Kerry's "Global Test" Process?

[adios]

What is the process implied by Kerry's "Global Test" comment?

From the transcript of the debate:

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

KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.

No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations.

So before the U.S. could undertake a preemptive war, the U.S. must prove to the world that the reasons are legitimate according to Kerry. In order to prove to the rest of the world that the reasons are legitimate I think it's safe to assume that the evidence would be presented to the U.N. Security Council, a resolution would be drafted and the Security Council would vote on it, with 4 other countries having the veto power.

I suppose Kerry proponents have no problems with this process. If you can't convince other Security Council members that your reasons are legitimate, ignore the threat to your security that you perceive. Just one member with a veto can scuttle such a resolution.

[1111]

I think you are completely misinterpreting what Kerry stated. Obviously the process of taking a proposal to the security council for a vote would not take place in a pre-emptive US attack. Kerry makes that point very clearly in the beginning of the excerpt. His main point is that we cannot attack without some sort of justification which the rest of the world can at least find semi-plausible, unlike our ever changing justification for the Iraq mess. I realize that many Americans feel we can do whatever the hell we want in foreign affairs, but the reality is, we do need to maintain strong alliances in order to maintain our enormous power. Kerry seems to understand this...Bush does not.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are completely misinterpreting what Kerry stated. Obviously the process of taking a proposal to the security council for a vote would not take place in a pre-emptive US attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're stating that Kerry would not have followed the course that Bush took leading up to the war in Iraq, a preemptive war? Here's what Kerry stated:

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.

How would Kerry prove to the world that the reasons are legitimate? How would the Kerry process for proving to the world that the reasons are legitimate differ from the steps that Bush followed?


[ QUOTE ]
Kerry makes that point very clearly in the beginning of the excerpt. His main point is that we cannot attack without some sort of justification which the rest of the world can at least find semi-plausible, unlike our ever changing justification for the Iraq mess.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bush took his case to the U.N. before launching the attack on Iraq, where were you? U.N. security council members like France didn't buy it.


[ QUOTE ]
I realize that many Americans feel we can do whatever the hell we want in foreign affairs, but the reality is, we do need to maintain strong alliances in order to maintain our enormous power. Kerry seems to understand this...Bush does not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thirty countries in the coalition however what you write here more or less proves my point. The Kerry stance is if you don't get approval from the U.N. Security Council you don't fight the preemptive war.

What is the Kerryp process for passing the "Global Test" if I'm misrepresenting it? It's really a very simple question that you failed to address.

[GWB]

Kerry doesn't want to be President.

He wants to be Governor of the US, with Kofi as the President of the world.

[MaxPower]

Kerry could not have convinced the world that our reasons for pre-emptive war in Iraq were legitimate because THEY WERE NOT LEGITIMATE.

The UN inspectors were all over Iraq looking for these weapons and they could not find any. Meanwhile Cheney is saying they did have WMD and we knew where they were. If we knew where they were, why didn't we just tell the inspectors where to find them? Because we didn't know. Despite what you think the leaders of other countries are not dumb and they did not fall for the nonsense that the Bush administration was putting out.

Yes, Iraq was a potential threat, but a minor one which we had contained and was weakening every day. Bush promised to exhaust all dimplomatic efforts before going to war and he failed to do that. He didn't even allow the weapons inspectors to finish their work.

What Kerry meant is that in the case of pre-emptive war the potential threat should be clear enough that most of the worlds nations will see our actions as credible. He is not saying that the UN has to vote on it.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Because we didn't know. Despite what you think the leaders of other countries are not dumb and they did not fall for the nonsense that the Bush administration was putting out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im sure it had nothing to with the fear of losing their oil for food cash cow. And the inspectors were not given complete and unfettered access as they should have been. That calls their conclusions into question. The US wasnt the only country with intelligence indicating that Saddam had WMD. France actually told Colin Powell at one point they were willing to back the US as long as he went through the formal process at the UN of creating (yet) another resolution. We all know how that promise turned out. Also the French for all intents and purposes said their opposition to the war was to weaken US influence in the world.

[MaxPower]

If the threat were clear enough and of the highest priority, France and other nations would have backed the invasion despite whatever benefits they hoped to gain from the lifting of sanctions.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
If the threat were clear enough and of the highest priority, France and other nations would have backed the invasion despite whatever benefits they hoped to gain from the lifting of sanctions.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is possible that France and Russia didnt feel threatened by Iraq because they had been in bed with them for so long? Maybe they felt that Saddam was only a threat to the US. And make no mistake, France didnt want to lift sanctions either. They wanted to maintain the status quo wherein they could continue to benefit from the oil for food scam and selling prohibited weapons systems to the Iraqis. And again, as I said, France opposition was based primarily on the desire to diminish American influence on the global scene.

[anatta]

I agree with your analysis of global test. This is another scare tactic of the Bush campaign. "Kerry doctrine" my ass.

[vulturesrow]

Here is Max's "analysis".

[ QUOTE ]
What Kerry meant is that in the case of pre-emptive war the potential threat should be clear enough that most of the worlds nations will see our actions as credible. He is not saying that the UN has to vote on it

[/ QUOTE ]

So yes, Kerry believes we need world approval to conduct a preemptive mission. The forum where said approval is obtained is irrelevant IMO. What happens if Kerry were President and decided that we needed to make a preemptive strike somewhere and it didnt pass the global test? How many countries have to approve before it passed the Global Test? Could the Global Test be subverted by opposing US interests? I dunno, say a bomb in a train station in any country that voted yay on the Global Test?

I have confidence that Kerry has the intestinal fortitude to make a decision that would make other countries unhappy with us. The Global Test ridiculousness is more proof of that.

[ QUOTE ]
This is another scare tactic of the Bush campaign. "Kerry doctrine" my ass.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kerry was the one who said we needed to pass a global test, not Bush. And if Kerry says it will be his modus operandi, is it false to say it is the "Kerry doctrine". Or are you paving the way for yet another Kerry flip flop?

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
So before the U.S. could undertake a preemptive war, the U.S. must prove to the world that the reasons are legitimate according to Kerry.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what he said.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

He never said that he would wait to take action when necessary. He said if the action is taken, then you had damned well be able to demonstrate that the action was necessary.

Sounds prudent to me.

[Beavis68]

You Kerry supporters totally ingore the fact that Kerry supported the war, as did Edwards. In-fact, Kerry was yacking about regime change in the late 90's.

All he is saying is that he would have done it better. There was no way to gain France's or Russia's support.

And only now that no WMD have been found does Kerry say that would we shouldn't have gone to war. But you can't have it both ways, you can't look the intellegence, make a decision and commit troops. Then say - well, we shouldn't have done this but we have to finish it now. That completely undermines the country and the war effort, and that is Kerry's MO - attack America and undermine the country's efforts.

He has no convictions what-so-ever.

And what was this crap about trying building coalitions like Kennedy and Reagan? Kennedy that got us into Vietnam without the UN? And Reagan that Kerry said led us through "8 years of moral darkness"? Bombed Libya against the wishes of Europe?

This guy will say anything! This would be like Bush standing up there and praising Clinton.

Kerry's policy is just this " Everything Bush does is wrong, and I will do it better"

Just how many troop does he think France and Germany have to spare? They only put 15,000 into Afgahnastan. Is he saying they aren't doing all they can there?

He has a history of attacking out country and our allies and trying to placate our enemies.

If we just give Iran the nuclear fuel, all will be good! Yeah, just like Clinton did in N Korea. We can't build nuclear power plants in the US, but we need to help Iran and N Korea with their's? INSANE.

[Analyst]

Jefferson, et. al., also felt that they needed to pass a "Global Test". Note the very beginning of the Declaration of Independence:

"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." (italics mine)

Not to get approval before taking action, but that any action should be ultimately justifiable, and I think (hope, actually) that was Kerry's point.

[sam h]

Mentioning a "global test" was a big gaffe on Kerry's part precisely because it opened him up to this sort of twisting of his position. It's pretty much the only thing the GOP can take from that debate.

[ QUOTE ]
The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike....But if and when you do it....

[/ QUOTE ]

But notice that he's not giving up this right by any means, and that the global test is used to refer to how you should best go about exercising this right.

The idea that Kerry wouldn't defend the nation without UN approval if he thought actions really needed to be taken is simply ludicrous.

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is Max's "analysis".

[ QUOTE ]
What Kerry meant is that in the case of pre-emptive war the potential threat should be clear enough that most of the worlds nations will see our actions as credible. He is not saying that the UN has to vote on it

[/ QUOTE ]

So yes, Kerry believes we need world approval to conduct a preemptive mission.

[/ QUOTE ]

How did you get that from my analysis?

We take pre-emptive steps all the time without world approval, but when it comes to all out war and regime change on a pre-emptive basis I think we should hold ourselves up to a very high standard.

[adios]

For seemingly simple question, you seem to want to duck the question. The question I posed is what is the process for passing the global test that Kerry referred to in his response during the debate. Kerry's statement is very clear and I reiterate the statement he made again:

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

KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.

No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations.

If you're going to use preemption according to Kerry you have to pass the global test. Again what is his process for doing that?

[adios]

So as I understand it you're stating that the process followed by Bush more or less is the process that Kerry would follow if Kerry decided that preemption was necessary except we don't know what Kerry would do if the U.N. Security Council disagreed with him. The criteria for preemption probably differs greatly between the candidates. We know what Bush's is but Kerry's isn't as clear but we can get a few good clues from what Kerry's stated on the stump. However, my question addressed the process for passing the "global test" not the criteria that would make preemption necessary. The criteria and the process are different subjects. The question stands and we really don't know whether or not Kerry would ignore a rejection by the Security Council if Kerry thought a preemptive war was necessary. Kerry ought to address this, at least someone should ask him i.e. if he's going to field questions about it.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
The criteria for preemption probably differs greatly between the candidates. We know what Bush's is

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know Bush's criteria for preemption. He has said that even knowing what we know today, going into Iraq was right. What criteria does that leave us with? Bad dictator? Doesn't abide by UN rules?

[adios]

So what you're stating is that the process is such that Kerry wouldn't necessarily go to the U.N. beforehand but after the fact he would have to lay out his evidence as to why he did such a thing and that evidence would have to be convincing enough that the vast majority of countries would see that it was necessary. I don't think that's what he meant though but I concede that it's possible.

[Nicholasp27]

take off ur conservative-colored glasses for a minute and listen to what he said

"No president, though 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"

"in ANY WAY"

what he's saying is that Bush went into this war for the wrong reasons...ones that aren't justifiable to us or the world...ones where colin has to now apologize...

he's saying that if he's gonna do a preemptive strike, he's gonna have a much better reason for it...one that others would agree with and that would need no apologizing for later...

[adios]

A long history of non compliance with U.N. resolutions to disarm and destroy weapons of mass destruction.

[sam h]

I don't think he's proposing a fixed kind of process for this. He's certainly not saying that you need UN approval or X level of support. He's saying in a more vague sense that you need to pursue international affairs in a way that appears credible to other key nations, and does not alienate them in the process, because the international problems of our time ultimately require multilateral solutions.

I think you can definitely criticize Kerry for being too vague here. Like many of his positions, it sounds good but there is not much of a substantive agenda behind the rhetoric. But I don't think you can twist his words to mean that he was proposing a concrete, and fairly high, bar for pre-emption such as security council approval.

As far as the sounding like a Bush campaign commercial bit: Personally, I think both campaigns are pretty much bent on winning at all costs no matter what it takes as far as twisting the other guy's position and words to make him look bad. We might have our partisan differences. But I think we could try a little bit harder on this board not to just repeat the rhetoric coming out of the campaigns. And I say that as a criticism of myself as well as others.

[elwoodblues]

So our preemption policy is that we will enforce the UN's resolutions (instead of having the UN do so.)

For an administration who places so little value on the UN it seems ironic that their pre-emption doctrine would be based entirely on a country's position with regard to the UN.

From your description of it, it sounds like Bush's preemption doctrine is much more in bed with the UN than Kerry's.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you can definitely criticize Kerry for being too vague here. Like many of his positions, it sounds good but there is not much of a substantive agenda behind the rhetoric. But I don't think you can twist his words to mean that he was proposing a concrete, and fairly high, bar for pre-emption such as security council approval.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it's not much different than the process Bush followed in actuality most likely.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
For an administration who places so little value on the UN it seems ironic that their pre-emption doctrine would be based entirely on a country's position with regard to the UN.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you draw the conclusion that Bush places little value on the UN? That's a subjective statement. Bush has gone to the UN more than once after the invasion of Iraq to try and get resolutions passed; to have his administration lay out their case for post war Iraq (Colin Powell) and Bush went to the UN himself to address that body on post war Iraq. He wants the UN to assisst in the upcoming Iraqi elections.

[ QUOTE ]
From your description of it, it sounds like Bush's preemption doctrine is much more in bed with the UN than Kerry's.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't speak for Kerry because I don't understand what his is but Bush's sure seems to be.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
So it's not much different than the process Bush followed in actuality most likely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, first I doubt that we would have attacked Iraq to begin with had Kerry, or Gore for that matter, won the presidency in 2000. Attacking Iraq was an option that was quite forcefully put on the table by the neo-cons and it seems unlikely that another administration would have pursued it, for better or for worse.

As far as the actual process goes, if Kerry had decided to attack Iraq I think he would have gone through many of the same steps as Bush but maybe a bit more slowly and with more tact. I don't think you would have seen the same sort of rhetoric about "old europe," for instance. Also, the fact is that Bush decided to attack Iraq about a year before the actual invasion and everything after that was just a very transparent series of procedural steps. I think Kerry might have kept his options open a bit more and made that more apparent to his allies.

[1111]

Kerry's global test statement is clearly in response to the Bush administrations handling of the war in Iraq. He is stating that the justifications that the Bush administration presented for war are weak at best, and ever changing...WMD's, links to Al-qaeda, nuclear threat, etc. No self respecting human could possibly believe the line that has been presented, although many do because most people lack intellectual integrity. But to the point, Kerry is simply stating that if we take a bold action, such as the invasion of another country, we need to have better reasons than we did this time. Your 'Kerry bowing to the whims of the UN' position is ridiculous. If you can't understand Kerry's position, there is nothing else I can tell you.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Kerry's global test statement is clearly in response to the Bush administrations handling of the war in Iraq. He is stating that the justifications that the Bush administration presented for war are weak at best, and ever changing...WMD's, links to Al-qaeda, nuclear threat, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again you obfuscate and I'll reiterate Kerry's statement:

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.

Again I'll ask the same questions since you haven't addressed them at all:

How would Kerry prove to the world that the reasons are legitimate? How would the Kerry process for proving to the world that the reasons are legitimate differ from the steps that Bush followed?

[ QUOTE ]
No self respecting human could possibly believe the line that has been presented, although many do because most people lack intellectual integrity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again you're changing the subject of what my post was about.

[ QUOTE ]
But to the point, Kerry is simply stating that if we take a bold action, such as the invasion of another country, we need to have better reasons than we did this time.

[/ QUOTE ]

No in the statement I cited he's clearly referring to a process. Again Bush's criteria for preemption and Kerry's criteria for preemption are almost certainly much different. What Kerry is describing in the statement I bolded is a process and that is not the same as the criteria.

[ QUOTE ]
Your 'Kerry bowing to the whims of the UN' position is ridiculous. If you can't understand Kerry's position, there is nothing else I can tell you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I posed the following question and made the following statement:

What is the Kerryp process for passing the "Global Test" if I'm misrepresenting it? It's really a very simple question that you failed to address.

You still haven't addressed the process Kerry is referring to and apparently you won't. If the Kerry position is so clear on what the process should be, why can't you even state one word about it? Some have pointed out that Kerry is stating that in the process of conducting a preemptive war, the U.S. doesn't need to reach any kind of consensus for a preemptive war before the fact with other countries, the U.S. only needs to prove to the world that the preemptive war was justified after the fact. I think that is truly a ridiculous position but Kerry's statement could be construed that way.

[1111]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Kerry's global test statement is clearly in response to the Bush administrations handling of the war in Iraq. He is stating that the justifications that the Bush administration presented for war are weak at best, and ever changing...WMD's, links to Al-qaeda, nuclear threat, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again you obfuscate and I'll reiterate Kerry's statement:

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.

Again I'll ask the same questions since you haven't addressed them at all:

How would Kerry prove to the world that the reasons are legitimate? How would the Kerry process for proving to the world that the reasons are legitimate differ from the steps that Bush followed?

[ QUOTE ]
No self respecting human could possibly believe the line that has been presented, although many do because most people lack intellectual integrity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again you're changing the subject of what my post was about.

[ QUOTE ]
But to the point, Kerry is simply stating that if we take a bold action, such as the invasion of another country, we need to have better reasons than we did this time.

[/ QUOTE ]

No in the statement I cited he's clearly referring to a process. Again Bush's criteria for preemption and Kerry's criteria for preemption are almost certainly much different. What Kerry is describing in the statement I bolded is a process and that is not the same as the criteria.

[ QUOTE ]
Your 'Kerry bowing to the whims of the UN' position is ridiculous. If you can't understand Kerry's position, there is nothing else I can tell you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I posed the following question and made the following statement:

What is the Kerryp process for passing the "Global Test" if I'm misrepresenting it? It's really a very simple question that you failed to address.

You still haven't addressed the process Kerry is referring to and apparently you won't. If the Kerry position is so clear on what the process should be, why can't you even state one word about it? Some have pointed out that Kerry is stating that in the process of conducting a preemptive war, the U.S. doesn't need to reach any kind of consensus for a preemptive war before the fact with other countries, the U.S. only needs to prove to the world that the preemptive war was justified after the fact. I think that is truly a ridiculous position but Kerry's statement could be construed that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

After reading my post and the one by Maxpower, I'd think you'd understand what the gist of Kerry's statement is. However, you do not, and I don't think you ever will. Good luck at the tables....

[anatta]

[ QUOTE ]
Kerry was the one who said we needed to pass a global test, not Bush. And if Kerry says it will be his modus operandi, is it false to say it is the "Kerry doctrine". Or are you paving the way for yet another Kerry flip flop?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Kerry Doctrine" my ass! Calling the need for a legitimate reason the Kerry Doctrine, is akin to calling going to War on wrong evidence the Bush Doctrine. The need to be correct before starting a War isn't the "Kerry Doctrine" it was the long standing policy of this Country, until Bush.

All Kerry is saying is that you need to make sure that your reasons for starting a War are legitimate. If you choose to invade a Country, you better have the intelligence correct. Notice after the statement, Kerry told the story where our ally said "the word of the US President is enough". Since our "evidence" has been proven wrong, Powell had to apologize, we are no longer in that position.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
After reading my post and the one by Maxpower, I'd think you'd understand what the gist of Kerry's statement is. However, you do not, and I don't think you ever will. Good luck at the tables....

[/ QUOTE ]

All you've done is state that Kerry's criteria for undertaking preemptive war are much different than Bush's criteria. You haven't mentioned one word about any sort of details as to what the Kerry process would be and I'm sure you never will because you choose to duck the question. Kerry's clearly alluding to a process and you don't want to address what that process is.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are completely misinterpreting what Kerry stated. Obviously the process of taking a proposal to the security council for a vote would not take place in a pre-emptive US attack. Kerry makes that point very clearly in the beginning of the excerpt. His main point is that we cannot attack without some sort of justification which the rest of the world can at least find semi-plausible, unlike our ever changing justification for the Iraq mess. I realize that many Americans feel we can do whatever the hell we want in foreign affairs, but the reality is, we do need to maintain strong alliances in order to maintain our enormous power. Kerry seems to understand this...Bush does not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh really? Watch what Kerry says about preemptive attacks with or without UN support on "this week" in 1998.

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/080304v1.wmv

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The criteria for preemption probably differs greatly between the candidates. We know what Bush's is

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know Bush's criteria for preemption. He has said that even knowing what we know today, going into Iraq was right. What criteria does that leave us with? Bad dictator? Doesn't abide by UN rules?

[/ QUOTE ]

Kerry said this too.

[1111]

I don't see why you are hung up on process. It is very clear -- we gave justifications for going to war, those justifications were erroneous and in some cases falacious, if Kerry were in charge, according to him anyway, that would not have been the case. Simple.

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you are completely misinterpreting what Kerry stated. Obviously the process of taking a proposal to the security council for a vote would not take place in a pre-emptive US attack. Kerry makes that point very clearly in the beginning of the excerpt. His main point is that we cannot attack without some sort of justification which the rest of the world can at least find semi-plausible, unlike our ever changing justification for the Iraq mess. I realize that many Americans feel we can do whatever the hell we want in foreign affairs, but the reality is, we do need to maintain strong alliances in order to maintain our enormous power. Kerry seems to understand this...Bush does not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh really? Watch what Kerry says about preemptive attacks with or without UN support on "this week" in 1998.

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/080304v1.wmv

[/ QUOTE ]

I just watched that clip and I don't see what you are talking about. He doesn't say anything about UN support on the "this week" clip. Elsewhere in the video he does say that he support unilateral action if necessary, but that does not imply that we don't need alliances or that we can do whatever the hell we want.

The funny thing about that video is it actually proves that Kerry is tough on national security and that his position has been consistent throughout.

By the way, Chris Matthews is pissed about the use of the clip where he asks Kerry if he is one of the anti-war candidates because they cut Kerry off after he said yes. If they had left in what he said after, it would be clear that he has been consistent in his views.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see why you are hung up on process.

[/ QUOTE ]

My original post was about process. If you have nothing to say about it why did you bother responding? If you want to discuss the reasons Bush went into Iraq then start your own thread about it.

[ QUOTE ]
It is very clear -- we gave justifications for going to war, those justifications were erroneous and in some cases falacious, if Kerry were in charge, according to him anyway, that would not have been the case. Simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I'm not addressing the Iraq war, I'm addressing Kerry's policy regarding preemptive war which is what the questioner in the debate asked him about. You apparently don't want to offer any of your insight into what Kerry's policy regarding preemption is and how he would go about implementing that policy. Thanks for playing though.

[1111]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see why you are hung up on process.

[/ QUOTE ]

My original post was about process. If you have nothing to say about it why did you bother responding? If you want to discuss the reasons Bush went into Iraq then start your own thread about it.

[ QUOTE ]
It is very clear -- we gave justifications for going to war, those justifications were erroneous and in some cases falacious, if Kerry were in charge, according to him anyway, that would not have been the case. Simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I'm not addressing the Iraq war, I'm addressing Kerry's policy regarding preemptive war which is what the questioner in the debate asked him about. You apparently don't want to offer any of your insight into what Kerry's policy regarding preemption is and how he would go about implementing that policy. Thanks for playing though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did answer your question Adios. Kerry's policy regarding preemptions is: the US would be able to provide legitimate reasoning to both it's own populace and the populace of the rest of the world as to why an offensive attack is necessary. That also, by the way, would encompass your beloved process, meaning we would be able to justify our actions in whichever forum is necessary, whether that be the UN, the press, polling, etc. I used Iraq as an example because it is obviously peritinent since Kerry is implying that the Bush administration did not provide legitimate reasons and jumped the gun on something that shoudld not be handled that way: human lives. Why Kerry's statement is so complicated and perplexing to people is beyond me. Also, I do not see any other way I can make these things more clear to you.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I did answer your question Adios. Kerry's policy regarding preemptions is: the US would be able to provide legitimate reasoning to both it's own populace and the populace of the rest of the world as to why an offensive attack is necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a policy statement which is more or less what Kerry made in the debate. You've repeated it here.

[ QUOTE ]
That also, by the way, would encompass your beloved process, meaning we would be able to justify our actions in whichever forum is necessary, whether that be the UN, the press, polling, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

You make a snide comment but my post was about process and again if you didn't care to comment on it why did you bother? Passing the "Global Test" seems to pertain to convincing other countries that you're justified so I think it's clear that the UN is the forum that's appropriate. You mentioned the U.N. are you stating that if it was necessary to take the U.S. case for preemptive action to the UN that Security Council would always agree that the action was justified and that no country with veto power would ever excercise a veto?

[Beavis68]

[ QUOTE ]
For seemingly simple question, you seem to want to duck the question. The question I posed is what is the process for passing the global test that Kerry referred to in his response during the debate. Kerry's statement is very clear and I reiterate the statement he made again:

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

KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.

No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations.

If you're going to use preemption according to Kerry you have to pass the global test. Again what is his process for doing that?

[/ QUOTE ]

And how is it any different than what Bush tried to do through the UN, how do you pass a test given by a corrupt group?

[Beavis68]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The criteria for preemption probably differs greatly between the candidates. We know what Bush's is

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know Bush's criteria for preemption. He has said that even knowing what we know today, going into Iraq was right. What criteria does that leave us with? Bad dictator? Doesn't abide by UN rules?

[/ QUOTE ]

What is he supposed to say? A "no" undermines the war, and a "yes" makes him look stubborn. HE should not have answered the question directly.

Of course, it is also possible that there is information that he has seen that he cannot or will not discuss(read the Secret History of the Iraq War)