What to do with the "Global Test" remark?

[SoCalDemocrat]

We're going to get that thrown back in our face as a talking point. Might as well prepare for it now. Any ideas?

[MrMonk]

1. Whose "global test" remark?

Bush brought that up. The transcript (at least the one on the NYT site) doesn't show Kerry using that expression.

[demwing]

2. Hume tried to replay Kerry saying that

and found he couldn't LOL

I was in a fit of laughter.

L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL is for LOSER!

[KharmaTrain]

12. Great Posts...My Contribution...Kosovo Model

It's time to play up how the Democrats, and Clinton in specific, handled both Saddam, terror and International cooperation. Kerry hasn't done this and I consider this a major mistake.

Point One...and I heard this mentioned just briefly somewhere recently...Clinton felt Saddam was a threat and DID something. He bombed the remaining munitions plants in the country, based on intel from Scott Riter and others that pinpointed where things were...not the hit and miss Bunnypants used. Even David Kay and other "weapons experts" admit this. The reason most GOOPers forget that Clinton acted was the bombing took place while the vote on his Impeachment (anyone remember those surreal split screens?).

Point Two...Within months of the original WTC attack, Clinton and his Justice Department was able to round up most of the major players in the bombing and the only other terrorist attack on the U.S. mainland until 9/11 was from a wingnut fanatic. It's been 3 years since 9/11 and not one trial or serious arrest has been made. So much for making us safer and "winning the war".

Point Three...the U.S. has always had a leadership role in international affairs since WWII and through our political, economic and military needs call for it, we have always been able to bring most of the world aboard with us or at least shut up the detractors. Clinton showed in the Kosovo operation in '99 how you can effect change...and did so with French, German and Russian troops doing the heavy lifting, as they knew stability in that area was in their best interests. The same holds true in Iraq, but Bunnypants is too stupid to realize it and the neo-cons are too arrogant to admit it.

I knew exactly what Kerry means...and he has to elaborate that the U.S., as the world's lone "superpower" holds tremendous influence over even the French & Germans and just the sheer size and strength of the U.S. prevents any nation from telling us how to act, and inversely enables us to get them to act on issues that require a truely international response.

[DemWitch]

3. Unfortunatly

Kerry did say it, but I don't see the big deal... He DID NOT say we needed global approval... In other words, if we were to premptively attack another nation, we had better make sure that we are able to prove our point to the global community that we were in danger and not just cause we could... ala Iraq...

The Repugs will have a field day with this though, as they always try to paint Kerry as a one world kind of guy... not that I think that's all that bad, but after all the Shrubya flag waving, it can be a sore spot for some to swallow.

[Heath.Hunnicutt]

4. Reasoning I used on another forum, that worked:

(Three guys on the list were talking about the "global test" and calling it a gaffe.)

My first message:

I'm not sure I understand how Kerry's words about "passing a global test" can be construed as an error in the context of Senator Kerry's overall statements. I thought Kerry did a superb job of establishing his view that, once Congress gave the President discretion to deploy force, Bush could have used that discretion as a tool. He could have used it both to effect 'diplomacy' with Iraq, and to actually engage more allies in a real coalition. I am looking at the transcript now:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_0930.html

Kerry: "You can't tell me that on the day that we went into that war and it started -- it was principally the United States, the America and Great Britain and one or two others. That's it. And today, we are 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the costs. And meanwhile, North Korea has got nuclear weapons. Talk about mixed messages."

I thought, watching the debate with rapt attention and pondering every sentence each man spoke, that Kerry's "Global Test" was a very nice way of summing up the test that Bush has failed.

In response, during the debate, Bush twice enumerated our major allies who remain in the War on Terror:

1. Great Britain
2. Poland

I have to tell you, I couldn't pay attention for a few seconds after each of the times he made these statements. I was laughing too hard.

I also am puzzled by the Bush statement at the end of the debate. He said:

"We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace."

I could be wrong, but this sure seems to me like a reference to the story of Joshua leading the people of Israel back to the Holy Land, from Joshua 8, and I was once Christian enough to take a year of religion at a bible college...

http://www.bartleby.com/108/06/8.html

Why is the President making analogies between himself and an Old Testament prophet?

(And there was another email reply in here where I hadn't made myself clear.)

My reply to be more clear:

Not exactly, but close enough. Kerry brought up the 'global test' in response to the question of preemptive war. In that context, I believe Kerry was saying that the question a decision on preemptive war should pass is the same test that the war in Iraq failed at the outset. I think Kerry was comparing what Bush has done in Iraq with what Kerry would do in a hypothetical situation under the same claimed circumstances, but with honest claims. Remember, Iraq was falsely sold as a preemptive war.

The "Global Test" that the Iraq war failed is that we did not exhaust global diplomacy and did not have an honest international consensus when we began. I believe Kerry was saying that he would not begin a comparably preemptive war without consensus from our allies that such was appropriate, and also that he would use diplomacy before war.

Kerry was SO good. I was so moved by his leadership that I actually thought to myself: if we need a draft to defend America, and Kerry had to call it, I'd go. I trust that man. I've never thought a anything like that about military service in my life; but if he told us we needed to defend the nation, I would believe that. I'm not sure I could ever bring myself to actually shoot at a person, so maybe I could be a typist for victory or something...

Whereas clearly the current guy is just wasting people.

[Heath.Hunnicutt]

9. Oh, and then I thought of this!

Actually, the more I re-read that transcript and consider what Kerry's line of thought might have been. The more I think he meant something completely different about the "Global Test."

I think he might have been making an effort to compare himself with the way Kennedy passed the Global Test of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

He mentions the Global Test in the same line of reasoning as he mentions de Gaulle accepting Kennedy's word about missiles in Cuba without even looking at offered photographs of them.

I now think Kerry's idea of a "Global Test" is a much larger idea: the idea of Global Crisis being a Global Test. I also think he wanted to include the idea of the President's word being believed or not all around the Globe.

And we all know how well Bush does on tests.

Heath

[crickets]

11. You are a treasure

That is a wonderful post that sums up the point beautifully. The central issue at any time our leaders make decisions, but especially when the stakes are this high, is trust, both worldwide and one on one with the average citizen.

[German-Lefty]

5. Slip up - but here's how to fix it

The context was when should preemptive war be allowed. It has to pass a "global test". Here's my belief I hope/wish it matches the candidates:

Preemptive acts of war are only allowed when:
1) There is an imminent threat.
2) There isn't time to ask congress.
3) Congress has given permission to act under such circumstances.
The executive that does something like this is then completely responsible for his actions.
Trumped up excuses for preemption are not ok.

To explain this is simple terms: "When is ok for police officer to shoot someone?"
1) When there is a threat of that person harming the officer or someone else.
2) When immediate action must be taken. You can't arrest him and take him to trail (congress).
3) The accepted police policy says he can.
It's not ok for a cop to shoot someone "because he's and evil man." It is acceptable for a cop to shoot someone if he thinks that the guy is pulling a gun on him. Obviously if the guy wasn't pulling a gun on him it raises serious questions about the cop.
Summary execution is not ok.


Ok back to the "global test". It's not that far from "universal test". It is plausible that what Kerry meant was that there is generally accepted rule, and Bush broke it. I agree with that.

A strict constitutionalist would say Bush violated the constitution since he invaded another country without a declaration of war, but hey everyone's doing this.

[DRoseDARs]

6. Here's what I posted in another forum...

From Debates.com's transcript:

quote:
LEHRER: New question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.

What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war? 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.

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.

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.

I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, "Here, let me show you the photos." And DeGaulle waved them off and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me."

How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we've done, in that way? So what is at test here is the credibility of the United States of America and how we lead the world. And Iran and Iraq are now more dangerous -- Iran and North Korea are now more dangerous.

Now, whether preemption is ultimately what has to happen, I don't know yet. But I'll tell you this: As president, I'll never take my eye off that ball. I've been fighting for proliferation the entire time -- anti-proliferation the entire time I've been in the Congress. And we've watched this president actually turn away from some of the treaties that were on the table.

You don't help yourself with other nations when you turn away from the global warming treaty, for instance, or when you refuse to deal at length with the United Nations.

You have to earn that respect. And I think we have a lot of earning back to do.

LEHRER: Ninety seconds.

BUSH: Let me -- I'm not exactly sure what you mean, "passes the global test," you take preemptive action if you pass a global test.

My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.

My opponent talks about me not signing certain treaties. Let me tell you one thing I didn't sign, and I think it shows the difference of our opinion -- the difference of opinions. And that is, I wouldn't join the International Criminal Court. It's a body based in The Hague where unaccountable judges and prosecutors can pull our troops or diplomats up for trial.

And I wouldn't join it. And I understand that in certain capitals around the world that that wasn't a popular move. But it's the right move not to join a foreign court that could -- where our people could be prosecuted.

My opponent is for joining the International Criminal Court. I just think trying to be popular, kind of, in the global sense, if it's not in our best interest makes no sense. I'm interested in working with our nations and do a lot of it. But I'm not going to make decisions that I think are wrong for America.

********************************************

Besides being an interesting sound bite that Bush pounced on, albeit ineffectively, I think it is something the Kerry needs to better articulate in the context of rebuilding our shattered world image and strained alliances. I think what he was getting at was that when the United States makes claims, we better have the facts to back them up or else our credibility takes a hit. That can be problematic when we wish for other nations to cooperate with us on a wide range of issues.

*********************************************

Later:

Someone else said:
Kerry'd be better off forgetting all about it and hoping that the population at large does, as well...

To which I replied:
Probably, but that's why I said he should better articulate it ... before the Bush campaign does it for him.

[SoCalDemocrat]

7. We need sound bites to battle this with

Count on the Republicans to turn this into a new talking point. It's nuanced enough and open to interpretation to the degree that they can bend it around their usual UN talking point mantra.

[slor]

8. It was in reference to our credibility...

to other countries around the world regarding a future crisis. Kerry did do something of a brain glitch, I had "smell test" on the tip of my tongue just before he said it. But it is a important part of war on terror, we cannot fight without help from other countries and that is a fact, we will also need to convince other countries that we face a potential threat before we can act, particularly now, thanks to the Iraq blunder(just another of the ways the chimp made us less safe). Kerry need not feel wrong for saying it and his performance tonight was devastating for the chimp. I do not think this talking point will travel well, though he better shut it down fast if they try.

[StlMo]

10. The "global test" is simply to show that war was the only option left.

The "global test" is simply to demonstrate that war is the only option left.
Kerry was referring to the need of global leaders, particularly America, to only wage war as a last resort.
Kerry also made the point that when America meets the test, America is much stronger and leads truly mighty alliances.

[liberal N proud]

13. I thought is was right on... Part of the problem with shrub is his global

ratings.
Other countries who once considered the US as friends, will no longer talk with us due mostly from the way shrub handles foreign policy

[OnceUponATime]

14. Six talking points...

A global test doesn't mean be like the rest, it means lead like the best.

If the world's only superpower is going to strike a nation preemptively, if it's going to launch an invasion against a nation that hasn't yet attacked, the world is going to want some valid reasons. We expect the same from them.

Of course, we can ignore the rest of the world.
We can attack anyone, at anytime. And we don't HAVE to answer to anyone.
That's true.
But is that who we WANT to be?
Bullies don't make many friends, and it's a dangerous world without any friends.
That's not the America we were raised to hold in high esteem.

A global test for preemptive strikes is not pass/fail. It's one of the considerations a true leader takes into account before taking a nation to war.

There's a long list of leaders who didn't understand that their wars had global consequences. Napoleon. Hitler. Stalin. Hussein. We know where they stand in the history books.

If we want to be a nation that's held in high esteem, we need a leader who's held to a higher standard than last century's tyrants.

[daydreamer]

15. Kerry was right

I understand Kerry try to say whatever preemptive action we have to take we have to evaluate the action against the global environment. We are not alone in this world. We should care what our friends and allies think as we act. Global Test especially the word test may not be the best and clearest choise of word. I don't say anything wrong with it. Bush said worse things.

[doni_georgia]

16. That was as big a blunder as when * couldn't think of a mistake he's made

* is so clueless. I asked my husband when Bush said that, "Do you have any idea how painful it is to watch that idiot when you have a political science degree?" Bush has no clue that American presidents are subject to global scruntiny, and he has completely ignored all diplomatic protocol. It's embarrassing!

[StlMo]

17. "Global Test" = War as a Last Resort

:dem: