Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)

[wstera2]

Kerry to troops: Your life is worthless unless UN blesses the fight

By Beldar on Politics

From a front-page story in tomorrow's WaPo (boldface added):

<<<<"NATO and the United Nations appear to be touchstones for the Democratic nominee, not just the troublesome hurdles that they appear to be to President Bush. In speeches over the years, Kerry repeatedly has denounced unilateral action.

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." >>>>


The simplest reading of this weird statement is that the cause an American soldier fights and dies for is worthwhile if — but only if — it's been duly blessed by the United Nations. One presumes he means the Security Counsel — meaning we'd only have to get unanimous approval from the Brits, Germans, French, Russians, and Chinese to convert our solders' sacrifices from worthless to worthwhile.

Is there "nuance" here that I'm missing? I frankly can't make any sense of the phrase "false presumption that we can affect the outcome." In John Kerry's lifetime, there hasn't been a fight where the American military couldn't "affect the outcome," whether acting unilaterally or not.

The Vietnam War-era Kerry said American troops should only be deployed at UN direction. The 1994-era Kerry said whether American deaths are worthless depends on UN approval. The 2004-era Kerry said there's a "global test" and "we ought to pass a sort of truth standard." This seems pretty consistent to me.

Consistently wrong.

http://www.beldar.org/beldarblog/2004/10/kerry_to_troops.html