NPR "clarification" of Juan Williams's "global test" distortion also failed

This is the controversial quote that has been cited in regards to the issue of needing to pass a global test in conducting foreign policy.

The question for debate is:

Do you think this view of foreign policy is one that makes Senator Kerry fit to be president or do you think it is a key reason why he should not be elected president? Explain your answer?

If Kerry would have stopped at "global test" I would have had a problem with it. But he explained it well by saying that it means that the people in THIS country are also told the truth about WHY we are going to war. I think any President of the US has to have credibility both here and abroad. Kerry has made it clear that this DOES NOT translate into another country having veto power over us. I personally supported Bush through his first three years in office. But I do not believe that he has been straight with the American people about Iraq or Afghanistan. He has a huge credibility problem now both here and abroad because he continues to dig himself deeper and deeper into a hole instead of admitting he was wrong and making sure it doesn't happen again.

I think this is just a "spin" issue with not much power to swing voters.

The question for debate is:

Do you think this view of foreign policy is one that makes Senator Kerry fit to be president or do you think it is a key reason why he should not be elected president? Explain your answer?

[/quote]

After reading the NPR clarification article, it's clear that when Kerry mentioned the word "global," he was speaking in terms of acceptance by winning consensus in a majority of citizens, and that he wasn't speaking of geography-that is, the approval of France, Belgium, etc. I'd say that the use of the word "global" was perhaps a bad choice on Kerry's part-even I thought he meant gaining the acceptance of most of the world before undertaking a foreign policy adventure. Then again, it's clear that as in the case of Afghanistan, an overwhelmingly convincing case in America crosses borders and is accepted by others universally.

Do you think this view of foreign policy is one that makes Senator Kerry fit to be president or do you think it is a key reason why he should not be elected president? Explain your answer?

Kerry started by saying he would never cede the US's national security to anyone. The problem is that he qualified that statement with his "global test" statement.

I don't know if he misspoke (again ), but what he should have done was stated his "global test" criteria and then qualifying THAT statement with the declaration that we will not cede our national security to other nations.

As it stands, whether or not he meant it that way (and who can really discern what Kerry really meant), it reads as if he will consider the "global test" as a major consideration.

Certainly, the opinion of other nations has some weight in determining our actions. By saying this, however, Kerry reinforces what he said as a young man (when he was an honorable, decorated war hero) in 1970: "I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations"

This simply doesn't play well. It reinforces Kerry's "soft on defense" image.

Whatever Kerry meant by it, it was a dumb thing to say.

I have heard this repeated several times now essentially, to which I have to answer - so what?

Seriously Amlord, you are in your 30's if I remember correctly... you ever say anything when you were 15 you disagree with now? Do you think you'll agree with everything you believe now when you are 60? Personally I know that I said and believed things 4 years ago that I don't agree with now, I can't imagine how I'll feel about them 35 years from now. The 70's are long since gone, let them go because they are irrelevant.

Do you think this view of foreign policy is one that makes Senator Kerry fit to be president or do you think it is a key reason why he should not be elected president? Explain your answer?
I think that the reason this question is being asked is because it wasn't clear what Kerry meant in the first place. I also have to say that describing this policy as a "global test" is very poor wording and invites these soundbite attacks the GOP is so famous for.

Now as far as what I think Kerry means, I think it is about rebuilding credibility (internationally and at home) and being honest with the American people and with the world. Edwards did a lot to address that in the debate recently, although I'm sure it fell on deaf ears.

I think these two things are absolutely crucial and one of the top 5 reasons that Kerry should be elected. To paint a hypothetical scenario if we have another 4 years of Bush - what do you think is going to happen the next time we have to use force somewhere in the world based on intelligence it has? Let's say Iran, Syria or N. Korea? Do you honestly think anyone is going to believe us, trust our intentions and offer help? I think that we'd even have a hard time convincing Blair to sign on for another Bush war (assuming Blair isn't sacked in 2005 that is) because he has taken considerable flack in the UK. If he did go into another war I think he all but assures that his party wouldn't be in power in the term following his.

The numerous lies by Cheney in the VP debate are a perfect illustration of what the last 4 years has been like with this administration. America simply cannot afford another 4 years of that if we wish to salvage any scrap of respect in the international community.

Do you think this view of foreign policy is one that makes Senator Kerry fit to be president or do you think it is a key reason why he should not be elected president? Explain your answer?

If he means it (which is very open to debate), I think it causes serious problems.

Consider his own statement:



Now, you can debate its effectiveness, but this was certainly something Bush tried to do. What happens to the 'test' when other nations, for their own selfish reasons, decide that you shouldn't take the action you prescribe? In essence, if you can't 'prove it' to them'? Doesn't that fail the test, thereby giving them the very veto power Kerry says he won't cede?

I don't think you can be for a global test, and yet against allowing other nations veto power. Simply stating that you must pass the test grants them that power...and you can rest assured they would both understand that fact and use it to their advantage.

I think it is fair to say that many people's opinions have evolved substantially since 1970. I know mine have.

I don't think one has to surmise what Kerry was thinking here. He explains himself fairly clearly, even if it is nuanced.

When the United States is to take an action such as invading Iraq, we should be very conscious of what the consequences will be in terms of our clout and our relationship with other major nations in the world.

Especially when embarking on the path that the executive should never be wrong on, that of war. Policy makers should run it through a global test in their strategy sessions. What would the impact of this move be in the world. Will we distance ourselves from out strong partnership with European nations? Will we give countries that have been behaving reasonably well such as Russia and China license to make an aggressive turn in foreign policy?

If we cannot convince our allies that we are on the right course with a piece of foreign policy then maybe a closer look should be taken and that action should be scrutinized more closely.

I strongly endorse that position. But its easy to simplify and claim that Kerry is talking about turning policy decision over to foreign powers or international bodies. Maybe Kerry should have repeated his statement that he would never give veto power of foreign policy to another country every other sentence when he stated this opinion. Maybe we should never consider the impact our foreign policy will have on our relationships around the world.

It probably does replay well. It allows for intentional distortions of his statements and when the big lie is repeated often enough it will sound true to many voters.

The position is entirely consistent Hobbes, especially if you look at the tense of the statement at the end "did it for the right reasons" (past tense). A veto in this case isn't possible (censure perhaps, but not a veto). Nor has Kerry (other than his testimony 34 years ago, which I hardly think should be held against him) advocated that the UN should play wet-nurse to our ability to execute military action where needed.

Look at the question its addressing: the idea of being able to pre-empt an attack. Kerry, and contrary to Amlord's jabs, has been 100% consistent backing this statement up after Bush's distortion of it. It basically says, if the US sees a threat to its interests, like in Yemen (random example), and attacks because of it, you have to be prepared to defend that pre-emptive strike to the American people first, and then the world.

There is a balance to be had in applying that doctrine and I have no doubt Kerry would seek that balance in our foreign policy.

Doc

Do you think this view of foreign policy is one that makes Senator Kerry fit to be president or do you think it is a key reason why he should not be elected president? Explain your answer?

I want a president in office who considers the opinions of other nations, and I do believe that's what Kerry meant by "global test." It doesn't translate to "ceding our national security interests to other nations," which he also stated quite clearly. It means that we exist within a global economy, and our reputation in the world is important if we want to maintain allies and trading partners. We must be honest and forthright when it comes to our foreign policy, which by its very definition affects the rest of the world, and sometimes this means that in order to reach our stated goals, we must jump through a few extra hoops so that we don't alienate other nations.

I look at it in much the same way that I look at business. You can screw over a lot of people on your way to the top, but eventually you'll run out of people to do business with, because they catch on pretty quickly when you act like a slimeball...or you can work with them, be willing to compromise on some issues, and do a little back scratching when necessary. This can be done ethically and without sacrificing core values. The gains may not come as quickly as desired, but they will be much more sustainable.

Kerry criticized George W. Bush for not having enough of a coalition when we went to war, yet voted to authorize force.

In 1991, we had a larger coalition and UN support and he voted against it.

It just makes me wonder exactly what would pass his global test, and when he feels like what action we have taken is explainable to the world.

My contention from the first time I read this quote, “I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations,” was that I never want him to be my president, whether or not he's since changed his mind.

Doclutus, then what differentiates this from what Bush did. He is convinced he did it for the right reasons, therefore he passed the global test? If not, then doesn't this show that indeed, other nations do have 'veto' power? Again, I don't see how these can be separated, unless....




as Eeyore states, it is more of an strategic process than a 'test'. I would agree completely that this should be done, as I always think that the full ramifications of any action should be examined. In this sense, I would say that Bush fell short, perhaps even intentionally...although his thinking was probably that the other nations would come back into the fold as other issues took center stage (so maybe he did indeed consider the ramifications, but just in a longer term).

I don't know if this is sarcastic or just some sort of psychosomatic blindness here, but it is abundantly clear what Kerry meant. We all know that you don't like Kerry for the office of President, but don't you think you're letting your political leanings cloud your wisdom here? If you don't know what he was saying then you are either not looking at the context of his statement, or you're just not interested; and either way your commentary loses it's value.

It is in fact abundantly clear what Kerry was trying to say if you consider the question asked and the context of his response. That being said I winced as soon as he said "global test" because I knew that it would be used in exactly the way you are using it; and some would take their criticism even further from the substance of his remarks.



And so he should. Kerry doesn't mean the UN necessarily, or a specific protocol for the getting the approval from a group of nations. What he is suggesting is that a strong case for war has to be made to the international community as well as the domestic one; not to get permission to operate, but to be able to proceed without the consequence of an environment of mistrust. This is a direct response to the shirking of the International community by Bush which has had detrimental consequences for the United States.

Maybe he does mean the UN:


If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that?

Fit to be President, and this is why:

We have just gone through over a year of the results of having taken preemptive military action without enough world support. We now know what many of us suspected on the get-go that the evidence for a threat to the US from Iraq was drummed up hooey. We also know that a certain kind of thinking, call it "corporate think" if you want, led the charge up this hill. And furthermore, we know that certain corporate entities were trying to gouge the money that Congress authorized for this adventure.

As a result, we have sacrificed many lives and lost world credibility, not to mention domestic credibility. For what? This war was supposed to fund itself. It was supposed to be short and sweet. It was supposed to be a success, and it was supposed to protect us from further terrorist attacks. None of the ROIs have come forth, except perhaps the last one, but that is pure speculation.

In a nutshell, preemption without world support has failed. Miserably. Even with world support, such an action was doomed to failure from the beginning. However, had more world support been garnered through skillful negotiation, the blame for failure would have been shared more, and the committment to see this through would have been shared as well.

We can all see how hard it is to get cooperation from the world after the fact.

Now, fast rewind to the pre-liberation times. Enough citizens of enough countries protested vehemently, and mostly peacefully, to give more time before invasion. Or to not invade at all. We who protested did suspect some dirt was going on underneath the covers. We who protested felt strongly that the government was not to be trusted on this one.

As it has turned out, we were right.

Kerry is fit to be President because he has a similar sense to [male bovine excrement] from our government. I trust him to not put such forward, nor to rush up the hill without a clear sense of mission and purpose.

We no longer need the Texan cowboy mentality running this country. We never did need it, and we, the people, knew we did not need it.

What we do need is intelligent, well thought-out, reasoned approaches to real problems and real threats. We do not need to create more problems and more threats chasing down giants that turn out to be windmills.

President Bush may or may not be fit to run this country for the next four years. From his behavior after liberation and during the transition (that has gone on much too long) to Iraqi independence, I can see changes. His tunes have definately changed from Iraq and Roll to Let's Get Together. He has let it slip that the war on terror isn't winnable -- why? Because it isn't a war at all.

But we knew that.

And so does Kerry. Rather than taking a gamble that President Bush is changing his ways, I want someone in there who wouldn't have gone Bush's way in the first place, not with the flimsy evidence that Bush had. I don't think Kerry, as President, will put our forces in harm's way unless he is absolutely certain that the results will be worth the effort.

I'm not so sure about President Bush. That guy gives me the creeps. There's something wrong in there.

Ok, either you didn't understand what I said, or you don't understand the story you linked to. Which is it? Using emoticons doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to actually think about what it is you're writing you know.

The passage you quoted makes two things clear. If the U.N. mandated a military intervention, then that would be a legitimate use of American military forces. This does not prove your point. John Kerry isn't saying that the U.N. can order troops around or that said body is the final arbiter of what military actions are right or wrong. He's just saying that a U.N. action COULD be a legitimate use for US troops. Since every other president since Eisenhower has followed this same thinking I fail to see how you could get it so profoundly wrong.

The second this passage explains is that if the U.S. goes it alone, and there is INSUFFICIENT DOMESTIC justification, then that is not a valid use of the American military. That part's also simple too. It has nothing to do with the U.N., or a global test or whatever; no matter how hard you reach to make it appear as such.

UJ, even given this definition, you still face the same possibility of a foreign 'veto' of American security interests. For, what happens if for whatever reason you cannot proceed without the consequence of an environment of mistrust, yet still feel that it is a vital American security interest. You cannot get away from the fact that Kerry is in fact creating a scenario where we would be subjugating our security issues to foreign concerns. At the very least this policy can lead to lengthy delays in taking action--that alone could have significant security risks, and thereby gives foreign entities sway over our security issues. In any case, if a foreign power knows that you won't proceed if they can get enough support for an objection, that puts them in the driver's seat, doesn't it? Given that, these countries would then certainly use that fact to their advantage--why not voice a little objection if doing so will certainly lead to you getting some 'stuff' thrown your way to ease your objections? You can argue the semantics of a 'global test' all you want....yet you still end up with the same conclusions. You can't play this both ways...no matter how you spin it, Kerry's statement does indeed give foreign entities veto power over our security interests.

However, I myself don't think Kerry intends to subjugate our security interests at all. Rather, he is taking the very sentiment you voice, and creating a soundbite that intimates that he will address that concern. This achieves his political goal both domestically and internationally (hmmmm...passes his global test?)...the fact that it is completely unworkable in practice is really irrelevant to its purpose.

I didn't hear anything in Kerry's statement that implied the "test" would need to be passed up front and a concensus reached before action is taken. He simply said that actions needed to be defensible under international & domestic law and explainable to the American people. None of that would require waiting for anyone's approval when urgent action is necessary. Its like when the Police take action, they are careful to follow procedure so that the case doesn't get thrown out during the trial, but the "bust" comes first and the trial comes later.

I think what Kerry was trying to say, or maybe what he should be saying, is that the possible negative consequences for America of negative foreign opinion (through trade sacntions, increased hatred leading to further terrorism, loss of negotiating power in other policy areas, and so on) should be factored into the cost/benefit analysis that any responsible administration will undertake before deciding to commit to a military expedition.

I think he's contrasting this idea with the Bush administration, which many people (me included) think did not place sufficient weight on such considerations, if it considered them at all.

On a wider level, I think all he is saying is that an administration should always ask itself "what if we're wrong?", challenging it's own assumptions, as an additional sense check. Kerry comes across as a man who, as president, would want to be presented with a number of options, so he can choose the one that makes the most sense to him.

I think he prefers this way of working to his perception of the Bush administration (shared by many others), which is that they start from their fixed point of ideology, think of the explanation that fits that position, and ignore or discount all other possible explanations. Then start thinking about the solution based on that one ideologically comfortable (to them, at least) aetiology. Terrorist are Bad People who Hate Us, for example, therefore we must kill them before they can kill us.

The strength of the Bush position is forthrightness and dynamism, though clearly the downsside is that if they are wrong about anything they will steam on with it regardless.

The strength of Kerry's is that he is more likely to come up with practically workable and beneficial solutions, but he could spend so much time analysing every possible scenario that by the time he decides to act he's missed the opportunity to make a useful difference.

Personally, I'd say that, on balance, both are as likely as each other to "do the right thing", but Kerry's approach is more likely to result in "doing things right". Also, the Bush administration, not being the fount of any more wisdom than we should expect, is more likely to do some of the wrong things than a possible Kerry government.

(Hands up anyone who's surprised I plumped for Kerry? You haven't been paying attention, have you? )

Julian,

Well written post, which I do think summarizes the perceived viewpoints. Where I think it gets tricky is that I do think Bush considered these factors, which leads to the conclusion that Kerry would just consider them more, which leads directly to allowing other countries to veto our security concerns.

I think the 'What if we're wrong' question was asked (I think it would have to have been asked)...the answer was just still the same, since the basic downside was still that Saddam Hussein, clearly someone working against US security interests, would be removed from power...ie, no downside at all. My feelings on the other countries involved, which I think would also have been shared by some in the administration (perhaps validating the perception?) is that they would 'get over it', since they always do. So, again, in a long-term perspective, no downside. Hubris, maybe, but I think valid nonetheless. There may be a lot of talk and bluster, but what really have been the negative consequences even now of our actions amongst those who opposed them? In a practical sense, nothing is any different...still working on the same issues we would have been working on anyway. As always, each countries self-interests drive these relationships, and it is in each countries self interest to maintain a working relationship with us--regardless of their feelings about the war in Iraq. This will be even more the case as time goes by--other issues will come up which trump this one, and it will fade from memory. Not that I think these negative relations should be ignored....but I think it is reality that they really don't have that big of an effect on other things. So, if it comes down to choosing national security over foreign concerns, national security will, and should, win every single time--any condidate who suggests otherwise is indeed placing our security at risk.

FWIW--Bush's history as governor was that he did indeed want to be presented with a variety of options, just as you claim Kerry would. I don't think one should assume that wasn't the case here. In fact, Bush received a lot of criticism from the right for not taking more decisive action sooner, so there is good evidence that he did indeed look at all options and consider the appropriate course of action from among many alternatives before proceeding.

Also, I would be very interested in hearing the Bush administration's response if he did indeed phrase it as you suggest. If they didn't indicate that this was precisely what they did, then I think that would validate some of the perceptions you state here, and I would then have to rethink my position on this.

I disagree Hobbes, everything I have read or heard seems to indicate that Bush doesn't really foster a range of viewpoints or opinions and doesn't allow internal dissent within his administration. This supports Julian's conclusion that:


This is evidenced by the wide array of people that have left the administration over the past four years and have come out to talk about their experience. Some might consider this political payback, but it should be noted that for the most part no one has refuted the things they said.

Furthermore, Julian's comment is proved out by the way in which we got to Iraq. We can debate till the sun sets why we went in and whether it was right or legal, but the one fact that is not debatable is that Bush had his reasons for going and in his mind they were justified and he found evidence to support his conclusions. With the benefit of hindsight we know this, because accurate information was out there or could have been generated if the people requesting it weren't locked into a single option.

Furthermore, your conclusion that Kerry would allow other countries to veto our security concerns is false. It doesn't follow the logic of his position and he has also explicitly said he would not give any other country a veto over our security. As many have suggested the phrase "global test" is unfortunate wording that has been used negatively in soundbites, but that ignores the idea behind it.

My take is that the way we got to Iraq clearly points to the very issue I am describing...Bush decided it was a valid security concern, tried to get other nations to go along, some refused (most with clearly selfish motives), but we did it anyway. I don't care what Kerry said...he can say he wouldn't allow a veto 'til the cows come home, that doesn't change the facts of the matter. Either you would proceed regardless of foreign opposition (which Bush did) or you wouldn't. Kerry is either agreeing with what Bush did, or allowing a foreign veto. There isn't any other viable alternative. If you disagree, then please tell me what you think Kerry would do if he felt an action needed to be taken, but that other countries disagreed. If you think he'd do it anyway, there is no global test. If you think he wouldn't proceed, then he's allowing a veto. Which is it?

As to the defections from the Bush administration, these contrast starkly to his history in Texas, which is what I was referring to. I think its safe to say that his administration has been highly focused on a single issue, which would tend to cloud any conclusions you could draw from the 'defections' you mention (ie...who's to say that Bush didn't indeed listen to available alternatives on this issue, but that the defections are occurred from the 'losing' camp on that issue?). As I stated earlier, Bush did indeed receive a lot of criticism immediately after 9-11 for not acting much more decisively and much sooner...he made of point of not jumping to conclusion and considering all available information. Defections after the fact do nothing to detract from this.

On a side note---consider the fact that he found evidence to support his conclusions because they were indeed correct, and therefore there was significant evidence to be found (keeping in mind that it was NEVER solely about WMD). In fact, as the 9-11 report indicates, this is one of the very efforts where it is documented that all alternatives and scenarios were discussed, and WMD was then chosen, by consensus, as the message that would be delivered. Don't confuse the message with the decision...they are two separate things. And no, this isn't lying to or misleading the American people, as the message was chosen primarily for its impact on the UN. It was just necessary that the same message then be delivered domestically. You know, like every administration does everywhere on every issue.

It isn't the "regardless of foreign opposition" that is the problem. The problem is exactly what Julian was suggesting as far as paying attention to the information he had from home. You said Bush thought Iraq was a security concern, that is fine... but I am suggesting he made it a security concern because it supported his motivation, whatever it was. The information we have now proves that it wasn't a security concern, things have come to light now that prove people were saying that back in 2003. Furthermore, if he really wanted to determine if it was a security threat, why didn't we allow Blix to finish his inspections?

These questions strike right to the core of the matter. I don't think Kerry cares that we went into Iraq with France and Germany opposed to our actions. I think he does care that the president distorted the facts to suit his agenda (and perhaps if he hadn't and had been more reasonable, France and Germany might have come along as a side benefit, but they aren't the issue). Perhaps that wasn't clear at the time (or someone might have stopped him), but it is certainly clear now, numerous reports by the government prove it. Regardless of the spin around the whole thing, this is what Kerry means. The government can't expect to maintain credibility at home and internationally when it lies and distorts facts to achieve its goals. This is what Kerry wants to stop, and it will never stop under another Bush administration, why would he have learned that lesson - he doesn't think he did anything wrong!

"The President distorted facts to suit his agenda"? What exactly is this agenda?
I pose the question, if the facts were so distorted, then why did congress (including Mr. Kerry) vote for the military action? Are there not any more intelligent people on Capitol Hill that could've seen past this distortion? They (including the UK) were privy to all of the same intelligence. This claim seems unfounded. France and Germany didn't support sending their troops into harms way to support a largely American concern. They've already stated that they will not and would not have a differing opinion if Mr. Kerry were elected. The reality is that in March of '03 there was an overwhelming amount of support for being in Iraq due to its public popularity, and as public opinion changed so did Mr. Kerry's political posture.

The large opposition I have to the ideas you've presented is that before the campaign began, no one was publicly lambasting the war. In fact, Mr. Kerry made public statements about the necessity of war and the danger of Saddam as late as December of '03. I never saw Mr. Kerry (prior to the campaign trail) on "Good Morning America" talking about how concerned he was with the war. He rode the political wave of capturing Saddam,etc. Also, the very nature of Mr. Kerry's "global test" comment would make any educated person believe that his very concern is what other nations think. I don't buy into his "explanations" after the fact, and frankly the SPIN around this fiasco has become tiresome. Mr. Kerry stated clearly on national television before a large portion of America that he believes that we should seek opinion from other nations, and for one, disagree whole-heartedly, especially from nations which have had (and still do) have American troops on their soil to protect them from the previous danger of the USSR. The fact is that explanation of Mr. Kerry's comment can be aired on every station in the country, and it comes across as pure rhetoric. The comment didn't go over well... so as usual, he changed his stance.

Lies and distortions? Lack of creditaiility? I really would love to hear some objective information as to where you gained this viewpoint, especially after publicly supporting a candidate with a reputation for changing his story based upon the political tide.

We have numerous threads devoted to that aevans176, so I don't really feel the need to discuss his agenda. Honestly I don't even care what his agenda was anymore. We now have indisputable evidence that he had one. This inlcudes but is not limted to the fact that there were no WMDs in the country and the reason for the invasion after that was discovered changed almost monthly. I don't think anyone knows the real reason we invaded, and perhaps no one will. What is clear is that it isn't any of the stated reasons from the whitehouse over the past year or so.


It is not unfounded, you merely have to examine some of the recent threads here on Iraq and you'll find all the evidence you require if you chose to accept it. It absolutely does not matter that people bought into what Bush said in 2003 (including Congress), as I stated in my previous response he presented the information in a way that would ensure people came to the same conclusion he did.


I personally don't care what Kerry thought in 2003, nor will I defend it. At the time I was against the Iraq war and I supported Dean in the primaries who was also against the war. I have absolutely no obligation to explain Kerry's actions in 2003 as they relate to my positions. If you choose to make an issue of it, that is fine, I don't expect you'll be voting for him anyway.

But I will say this, there are plenty of people, likely even people here at AD, that supported the war at one point and later changed their opinion because they found out it was based on a lie. Call all of them flip-floppers or the term du jour if you'd like, I call it facing reality. This is how I personally explain Kerry's statements in 2003, but I know that it is convenient for Republicans to use them against him politically, so be it. It really won't matter after another 2 weeks anyway.


Actually, it would be perfectly clear to any educated person if they'd actually take the time to read the whole speech and not blather on about a "global test" because the talking heads have told them that would mean Kerry would seek permission for our actions. The actual speech which is linked in this thread if you care to read it, doesn't even come close to leaving you with that interpretation. The only possible explanation is to read the "global test" line, ignore the rest of it and then start trying to define what "global test" means in a negative political fashion.


I fail to see what my support of Kerry has to do with the credibility of the Bush administration. If you are denying that they have lied and lack credibility I'd point you to the following threads. Feel free to take a look through them, I'm not reposting the information here.
- No WMD in Iraq after 1991
- Knowing what you know now, what do you think?
- Flawed Intelligence or Negligence

Let's say I'm really steamed at this guy, and decide I want to go to his house and beat the tar out of him. I get together with my usual group of buddies and talk about it. A couple of my buds get pumped about it - "yeah, let's go pound the so-and-so!" My other friends say, "man, think about it. Do you think violence will solve this? Think before you act." Now, I say to them, forget you, me and Tony and Al are gonna go get this guy. Or, I think about what they said - we've been friends for a long time, and I change my mind. Once I calm down, I realize my friends had some good advice. Is that really giving my friends 'veto power' over my decisions? I don't think most of us would put it that way.

To me the idea of a 'global test' means thinking things through, and not just about our motives or intentions, but how our actions play out on the world stage. We do live in a global community, as much as we like to talk about national interests, etc. The United States has spent a good portion of the 20th century running rough-shod over much of the world, and I think it's about time we started considering, really considering, what the unintended consequences of our actions might be. Lord knows, so many of the problems we are facing today stem from the unintended (or un-cared about) consequences of past actions. All that said, I expect Kerry will do only marginally better than Bush when it comes down to it - the Democratic party hasn't exactly been the bastion of good global citizenship - however, I do feel it is an extremely important marginal difference, so this week I held my nose and voted for John F. Kerry.

*edited because instead of 'steamed' I used a slang form related to urination!

Quark, this is a good analogy...no, in that case, it is not really a veto. Where it seems we are having the issue is what happens in Kerry's world if the friends do object, but you still decide you want (need?) to go ahead and kick someone's hind parts. Would he still do it, or defer to foreign opinion. If there's really a global test, I think he would have to defer, which is where I see the veto coming in.

However, I also agree with you that in practice, I don't really see much difference. Kerry is saying what he is saying to score political points more than anything else...he's on the foreign relations committee, and he's a smart man, so I'm assuming he knows that what he said can't really be put into practice, as countries don't really act for the global good, they act for their own self interest. In that capacity, I will grant that Kerry is probably more aware of the impact some of our decisions in the past have had..probably ditto for his experiences in Vietnam. I think the primary difference is that Kerry would indeed put more weight on global opinion. There would be some potential benefit to this...however, as I have stated in other threads, there are also potential costs. Exactly how much should the US cater to foreign concerns? I don't think anyone really knows. Bush may not do so enough...but there is valid reason to think Kerry may do so too much (especially since we still, 12 days before the election, have absolutely no idea who would be in his cabinet? What's up with that?)



CJ, if you think Kerry will act any differently, you are being, IMHO, naive. Every administration (heck, every politician), everywhere on earth spins things to get what they want. That's how the system works. Kerry neither could, nor would, be any different. Heck, his whole campaign is based on spin...using polls to determine the proper political response to garner support. (You think he's out hunting today because he just felt the urge?) That's fine, that's what politicians do. But, what makes you think he'd be any different as a leader? Especially since doing so would probably be monumentally ineffective--which is why politicians everywhere behave as they do. (?--has he said anything in his campaign that really rubs you the wrong way? If not, what do you think the odds of that would be if he were truly speaking his own mind, and not distorting things to achieve his goals?)

And this is where I point to the part of his speech where he says:

...and everyone that is voting for Bush ignores that part of the statement and focuses on the "global test" portion. Why? Because it makes for good political fodder. "Oh Kerry said we are going to have a global test, that must mean he's gonna let France run the country!" That is absolutely ridiculous.

I'd encourage everyone to once again read the debate transcript. In the passage directly after the infamous "global test" phrase, Kerry says this:

This passage clarifies his meaning, and coincidently is exactly what I have been saying to everyone this whole time. But no, ignoring the entire message and focusing on "global test" and giving it some made up meaning is infinitely easier and much more politically expedient.

Or what about this last portion of his response:

Kerry is 110% percent correct here. If anyone here thinks we are greatly respected throughout the world right now and have ample credibility, you aren't living in reality. As proof, take a look at this article in the SF Chronicle World Views section.

So, don't take my word for it if you don't want to, but it is pretty clear that our allies do in fact believe we have a credibility problem. Kerry may or may not be successful in fixing that if he is elected, but do you seriously think Bush is even going to attempt to fix this problem? He hasn't even admitted we have a problem, that doesn't bode well for fixing it.

Edited to add: Credibility is by its very nature a thing of public opinion or at the very least the opinion of those parties that matter. You don't get to say what your credibility is, others tell you if you are credible. If you take a look at that article you might or might not be surprised at the two countries that support Bush, Russia and Israel, but the country that is noticeably absent is Britain. So unless the Bush supporters are going to claim this is some grand left wing conspiracy, I'd say our credibility is severely damaged.
- End Edit -

Hobbes the spin here is everyone focusing on the words "global test" and ignoring the entirity of Kerry's response with the exception of that sentence. So he chose the wrong words, people need to get over it already, it isn't like Bush doesn't mangle the English language with his every breath or anything. If you read the rest of his response you'll see that he is saying exactly what I'm telling you he is saying, no spin required.

Will he be successful? I have no idea, maybe he won't. But at least Kerry realizes the problem, and realizing there is a problem is the first step to fixing it. Bush doesn't think we have a credibility problem, we do and that is an undeniable fact.

The interesting part is that you equate Mr. Kerry to earning credibility, while he cannot even figure out which side of the fence he is on. Mr. Kerry, in himself, is a pillar of unreliability. Do you really believe that he will be different while in the white house??? Isn't it safe to assume that leaders of other nations are familiar with Mr. Kerry and his nature?

Reading a Kerry explanation given after the fact is a precise example of his waivering. Giving Mr. Kerry a day or two to come up with the "true meaning" of his "global test" statement, and believing that his opinion didn't change due to public outcry is outrageous.

The previous references to JFK and creditibility are interesting, but extremely short-sighted. It's one reference from a French president during the height of the cold war. 9/11 did reap significant international sympathy, while invading Iraq was never internationally popular. That being said, Mr. Kerry didn't decide that Iraq was a "wrong war/wrong time" until the past few months. Why???...(need I ask?)

Discussing Mr. Bush's public speaking ability is insignificant. The debate at hand is whether the nation should ever pass a "global test" in reference to foreign policy. If Mr. Kerry's actions/statements during the past few months are any indication of his resolve, we would be dictated by the whims of the UN.

As a staunch conservative and a veteran, I am not the biggest fan of Mr. Bush. However, a vote for Mr. Kerry would be a step towards a lack of national soverignty, a step towards spinelessness and ultimately vulnerability.

I also would caution anyone for using JFK as a benchmark of foreign relations, as the Cuban Missle Crisis comes to mind, which was a direct result of the Bay of Pigs...

CJ, I'm not ignoring that part of the speech...I'm telling you that what he's saying is not possible, and that he's only saying it for political gain. As I have said repeatedly, either there is a 'global test' or there isn't. I couldn't care less what he 'said' about it...if you have a global test, it opens the issue of letting other countries dictate our policy. If you put credence into what Kerry says in your quote, then he's doing just what Bush did, and there's no difference. Kerry is trying very hard to play it both ways, and on this issue it can't be done. Again, if you follow what Kerry is saying, what will he do in a situation where foreign countries object to something he views as a security interest? If he proceeds anyway, there is no 'test', and in fact no difference from Bush. If he doesn't, they do indeed have a veto. There are no other options. Which is it?



How does this clarify anything? What does this say at all about what Kerry would do? Nothing. In fact, what did Bush do to tarnish that credibility? If you recall, we did in fact show them the pictures, and they still chose not to follow us. Ignoring hindsight, why was that? Because of their own self-interest. So, the only way Kerry could create the 'credibility' he discusses here is to open the spigots, and entice these countries by making our actions in their interest. That doesn't concern you? If you feel we're drawing an unfair inference, then please help us: What do you think Kerry would do, faced with a situation where he feels an action needs to be taken for our interests, but other countries object to it, and can't be swayed? Also, please explain how your response is either not a veto, or is different from what Bush did.



No, Kerry is conducting 100% spin (are you drinking the cool-aid straight out of the barrel ). Why do you think we pulled out of the global warming treaty? Because it would have unfairly impacted the U.S. So, is Kerry then suggesting that we need to subvert our interests to those of other countries (gee, another global test?) in order to earn that respect? If not, then what is he suggesting? Or is he really not suggesting anything, just bringing up issues in a manner he feels will score political points (ding! ding! ding!...Johhny, we have a winner!)

CJ, I'm not suggesting Kerry is a bad person...I don't think he is. But, he clearly has a world view that places such countries as N. Korea on equal footing with the U.S. This is very dangerous...it gives them negotiating power that, quite frankly, they don't deserve. This is how they got the technology that enabled them to build the nuclear weapons in the first place. Given this attitude he has, it is very reasonable, and IMHO, quite logical, to draw the 'global test' inferences that are being made. Allow me to turn the tables...what has he done (not said, done) to suggest he wouldn't give other countries the very veto he claims he won't? His whole world view indicates that he would in fact do just that....which isn't all bad...perhaps we would earn some goodwill around the world. But, it isn't all good either, and would have some very serious consequences.




CJ, the polls you show say nothing about credibility...they indicate likability. These are two very, very different terms. I'm not sure I want a President who views increasing our likability as our main priority. A factor, yes, but not a main priority.

This is not a Kerry explanation given after the fact aevans176, it is the very words he spoke in the first debate. He didn't have to have a "day or two" to come up with the "real meaning" of his "global test", because it is perfectly clear to any person that can put aside their desire to spin this for their candidate what he said in that debate.

All of his "explaining" was to control the spin that happened after the debate. Again this happened because people focused on the "global test" and not his message. But that is what politicians and spin doctors do I suppose.

If you can tell me that you have read the whole thing and disagree with his philosophy, you are certainly entitled to your opinion (and your vote for that matter). I think you are wrong, but I can respect that. But to constantly repeat the line "global test = international veto power" is extremely intellectually lazy. It shows absolutely no desire to get beyond scoring political points and actually understand the message.

Furthermore, I don't think anyone has really addressed the credibility issue, perhaps I'll start a thread on that because it is important.

edited to add:

It clarifies things by showing a philosophy on how one should approach things and it presents an ideal which we should strive to return to. Tell me Hobbes, if Bush were to come out tomorrow and say that Syria had weapons of mass destruction and they planned to launch an attack this Christmas, and we must invade now - would you be inclined to believe him? Do you think he would honestly be able to get any support from the rest of the world, regardless of how solid his proof appeared?

Bush tarnished our credibility by lying Hobbes, plain and simple. The reason we went to war turned out to be a lie and confirmed the suspicions of many.

And regarding France (which is who I assume you are referring to), as someone (maybe Ultimate Joe or Wertz) posted in another thread France was ready to send troops and even held them until early 2003, but they decided not to because Bush wouldn't let the inspections be completed. When they backed down, he proceded to make things worse by driving a wedge between our country and theirs and then we had all kinds of fun nonsense like "freedom fries" and pouring French wine into the streets. I was really ashamed to be an American then, it was even more fun when I was on my honeymoon there in 2003 trying to disguise my nationality and bad french accent.

Gaining credibility in no way means that you have to "open the spigots" and cave in to every request. It in no way means that you have to let other countries tell you what to do. What it does require is that you tell people the truth and don't launch a war based on fiction and later claim that you were really going for some other reason and when that is disproven some other reason ad nauseum.

I think that what Kerry is saying now (in the last month or so) about pre-emptive action is a calculated effort to steal security votes from Bush. I believe that he is lying and pandering and his real character is indeed as an internationalist that believes we actually should have a 'global test.' I don't base my opinion solely on his debate answer, rather on his life history.

In this video, Kerry says: that US casulalties in Bosnia are "only worth it" if it's under a UN effort. Meaning that our saving Bosnian Muslims without UN approval would not be "worth it" I guess.
From the Washington Post requires registration I think


Or when he returned from Vietnam and first became politically active, indicating that he's an internationalist and that no US casualties could ever be worth it, even if they were preserving freedom.


I would say that his rejection of his war medals (ribbons, whatever) and his parody of Iwo Jima on the cover of the New Soldier book show that he at least in his youth had a very Anti-American stance. Yep, Anti-American. You throw away your medals on TV and you put an upside-down flag on a book, you are anti-american. What are you for - I'm guessing internationalism and a global test. Now, I know that it was a turbulent time, and I wouldn't hold just that against him, but there is a pattern. He did his first campaigning as an anti-military, nuclear freeze candidate when running for Congress, his internationalist stance continued in the Senate - one of only 17 Senators that asked Clinton to sign the International Criminal Court treaty, etc.

Anyway, I don't believe that Kerry truly wants America to be the strongest country in the world, rather a strong part of a global community. I believe that he would put too much credence in the views of countries like France and Germany, who act in their self-interest, which is fine. But I don't believe that this is in our best interest, at least for the next four years. So I'm voting for the other guy, because:

I feel like a broken record here, but for the last time... will the people who keep bringing this up please answer me two questions?

Do you think the things that you said (depending on how old you are) - 10, 15, 20, 25 evn 30 years ago are still valid today? When you were a teenager did you perhaps "have things wrong" and you know that now that you are a wise adult?

Seriously, dusting off some quote from 35 years ago, says absolutely nothing about someone's character. It gives you a picture of what Kerry was like 35 years ago, but to imply that he hasn't changed during that time is just ludicrous.

This plays well in the soundbite world, but no one here seriously believes that a statement 35 years old can define someone's character I hope. Or do you?

No, the statement from 35 years ago merely reinforces the start of a pattern on internationalist statements and, more importantly, behavior. My emphasis added to my own statement - feel free to read it in its entirety above.

Plus the quote from 1994

And since you don't see a pattern with just the above quotes, being a proponent of unilateral nuclear freeze, etc., here is just one more to bolster the argument, although I must admit, even with Lexis-Nexis, it is hard to find Senator Kerry saying anything of substance from 1972 - 2000...which would explain his acceptance speech.
boston globe - candidate in the making

Kerry even flip-flopped on the nuclear freeze in 1984 - he was for the Trident missle system, even submitting a questionnaire with a question so nuanced that the group "Freeze Voter '84" couldn't understand his answer - before he was (natch) against it. This is in the right-wing attack machine Boston Globe, mind you.

What part of Kerry's past anti-military, anti-defense record makes him believeable that he wants to "hunt down and kill terrorists wherever they are." This, from the guy who last week said "can I get me a huntin' license here" and then couldn't decide what his own eye color on the license should be. If you must, go ahead and ignore 1971, but please don't expect America to ignore 1984 - 2004.

Edited to remove off-topic paragraph

Exactly my point Carlito, exactly my point. You cannot seriously ask me to follow a leader that refuses to change his or her position when new information comes to light, adapt when they make mistakes or even admit they made mistakes in the first place. I have spoken numerous times about leadership and I can guarantee you that those leaders which refuse to live in reality will not be successful, nor will I ever follow them, ever. If you choose to be mislead that is your business and concern I suppose.

Regarding all of these past statements - why is it that the mantra "everything changed on 9/11" is repeated so often, applied to some and not to others. Your whole arguement consists of saying "Kerry held these positions historically and therefore they apply today and make him a 'flip-flopper'". Yet, people don't seem to hold George Bush accountable for such things as oh I don't know, not paying attention to terrorism before 9/11 and not only not doing anything about it, but funding a space missile defense system instead. What about in the 2000 debates when Bush said that he wasn't for nation building? What is he doing right now? Nation Building.

This whole "lets dig up things Kerry said years ago" argument is completely faulty because Bush supporters are not willing to apply the same thing to their candidate. Additionally, it is absolutely without a doubt not valid to dig up things that occurred during the cold war and try to apply them to the war on terror - the conflicts aren't even remotely the same.

Getting back to this global test business, the only reason this whole thing is even an issue is because of two reasons:
1. Most people are too lazy to read (or listen to) Kerry's whole response and understand the message he is actually trying to convey. That or they just don't care because their mind is shut anyway.

2. The phrase "global test" is pure political soundbite fodder. This was taken out of context by all of the talking heads, some made up meaning has been attributed to it, Kerry has had to defend the made up meaning and it has stuck.

That's my point, CJ...it doesn't do anything to show a 'philosophy', unless indeed that philosophy is to give excess priority to foreign opinion. I have asked several times what you think Kerry would do, when faced with proceeding with an action he felt was required, in the event of foreign opposition. Why so reluctant to answer? It's a simple question, and goes straight to the heart of the matter. Unless..


...gaining that credibility does indeed require bribery to entice others to relax their opposition. If you're not going to bribe them, and they oppose an action you feel is necessary, what are you left with? Either proceeding anyway, which is what Bush did, or deciding not to, which is giving them veto power. Don't forget...prior to our invasion...not one of those countries doubted our evidence. They just disagreed over our action. In other words, this was the very scenario being discussed..where the President would have to either perform the action he felt necessary, bribe the other countries to follow along, or give them a veto. Which do you think Kerry would do, and why do you think that would be better?

Why this constant harping on Bush not telling the truth. I have yet to see one single solitary piece of evidence that indicates Bush lied. First, as I have stated repeatedly AND the 9-11 commission report confirmed, the war was not about WMD. Repeat...the war was not about WMD. WMD was merely the factor chosen, among many, to focus on in proceeding with action through the U.N. In fact, it was chosen through the very consensus method you think Kerry proposes. Second, failure to find WMD in no way means one was lying when he said he thought they were there. WMD did not even need to be found to validate the threat. Threats are present when one creates the appearance of posing one--no one disputes Saddam did that.

I'm going to assume that your preference, and also likely what Kerry would have done, would be to proceed with inspections. If that were the case, we'd be in a worse position then than we are now. Saddam would still be in power, the sanctions would still be in place, we'd still have troops in Saudi Arabia, we'd have no way of instituting democracy in the region, AND we still wouldn't know for sure whether or not we should fear Saddam acquiring WMD. Terrorists wouldn't be fighting in Iraq, they'd be fighting elsewhere, and they wouldn't be fighting our military, they'd be attacking our citizens. Absolutely nothing would have been achieved, and we'd have less leverage to achieve it in the future. The 9-11 commission report, and the CIA report, clearly show that Saddam did indeed intend to get WMD. He was just playing his cards right to get the sanctions removed. Inspections weren't going to affect his getting WMD in the future at all, in fact they'd probably make it easier (with a passing grade, and sanctions removed, why allow them back in again). In short, we'd have been giving Saddam exactly what he wanted, all the while continuing with the very conditions that led to the attacks of 9-11. If this is what you think Kerry would have done, you have in fact laid out an excellent case of just exactly why his position is not what we need, as it would indeed subjugate our security to foreign interests.



I'll just bypass the question over where this concern was when Bush was being questioned on his past drug use, and go straight to the core of the matter...what has Kerry done since then to indicate he has indeed changed? His record on these matters is extremely consistent, and covers several decades....are we to believe that only in the last few months he has suddenly had an epiphany?

What constitutes "excess priority," Hobbes? Perhaps you can enlighten us Democrats and ABB'ers, because it appears to us that Bush gave those foreign opinions that did not agree with his action no priority at all.

What would anyone know that Governor Bush would have done prior to becoming President? Nothing. And you are asking Cube Jockey what Kerry would do? Interestingly, he is answering your question in the same way you would have answered the same question posed to you in the 2000 election regarding Bush. What do you want? A sterling silver guarantee or perhaps something in gold leaf?

When a person has not been President before, all you have is what they say they will do.

If President Bush was so darn confident about his intelligence data about 9/11, why did he oppose the formation of the 9/11 Commission and the depositions of members of his administration? What did he have to hide?

The big deal about Weapons of Mass Destruction was that President Bush was ostensibly addressing UN Resolution #1441, which stated that Saddam Hussein was in violation by possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction. Bush made a big deal about it before we ever did. Now that they are nowhere to be found, Bush looks like he was gullible, or that he was lying. At any rate, the majority of nations in the UN opposed the invasion of Iraq. I would say that the fact that weapons of mass destruction were never found would lend credibility to their opposition, not to Bush's action.



You assume that these things would be the case. Now here are my assumptions about how things would be and what could have been done had Bush not been so hot to trot about Iraq:

Let's see, there would be thousands of Iraqis still alive who weren't our enemies, who weren't collateral damage from our bombs and "friendly fire," there would be over 1,000 U.S. troops still alive and thousands with all of their limbs and their mental faculties intact, and guess what? We could use some of the billions of dollars we have been pouring into Iraq to beef up Homeland Security, to make sure that more than 5% of incoming cargo ships were inspected, to make sure the cameras at the U.S./Canada border actually worked and weren't decoys, to add to first responders stateside (yes, that means more jobs for firefighters, police, paramedics, etc.), to have more border patrol guards for our US/Mexican border, and to finish the job in Afghanistan by capturing/killing Osama bin Laden.

Saddam Hussein would still be in control, yes. But we could intercept things coming out of and going into Iraq. We could install human intelligence. We could let the Iraqis initiate regime change themselves. Who prompted the United States to declare independence from England? Our own people did, and except for receiving some key assistance from France (yeah, that "despicable" country) toward the end of the struggle, nobody helped us. Now we're in Iraq telling people that democracy is what they want. Really! What proportion of the country wants it? Did they want it at the cost of the lives of their countrymen and the disruption of their country and way of life? Did they want their country overrun with terrorists so that the United States could fight terrorism in their neighborhoods?

A wise leader at least listens to what his country's traditional allies have to say. I am not entirely convinced that Bush did.

Kerry maintains that an action that can be at least presented convincingly to the world community is an action that is justifiable. Based on the threadbare evidence (that is now known to be bogus) that was presented, the war on Iraq was not justified.

In fact, President Bush himself did give us a couple of hints 4 years ago:


That's right, he "couldn't verify" his own thoughts about his abilities.

and


Some "Uniter" that philosophy represents, caring about 51% of the people, and now he is campaigning to his "base," speaking only to those people who might be undecided Republicans, but who are willing to pledge their vote to him before they hear his sermon. I think perhaps that George W. Bush understands politics very well, but I don't think that he has a clue what democracy means.

Do you think this view of foreign policy is one that makes Senator Kerry fit to be president or do you think it is a key reason why he should not be elected president? Explain your answer?

I believe it was The Monroe Doctrine which stated basically that any countries which tried to interfere with the sovereignty of any nation in The Western Hemisphere would have to contend with the United States. We fought the Germans in two World Wars, and the Japanese in the Second World War to uphold a policy of protecting the sovereignty and independence of all nations. I was taught that the USA was instrumental in the formation of both The League of Nations and The United Nations. Is it reasonable that our country should expect our actions to meet some form of global test? Indeed it is reasonable.

What is not reasonable is to think that we can impose "Democracy" on another nation. Democracy, is by definition rule by consent of the governed. It works for us yes, but that doesn't give us the right to invade another country and impose our rules of law and say, "You have to govern yourselves the sa