I’m not criticizing Kerry with this, but might I gently point out that responding to criticisms that you’re forcing U.S. foreign policy to pass a “global test” with this:
“If you do things that are illegitimate in the eyes of the other people, it’s very hard to get them to share the burden and risk with you.”
…might not exactly quench the flames of criticism?
There’s a damn serious issue here about our relationships with other countries – and their relationships with us. It would be nice if we could have it in ways that didn’t involve inarticulate grunts and unscripted casual conversation.
He was doing wellwith the question until the moment he felt compelled to add that.
Interesting. So it has been easy to get others to share the burden and risk with us? The world does see our action as legitmate?
A.L.:
Have what? Is there something missing from the statement? Have a discussion on the “damn serious issue,” you mean? Isn’t the damn serious issue basically national sovereignty, and exactly how do we have that dialogue if national sovereignty is off the table? (Which it is, as long as just about all other nations on the globe are essentially non-Lockean.) Or are we entertaining angels unawares?
What exactly about the statement you quote is objectionable?
How about this as a possible response?
“The President isn’t criticizing me. He’s criticizing the signers of the Declaration of Independence. They proposed the first global test. They called it “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind.” The test is not whether other people like what we’re doing. It’s whether we’re doing it for reasons we’re prepared to explain to the world”.
“From Mark Kleinman”:http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/election_2004_/2004/10/jeffersons_global_test.php
I like “Juan Cole’s”:http://www.juancole.com/2004_10_01_juancole_archive.html#109683923557191808 take on the meaning of “global” in this context.
There hasn’t been a way of talking yet invented that would insulate Kerry from cherry picked pull-out criticism from the Republicans. To suggest otherwise is simply to ignore the problem.
I do think that these other quotes from this statement, which you ommited, actually make good strong points:
“They’re misleading Americans about what I said. What I said in the sentence preceding that was, ‘I will never cede America’s security to any institution or any other country.’ No one gets a veto over our security. No one.
“And if 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.”
I thought Cole’s analysis was over-parsing, but because it was impromptu speech, I’m inclined to give Kerry the benefit of the doubt.
But then, he follows up with the comment that suggests that others are the arbiter of what’s moral and immoral; “…if you do things that are illegitimate in the eyes…”
What do we do in a world where other nations decide that what’s legitimate is totally contrary not onloy to our interests but to our existence? Or do we trust them to that extent?
A.L.
AL – I give Kerry the benefit on that too: if you do things that are illegitimate on other people’s eyes you will have trouble getting them to help you do it. I am not sure I agree with the unstated premiss that we want or need their help, but I am sure that premiss was part of Kerry’s argument.
“What do we do in a world where other nations decide that what’s legitimate is totally contrary not onloy to our interests but to our existence? Or do we trust them to that extent?”
Well, since that world doesn’t exist and is not likely to with either Kerry or Bush, you have no worries I guess, pal.
VT –
You mean that other nations don’t decide on what’s legitimate contrary to our interests or existence?
A.L.
I don’t see what the problem is. It’s realpolitik at it’s heart. If you are going to want/need something from someone else any time in the foreseeable future, then you ought to consider their interests and beliefs as well as your own. Common sense. Why do you think Dubya goes so easy on Pakistan?
Yes, the “global test” piece is incomprehensible. I think Rice’s reaction is the most reasonable one:
“I heard Senator Kerry say that there was some kind of ‘global test’ that you ought to be able to pass to support preemption, and I don’t understand what that means,” Rice told CNN’s “Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer.”
Precisely.
Otoh, who cares? This is just words… the whole thing is a bunch of histrionics and nothing more than that. Suppose he’s right about the global test, now, it’s easy to say you’ll seek to pass it, but how do you actually do that? The French have already said, that while they’d be glad to see Kerry as the next US president, their policies won’t change by much. So. Plus, what he, or whoever says now, doesn’t mean he will do as he says. And what does he say to begin with? Now it’s “I’d approve the war even if I knew then what I know now”, the next day it’s “I see no reasons for that war.” It’s all just a bunch of theatrics to fill the airwaves with hot air.
A country is only going to do what is in it’s best interest. The Europeans are not interested in getting involved in the Middle East. They have much larger populations that are Islamic and they were not attacked. I think that they feel they are open to more attacks from within if they get involved. A current example is the current French hostages that are being held to change French Law that some Muslims don’t agree with. These countries will never join America against a Middle East country and they will continue to pacify the terrorist until the day comes when they are attacked. Then they will start crying NATO which at this point already means nothing.
Kerry must think he is a European!!
The United States of America will never pass a “Global Test” because just like every other country, America is Sovereign and will do what is in our best interest.
SBD
I don’t think the “Global Test” is an ideal topic to discuss with John F. Kerry. It was used by this slippery and shifting speaker in a debate where he said a lot of other things that were demonstrably false. Since it’s his phrase it can mean whatever he likes, or it can persist, like himself, in a quantum state indefinitely, meaning any, all or none of a variety of incompatible things. Bo-ring!
Bunker busters on the other hand are physical. You may think that they are an option that may be necessary and that the American President should have, or you may think that they are not legitimate and a program to build them should be cancelled. Build or don’t build, spend the money or don’t spend the money – this looks like a more hopeful place to seek what drunks might call “a moment of clarity.”
As soon as you get into the critical question of why certain options must be physically unavailable to the American President he’ll lose you again, but you had the pleasure of a definite statement in advance.
First,
“If you do things that are illegitimate in the eyes of the other people, it’s very hard to get them to share the burden and risk with you.”
Well, duh. And water is wet. The people who thought what we were doing was legitimate are in Iraq, sharing the burden and risk. On the other side we have France, Germany, Russia and various dictatorships, kleptocracies, thugocracies and commies (but I repeat myself).
I have another faux profound aphorism for the senator, you can be judged by the company you keep.
The reason I feel that quote is so bad is that we didn’t want or need France’s help. All we asked was for them to stop trying to stop us. He totally misses the whole point. The people who agreed with us are helping us, the people who disagreed with us hindered us. Actively. And theirs was not a principled opposition. They acted as our enemies and with our enemies while proclaiming themselves our allies and siphoning off money from a horrible dictator.
So a couple democracies, one used-to-be almost democracy and evil doers are supposed to be the litmus test for our self-interest?
The funny part is that a passing grade in Kerry’s ‘Global Test’ would be a failing grade in mine and vice versa.
Lost in this dissembing about the definition of “Global Test” is the fact that Bush has been out on the campaign trail since last Thursday baldy misrepresenting Kerry’s views on this issue, even inventing a new term to simplify his mockery of the issues.
The Kerry Doctrine, “Bush said”:http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/10/03/loc_bush03.html, is this: “That America has to pass a global test before we can use troops to defend ourselves. Senator Kerry’s approach to foreign policy would give foreign governments veto power over national security decisions.”
Since everyone who saw the Debate, and read A.L.’s link above, knows this is not what Kerry said, I ask those of you who support Bush why you would want a President who seems so willing to distort reality for political gain??? Try to answer this without reference to Kerry and you’ll win a prize.
VT,
Oh my! God forbid we should vote for any candidate that distorts another’s position. God knows no democrat would ever do that.
VT,
Oh my! God forbid we should vote for any candidate that distorts another’s position. God knows no Democrat would ever do that.
“I ask those of you who support Bush why you would want a President who seems so willing to distort reality for political gain??? Try to answer this without reference to Kerry and you’ll win a prize.”
Sorry, the best answer is to point to all the many distortions of reality in Kerry’s debate remarks. And that’s one more reason I am not voting for Kerry.
Kerry can shout from the rooftops “that is not what I said,” but it is the logical consequence of much of what he said and stands for. He said half a dozen other things in the debate that support giving other countries a referendum on our power. And everyone knows it, and the people who want him to win vote for him precisely because that’s what he stands for.
Sorry, don’t see anything wrong with what Bush said. I heard the debate. Kerry did say, but you have to do it in a way that….Had he stopped before the “but” he would have been fine. He would have been saying I will use preemptive action when I feel the situation warrants it. Period. However, that wouldn’t have appeased the part of his base who are opposed to the Iraq war or any war. It was another case of Kerry trying to have it both ways. It doesn’t fly.
Well, so far I count three (4?) responses that completely disregard my question and instead go on the attack against Kerry, as I unfortunately expected. Looks like no one is going to win the secret prize.
Yehudit, nothing in your linked reply points specifically to a willful distortion of a known fact by Kerry, only at worst campaign rhetoric or hyperbole. You think some guy offering “his opinion”:http://froggyruminations.blogspot.com/2004/09/doubling-special-ops.html that you cannot “snap your fingers and simply double the number of special ops forces” qualifies as an equivalent counter-example of a Kerry lie? Never mind Kerry never mentioned “snapping his fingers” or anything like it. There is a huge difference between Bush saying something completely counter to the debate record and this.
“Kerry can shout from the rooftops “that is not what I said,” but it is the logical consequence of much of what he said and stands for. “
He shouldn’t have to shout this from the rooftops, because 65 million people already know what he said! Get it? I guess what your saying here is that it doesn’t matter what he says, you’re just gonna’ believe whatever you want about him regardless.
Thank god for transcripts, eh?
VT, let me introduce you to my l’il frien’ Rhetoric.
Rhetoric has been around for quite some time, and tends to become more prominent at end-of-month auto sales and around the time of political elections.
I don’t believe that John Edwards is calling Roger Simon clinically insane, and I won’t ask you to defend his deceitfulness, because – simply – it isn’t there. We judge Rhetoric, and its kissin’ cousin Puffery by somewhat different standards.
But we do judge them, and we do so because they provide a small window into the nature, beliefs, and objects of review. In this case, they tell us something truthful about Bush (he’s not going to be terribly concerned what France thinks), about Kerry (he is going to be more concerned about what France thinks), and about you (you’re grasping at electoral straws here – can I beg for a return to discussion of issues?).
A.L.
That’s the thanks I get for breathing some life into a dying thread…
*laughing*
Vesicle Trafficker:
“Lost in this dissembing about the definition of “Global Test” is the fact that Bush has been out on the campaign trail since last Thursday baldy misrepresenting Kerry’s views on this issue…”
Not a groundless accusation, of course, but then, as an uninvolved observer, I don’t quite know what Kerry’s view on this issue is. Quite like Rice said: I don’t know what that means. He’s actually said two things as if they supported, or at least, did not contradict, each other, but they are mutually exclusive. Either this mysterious global test is a requirement or it isn’t, it can’t be both at once, you see. Which is it?
Remember, he said once: even if I had known at the time [right before the invasion] what I know now [which presumably weakened the case for it], I would have [still] authorized the invasion. OK. Next day he goes, “There are no reasons for this war that I know of”.
Huh?
You can’t misrepresent what Kerry says ’cause no one knows what it is. And what’s the deal with his hairdo? Is that something Freudian, has he been analyzed.