Posted on 10/20/2004 9:13:15 AM PDT by Peach
Edited on 10/20/2004 7:41:44 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
There is a story today in the Washington Post by Helen Dewar and Thomas Ricks, the headline: Help of Allies Among Three Key Themes. I want you to listen to this quote from Kerry. This quote is actually from April 17th of 1994 on CNN's Late Edition. This is back when Frank Sesno hosted the program. This is the third paragraph of the story in the Washington Post today.
"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.'"
So I mean there you have it. John Kerry believes that American troops dying under the banner of the UN flag is acceptable, when dying under the banner of the American flag is not. I hope he's asked about this. This is something that shows up again in the Washington Post today, it's from 1994. This is the best evidence we have, and this is from Kerry's own lips, of his obsession -- and I don't think that's too strong a word to use here -- his obsession with the UN. If you take this quote and combine it with his other words and his record, you have irrefutable evidence, all the evidence we need that he worships at the shrine of the United Nations. Here's the actual question and answer from Frank Sesno CNN on Late Edition, April 17th of 1994. Sesno says: Senator Kerry, it begs the question, what are the U.S. interests and the strategic interests in this place called the Balkans? Kerry: Well, they are less than our interests in perhaps Haiti. They are greater than our interests in Somalia. Sesno: But worth dying for? That's the question, are they worth fighting and dying for? Kerry: Well, it depends what you mean by that, Frank. If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yeah, it's 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. So I think it's a question of where you place the interest.
So John Kerry thinks that American troops dying under the American flag is not justified, and is not worthwhile, but under the UN flag, then of course American deaths are justified. Now, this is all about Bosnia, and Clinton went in without the United Nations, if you recall. So I would think that Kerry would be in opposition to what we did there and that any deaths that we incurred are not worth it because we went in with some unilateral false presumption that we could affect the outcome.
We will keep a sharp eye on this. I just think this is a devastating quote. You put it in context with the global test quote that he had in the first debate. Make no mistake, this is the Washington Post, this is the third paragraph of the story, this will be picked up on and harped on by the Bush campaign I'm certain, it has to be, later on today.
We found the audio sound bite of John Kerry on CNN April 17th, 1994. Frank Sesno with the question. This is all about going to the Balkans. Is it worth American lives to go to Balkans? And here's the sound bite.
SESNO: Are they worth dying for? That's the question. Are they worth fighting and dying for?
KERRY: It depends what you mean by that, Frank. 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.
RUSH: I mean, there you have it. Here's John Kerry saying that American deaths under the UN banner are permissible and honorable, American deaths under American flag only are not, April 17th, 1994. It doesn't sound to me like this position of his, this global test and the UN will have a veto over what we do doesn't sound like his position has changed, sounds like it's hardened, sounds like it's the one policy Kerry is actually firm in believing. It sounds like that Kerry does not flip-flop when it comes to the UN. He may flip-flop on everything else, but when it comes to the UN, boy, it trumps everything. And he's been consistent, at least as we can prove from the record from 1994 to the present, about ten years, ladies and gentlemen.
Can you grab the exact quote that Kerry made in 1994 regarding this matter?
Interesting. Got a link?
We need a link. I'm posting what Rush just said. He gave the exact quote. It's devastating (for sKerry).
Thank you for that link, ChuckShick.
Here's a quote from the article:
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."
I wish it were devistating. Kerry could molest a child, rob a bank, burn a church and commit a hate crime and the media wouldn't even take notice.
Ka-ka-kaboom!
Help! The Dems' ship is going under thanks to captain sKerry.
If this is correct it validates anyone who said Kerry would place our National Security under UN control even if they don't have our best interest in mind. Now we see what the "global test" is, "global control" of America.
That is sick
This probably doesn't have the legs it appears to at first glance.
It's an exact quote. Both The Weekly Standard and The Washington Post have quoted him from '94.
Bush needs to use this quote on the campaign trail.
People have already heard that Kerry voted for the war but against funding the troops a gazillion times.
If we want to see a Bush victory we will have to get out the Republican vote like never before in our history. A 60 or 65% turnout will not do it. With so much at stake, any registered Republican who is able and doesn't vote isn't worth the space they take up on our planet.
They'd notice, just not report it.
Apparently my opponent believes that the oath of office is to the United Nations. On Jan. 20, 2001, I took an oath to the United States of America. I will repeat that oath to the United States of America on Jan. 20, 2005.
Outstanding. Thanks very much for the link!
Is this the essence of Kerry's Global Test. If the United Nations is NOT involved then there is NO justification for United States military action -- preemptive or otherwise. Only with the United Nations involved would the commitment of United States military forces be justified. Actually, Kerry even violated this "test" when he voted against the commitment of our military in oust Saddam from Kuwait in 1991.
It will only matter to the handful of undecideds, probably. And security moms who are on the fence.
I urge freepers to call your local Republican office and ask what you can do to get the vote out and to combat voter fraud.
I've been volunteering for our Republican Headquarters and have loved it. I meet great people and it helps with my frustration level that "there's nothing we can do."
There is a LOT we can do but not if we're the silent majority.
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.