Kerry on US war dead

Discussion in 'Politics' started by dilloduck, Oct 20, 2004.

  1. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    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


    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=4804&R=A03C22D26


    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.

    William Kristol is editor of The Weekly Standard.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Jimmyeatworld
    Offline

    Jimmyeatworld Silver Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    2,239
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    America
    Ratings:
    +223
    That article said a mouth full. I just don't get it. Almost 230 years ago Americans went to war because they didn't want people on the other side of the world making decisions that effected our everyday lives. Today, people like Kerry want to bow down and hand that power right back to them.
     
  3. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669
    I think for me this is the MOST Terrifying aspect of a Kerry presidency.
     
  4. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533


    More terrifying still is that Kerry's worldview actually resonates with some Americans. I have seen posts right here on this board, decrying the evils of "American nationalism". The idea that America can have interests separate and distinct from those of the "world body" represents (to these liberals) some sort of Hitlerian design. Frightening.
     
  5. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669
    Yeah that too!!! :bang3:
     

Share This Page