This is absolutely horrifying.

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."

So it's okay for Americans to die under the U.N. flag, but not under the Stars and Stripes? Doesn't he have it backwards?

Senator Kerry seems to have confused procedure with substance. Procedurally, it's preferable to have allies to help win and to share the burdens. But substantively, having allies doesn't make a war more or less right. The issue is why we're fighting at a particular time and in a particular place, not with whom. And the reason we fight is (or should be) the justification for any American loss of life. After all, if the entire U.N. decided tomorrow that we should all invade Israel and return it to the Palestinians, would the fact that "everyone" decided to do it together under make it right, and justify the loss of American life in such an outrageous scheme? Or would America be right to defend Israel, even if no one did it with us?

Senator Kerry is someone who apparently didn't listen when his parents said, "If everyone else jumped off a bridge, would that make it right?"

And in the Post story linked above, note the use of an unsourced quote, attributed only to a "Republican," complimenting John Kerry. The praise lacks any real substance -- why was so important as to justify a blind quote from a nameless "Republican" who "admires Kerry"?