Retraction
I retract the quotes I quoted in the post previous. Looks like I should have adopted the caution that the Power Line was advising, but I didn't. And I regret it.

In fact, Crossfire transcripts are available through Lexis back to 1990. Of course, that's not available to me (whereas Google News is, which is where I scraped out the McCaslin piece from in the first place).

On 12 November 1997, John Kerry, who was a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had an exchange with Crossfire co-host John Sununu. The following quotes should be accurate and true (with emphases added):

SUNUNU: Senator Kerry, in fact, in spite of the administration claiming it has restored unanimity, that has not occurred. All the strength of this resolution had to be pulled out of it get any votes at all other than our own. Isn't this exercise actually counterproductive in sending a signal to Iraq that the coalition still remains frayed?

KERRY: Well, John, you're correct that this resolution is less than we would have liked. I don't think anybody can deny that we would have liked it to have threatened force and we would have liked it to carry the term serious consequences will flow. On the other hand, the coalition is together. I mean, the fact is there is a unanimous statement by the security council and the United Nations that there has to be immediate, unrestricted, unconditional access to the sites. That's very strong language. And it also references the underlying resolution on which the use of force is based. So clearly the allies may not like it, and I think that's our great concern -- where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity -- but in a sense, they're now climbing into a box and they will have enormous difficulty not following up on this if there is not compliance by Iraq.

As you can see, Kerry puts great store by the authority of the United Nations, even though that authority is undercut when "allies" insist on watering down the language of these resolutions to such a point that they become almost meaningless.

It's also important to point out, as will become clear below, that Kerry recognizes this weakness and he recognizes that it was the economic aspects of the relations with Saddamite Iraq that made France's and Russia's participation in the military enforcement of the UN sanctions extremely unlikely. Kerry next tells Sununu:

Well, John, there's absolutely no statement that they [France, Russia, and China] have made or that they will make that will prevent the United States of America and this president or any president from acting in what they believe are the best interests of our country. And obviously it's disappointing. It was disappointing a month ago not to have the French and the Russians understanding that they shouldn't give any signals of weakening on the sanctions and I think those signals would have helped bring about this crisis because they permitted Saddam Hussein to interpret that maybe the moment was right for him to make this challenge.

And what challenge was that? Blocking UN inspectors from doing their job of checking up on Saddam's weapons of mass murder. So, even in 1997, Kerry understood that these allies were pains in the ass who had their own reasons for sending those mixed signals to Saddam. And those reasons were?

I mean, the fact is that over a period of time France and Russia have indicated a monetary interest. They on their own have indicated the desire to do business. That's what's driving this. I mean, as Tom Freedman said in a great article the other day, France, Inc., wants to do business with oil and they are moving in the exact sort of opposite direction on their own from the very cause of the initial conflict, which was oil.

And it was about this same time that the UN succeeded in getting the Oil for Food program started. And Kerry must have known that the French and Russian "desire to do business" was what was "driving" their policy towards Saddam. They wanted to make money off of the sanctions while we were trying to enforce them. Could it be that the degenerate Europeans and Russians couldn't have given less of a shit about WMD when there was money to be made?

So why is it that, when we were doing the responsible thing in keeping the Middle East safe from another outburst from Saddam ---and our allies were just in it for the money--- Kerry still thinks that these cheese-eating fuckers have our interests at heart? Is he that naive? Listen to him in 1997:

The administration is making it clear that they don't believe that they even need the U.N. Security Council to sign off on a material breach because the finding of material breach was made by Mr. Butler. So furthermore, I think the United States has always reserved the right and will reserve the right to act in its best interests. And clearly it is not just our best interests, it is in the best interests of the world to make it clear to Saddam Hussein that he's not going to get away with a breach of the '91 agreement that he's got to live up to, which is allowing inspections and dismantling his weapons and allowing us to know that he has dismantled his weapons. That's the price he pays for invading Kuwait and starting a war.

So, where the fuck did this John Kerry go? (Or this one?) He knew it was important that the United States reserve the right to enforce the sanctions against Saddam regardless of whether the Security Council said it was okay. So why is this Francophilic idiot droning on and on about how we need our "allies"? We have allies. And they have sacrificed their young men to liberate Iraq! Does he not know that? Does he think it's wise to call the British and the Italians and the Poles and the Australians the "coalition of the bribed and coerced"?

Every time John Kerry opens his mouth about how we have failed to enlist our "allies" in the fight for Iraq, remember a few things. One, he has known for a long time that the French and the Germans and the Russians had an economic interest in keeping Saddam in power. You can thank goddamned Kofi Annan and the UN's Oil for Food program for that. Two, Kerry has known for just as long that these same countries never intended and never will intend to help us in Iraq militarily. Kerry is lying when he claims that George W. Bush failed to enlist the military support of countries that were never going to send troops in any event. Third and finally, despite the fact that he is a lying sack of shit, John Kerry knows that it is up to the United States and a few other honorable allies to keep the peace in this world. We can't count on countries like France, which are already well on their way into the grave of Islamist repression and disease. He knows that we have done the right thing under President Bush to begin the political transformation of the Middle East.

And John Kerry should know that he himself is the ultimate mixed message to the Islamofascist hordes. The man must never become President. Ever.