Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

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


TOPICS: The Guild
KEYWORDS: theguild
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-235 next last

1 posted on 03/08/2004 4:34:32 AM PST by BigWaveBetty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Hillary's Lovely Legs; mountaineer; Timeout; ClancyJ; BlessedAmerican; daisyscarlett; Rheo; ...
Come one, come all, see John Kerry do his famous flip-flop!
2 posted on 03/08/2004 4:37:14 AM PST by BigWaveBetty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigWaveBetty
This guy is gonna put his back out with all these flips.
3 posted on 03/08/2004 4:41:38 AM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BigWaveBetty
I'm so terribly offended at the way Jean-Jacques Pepe Le Pew Quierry is dissing France!
4 posted on 03/08/2004 4:42:52 AM PST by mountaineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator
I thank you again for fixing my boo-boos and doing it at record speed!

10-Q 10-Q 10-Q!!!!

5 posted on 03/08/2004 4:45:12 AM PST by BigWaveBetty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
Gosh I hope Kerry don't bonk his big ol' pumpkin head with all that flip flopping.
6 posted on 03/08/2004 4:47:36 AM PST by BigWaveBetty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BigWaveBetty
The San Francisco gay marriage stuff happened while I was playing "Mommy", so I didn't get to follow it too closely. Which made me wonder about something I read in the WashPost this morning.

They have a front page article on the leaps and bound on this issue in the last few months. Prominent in the article is the assertion that Mayor Newsom was spurred by the president's State of the Union speech. Newsom was invited to the SOTU by Pelosi. According to the article, Newsom was so outraged at the president's defense-of-marriage language that he immediately set his course to start issuing licenses.

Does this ring true? At the time Newsom sprang to the headlines, was there any reporting about the SOTU fulcrum? I think they're revisiing history to respond to "who started it?" element of the debate.
7 posted on 03/08/2004 4:53:53 AM PST by Timeout (Down with Donks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

More evidence of CNN's decline:

Paris bureau of CNN thinks its initials mean Communications? Not Now! Staffers are being moved out, moved around and removed. Its still breathing, but day-to-day operations are on life support (Cindy Adams)

Repeat after me, Rudy Giuliani may be a Republican, but he's no conservative (by his own admission):

WASHINGTON - Rudy Giuliani came out yesterday against President Bush's call for a ban on gay marriage. The former mayor, who Vice President Cheney joked the other night is after his job, vigorously defended the President on his post-9/11 leadership but made clear he disagrees with Bush's proposal to rewrite the Constitution to outlaw gays and lesbians from tying the knot. ...

"I certainly wouldn't support [a ban] at this time," added Giuliani, who lived with a gay Manhattan couple when he moved out of Gracie Mansion during his nasty divorce. ...

Giuliani conceded he's "out of sync" with his party's conservative base, but likened himself to other moderate GOP stars like Gov. Pataki and Calif. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. full story.

8 posted on 03/08/2004 4:57:22 AM PST by mountaineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Timeout
It was only his 12th day as mayor of San Francisco, but Gavin Newsom decided that night -- the very night he attended President Bush's State of the Union address in Washington, D.C. -- that he was going to defy California law.

And turn the nation on its ear.

Attending the president's Jan. 20 speech as a guest of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Newsom listened closely as Bush voiced his strong support for outlawing same-sex marriage -- with a constitutional amendment, if necessary.

Not long after the speech, Newsom called his chief of staff, Steve Kawa, a gay man who was at home with his partner and their two children. "He told me that he wanted to do something,'' Kawa said.

Two weeks later, during a staff meeting, Newsom dropped the bombshell on his top aides: He wanted them to explore how the city could start issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. More

I dont'remember any part of the SOTU speech that address gay marriage but I'll go have a look see.

9 posted on 03/08/2004 5:00:51 AM PST by BigWaveBetty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BigWaveBetty
In the SOTU, Bush did address it. Marriage is between a man and a woman and he will defend it...if necessary. It was no different than his previous remarks.
10 posted on 03/08/2004 5:03:37 AM PST by Timeout (Down with Donks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

BWB: My question wasn't whether Bush said it. It's whether Newsom is now revising his reason for acting...blaming it on Bush. Kind of like a kid saying, "He started it!".
11 posted on 03/08/2004 5:09:10 AM PST by Timeout (Down with Donks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Timeout
I would guess Newsom is using the SOTU as an excuse or pretense for his current behavior. As a leftist mayor of SF (as if there were any other kind), he probably had it in mind from the get-go to make homosexual marriage an issue. Being hetero, he had to come up with some way to prove to his constituency that he still was "one of them" and wouldn't betray them.
12 posted on 03/08/2004 5:09:51 AM PST by mountaineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Timeout
Statement on Marriage in SOTU:

A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as the union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.

Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

The outcome of this debate is important, and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight. Link

Shocking that Newsome's head didn't explode when President Bush mentioned, God and Activist judges.

13 posted on 03/08/2004 5:23:29 AM PST by BigWaveBetty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: mountaineer
LOL! I guess I'm being really "nuanced" here...like a certain Senator, who by the way served in Vietnam.

From the moment Bush announced his support for the marriage amendment, the donkeys have repeated their mantra that Bush "started it". They're trying to remove from the debate the fact that Bush was pushed. It's been so ubiquitous I have to assume it's very important to their debating points. They want to say Bush "attacked gays".

My question is whether Newsom's SOTU-blaming has been seen before. Did Newsom mention it during the firestorm of coverage? Or is it new information? I've never heard it before.
14 posted on 03/08/2004 5:25:38 AM PST by Timeout (Down with Donks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Timeout
If Newsome could be honest with himself (haha) he would have to point to the Mass. Supreme Court. They started it!!

Since the majority of people oppose it, the dems just want to muddy the waters. To deflect attention from Kerry's post war record and his flip flops?

15 posted on 03/08/2004 5:34:46 AM PST by BigWaveBetty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Timeout
Looks like Newsom started blaming SOTU in mid-February:

Newsom's spokesman, Peter Ragone, told California newspapers the mayor acted in response to President Bush's State of the Union speech in which he declared his support for current laws defining marriage as a contract between a man and a woman. (From a 2/15 newspaper article)

Newsom started the gay marriage extravaganza around 2/10 when - pondering the Mass. supreme court decision - he asked the county clerk to determine how to issue licenses to "same sex couples"; the first "marriage" was 2/12.

16 posted on 03/08/2004 5:38:16 AM PST by mountaineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: All
Alan Dershowitz experiences the hatred the left has toward Jews, in the bastion of liberalism (formerly the cradle of freedom), Boston:

The other day, I experienced violent anti-Semitism for the first time in my adult life. It took place in front of Faneuil Hall, the birthplace of American independence and liberty.

I was receiving a justice award from the Jewish Council on Public Affairs and delivering a talk on "Civil Liberties in the Age of Terrorism" from the podium of that historic hall. When I left, award in hand, I was accosted by a group of screaming, angry young men and women carrying virulently anti-Israel signs. The protest was denominated a peace event and was sponsored by a group calling themselves by the vague name ACT-MA. Their website describes them as promoting peace and justice and associated with larger solidarity organizations, but there was nothing peaceful or just about this protest. ...

One sign carrier shouted that Jews who support Israel are worse than Nazis. Another demanded that I be tortured and killed. It wasn't only their words; it was the hatred in their eyes. If a dozen Boston police were not protecting me, I have little doubt I would have been physically attacked. Their eyes were ablaze with fanatical zeal.

full story

17 posted on 03/08/2004 5:41:09 AM PST by mountaineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mountaineer; Timeout
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, January 22, 2004
Contact: Mayor’s Press Office
415.554.6131




MAYOR NEWSOM: PRESIDENT BUSH’S COMMENTS REGARDING
CONSITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING
GAY MARRIAGE ARE UNACCEPTABLE


San Francisco, CA- Mayor Gavin Newsom responded today to President Bush’s potential support of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would target the nation’s gay community with codified discrimination.

Mayor Newsom is strongly opposed to the constitutional amendment. “This potential amendment outlined by the President targets the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning community, by threatening to take away individual liberty and freedom that every American is entitled to. That is not acceptable,” said Mayor Newsom.

The Mayor continued by saying, “We have fought hard to ensure that every American is entitled to equality under the law. The amendment President Bush discussed on Tuesday would promote prejudice and discrimination, which our nation has been fighting for decades. The constitution is meant to protect Americans from discrimination, not subject us to it. This is a terrible idea and I urge the President to reconsider his position.”

The Mayor’s comments followed President Bush’s State of the Union address, which he attended, on Tuesday, January 20, 2004.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No record of him commenting on it before Jan. 22, 2004 - He was sworn in as mayor on Jan. 8, 2004.



18 posted on 03/08/2004 5:49:43 AM PST by BigWaveBetty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BigWaveBetty
Good find, but what in the Sam Hill is the questioning community? If they're still questioning their sexual "preference," are they really ready to enter into a marriage covenant? What a bunch of hooey.
19 posted on 03/08/2004 5:53:05 AM PST by mountaineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: mountaineer
The "Mother" of All House Parties

The East Bay for Kerry/MoveOn House party on December 7th combined the forces of two grass-roots organizations based in San Francisco East Bay Area. We had 200 guests eating, drinking, and watching the MoveOn Documentary “Uncovered” featuring Joseph Wilson and Rand Beers from the Kerry campaign.

When Teresa Heinz-Kerry arrived, she handed me a pin that read in the center: “Asses of Evil” with “Bush”, “Cheney”, “Rumsfeld” and “Ashcroft” surrounding it. She met, greeted and talked to a jam-packed room of Kerry supporters and others who came for the MoveOn documentary. Many were curious, others undecided, or belonging to other candidate camps.

Teresa talked about her life as the daughter of a physician in Africa, about life during a repressive regime, to life inside Washington DC, and a brief intimate glimpse into her courtship with John. She told a rapt crowd about how they met and their first date, and that he did not call again for six months, adding, “He was slow on the uptake”. Just as she was about to add more to the story, the phone rang. It was the Senator.

20 posted on 03/08/2004 5:59:05 AM PST by Hillary's Lovely Legs (I got some new underwear the other day. Well, new to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-235 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson