Entry: Who Grades John Kerry's Global Test? Monday, October 04, 2004



"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."
- John Kerry, 30 September 2004

According to John Kerry, the United States has the "right" to launch a preemptive strike on an enemy, yet we "have to" do it in a way that meets international approval afterwards. That's not a right -- that's tentative permission pending a review board, with hell to pay if they conclude you made a wrong decision. Under those conditions, we would hardly be able to act at all, hamstrung by the need to please other countries, none of which would place our interests above their own. If we don't act to protect and even advance our own interests, no one else will, unless the action happens to be in their interest as well. No proposal or threat by the United States would ever be taken seriously again; fear of disapproval by "the world" would keep us on a tight leash. This is the stuff of which Liberal dreams are made, of course.

John Kerry specifically spoke of a "global test" that America needs to pass whenever we defend ourselves proactively. According to him, we have to prove that we acted "for legitimate reasons" in the estimation of "the world." Does he mean that every other country must always agree with our actions, or only certain countries -- and if so, which countries? Who, precisely, gets to grade this test? What if even one of those countries disagrees with us -- should we not act at all, even if America's leaders deem action necessary? Since when is "the world" anything like a single body of stern, yet wise and fair elders (as opposed to a squabbling group of selfish children)? Who are these wise elders we need to report to, and what gives them any right to judge us? America's actions are to be judged by the American people alone; our leaders are accountable to us before anyone else.

It seems that Kerry has held the same position his entire political career on one issue, after all. His statement about a global test is in lockstep with his 1970 declaration to the Harvard Crimson that he'd "like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations." Kerry's insistence that he only voted to give President Bush the authority to go to the United Nations to discuss Iraq, not to use military force against Iraq, is also in line with this idea that America must never deploy troops outside our borders without international approval. "The vote for authorization is interpreted by a lot of people as a vote to go to war," Kerry told the Washington Times in September 2004. "It wasn't a vote to go that day. It was a vote to go through the process of going to the U.N., building the allies and then making a judgment of whether we had to go." President Bush did, in fact, do all of this... even giving Saddam three months longer than the UN specified before imposing "serious consequences" for Iraq's non-compliance. The bill on which Kerry voted Yes in October 2002, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq (Public Law 107-243), contains no provision that UN approval must be sought before using that force. It should be noted that the Authorization contained in a single document every one of the reasons the Bush administration has ever given for using military force against Iraq, which proves Kerry's claim that President Bush changed the rationale for war in Iraq after the fact to be a lie.

Kerry's position on international approval for US foreign policy decisions also explains why Kerry constantly pressed President Bush to give the UN more authority in Iraq, even after the UN abandoned the country when Sergio De Mello, the UN envoy to Iraq, was killed in a terrorist attack. Hans Von Sponeck, a former administrator for the UN oil-for-food program that had been hopelessly corrupted by Saddam, used the pullout as a demand for more UN power over Iraq. "Having lost the ability to improve the security situation for the time being, the US must now concede in the Security Council immediate responsibility on authority to the United Nations," Von Sponeck told Radio Netherlands in September 2003. In April 2004, Senator Kerry complained on 'Meet the Press' that President Bush "won’t transfer to the U.N. the real authority for determining how the government emerges, how we will do the reconstruction of Iraq."

"I'm an internationalist," John Kerry told the Harvard Crimson over thirty years ago, and certainly seems to have been faithful to that doctrine, if few others. That may be a qualification for Secretary-General of the United Nations, but not for President of the United States, to whom the welfare of the United States must always -- always -- come first.
   11 comments

Angry Dog
October 4, 2004   10:23 AM PDT
 
I think what Kerry says and what he means to say is two different things. He is obviously being pulled in so many directions by his own party that he has no idea where HE, himself stands! Bush on the other hand, says what he says because it would be unlike a President to say what he FEELS. You can see it in his eyes that his four-letter vocabulary is boiling to the surface. It's really funny to watch him get P'd off! Cavalier, you know how I feel. David Duke for President! :-P
JM
October 4, 2004   10:59 AM PDT
 
Maybe you'll get lucky and the Democrats will put him on the ticket in '08. You know Bobby Byrd would love that!
Angry Dog
October 4, 2004   11:35 AM PDT
 
Perhaps David Duke would choose Rev. Al Sharpton as his running mate. <vbg.> I can hear the reporters now! ... "And here comes the new President of the United States. Waving to the crowd while he rides in the new, white presidential limousine. Oh and look, the vice president is beging dragged behind him, ala James Byrd. Oh, that kooky Duke! Ha Ha Ha." :-D
JM
October 4, 2004   12:00 PM PDT
 
I think you ought to adopt a motto on your site. "He's not just Angry... he's MAD!"
Jamie
October 4, 2004   09:51 PM PDT
 
Kerry is obviously referring to going to the U.N. every time for the "global test". We do that now and it doesn't work. Isn't that what happens every time when we go to the U.N. Security Counsel about anything? And it seems that we fail that test every time no matter who is president.
Jamie
October 4, 2004   09:52 PM PDT
 

Oh, and btw, here is another U.N. activity that is way out of control

http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/dec_m.htm

Reuters reports the Gillerman letter contains documentation that Hamas is using UN ambulances to smuggle arms and terrorists through the Gaza Strip.

15 months ago, the Hamas terror organization won more than 90% of the vote to run the UNRWA workers union in the UNRWA Arab refugee camps in Gaza. The salaries of UNRWA workers are paid through contributions that UNRWA receives from 38 contributing countries. The U.S. provides 30% of that budget, Canada contributes 4% of that budget, and the European countries contribute well over 55% of that budget
Jamie
October 4, 2004   10:29 PM PDT
 
Take the Global Test here -

http://transterrestrial.com/scripts/globaltest/
Angry Dog
October 5, 2004   03:31 PM PDT
 
IF we could manage to get France out of the U.N. I would agree more with "involving" them in the War and its spoils. There are countries in the U.N. that are fighting by our side. But, it's that one frog pond of a country that really burns my britches! Eliminate them from the U.N. and alienate them from EVERYTHING! I mean, what can they do? Threaten to lose a war against us? Threaten us with Canada? Put the Frogs in the basement and keep them there!!!
Jamie
October 5, 2004   03:57 PM PDT
 
It isn't just France. This article in NRO - http://tinyurl.com/3hswc - has comments of various "leaders" from around the world.

For example:

On terrorism:
President of Algeria, Abdelaziz Bouteflika: "[T]errorism...excludes the legitimate struggle of peoples against foreign occupation."

Deputy Prime Minister of Lebanon, Issam Fares: " National liberation is legitimate, terrorism is reprehensible."

On identifying the villains:
- Foreign Minister of Iran, Kamal Kharrazi: " Israel...[is] the single greatest threat to regional and global peace and security."


Its hopeless.
Ralph
October 13, 2004   01:16 PM PDT
 
C'mon guys, stop being intellectually dishonest regarding the global test comment. You know it isn't about asking permission of our allies.

You know this but yet you still ridicule it for the sake of having a usable sound bite or talking point to attack Kerry.

The premise behind passing the global test is at minimum these three points.

1) A leader has to elicit the support of his allies in determining whether to pursue a given course of action. He must consider if his ally is able to assist in any way. He must consider whether this course of action will put his ally in a difficult position with its constituents or its neighbors. That's called being a good friend and ally.

If the matter is of supreme import to the security of the USA or its National Interest the leader should still consider alliance building, if time permits before a required response; or if time does not permit, pursue a unilateral course of action.

2) If a leader chooses not to elicit the support of his allies or takes action against his ally’s wishes, he must consider that his allies may be less willing to assist in the future.

It is easy to say who needs our allies; we can do it on our own. We have limits. Our economy has limits. The economic burdens of unilateral action cannot be dismissed as trivial. Today Iraq, what if tomorrow Syria? We should seek to spread the burden when possible, otherwise we cannot complain as taxes go up in the future when our children - all grown up, have to pay for our decisions in the present.

3) This point considers the Doctrine of Preemptive Action. Which as Kerry noted, has always been an option for a President. It was an option in World War II but we chose not to get involved until attacked. We tried to preempt Soviet Hegemony and were involved in Korea and Vietnam; and this without and attack on US land.

We must be careful, especially now in this nuclear age, when taking unilateral action in waging war on foreign soil.

We must give good, sound, solid reasons for attacking, such as:

a) In response to attacks on US lands
b) In response to an attack on an ally in which a treaty alliance calls for our support.
c) As a response for a country’s support to a group, organization, or country currently at war with us. Even if the country we attacked has not outwardly acknowledge support for our foe.

Point c) must be based GOOD intelligence data. Not the kind that Powell presented before the UN. Powell's attempt, now regarded as failed and filled with questionable proof, has brought the burden of proof to a higher level. Our current leader cannot be taken at his word. Other world leaders are less willing to go against the sentiment of their people in our aid without our meeting this higher standard of proof. Less help in the future means more cost for the USA. Forget Iraq, as it is a done deal. What about the next war.

Can we continue to go it alone?

Bush says we had a coalition in Iraq. The USA, Great Britain and Australia. Yes they provided the troops. For that we are thankful. But we bore and continue to bear the burden of the expense.

In addition, the use of the doctrine of preemptive strikes in situations where even our allies feel it may not be warranted allows for other countries to utilize the same doctrine without fear of global castigation or physical response. Especially when our hands are tied in Iraq.

Now I know some will say we can't worry about what other will do as "We will do what good for us and they will do what goods for them".
I want other countries to know that if other countries use preemptive action they will be held to a global test. They will be held to a US test. If their action is not defensible then the world will come down on them and so will the US.
We came to the aid of Kuwait when Iraq could not defend its action prior to the first Gulf War. It was the World against Iraq.

Let us now go back and recover from Bush's error's in Iraq and continue forth with the war against terrorists.

Not our war against the terrorists, but the Global war against terrorists.

The world takes its lead from the United States.

For that we need a good leader.

We need John Kerry.
JM
October 13, 2004   01:35 PM PDT
 
Wow, talk about being intellectually dishonest! We have never "gone it alone," nor are we now. It cracks me up how Liberals insist that the presence of French troops somehow makes any war legitimate. We have always borne the lion's share of expense in any war, even those like the first Gulf War, in which we gave concessions and low-interest loans to other countries to entice them to join. Better to spend that money on bullets... unless John Kerry doesn't feel the troops need any. The only test any American action must pass is approval by the American people. We have never nor will we ever do anything we don't deem necessary for some reason, and if Liberals refuse to hear those explanations it's their own problem. If bought-off countries like France don't like it they can get the UN to pass a resolution against us. No one else would enforce it but us and our true allies, anyway. Thanks for trying to defend those corrupt nations that sold their souls to Saddam for oil. Nice job.

Leave a Comment:

Name


Homepage (optional)


Comments