[warmspit]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200410220013

The Post reported Kerry's 1994 quote (bolded above) accurately, but took it out of context by using it as evidence that "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." Kerry has asserted that the support of a broad coalition of nations in U.S. military operations would reduce America's share of the burden in terms of cost and casualties, and that America should be able to justify any unilateral preemptive action to the world after the fact. But in 1994, Kerry was talking specifically about the Bosnia and Somalia conflicts.


While the Post relied on a ten-year-old statement by Kerry to determine his position today, here's what Kerry himself said on September 30, 2004 -- at the first presidential debate -- about acting preemptively without international approval: "No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America."


Nonetheless, conservative pundits quickly began to mischaracterize Kerry's 1994 remark:


Rush Limbaugh, right-wing radio host: "John Kerry believes that American troops dying under the banner of the U.N. flag is acceptable, when dying under the banner of the American flag is not." [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 10/20/04]

[spacefreak]

CNN - April 17th, 1994, questioned by Frank Sesno on the topi of the Balkans...

SESNO: Are they worth dying for? That's the question. Are they worth fighting and dying for?

KERRY: It depends what you mean by that, Frank. 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.
-----------

And don't forget what Kerry stated to the Harvard Crimson in 1970...

“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.”

------------

The only mischaracterization is yours.

The point is tht Kerry has stated things like this (and voted similarly) throughout his career, and ONLY NOW that he's running for President is he trying to change his tune.

[MATTRESS]

It clear what Kerry stated. He thinks the UN is the ultimate safeguard for American security.

[Captain Obvious]

So was Lerk banned from here or did senility finally catch up with him and he forgot his other password?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
It clear what Kerry stated. He thinks the UN is the ultimate safeguard for American security.

It's only clear that he stated that at that particular moment. However, studying his behavior, actions, voting record, and interviews he has given over the past 20-30 years, it becomes apparent that his newer, pro-American military and pro-American intelligence are nowhere near consistent with his lifelong stands.

[Mrjinglesusa]

At least he HAS a record. Bush doesn't. Except the last 4 years and he can't run on that.

Blown surplus
Soaring deficits
Lost jobs
Etc...

No one is perfect and I'm sure Kerry would change his vote on a few things based on what he knows now. But, at the time, at least he took a stand and voted accordingly.

[constrictor]

You have to love, in those early debates, how Bush reacted to having his "record" questioned and disagreed with. He looked so dumbfounded, which of course comes from the fact that the administration has sought to stifle any any criticism throughout its entire four years.

Scary how many right-wing mongos would love a country where you're not allowed to hold the president "to account," as Bush loves to say. Just elect him, and let him reign.

[Saad]

Originally posted by constrictor:
You have to love, in those early debates, how Bush reacted to having his "record" questioned and disagreed with. He looked so dumbfounded, which of course comes from the fact that the administration has sought to stifle any any criticism throughout its entire four years.

Scary how many right-wing mongos would love a country where you're not allowed to hold the president "to account," as Bush loves to say. Just elect him, and let him reign.

He's totally unaccustomed to any kind of questioning of his record. The first debate was an amazing indication of that.

The same pundits tore into Clinton during the Kosovo conflict, and arguably, there was a far greater reason to enter Kosovo than Iraq (now that the administration is focussing on the freedoms and safety that they have bestowed onto the Iraqi people).

[warmspit]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The only mischaracterization is yours.

I made no characterization either way. the article is quoted.

[Buckaroo]

Kerry needs no help with his lies and distortions. Heck, he's right in there with that Perverted Moore Liar.