Reply #: You can either dismiss the language of multilateralism or accept it

[bigtree]

You have chosen to reject their call for internationalsm as token? Or do you reject internationalism out of hand? Because if you accept the premise of internationalism then you will be tasked with finding a successful method of achieving those goals.

This is more than "lip service paid to multilateralism":

"Reinvigorate America's strategic alliances: Democratic presidents have made America's strategic alliances a cornerstone of their foreign policy. Democrats still believe that our alliances are as important as ever. They intend not to abandon them, but to reorient them to new challenges by strengthening and reforming international institutions such as NATO, the United Nations, the international financial institutions, and the World Trade Organization."


As for "codifying Bush's policy of pre-emptive military action" the Democratic institute merely points up the obvious: They are not willing to cede authority to the U.N. over the deployment of U.S. troops. If our government decides that we are legitimately threatened and the U.N. Security Council collectively disagrees, where in our Constitution does it say that we should stand down? That authority should always originate with our own political system. Ultimate authority and responsibility still resides in the presidency, effective through loopholes in the War Powers Act that allows deployment of forces for up to 60 days without Congressional approval, subject to resolution and modification by Congress.

Also, the document that Kerry signed is a DLC document, notwithstanding the cooperation from the Progressive Policy Institute. He should not be held to the drift of tangential documents. There are reams of statements from Kerry on this.