Originally posted by: Ozoned
That should tide you over until you find the right thread for your link.
Can't stand to hear the truth about your phony warrior???
Your cookie will tide me over until Friday when Bush is once again crushed by President...oops!...I mean Senator Kerry!
"you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."
Thats the global test , right?
[/quote]
You are using only a small portion of Kerry's statement but the portion you chose does point out the fact that Kerry is speaking in the PAST TENSE -- "you can prove to the world that you DID it for legitimate reasons."
In other words, you defend America first, then you show your evidence to the world. Unlike Bush, for example, who attacked Iraq, a non-threatening nation, based on false evidence.
Any nation that attacks another nation unprovoked is no more than a common aggressor and no better than the conquering hordes throughout history unless they know they can prove to the world community that their actions were necessary. Senator Kerry clearly stated he IS NOT making this a pre-requisite for defending America. He is saying that Americans must know in our hearts that we are embarking upon the right course in defending ourselves against threats. Unlike Iraq, where policy was driven by the administration's secret agenda instead of concrete intelligence. How do now we explain to the world that we invaded Iraq because they were a threat when there are NONE of the weapons or even any evidence of intent or ability to harm us?
The Bush administration failed the global test and America's reputation around the world has suffered for it.
Hey! Even Ozoned might actually be catching on, although I doubt it...
Yeh, we need for our actions to stand up to the scrutiny of world opinion, or at least a large % of it, particularly wrt War, or even the threat of it. That was easy when Japanese airplanes sent our pacific fleet to the bottom of Pearl Harbor, or when NKorean forces attacked SKorean and American occupation forces, or when we had pics of Soviet missile launch pads in Cuba. Honest, straightforward evidence, irrefutable. What did we have when we invaded Iraq? As it turns out, nothing- zero, zip, nada. Nothing other than an Admin hell-bent on doing it, willing to hoodwink Congress and the public with lies, innuendo and fearmongering, playing on the basest human emotions.
Yeh, 9/11 changed everything, apparently rendering many of my countrymen incredibly stupid.
Yeh, we need for our actions to stand up to the scrutiny of world opinion, or at least a large % of it, particularly wrt War, or even the threat of it. That was easy when Japanese airplanes sent our pacific fleet to the bottom of Pearl Harbor, or when NKorean forces attacked SKorean and American occupation forces, or when we had pics of Soviet missile launch pads in Cuba. Honest, straightforward evidence, irrefutable. What did we have when we invaded Iraq? As it turns out, nothing- zero, zip, nada. Nothing other than an Admin hell-bent on doing it, willing to hoodwink Congress and the public with lies, innuendo and fearmongering, playing on the basest human emotions.
Yeh, 9/11 changed everything, apparently rendering many of my countrymen incredibly stupid.
Here is a summary from a previous thread on the topic. This is what I have to say about the topic and there are some excellent questions brought up about my views. I'm pretty much in agreement on this issue with Kerry. Both Rice and Bush have said "They don't get it." and that is the sad part.
Sorry about the major dump on the thread but this is a topic that I feel is important. I would like to join the discussion without having to rehash things over and over just because of a thread split. Anyway here goes...
The "Global Test" means you were right. Right is right and wrong is wrong by both a global standard and an American standard.
A Preemptive strike is what Israel did when they started the 6 Day War in 1967. They were clearly the aggressors. "The Global Test" has since vindicated them. They were about to be obliterated by their neighbors and had to act in their own best interest.
A Preemptive strike is also what Iraq did with they started the first Gulf War in 1990. They were clearly the aggressors. "The Global Test" has since found them to be attacking not out of self defense. They were wrong and were acting out of aggression and not their own best interest.
If you are not the aggressor it is difficult to be in the wrong. Peaceful behavior is always the right way to behave but sometimes it is not possible. Always offer someone flowers, but if they're pointing a knife at you offer them the wrong end of a gun instead.
When you decide to violate the sovereignty of another country and invade them you better make damn sure you are in the right. Acting in self defense is always justified even when you do it proactively. If it turns out you are wrong then preemption is simply aggression.
When is it ok for me to break in to your house and shoot you? Damn skippy...the circumstances are pretty narrow when that is the just thing to do. If it turns out that you had one of my neighbors kidnapped in the basement and bomb making materials in your living room I will be vindicated by "the neighborhood test." If it turns out that you were writing crappy letters about me and had a picture of me as a dartboard then guess what. I'm going to jail for home invasion and murder.
What Kerry said was we have the right to make a preemptive strike anytime we want. We're just going to make sure that we're right. As usual, George doesn't get it. It confuses his lil head so he says, "Aha! Flip-flopping again!"
If we strike preemptively it must be for a good and just reason. America MUST ALWAYS stand for truth, justice and what is right. We cannot fail in this.
I was then asked an excellent question:
Ah yes. That will always be the problem. For most things you must simply use your best judgment when you cannot see into the future. When the stakes are very grave and irreversible you must use exceptional judgment. To put a man to death for instance there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Most states in this great country even go one step further and submit an automatic appeal in capital punishment.
In our most recent case of a "preemptive strike" our intelligence beforehand could all be "reasonably doubted." Even if all of the intelligence had turned out somehow to be true the findings of Hans Blixes team left "reasonable doubt" for the case as a whole. Iraq had certainly used up a number of "appeals", but there is *nothing* more grave and irreversible than war. We failed wait for weapons inspections to finish, failed listen to the judgment of longtime allies and basically failed to allow one more appeal. Then it turns out we were wrong.
Our president used his "best judgment" and did what he though was right. Yet he failed the standards by which we judge a single man's life in this free and just country of ours. His "best judgment" has now cost 1000 of our lives, 7000 wounded, 15,000 Iraqis and the moral standing of our country to judge others.
Again, we MUST be in the right if we are to preemptively attack another sovereign nation. It is vital to the honor and values of what is "America". It is vital to our future. If we cannot see the future we must use our "best judgment". I think our presidents judgment failed this time. I can forgive him as a person since I know he thought what he was doing was moral. As my leader and representative of MY judgment I would like him to step down. I will express this in November and I would encourage you to do the same.
You are asking me to speculate on a future set of circumstances that are unknown. The framers of the constitution believed that war was such an important matter that two branches of govornment needed to agree on it. Although the executive branch controls the military, the legislative branch must authorize war. Our military can conduct action for some time without a declaration of war. This is even more necessary in todays times when war can be measured in days (or even minutes, God help us) instead of years. In the case of a preemptive attack it may be necessary for our president to act immediately and then later submit to the judgement of congress. When it all comes down to it, he is the "Commander in Chief" and bears all responsibility. Sometimes the decision will have to be his alone.
In the case of Iraq there was plenty of time to make a decision. We had time for congress to convene beforehand. Our congress said "We are with you and will trust your final judgement when the time comes." They gave him the power to preemptively attack if it appeared all other avenues would fail. If congress had said, "Come back just once more before you do so we can vote for War." it would have cost our commanders strategic initiative during an age where wars can be won or lost by the time it takes them to find their seats (I exagerate, but it certainly would have cost lives, and I think you understand without me delving into the details)
I do not believe all avenues had been exhausted in this case. Had they been we would have realized in time our errors in judgement and the war would not have happened. We failed to remove all reasonable doubt before marching to war.
It seems that there were a number of factors that hastened our strike. Support for the war was begining to fail in the Public, in congress and in the U.N. I believe the president had already decided on war (he asked our terrorism czar to look for supporting evidence on September *12th* 2001) and he did not want support to slip any further before it started. I do not feel that he used good judgement that simply turned out badly. I believe he used poor judgement that turned out badly. You can *not* make a mistake when going to war. He made a mistake and I want a new leader.
I think you are right. The thing is that as soon as questions were raised and congress started seeing things they didn't like the president expedited the process. He used the "Letter of the law" rather than the spirit of it to justify his final decision. The spirit of the Iraq resolution was to "work with the U.N. and exhaust every possible diplomatic solution." He didn't do that. He said, "Hey, you *technically* told me I could go so I did." It's in some respects similar to the way Clinton lied without committing perjury when he said "Sexual Relations." Both are dispicable things for someone who represents me to do. I don't care if you are *technically* right. I am your final judge on election day.
Sorry about the major dump on the thread but this is a topic that I feel is important. I would like to join the discussion without having to rehash things over and over just because of a thread split. Anyway here goes...
The "Global Test" means you were right. Right is right and wrong is wrong by both a global standard and an American standard.
A Preemptive strike is what Israel did when they started the 6 Day War in 1967. They were clearly the aggressors. "The Global Test" has since vindicated them. They were about to be obliterated by their neighbors and had to act in their own best interest.
A Preemptive strike is also what Iraq did with they started the first Gulf War in 1990. They were clearly the aggressors. "The Global Test" has since found them to be attacking not out of self defense. They were wrong and were acting out of aggression and not their own best interest.
If you are not the aggressor it is difficult to be in the wrong. Peaceful behavior is always the right way to behave but sometimes it is not possible. Always offer someone flowers, but if they're pointing a knife at you offer them the wrong end of a gun instead.
When you decide to violate the sovereignty of another country and invade them you better make damn sure you are in the right. Acting in self defense is always justified even when you do it proactively. If it turns out you are wrong then preemption is simply aggression.
When is it ok for me to break in to your house and shoot you? Damn skippy...the circumstances are pretty narrow when that is the just thing to do. If it turns out that you had one of my neighbors kidnapped in the basement and bomb making materials in your living room I will be vindicated by "the neighborhood test." If it turns out that you were writing crappy letters about me and had a picture of me as a dartboard then guess what. I'm going to jail for home invasion and murder.
What Kerry said was we have the right to make a preemptive strike anytime we want. We're just going to make sure that we're right. As usual, George doesn't get it. It confuses his lil head so he says, "Aha! Flip-flopping again!"
If we strike preemptively it must be for a good and just reason. America MUST ALWAYS stand for truth, justice and what is right. We cannot fail in this.
I was then asked an excellent question:
Ah yes. That will always be the problem. For most things you must simply use your best judgment when you cannot see into the future. When the stakes are very grave and irreversible you must use exceptional judgment. To put a man to death for instance there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Most states in this great country even go one step further and submit an automatic appeal in capital punishment.
In our most recent case of a "preemptive strike" our intelligence beforehand could all be "reasonably doubted." Even if all of the intelligence had turned out somehow to be true the findings of Hans Blixes team left "reasonable doubt" for the case as a whole. Iraq had certainly used up a number of "appeals", but there is *nothing* more grave and irreversible than war. We failed wait for weapons inspections to finish, failed listen to the judgment of longtime allies and basically failed to allow one more appeal. Then it turns out we were wrong.
Our president used his "best judgment" and did what he though was right. Yet he failed the standards by which we judge a single man's life in this free and just country of ours. His "best judgment" has now cost 1000 of our lives, 7000 wounded, 15,000 Iraqis and the moral standing of our country to judge others.
Again, we MUST be in the right if we are to preemptively attack another sovereign nation. It is vital to the honor and values of what is "America". It is vital to our future. If we cannot see the future we must use our "best judgment". I think our presidents judgment failed this time. I can forgive him as a person since I know he thought what he was doing was moral. As my leader and representative of MY judgment I would like him to step down. I will express this in November and I would encourage you to do the same.
You are asking me to speculate on a future set of circumstances that are unknown. The framers of the constitution believed that war was such an important matter that two branches of govornment needed to agree on it. Although the executive branch controls the military, the legislative branch must authorize war. Our military can conduct action for some time without a declaration of war. This is even more necessary in todays times when war can be measured in days (or even minutes, God help us) instead of years. In the case of a preemptive attack it may be necessary for our president to act immediately and then later submit to the judgement of congress. When it all comes down to it, he is the "Commander in Chief" and bears all responsibility. Sometimes the decision will have to be his alone.
In the case of Iraq there was plenty of time to make a decision. We had time for congress to convene beforehand. Our congress said "We are with you and will trust your final judgement when the time comes." They gave him the power to preemptively attack if it appeared all other avenues would fail. If congress had said, "Come back just once more before you do so we can vote for War." it would have cost our commanders strategic initiative during an age where wars can be won or lost by the time it takes them to find their seats (I exagerate, but it certainly would have cost lives, and I think you understand without me delving into the details)
I do not believe all avenues had been exhausted in this case. Had they been we would have realized in time our errors in judgement and the war would not have happened. We failed to remove all reasonable doubt before marching to war.
It seems that there were a number of factors that hastened our strike. Support for the war was begining to fail in the Public, in congress and in the U.N. I believe the president had already decided on war (he asked our terrorism czar to look for supporting evidence on September *12th* 2001) and he did not want support to slip any further before it started. I do not feel that he used good judgement that simply turned out badly. I believe he used poor judgement that turned out badly. You can *not* make a mistake when going to war. He made a mistake and I want a new leader.
I think you are right. The thing is that as soon as questions were raised and congress started seeing things they didn't like the president expedited the process. He used the "Letter of the law" rather than the spirit of it to justify his final decision. The spirit of the Iraq resolution was to "work with the U.N. and exhaust every possible diplomatic solution." He didn't do that. He said, "Hey, you *technically* told me I could go so I did." It's in some respects similar to the way Clinton lied without committing perjury when he said "Sexual Relations." Both are dispicable things for someone who represents me to do. I don't care if you are *technically* right. I am your final judge on election day.
The odd thing about this criticism is that the idea of a global test for war comes from Colonel John Boyd, considered to be one of the best American military strategist. Click here for a somewhat abstract explanation of a global test. Real question is why Bush did not hear of the man who help plan the his dad's war on Iraq and the man who help formulate for the armored formations used in his Iraq war. Guess our "warrior president" has not read the man who helped design the F-15 and F-16.
"you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."
Thats the global test , right?
[/quote]
Yeah, just like Bush tried to do at the UN before he got impatient (like a little kid) and decided to hell with the rest of the world, I'm gonna go find some WMD's, I mean AlQueda links, ahh, would you believe free the poor repressed Iraqi people??.
The odd thing about this criticism is that the idea of a global test for war comes from Colonel John Boyd, considered to be one of the best American military strategist. Click here for a somewhat abstract explanation of a global test. Real question is why Bush did not hear of the man who help plan the his dad's war on Iraq and the man who help formulate for the armored formations used in his Iraq war. Guess our "warrior president" has not read the man who helped design the F-15 and F-16.
[/quote]
Interesting link for this particular context but I think as a side effect you've spawned a curiosity about John Boyd. I'm going to be doing some reading on him.
I think basically what you are getting at is failing to use a "global test" at every opportunity will be a grave strategic mistake. Strategy in the scope of generations rather than the span of a single war.
Don't forget too, that Bush by self admission doesn't read much
(the double-stuffed mint oreo kind, not the stale Chips Ahoy! troll food. )I think the discussion about this is really silly. Bush's camp has obviously politicized an obviously meritous statement. Any war NEEDS to stand up to the test of history - maybe that would have been better wording, as it wouldn't make Kerry look so weak. The whole argument is just semantics. What really needs to be done, IMO, is that the regulations for going to war need to be revamped as stated in Smilin's post (I still have copyrights to my own posts
).I really think the people in this forum should be above arguing such partisan, idiotic sentiments as those expressed in this thread. The meaning of what Kerry said should be obvious, and its merits equally obvious. If you can't see that, simply exchange the word 'history' for 'global' and you'll get what he really meant. Why can't we argue ideas rather than attacking words?
We've succumbed to one of Col. Boyd's tactics - a self inflicted wound.
Moral isolation is achieved when an enemy improves its well being at the expense of others (allies) or violates rules of behavior they profess to uphold (standards of conduct). Moral rules are a very important reference point in times of uncertainty. When these are violated, it is very hard to recover.
A global test tempers our actions by the knowledge that at the completion of an offensive against a legitimate threat we will face the world and explain our actions.
There will always be nations which disagree with whatever America does, as well as some nations with legitimate grievances against us. But we know fair world opinion. And world opinion is vital to even a lone superpower. It keeps them honest. It keeps them from making mistakes or showing the world a side of themselves that disaffirms everything they claim to stand for. The respect of our allies and the world as a whole is important. No nation can afford to damage their good reputation. 'It is very hard to recover.'
Due to the actions of this administration we have, IMO, morally isolated America.
Ozoned
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2004
- 5,578
- 0
- 0
You are using only a small portion of Kerry's statement but the portion you chose does point out the fact that Kerry is speaking in the PAST TENSE -- "you can prove to the world that you DID it for legitimate reasons."
[/quote] Yea, I already pointed that out with a Kerry quote: "it depends on the outcome ultimately"
That is one hell of a global test . :roll:
Ozoned
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2004
- 5,578
- 0
- 0
I did not need to read far to find the flaw in your version of the global test . If Iraq had attacked us prior to our invasion of Iraq, it would have passed the global test . If Afghanistan had (etc...etc...etc...)
Who decides the basis of the global test ? Your standards must be clarified...
That was the point of the rest of the post.Originally posted by: Ozoned
I did not need to read far to find the flaw in your version of the global test . If Iraq had attacked us prior to our invasion of Iraq, it would have passed the global test . If Afghanistan had (etc...etc...etc...)
Who decides the basis of the global test ? Your standards must be clarified...
Ozoned
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2004
- 5,578
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
That was the point of the rest of the post.Originally posted by: Ozoned
I did not need to read far to find the flaw in your version of the global test . If Iraq had attacked us prior to our invasion of Iraq, it would have passed the global test . If Afghanistan had (etc...etc...etc...)
Who decides the basis of the global test ? Your standards must be clarified...
To be honest, I did read the rest of the post and found it to be convoluted.
Who gets to make the distinction between What is Good and What is Evil ?
Hint:
(There is no Global test)As I said, it's obvious that any war we go to needs to be able to be justified by history. I think the use of the phrase 'global test' was a poor choice, and 'historical test' would have been a lot better if this is really what he meant. It's what he should have meant, if he didn't.Originally posted by: Ozoned
Hint:
From the British standpoint, the American Revolution was an illegal war, fought for nothing more than tax opposition, and bloated egos. From the German viewpoint, The Roman occupation was unjust. From the American Indian viewpoint, the entire colonization of their scountry was unjust and genocidal. History must show a betterment of not only culture, but progress in science, culture and HUMANITY to be justified to go to war against another people. The test is subjective, as are the answers to the questions. Even the questions themselves are often subjective.
The acid test is not ever absolute. The advancement brought by the conquerering nation must raise, not lower the living standards, and the surviveability of the race as a whole. One cannot say that genocide helped the race in the case of the Aboriginal Americans, but the scietific advancements and standards of education certainly improved (for those who survived the ordeal). The conquering people were able to expand and flourish, which was not happening in the land that they previously occupied.
The acid test is not ever absolute. The advancement brought by the conquerering nation must raise, not lower the living standards, and the surviveability of the race as a whole. One cannot say that genocide helped the race in the case of the Aboriginal Americans, but the scietific advancements and standards of education certainly improved (for those who survived the ordeal). The conquering people were able to expand and flourish, which was not happening in the land that they previously occupied.
The Daily Show did a histerical piece on the "Global Test". It's not on their website yet but I'll make sure to post a link here when I find it or create another link.
The opposite of "Global test" is well exemplyfied by Hitler. The --I know what is right, the rest of the world can kiss my a$$-- approach.
Who Was Right About the "Global Test"- Jefferson or Hitler?
by Thom Hartmann
"I can thank God at this moment that He has so wonderfully blessed us in our hard struggle for what is our right..."
Adolf Hitler, Speech in Berlin, October 6, 1939
The day after his first debate with John F. Kerry, in a speech before a handpicked and adoring audience, George W. Bush recalled a moment from the evening before.
"One other point I want to make about the debate last night," he said. "Senator Kerry last night said that America has to pass some sort of global test before we can use American troops to defend ourselves. He wants our national security decisions subject to the approval of a foreign government."
At that mention of Kerry, Bush was interrupted by loud boos from the audience. Grinning broadly, he continued: "Listen, I'll continue to work with our allies and the international community, but I will never submit America's national security to an international test. The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France." Bush concluded, saying, "The President's job is not to take an international poll."
In the days since the debate, that clip and its related Bush spin has been replayed so much and so often by the media that it's likely more Americans have heard it than heard the original debate itself. And of those who heard the debate, by this time most have probably forgotten Senator Kerry's actual words, and only a few may have noticed the impeachable High Crime committed by George Bush to which they pointed.
It started when the moderator, Jim Lehrer, asked Kerry: "What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?"
Kerry answered, "The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.
"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.
"But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes 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 had made no mention of any sort of a "test" that required the agreement of the world, and no mention of France whatsoever. He simply laid out the very practical, truly American, and intrinsically honest concept that has guided American foreign policy for over 229 years:
The people of a nation must be able to both understand and explain their actions, particularly when they involve war.
Thomas Jefferson understood this principle when he wrote - in the very first sentence of the Declaration of Independence - that "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they [the colonists] should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
Before listing his bill of particulars against King George III, Jefferson again made the point: "To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."
It's become a long tradition with American presidents, as well it should be. On June 19, 1812, President James Madison laid out to his countrymen and the world his "four major reasons" for declaring the War of 1812.
On July 7, 1863, Abraham Lincoln restated part of his rationale for going to war, saying, "now ... we have a gigantic Rebellion, at the bottom of which is an effort to overthrow the principle that all men are created equal."
Woodrow Wilson, in calling Congress together on April 2, 1917 to request their consent to a declaration of war, explicitly said, "While we do these things, these deeply momentous things, let us be very clear, and make very clear to all the world what our motives and our objects are."
Franklin D. Roosevelt's request to Congress for a declaration of war on December 11, 1941, needed only to remind America and the world that we were not the aggressors. Indeed, Roosevelt said, "On the morning of Dec. 11 the Government of Germany, pursuing its course of world conquest, declared war against the United States," and "Italy also has declared war against the United States."
Perhaps the real reason Bush is willing to lie about Kerry's comments is because Bush himself has failed the moral and legal test that has guided nations in times of war since the beginning of civilization. And, in doing so intentionally, Bush committed a crime against both the American people and against the world community.
In giving the President the authority to use force against Iraq - the fateful authorization that Kerry voted for - Congress laid out with absolute clarity the test Bush would have to pass before he could wage war against Iraq.
"In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force," the congressional resolution states, "the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that:
"(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
"(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
Bush claimed to have passed the test, submitting over his signature, on March 18, 2003, a letter to Congress in which he wrote,
"Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
"(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
"(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
Both were clear lies, and he knew it at the time. Bush betrayed our trust, and the trust of the international community.
The UN inspection teams had pointed out that they were encountering no resistance whatsoever to their investigations, and that they were not finding any evidence that weapons of mass destruction had survived since the Gulf War of 1991 or the final 1998 weapons destructions authorized by President Clinton and carried out by Scott Ritter's team (and followed by a final series of American bombing raids on suspect sites).
Now we learn that even the CIA and others among Bush's most senior advisors - at the time he was telling Congress and the world Saddam represented a nuclear threat - were telling him that Iraq was probably not rebuilding its nuclear capacity. As the New York Times reported on October 3, 2004 ("How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelligence" by David Barstow, William J. Broad and Jeff Gerth), "Senior administration officials repeatedly failed to fully disclose the contrary views of America's leading nuclear scientists" about the existence or non-existence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.
The UN weapons inspectors - and every other member of the Security Council with the exception of Great Britain - were also expressing doubts about the existence of weapons or the danger Iraq may pose. Bush had to rush to war unilaterally because there was no agreement - even among the normally close members of the Security Council - that oil-rich Iraq represented a threat of any consequence to anybody.
And not only had no evidence come up linking Iraq to 9/11, but, to the contrary, it was becoming increasingly obvious to the world that Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden hated each other and had, as the 9/11 Commission concluded, "no operational links" whatsoever to each other.
As former Nixon White House counsel John Dean forcefully pointed out in a discussion on my radio program recently, the written lies submitted to Congress by George W. Bush to justify invading Iraq constitute a crime easily worthy of prosecution and impeachment. "Worse than Watergate," was Dean's shorthand pronouncement, as well as the title of the book he wrote about the incident.
"Bush deliberately violated the very authorization that he sought from Congress," Dean said both on the air and in his book, adding that this "was not merely a serious breach of faith with a trusting Congress, but a statutory and constitutional crime."
Thus it should surprise nobody that Bush would now rush to change the subject, to surround his lies with the fog of rhetoric about "permission from France." If Republicans lose the House or Senate, he may find himself in a criminal docket.
While Kerry didn't mention that the President had committed a High Crime, Bush's advisors knew immediately the danger such a discussion may bring to him. Should Democrats take control of the House or Senate, they could then investigate how Bush's betrayal of our trust has led to the death and maiming of tens of thousands of human beings.
He had to quickly change the topic.
Commentators in the media, noting Bush's distortion of Kerry's words, and how that distortion is now being used so aggressively in Bush campaign ads, glibly quote prizefighter Jack Dempsey's famous line, "The best defense is a good offense."
But the quote more likely on the minds of Bush and his handlers comes from the last leader of a major industrial power who led his nation to war on a pretense based in lies.
"Thus we may explain the fact that since 1918 the men who have held the reins of government adopted an entirely negative attitude towards foreign affairs and the business of the State," noted Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf. This was possible, he said, because at least a third of "the masses of our people, whose sheepish docility corresponds to their want of intelligence...just submit to it because they are too stupid to understand."
Confident that a cowed media won't call him on it, and that with enough fog about "French permission" that the American people won't remember Kerry's actual words or the text of Bush's war letter to Congress, the Bush campaign continues their Big Lie strategy.
On November 2nd, we'll learn which shall prevail in this election year: The "test" of Jefferson - to "let Facts be submitted to a candid world" - or the tactics of a demagogue trying to hide his own High Crimes with spin and Big Lies.
Who Was Right About the "Global Test"- Jefferson or Hitler?
by Thom Hartmann
"I can thank God at this moment that He has so wonderfully blessed us in our hard struggle for what is our right..."
Adolf Hitler, Speech in Berlin, October 6, 1939
The day after his first debate with John F. Kerry, in a speech before a handpicked and adoring audience, George W. Bush recalled a moment from the evening before.
"One other point I want to make about the debate last night," he said. "Senator Kerry last night said that America has to pass some sort of global test before we can use American troops to defend ourselves. He wants our national security decisions subject to the approval of a foreign government."
At that mention of Kerry, Bush was interrupted by loud boos from the audience. Grinning broadly, he continued: "Listen, I'll continue to work with our allies and the international community, but I will never submit America's national security to an international test. The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France." Bush concluded, saying, "The President's job is not to take an international poll."
In the days since the debate, that clip and its related Bush spin has been replayed so much and so often by the media that it's likely more Americans have heard it than heard the original debate itself. And of those who heard the debate, by this time most have probably forgotten Senator Kerry's actual words, and only a few may have noticed the impeachable High Crime committed by George Bush to which they pointed.
It started when the moderator, Jim Lehrer, asked Kerry: "What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?"
Kerry answered, "The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.
"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.
"But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes 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 had made no mention of any sort of a "test" that required the agreement of the world, and no mention of France whatsoever. He simply laid out the very practical, truly American, and intrinsically honest concept that has guided American foreign policy for over 229 years:
The people of a nation must be able to both understand and explain their actions, particularly when they involve war.
Thomas Jefferson understood this principle when he wrote - in the very first sentence of the Declaration of Independence - that "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they [the colonists] should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
Before listing his bill of particulars against King George III, Jefferson again made the point: "To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."
It's become a long tradition with American presidents, as well it should be. On June 19, 1812, President James Madison laid out to his countrymen and the world his "four major reasons" for declaring the War of 1812.
On July 7, 1863, Abraham Lincoln restated part of his rationale for going to war, saying, "now ... we have a gigantic Rebellion, at the bottom of which is an effort to overthrow the principle that all men are created equal."
Woodrow Wilson, in calling Congress together on April 2, 1917 to request their consent to a declaration of war, explicitly said, "While we do these things, these deeply momentous things, let us be very clear, and make very clear to all the world what our motives and our objects are."
Franklin D. Roosevelt's request to Congress for a declaration of war on December 11, 1941, needed only to remind America and the world that we were not the aggressors. Indeed, Roosevelt said, "On the morning of Dec. 11 the Government of Germany, pursuing its course of world conquest, declared war against the United States," and "Italy also has declared war against the United States."
Perhaps the real reason Bush is willing to lie about Kerry's comments is because Bush himself has failed the moral and legal test that has guided nations in times of war since the beginning of civilization. And, in doing so intentionally, Bush committed a crime against both the American people and against the world community.
In giving the President the authority to use force against Iraq - the fateful authorization that Kerry voted for - Congress laid out with absolute clarity the test Bush would have to pass before he could wage war against Iraq.
"In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force," the congressional resolution states, "the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that:
"(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
"(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
Bush claimed to have passed the test, submitting over his signature, on March 18, 2003, a letter to Congress in which he wrote,
"Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
"(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
"(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
Both were clear lies, and he knew it at the time. Bush betrayed our trust, and the trust of the international community.
The UN inspection teams had pointed out that they were encountering no resistance whatsoever to their investigations, and that they were not finding any evidence that weapons of mass destruction had survived since the Gulf War of 1991 or the final 1998 weapons destructions authorized by President Clinton and carried out by Scott Ritter's team (and followed by a final series of American bombing raids on suspect sites).
Now we learn that even the CIA and others among Bush's most senior advisors - at the time he was telling Congress and the world Saddam represented a nuclear threat - were telling him that Iraq was probably not rebuilding its nuclear capacity. As the New York Times reported on October 3, 2004 ("How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelligence" by David Barstow, William J. Broad and Jeff Gerth), "Senior administration officials repeatedly failed to fully disclose the contrary views of America's leading nuclear scientists" about the existence or non-existence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.
The UN weapons inspectors - and every other member of the Security Council with the exception of Great Britain - were also expressing doubts about the existence of weapons or the danger Iraq may pose. Bush had to rush to war unilaterally because there was no agreement - even among the normally close members of the Security Council - that oil-rich Iraq represented a threat of any consequence to anybody.
And not only had no evidence come up linking Iraq to 9/11, but, to the contrary, it was becoming increasingly obvious to the world that Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden hated each other and had, as the 9/11 Commission concluded, "no operational links" whatsoever to each other.
As former Nixon White House counsel John Dean forcefully pointed out in a discussion on my radio program recently, the written lies submitted to Congress by George W. Bush to justify invading Iraq constitute a crime easily worthy of prosecution and impeachment. "Worse than Watergate," was Dean's shorthand pronouncement, as well as the title of the book he wrote about the incident.
"Bush deliberately violated the very authorization that he sought from Congress," Dean said both on the air and in his book, adding that this "was not merely a serious breach of faith with a trusting Congress, but a statutory and constitutional crime."
Thus it should surprise nobody that Bush would now rush to change the subject, to surround his lies with the fog of rhetoric about "permission from France." If Republicans lose the House or Senate, he may find himself in a criminal docket.
While Kerry didn't mention that the President had committed a High Crime, Bush's advisors knew immediately the danger such a discussion may bring to him. Should Democrats take control of the House or Senate, they could then investigate how Bush's betrayal of our trust has led to the death and maiming of tens of thousands of human beings.
He had to quickly change the topic.
Commentators in the media, noting Bush's distortion of Kerry's words, and how that distortion is now being used so aggressively in Bush campaign ads, glibly quote prizefighter Jack Dempsey's famous line, "The best defense is a good offense."
But the quote more likely on the minds of Bush and his handlers comes from the last leader of a major industrial power who led his nation to war on a pretense based in lies.
"Thus we may explain the fact that since 1918 the men who have held the reins of government adopted an entirely negative attitude towards foreign affairs and the business of the State," noted Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf. This was possible, he said, because at least a third of "the masses of our people, whose sheepish docility corresponds to their want of intelligence...just submit to it because they are too stupid to understand."
Confident that a cowed media won't call him on it, and that with enough fog about "French permission" that the American people won't remember Kerry's actual words or the text of Bush's war letter to Congress, the Bush campaign continues their Big Lie strategy.
On November 2nd, we'll learn which shall prevail in this election year: The "test" of Jefferson - to "let Facts be submitted to a candid world" - or the tactics of a demagogue trying to hide his own High Crimes with spin and Big Lies.
Neither. The world gets to decide if their opinion is for or against OUR ACTIONS (not us). And from all the news reports I've read, the world is definitely against another four more years of the same. Between invading Iraq on what the entire world including the U.S.A. KNOWS was false evidence (bearing false witness for all of you right wing Christians) to the abuses at Abu Ghraib and other prisons throughout Iraq to the slaughter of Iraqi civilians (between 30,000 and 40,000) the U.S.A. has isolated itself morally.
We have become the aggressor, making up charges to invade nations, killing civilians and conducting the SAME kinds of policies that Saddam conducted, torture, rape, and murder, in the very same prison Saddam used for these atrocities.
I can see you are living in the same fantasy world the Bush administration is living in. Come back to reality. It's the only way we'll fix the mess they've made of Iraq and America's reputation.
Ozoned
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2004
- 5,578
- 0
- 0
Neither. The world gets to decide if their opinion is for or against OUR ACTIONS (not us). And from all the news reports I've read, the world is definitely against another four more years of the same.
[/quote] :roll:
Who gets to interpret world opinion and write the news reports that you base your opinion on?
We are talking about a global test here. Right? If We are going to change the direction of this country, because we got it wrong , then I suggest that we get it right .
This new doctrine, the global test thing. Its full of holes. Give me something that I can not find a flaw in.
Make a legitimate defense of the Kerry global test policy.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter