The outcome of the debate could not have been more favorable for Kerry. That being said, the "global test" quote by Kerry will be hammered on by Bush & Co. for the next month. i instantly sank down in my chair the second that prase popped out of his mouth. After all the work Kerry has put in to dismissing the Repug claims about him being Kofi Annan's drinking buddy. What was he thinking? i know the context of the statement isn't near as damning but you can bet that is not how the repugs wil play it.
BUSH-CHENEY AD FACT CHECK: Global Test There’s a reason why the Bush campaign is putting up this completely false ad. They know the president failed to make his case across the stage with John Kerry at the debate. Now they’re flat out lying to try and repair the damage done. President Bush knows good and well that John Kerry said when it comes to America’s national security, he'll never give a veto to any other country. John Kerry will take any action necessary to protect the United States from immediate danger
THE FACTS:
AD TITLE: “Global Test” DATE: 10/2/04 TYPE: 30sec TV PAID FOR BY: Bush-Cheney ’04
BUSH-CHENEY CREDIBILITY GAP
VOICE OVER: “He said he'd attack terrorists who threaten America.”
THE FACTS ON JOHN KERRY’S RECORD
Kerry Will Never Hesitate To Use Military Force To Preempt Any Imminent Threat to America’s Security. “As president, I will never hesitate to use military force to pre-empt any imminent threat to our nations security. I will never give any country or any international institution a veto over our national security. I will use all of America's power to defeat terrorists before they strike us.”
Kerry Has Said He Would Launch Preemptive Strikes Against Terrorists. “Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Friday he would be willing to launch a pre-emptive strike against terrorists if he had adequate intelligence of a threat. Kerry offered some support for one of the most controversial aspects of President Bush's national security policy, even as he criticized the president for not reforming intelligence agencies after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. ‘Am I prepared as president to go get them before they get us if we locate them and have the sufficient intelligence? You bet I am,’ he said at a news conference at his Washington headquarters.”
Kerry: "The President Always Has The Right, And Always Has Had The Right For Preemptive Strike."
GEORGE BUSH’S RECORD OF FAILURE
GEORGE BUSH HAS DIVERTED CRITICAL RESOURCES FROM THE WAR ON TERROR.
§ Bush Failure to Focus On Capturing Bin Laden The “Gravest Error” In The War on Terror. The Bush administration itself concluded that Osama bin Laden was present during the battle for Tora Bora late last year and that failure to commit U.S. ground troops to hunt him was its gravest error in the war against al Qaeda, according to civilian and military officials with first-hand knowledge.
§ The Rush To War In Iraq Took The Pressure Off Of Bin Laden And Al Qaeda. In 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. The CIA, meanwhile, was stretched badly in its capacity to collect, translate and analyze information coming from Afghanistan. US Intelligence officials said that as much as half of the intelligence and special forces assets in Afghanistan and Pakistan were diverted to support the war in Iraq.
§ Bush Diverted “the Perfect Weapon” From the Hunt for Bin Laden to Iraq: Bush removed nearly all the Predator UAVs from Afghanistan in early 2002. According to a Senior Senate Intelligence Committee member, pulling the “perfect weapon” from Afghanistan for Iraq undermined the war against al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
BUSH OUT OF TOUCH WITH THE REALITY THAT KEY AL QAEDA TERRORISTS ELUDE CAPTURE THREE YEARS AFTER THE SEPTEMBER 11TH ATTACKS.
§ Bush’s Record of Failure: Three Years Later, Still No Ideas On Whereabouts Of Osama Bin Laden Or Ayman Al-Zawahiri. On the 3rd year anniversary of September 11th, Major General Eric Olsen, the commanding general of Combined Joint Task Forces in Afghanistan, told the Associated Press that the U.S. military has no ideas as to the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden nor his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, and that senior leaders of al Qaeda continue to direct attacks against Americans.
§ Bush So Out of Touch, He Claims To Have Wiped Out 3/4 Of Al Qaeda, Yet The Organization Is Resurging And Morphing. Despite Bush’s claims over the past several months that “much of Al Qaeda’s leadership has been killed or captured,” new evidence from Al Qaeda double-agent Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan’s computer, seized in Pakistan, shows that a “new generation of operatives… to be filling the vacuum created when leaders were killed or captured.” According to intelligence analysts, “Al Qaeda’s upper ranks are being filled by lower-ranking members and more recent recruits.” Al Qaeda is “more resilient than was previously understood and has sought to find replacements for operational commanders like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Walid Muhammad Salih bin Attash, known as Khallad, all of whom have been captured.” Although several major leaders have been captured, “the new operatives appear as committed to striking the U.S.”
BUSH-CHENEY CREDIBILITY GAP
VOICEOVER: “But at the debate, John Kerry said America must pass a ‘global test’ before we protect ourselves. The Kerry doctrine: A global test. So we must seek permission from foreign governments before protecting America?”
THE FACTS ON JOHN KERRY’S RECORD
John Kerry Will Take Any Action Necessary to Protect America And Will Never Give Another Country a Veto Over American Security – And Unlike Bush, Kerry Will Be Honest With America and the World About What He’s Doing and Why. John Kerry said that when it comes to America’s national security, he'll never give a veto to any other country. And he vowed to take any action necessary to protect the United States from immediate danger. But unlike Bush, Kerry will be honest with the American people and the world about what he is doing and why - the global test is not asking for a permission slip, but making sure that the decisions you make stand up to scrutiny and are backed by facts. John Kerry said that “no president through all of American history has ever ceded and nor would I the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got 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 has a Realistic Plan to Get Commitments of Troops and Resources from Allies, and the Leadership to Make it Happen. “The President should convene a summit meeting of the world’s major powers and Iraq’s neighbors, this week, in New York, where many leaders will attend the U.N. General Assembly. He should insist that they make good on that U.N. resolution. He should offer potential troop contributors specific, but critical roles, in training Iraqi security personnel and securing Iraq’s borders. He should give other countries a stake in Iraq’s future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq’s oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process.”
John Kerry Has the Strength and Conviction to Move Past Bush Failures, Bring Allies To Our Side. “We have to move our allies beyond the resentment they feel about the Bush administration's failed diplomacy so they can focus on their interest in fighting terrorism and promoting peace. The best way to do that is to vest friends and allies in Iraq's future,” Kerry said, by giving allies access to the multibillion-dollar reconstruction contracts and involving them in the reconstruction of Iraq's profitable oil industry in return for their forgiveness of Saddam Hussein’s multibillion-dollar debts to their countries and payment of their fair share of the reconstruction bill. John Kerry also called for a regional conference with Iraq's neighbors to secure a pledge to respect the nation’s borders and commit Iraq's leaders to provide clear protection for minorities; and for NATO to step up and accept a peacekeeping role in Iraq.
GEORGE BUSH’S RECORD OF FAILURE
GEORGE BUSH MISLED AMERICA ABOUT THE REASONS FOR WAR.
§ George Bush Said Saddam Hussein “Has Got Weapons of Mass Destruction” – But Inspectors, Outside Experts Say No Stockpiles Existed, and Powell and Blair Admit Errors. Bush said “The dictator of Iraq has got weapons of mass destruction.” But Weapons inspector David Kay said there “were no large stockpiles of WMD,” a conclusion agreed with by the new Duelfer report, which “finds no evidence that Iraq had begun any large-scale program for weapons production. Colin Powell said he was “not happy” that information he presented “turned out not to be accurate,” and Tony Blair says the evidence “turned out to be wrong.” Paul Wolfowitz later admitted that WMD was “settled on” as the cause for war because “everyone could agree on” it, not because it was the most compelling.
§ George Bush Said Iraq Had Ties to al Qaeda – But Experts Found Claim Was Inaccurate. Bush said “evidence … reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.” But the 9/11 Commission report said no “collaborative operational relationship” existed between Iraq and al Qaeda, and the Senate Intelligence Committee found no “established, formal” relationship. Dr. Jeffrey Record, a professor at the Air Force Air War College, called the conflation of Iraq and Al Qaeda “a strategic error of the first order.”
§ The Bush Administration Misled The Country on the Costs of War. The administration said that U.S. taxpayers would only have to spend $1.7 billion for Iraqi reconstruction, and Paul Wolfowitz called an estimate by retired Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Shinseki, who predicted several hundred thousand troops would be required to stabilize Iraq, “wildly off the mark.” Bush’s economic advisor Lawrence Lindsey was fired for saying the war could cost $200 billion. But the war is costing U.S. taxpayers $200 billion. GEORGE BUSH ALIENATED OUR ALLIES AND TOOK AMERICA TO WAR VIRTUALLY ALONE.
§ Bush Not Facing Reality That U.S., Britain, Australia Only Nations to Send Combat Troops for First Military Strike in Iraq. Besides the United States, which sent 250,000 combat troops to Iraq at the start of the war, “only Britain, with its 45,000 troops, planes and warships, and Australia, with its 2,000-strong phalanx of special forces, fighter planes and naval vessels, are offering up” combat troops.
§ Bush Refusing to Take Responsibility for Nearly 90 Percent Of Coalition Troops Being American. There are now 162,000 coalition troops in Iraq. 140,000 of those troops are American – nearly 90 percent.
§ Bush Refusing to Take Responsibility for U.S. Forces Bearing Nearly 90 Percent of Casualties. “There have been 1,198 coalition deaths, 1,059 Americans, 68 Britons, six Bulgarians, one Dane, two Dutch, one Estonian, one Hungarian, 19 Italians, one Latvian, 13 Poles, one Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and nine Ukrainians, in the war in Iraq as of October 1, 2004.”
§ Bush Not Facing Reality That Coalition Nations Withdrawing Troops from Iraq. Since the beginning of the war, eight countries are planning to or have already withdrawn troops from the coalition in Iraq: Thailand, Norway, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Nicaragua, Philippines, Singapore, and Spain. In all, nearly 3,000 troops have pulled out or planning to pull out of Iraq this month. Costa Rica, which never offered any material support or troops for the war in Iraq, asked the United States to remove it from a list of Iraq coalition partners in September after the country’s Constitutional Court ruled that inclusion on the list violated the Constitution, which bars support for any military action not authorized by the United Nations.
§ Bush Fractured Alliance With Schroeder In War on Terror. “The German Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, has expressed strong reservations about any military attack on Iraq. Mr Schroeder, a staunch US ally in the ‘war on terror,’ warned that such a move could destroy the international alliance set up following the 11 September attacks… ‘This war (on terror) is not yet won, so I warn against an attack on Iraq.’”
Ø Iraq War Damaged US-Mexico Friendship. “Fox has had to watch his stock plummet in Washington, where he was once feted as Bush’s cowboy-boot-wearing friend. But after Sept. 11, Bush turned his back on Fox’s immigration- reform ideas as a threat to U.S. border security. Mexico was all but forgotten in the U.S. — until late 2002, when the country opposed Bush’s Iraq war plan in the United Nations Security Council. Mexicans, whose foreign-policy attitudes are staunchly noninterventionist, applauded Fox — but Bush took it as a betrayal and virtually blacklisted the Mexican leader.”
I'm sure one of the town hall questions will ask it......Its not a bad statement. But it can be twisted and turned.
The repukes internal polling is obviously showing Kerry winning thats why their taking the one thing they can out of that debate and going on a major offensive
I think what Kerry meant was a "universal test" in that if a threat is imminent the US has a clear right to act preemptively and if needed unilaterally (though if the threat is imminent it should be unecessary to act unilaterally). Overall though I don't think it will have much of an effect. Kerry really did crush Bush. That's mainly what people remember. He was calm, confident, and was very wise and informed of the issues.
He also made it clear that he would give no country a veto over American security.
...doesn't have a damned good reason to do it - they're in real trouble no matter how Karl Rove wants to spin it. After all, look at what's happening to America.
Here's the context for the so-called "global test" The 'test' isn't whether or not we should take pre-emptive action, it is whether or not the rationale for that action will stand up to scrutiny; dometstic as well as abroad. It's whether or not we are lying about the reasons for the action-- not whether or not we're "allowed" to do it.
Let's put it this way. The "global test" is like a test to see if the meat is rotten once you've bought it.. not whether or not you should go to the store.
Here's the context:
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.
KERRY: I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, "Here, let me show you the photos." And DeGaulle waved them off and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me."
How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we've done, in that way? So what is at test here is the credibility of the United States of America and how we lead the world. And Iran and Iraq are now more dangerous -- Iran and North Korea are now more dangerous.
that even though Kerry said the "global test", I was certain he was wanting to say smell test, but could not use such an earthy metaphor regarding the run-up to the war. Even still, he's absolutely correct on the global test verbage anyway, as above posters have noted.
17. Kerry campaign needs to not let this sit unanswered. I think they know it
"Global test" is another word for the "legitimacy"--the legitimacy which comes from the American people, along with our global allies, being able to trust the word of the president--something Bush and Cheney have forever squandered.
Bush/Cheney have proved that it is incredibly stupid to go it alone in Iraq. The U.S. is bearing 90% of the costs of this war, approaching $200 billion, and 90% of the casualties, now over 1000--let alone the over 7,000 injured, many greviously.
As John Kerry said long ago, "The United States should never go to war because it wants to, only when it has to." George Bush has utterly failed that "credibility test" by misleading this nation to an unnecessary war.
24. If JK said "blue sky" or "chocolate chip cookies" the RW media
would not do anything to correct *'s lies about what Kerry actually said.
The Republicans will distort ANYTHING he says--or make up something altogether. If we had a functioning media in this country, they'd be called on it. But we don't. Kerry can't let that keep him from saying what he wants to say. He and Edwards will just have to take their opportunities in the debates to point out the lies.
To me, Kerry's deportment and skills turned the tide. That is, he steered the boat to issues while Bush was still on his slur tirade.
I strongly feel that the Bush campaign is rapidly losing momentum with their attack stategy. If they keep up with the vacuous attacks and nitpicking aimed at Kerry, they wear their own strategy out and it turns against them. People bore easily and too much of something becomes annoying and starts to lose its punch.
What might have been seen by some as credulous from an Incumbent,(especially by people who are not well-versed on Bush's true, overall record) is now backfiring.
I am glad we have a new direction instigated now! Even though it is late in the game, I feel the debate worked to finally shift focus on issues.
Can Bush/Rove succeed when forced to rely primarily on essential issues, or will they "stay the course"? ;) That is, when they have a failed Administration with a demonstrably poor record and an increasingly chaotic situation at home and abroad?
26. You're wasting your breath -- most DU'ers just don't get it
I posted almost immediately when I heard Kerry utter these words. And I agree, it was an incredibly stupid comment. The test for whether you engage in preemptive war is NOT whether the global community agrees with you. It's whether you have solid evidence that the target poses an IMMINENT threat to the U.S.. That's all Kerry needed to say. No matter how you look at it, the CIA reports did not show Iraq to be an imminent threat. A potential threat if left unchecked, sure, but not an imminent threat.
28. Frankly,as a non-American, I welcome the conciliatory, honest
Edited on Sat Oct-02-04 08:04 PM by Iceburg
and wise tone set by Kerry. He understands that as president he has a huge job ahead of him to regain the trust of both Americans and non-Americans alike. Bush has squandered the trust when he misled his country and others into a pre-emptive strike and invasion of Iraq.
In the debate, Kerry does not cede America's right for a preemptive strike but does acknowledge that the reasons for strike must be understood by both Americans and non-Americans alike: the stakeholders will know what the intention is, why it is necessary, and will be offered "legitimate" proof prior to a strike.
----------------------------------------- From the transcript ...
LEHRER: New question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry. 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, 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.
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. I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, "Here, let me show you the photos." And DeGaulle waved them off and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me."
How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we've done, in that way? So what is at test here is the credibility of the United States of America and how we lead the world. And Iran and Iraq are now more dangerous -- Iran and North Korea are now more dangerous.
Now, whether preemption is ultimately what has to happen, I don't know yet. But I'll tell you this: As president, I'll never take my eye off that ball. I've been fighting for proliferation the entire time -- anti-proliferation the entire time I've been in the Congress. And we've watched this president actually turn away from some of the treaties that were on the table.
You don't help yourself with other nations when you turn away from the global warming treaty, for instance, or when you refuse to deal at length with the United Nations. You have to earn that respect. And I think we have a lot of earning back to do.
The president always has the right and always has had the right for pre-emptive 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 through all of American history has ever ceded and nor would I the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got 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.
This is where he uses the phrase "global test" Bush is lying and lying and lying. When I saw him say that the day after the debate I started throwing stuff at tahe TV
I think he made a bold stand and that we do need to consider global ramifications before we rush into a war. What is wrong with saying that? I am sure that people from countries all over the world were very pleased to hear that we will soon have a more responsible and responsive president in the white house.
35. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, we went to war with them
When one country invades another on its own whim, the world will react.
Does President Bush believe that any country in the world has the right to invade another couuntry when it decides to? If not, who is to decide when such action is justified? Mustn't there be some consensus that an invasion is justified? Those are the questions I would pose to rebut this ridiculous crap.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.