This is absolutely amazing. John Kerry believes that it is better for US troops to die for a mission that has international support, regardless of its connection to US interest, than to protect the US from terrorism. What other spin can you put on this:
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."
There is no question that Clinton did the right thing in ultimately lifting the arms embargo to Bosnia in the early 90s. But saying that the US should spend the blood of its sons and daughters on a UN mission, under the UN's command (which has been proven to have been a colossal failure in Bosnia and now in Kosovo -- Bosnia only improved after NATO started bombing the sh-t out of the Serbs) is just plain senseless. That Kerry could fetishize the UN to the point that he can justify sending American soldiers to their deaths for an undefined UN mission but cannot pull the trigger in favor of the US defending itself (pre-emptively or not) from terrorist states is startling. This just further proves Kerry is not qualified to be commander-in-chief.
HT: Beldar.
UPDATE: And if John Kerry listens to himself, or anyone else, check out how Kerry, Edwards, the press and the Republicans all damn Kerry's ability to be president in this quote compilation.
No comments:
Post a Comment