Kerry 'misspoke' when he said the words "Global Test" ...

[Trajan]

He meant to say any rationalization for war must pass the 'Smell Test' in the context of a public justification for war ... NOT that all actions of the US Government must be submitted to a 'global organization' for approval ...

The term 'Global Test' is a loaded phrase which we know the RW will grab with all three hands .... I knew right away it was a mistake to use those 'code words' which the rabid right would seize upon as evidence of UN influence in a Kerry Government ...

Here is the relevant text:

-snip-

Kerry: The president always has the right and always has had the right for pre-emptive 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 pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got 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.

-snip-

Now: lets alter the text to replace the 'offending' phrase ...

-snip-

Kerry: The president always has the right and always has had the right for pre-emptive 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 pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do it in a way that passes the test. That passes the 'smell 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.

-snip-

Honestly: It doesnt take an english professor to recognize the context of this comment, and to see that the supporting text internally identifies and explains the reference as a test of JUSTIFICATION ...

That test for justification, incidently, was a failure here in the US as well as abroad ... It wasnt exclusively a 'global' issue .... It didnt pass OUR smell test either .....

It was what we complained about from the start: George W. Bush did NOT provide ample justification to violate international boundaries and prosecute a war ....

Kerry should come out NOW and clarify this reference ....

HE should say he 'misspoke' .... citizens accept such mea culpas readily .... he shouldnt wait to do so ....

[Guaranteed]

1. Just refer people back to what Kerry said just before that...

That, under Kerry, the US will never cede its right to a pre-emptive strike against a real threat.

[shockingelk]

65. This may be better:

"I'll never give a veto to any country over our security."

[indef]

2. don't worry

Bush was so inebriated during the debate that he couldn't exploit the opening Kerry gave him. It's bad, but none of the conservatives can get enough traction with that line, especially since their C-in-C couldn't.

[shawn703]

3. I thought he used the wrong phrase too

Because before he said it he seemed to be looking for the right words to say

[Trajan]

6. Exactly ....

He was searching for the proper frame of reference ... and I said the words 'smell test' to myself as he spurted out the 'global test' verbage .... I knew right away it was a misstatement ...

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

89. He might have thought that "Smell Test" was too crude...

and just said the first phrase that he could think of. It's too bad, but it's not fatal -- I think anybody who watched the debate came to the same conclusion.

[RhodaGrits]

4. yeah that works...

but he should say that "global" leaped to mind because it flunked the whole world's smell test and that's why it was there. He misspoke by making that sound like the emphasis was on their approval and it was not.

[alarcojon]

45. "global smell test" would have been better

I posted on this earlier

[Silverhair]

86. Nope. Just as bad. "Smell test" would do fine.

But any use of "global" & "test" in the same part of a phrase is ammmo for their side.

[Jacobin]

5. What's wrong with making sure you're not considered a fucking

crazed rogue nation out to conquer the world and steal resources before you undertake military action?

I understand why Smirky is using that line, because his base wants to have uninhibited rights to use force to take whatever it wants. I have no problem whatsoever with Kerry's statement.

You don't go to war for sport or because you're pissed or to take revenge for someone else's actions. You do it because you have no choice and when its done properly, the world is with you and when the world is with you you have allies and you are morel likely to prevail.

[Trajan]

10. Well: firstly ...

there is no such thing as a 'global test' .... there is 'global opinion', which is in itself an abstract notion ... but no 'global test' per se ...

The problem is: this very moment, the Bush campaign is clamping onto this phrase as evidence that Kerry will 'only' take action when allowed by global opinion ... this of course is NOT what he said .... but the massive spin machine is already at work twisting THOSE words against Kerry ... He should come out NOW and clarify what he meant to the american public ... not for MY benefit: but to staunch the possibility of the spin being accepted in the public sphere ....

[Jacobin]

20. Sure there's always an implicit 'global test'

The Global Test when Hitler invaded Poland was: NO, that's wrong.

The Global Test when the U.S. invaded Germany and Japan, was: YES, that's a good thing to do.

The Global Test (opinion) when the U.S. invaded Iraq was; NO, very stupid thing to do. Guess what, we are reaping the results because we have NO allies to speak of and we are considered a pariah nation.

The Bushlers can spin it anyway they want. We live in a world, whose opinion MATTERS morally, logistically, and practically.

I have NO problem with that statement. We aren't going to convert the "might makes right" dingbats, so fuckem.

[Trajan]

23. You live in a world ...

Where elections are won and lost on sighs, spins and misstatements ....

Kerry should steal the planks from under their feet .... so to speak ....

[rock]

44. The fact that the stupid do not understand it

is not a reason to avoid it. We should be trying to convince people that can think. The Repukes have a pretty good lock on the ones that can't.

[RafterMan]

36. Gah!

The problem is: in the same debate, Bush admitted subcontracting the search for Osama bin Laden, called for outsourcing our leadership in East Asia to Communist China and whined that we are helpless to stop Iran's nuclear program because, "we already have sanctions".

And Democrats fret over the merest hint of a possiblity that the word "global" might be spun against them.

[Trajan]

39. You arent getting my point ....

ALL those assertions your provide are FACTS .... they arent in dispute here .... but they really arent the point at all: I am talking about BLUNTING the Bush stump speech he is giving post-debate ....

ALL the ugly facts you can provide about Bush and the Neocons are TRUE: but to say that, since they exist and are true, one neednt deflect the possible (no, actual) spin from the opposition is simply not realistic .... The public CAN be swayed by these lies: Kerry should do EVERYTHING in his power to deflect such lies BEFORE they have time to take root in the public sphere ....

NONE of this is related to what the Chinese are doing, or what Hitler did in Poland .... those are non sequiturs ...

[RafterMan]

41. YOU aren't getting the point

Why aren't the Dems slamming them in Bush's face? Instead, they're back on their heels and letting Bush seize the initiative.

If you just leave them sitting there, you give them the opening. If you attack ON THAT SAME ISSUE, WHICH THIS 'GLOBAL' THING HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH, that oppening is closed.

[Trajan]

42. Back on their heels ? ...

WTF planet are YOU on ? ...

Kerry's debate performance was STELLAR, and there is NO DOUBT we now have the initiative ..... where the hell do you get the idea that they are now 'back on our heels' ? ...

No: you dont get it ....

This is an ELECTION: NOT a philosophy class ... we need to be PRAGMATIC: not idealistic ...

You brought up Hitler and Poland: tell me HOW that helps the Dems 'attack' George Bush ? ... Are you convincing YOURSELF?, or someone else ? ...

Come back to earth: This is an election campaign: I dont need to be convinced that Bush is wrong and Kerry is right: YOU dont need to be convinced that Bush is wrong and Kerry is right ...

It is the MIDDLE of the electorate: the so called 'undecideds', 'moderate democrats', 'moderate republicans', and 'independents' that can be swayed by rational AND irrational arguments .... WHY allow an irrational conclusion to be propagated in the public sphere ? ..

WHY allow Rove to spin a comment, and get away with it ? ...

SHEEESH: ... we need EVERY effort to get through to the electorate at large: .... dont give Rove an INCH ... not ONE inch ...

Poland in 1939 is irrelevant to this campaign ....

[RafterMan]

46. Earth to Trajan

When did I bring up Hitler and Poland? What thread are you reading? Please come back to Earth.

They're back on their heels because they're not following up Bush's gaffes with knives. You want the "global" thing to go away? "Bush subcontracts our security on Al Qaida, North Korea and Iran and you're asking *me* about a 'global test'?"

Instead, you want to debate what the meaning of 'is' is.

This is an ELECTION: NOT a grammar class. Why get bogged down in Rove's spin when Bush has already handed you the counterblow?

Poland *is* irrelevant to this campaign. So why do you keep bringing it up?

[Trajan]

51. Rove's spin strikes a chord in a portion of the electorate ...

You choose to ignore Rove ? ...

Do so at your own peril: we've an election to win ....

[RafterMan]

54. If it does

it does so because the Dems won't play offense. "If President Bush is worried about 'global' constraints on American security, why does he abdicate his responsibilities for Al Qaida, North Korea and Iran and leave these pressing issues in the hands of foreigners? I won't."

Somehow, that sounds better to me than, "I 'misspoke'".

You want to fight the battles Rove chooses?

Do so at your own peril: we've got an election to win.

[Trajan]

55. ARGH ! ....

Can we NOT do two things at once ? ..

[RafterMan]

56. NO

"I misspoke" is a retreat.

"BUSH is the one outsourcing our security" is a clear victory. Why water yourself down? Are you hoping Bush will cover the spread?

[sendero]

7. I knew exactly ...

... what Kerry meant. This is just the Bush* campaign grasping at something, anything they can salvage from the debate debacle.

[patdem]

8. I have options on my Peachtree Accounting-some are 'GLOBAL'

(which does not require me to change the GLOBE-just universal er uh total, across the board), and some changes are specific to one or two items. The RW will use ignorance to press the WORLD view as opposed to 'global' meaning total or complete understanding of your countrymen

[Warpy]

9. It was only a mistake for simpletons on the right

who are incapable of taking the remark in context. Bush has already lied about it (he aint real bright), and that lie has already been outed on one network that I saw.

I think we do need to be concerned about out position in the world when we're tempted to go after some tinpot dictator in a small country. We need allies to share the burden and we need the world to understand what we are doing. That's some of the worst damage Idiot has done, alienating our allies and enraging those who weren't.

And that was what Kerry was getting at, not the stupid right wing meme of going with his hat in hand, begging the rest of the world to let us wipe our noses.

[Trajan]

11. Not my point: ...

The Bush campaign is using this phrase this very moment ....

Why not nip the issue in the bud and NOT allow the RW to seize upon that one phrase as evidence of weakness ??? ....

IF Bush is repeating it (and he is), then that is ample evidence that Kerry should counter it and fast ....

[mikehiggins]

30. Because it WASN'T a mistake

The point of rapid response is to HIT back, not to spend time explaining that the GOPukes are lying.

The point to make is that up until this point, at least in modern times, only dictatorships have waged "preemptive" war, i.e. Japan at Pearl Harbor, Germany in Poland. Even the Nazi's had to concoct border incidents to justify their invasion of Poland. The Japanese had ample justification for striking first (we were moving against them economically at the time) and even THEY tried to inform the US of a state of war before the first bombs dropped.

The problem in this country is that Jacques Six-Pack in Paris has much more access to what is really going on that Joe Six-Pack has in Albuquerque. If the truth had been known--as many, many, many people were trying to make it known--Bush would have been hardpressed to send the troops into Iraq.

To paraphrase the bard, once Kerry is in office, the first thing we should do is hang all the pundits.

[Trajan]

37. I agree with EVERYTHING you said .... except ...

When you say we shouldnt point out the GOP are lying ....

It is EXACTLY that which we should point out ....

Case in point: The Swift Boat Liars were lying out of their teeth: Kerry basically ignorored them: and their tales of filth became 'accepted' by the public at large as 'fact' ...

No: we SHOULD respond to every lie, and then attack with yet another point at issue .....

Defending one's own comments neednt be done exclusively without attacking the opposition on other important facts and issues ...

[unfrigginreal]

12. Clarifying his statement is fine, offering a mea culpa is ridiculous

The Pukes are the ones that are taking his statement out of context. If anyone is 'misspeaking' it's the Pukes for claims that Kerry will give foreign governments veto power.

[Trajan]

16. The Rove Machine has proven able to place such spin into the public sphere

and have it accepted by the majority as fact : I say: DONT let it happen .. not as a 'mea culpa', per se, though it would be quite similar .... but as a 'clarification' ...

Kerry had allowed a few other lies go unchallenged: the $ 87 Billion and the lies of the Swift Boat Liars, for instance ... THOSE charges HURT Kerry because he didnt respond quickly or forcefully ...

He NEEDS a quick response to staunch any momentum of the Rovian Spin now occurring ...

It wouldnt hurt Kerry in the LEAST to clarify his comment .. and it could only help by taking away a bogus talking point from the Bush stump ....

[flpoljunkie]

13. That's great, Trajan! Rationalization must pass the "smell test."

[wishlist]

14. Gen McPeak read line in its entirety today showing RW misinformation

I thought Gen McPeak on MSNBC(?) this morning was very effective at exposing Bushco's deliberate misrepresentation of Kerry's statements to suit their purposes.

[Trajan]

19. I seen that ....

McPeak is a member of the Kerry team, and he certainly was doing what I believe should be done ...

I think Kerry himself should make the point just to make sure people get the message .. loud and clear ....

[Crachet2004]

15. I caught that too, the minute he said it...but he also immediately...

clarified the comment. The global test thing, may have even been planted by Kerry, to trap the fools, since he DID immediately define what he meant by that particular terminology.

There will not be much political hay made of this...too easy to refute.

Also, there is no TIME. Debates coming thick and fast, less than a month left. New headlines every day.

I am looking for a sweep in these debates, and get THIS-our weak point is JOHN EDWARDS for crying out loud, a man who has made a career of busting Cheney-type scumbags in the courtroom.

I don't think Dick Cheney can keep up with Edwards...and that's a fact. He is too old and slow in the head.

And then Bush has to defend his domestic policy-there's a laugh.

[Selwynn]

17. No I don't agree: we need to stop acting like a rogue state

I understand that it will be spun that way, but I don't agree at all. First of all I don't like the way he answered the question at all.

For one thing, he needs to point out that the President has NOT always had the "right" to use the concept of pre-emption in the way Bush has. The Bush Doctrine is not the way it has "always" been, it is new. The age old doctrine, and the only doctrine that is just, is that we have the right to respond to CLEAR and IMMANENT threat - so that if a country is fueling its missiles, we can respond by taking them out first, not waiting for them to hit.

Bush has raped this doctrine, by changing it to argue that we will invade and take over sovereign nations that we don't who are no immanent threat to us simply because we don't like them an they might possibly one day threaten us. That's ridiculous.

Bush's doctrine sneers and laughs in the face of the global community, and as President Clinton often said, "they believe we should act unilaterally when we can and multilaterally only when we have to." And that is fundamentally the wrong way to go in this day and age.

The "global test" should mean that we ought to work multilaterally when we can and unilaterally only when we must. Personally I don't see many times when unilateral action would be justified - it certainly wasn't justified during this administration's tenure. The "global test" should mean that we should work with the international community and garner there support for actions we take that affect the world. It is arrogant, ignorant and insulting to take the attitude that the United States has the right to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to the rest of the world and affect the lives of millions of people all over the globe in the name of its national interests without any input from the rest of the world.

The United States likes to talk about "Rogue States" that do not follow international law and do not participate in the global community. The United States is a Rogue State, in fact it is probably the number one Rogue State in the world - ignoring international law, human rights, global governing bodies or anything else we don't like any time we want in the name of our "national interests." Saying that our actions should pass the global test is not bad or wrong - it's dead right. That does not say that our actions should all voted on, rubber stamped and approved by some international governing body. It does say however that we should involve the rest of the world in decisions that affect the whole world, earn their support, work multilaterally, honor international and human rights laws, and operate within the parameters and framework of a global reality, instead of operating as a rogue and reckless state.

[LiberalFighter]

60. Global Test?

I agree with most if not all of what you stated.

I would add that the Global Test also includes doing what is right in the interest of the world. Since we are at present considered the world leader we have that duty and responsibility. But just because we are the super power of the world does not mean we can run rampant without advising other leaders why we are doing it especially if it is in their best interest too and enlisting their opinion and other services.

If other countries feel that we have considered their objections, suggestions or other opinions then their objections will be less strenuous. It will and can provide an opportunity for renegade countries to back off either on their own or with encouragement from other countries.

"Getting" the opinion of other leaders is just a way of doing diplomacy.

[bloom]

72. well said

I don't agree at all that Kerry should back down - the Republicans need to wise up.

[RafterMan]

18. Stop defending

There's blood in the water. Shrug off the charge and attack.

[Trajan]

21. A 'war' is won ....

by both defense and offense ....

Giving up on either is irrational .... and one dimensional ...

[RafterMan]

25. A war is won

by seizing openings as they appear.

Kerry stayed on the offensive in the debate and won 61-19. Bush is reeling. Keep punching.

[w4rma]

76. I agree. Just forget about trying to make every little word perfect.

If he *really* needs to clairfy this specific, he can always put a little blurb up on the website explain the phrase. Otherwise it's time to move on to the next phase of this campaign.

[BlueEyedSon]

22. I don't think he misspoke at all.

I would draw on some basic ethical philosophy (I'm new to this, I just started reading Princeton ethicist Peter Singer).

We (as humans; as citizens/residents of a nation state called the USA) are members of a larger community, the GLOBAL community.

There exist rules of engagement between nation states w/r/t trade, pollution, exploiting resources (eg: fishing), nuclear testing and war, to name a few areas.

Not every area of nation state interaction is addressed unambiguously - notice how laws inside the US need to be interpreted from time to time by the SCOTUS. However there are those who already label the Invasion of Iraq "illegal". There have been many threads about that here on DU previously. Without rehashing them I would point to UN Article 51, for starters.

If you conclude that the Iraq invasion falls into an "gray area" of international law, just rearrange the players. What if China conducted preemptive war on Cuba, using falsified or highly exaggerated evidence? How would WE regard that?

It is fundamental to judge the actions of ones own nation by the same rules (even ones NOT written down in a treaty) that we would judge another nation state. In this regard the USA's Iraq invasion would not pass a "global" test.

PS. Let's IGNORE the legality of the invasion, and look at the USA's behavior in Iraq since then. It is only slight off topic to talk about the protection of civilians (poor), combat proportionality (very little), the rights of POWs (can you say "Abu Ghraib"? I knew you could) and the exploitation of Iraq's laws/economy/resources. All of these fail the "global" test as well.

[demgrrrll]

27. I don't like the way you used "misspoke" in quotes, as if Kerry had

already uttered the phrase, which of course he has not.
Irritating. It seems to me that in order to build coalitions that we must take other people into account. The reason we are incurring 90% of the causalities and expenses of this war is because we have alienated our allies. We all have to live on this planet together and to suggest that we can go it alone and not take other peoples opinions into consideration is ludicrous.

[Selwynn]

31. new to ethical philosophy, eh? :)

Anytime you want to discuss, pm me. :)

Your philosopher friend,
Sel

[BlueEyedSon]

32. No critique/amplification of my arguments?

FYI: I'm halfway through "The President of Good and Evil".... GREAT STUFF!

[Selwynn]

48. No, I read and essentially agree

I believe that a multilateral doctrine, where we say we will act multilaterally and in participation with the global community as our rule, and go outside that rule unilaterally only in the case of clear and immediate danger, i.e. a very narrow and very limited set of circumstances.

I believe in this not just as a matter of policy, but I believe it on philosophical grounds - I believe it is morally/ethically right. We have a responsibility in this day and age not to act tyrannically over the rest of the world. And our decisions about how to act in the world affects millions of lives - we have a responsibility to participate honesty in the global community - and I said participate, not be dictator and/or sovereign ruler over, which is what we often try to do.

Sel

[BlueEyedSon]

64. BTW, the case of "clear and immediate danger"

(assuming it's demonstrable, not fantasy or paranoia like the Iraq invasion) is covered in the UN Charter and would not require a nation to "go outside" any rules "unilaterally."

[Selwynn]

74. Yep, I've had that in the back of my mind too...

That's exactly right. The UN charter actually spells out the case in what I believe to be a very just way concerning how individual nations should use force in a multilateral society, including the times where unilateral action is necessary.

[BlueEyedSon]

77. Yah, too bad the UN is "irrelevant"!

ROTFLMAO!

[NewYorkerfromMass]

97. Yep. Last I ckecked, we were part of the GLOBAL community.

what a concept.

[Iceburg]

24. A non-American weighs in on the "global test" remark

Frankly, as a non-American, I welcome the conciliatory, honest and wise tone set by Senator Kerry during the debate. He understands that as president he has a daunting task ahead of him to regain the trust of both Americans and non-Americans alike. Bush squandered this trust when he fallaciously led his country and others into a preemptive and illegitimate invasion of Iraq.

In the debate, Senator Kerry never cedes America's right for a preemptive strike but does acknowledge that the rationale for strike should be well understood by both Americans and non-Americans alike. Kerry understands that to maximize the probability of success, the stakeholders should know the truth -- what the intention is, why action is necessary, and what constitutes "the proof" prior to declaring preemptive war. President Bush both assails and fails the “global test”. Forsaking scrutiny is a dangerous game no leader should play.

[MockSwede]

80. Thanks for weighing in

How bad is the mistrust of US 'leadership' of * with the ordinary citizen in your country?



"When the strongest nation in the world can be tied down for four years in a war in Vietnam with no end in sight, when the richest nation in the world cannot manage its economy, when the nation with the greatest tradition of the rule of war is plagued by unprecedented racial violence, when the President of the United States cannot travel abroad, or to any major city at home, then it's time for new leadership for the United States." Richard Nixon, 1968

[Iceburg]

83. Love the nixon quote mockswede ...

> 85% of the population in Canada does not trust *. Only a small fringe of rw extremists publicly support him. Fortunately the canadian population is sage enough to make the distinction between the people vs the administration. We all take comfort in knowing that in less than 29 days and 4 hours this nightmare will end.

[MockSwede]

85. Dodger memorial

Thanks for being a northern neighbor. People versus administration differentiation was echoed by folks visiting Ireland. The just got back. Everyone that found out that they were from US would TELL THEM, without inquiry about their own politics, that they HATE *, don't like *, think he's an idiot, etc. No apology for the comment, no concern that it would be offensive, etc. It was mind blowing to these Dems on a wedding anniversary trip.

Also saw someone give the what-for to a political journalist interviewing her about an initiative to erect a memorial to US draft dodgers who fled to Canada. She was a gutsy lady. Not sure who she was, or that I'd want such a memorial, but I admire her pluck and level-headed retorts to the interviewer.

Being from ME, we feel a close affinity to folks in NB and PEI and NFld - coastal folks. Haven't gone 'cross border' enough, but will make a point of it when kids get out of house.

You CAN help the nightmare to end by buttonholing any US ex-pats living there to vote in Federal election and vote for K/E. Many do not know they can still do so. Absentee ballots, etc.

[Iceburg]

87. Memorials etc.....

Having befriended many Vietnam era draft dodgers/protesters in the early 70's, I do respect their decision and the contributions they have made to Canada. Having said that, I not sure that it warrants a memorial. I finding it much more disturbing that Texas would erect a monument to commemorate the illegal invasion of Iraq and get this -- it was constructed with pillaged bronze from Iraq!!

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-ARMYPAPER-356434.php
While in Iraq, the 4th Infantry Division Command Group commissioned a local artist in Tikrit to build the statue out of bronze that was taken from destroyed statues of Saddam Hussein and melted down.

Re: you can help ....
We are on the x-pat trails and much more. We have 4 family members/newly minted US citizens residing in Florida. They are ex-military folk anxious and actively working to restore the "american dream" state. No opportunity goes uncovered in this family.

Been to south east ME a few times, usually enroute to the Cape.

'lest you forget ... we do love America. Were flying to NYC next week for a 2nd trip in less 2 months.

salute!

[MockSwede]

91. Vietnam/70's

Took guts to go north; took guts to go to Vietnam. To make unpopular stands one stands in a minority by definition. I remember making signs and 'protesting' as a 7yo kid when Bobbie and MLK were killed.

Gotta love it when you hear Nixon talking on WH tapes about getting Kerry out of the anit-war picture; was very threatened by his participation. Saw this on cable history channel last night, actually.

God, what stupid, uncivil things people in government do when they feel threatened by a nobody with powerful words and people marching with him/her because of those words and beliefs.

Lots more was pillaged from there that we'll never know is missing. Relative personal safety for one. The birthplace of western civilization and illuminating antiquities. Have an Iraqi working with me here. Glad SH is gone; but won't admit that toll caused by * is heavy and worsening.

Good luck to the folks in FL. Hard work ahead with reconstruction on physical and political levels there.

We're on the Penobscot - midstate, above Mount Desert Island. We get to see the UM Black Bears hockey play on rare occasion. Stick and puck is big in the area.

Used to go to West Dennis Beach on the Cape (Cod) as little kid since my grands lived in Worcester, MA, area. Loved to find the horseshoe crabs. So primordial.

We're out-numbered by BC04 signs on my street 11 to my one. I'm adding 'educational' signage below my K/E signs to catch whatever open mind walks/drives by to think about what the eyes are reading.

[Iceburg]

93. Stick and puck ....

If I remember correctly, speedskating was quite popular too. I used to run speedskating camps for canadian "masters" (us old folk) in Lake Placid NY in the 90's. Seems to me there were quite a few ME skaters weekending in Lake Placid.

Don't let the signage get you down m-swede... dems/liberals tend to be more closeted in that respect.

I can hardly wait to start organizing the "welcome wagon" for Kerry's first field trip to Canada post-inauguration. We live near the Ottawa (the cap). We'll line the streets ...and trust me, THERE will be flowers (probably hockey sticks too!)

[MockSwede]

95. Flower blossom slap shots!

It would look like a ticker-tape parade! Folks high-sticking with hockey sticks at chrysanthemums, etc, and launching the resultant explosion of petals into the motorcade! Very environmentally friendly and sort of a reverse Iroquois gauntlet run.

Couldn't have folks with stick near *; body armor doesn't protect against 'dope slaps' or butt-end of stick rectal probes....

I always liked skating on local pond as kid. Would start at upwind end of pond and work up a furious speed and then and open up jacket and spread out arms as sail and just glide. That was my 'speed' skating!

[Iceburg]

96. You paint a glorious picture mockswede!!!

[mikehiggins]

26. Mission Accomplished "Global Test" or No

Kerry had a job to do and he did it. So he got the subways wrong, and the Repukes jumped on "Global Test" like it was manna from heaven.

What matters is that the American people (possibly 60 million of them or more) got to see Kerry head to head with the Chimp-in-Chief and got an eyefull.

GOD BLESS CSPAN for showing the split screen, and for lots of the other people showing what they showed of His Excellency(NOT!) reacting to Kerry's remarks. People who only saw shots of how Chimp acted in front of an audience that'd signed loyalty pledges just for the "privilege" of hearing his lies in person, now got to see who he really is.

So nitpicking about "Global Test" is pointless. Unless the American public (which voted for Gore in a much less pointed election) has lost all semblence of intelligence, all of the GOPuke lying and waffling over the debates (by the way, Brooks IS a whore) isn't going to wash.

Forget the last debate. The next one is going to be the killer, with a FAUX moderator and a "town hall" setting without the little lights to keep our guy from rambling on all night. Will he be able to resist the kind of bait the complicated questions trolled across the stage will represent? Let us hope so. If he goes rambling on and on he'll lose all he gained this time out.

[LiberalFighter]

61. Then there will probably be someone in the audience to signal Kerry

to wrap it up.

[tomfodw]

28. Here's THE response to any "Global Test" sh*t

http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/election_2004_/2004/10/hell_be_going_to_the_un_next.php

October 01, 2004

He'll be going to the UN next

As already noted here, it turns out to be false that negotiating separately with North Korea would displease the Chinese government, as President Bush twice stated last night.

But put that aside. There's a more fundamental problem.

A reader writes:

I believe I heard Bush assure China a veto over our security vis-a-vis North Korea (can't talk to them if China doesn't want us to...we need China...etc). I thought he wasn't going to give foreigners this power?

Good point.

Of course, Mr. Bush might respond that there are some things that can only be done with the help of other nations, and in those cases the opinions of the leaders of those nations, and even of their citizens, need to be reckoned with if we are to accomplish our goals in the world.

But that's precisely the "global test" Mr. Bush's supporters are lambasting Mr. Kerry for considering.

Posted by Mark Kleiman at 05:11 PM

[MirrorAshes]

29. Holbrooke put this one to rest this morning. Let 'em repeat it.

Its completely baseless.

[Trajan]

35. By using McPeak and Holbrooke ...

He IS attempting to deflect any stray interpretations that can be used as fodder by the Rove Camp .... It is exactly what I wanted to see ....

Kerry neednt explain this, if he has his acolytes doing so .... and they are ....

[LiberalFighter]

63. Holbrooke did good

despite Stephanopoulas's trying to cut him off.

[JKiG]

33. Bush could care less about "legitimate" military action

Anyone who listened to Kerry talk about preemptive action knows that he meant you need to be justified in doing it.

Based on Bush’s response it is obvious he doesn’t. According to Bush the US can affect “regime change” when ever it is in US interest, whether or not the reasons are legitimate.

This is the obvious Straussian/neocon influence over the President and it has reared its ugly head in front of the American people.

Bush’s preemptive philosophy is fundamentally Un-American, and needs to be exsposed to the general public.

[Barney Rocks]

34. I don't have

any problems with what Kerry said. I think that many of us welcome an approach that considers the feelings of the global community before we rush into war? Kerry has held this position since he returned from Vietnam (see his writings and interviews). So--it would be a big mistake to start backing away from it now. It would give credence to the "flip-flop" meme. I think Kerry should just hang tough with his core beliefs. The RWers are going to jump on anything they can to critize. We knew that going into this.

[gratuitous]

38. Have you heard about the words "global test"?

It's this week's "sensitive."

Ignore what Kerry actually said! Let a right wing partisan tell you what he meant! That's how you establish context!

Poppycock.

[Trajan]

40. We are in an election ....

The Swift Boat Liars had nothing BUT poppycock: yet they became 'purveyors of fact' in the public sphere ....

This isnt about what YOU think of RW lies: this is about winning an election against a lying cabal who will stop at NOTHING to define you wrongly in the public sphere ....

I dont 'accept' the RW spin ..... geeezus ...

But I know when grapeshot is whizzing my head ... This election is a battle: fight it TOOTH and nail .... not just tooth ....

[Democrat 4 Ever]

43. 90 minutes of debate and all the GOP thugs can come up with

is two words - global test! LOL, let them spin, Kerry has set it straight, the DNC has set it straight, and the people know the truth. Just highlights how lame Bush did if that is all they got. Kerry is throwing it right back in his face with the new ad.

Check out the debate videos:

http://www.democrats.org/debates/index.html

Bush vs Reality and Bush vs Reality II - kick ass!

[undercover_brother]

47. the RNC is grasping at straws

Have you noticed how their belittling and condecending ads before the debate just pissed off the Democrats and got the Republicans fired up. Now the same ads have taken on a different interpretation after seeing the President side by side with Kerry. The ads now seem sad and desperate. Reminds me of a title fighter who just lost a title fight and continues to talk smack while his eyes are swollen shut and his jaw is bleeding.

[bringbackfdr]

50. Good point

I think the meme about "global test" reveals Shrub as the buffoon he is; if he felt that way Thursday night, he had opportunity to point out Kerry's "mistake" right there. He needed his handlers to explain it to him as a bit of post-debate "strategery"

[SayitAintSo]

57. "It's only a flesh wound .... " The GOP is Monty Pythons Black Knight...

Hopping around on one leg, with the other leg slashed off and bleeding like and open fire hydrant ... screaming "Bring it on... It's only a flesh wound! "....

[Karenina]

49. The "offending phrase..."

AAAARRRRRGGGHHHHH!!! :argh: :argh: :argh:

"GLOBAL TEST"=

1. Check it out in your OWN heart and relationship to the planet upon which we all depend.

2. Check it out with your nearest and dearest, especially those upon who you depend or who depend on you.

3. Check out what is in your COMMUNITY'S best interests

and on and on.

This "phrase" is codespeak to the ROTW that not EVERYONE in the U.S. has gone nazi lunatic. WHAT IS NOT TO GET??? :argh:

[Trajan]

53. Im not personally offended by the phrase ....

but having been on this planet long enough to remember the John Birch society: the rhetoric of a 'global government' is enough to rattle some voters .... can we REALLY afford to smugly satisfy our own selves only while we ignore the impact of such memes on the electorate as a whole ? ...

MY personal feelings about his using the phrase are a moot point: My vote is not available for any other party than the Democrats ... I am not the target of such campaign rhetoric for that reason: and neither are you ...

But those who ARE impressed by lies could be reeled back into reality by some supporting commentary by Kerry Campaign team members: which is exactly what McPeak and Holbrooke are doing today ...

Ignoring the spin of the opposition seems a smug, self-imposed ignorance ... It is foolhardy to think only in my own terms .....

I dont seek 'belief' in that spin, but understand the political and electoral impact of that spin ....

In not concerned about YOUR reaction : Im concerned about the reaction of the undecideds and the loosely committed in the electorate at large .... THEY must be shown what meaning Kerry intended to deflect what the LIARS are telling them ....

[Karenina]

59. Oh, of course

You are correct, my dearest. :loveya: MY frustration is the vulnerability to the spin and the inability to think critically. What has always struck me when talking to seniors from the former U.S.S.R. was how AWARE they were of the horseshit they were being fed and their quiet refusal to swallow it. I'm talking simple village folk who KNEW better. I'm apologize if my alarm and horror come off as smugness. I'm just SO bent out of shape on SO many levels and the pattern is ALWAYS THE SAME!!! I grew up black in white Amurikkka over a half century ago, so none of this is new.

[PurityOfEssence]

52. It's not a test the rest of the world judges, it's OUR OWN TEST

This is all idiotic. Okay, we have to say fuck you to the rest of the world to be manly enough to be elected, but what he said is that WE have to judge our actions ahead of time and see if they are what's best for the rest of the world, including us.

How much more simpler does this need to be? WE are making the test, not asking anyone else for permission or hugs and kisses, but we have to judge whether it's best for the world or not.

Unfortunately, these idiots don't know that we're part of the world.

[mumon]

58. No.

He should simply restate his- the traditional American- position.

And he was right to call Bush and Halliburton liars.

[Cocoa]

62. I thought he meant universal

I didn't think "global" had anything to do with the globe, or with other countries, I thought he meant that everything had to be considered when making that decision, not just the existence of the threat.

He should have said another word, but if he had said "universal", Bush would have said Kerry wanted to check with Mars before going to war.

[troublemaker]

66. THANK YOU

[BlueEyedSon]

67. No, global is the right word. It's about the nation states on this globe,

and what rules they should all adhere to. No special cases, no exclusion from rule of law for just US.

In every aspect, the behavior of the Bush admin regards money&power more important than the law. If you are an active DU member I'm sure you can think of at least a dozen examples.

[Cocoa]

78. I agree those things are important

but from context, Kerry didn't mean that, as I see it. He was not talking about international law even remotely, imo. Not to say he doesn't care about international law, but I don't think his "global test" was about that.

[quam]

69. Yes, In Its Context = Universal/Accepted, Not Geographic

I complete agree, and when hearing the comment at the debate, it is what I thought.

"global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing."

Kerry even further explains the test is meant within the realm of "your countrymen" --- obviously contradicting "global" in a geographic sense.

Bush and others are having to look very deeply for something to use against Kerry. This ("global test") is not it.

[Francine Frensky]

68. I thought he meant global as in "big picture", like

is it good for america, is it good for the world in general, etc.

An example of a war that would be good for america but not good for the world would be one where we invade a country just because we need their oil.

That would be wrong in the "big picture", "long-term", "global" view....

[Pepperbelly]

70. he was absolutely right! do not waver when the gops whine!

:eyes:

I have a thread on it. geez! he was totally right!

[Davis_X_Machina]

71. The idea is as old as the nation...

...and Kerry's "global test' is simply a less elegant version of Jefferson's "a decent Respect for the Opinion of Mankind'.

If Kerry's wrong, then Jefferson is wrong.

[bloom]

75. "a decent Respect for the Opinion of Mankind"

I like that. :D

[Bongo Prophet]

73. If it smells fishy, it may be fish.

If there are flies flocking around it, well...

[MockSwede]

79. Great idea - copy and paste to the main campaign office

Thanks for the great idea.

Well laid-out points.

Easy to follow train of thought above due to visual spacing of points.

I muddle more, myself.

[Heath.Hunnicutt]

81. The point is, the Global Test comes after the preemptive war

I thought Kerry was saying that when the President decides to declare preemptive war, which might be needed at any time, he should know that he can pass a global test after-the-fact.

[Nicholas_J]

82. He did not misspeak at all

Kerry is asserting that the war in Iraq is not a war because Iraq and Saddam posed a danger to the United States alone. George Bush made the assertion that Saddam Hussein posed a Global Threat, that he had violated Global Resolutions and therefore for George Bush to assert that he is going to enforce these Global resolutions, Geirge Bush or any other president who insists that they are going to enforce Global resolutions had better pass a global test.

George Bush has even now hoodwinked democrats taking part in this threat by the way that he shifts between asserting that Saddam Hussein was a threat to his neighbors and world peace, and
the idea Kerry is stating that the U.S. must have international approval before it acts to defend itself from a grave threat. In one breath he asserts that Saddam Hussein was an international threat and that the U.S. leads a coalition of the willing against that international threat, and in the next that the U.S. is defending a threat to its own security.

John Kerry asserts that Saddam Husseins Iraq was no threat to the security of the United States, and if the United States asserts that Hussein is a threat to the world that the world needs defending from, he should at least have determined if the rest of the world felt that Saddam was a threat to them and if they felt like they needed defending.

Passing a global test in any similar cases means that if the U.S. and its president deems a nation to be a Global Threat, that the U.S. should be given a reality check to determine if the rest of the world feels that nation to be a threat from which it needs to be defended, or if the U.S. is creating its own Reichstag fire. After all just as Nazi Germany justified that Austria needed to be joined to Germany in order to be defended from the slavic menace, and that the Sudeten German needed to fall under Germany's wing in order to be protected from being brutalized by the Czechs, and finally that Germany needed to pre-emtively invade Poland to defend itself from the Poles, so any assertion on the part of the United States(or any other nation) that states that it must attack another nation first because that nation poses a threat to it should be subject to examination to determine if that nation actually does pose a threat, or if there is another motive for attacking that nation.

The rhetoric of George Bush about defending the United States is simply the Watergate arguement extended to the international arena. As Richard Nixon assserted that as president, he had the right to break the U.S. law in order to maintain national security, George Bush has asserted that he has the right to break international law, and international treaties in any case in which the president deemsany nation a threat to national security without providing any evidence that any such threat exists. The assertion that Iraq posed an imminent or even gathering threat to the United States is either absurd to the point of being laughable, or an indication that the U.S.'s military might and political strength has decline so greatly as to be endangered by a third rate dictator who might have been able to cow and brutally rule his own people, but was so inept militarily as to be stalemated in an eight year war with a neigboring nation that had a far less technologically capable military force, was rapidly defeated by an international coalition during the Gulf War and sent running out of Kuwait after a brief six week war in which 90 percent of its air force was completely destroyed, 50 percent of its tanks destroyed, and half of its elete military force killed. And to be endangered by a nation that has been under embargo, blockade and econokic sanctions for more than a decade, being totally unable to obtain spare parts for the airplanes, helicopters, tanks and armored vehicles that were left after the Gulf War would indicate that the United States ability as a military and political force is not what it once was. How the mighty have fallen.

No, just like presidents, the United States should be subject to the same law international laws that is expects other nations to be subject to. In fact, it should be expected that the U.S. would set an example for those nations that it expects to emulate the U.S. by beginning to democratize and expand rights to their citizens. Particularly when the United States has been one of the primary authors of those international laws.

But then again, Bush does take the Republican tack. That the president is abve the law, and that the United States is above the law.

One of the main reasons that democracy does not stand a chance to take root in the Middle East is that the United States sets such a miserable example for abiding by the rule of law when it comes to the international arena. At least under Republican Administrations.

Think of it, during the Gulf War, when Saddam Hussein did have banned weapons availble to use to repel the U.N. coalition forces, he did not use them. Yet in this same war the United States used depleted Uranium rounds as anti tank weapons. Every other nation in the world has banned these weapons as totally cruel and terrible weapons. In Iraq, there are still people suffering from the effects of these weapons. Twenty, sometime thirty percent of entire villages suffering and dying from leukemias and other cancers caused by depleted uranium but denied by the U.S. because the terrible and devastating effects of such weapons do not occur immediately but over many years.

The United States, signatory to international treaties that state that the U.S. will not make chemical weapons, and along with other signatories of thesetreaties, agrees to allow international inspection teams to spot check chemical plants to determine that the U.S. is abiding by such treaties. Another Republican, Ronald Reagan stopped such inspections on the grounds of protecting proprietary chemical processes ownd by private companies, Both Germany and France could make the same claims for their companies, but they still participate in these inspections in order to honor the treaties they have signed.And set the example for other signatory nations. Yet the United States makes demands that other nations be inspected, and that other nations not be allowed to build nuclear reactors to generate electricity, because they migh use them to make nuclear weapons, While the U.S. starts new programs to create new generations of nuclear weapons.

Again all Republican philosophy.And all initiated under Republicans. No nation can reasonably claim that other nations do not have the right to build whatever weapons they deem necessary for their own defense, particularly when that nation disregards the treaties itself.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

84. "And you can prove to the world

that you DID it for legitimate reasons."

I.e., AFTER the fact. Hardly an asking of
the world for permission.
Forget the girlie-man "misspoke" BS.

[LynnTheDem]

88. No he did not "misspeak"...if you happen to have a dictionary

Look it up.

[secular_warrior]

90. Screw that - Kerry didn't misspeak - Americans know what he meant

Only the far right, nationalististic nature of the GOPers, with their irrational hate for anything "foreign" would misconstrue what Kerry meant, which was that America, as a global leader and example for the world, should be able to prove to the world what we do on the world stage is legitimate. NOT that Kerry would ask the world's permission to defend America.

[Strawman]

92. The way Bush jumped on the words "global test" just shows how dumb he is

He didn't listen to the context of what Kerry said at all. Throughout the debate, all he could do was make up those kinds of strawman arguments to give himself something he could answer because 1) He's on the wrong side of almost every issue and 2)He doesn't even know how to make the case for his policies because they are not based on his reasoning. They're based on what Rove says will get him re-elected.

[Chomskyite]

94. Global in that context, to me, pertains to the kind of thinking

. . . that would have to be done before making a decision. What will the consequences be on the global scale, not just the narrow range of nations immediately affected by the decision?

This is the kind of thinking they praised Kissinger for. Too bad Kissinger's "global test" consisted of whether or not poor brown people would be slaughtered and whether or not he'd get any publicity afterward.

[Trajan]

98. On Reflection: After A Day's Responses ....

It is clear that many didnt understand my concern about using this phrase ....

I strongly agree with the INTERNATIONIST worldview, and think American Statesmen have held the view that our country should act within the overall purview of an internationist consensus, and only pursue war when acting in concert with the majority of the nations of the world ....

Yet: Is that precisely what Kerry meant when he spoke those words ? ...

Let's again review his comments:

"Kerry: The president always has the right and always has had the right for pre-emptive 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 pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got 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."


To contract the substance of the comment: 'You've got to 'pass a test' - where your countrymen, your people, understand FULLY why your doing what you are doing'

It is obvious that references to 'your people' and 'countrymen' refer to internal citizenry, not to the world community at large ...

THIS comment: "And you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons", identifies a need to prove justification to the world community, NOT to await their approval ....

The use of the term 'Global Test' is truly a misnomer, and isnt consistent with the phraseology used by Kerry in his debate comments .... yet he did say the words ....

Obviously: IF a nation works through the auspices of a world consensus body, like the UN, then nations will naturally act IN CONCERT with each other, though international consensus and multilateral action ....

Obviously: when a nation faces grave dangers, and such grave dangers can be shown to really exist by providing substantive evidence to the world, then international consensus would come without fail and in the spirit of mutual cooperation .... This is the benefit of embracing the internationalist philosophy, and also explains the pitfalls of not doing so ....

But it would be a mistake to say that Bush didnt pass the 'global test', which means nothing ... he failed to provide JUSTIFICATION, and thereby failed to receive international consensus and wide multilateral support .... He also failed to convince a good 50% of his own 'people' and 'countrymen' that justification existed to invade Iraq ....

Other than the misapplied definition of the term 'global test' as used by Kerry, there also exists a heavy freight with the idea of the US submitting it's sovereign rights to a world body for approval .... Even if Kerry didnt intend to convey that meaning to the phrase, it will be exploited (QED) to the fullest by the opposition: fairly or unfairly ....

I only ask that Kerry DEFEND his usage, not run away from it ....

It is clear that the opposition intends to use that comment as a club to bash Kerry: Kerry would do well to define the club more clearly, and make it dissolve ....

Otherwise: Wasnt that a grand debate ? ...

Wasnt Kerry simply spectacular ? ....

Indeed ....