Who's to say where the wind will take you....I don't know
Which way the wind will blow.
This should be the theme for Kerry's stand on foreign policy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry has throughout his career been three things according to this Council on Foreign relations author:
isolationism, idealism and realism
He has been an isolationist. The most blatent example of this isolationist attitude was his 1990 vote opposing the use of force to liberate Kuwaitt. This is despite the United Nations Security Council voting UNANIMOUSLY to authorize the action against Iraq.
John Kerry called this war "a war for pride, not for vital interests".
I personally find this AMAZING given the future votes that his record demonstrates.
He voted in favor of every single one of President Clinton's military actions. Every single one. Bosnia, Iraq, Haiti, Kosovo. Let me again shake my head, as he contradicts himself by supporting action in Haiti, but voting against actions in Grenada calling Grenada "a bully's show of force against a weak Third World nation". Isn't Hatti a thisd world nation?
Bit seriously, how come he was in favor of President Clinton's actions in Iraq, but not the Persian Gulf War with the backing of the UN? How can he vote one way and not the other?
Under Clinton we have Kerry supporting the use of armed forces to stop humanitarian suffering. He criticizes President bush for his actions in Haiti recently. Very contradictory.
AS for the war on terror, he and his aides have said they do not feel the use of force should happen unless our vital interests are at stake. Yet, he voted for the use of force that led to the attack on Iraq. Why, Senator Kerry, would you vote to use force against Iraq this time, clearly when Iraq, according to you in 1991 was not a vital interest? Why Senator Kerry would you authorize the use of force when we do not have the support of our allies, as you have criticized the president for not doing.
Interesting article that ends like this:
[Q]This muddle raises the question of whether Kerry has a worldview, or whether he merely goes wherever the political winds blow. Surely it's no coincidence that his stances track precisely mainstream Democratic opinion, which was isolationist in the 1970s and 1980s, idealistically interventionist in the 1990s and coldly realist since 2001. When the Democrats were split, as they were over Iraq in 2002 and 2003, he clumsily tried to appease both hawks and doves. Where he will wind up nobody knows -- not even, I suspect, him.[/Q]
http://www.cfr.org/pub7232/max_boot/kerrys_threefaced_foreign_policy.php
Which way the wind will blow.
This should be the theme for Kerry's stand on foreign policy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry has throughout his career been three things according to this Council on Foreign relations author:
isolationism, idealism and realism
He has been an isolationist. The most blatent example of this isolationist attitude was his 1990 vote opposing the use of force to liberate Kuwaitt. This is despite the United Nations Security Council voting UNANIMOUSLY to authorize the action against Iraq.
John Kerry called this war "a war for pride, not for vital interests".
I personally find this AMAZING given the future votes that his record demonstrates.
He voted in favor of every single one of President Clinton's military actions. Every single one. Bosnia, Iraq, Haiti, Kosovo. Let me again shake my head, as he contradicts himself by supporting action in Haiti, but voting against actions in Grenada calling Grenada "a bully's show of force against a weak Third World nation". Isn't Hatti a thisd world nation?
Bit seriously, how come he was in favor of President Clinton's actions in Iraq, but not the Persian Gulf War with the backing of the UN? How can he vote one way and not the other?
Under Clinton we have Kerry supporting the use of armed forces to stop humanitarian suffering. He criticizes President bush for his actions in Haiti recently. Very contradictory.
AS for the war on terror, he and his aides have said they do not feel the use of force should happen unless our vital interests are at stake. Yet, he voted for the use of force that led to the attack on Iraq. Why, Senator Kerry, would you vote to use force against Iraq this time, clearly when Iraq, according to you in 1991 was not a vital interest? Why Senator Kerry would you authorize the use of force when we do not have the support of our allies, as you have criticized the president for not doing.
Interesting article that ends like this:
[Q]This muddle raises the question of whether Kerry has a worldview, or whether he merely goes wherever the political winds blow. Surely it's no coincidence that his stances track precisely mainstream Democratic opinion, which was isolationist in the 1970s and 1980s, idealistically interventionist in the 1990s and coldly realist since 2001. When the Democrats were split, as they were over Iraq in 2002 and 2003, he clumsily tried to appease both hawks and doves. Where he will wind up nobody knows -- not even, I suspect, him.[/Q]
http://www.cfr.org/pub7232/max_boot/kerrys_threefaced_foreign_policy.php
Last edited:
. 
