The Guild 3-8-2004 Kerry 1997:The administration-don't believe that they need the U.N.

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

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

John Kerry: "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.' "

Now comes Tony Blankley's excellent op-ed in the Washington Times:

...my first question is whether Mr. Kerry is telling the truth. When, exactly, did he meet with these foreign leaders? Note that he doesn't merely say he talked with them (by telephone). He claims that he "met" them and "they looked at" him while they were saying these things.
Sen. Kerry has been on public view almost every day since he started running for president last year (except for the period of his hospitalization, when he obviously could not have been traveling around the world). I don't recall seeing him on European, Middle East or other foreign travel during that period. (His campaign office wouldn't respond to my inquiry for a record of his foreign travel in the last year.) Nor do I recall seeing or reading about foreign heads of state meeting with Mr. Kerry when they visited Washington during the last many months.
In the absence of any public evidence that he has met with several foreign leaders recently, the burden of proof should be on Mr. Kerry to prove that he didn't just make up this little story that he told a small group of Florida contributors with one telltale reporter present. George W. Bush was pressured to provide his dental records to prove he had attended the Alabama National Guard in 1973. (He provided them, and he did attend.) It only seems fair to pressure Mr. Kerry to provide his passport or other documents for 2003 to prove he really met with these "foreign leaders," either here or abroad.

Do you think Tony's holding his breath?

Maybe Kerry is hallucinating, or maybe he'll say he had a teleconference with all those heads of state (Kim, Castro, Arafatty, etc.). More likely - the issue will be dropped by the major media.

OH MY:

Lynne Cheney's still-remembered 1981 lesbian romance novel, "Sisters," was feted Monday night in a special performance by the "Lynne Cheney Players" - to the delight of an audience of liberal East Village types. The performance at the New York Theatre Workshop was part of a celebration of left-leaning radio personality Laura Flanders' new book, "Bushwomen: Tale of a Cynical Species."

Yesterday, Flanders told Lowdown that Cheney's novel "is a breathy, gothic romance, horribly written. It's celebrating lesbian love and promotes the value of preventative devices, condoms, to women who want to remain free. It features a woman who has unmarried sex with the widow of her sister - all this by Lynne Cheney, the culture warrior of the right." Monday's crowd of 200 - which included actress Janeane Garofalo - laughed throughout the satirical staging. full story.

More news of the vacuous:

Recovering Republican Arianna Huffington has launched a scathing attack on the President in her new book, "Fanatics and Fools: The Game Plan for Winning Back America."

"Since George W. Bush ran as a compassionate conservative, Bush Republicans have become the transvestites of the political world," she writes.

"They can put a dress and makeup on, make themselves all pretty, and promise to care about the poor and schoolteachers, and quality health care, but behind the mascara, cheap perfume, and come-hither looks, they're still the same guys who march us into war, plunge us into huge deficits, and rail against gay marriage and taxes," says the one-time California gubernatorial candidate.

As would be expected, the book has drawn praise from liberals Al Franken, Larry David and "West Wing" creator Aaron Sorkin, who says: "Huffington continues to be one of our most striking, original, intelligent, witty and passionate voices. And the legs, my God, the legs." source

Poor Squid, apparently Wal-mart wasn't hiring:

Salon.com founder Dave Talbot has named former Bill Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal the online magazine's D.C. bureau chief. The move into cyberspace puts Blumenthal in the element of his conservative nemesis, cyber-gossip Matt Drudge. "Salon," said Blumenthal, "intends to be fearless" ...

This came to me today in an email:

Subject: Mr. Wonderful

The language is a bit rough for some, but so was the duty---

A Vietnam Vet Against Kerry

Our posts on John Kerry have elicited many grateful and supportive
responses from Vietnam War vets. We have no standing of any kind
to do anything but honor Kerry for his distinguished war service.
I think we differ with Kerry nowadays on the justice of the war,
the honor of the American cause, the respect due the men who served
and the nature of their service. To our knowledge, Kerry has never
apologized for his utterly disgusting defamation of all echelons of
the American military in the war.

This evening we received an interesting message on the subject of
Kerry and the war. The writer has provided identifying information
that allows us to authenticate his own service, although he has
asked us to withhold his name and other identifying information.
Our reader writes:

I've been reading your blog regularly for some months now, and
appreciate it for a number of reasons. I grew up in St. Paul, on
Selby Avenue (early to mid-50's), then West St. Paul. Graduated
from Sibley High School in '63, and went on to the University of
Minnesota ('63-'66). In May '66, I quit the U and enlisted in the
infantry because I wanted to go to Vietnam.

I joined the 9th Infantry Division at Ft. Riley, KS, which had been
newly activated, and which was to train as a unit, then deploy to
Vietnam. I became a rifle squad leader in the 4th battalion, 47th
Infantry, and we deployed to Vietnam in Jan '67. My battalion was
a part of the Mobile Riverine force in the Mekong Delta. We were
the first American units in the Delta, and 1967 was a year of hard
fighting down there. I was very lucky. I finished my 1-year tour
with the 9th Division, then extended my tour and went to the
Tactical Operations Center (TOC) at II Field force HQ, which was a
bit north of Saigon, at Long Binh.

I extended my tour two more times, spending 16 months there in the
TOC, as an Operations NCO. My 3-year enlistment was over in May '69,
and I came home to St. Paul. I had spent 28 months in Vietnam. I had
earned the Combat Infantryman's Badge, Bronze Star w/"V" Device w/2
Oak Leaf Clusters, two Air Medals, a Purple Heart (for a very slight
wound), an Army Commendation Medal, and the Vietnamese Cross For
Gallantry (awarded quite liberally by the gov't of SVN). The Mobile
Riverine Force had earned a Presidential Unit Citation for its 1967
campaigns.

I relate all of the above to establish my credentials as a critic of
John F. Kerry (hereinafter referred to as "that Prick"). I know a
little about how the award system worked in Vietnam. If you did
something worthy of an award, it first had to be brought to the
attention of your commander, who would then check with witnesses,
and so on, and decide (in accordance with the governing Army
regulation, AR 672-something) what the action merited.

If everything was confirmed and approved, an officer (normally the
original witness) would write the citation describing the action.
All of this was then forwarded to whatever command level was
required by the AR to approve that particular award. A Silver Star
requires something quite extraordinary in the infantry. I cannot be
sure, but I don't recall ANY Silver Stars awarded in '67 to any
soldier in the MRF, and that's a full year of fighting by 3 entire
infantry battalions.

Now comes before us that Prick.

That Prick spent a 6-month tour on a small warship off the coast of
Vietnam, which service undoubtedly required him occasionally to miss
a full night's sleep in his air-conditioned cabin. This "tour"
doesn't even count. He spent some time Stateside, no doubt basking
in his "veteran" status among pallid ensigns, then took a deep
breath and returned to Vietnam. This time, he wangled his way onto
a Swift Boat, which from a grunt's point of view is pretty cushy
duty. It is entirely possible that that Prick actually fired a
weapon sometime between Dec '67, and Mar '68, since he has made
references to dead civilians of both sexes and all ages during this
period. During this same period, that Prick received 3 fragment
wounds from RPG's which missed him and his boat. All 3 of these were
band-aid wounds (same as mine).

In Mar '68, a lone VC fired an RPG at that Prick's boat, resulting
in another miss. One of the crewmen answered this with about 50
rounds from a twin-mount 50 cal MG, wounding the VC, who jumped out
of sight. That Prick beached the boat (dumb dumb dumb) where the VC
had been, jumped ashore, found the wounded VC, killed him, and
returned to the boat with the offending RPG launcher. For this
"action," an infantry PFC wouldn't have gotten so much as a pat on
the back, but that Prick ended up with a Silver Star! How could this
have come about? Well, remember...the commander has to recommend the
award. That Prick WAS the commander in this little incident. Do you
think...? Is it possible...? That Prick was in command of 4 or 5
enlisted sailors, and chances are, none of them was much good at
writing up an award recommendation, soooo...

With his Silver Star pinned on his spotless Navy whites, that Prick
immediately requested reassignment under the official (or maybe
unofficial) "three Purple Hearts" rule, which allowed anyone so
grievously damaged to return to the US early. So ended a grueling
stay of almost 4 months of combat heroism.

I have always been proud of my Vietnam service. I spent a total of
14 years as an infantry NCO, served in Germany, and a number of post
here in the US. The young men I was lucky enough to lead and serve
with in 1967 (almost all of them draftees) were GOLD. We who
survived remain close to each other to this day.

Now, everywhere I turn, I see and hear journalists who constantly
refer to that Prick's "chestful of medals," and "heroism in
Vietnam." I am insulted, disgusted, deeply offended by all of this.
I speak for no one but myself, but I expect that there are plenty of
other Vietnam veterans who feel as I do. And I won't even get
started on his shameless behavior with the Vietnam Veterans Against
the War, when he claimed to speak for us, and announced to the world
that we were all cold-blooded war criminals.

From my point of view, John F. Kerry is a charlatan and a whore.
The mere thought that he MIGHT end up in the White House is
appalling, and truly frightening

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.