http://homepage.mac.com/duffyb/nobush/iMovieTheater221.html

http://homepage.mac.com/duffyb/nobush/iMovieTheater222.html

And a week ago, Kerry promised that he would not hesitate to use force to defend America so long as the proposed action would pass a "global test" - i.e. would find approval with France.

Bill, you're as bad as the lying politicians politicians and Fox and hate radio. The above statement is not merely spin - it's a lie. Kerry did not say that. You owe your readers a correction, quoting exactly what Kerry did say.

"I'm an internationalist," Kerry told The Crimson in 1970. "I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."

Kerry said he wanted "to almost eliminate CIA activity. The CIA is fighting its own war in Laos and nobody seems to care."

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.

-----
Via LGF:

The United Nations is preparing the questions for John Kerry’s Global Test:

U.N. panel to frame guidelines on legality of pre-emptive strike.

Again wanting it both ways. If you just read the global test comment in full as you suggested, Al.

He set the bar so high, he won't do it.

Even the Breck Girl couldn't explain it.

Someone on Vodkapundit wrote he was in a bar and when Kerry said that, 3 people said, "French Test," IIRC, but I'm not pouring thru the postings.

Even better, he name-called - condescended - if you will the next day because the bien peasants(?)did not understand what he meant.

John Kerry, responding to his critics:

Sen. John Kerry on Monday lambasted as "pathetic" scaremongering, Republican criticism of his comments during last Thursday's debate in which he said the president's decision to go to war should pass a "global test" of legitimacy.
Asked during a town hall meeting in Hampton to explain what he meant, the Massachusetts senator said, "It's almost sad; it's certainly pathetic, because all they can do is grab a little phrase and try to play a game and scare Americans."

That's right - asking for clarification is "sad" and "pathetic." Somenbody ought to tell Kerry it's too soon to start acting like an invulnerable frontrunner

Read the speech then read Bill Whittle.

We would have been better off if France could have vetoed the war in Iraq. No gathering threat from WMD, no ties to Al Qaeda (see Rumsfeld), and a badly managed war (see Bremer) leaves us pretty bad off.

Oh well. Lets just call Kerry a flip-flopper and ignore the huge mistakes we've made.

I don't care what someone else said about Kerry. I care about what YOU said about Kerry. You said that Kerry stated a "global test" would require approval by France. And he did not say that.

To further prove my point, you stated that Kerry derided people who did what you did as scaremongering. I think that's an acurate statement.

The issue remains: you lied. You haven't admitted it and you haven't printed a correction or retraction or apology.

Oops! In my second post, I failed to notice that it was Sandy P that wrote about what others had stated, etc, not Bill.

Sorry.

Which would you rather have: a President that is willing to go 100% with his convictions to protect us or someone that has a "plan" that will not be divulged until if/when he wins the election? Has Bush done everything right? Probably not; however, I would rather have someone in office who is not afraid to do what he feels is the right thing rather than someone who is more apt to be tied up in semantical debate. kerry stated "global test", yes he did not name specific countries; however, given his track record, it is not very difficult to figure out what he meant. Then you have Edwards make nearly the same statement, except this time the parameters were changed. These guys cannot have it both ways. john kerry: wrong President, wrong time IMHO.

I would rather have someone in office who is not afraid to do what he feels is the right thing

I just posted on RedState about Nanci Pelosi, the ACLU, and the Bush administration wanting to gut the House 9/11 Bill of many of its most vital provisions in the fight for homeland security. Bush no doubt feels that he's doing the right thing in this case; however, it is clearly the wrong thing.

Likewise, many of the other decisions made by Bush might have been made from deep personal conviction, but they're also clearly wrong.

Also, I agree with Al Hedstrom's criticisms of the misrepresentations in spirit if not exactly in tone; my discussion of the global test is here and see also How you fail the global test.

Bill

You apparently do owe Al & Lonewacker an apology. Ya see, it's the Klingons, Stupid!

TomCom

***************
Kerry: American Foreign Policy Must Satisfy Extra-terrestrials

I don't know, the only thing I can suggest is that maybe this is a typo or something. CNN reports on how John Kerry tried to defend himself today against the charge that his "global test" would weaken American security:

[I]f they were honest enough to give America the full quote, which America heard, they would know that I'm never going to allow America's security to be outsourced. That's the job of the president.
But I can do a better job of protecting America's security because the test that I was talking about was a test of legitimacy, not just in the globe, but elsewhere.

"Not just in the globe, but elsewhere"?

It was bad enough when Kerry was deferring to the French. Now he's saying that we have to get the green light from space aliens before we can defend ourselves. Maybe he thinks Teresa can get in touch with them on our behalf.

Or maybe Kerry has no idea what the hell he's saying, most of the time.

Posted by Hindrocket at 07:16 PM |

Bill

You apparently do owe Al & Lonewacker an apology. Ya see, it's the Klingons, Stupid!

TomCom

***************
Kerry: American Foreign Policy Must Satisfy Extra-terrestrials

I don't know, the only thing I can suggest is that maybe this is a typo or something. CNN reports on how John Kerry tried to defend himself today against the charge that his "global test" would weaken American security:

[I]f they were honest enough to give America the full quote, which America heard, they would know that I'm never going to allow America's security to be outsourced. That's the job of the president.
But I can do a better job of protecting America's security because the test that I was talking about was a test of legitimacy, not just in the globe, but elsewhere.

"Not just in the globe, but elsewhere"?

It was bad enough when Kerry was deferring to the French. Now he's saying that we have to get the green light from space aliens before we can defend ourselves. Maybe he thinks Teresa can get in touch with them on our behalf.

Or maybe Kerry has no idea what the hell he's saying, most of the time.

Posted by Hindrocket at 07:16 PM |

What? A President who babbles incoherently and doesn't know what he is saying most of the time?

Unacceptable!

--and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.--

Just who is "the world" Al? Obviously I am pathetic because I can't understand the nuance of that phrase. And when a peon dares ask for clarification of his nuance, we are pathetic.

What torques you is that the meme is out there, "the world" = frogs. And since Cabana Boy's danced around the "allies" - not naming them - for a few months that he can get because the stature of the presidency can bring them to the table, some peasants have assumed frankenreich. Who else is there who is reasonably equipped? Oh, wait, that's in the plan he has but can't tell US until he becomes pres so it can't be picked apart. And when he does lose, we'll never know.

What happens if his reasons fail the "global test?" Which, since there's no USSR to rattle the frogs with, would fail just so they could stick it to US. Same premise as the ICC.

Congrats, the one worlder/ internationalist/tranzi is getting what he wants - UN guidelines. The original rogue nation has gone rogue again, and we just can't have that, might upset the alter of "stability." And graft. Might also make certain of our "allies" look impotent.

Got news for you, Al, and Cabana Boy, doesn't make me fearful he'd subsume The Constitution, it makes me pissed. He's a communist sympathizer and an appeaser and hasn't changed. In short, he's a zeropean.

----

Brennan - Bremer was discussing May 2003 - you know, the 4th ID which was on ships because the Turkish scullery maid was making eyes at the American grocer, so the frog prince made promises he didn't intend to keep?

Al, I won't apologize or offer a retraction because I stated my opinion of what Kerry meant by what he said.

He used the words "global test," non?

And then he said he would only take preemptive military action if "you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

I'm sorry, but that's a promise to refrain from action unless he believes he can convince "the world" that it is legit. But, wait. Which world? All nations? Then we'll never take military action. So perhaps he meant only some nations.

Which nations? If you parse his words over the past year you come to the inescapable conclusion that he means "France and Germany," our so-called "allies," and perhaps Russia and China.

Well, those countries will NEVER give their approval to our military action.

We have a coalition of 31 countries working with us in Iraq, including Iraq itself, and they've taken about a third of the casualties. (Another little fact that the Kerry-Breck Girl campaign glosses over, demeaning the sacrifice of the Iraqis who are dying for their country's future liberty by ignoring them.)

Kerry is an internationalist at heart, and anti-American military as well. Always has been. You have to read his quote IN THAT CONTEXT. And when you do, you know what the code words "global test" and "prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

In Kerry's mind there ARE no legitimate reasons for preemptive American military action until the enemy's missiles are on the launch pad, being fueled. And even then his instinct is to seek negotiations.

He even promises to cancel the one weapons program that would give us a way to destroy Iranian or North Korean nukes in their hardened underground bunkers before they get a chance to use them or pass them to terrorists (or, better yet, destroy the labs before they build bombs).

And by sening said message, cut us off at the knees. So more innocents will die because we'll have to work from above.

Via Instapundit:

...Saddam was convinced that the UN sanctions - which stopped him acquiring weapons - were on the brink of collapse and he bankrolled several foreign activists who were campaigning for their abolition. He personally approved every one.

To keep America at bay, he focusing on Russia, France and China - three of the five UN Security Council members with the power to veto war. Politicians, journalists and diplomats were all given lavish gifts and oil-for-food vouchers....

UPDATE: Reader Terry Gain emails: "So how do you pass the Global Test when those marking the test have been bribed to give you a failing mark?"

If sanctions had been lifted, it still would have taken years to get any functional WMDs up and running. In the mean time, we could have completed our duties in Afghanistan and focussed more of our troops efforts there without stretching our volunteer army to the breaking point.

Yes, and wouldn't it be a wonderful world if every President were issued a crystal ball at the inauguration ceremoney or at the very least had 20/20 foresight vision? Just because the truth is now known, that Saddam "pretended" he had WMD to appear to be the consumate Arab leader unafraid of the West's retribution, does not mitigate the world-wide conviction that he was a dangerous madman with the capability to do his enemies horrendous harm IMO. His devious behavior only served to confirm our worst fears. He was absolutely complicit in his own downfall. Foolish and dangerous man. I'm glad he is gone. After him came his sons, even more madness from his genetic legacy.

"In the mean time, we could have completed our duties in Afghanistan and focussed more of our troops efforts there without stretching our volunteer army to the breaking point".

Having seen both countries first hand, one has very little to do with the other. We did not need more troops in Afghanistan; if anything, we nearly had too many due to the conditions. We had to involve the NA heavily in order "to fight for what was theirs". Unfortunately, not all of the NA had what it takes to complete the mission. Afghanistan is unlike anything we have ever fought before. Imagine being in virtually any mountain range here in the United States. Double the rough terrain by at least 50%, but ad a maze network of caves that reach at least 850. Now find me bin Laden. Not that easy. At the same time, involve another force that you have only had time to train portions of for less than 8 months. OK, let's make it realy difficult, one of the NA division leaders is going to start moving slowly. Yep, you guessed it, he was the one we hard guarding 'the back door'. We could not realistically have brought 100,000+ troops into Afghanistan for several reasons and the principle reasons are we would have been sitting ducks and the NA would not have gone along with us. Now flash forward to Iraq. We had enough troops to get the job done (how many days did it take us to march on and take Baghdad?) Our largest mistake was not effectively getting the borders shut down; however, even if we had every active duty member of the US armed forces in country, the border was too vast to control 100%.

In addition to Toni's points, don't forget that we had no location to mobilize from in order to invade Afghanistan. Pakistan would not allow US forces to use it's territory in the build up process. Mushariff couldn't risk a civil war or military coup in his own country if he had ignored the anti-American sentiment among Pakistanis.

Brennan writes: If sanctions had been lifted, it still would have taken years to get any functional WMDs up and running.

Except... it's not so.

From the Iraq Survey Group's latest report:

Saddam asked in 1999 how long it would take to build a production line for CW [chemical weapons] agents, accordingto the former Minister of Military Industrialization. Huwaysh investigated and responded that experts could readily prepare a production line for mustard, which could be produced within six months. VX and Sarin production was more complicated and would take longer. Huwaysh relayed this answer to Saddam, who never requested follow-up information. An Iraqi CW expert separately estimated Iraq would require only a few days to start producing mustard—if it was prepared to sacrifice the production equipment. Imad Husayn ‘Ali Al ‘Ani, closely tied to Iraq’s VX program, alleged that Saddam had been looking for chemical weapons scientists in 2000 to begin production in a second location, according to reporting.

PowerLine has a much longer analysis. But the bottom line, Brennan, is that once Saddam managed to get sanctions lifted (and he was bribing the French and others in pursuit of that goal, and the sanctions were, in fact, crumbling) then he could have resumed WMD production in a short period of time. And with his known ties to Islamist terror groups, after 9/11 letting him produce WMDs and stay in power to use them was an insane risk.

--What? A President who babbles incoherently and doesn't know what he is saying most of the time?--

As long as "Go" is loud and clear, I don't care. Verbal communications in men is highly overrated.

Brennan? Years for WMD? Really? People and processes were in place, wouldn't take that long to purchase & set up equip for bioweapons, making can take weeks.

Talk to a chemist - search Rantburg's archives, explanations might be there. Or I guess, just read the report.

And keep in mind some of his chemists, IIRC, were assassinated right about the time of invasion.

I also want to add that Tony couldn't keep affording protecting Kurdistan, he has to pay for Britain's health care utopia. He wanted out.

Via LGF, Brennan:

How quickly could he have done this? We have an answer to this question too, because last month Saddam’s former nuclear chief, Mahdi Obeidi, wrote a piece for the New York Times saying that the Iraqi nuclear weapons programs could have been reconstituted within months.

Threat is always a matter of perception, but our nuclear program could have been reinstituted at the snap of Saddam Hussein’s fingers. The sanctions and the lucrative oil-for-food program had served as powerful deterrents, but world events - like Iran’s current efforts to step up its nuclear ambitions - might well have changed the situation.

Iraqi scientists had the knowledge and the designs needed to jumpstart the program if necessary. And there is no question that we could have done so very quickly. In the late 1980’s, we put together the most efficient covert nuclear program the world has ever seen. In about three years, we gained the ability to enrich uranium and nearly become a nuclear threat; we built an effective centrifuge from scratch, even though we started with no knowledge of centrifuge technology. Had Saddam Hussein ordered it and the world looked the other way, we might have shaved months if not years off our previous efforts.

---

So much for years, Brennan. There now or in the near future, doesn't change, we'd still have to go in, no one else other than the JOOOOSSSSSS would.

We're going to protect western civ in spite of the zeropeans.

“Well, those countries will NEVER give their approval to our military action.”

Perhaps not explicitly, but they indirectly approved of it when resolution 1441 was passed.

Man, who is that AL dude? If ya don't like the Blog, go somewhere else! Hobb does an exelent job and i fully commend him on his work. So, Al...this is from a pastor in Arizona, piss off!

Hunter -

I participate in this blog to piss off people like you. And it works. Now I feel better.

If you can't respond with logic, reason and facts, pastor, then your (alleged) professional credentials and credibility in a blog commentary don't pass muster.

Normally I skip through comments like yours, but I couldn't resist this time!

That's the best you can do, Al?

That's just....sad.

Hey, Al, dude

You don't piss me off at all. I'm mildly amused at the lame explanations you provide for what Kerry "really" said or what Kerry "really" meant. When your man is nuanced, it helps to have a translator. So keep at it, Al. We need the laughs.