Dying for the United Nations [Bill Kristol]

Weekly Standard ^ | October 20, 2004 | William Kristol

[Quilla]

WHO WOULD HAVE EXPECTED the Washington Post to inflict real damage on John Kerry's faltering presidential campaign? Yet they have.

Here is the third paragraph from today's front-page article by Helen Dewar and Tom Ricks on Kerry's foreign policy record:

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."

When the Bush campaign talks about John Kerry's wanting a "permission slip" from the U.N., many commentators dismiss it as rhetorical excess. But Kerry really does believe that the United Nations is a fundamental, legitimizing body for the use of U.S. force. One hears this deference to the U.N. all the time in European capitals, but it is rare to hear it even among mainstream American liberals. In this respect, as in others, Kerry really is a throwback. He still shares the McGovernite distrust of U.S. force and suspicion of the judgments that are arrived at by the American body politic.

John Kerry is not a Clinton-Lieberman Democrat. His near obsession with gaining the approval of the U.N., and for that matter of

France and Germany, for the conduct of U.S. foreign policy would make him the riskiest commander in chief of any presidential candidate since George McGovern--and surely makes Kerry unsuitable to govern in a post-9/11 world.

[Quilla]

John Kerry, a risky scheme. Kristol nails it.

[Peach]

The president needs to repeat this on the campaign trail.

He also needs to mention that in 1997 Kerry was on Crossfire and said it would show leadership if Clinton dealt with Iraq and forced regime change regardless of the UN!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1087918/posts

[trashcanbred]

Here is the Wash post link

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46225-2004Oct19.html

[KC_Conspirator]

France and Germany, for the conduct of U.S. foreign policy would make him the riskiest commander in chief of any presidential candidate since George McGovern--

I would actually agree with that. Taking into context that we live in a post-911 world, he just might even be a tad worse than Klinton, a draft dodger. At least Klinton went it alone.

[SunkenCiv]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1251081/posts

[ken5050]

Has the WP endorsed yet?

[Intolerant in NJ]

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." ...people know what they really are, deep down inside - Kerry knows he cheated and abandoned his colleagues in Vietnam with sham Purple Hearts and stories of heroism, leaving them to terror and danger after only four months - that's why it became necessary for him to prove that they were wrong in staying to fight and he was right in protesting the war, because the war was wrong - and now, years later, to continue that denial and self-protective fiction, it has become necessary to oppose any war the US becomes involved in - Kerry is deeply conflicted and self-deluded, an unreliable and ineffectual little man......

[trashcanbred]

It would seem not yet to my knowledge. The WP has been acting funny lately regarding Bush and though I am pretty sure they will endorse Kerry... here is a blurb arguing the opposite from the Washingtonian(http://www.washingtonian.com/inwashington/buzz/101504.html ):

Who will get the Washington Post endorsement?

The Post’s editorial record over the past three years should put it in the Bush camp, notes Washington City Paper editor Erik Wemple, who writes that the editorial board’s steadfast and increasingly contorted support for Bush’s invasion of Iraq would seem to make it hard for the paper to back Kerry.

But endorsing a Republican would break with the Post’s traditional support for the Democratic nominee. Dwight Eisenhower was the last Republican to get the paper’s nod.

Make no mistake—Don Graham makes the call. He might have given up the title of publisher so he could devote more time to the Post Company’s more profitable holdings, but he’s still chairman and still ultimately controls the editorial page.

[rudypoot]

I keep getting flashbacks of Albright running after Arafat when I read stuff like this. Why? I didn't think it would be possible for the US to bend over even more than that episode.

[ken5050]

From a purely strategic viewpoint, I thinkt he WP holds off till the last weekend, to get the most impact..the NYTimes used to do that..they came out early for Kerry, guess they figured he needed it, and now the news sections are all skewing even more pro-Kerry...another reason why they might have..I predicted here months ago that the NY Daily News will endorse Bush, which will be HUGE...and had the Times waited, it would have gotten lots in the coverage of the News' endorsement..

[Dat Mon]

I agree...Kerry would be the worst of the worst.

The reason being not so much his ideologies of pacifism, socialism, globalism..but his psychology.

Kerry would NOT use force to defend the strategic interests of the United States, as a general principle, when it was required.

But, he WOULD involve troops when necessary to defend the special interests of his friends, or so called allies, out of ego, pride, or greed.

Then, having committed forces, his sociopathic nature would allow them to die like cannon fodder for ego gratification rather than have to admit he had made a mistake.

The worst of all worlds.

[hosepipe]

[ and now, years later, to continue that denial and self-protective fiction, it has become necessary to oppose any war the US becomes involved in - Kerry is deeply conflicted and self-deluded, an unreliable and ineffectual little man...... ]

So then.... you believe Kerry is honest and genuine but incedibly misguided... CLUE: Kerry knows exactly what he is doing.. its not a mental disease or dysfuntion.. The boy is allied with the right malefactors at the right time in the right place.. That don't happen to the brain dead.. its on purpose and calulated. Kerry is traitor in his heart AND head. A rope is too good for him.. His body would prime the "trap door" when it falls for multi-thousands of his aids.. some of them republicans.. I would be proud to pull the "trapdoor" on all of them..

[samtheman]

The president needs to repeat this on the campaign trail.

As bad as Bill Kristol his --- his "analysis" of the debates was clearly retarded --- he at least gets some of it some of the time. Unlike whoever it is in the Bush campaign that is tying the Presidents hands behind his back.

[watchout]

bump

[Boiler Plate]

Voting for John Kerry as president would be COLLOSAL MISCALCULATION for the future of America.

[Boiler Plate]

Voting for John Kerry as president would be COLLOSAL MISCALCULATION for the future of America.

[Intolerant in NJ]

.. CLUE: Kerry knows exactly what he is doing...of course he does - his judgment is terrible, but he knows how to tie his shoes and get to the store and back as long as his chauffeur is available - the question is what drives him, motivates him - is it ideology - does he really believe that leftwing bull he spouts - is he corrupt - IMO people's political views are related to the kind of people they are - conservatives are mature, take the world pretty much for what it is, and deal with it in reasoned and realistic manner - lefties on the other hand tend to be extremely immature, deal with the world in ways they may have never outgrown, let emotions get in the way of their reasoning and engage in wishful and magical thinking much of the time.....

When it comes to defending the country I think Kerry really is still back in Vietnam trying to justify his cowardly service record by insisting that any war the US fights is bad unless the rest of the world validates it for us - that doesn't excuse his traitorous behavior or mean that you couldn't spring the trapdoor on him.....

[hosepipe]

[ When it comes to defending the country I think Kerry really is still back in Vietnam trying to justify his cowardly service record by insisting that any war the US fights is bad unless the rest of the world validates it for us - that doesn't excuse his traitorous behavior or mean that you couldn't spring the trapdoor on him..... ]

Actually I think Kerry is defending his traitorous FATHER...cause his dad was a maggot too.
maybe even his grandfather...

[paul51]

These are pretty tough words for Kristol and I think he is right on