Dropzone:
Yeah, and he also said the US should be a “kinder, gentler nation”.
Goddam girlie-man. 
Well no, just the more generalized “international organizations targeting US sovereignty” kinda paranoia.
Oh, and speaking of sovereignty–and irony–the very idea that the very suggestion that the US should seek some sort of international approval in blatantly and totally violating another country’s sovereignty is somehow a violation of our sovereignty is, well, just mindblowing.
Since the global test says that you can prove to the world that you are taking preemptive action for legitimate reasons, the opposite, and the Bush position, must be that you can’t prove to the world or your country that you have legitimate reasons. Since they couldn’t in Iraq, no surprise they’re against this.
And clearly the problem is that global is meant in the international sense, and is subsumed by the use of the term in the sentence as the all encompassing sense - so the global test involves both US and global components. No wonder Bush didn’t get it right away. At the debate it was cluelessness, now it is lying.
Kerry points out that Bush is a lying scumbag. Only, not in those words:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/04/kerry.global/index.html
If you read his quote, what is he talking about after “global test”? It’s his not the international world: it’s his countrymen. He is obviously saying that you have to convince them that what you are doing is legitimate: that it’s for good enough reasons that it doesn’t blow our legitimacy with the rest of the world.
Before the debates, one of the news analysts was asked what Kerry should do, and he responded that one thing he had to do was ban the word “but” from his vocabulary for the night. Note what word the contentious sentence begins with. 
Why is it an incredibly poor choice of words? Kerry made a perfectly cogent point, and Bush invented a strawman argument out of wholecloth. A president should have a legitimate reason to use military action, and that reason should be demonstrable to the country and to the world. Without a legitimate reason, military action is nothing but naked aggression. This is the USA, not the Roman Empire. THAT is the point Kerry made; he said absolutely nothing about deferring to anyone, and Bush ought to be ashamed of himself for suggesting otherwise. There is no other context needed to interpret Kerry’s words; there was nothing wrong with what he said. It’s a sad day when one is expected to pander to the Rambos in the audience rather than tell the truth.
This is not a new lie; Zell Miller said in his convention speech that Kerry had “made it clear” that he would not pursue any military action without UN approval. (Kerry had long before explicitly stated otherwise.)
In any event, the fact that this has been made into an issue at all says volumes about the Republican party. What is so bad about wanting to have a good explanation before we go invading a country? We are citizens of the world, whether we like it or not, and the attitude that we can do whatever the hell we want and we don’t have to explain ourselves to anybody is not the attitude of a good citizen.
Besides, it’s clear from Kerry’s context that “approval” is really not what we’re seeking; his statement is that we should be able to justify our actions to our countrymen and our international allies. It’s clear that there are some countrymen who will never support our military actions, and it’s just as clear that some countries will never support us. (After the way we’ve demonized France, I wouldn’t be surprised to see them in this category for a while.)
I agree. The phrase “global test”, though, provided the wholecloth from which to make the strawman (kind of a mixed metaphor…). It was too easy to pull the phrase out of context, and define it as “global test” = “international veto power”. If he had just said:
then he wouldn’t have handed the Bush campaign something to flog him with.
Yep. The Bush Campaign’s modus operandi has for years been to twist and distort the words of their opposition. When debating them, it’s important not only to offer coherent, strong arguments, but also to avoid giving them easy soundbites to twist and distort.
Even though Kerry’s argument was perfectly reasonable and uncontroversial, it was phrased poorly, inasmuch as it’s given Bush an opening for his lyin’ ways.
I would love to see the Christian right take him to task for violating the eighth commandment.
Daniel
One thing I find interesting in all this talk. If Kerry did, in fact, mean that he would use preemtive force (and he **DID **use the word preemt) without the approval of the UN, where is the indignation about that from the Kerry supporters who claim that any preemptive use of force is a violation of International Law and illegal under US law as well (since the UN charter is a signed treaty by the US)?
I am not in any way trying to imply that Kerry would be as eager to go to war as Bush. Let’s not make this about who is more of a cowboy-- I’ll concede in advance that Bush is. But I do find it ironic that folks like **Diogenes **have gone on and on about how the Iraq war was illegal, and yet defend Kerry’s remark, which (if we take it to NOT mean UN approval of the preemtive use of force) endorses essentially the same disregard of Interational Law and the UN Charter.
What am I missing?
What am I missing-- other than the “p” I left out in several spellings of preempt(ive).
An “n” from “international.”
Seriously, this is a fair point. The thing is, though, I doubt anyone (besides strict pacifists) would object to all uses of preemptive force. If North Korea, for example, made a speech announcing that they would begin bombardment of the capitalist pigs within days, and followed it up with a nuclear test–well, I doubt too many people would object to quick action, even if it was done before the Security Council was able to meet.
It’s the egregious way that the preemptive force was used in this case that is the problem. It should be saved only for the worst of emergencies; it wasn’t.
Daniel
For the purposes of this thread - and the topic in general - I am inclined to believe that Kerry is trying to speak forcefully so people won’t accuse him of being soft, but there is a general understanding that his test for a preemptive strike would be more restrictive than Bush’s was…
Getting back to the OP - the fundamental point is that Bush is behaving dishonestly in his attempts to twist Kerry’s words. So far, I haven’t heard anything which changes that - and, again, I find it pathetic that a sitting president takes that approach.
Well, blowero, somebody feels insulted.
And why does Kerry need to repeat endlessly that he’ll defend America without asking permission? Could it be, after voting against the first Gulf War, he knows his credibility on this score is suspect?
It certainly is with me.
Mr. Moto:
Can you see the non-sequiter?
Nope. There isn’t one.
Unless you would have been fine with Saddam Hussein keeping Kuwait, and maybe storming all over Saudi Arabia as well.
How would that lovely scenario have served American interests, sqweels.
I was all in favor of Desert Storm, but it’s becoming a pet peeve of mine that whenever the US takes military action, not only is it relexively characterized as “defending America” but we’re told that we owe “our freedom” to the troops involved.
“American interests” is an open-endedly vague concept, and there’s a big difference between defending that and our actual shores. If you want to lay out a detailed strategic scenario, I’m right there with you, but I’m tired of all the obsfucation based on emotionally laden catchphrases like “defend America” and “support the troops”.
Uh, context?
Bush’s idea of “pre-emption” is “We say X might be a threat, so we have to attack now!”
Kerry’s idea of “pre-emption” is “We say X will be a threat, here’s the documented evidence to support this belief, so we have to attack.”
Kerry’s use of the Cuban Missile Crisis as an example seems like a good fit – Kennedy didn’t wait for a missile attack before taking action, but he conversely didn’t leap into war based on vague rumors that the Soviets might be transporting missiles, either. He waited until he could build an iron-clad case, then carried it to a “We don’t want to go to war, but we will if we must” confrontation. No rush, no eagerness, and – most important of all – no half-assed “secret evidence” that no one else was allowed to see.
In contrast, Bush had a chance to make a similar point, when Colin Powell made his presentation to the UN and the inspectors were looking for signs of Iraqi WMD. But Bush used bullshit evidence, and the inspectors didn’t find anything to support his claims – and Bush went to war anyway.
Uh, how about answering the actual question. Is what Kerry is advocating, if we assume that "globa"l does not mean “international”, consistent with International Law or the UN charter?
Uh, could it be because the Vice President has literally accused Kerry of holding this belief? You betcha.
Nice strawman, though.
LilShieste