Posted on 03/08/2004 4:34:31 AM PST by BigWaveBetty
Edited on 03/08/2004 4:52:05 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Kerry 1997:The administration... don't believe that they even need the U.N. Security Council
During a 1997 debate on CNN's "Crossfire," Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry made the case for launching a pre-emptive attack against Iraq, according to Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., who appeared with Kerry on the program.
King recounted the debate for WABC Radio's Monica Crowley on Saturday, recalling that at the time, the U.N. Security Council had just adopted a resolution against Iraq that had been watered down at the behest of the French and the Russians.
According to King, Kerry argued: "We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians. We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."
"Crossfire" transcripts from 1997 are no longer available, but King said he'd share a copy of the Kerry tape with Crowley, who said she looked forward to broadcasting it. Stay tuned. Link
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So far this post at a blog is all been able to find on these Kerry remarks:
In my earlier post today I commented about a news story from Newsmax which reported that in an 1997 episode of CNN's Crossfire John Kerry, who by the way served in Vietnam, advocated a pre-emptive strategy in dealing with Saddam. Now my frequent commentor and fellow blogger Jaws has fished the transcript from the bowels of LexisNexis and provided me with it, the relevant parts are as follows:
JOHN SUNUNU:...This whole process gave our allies an opportunity not only not to follow America's leadership, not only not to allow us to lead, but to tell us we'd better not do what the president is now saying he might do.
KERRY: Well, John, there's absolutely no statement that they (France, Russia) have made or that they will make that will prevent the United States of America and this president or any president from acting in what they believe are the best interests of our country.
SUNUNU: But isn't what he has seen is a loss of U.S. leadership and an erosion under an administration that has failed to lead?
KERRY: On the contrary. The administration is leading. The administration is making it clear that they don't believe that they even need the U.N. Security Council to sign off on a material breach because the finding of material breach was made by Mr. Butler. So furthermore, I think the United States has always reserved the right and will reserve the right to act in its best interests.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now the words aren't exactly the same as reported in the earlier story but there's no doubt Kerry, in 1997, thought that a resolution from the UNSC was not needed because proof of Saddam being in material breach had been found. Further more he then believed a president doesn't need to worry about the concerns of other countries when the "best interests of our country" are at stake. hmmmm...now between '97 and 2004 what has changed?...hmmmm, it brings his world renown perchant for flip floppage to a whole new level. Link
Cross dressers? Or a man who loves his dog? Why not have two wives or husbands, the list could go on and on.
I wasn't so gun-ho about an amendment but it seems that'll be the only way to quash this silliness once and for all.
How intriguing! Osama in Iraq? Hmmm. I don't think so. But WHAT?! WMD's? This is gonna drive me crazy!
Posted on 03/08/2004 10:21:45 PM EST by cvq3842
Monica Crowley just reported on WABC radio (770 AM, New York City) that John Kerry appeared on Crossfire in 1997 and essentially said that the US needed to force Iraq to comply with UN reslutions and that the US needed no permission from the UN to use such force.
At post #11 Texas_Jarhead posts a link to the Lexis Nexis to -
CNN CROSSFIRE 19:30 pm ET
November 12, 1997; Wednesday 7:30 pm Eastern Time
Transcript # 97111200V20
If you have trouble opening the file let me know and I'll post it for you. Velllly interesting!
March 9, 2004 -- WASHINGTON - John Kerry claimed yesterday that certain "foreign leaders" have told him that they're rooting for him to defeat President Bush.
"I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy, they look at you and say, 'You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that," Kerry told a crowd while campaigning in Hollywood, Fla. Link
Jason should be grateful that's all he's finding in his books, a poster on another website swore when Squid Blumenthal's book came out he'd adorn select pages with, uh, er, uh, well, there's just no nice way (or I don't posses the vocabulary) to put it - boogers.
If you hadn't told us who said that, I would've put a big bet on Weasley Clark.
From Liz Smith:
'TUCKER CARLSON, the bow-tied conservative of CNN's "Crossfire" chats with Elle magazine this month, on the subject of women and sex. Carlson says "One area of liberal phenomenon I support is female bi-sexuality - this apparent increased willingness of girls to bring along a friend. That's a pretty good thing." What do women want, Elle asks Tucker? "They want to be listened to, protected and amused. And they want to be spanked vigorously every one in a while." He also admits if he had to spend his life as a woman it would as Elizabeth Birch, "formerly of the Human Rights Campaign because you'd be presiding over an organization of thousands of lesbians, some of them quite good-looking." (Folks, nothing you can make up is better than what people actually say these days!)
Who is Carlson's guilty fantasy bedmate? "Hillary. Every time I see her I think I could, you know, help . . . She seems tense." [LOL! EWWWW! LOL! EWWWW!]
Asked to choose between conservative talkers Laura Ingraham or Ann Coulter, Carlson believes "Laura would be less likely to hurt you. With Ann you could get bruised on the angles."
Tucker opines that it is best not to argue with a woman. "Most of the time you can beat a woman in an argument. But what do you win? Nothing. You get short-term pleasure followed by a lot of pain."
He also says, "I like women." Well, good luck getting them to reciprocate your Neanderthal feeling, kid.
What an odd thing to do. When I'm a published author, remind me to visit the nearest B&N to fondle copies of my epic tome. While Jayson was busy getting sticky, smudgy little fingerprints all over the unsold books, I'm surprised B&N security wasn't yelling, "Swarm! Swarm!" into their walkie-talkies (Seinfeld reference).
Dick Morris, of whom I'm not usually enamored, has a terrific piece in the NY POST this morning. Here's how the Bush game plan plays out:
Stage 1) Define Kerry as a Flip-Flopper (this is already working)
Stage 2) Kerry's game plan, like all donkeys, is to "move to the center" after the primaries. Now that Kerry is afraid of appearing to flip-flop, he won't be able to do it without playing into the flipper immage. At this stage Bushies inform voters of his liberal voting record. He won't be able to disown it.
Stage 3) Now that voters find themselves looking for Kerry's flippers, begin the charge that he's too weak and indecisive to be president. He won't be able to effectively respond.
____________________________
As to getting disheartened, this doesn't mean I haven't entered the phase where I just can't read a lot of the news because it's so relentlessly negative on Bush. Even we optimists have our limits!
There's much groaning going on in FL -- 'Kerry's up eight points over Bush' is the latest headline. Also promising to canvass the polls with dem poll watchers. I say bring it on!
In the 2002 election AG Ashcroft sent federal agents, at the dems request, to the polls, there were new voting machines in "those infamous" counties and Jeb Bush won by 15 points.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.