IS NOT ENOUGH<br><br>America is not going to elect a man who believes he must satisfy “global tests” before protecting our families from another 9/11. America is not going to elect a man who believes America cannot be trusted with new “bunker-buster” bombs. America is not going to elect a man who believes it is acceptable to register a "protest" by voting to deny the troops the supplies they need to defend themselves and protect America.<br><br><br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust

America didnt elect the boob in office.<br><br>You cant polish a Turd.

Here's teh language from a transcript of the debate: [color:blue]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.</font color=blue><br><br>You can read it all here.<br><br>Anyway, those two words taht have become the darling of the conservative talking points set are really juicy. What do they mean in context? First: "your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing." Second: "and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." Suppose it were any other country that was about to invade a neighbor. Suppose India decided that it just had to invade Sri Lanka. Wouldn't the US want India to demonstrate that it did so for legitimate reasons? Wouldn't the whole world require such demonstration? Kerry's point is so obvious in relation to what happened in Iraq that I'm just astonished that teh talking points set doesn't see it. Oh--I get it: that's not the point of talking points, is it. The point of talking points is deliberately to misunderstand, misrepresent, and misinform. Ah!<br><br>

The 'global test' as stated by Kerry, not the Bush spin.<br>Bush is saying "He'll give veto power to France over our national security! HAHAHA", where Kerry is actually saying it is in our own security to retain credibility and support of our allies for a preemptive war that is based on necessity. The United States should have the evidence to justify our actions.<br><br><br><br>What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?<br><br>KERRY: 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.<br><br>No president, though 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. <br><br>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.<br><br>Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations. <br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Anyway, those two words taht have become the darling of the conservative talking points set are really juicy. What do they mean in context? First: "your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing." Second: "and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." Suppose it were any other country that was about to invade a neighbor. Suppose India decided that it just had to invade Sri Lanka. Wouldn't the US want India to demonstrate that it did so for legitimate reasons? Wouldn't the whole world require such demonstration? Kerry's point is so obvious in relation to what happened in Iraq that I'm just astonished that teh talking points set doesn't see it. Oh--I get it: that's not the point of talking points, is it. The point of talking points is deliberately to misunderstand, misrepresent, and misinform. Ah!<p><hr></blockquote><p><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?<br><br>KERRY: 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.<br><br>No president, though 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. <br><br>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.<br><br>Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Good points, yoyo52 and garyW.<br><br>We did that and John Kerry voted affirmatively.<br><br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust

Kerry was pretty clear that with the authority given to Bush he did not wage war as a "last resort."<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Kerry was pretty clear that with the authority given to Bush he did not wage war as a "last resort."<p><hr></blockquote><p>So, what "test" of any kind ought to be imposed on a U.S. President when he uses military force, preemptively or otherwise? There is only one test and Bush passed it in the case of the Iraq War.<br><br>It is called the Constitution--Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of which says: "The Congress shall have power . . . to declare war."<br><br>On October 10, 2002, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 296 to 133 for a resolution authorizing the President to use force in Iraq. On October 11, 2002, the Senate approved the resolution, 77 to 23. John Kerry voted in the affirmative.<br><br>What exactly did Kerry vote for? The resolution was entitled Note: this is a pdf "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq."<br><br>If Kerry did not want the President to use military force against Iraq, he should have voted against the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq."<br><br>Good people made good arguments both for and against the war. Good people voted both for and against the war. Good Americans can disagree on the war now. But Kerry voted under our Constitution, in the United States Congress, to authorize President Bush to make war in Iraq--and now he wants to impose an international test on that decision and future U.S. decisions on military action.<br><br><br><br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust

A demonstration to the nation and the world that you have fulfilled your commitment to the authority given to you by the Senate vote. A demonstration to the nation and the world that you have a plan to win the peace and a clear exit strategy for the success of the mission. That would work.<br><br><br>John Kerry's Statement on Iraq Before the War<br>TEXT FROM THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>A demonstration to the nation and the world that you have fulfilled your commitment to the authority given to you by the Senate vote. A demonstration to the nation and the world that you have a plan to win the peace and a clear exit strategy for the success of the mission. That would work.<br><br><br>John Kerry's Statement on Iraq Before the War<br>TEXT FROM THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR<p><hr></blockquote><p>The U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate were not voting on John Kerry's speech. Yet, John Kerry voted affirmatively for "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq."<br><br>Vacillation with stipulation on preemption is a very "clear exit strategy."<br><br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust

Incidentally, here's another statement about "global test." The language is different, of course:<br><br>When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.<br><br>