A simple response to the "Global Test" rhetoric.

[aden_nak]

Kerry is receiving a fair amount of flak about his concept of the Global Test for the use of American military force. The right wing spin is that John Kerry would let other nations decide when America is allowed to protect itself. That's not what he said at all, and there's a very simple way to respond to that sort of thing.

If American is justified in using military force to defend itself, it will always pass the Global Test.

Think about it. If we have reached the point of sending out armed forces into combat, we should be able to clearly demonstrate why that needs to be done. We should have a concrete threat we are responding to. We should have actual EVIDENCE of wrong-doing. We should be able to plausibly argue that a diplomatic solution is either not viable or has already failed.

Those should be the conditions for putting our troops in harms way. If we cannot do those basic things, if we cannot prove that America is actually in danger, then why ARE we taking military action? The current administration failed to do any of those things. And now here we are, two years later, wallowing in the aftermath of an unjustified war whose cost in both dollars and blood seems without limit.

[emulatorloo]

1. Global TEst = TELL THE TRUTH TO THE WORLD ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE DOING

rather than lying and spinning.

Pretty simple concept, and has nothing to do w "getting permission"

[Virginian]

8. Agree

If we can truthfully say why we had to attack another country and not try to come up with excuses afterwards, then it will pass the global test.
The people of this country would not accept reasons like "We needed their oil" or "He tried to hire a hitman to get my Dad" and neither would the world.

If Iraq was everything this administration tried to say about it and it could be proven, there might have been cause, but there has never been proof. I still don't know why we went.

"He gassed his own people" 12 years before. If he was so bad that it justified war, why didn't we hit him 12 years earlier?

"Harboring al Quaeda?" What were we doing on Sept 10, 2001 if not harboring al Quaeda ourselves? Did we expect Iraq to recognise the terrorist within its borders if we didn't do it here?

"A threat to the US?" No delivery method to attack us.
Nuclear? not.

"Saddam was a cruel dictator?" There are lots more where he came from. The saying "keep your friends close but your enemies closer" seems to apply here. Sometimes you prefer the devil you know to the devil you don't know. (Zarqarwi?)

And most of all, to me, If he was so dangerous, why didn't any of his neighbors have a problem with him? Where was the support from all the countries that have common borders with Iraq? Why weren't they a part of the coalition?

[greenman3610]

2. Tom Jefferson said it

the answer is to look at our declaration of Independence, our founding document,opening sentence-"a decent respect for the opinions of mankind":


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.

[aden_nak]

5. That Jefferson guy is clearly a TER'R'RIST and a TRAITOR.

[CarolynEC]

3. Also: "Why is president Bush lying?"

He was standing right there when Kerry said no country would ever have veto power over our security.

Now he's walking around saying Kerry would give veto power.

Is Bush a liar? Or does he just not understand what people say to him?

We need a President who will tell the truth.

[liberal N proud]

4. Shrub dose not know how to tell the truth!

He has been telling the same lies for so long he actually believes them himself.

[bklyncowgirl]

6. Verify the facts BEFORE you attack and be prepared to defend your actions

The administration disregarded any evidence that would damage their arguement for going to war. When the facts did not match their theories, they chose the theory over the fact.

We can see a microcosm of this in the Cheney remark about never meeting John Edwards. This was a great attack line. Problem was it was blatently false. What was worse was that it was easily disproven.

This administration believes that the end justifies the means--that may be so but some degree of honestly or at least competence is in order when there are lives in the balance.

[RollergirlVT]

7. The problem is...

Too many folks seem to like that this administration plays stupid. I mean c'mon people does Kerry really have to speak "street" to be understood? In street terms... Global test = smell test. When a nation takes preemptive action against another nation the reason should be indisputably clear. As in Afghanistan, that was very clear. It has to pass the smell test. If it cannot do that we are all in trouble. Should we open the world to witch hunts? Is "Some people say...." a reasonable excuse for preemptive war? Global test = smell test is that really so difficult to understand? And if this administration doesn't understand that concept can we really take them seriously as world leaders?

[Ducks In A Row]

9. My reponse has been he didn't want to say "smell test", and ...

came up with global test on the spure of the moment, so global test is smell test and we all know what that means.

then i say "get over it"

[ClassWarrior]

10. US is a world leader. A true leader always considers the repercussions...

...of his or her actions on those whom he or she leads.

A Scout leader could march his Troop right off the edge of a cliff. But he won't, because he applies the "boy test." He never cedes his responsibility or decision-making power to the boys, but he carefully and deeply considers the consequences of his decisions on the boys.

23.

[ClassWarrior]

11. /

[ClassWarrior]

12. /

[TheWebHead]

13. Well the simplest response

Would be to simply say that the global test is an explanation -- not a permission slip -- for pre-emptive war... The same global test Bush began when he went to the UN, got the first resolution, sent in inspectors and attempted to build a coalition. When it became clear that inspectors weren't going to find WMD, Bush tried for a second resolution, pledged he would go through with the second resolution, realized the second resolution wouldn't pass, withdrew from getting a second resolution, called off the inspections, and invaded without any WMD evidence... Now we are living with the consequences.

I think if Kerry can clearly articulate that he's simply talking about explaining your actions to the American people and our allies, and not getting "permission" from allies, he can paint * as a cowboy who is damaging our relationship with the world because of his contempt for diverging opinions from our allies... Unless America, outside the republican base, has become xenophobic.

[nyhuskyfan]

14. I also think...

It is worth it to point out that it is quite clear what Kerry meant by what he said (explanation vs. permission slip), and we should expect a president and his adminstration to be intellligent enough to correctly understand the spoken word. If they can't grasp a simple concept like this correctly, how can they engage in diplomacy with world leaders? How can they correctly interpret the intelligence data that crosses their desks? How can we feel comfortable that when they discuss any issue with their advisors or members of Congress that they are coming away with a correct interpretation of the facts they have just been given?

We need to demand a little better communicative skills from the people who are representing us.

[aden_nak]

15. Dubya? A cowboy?

Where do you come up with those crazy ideas?

[Paganini]

16. I think the use of Global is figurative not literal

I think the word "global" in Kerry's statement means universal. War is such a serious matter that the justifications for it must be air-tight. That is the Global test for going to war. Wouldn't we have condemned another country for invading and occupying another on false pretenses?

I guess Bush and company are getting desperate. They are just grasping at straws. He cannot deflect any of the serious charges by Kerry and has to resort to distortion.

I know enough right-wing nut jobs that are already parroting this crap. Can't these people think for themselves.

[Bozos for Bush]

17. The simplest answer is "What about North Korea?"

North Korea has nukes, Mr. President, that can obliterate Japan, one of our closest allies, and possibly reach Los Angeles. Why haven't you attacked North Korea's nuclear program?

Ummm, ummm, well there's China, and ummm, there's ummm, there's global reasons ummm, ummm, it's hard work!