.....Will Kerry ever learn?
Even before the Iraq war, the Democrats and the left in general have been using a rather intresting line to make their talking points seem that much better that the usual "useful idiot" logic....now of course it has become the staple of their speeches, interviews, and political peep rallies.....Before no one really paid much attention when it was said..mostly because it was not in a national setting such as the presidential debates...but I guess Kerry didnt mind...he used it anyway...prob without looking into all the facts....
In one of Kerrys "moments" during the first debate between him and Bush, JFK 'Lite' had this to say.....
"We can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban Missle Crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with President Degaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them bout the missles in Cuba, he said, 'Here let me show you the photos.' And Degaulle waved them off and said, 'No, no, no, no. The word of the President of the United States is good enough for me.' " Kerry in comparision, asked "How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we've done, in that way?"
The line almost sounds "believable" problem is only a thin shroud of truth lies within..all else is democratic spin and heres why....
After surveilance in the fall of 1962 revealed the existence of the missles in Cuba, JFK "the real one" had already decided to take unilateral, pre-emptive action (the naval blockade of the island nation) prior to sending Dean Acheson (Trumans Secretary of State..not Kennedys to Paris for the meeting with DeGaulle.
Records of that meeting show Degaulles first remarks were, "Are you here to consult me or to inform me?" Which was followed by Acheson's, "To Inform." It is widely agreed that if DeGaulle (Arrogant and Pompous as he was known to be) would have opposed any action if consulted. While Degaulle doesnt fit the bill as the agreeable foreign leader the democrats portray him as...there was one who was....British prime Minister Harold Macmillan who after being briefed by CIA's Sherman Kent (father of Strategic Intelligence and also at the DeGaulle meeting) stated, "..that if the president were convinced that a meaniful offensive capability were present, that was good enough for him."
Mirroring Iraq somewhat...there are several analogies one could gather between to two ....first off the missles didnt pose an immediate threat to the United States, neither Castro or Krushchev had threatened their use but they were clearly meant to itimidate Washington and raise the threat level (which they did all too well)...second and more importantly...when JFK finally did take action, it was unilateral and preemptive- under international law, a naval blockade is considered an act of war.
Unlike Iraq, there was no votes in congress authorizing the use of force...unlike Iraq, there were no votes at the UN for that same authorization either. The OAS (Organizationof American States) did endorse the action but Kennedy was prepared to move ahead without them. When the US ambassador to the UN went before the security council, just like the DeGaulle meeting, it was not to ask for consoltation...it was to inform . In easier terms...the UN was not being asked for permission...but simply being informed as to why the said actions were being taken....
It may be easier for Presidents to take action when they have the worlds support but as Kennedy and Bush both showed....when our security and strategic intrests require it, presidents must be prepared to act even without that support...cause ultimately No president need ever ask Frances permission before acting...if only Kerry could understand this..he might be a better candidate........
anyway thats just my 2 cents worth of opinion and historical fact.