Kerry called for US troops to be dispersed throughout the world and under U.N. control!!

The Harvard Crimson ^ | February 11, 2004 | Zachary Sewart

[stockpirate]

Old Crimson Interview Reveals A More Radical John Kerry The Crimson reported Kerry called for U.N. control of troops in 1970.

Ten months after returning home from Vietnam, a young John Kerry strolled into the offices of The Harvard Crimson on Feb. 13, 1970 as an obscure underdog in the Democratic Congressional primary. The decorated veteran, honorably discharged after a tour of duty in the Mekong Delta, spoke in fierce terms during his daylong interview with The Crimson’s Samuel Z. Goldhaber ’72.

But almost 34 years later, Kerry’s remarks on American military and intelligence operations vastly diverge from opinions expressed by the present-day Sen. John F. Kerry, D.-Mass., the leading candidate in the Democratic primary for president.

“I’m an internationalist,” Kerry told The Crimson in 1970. “I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”

Kerry said he wanted “to almost eliminate CIA activity. The CIA is fighting its own war in Laos and nobody seems to care.”

[expatpat]

This has been posted before, but you were right to repost it in view of his VFW speech.

[smiley]

Kerry is totally out of his field when it comes to intelligence...for the love of God, voters, do NOT elect this man as President of the United States!

[Dante3]

Kerry is crazy.

[American in Israel]

What is it about French and surrender monkey that go so well together?

[stockpirate]

On NRO: LINK

MORE OLD KERRY STATEMENTS ON REDEPLOYMENT [08/18 12:49 PM]

The Bush campaign researchers must be hip-deep in Lexis-Nexis transcripts by now.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: "The troops of the United States of America are overextended. Their deployments are too long. The families are hurting at home because they lose money from the private sector when they're called up, and they get paid less in the military, and nobody makes it up to them. The fact is if we are going to maintain this level of commitment on a global basis - for the moment we have to, because of what's happened - we need an additional two divisions. One is a combat division, and one is a support division. And that's the responsible thing to do. I've also said, responsibly, that's temporary, because I intend to be a president who goes back to the United Nations, rejoins the community of nations, brings other boots on the ground to help us in the world, and reduces the overall need for deployment of American forces in the globe - and I mean North Korea, Germany and the rest of the world where we can begin to set up a new architecture of participation of other countries." (ABC News/The [Manchester] Union Leader Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Manchester, NH, 1/22/04)

EDYE TARBOX: "Thank you. Mr. Kerry, Massachusetts gets about the sixth biggest chunk of defense spending. Given the pressure nationwide to take a peace dividend and cut defense spending, how do you propose to keep defense jobs in our state?" SEN. JOHN KERRY: "Well I intend to try to keep defense jobs in the state the very way I have been doing it. During the course of the last few weeks I have been working diligently on behalf of those defense programs which we ought to have. Those that makes sense for a strong defense for this country and that are realistic in terms of the new threat, as defined by the changes in Europe, and the Soviet Union and the rest of the world. ... I think we ought to stay on the cutting edge, and I think we ought to be doing an enormous amount more to guarantee research and development. We've seen a horrible shift in the last few years away from civilian R & D into military R & D and R & D that doesn't make sense. But we should not be building a B-2 bomber for 858 million dollars for one bomber. We should not be building more MX missiles to deal with the Soviet Union, and we ought to be making savings in our troops in Europe. We're currently paying for 300,000 troops to be in Germany to save the Germans from the Soviet troops that they're paying to leave then to stay. It doesn't make sense and I think we could help Massachusetts by using that money here." (Democrat Senatorial Candidates Debate, Boston, MA, 11/3/90)

I suspect this kind of stuff makes the average voter think that if Bush said the sun was going to set in the west, Kerry would insist that was wrong and obviously it was going to set in the east.

[rwfromkansas]

bumparoonie...

I am glad to see the Crimson dredge up the old article.

[BureaucratusMaximus]

Please note: “I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”

You know, as one who is pretty critical of GWB (domestically speaking) to begin with...I find this statement and the underlying idealism of John effin Kerry as scary, threatening to our soverignty, not to mention downright treasonous. This little tidbit of info needs some airtime. Right now I don't care if GWB really is the neocon domestic liberal he coming off to be...John Kerry cannot be president of the United States. It sucks...but its reality; it goes against voting on principle...but "U.S. troops under U.N. command" crosses the line where I can put principles aside...for now IMHO.

[bubman]

You know, I will give Kerry the benefit of the doubt on his youthful indescretions that are now tempered by age and hopefully wisdom. When I was young, it was "expected" to be a flaming liberal. Radical Chic was hip-environmentalism, UN, feed the homeless, blah, blah, blah. As you get older and reflect on the inherent absurdity of these viewpoints, you tend to lean to the right. And I am sure 95% of you know where I am coming from. What troubles me about Kerry is his record as a Senator. That ladies & gents is where the problem is. His voting record has reflected a linear progressivism from his youthfull ideals until today and that to me is unsettling.

This man is still in 1968!!!

[stockpirate]

see post 25

[cake_crumb]

A whole bunch of us have been telling everyone for the past year that this was his intention. We were telling the truth. That includes Iraq. He never had any intention of bringing our troops ho,e as he mentioned today. He just wants them under the control of Saddam's co-conspirators - who fled Iraq after the Ba'athist thugs they hired as guards blew up their embassy.

[cake_crumb]

**SIGH** "ho,e" was supposed to be HOME.

[MeekOneGOP]

[Mo1]

“I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”

So is this where he plans on getting the additional 40,000 troops from .. The UN ???

[ApesForEvolution]

Translation: John Fing Kerry is a lying, Communist, traitorous, dangerous, deceitful, International Elitist, anti-American subversive. If he is elected there will be a Civil War, precipitated by the Communist Whacko Cabal that we even see are already planning attacks, disorder, chaos and violence, for NYC during the RNC. We have no choice but to elect Bush at this point...desperately.

[pointsal]

KAREN HUGHES, KAREN HUGHES, KAREN HUGHES

Have you sent this stuff to the talking heads?

[ApesForEvolution]

Oh, you can bet your sweet bippie Kerry's an International Communist...you can see that by now, right?

[Dems_R_Losers]

Great keywords there!!!

[stockpirate]

see post 25

[Leatherneck_MT]

"“I’m an internationalist,” Kerry told The Crimson in 1970. “I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”"

No surprise to me. It's far easier to oppress your own people when the watchdog is busy beating up the neighbors.

[ApesForEvolution]

Americans might want an International Communist, John Kerry, to hand the nation over to the benevolent and marvelous world government, the UN??

The 60s crowd IS our educational and bureaucratic system in America now...the sheeple have been well fattened by the 80s and 90s, maybe it's time for the slaughter so thinks John Fing Kerry and his merry band of thugs, liars and criminals.

BTW, does anyone think red Communist china is going to allow Taiwan (Chinese Taipei is their lack of recognition in Athens '04) into Beijing for the Oympics in '08? I do, because the redComms are planning on the Taiwanese, or, Chinese Taipei, to be playing WITH the redComms by then...