The "Global Test" Thing

[Plaid Adder]

I missed the "global test" moment during last Thursday's debate, but I heard the 'analysis' by an expert on NPR, during which they played a clip. It appeared to em that the 'expert,' and most of the people who have talked about this, are completely missing the point.

Basically, what Kerry said in that clip was that when you decide to use force to defend American interests you should be able to make a convincing case as to why you're doing it. By using the word "global" he managed to give Rove a way to confuse the issue, but it seems to me that what he was really talking about was passing the kind of "reasonable person test" that lawyers use to determine whether a line of argument is valid or not.

In other words, the issue is not "can we convince the world that what we're doing is OK," but "can we make sure that when we go to war we do it over a cause that any reasonable person would have to admit was legitimate."

Because this is the real problem with the Iraq war, though apparently nobody wants to admit that explicitly. It wasn't just that Bush is a legendarily bad diplomat and couldn't get anyone to sign on to anything no matter hwo hard he tried, although that certainly is true. The reason the Iraq war didn't get UN support or significant support from our major allies is that it was always clear to everyone who wasn't Bush that the invasion of Iraq was aggression and conquest, pure and simple. Sure, Bush bungled the diplomacy. But the main reason he couldn't convince our allies that going to war against Saddam Hussein was necessary was that it simply was not true.

What Kerry is really saying in that segment is that you should not go to war over reasons that are so clearly false and/or insufficient that they are impossible to explain or defend--not just to our allies, but to *anyone.* That is not the same thing as giving another country a veto.

Let us imagine, for instance, that the U.N. had existed at the time of Pearl Harbor, and that after the attack FDR had tried to get UN approval for a retaliatory strike. Would Germany have tried to block that? Sure. Would any American president refuse to strike back whether or not the UN security council ended up approving it? No. Would a retaliatory strike, even without UN approval, have passed the kind of "test" Kerry was talking about? Absolutely. Because in that situation, you have a clear and urgent reason to go to war that any rational person would understand.

In the end, it boils down to the simple principle that you only go to war when you have a good fucking reason to do it--and that the definition of "good fucking reason" is not "any piece of bullshit we can cook up," but rather, "a reason that would convince any rational person who looked at the situation objectively."

I don't know why it is so hard for people to get this.

Ah well,

The Plaid Adder

[rogerashton]

1. "A Decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind"

Remember that phrase from the Declaration of Independence? That's what Bush lacks -- and he is saying that the Founders were wrong to pay "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind."

Kerry and Jefferson!

[AndyTiedye]

2. Kerry Made it Clear that it's an "after the fact" sort of thing anyway

Failing such a "test" consistantly makes a nation an international
pariah state. At best, that's bad for business. You'd think the
wingers would have some understanding of that.

[ROakes1019]

3. Global Test

I thought at the time Kerry said it that he should have, and probably meant, that taking preemptive action should be justified as self-defense, that we were being attacked or on the verge of attack. That would have allowed him to say now that the latest Inspector report shows plainly that we were not on the verge of attack.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sick_of_Rethuggery]

8. You stole my thunder on DU!

This is what I have been telling my friends locally...

[Inland]

5. IN fact, he said the globat test was for the AMERICAN people

to prove to the AMERICAN people that all in all (global) it was a good thing to do. Geez, not exactly kowtowing to the UN is it?

[aden_nak]

6. If the war is legit, it will ALWAYS pass the "global test".

[BUSHOUT]

11. Exactly. n/t

[BUSHOUT]

7. I think it's less complicated than that.

Simply put, he defined a "global test" as being two things:

1. Americans will why you're doing what you're doing (when preempting)

2. Be able to prove to the world that you DID IT for legit reasons.

"DID IT" indicates past tense, so obviously this point would not hold up any neccessary preemptive action. If neccessary, Kerry would shoot first and explain to the world later. The point is he WOULD be able to show a legitimate reason for his preemption, unlike Bush has done after the fact.

If you look at Kerrys words, this is plainly what he says. It's there in black and white.

The way Bush and Cheney and Condi and crew have interpreted it was a gross mistake for them. People are paying closer attention to what's said, so spinning two words out of context is a dangerous move.

And by "spinning two words out of context", I mean LYING!

[CityHall]

9. Why was Hussein a pariah?

Because he invaded another country without a good reason. Bush1 laid out the principle, "This naked aggression will not stand." (Big Lebowski anyone?) If we want to keep the moral authority to tell dictators like Hussein that their naked aggression will not stand, we have to be willing to prove to the international community that we adher to higher standards. And that means that when you send the Secretary of State to the UN Security Council, he shouldn't have to apologize six months later for misleading them.

[Roland99]

10. It's not hard for people to get it...

it's that it plays well as a GOP soundbite talking point.

[ClassWarrior]

12. Yesterday someone said if we go to war for justified reasons...

...then we will always pass the "global test."

My thought is this. The US is the undisputed leader of the world - not just the "free world," whatever that used to be, but the world. A good leader, a principled leader always considers the repercussions of his or her actions on the led.

For instance, a Scoutmaster could lead his Troop off a cliff. But he won't. He applies the "boy test." He doesn't forfeit his authority over or responsibility to the boys. He doesn't give them "veto power" over his decisions. But he does consider what's right for them in making choices. And if he makes the right choices, he will always pass the "boy test."

23.

[liberal N proud]

13. If the rest of the world is against us then we are in trouble.

All they have to do is Call in their debts and/or come knocking with missles and ships.
We can not take on the whole world by our selves.

[skygazer]

14. Kerry's exact words

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.


Seems perfectly clear to me.

[The Stranger]

15. NPR (Neocon Public Relations) strikes again.

Their "expert" made Kerry's position seem to be that of Bush's by injecting the notion of consent where it never existed -- basically rewording Bush's lie about Kerry's position yet again and parroting the extremist Right Wing talking points lying about Kerry.

The "expert" was not truthful when asked what Kerry would do differently. In his speech, several times Kerry reiterated that he would hold a Summit among all powers to determine how to address a purported threat, and NPR (Neocon Public Relations) and their expert completely and misleadingly left this out of their report.

[yellowcanine]

16. The "global test" is CREDIBILITY. Without it we are cheneyed. Kerry

needs to find a way to say that. Bring up the Gulf War coalition and point out that "your father understood the benefits of obtaining the world's support before going to war and I applaud him for it."

[KharmaTrain]

17. Turkey Was A Real Turning Point

If you remember, this regime expected them to allow us to use them as a northern front and the Turks held firm about not allowing any military action to happen from their soil...including an entire U.S. division that was aboard ships and ready to launch from there. The Turks were even bribed and got the treatment from everyone BUT Crashcart and Bunnypants.

That surely had to tell the world this wasn't an imminent threat. Add to that the total silence from our "allies" Saudi Arabia and Egypt...who refused to participate in 2003 like they had in 1991.

Yes, flat out naked agression. A war of conquest and occupation.

Now...when will the focus turn to the profiteering and war-for-profit industrial complex that runs this war.

Yes, any reasonable people knows what Kerry meant...but we're dealing with a desperate cabal that needs deception and diversion to avoid being held truly accountable. They figured they could bullshit their way out of having to really answer questions and soundbite their way to victory.