What's wrong with the 'global test' policy?

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: JHoNNy1OoO

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: sandorski
It's bad, because the Iraq war fails the test. No Imminent Threat, no WMD, no Nothing given as The Reason.

Who gets to decide what "damn good reasons" is?

They have already been determined, in fact, Bush used them as part of his justification for goin to war in the first place. The biggest mistake Bush did was to rush into war when the process to determine whether Iraq was a Threat was underway and finding nothing. If he had any Patience, he'd have found that Invasion was not necessary to Defend the US.

Bush just filled in Circle #2 all the way down the Test, unfortunetly he chose the wrong Circle to fill.

So, in your version of the global test , a choice exists.

I am a conservative. If I must make a choice, I will do so with the possibility of error on the side that I view as being in my favor.

That would be?

What was the urgency? According to Bush it was the possibility of a Mushroom cloud over a major US city in as little as 6 months. Was there any evidence that Iraq was capable of fulfilling that? Was there even a hint that Iraq had such a Program in the works?

What you call Erring on the side of Caution, I call BS.

So, in your version of the global test , the one where a choice exists, If I don't make the same choice as you do, it is BS ?


That brings me back to the question: Who gets to decide what "damn good reasons" is?

Ozoned, Kerry and The Administration decide what damn good reasons are and they better have facts to back up their claim. Take for example our case in Iraq. If you read the NYTimes article this morning you will see that the evidence the Bush admin presented to the UN to go to war was completely circumstantial based on one man's opinion that certain people believed even though our own nuclear experts in the Department of Energy said otherwise and the UN inspectors even agreed when they saw those aluminum tubes. They based their evidence on ONE man's reasearch and opinion. It wasn't a "slam dunk" and countries like France and Germany saw it for the BS that it was. They knew that the US wasn't going to war with Iraq out of necessity or fear of nuclear threat. It was because they just wanted to for whatever reason.

I would expect the evidence and reasons that we went to war to be so rocksolid that it would hold up in a US court of law. No I am not suggesting to hold trials I am making an example. Its funny that we even have to talk about making sure your reasons are legitimate to go to war considering that should have always been the case yet as we see in Iraq it wasn't.

If Kerry in the future would need to pre-emptively strike I am positive that he will have rock solid evidence to back it up. Especially since both Kerry and Edwards were lawyers and they both know about evidence. You don't go to war on assumptions and circumstantial evidence as this administration did. We are now paying for it.

To get back to your question. Our administration decides the "damn good reasons" and only our administration. They better have the evidence to back it up.

We are discussing a global test here. It is evident to me that your reasoning is rock solid, but I do not believe the rest of the world would agree with you.

I happen to agree with you that:

"Our administration decides the "damn good reasons" and only our administration. They better have the evidence to back it up."

But only from the perspective of our power , not from some sort of global test....

 

[jackschmittusa]

The "global test" means that we must have sufficient evidence to demonstrate that our actions are moral and just. That our agenda is transparent and would be justifiable in ordinary words to ordinary people. Remember, Kerry mentioned the American people too. He was not speaking of some refferendum to get an OK, but that we would easily see that such actions were necessary, reasonable, and without less serious alternatives.

As for making the decision, it will be made by our government of course. And action will be the choice when events demonstrate that action is the obvious and necessary choice.

Pretty simple concept really. A good foundation for demonstrating integrety and leadership by example to the rest of the world.

 

[Thump553]

My interpretation of what Kerry meant is exactly what jackschmittusa said immediately above. I think Bush & Co. used rather simplistic thought processes, ceased upon the world "global" and raised the insinuation that Kerry's position is that we have to seek permission of other countries, including the evil nation of France.

The Bush twisting is to me an insult to any intelligent person who watched the debate, and deliberate false advertising to those that didn't.

 

[Ozoned]

Here is the conundrum for the people defending the John Kerry global test position.

[*]As a matter of principle, John Kerry does not support a policy of pre-emption, let alone any sort of global test :roll:

And as president, I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: The United States of America never goes to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to. That is the standard of our nation.

I know what kids go through when they are carrying...



I know what kids go through when they're carrying an M-16 in a dangerous place, and they can't tell friend from foe. I know what they go through when they're out on patrol at night and they don't know what's coming around the next bend. I know what it's like to write letters home telling your family that everything's all right, when you're not sure that that's true.

As president, I will wage this war with the lessons I learned in war. Before you go to battle, you have to be able to look a parent in the eye and truthfully say, "I tried everything possible to avoid sending your son or daughter into harm's way, but we had no choice...


... we had to protect the American people, fundamental American values against a threat that was real and imminent."


So, lesson number one, this is the only justification for going to war.

And on my first day in office, I will send a message to every man and woman in our armed forces: You will never be asked to fight a war without a plan to win the peace.


I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a president who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, reduce the risk to American soldiers. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.


Here is the reality: That won't happen until we have a president who restores America's respect and leadership so we don't have to go it alone in the world.

And we need to rebuild our alliances so we can get the terrorists before they get us.

I defended this country as a young man, and I will defend it as president.


Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and a certain response.

I will never give any nation or any institution a veto over our national security.

No Pre-emption, No choice, and certainly as noted ^ No Global test.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Ozoned

Huh! Can't see how you arrived at your conclusions from the quotes you listed.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Here is the conundrum for the people defending the John Kerry global test position.

[*]As a matter of principle, John Kerry does not support a policy of pre-emption, let alone any sort of global test :roll:

And as president, I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: The United States of America never goes to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to. That is the standard of our nation.

I know what kids go through when they are carrying...



I know what kids go through when they're carrying an M-16 in a dangerous place, and they can't tell friend from foe. I know what they go through when they're out on patrol at night and they don't know what's coming around the next bend. I know what it's like to write letters home telling your family that everything's all right, when you're not sure that that's true.

As president, I will wage this war with the lessons I learned in war. Before you go to battle, you have to be able to look a parent in the eye and truthfully say, "I tried everything possible to avoid sending your son or daughter into harm's way, but we had no choice...


... we had to protect the American people, fundamental American values against a threat that was real and imminent."


So, lesson number one, this is the only justification for going to war.

And on my first day in office, I will send a message to every man and woman in our armed forces: You will never be asked to fight a war without a plan to win the peace.


I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a president who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, reduce the risk to American soldiers. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.


Here is the reality: That won't happen until we have a president who restores America's respect and leadership so we don't have to go it alone in the world.

And we need to rebuild our alliances so we can get the terrorists before they get us.

I defended this country as a young man, and I will defend it as president.


Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and a certain response.

I will never give any nation or any institution a veto over our national security.

No Pre-emption, No choice, and certainly as noted ^ No Global test.

It's clear to me, jackschmittusa

 

[JHoNNy1OoO]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Here is the conundrum for the people defending the John Kerry global test position.

[*]As a matter of principle, John Kerry does not support a policy of pre-emption, let alone any sort of global test :roll:

And as president, I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: The United States of America never goes to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to. That is the standard of our nation.

I know what kids go through when they are carrying...



I know what kids go through when they're carrying an M-16 in a dangerous place, and they can't tell friend from foe. I know what they go through when they're out on patrol at night and they don't know what's coming around the next bend. I know what it's like to write letters home telling your family that everything's all right, when you're not sure that that's true.

As president, I will wage this war with the lessons I learned in war. Before you go to battle, you have to be able to look a parent in the eye and truthfully say, "I tried everything possible to avoid sending your son or daughter into harm's way, but we had no choice...


... we had to protect the American people, fundamental American values against a threat that was real and imminent."


So, lesson number one, this is the only justification for going to war.

And on my first day in office, I will send a message to every man and woman in our armed forces: You will never be asked to fight a war without a plan to win the peace.


I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a president who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, reduce the risk to American soldiers. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.


Here is the reality: That won't happen until we have a president who restores America's respect and leadership so we don't have to go it alone in the world.

And we need to rebuild our alliances so we can get the terrorists before they get us.

I defended this country as a young man, and I will defend it as president.


Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and a certain response.

I will never give any nation or any institution a veto over our national security.

No Pre-emption, No choice, and certainly as noted ^ No Global test.

It's clear to me, jackschmittusa

Not to me and I'm sure to a lot of other people. Don't just put up half quotes from all over the statement and then claim what you just did. Give me an explantion.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: JHoNNy1OoO

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Here is the conundrum for the people defending the John Kerry global test position.

[*]As a matter of principle, John Kerry does not support a policy of pre-emption, let alone any sort of global test :roll:

And as president, I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: The United States of America never goes to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to. That is the standard of our nation.

I know what kids go through when they are carrying...



I know what kids go through when they're carrying an M-16 in a dangerous place, and they can't tell friend from foe. I know what they go through when they're out on patrol at night and they don't know what's coming around the next bend. I know what it's like to write letters home telling your family that everything's all right, when you're not sure that that's true.

As president, I will wage this war with the lessons I learned in war. Before you go to battle, you have to be able to look a parent in the eye and truthfully say, "I tried everything possible to avoid sending your son or daughter into harm's way, but we had no choice...


... we had to protect the American people, fundamental American values against a threat that was real and imminent."


So, lesson number one, this is the only justification for going to war.

And on my first day in office, I will send a message to every man and woman in our armed forces: You will never be asked to fight a war without a plan to win the peace.


I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a president who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, reduce the risk to American soldiers. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.


Here is the reality: That won't happen until we have a president who restores America's respect and leadership so we don't have to go it alone in the world.

And we need to rebuild our alliances so we can get the terrorists before they get us.

I defended this country as a young man, and I will defend it as president.


Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and a certain response.

I will never give any nation or any institution a veto over our national security.

No Pre-emption, No choice, and certainly as noted ^ No Global test.

It's clear to me, jackschmittusa

Not to me and I'm sure to a lot of other people. Don't just put up half quotes from all over the statement and then claim what you just did. Give me an explantion.

I have a better idea.

Before you Refuse my point, at least try to Refute it:

[*]As a matter of principle, John Kerry does not support a policy of pre-emption, let alone any sort of global test

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Here is the conundrum for the people defending the John Kerry global test position.

[*]As a matter of principle, John Kerry does not support a policy of pre-emption, let alone any sort of global test :roll:

And as president, I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: The United States of America never goes to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to. That is the standard of our nation.

I know what kids go through when they are carrying...



I know what kids go through when they're carrying an M-16 in a dangerous place, and they can't tell friend from foe. I know what they go through when they're out on patrol at night and they don't know what's coming around the next bend. I know what it's like to write letters home telling your family that everything's all right, when you're not sure that that's true.

As president, I will wage this war with the lessons I learned in war. Before you go to battle, you have to be able to look a parent in the eye and truthfully say, "I tried everything possible to avoid sending your son or daughter into harm's way, but we had no choice...


... we had to protect the American people, fundamental American values against a threat that was real and imminent."


So, lesson number one, this is the only justification for going to war.

And on my first day in office, I will send a message to every man and woman in our armed forces: You will never be asked to fight a war without a plan to win the peace.


I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a president who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, reduce the risk to American soldiers. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.


Here is the reality: That won't happen until we have a president who restores America's respect and leadership so we don't have to go it alone in the world.

And we need to rebuild our alliances so we can get the terrorists before they get us.

I defended this country as a young man, and I will defend it as president.


Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and a certain response.

I will never give any nation or any institution a veto over our national security.

No Pre-emption, No choice, and certainly as noted ^ No Global test.

It's clear to me, jackschmittusa

Sorry, I'm having the same problem. He says that we should go to war only when we have to, when we have no choice. Somehow you read that as no pre-emption. I can see numerous situations where those things wouldn't be mutually exclusive...for example, if Iraq had actually had nuclear missles aimed at US cities or something.

As for the no-global test, all Kerry has said is that he wouldn't give other nations veto power over our national security. That is how YOU defined global test, but that's just Bush and Co spin crap. Global test means we should be able to convince people as a whole that we are right, not that they can veto our actions.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: JHoNNy1OoO

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Here is the conundrum for the people defending the John Kerry global test position.

[*]As a matter of principle, John Kerry does not support a policy of pre-emption, let alone any sort of global test :roll:

And as president, I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: The United States of America never goes to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to. That is the standard of our nation.

I know what kids go through when they are carrying...



I know what kids go through when they're carrying an M-16 in a dangerous place, and they can't tell friend from foe. I know what they go through when they're out on patrol at night and they don't know what's coming around the next bend. I know what it's like to write letters home telling your family that everything's all right, when you're not sure that that's true.

As president, I will wage this war with the lessons I learned in war. Before you go to battle, you have to be able to look a parent in the eye and truthfully say, "I tried everything possible to avoid sending your son or daughter into harm's way, but we had no choice...


... we had to protect the American people, fundamental American values against a threat that was real and imminent."


So, lesson number one, this is the only justification for going to war.

And on my first day in office, I will send a message to every man and woman in our armed forces: You will never be asked to fight a war without a plan to win the peace.


I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a president who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, reduce the risk to American soldiers. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.


Here is the reality: That won't happen until we have a president who restores America's respect and leadership so we don't have to go it alone in the world.

And we need to rebuild our alliances so we can get the terrorists before they get us.

I defended this country as a young man, and I will defend it as president.


Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and a certain response.

I will never give any nation or any institution a veto over our national security.

No Pre-emption, No choice, and certainly as noted ^ No Global test.

It's clear to me, jackschmittusa

Not to me and I'm sure to a lot of other people. Don't just put up half quotes from all over the statement and then claim what you just did. Give me an explantion.

I have a better idea.

Before you Refuse my point, at least try to Refute it:

[*]As a matter of principle, John Kerry does not support a policy of pre-emption, let alone any sort of global test

Fair enough...Kerry said, as quoted in your own post, that he supports military action as a last resort only if we have no other choice. Pre-emption may be the last resort to prevent attack of some kind, thus fitting both what he said and supporting the policy of pre-emption. As for the global test thing, all Kerry said was that we should be able to convince the world we are right (in the general sense), NOT that France can veto our military action. Those two things are not the same at all, Kerry seems to advocate keeping the power within our hands (where it belongs), but also not just telling the world to fvck off whenever we want to do something. It's about making sure we have good reasons, not about control.

 

[Mockery]

I love the idea of "Global Test."

The world is so good at seeing eye to eye on issues and putting aside their self absorbed interests for the better good of humanity.

Look at how Sudan is being handled if you need a modern day example of "real" diplomacy.

Better yet, Rwanda was a real "global test" gem.

Nothing seems to be better at global population control better than putting national affairs to a "global test."

 

[her209]

The irony is that Saddam sought approval from the US before invading Kuwait.

 

[Mockery]

Originally posted by: her209
The irony is that Saddam sought approval from the US before invading Kuwait.

So did Congress approve or veto that proposal ...? lol

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Here is the conundrum for the people defending the John Kerry global test position.

[*]As a matter of principle, John Kerry does not support a policy of pre-emption, let alone any sort of global test :roll:

And as president, I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: The United States of America never goes to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to. That is the standard of our nation.

I know what kids go through when they are carrying...



I know what kids go through when they're carrying an M-16 in a dangerous place, and they can't tell friend from foe. I know what they go through when they're out on patrol at night and they don't know what's coming around the next bend. I know what it's like to write letters home telling your family that everything's all right, when you're not sure that that's true.

As president, I will wage this war with the lessons I learned in war. Before you go to battle, you have to be able to look a parent in the eye and truthfully say, "I tried everything possible to avoid sending your son or daughter into harm's way, but we had no choice...


... we had to protect the American people, fundamental American values against a threat that was real and imminent."


So, lesson number one, this is the only justification for going to war.

And on my first day in office, I will send a message to every man and woman in our armed forces: You will never be asked to fight a war without a plan to win the peace.


I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a president who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, reduce the risk to American soldiers. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.


Here is the reality: That won't happen until we have a president who restores America's respect and leadership so we don't have to go it alone in the world.

And we need to rebuild our alliances so we can get the terrorists before they get us.

I defended this country as a young man, and I will defend it as president.


Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and a certain response.

I will never give any nation or any institution a veto over our national security.

No Pre-emption, No choice, and certainly as noted ^ No Global test.

It's clear to me, jackschmittusa

Sorry, I'm having the same problem. He says that we should go to war only when we have to, when we have no choice. Somehow you read that as no pre-emption. I can see numerous situations where those things wouldn't be mutually exclusive...for example, if Iraq had actually had nuclear missles aimed at US cities or something.

As for the no-global test, all Kerry has said is that he wouldn't give other nations veto power over our national security. That is how YOU defined global test, but that's just Bush and Co spin crap. Global test means we should be able to convince people as a whole that we are right, not that they can veto our actions.

Perhaps Kerry could "define" his stance on pre-emption clearly instead of only giving me 50 positions related to the subject and leaving me to draw my own conclusion.

Got links to such a stance?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Rainsford


Fair enough...Kerry said, as quoted in your own post, that he supports military action as a last resort only if we have no other choice. Pre-emption may be the last resort to prevent attack of some kind, thus fitting both what he said and supporting the policy of pre-emption. As for the global test thing, all Kerry said was that we should be able to convince the world we are right (in the general sense), NOT that France can veto our military action. Those two things are not the same at all, Kerry seems to advocate keeping the power within our hands (where it belongs), but also not just telling the world to fvck off whenever we want to do something. It's about making sure we have good reasons, not about control.

Kerry was clear when he lumped together:

"I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: The United States of America never goes to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to. That is the standard of our nation."

AND

"Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and a certain response."


[*]As a matter of principle, John Kerry does not support a policy of pre-emption, let alone any sort of global test

 

[JHoNNy1OoO]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Rainsford


Fair enough...Kerry said, as quoted in your own post, that he supports military action as a last resort only if we have no other choice. Pre-emption may be the last resort to prevent attack of some kind, thus fitting both what he said and supporting the policy of pre-emption. As for the global test thing, all Kerry said was that we should be able to convince the world we are right (in the general sense), NOT that France can veto our military action. Those two things are not the same at all, Kerry seems to advocate keeping the power within our hands (where it belongs), but also not just telling the world to fvck off whenever we want to do something. It's about making sure we have good reasons, not about control.

Kerry was clear when he lumped together:

"I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: The United States of America never goes to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to. That is the standard of our nation."

AND

"Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and a certain response."


[*]As a matter of principle, John Kerry does not support a policy of pre-emption, let alone any sort of global test

How can you see those as contradictory to each other. In both he is talking about using war as a last resort. In the second quote he's saying that if we get attacked(be it another 9/11 incident or a surprise attack like Pearl Harbor) it will be met with a quick response. You seem to imply, that if he see's a building threat that he is aware of he will not attack and wait for us to get attacked first. Which is clearly not the case.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: sandorski
It's bad, because the Iraq war fails the test. No Imminent Threat, no WMD, no Nothing given as The Reason.

Who gets to decide what "damn good reasons" is?

They have already been determined, in fact, Bush used them as part of his justification for goin to war in the first place. The biggest mistake Bush did was to rush into war when the process to determine whether Iraq was a Threat was underway and finding nothing. If he had any Patience, he'd have found that Invasion was not necessary to Defend the US.

Bush just filled in Circle #2 all the way down the Test, unfortunetly he chose the wrong Circle to fill.

So, in your version of the global test , a choice exists.

I am a conservative. If I must make a choice, I will do so with the possibility of error on the side that I view as being in my favor.

That would be?

What was the urgency? According to Bush it was the possibility of a Mushroom cloud over a major US city in as little as 6 months. Was there any evidence that Iraq was capable of fulfilling that? Was there even a hint that Iraq had such a Program in the works?

What you call Erring on the side of Caution, I call BS.

So, in your version of the global test , the one where a choice exists, If I don't make the same choice as you do, it is BS ?


That brings me back to the question: Who gets to decide what "damn good reasons" is?

I'm not sure if you think you're clever or wtf you are doing, but Bush was WRONG in his reasoning for going to war! If he wasn't, then wtf are the WMD?
Your entire argument is shat based on the evidence of what has already taken place.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

I'm not sure if you think you're clever or wtf you are doing, but Bush was WRONG in his reasoning for going to war! If he wasn't, then wtf are the WMD?
Your entire argument is shat based on the evidence of what has already taken place.[/quote]

Yes, but he could have also been correct and not acted.



WITH THE ***** KERRY GLOBAL TEST POLICY***** WHO GETS TO DECIDE ?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: arsbanned

I'm not sure if you think you're clever or wtf you are doing, but Bush was WRONG in his reasoning for going to war! If he wasn't, then wtf are the WMD?
Your entire argument is shat based on the evidence of what has already taken place.

Yes, but he could have also been correct and not acted.



WITH THE ***** KERRY GLOBAL TEST POLICY***** WHO GETS TO DECIDE ?

[/quote]

You're being ridiculous. So, a "What if?" is a reason to invade?

 

[BBond]

Kerry's 'Global Test' makes sense. Republicans are faking not understanding it and misrepresenting it because they don't want to admit that Kerry is right and Bush is wrong on this point. There is no confusion. Read the post from Professor Cole above or the CNN report below.

This twisting of Kerry's words being attempted by the Republicans is a sign of desperation. Bush can't win a debate on issues so his campaign distorts what Senator Kerry said and hopes the American people are too simple to detect the deception. How pathetic.

On this point the Republicans are, as on so many points, totally wrong.

Kerry dismisses criticism of 'global test' remark as 'pathetic'

'I can do a better job of protecting America's security'

Monday, October 4, 2004 Posted: 4:05 PM EDT (2005 GMT)

HAMPTON, New Hampshire (CNN) -- Sen. John Kerry on Monday lambasted as "pathetic" scaremongering, Republican criticism of his comments during last Thursday's debate in which he said the president's decision to go to war should pass a "global test" of legitimacy.

Asked during a town hall meeting in Hampton to explain what he meant, the Massachusetts senator said, "It's almost sad; it's certainly pathetic, because all they can do is grab a little phrase and try to play a game and scare Americans."

He added, "They're misleading Americans about what I said. What I said in the sentence preceding that was, 'I will never cede America's security to any institution or any other country.' No one gets a veto over our security. No one.

"And if they were honest enough to give America the full quote, which America heard, they would know that I'm never going to allow America's security to be outsourced. That's the job of the president.

"But I can do a better job of protecting America's security because the test that I was talking about was a test of legitimacy, not just in the globe, but elsewhere. (Special Report: America Votes 2004, the issues)

"If you do things that are illegitimate in the eyes of the other people, it's very hard to get them to share the burden and risk with you."

Kerry said he intends to be a president who understands "that America is stronger when we are leading global alliances and when we are leading the world, and that's how we are going to do it. And that's what I meant."

Here is what Kerry said during the debate:

"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded -- and nor would I -- the right to preempt in any way necessary, to protect the United States of America," the Democrat told moderator Jim Lehrer during the debate.

"But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do it in a way that passes the, the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

Kerry's comment drew immediate criticism from Bush: "I'm not exactly sure what you mean, 'passes the global test,' [that] you take preemptive action if you pass a global test," he said during the debate. "My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure."

During an appearance in Ohio late last week, Bush returned to the issue: "When our country is in danger, it is not the job of the president to take an international poll; it's to defend our country," he said.

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice also questioned Kerry's comments.

"I heard Senator Kerry say that there was some kind of 'global test' that you ought to be able to pass to support preemption, and I don't understand what that means," Rice told CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."

"I don't understand 'proving to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons,' " she said.

During the town hall meeting, Kerry also took Bush to task for his policy that limits the use of federal funds for stem cell research, allowing it only with restrictions that some scientists contend slows the pace of discovery.

 

[HamSupLo]

Saddam didn't need to meet any global test when he invaded Kuwait.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: HamSupLo
Saddam didn't need to meet any global test when he invaded Kuwait.

Nope, all he needed was the approval he got from the U.S.

 

[Gaard]

Quit being a dick, Ozoned.

Those whom you are trying to convince have to decide whether or not , in their opinion, it's a damn good reason. Nobody, including Kerry, has said that this would give anyone the power of veto, just that it's a good policy to have.

Did you ever respond to this post...

Who should get to decide? I think we should reserve the right to take whatever actions necessary to protect ourselves, but I think we should take a step back and think about it if the rest of the world thinks we're loony...don't you?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: HamSupLo
Saddam didn't need to meet any global test when he invaded Kuwait.

A little more info for you on Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and the U.S. role in supporting him throughout the Reagan/Bush years.

U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup

'The U.S. policy of cultivating Hussein as a moderate and reasonable Arab leader continued right up until he invaded Kuwait in August 1990, documents show. When the then-U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie, met with Hussein on July 25, 1990, a week before the Iraqi attack on Kuwait, she assured him that Bush "wanted better and deeper relations," according to an Iraqi transcript of the conversation. "President Bush is an intelligent man," the ambassador told Hussein, referring to the father of the current president. "He is not going to declare an economic war against Iraq."'

 

[cpumaster]

Bush & his fans doesn't like it cuz they don't want accountability when they invaded someone or some country, in fact Bush & co. doesn't seem too thrill that they have to explain reasons for war to the rest of us. Prior and after the Iraq war, their attitude mostly seem to be just line up behind us and shut the fvck up, you unpatriotic anti-america whinner. Only when things started getting bad and the military get bogged down there does they came crawling back to UN and the rest of the world to ask for help (still in typically arrogant fashion tho)