question arises, was Sadda worth a war? Was he worth this war given what we now know? It may still be too early to make that assessment since we are still paying for this war in lives and material and further, the full benefits the war might bring are not yet realized if they ever will be. I recognize that the judgment of history on this question is not yet in.

 

You opposed the war, have you now changed your view and support the war?

[Alaska Darin]

Without going into the veracity of these points or what they mean as far as Iraqi complicity in terrorism is concerned, I still want to know how many Americans were killed by Saddam between 9/11 and when we invaded.  I suspect it is zero and if so, then even accepting the above and some of the implications of that information, the plain fact is that as bad as Iraq might have been, it hadn't resulted in the death of Americans.  Compare that with how many have died since the invasion and the question arises, was Sadda worth a war?  Was he worth this war given what we now know?  It may still be too early to make that assessment since we are still paying for this war in lives and material and further, the full benefits the war might bring are not yet realized if they ever will be.  I recognize that the judgment of history on this question is not yet in.

 

You opposed the war, have you now changed your view and support the war?

79503[/snapback]

No. I didn't support the war for reasons that have since been proven to be more accurate than a Marine sniper. I don't support it now which doesn't matter in the least as we're already there and cannot afford to repeat Somalia.

 

As I have stated numerous times in the past: It will take at least 20 years to understand the implications and success/failure of this endeavor.

 

I'm much more comfortable with American Military personnel dying than I am with civilians. Pretending Saddam wasn't funding international terrorism against the United States or that the ridiculous international sanctions against him were bothering him in the least is pure folly.

[boomerjamhead]

I very much want OIF to succeed which is why I want to replace the group that have screwed up so bad so far.  I don't know how many times I have to say that this election is not a referendum on going to war with Iraq, that is a done deal.  The election is a referendum on who is the best leader to win it.  To that extent, Bush's record in leading us in to this war and the results so far are perfectly relevant.  I think he has failed pretty miserably, bad enough that I want him out.  Numerous republican leaders pretty much accept that as fact though they still want him in to keep trying.  You think we will be better and safer with him, I think we will be better and safer with a different leader.  Pretty simple and you know what?  Neither my view nor yours can be summed up or petulantly dismissed by reference to yet another talking head apparatchik from the right or left.

79223[/snapback]

 

This war is not a miserable failure Mick. You are being misled by the media and by the Kerry/ Edwards campaign rhetoric. Your opinion of this war isn't going to change unless Kerry pulls this election off and the media begins to paint a brighter picture of what is going on in Iraq.

 

Rewind five years and read this:

 

PNAC

[RCow]

This war is not a miserable failure Mick.  You are being misled by the media and by the Kerry/ Edwards campaign rhetoric.  Your opinion of this war isn't going to change unless Kerry pulls this election off and the media begins to paint a brighter picture of what is going on in Iraq.

 

Rewind five years and read this:

 

PNAC

79678[/snapback]

 

Yep, blame the media. Guess I didn't see all those cringing reports from FOX every day for a year and a half. Guess I didn't see Republican senators Lugar, Hagel, Graham and McCain recently call the Iraq policy a mess and a failure. They had the gall to not to follow the Adminstration's daily talking points. I guess they were snowed by the liberal media and the propogandist Kerry.

 

You've caught on to the massive conspiracy of fake bombings, beheadings, body bags, torn limbs, dead children, missing money, civil war, and the largest terrorist recruiting effort in history.

 

"Remain calm! Everything is under control!!!!"

 

If the President admitted mistakes or the reality of the situation he'd win in a cakewalk.

 

His two biggest gaffes: Press Conference a few months ago (you'd have to remember, he barely has one a year) he was asked what mistakes he's made and what lessons he's learned. For a few embarrassing minutes he hemmed and hawed then said couldn't think of any. Months later and after dozens of hours of debate prep he was asked the question a second time and would only say he hired the wrong people a few times.

 

Bush has put his supporters in a bind. They can't even admit to themselves that Iraq is fukked up because their own candidate refuses to acknowledge any mistakes. This demostrates he either doesn't get it, is totally out of touch or he's got a messiah complex. It's bad no matter how you slice it.