posted
As you pointed out, Kerry said that 34 years ago. I would love a record of what Bush was saying 34 years ago.
Secondly, his world test thing is not the same, his position now is that the US can act unilaterally and at the prerogative of the President, but when it comes time to put the cards on the table we need to be holding good ones. Before his position was we needed approval before we went to war.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I must say I didn't watch the debates. I am tired of the two party system. Why weren't any of the other candidates invited to debate? Why can't we have several more debates allowing more of the candidates to participate?
Posts: 1132 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Out of interest, Ron, on your planet, is there any possible reality in which Kerry does not wind up exposed as a fraud, defeated handily, and derided by millions? Just asking. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Kerry's statement from 30 years ago is dead on. If people aren't attacking us, we should only be attacking them if the world agrees it is right - same as one person attacking another in the U.S.
However, Kerry's statement from 30 years ago bears no resemblence whatsoever to his policy today, or his record. He now states flat out that America does have the right to invade whomever it chooses whenever it chooses. He said that as recently as last night. His remark about the "global test" was referring to a standard of decent behavior that mankind as a whole has accepted in the past. It's a standard along the lines of saying you have to have proof your preemptive target is a real and immediate threat. This is "global" in the same way that the standard rules of war are global.
But to try to characterize that as claiming other nations get to decide when we have passed that test is a rather obvious misrepresentation, given Kerry has specifically rejected that idea during the campaign on multiple occassions and explained it during the debate as specifically not that.
Truthfully, I think he'd be a wiser leader if he did say we are bound to the U.N.'s decisions when it comes to preemptie strikes, because that is how it should be. But the fact remains he quite clearly did not say that, despite whatever words Republicans want to put in his mouth. It's clear enough that I think most average voters would immediately see through such attacks.
posted
Tom, stop putting smilies on the ends of your biting, acerbic posts. It removes power from your otherwise masterful writing.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In answer to your question, Tom, probably the only planet in which Kerry would not wind up exposed as a fraud, defeated handily, and derided by millions would be "Planet Hollywood."
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
