Someone dug up a statement he made in an interview some years back during the mess in Bosnia. Boils down to, sending American troops to die in an action approved by the U.N. is good; sending American troops to die in the SAME ACTION, but not approved by the U.N., is bad.
There is just so much wrong with this. He's saying an action is good ONLY if the U.N. approves it; he's saying that as long as the U.N. approves something, send people to die, whether we the peasant- excuse me, people, think it's a good idea or not.
On this alone, I could not vote for this clown for president.
By the way, the ban the U.N. bureaucracy wants on the 'trafficking in small arms'? Besides the fact they mean that to include banning the private ownership of any arms in any country, this would, if actually enforced, keep any people trying to revolt against a dictator (Saddam, anyone?) from being able to obtain arms to fight with.
Sounds just like what that bunch of transnational progressives would want. And Kerry would help them.
No.
No comments:
Post a Comment