You know, this typifies the difference between GW and JFK. For GW and many of his supporters believe that the world is black and white, right and wrong, you're with us or you're with the terrorists. And, once he's made a decision, GW will not change direction even when presented with overwhelming evidence contrary to what he's said or done. There's no room for analyzing the grey and the complexities of the world.
John Kerry, on the other hand, is looking at things in the proper perspective. The situation in Bosnia was a complete hornet's nest. There was ethnic cleansing and other attrocities. John Kerry was smart enough to realize that attaining a lasting peace in Bosnia included planning for the period of time *after* military action (something that the current administration seemed to have omitted in Iraq). Securing a lasting peace in Bosnia absolutely required ongoing support after the war from European allies. So, while it's easy for Helen Dewar to oversimplify things in her article I believe that it's simply partisan blather as it does not even attempt to analyze the circumstances. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 9:34 PM Subject: Dying for the United Nations > http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/804suggy.asp > > 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. > > William Kristol is editor of The Weekly Standard. > > > > > _______________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! > http://vote.yahoo.com > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Sams Teach Yourself Regular Expressions in 10 Minutes by Ben Forta http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=40 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:131972 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
