Kerry's global test

[Sabre]

When the RNC jumped on Kerry's "global test" comment about use of US forces abroad, many on the left (including most especially the Kerry campaign), were quick to claim it was not what it sounded like.  They said that what Kerry didn't mean he would go to the UN to seek permission, but was instead referring to some type of self-assessment of the need for US action, preferably with wide spread international support (a.k.a. UN approbal), but without if necessary.  Indeed, if his debate comment is taken in context, it could be construed that way.  However, he has shown in the past that what he really believes is exactly what the Republicans say he meant.  That is, the only way Kerry would authorize force is if the UN "granted" permission.  

Here is the third paragraph from a front-page Washington Post article by Helen Dewar and Tom Ricks on Kerry's foreign policy record:

Kerry's belief in working with allies runs so deep that he has maintained that the loss of American life can be better justified if it occurs in the course of a mission with international support. In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, "If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no."

Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard had this comment about the article:

When the Bush campaign talks about John Kerry's wanting a "permission slip" from the U.N., many commentators dismiss it as rhetorical excess. But Kerry really does believe that the United Nations is a fundamental, legitimizing body for the use of U.S. force. One hears this deference to the U.N. all the time in European capitals, but it is rare to hear it even among mainstream American liberals. In this respect, as in others, Kerry really is a throwback. He still shares the McGovernite distrust of U.S. force and suspicion of the judgments that are arrived at by the American body politic.

Sorry, but I'm not about to trust my nation's security to a man with such a fundamentally flawed belief on the subject.

[ra]

He has a plan.

[Ripsnort]

[AKIron]

Hehe, those are great Rip.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by AKIron
Hehe, those are great Rip.

I got about 10 more, want them?

soupnazi60@yahoo.com

I made a couple of bumper stickers for the rear window of my Global Warmer. I get alot of "Thumbs up" on the freeway!

[TalonX]

WHO CARES IF FRANCE AGREES?

I hope we never farm out our security to the UN.   I don't intend to ask that organization when we can protect ourselves, or how.

Our economy drives the world - We don't need France or any other enemy symphathizer....screw them.




How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris?     No one knows, it's never been tried.

[Horn]

Originally posted by Sabre

Sorry, but I'm not about to trust my nation's security to a man with such a fundamentally flawed belief on the subject.

Really? It's a shame you would allow op-eds to dictate your opinion.

Here's what he said. Please point out the flaws:

"What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?" asked Jim Lehrer, the PBS anchor who moderated the debate.

"The President always has the right, and always has had the right, for [a] preemptive strike," the Massachusetts Senator replied, according to the published transcript. "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 pre-empt 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."

h

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Horn
and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

h

So mass graves was not enough for ya? Oh, thats right the CIA, er Bush Admin lied about WMD, which are more important than human life. I forgot.

[SOB]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
So mass graves was not enough for ya? Oh, thats right the CIA, er Bush Admin lied about WMD, which are more important than human life. I forgot.

And here I thought that invading Iraq to get rid of these alleged WMDs was ALL ABOUT human life.  Or did we go in to get those fictional weapons 'cause they smelled bad?  If mass graves and oppresive/homocidal dictators are the reason to send our citizens into harms way, then we've got a looooong road ahead of us.  Frankly, I don't think it's worth it, and I most certainly wouldn't trade the life of one of my family members for the lives of even a thousand Iraqis.

[straffo]

Originally posted by TalonX
How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris?     No one knows, it's never been tried.

shut up cretin

See where some are buried

[Horn]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
So mass graves was not enough for ya? Oh, thats right the CIA, er Bush Admin lied about WMD, which are more important than human life. I forgot.

What SOB said above, and:

I'll type real slow so you understand.

Here's a real world example of "legitimate reasons"-- All the world was with us when we attacked Afghanistan in retribution for 9/11. The USA was as united as I've ever seen it. Everyone was behind Bush-- Democrat and Republican, Green Party and Libertarian alike. One voice. From Europe to the Orient, they were all with us. This is a "legitimate reason."

Bush then decided to attack Iraq--after not finishing the job in Afghanistan nor capturing the main culprit responsible for 9/11. He had to stretch the truth, sell the immediate threat to his country and to the world at large for goals that frankly were thin at best.

Countries turned away from us--allies are now few and if not insignificant, leave to us the lion's share of the burden. Our own country is split in devisiveness, thousands of Americans have been killed and wounded. Iraq a long term drain on our country's resources. And for what? To free Iraqis? To destroy the illusory WMD's? This is NOT a "legitimate reason."

I know you probably can't understand the above, but I had to give it a shot.

I'm with SOB on this one: "...I most certainly wouldn't trade the life of one of my family members for the lives of even a thousand Iraqis."

h

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Horn
And for what? To free Iraqis? To destroy the illusory WMD's? This is NOT a "legitimate reason."

I know you probably can't understand the above, but I had to give it a shot.

h

Sleep safe tonight Horn. Someone is keeping it that way for you, even if it was pre-emptively.  I understand that your from a blue state (Colorado) and I don't expect you to understand that, but keep on keeping on, son. (**Ha! Got to use it twice today! )

[Sabre]

Horn, here's the flaw:

"...and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

In other words, you get the world (a.k.a. the UN in his mind) to agree with you...a global test.  Of course, if you ignore this last sentance, you could then look at these two quotes, by the same guy mind you, as further proof that he is a flip-flopper.  Take your pick.

[Sabre]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Sleep safe tonight Horn. Someone is keeping it that way for you, even if it was pre-emptively.  I understand that your from a blue state (Colorado) and I don't expect you to understand that, but keep on keeping on, son. (**Ha! Got to use it twice today! )

Hey, Rip! I'm from CO, and last I looked we were still leaning conservative (barring Denver and Boulder, or course).

[Torque]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
So mass graves was not enough for ya? Oh, thats right the CIA, er Bush Admin lied about WMD, which are more important than human life. I forgot.

Aiding and abedding a dictator when he commits mass genocide and then use those said genocides to validate your agenda when the need arises, how Neo-clown of you.