Posted on 10/20/2004 12:21:09 PM PDT by SamIAm3
PLEASE TELL ME WE WILL SOON BE SEEING CAMPAIGN COMMERCIALS WITH KERRY SAYING THIS:
In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he (Kerry) 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."
Will take our October surprises where we can get them.
Sometimes sKerry-speak is a little thick for me.
Do I have this right?
US troops dying for the UN = OK, worth it.
US troops dying for USA = NOT OK, not worth it.
CB^?
I think it's clear he's talking about the Balkans. It's a case where Kerry's general principles led to a specific application, but I think he can wiggle out of this one because it seems he is talking only about the Balkans. We can extrapolate his general principles from his behavior on Vietnam, Nicaragua, Desert Storm and the Balkans, but this quote doesn't appear to me to be a smoking gun unless you ignore its context.
And what "unilateral action on Iraq [by] Clinton" might that have been??? How could Kerry support it when there was none (other than continuing to enforce the "no-fly" zones and other actions implemented by Bush(I) under UN mandate???
Not to mention his wifes mouth!!!!!!!!!!!!
BTTT
Someone should post this beside his 1970 Boston Globe interview in which he said he belived American troops should only go overseas under the command of the U.N.
It's a pattern, not isolated.
I pray we will be seeing a slew of ads just using Kerry's own stuff!
That sounds like a general statement of his internationalist outlook. That's not the statement I was referring to, however. As I said, the statement referenced in this thread is not a smoking gun on Kerry's general view that US troops are legitimate only under the UN banner. It reads like a statement pertaining to the Balkans. If there are other statements that make clear it is a Kerry general principle, then those are the statements that should be hammered on.
There is a long statement by Kerry in 1998 in which he said we should go after Saddam even if the UN did not support us. Of course, he knew Clinton's attack of Iraq was not serious, and felt free therefore to spout off like a warrior.
I never said anything about it being a smoking gun. Just that it's ONE MORE statement that supports the pattern.
Does anyone happen to have a copy of this video? The link above and at gop.com is missing.
The link at #4 is working for me.
I agree, but it still makes good fodder for ads since it's hard to explain; just like global test.
And Teresa, don't forget Teresa!
So, this leaves us with the question: when exactly does a coalition of whatever kind cross the line from "unilateral" to "multilateral"? Is it after 5 countries join? 10? 25?
Give us a number, you unAmerican gigolo, if you dare. If you can't give us a number, it means you'll only accept the term "multi" if it includes specific other countries. Great Britian not good enough for ya? Who, then? What country EXACTLY is so much more important to you than the United States of America?
Hmm...let me guess.
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.