Serious question for the anti-Kerry crowd

[Kelly the Dog]

Because he's basically said as much all throughout his campaign.  Let's go through the BIG 3:

 

1 - Global test.  'Nuff said.  No one who thinks we have to pass a "global test" before we use OUR OWN MILITARY should ever become President.

 

2 - "If we are attacked, we will strike back" (or something to that effect).  The point is to make sure we don't get attacked again, not vow to strike back if we do.  This comment showed me that Kerry will not attempt to root out terror where it starts through pre-emptive strikes, and that is troubling.

 

3 - His obsession with not using force against other countries without the approval/participation of the two most corrupt nations on the UNSC - France and Germany.  If elected, he will allow these two countries (and the entire U.N., really) to decide if and when we use our military power.  Not good.

92180[/snapback]

Obviously you have paid absolutely zero attention to what he actually said in those three examples you gave. He said nothing close to what you implied. Carry on.

[Alaska Darin]

You make NO choice AND you offer NO SOLUTIONS, so you have no room to talk. You're worse than ANYONE who votes for Bush OR Kerry.

92173[/snapback]

Oh look, RCow has a convert to his school of "thought".

 

Nice job, Pierre.

[Hollywood Donahoe]

Obviously you have paid absolutely zero attention to what he actually said in those three examples you gave. He said nothing close to what you implied. Carry on.

Thanks for that wonderful, substance-filled post. I used Kerry's own words against him, and you can't defend him for it, so you just say "you're wrong."

 

Nice. Post again when you can actually refute a single thing I said.

[Kelly the Dog]

Thanks for that wonderful, substance-filled post.  I used Kerry's own words against him, and you can't defend him for it, so you just say "you're wrong."

 

Nice.  Post again when you can actually refute a single thing I said.

92216[/snapback]

There is really no need. If you want to take two-word phrases like "global test" out of context like the Bush campaign has repeatedly done and use them to imply the complete opposite of what Kerry actually said when he uttered the phrase, then go right ahead. It just shows where you're coming from and your insistence, like the campaign, to be totally misleading and dead wrong. Here is what he actually said:

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.

 

So, you see, if you can indeed read, that he said he WOULD pre-emptively strike. He NEVER said he would use other countries as a global test, he was talking about being honest with American citizens. Not misleading them.

[jimshiz]

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.

92218[/snapback]

 

I'm sorry, but the plurality of "your people" will NEVER "understand fully why you're doing what you're doing" AND I don't think the burden of proof needs to be as high as some think when it comes to "prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons". You see, to me, he/they already proved to me that what they are doing is for legitimate reasons and I do understand why he/they are doing what he/they are doing. Do I and people who think like me not count when it comes to this "global test"?

[Alaska Darin]

92218[/snapback]

Do I and people who think like me not count when it comes to this "global test"?

92237[/snapback]

You're not French are you?

[Kelly the Dog]

92218[/snapback]

I'm sorry, but the plurality of "your people" will NEVER "understand fully why you're doing what you're doing" AND I don't think the burden of proof needs to be as high as some think when it comes to "prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons".  You see, to me, he/they already proved to me that what they are doing is for legitimate reasons and I do understand why he/they are doing what he/they are doing.  Do I and people who think like me not count when it comes to this "global test"?

92237[/snapback]

Well if I burrowed my way through what you just posted, I think I totally agree with you. And I believe that many if not most on the right, like you, do believe that what Bush said "passed the test, passed the global test" that it was a legitimate reason to go to war pre-emptively. And that's okay. But that is all that Kerry was saying. He, nor I, do believe that Bush made the case for war, nor was he straight with the American people, nor did he prove to the world that he did it for legitimate reasons, but that is just Kerry's and my opinion. He was criticizing Bush for not doing a good job of making his case, or being completely honest, or being upfront with the real reasons. What Kerry DIDN'T say, and didn't come close to saying or implying, is that any other country has any say whatsoever in whether we go to war pre-emptively or not. Or that France and Germany or any other country has to agree to us going to war. And that is what the Bush people are using that quote for, which is 100% totally false.

[Hollywood Donahoe]

There is really no need.

Translation: "I can't."

 

Here is Kerry, in his own words saying that he would not strike preemptively unless we passed the all-important "global test:"

 

The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike ... 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...

Case closed.

[Kelly the Dog]

Translation:  "I can't."

 

Here is Kerry, in his own words saying that he would not strike preemptively unless we passed the all-important "global test:"

Case closed.

92259[/snapback]

Amazing. Hollywood Donahoe is actually Richio.

[Paco]

What Kerry DIDN'T say, and didn't come close to saying or implying, is that any other country has any say whatsoever in whether we go to war pre-emptively or not.

 

I disagree. It's maybe just a matter of semantics, but what you're saying is that Kerry really meant to say his plans need to pass a "national" test. A "global" test would certainly imply worldwide understanding and acceptance. A "national" test would ensure that the people of "this nation" have an understanding and acceptance.

 

Like I said...semantics. But please don't think he didn't come close to implying as such. That's exactly what he did. It's exactly what he always does. Throws some words out there, gets beat up for them, and then backtracks to redefine what he was saying so it doesn't sound as bad as it did when he implied it in the first place.

[Kelly the Dog]

I disagree. It's maybe just a matter of semantics, but what you're saying is that Kerry really meant to say his plans need to pass a "national" test. A "global" test would certainly imply worldwide understanding and acceptance. A "national" test would ensure that the people of "this nation" have an understanding and acceptance.

 

Like I said...semantics. But please don't think he didn't come close to implying as such. That's exactly what he did. It's exactly what he always does. Throws some words out there, gets beat up for them, and then backtracks to redefine what he was saying so it doesn't sound as bad as it did when he implied it in the first place.

92262[/snapback]

You don't think that George Bush believes that you have to "prove to the world that what you did was legitimate"? Of course he does. Why do you think he used the UN resolutions as the reason to go to war. To "prove to the world that it was legitimate". Why do you think he went to the UN. Why do you think he used the international intelligence? He believes, and you believe, that he proved to the world that Saddam needed to be overthrown. And that's a legitimate belief. But I think you are absolutely crazy if you think that he believes we can just attack anyone because we want to and we don't need to give the world proof that it is a legitmate reason. Of course he believes that. He says it all the time. Things like "how much more proof do you need?"

[Paco]

You don't think that George Bush believes that you have to "prove to the world that what you did was legitimate"? Of course he does. Why do you think he used the UN resolutions as the reason to go to war. To "prove to the world that it was legitimate". Why do you think he went to the UN. Why do you think he used the international intelligence? He believes, and you believe, that he proved to the world that Saddam needed to be overthrown. And that's a legitimate belief. But I think you are absolutely crazy if you think that he believes we can just attack anyone because we want to and we don't need to give the world proof that it is a legitmate reason. Of course he believes that. He says it all the time. Things like "how much more proof do you need?"

92269[/snapback]

Sorry, man. You're off topic. We're talking about what Kerry meant by the term "global test." This has nothing to do with what you're referring to above. What did Kerry mean by that statement? Are we talking about our countrymen or the world? Or both? Is he saying we shouldn't do anything without UN approval? But if we are going to do something pre-emptive, we should still get people's approval?

 

I'm just saying Kerry has a bad habit of saying something like "global test" and giving it some vague definition when we're talking about something rather important like the war on terror. He tries to come up with some little catch phrase, but fails to define it well enough to keep people from picking it apart.

 

It's an inherent problem Kerry has -- this 'trying to be Clinton cool' thing -- and it does more to push me away from him than it would ever get me to take him seriously.

[Berg]

Please explain to me why exactly you think Kerry will not fight the war on terror, is a pacifist, and will lay down and let the world stomp all over us. Seriously. Please do not just say that he voted against weapons systems because you are discounting all the times, just as many times, that he voted for or in favor of weapons systems. There have been about four major wars in his adult lifetime. He volunteered to go to Vietnam and fought as a soldier. He was FOR the wars in Bosnia and this last Gulf War (as well as for the military action in Panama, Somalia, Haiti, and even Grenada.) The only time he was against a war it seems was the first Gulf War. That's 3 out of 4 in major military conflicts in his life, as well as most or all of the latest smaller military conflicts. Are you just ignoring this? He has NEVER even intimated that we should get out of Iraq immediately. He has pledged even more troops. He lobbied for ground troops as an option in the Bosnian war for crissakes. He's a hunter. He has always been for war and for being tough, and yet you guys seem to just align him with wimpy or pacifist Democrats of the past for no reason. This guy is for war.

 

You may hate him, you may think Bush will do a better job, but how, seriously, can anyone say that this guy is not pro military and pro war, or conclude that he is a wimp?

91676[/snapback]

 

Although sometimes it's tough to discern due to complexity of Bills, I don't like Kerry's voting record in the Senate on military appropriations issues. I also think he will be much more suceptible to foreign influence in executing operations against terrorists. Subjectively, I think that's a negative. Lastly, he can't balance the budget and do all the other things he claims he's going to do both domestically and in foreign policy. Something will have to give, and I believe it will be things like NASA, Homeland Defense, and the Military (some of my top priorities).

 

However, I may be the only person in the US that doesn't believe this crap about "the most important election of our lifetime". I really don't think things will be significantly different no matter who is President (between these two).