BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

Kerry takes the Global Test; Bush fails him

46 comments on Kerry takes the Global Test; Bush fails him

globaltest_1001.jpgKerry takes the Global Test; Bush fails him

: I knew that Bush would waste no time rubbing Kerry’s generous nose in the concept of a “global test.” The Bush campaign just released a new commercial. My transcription:

:He said he’s attack terrorists who threaten America. 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? So America will be forced to wait while threats gather? President Bush believes decisions about protecting America should be made in the Oval Office, not foreign capitols.

I could call that restrained. I’m half surprised they didn’t paste up a picture of Jacques Chirac and call him Kerry’s boss.

Meanwhile, on Kerry’s site, his followup to the debate on this topic:

The threat of terrorism demands alliances on a global scale – to utilize every available resource to get the terrorists before they can strike at us. As president, John Kerry will lead a coalition of the able – because no force on earth is more able than the United States and its allies.

What the heck does that mean? The able are able? Get this man an adman.

: UPDATE: I’m watching Bill Maher’s show on rerun. He thinks Bush was no worse than he ever is and that Kerry was too nice. “John Kerry’s position on the war is ‘foreigners like me better.’”

Tucker Carlson says: “I’m not convinced that all people want freedom as much as we think they want it.”

Now that is the opinion of a guy in a bow tie.

: Next Carlson says that a reporter has the right to report the “truth” even if it endangers troops.

Bow tie’s tied too damned tight.

46 responses to “Kerry takes the Global Test; Bush fails him”

  1. Faramin Avatar
    Faramin

    ….generous nose in the concept of a “global test”?
    You mean respecting the international law? You mean not considering the world as a jungle in which the more powerful can tear apart the weaker ones?
    A failure should not have the right to fail others, and Bush has been a failure eversince he began his pathetic existance.
    He is nothing but a puppet of other gang members in his so-called team. He has no substance. He is just not smart enough to be anybody with real influence; He is only influenced.

  2. Brett Avatar
    Brett

    Jeff,
    Thanks for the link to the new commercial. I’d like to hear more from Kerry as to how he defines this “global test.” Unfortunately, his first response doesn’t elaborate on this.
    That response is also a finger in the eye to our allies in the war on terror. It suggests that Kerry will lead “a coalition of the able,” as though the current coalition is not able, but rather “coerced and bribed” and small in number/contribution.
    If he keeps talking like this, any test that he might self-impose on the US will only become harder for us to pass, which is not something that we need in our efforts to protect ourselves.

  3. Kat Avatar
    Kat

    I took the test and failed it too.
    http://transterrestrial.com/scripts/globaltest/

  4. jeff lang Avatar
    jeff lang

    I’m not surprised that BC04 is trying to make hay by removing from context and twisiting beyond all recognition the term “global test”. I am surprised that Jeff, someone I trust and respect, is triping on it.
    I just went back and read the transcript of the debate, here is the offending paragraph:
    But if and when you do it(attack pre-emptively), 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.
    Ok, yeah, the guy said global test. If I was writing his stuff I wouldn’t have used those words. It’s precisely the turn of phrase that the attack weasels jump all over – whoever wrote that should get spanked. But, poor choice of words or not he no way, no how said he was going to ask anyone’s “permission to protect America”
    Kerry essentially said this:
    “Look, we might have to attack pre-emptively and if we have to I will, but if we do, we should make sure that we can look ourselves in the mirror in the morning and not feel like global jackasses.”
    I think that if JK had said “it needs to pass the “be able to look ourselves in the mirror in the morning test” we wouldn’t be having this conversation, Jeff Jarvis wouldn’t be disappointed and the BCO4 would have to manufacture some other slime.

  5. Floyd McWilliams Avatar
    Floyd McWilliams

    You mean respecting the international law? You mean not considering the world as a jungle in which the more powerful can tear apart the weaker ones?
    Thus we see the workings of the mind of the pro-Baathist left: Saddam Hussein, who had power of life and death over tens of millions of people, is a weakling who needs loving care and protection. Poor little Saddam Hussein!

  6. Frank Martin Avatar
    Frank Martin

    The bowtie is the badge of the incompetant. Unless your name is “scooter” and youre on your way to Sears to get your annual family picture taken on the back of stuffed pony, leave the damn thing off.

  7. carsonfire Avatar
    carsonfire

    Tucker Carlson reminds me of hearing an interview with a reporter who did his damndest to leak Iraq battle plans out ahead of time. He was proud of what he did, he said, because he felt by doing so, he could stop the war. Who cares if he’s screwing the rest of us over and putting military lives in peril?
    Like Rather and his phony memos, this is the saga of people doing their damndest to subvert democracy. I can’t remember ever having cast my vote for Tucker Carlson, Dan Rather, or angry reporters on missions.

  8. shell Avatar
    shell

    The soundbite of Kerry saying he would give nuclear material to Iran would do more for Bush than jumping all over the “global test” gaffe.

  9. Rachel Avatar
    Rachel

    sounds like neither side has a clue on what to do in Iraq. And both sides pimped for the “invasion”. I’m voting for K., but he is no messiah, especially since he has to fight a Republican congress. And this will not be the last time the US will look like royal jackasses so we might as well take a deep breath and (finally) work together (as left, right, and other) to stabilize the ME and bring our soldiers home.
    Thank you…thank you very much.

  10. Faramin Avatar
    Faramin

    Floyd McWilliams,
    …the pro-Baathist left…
    You accuse me of being pro-baathist? just shows you have no clue who’s who.

  11. Michael Avatar
    Michael

    “The bowtie is the badge of the incompetant…”
    You mean incompetent.
    [/straigtening my bowtie]

  12. MaB Avatar
    MaB

    Jeff Lang,
    It’s important to add the first part of Kerry’s answer:
    “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, 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.”
    Anyone trying to nail Kerry on the the “global test” line and hinting that he thinks we need a “permission slip” from France is a pathetic liar.

  13. Walter E. Wallis Avatar
    Walter E. Wallis

    He said we had to pass a global test but we didn’t have to pass a global test – thank God you cleared that up!

  14. kat Avatar
    kat

    Asked what the Kerry Doctrine actually is, Holbrooke, in a conference call with reporters, replied: “There is no Kerry Doctrine.” This from his foreign adviser. I couldn’t have put it better myself.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2933-2004Oct2.html

  15. Captain America Avatar
    Captain America

    Floyd – You silly goose. Faramin loves ALL Islamic dictators and terrorists. Don’t sell our Persian friend short. Shame on you.

  16. Robert Brown Avatar
    Robert Brown

    Kerry is clearly trying to straddle a fence here. He said “global test” to signal his liberal base that they could trust him not to take military action without a UN resolution. Yet he is trying to sound tough for the Jeff Jarvis wing of the party.
    What does he really believe? My guess he will go along with the liberals if he gets elected.

  17. carsonfire Avatar
    carsonfire

    Kerry apparently is a better liar than anyone gave him credit for. The line that MaB quotes to debunk Kerry’s own words about “global test”:
    “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.”
    It’s important to remember that this was never *his* great doctrine throughout the Cold War. His great doctrine throughout the Cold War was to disarm and give away the store, just as he says he will do now in other parts of his debate message. Reagan’s great doctrine is one he fought tooth and nail, but invokes here in order to help himself win an election.
    Kerry apparently is just a different kind of liar than Clinton. Clinton was master of truth stretching and fibbing, but he was a consistent fibber; Kerry, who we had pegged as a more incompetent liar, is actually just a more brazen one. He knows that people who want to believe in him will hear what they want to hear, and that anything else he says that is contrary or discordant becomes ignorable white noise.
    This is why he invokes Reagan’s policies for the benefit of what Robert Brown calls the “Jeff Jarvis wing of the party”. Those who take this stuff seriously, and want to believe in a Democratic candidate, hear him saying all the right things… all that other unbelievable stuff he said must have been a hallucination — it has to be, it’s unbelievable.
    The far leftists/Deaniacs also hear the right things… disarming the US out of moral equivalency, submitting to world courts, etc… and, well… in a way, I think they’re more realistic than the “Jeff Jarvis wing”. They sit on their DU forum and tell each other the truth: Kerry is spoon feeding macho pablum to the rest of us so that he can win. Winning is all important, so they understand that lying to us “sheeple” is necessary in order to win.
    Wrong candidate at the wrong election at the wrong time.

  18. Alex Avatar
    Alex

    Bush Cheney, 2004
    “Who you gonna believe – me or your lying eyes?”

  19. jeff lang Avatar
    jeff lang

    Are you serious? You truly don’t get it? Are people really going to go on and on about this global test thing? You honestly believe that JK, or any American president, would shy away from just and necessary action because another government disagreed? That’s so much bull and I’m sure you know it. Would you accuse GHWB of needing to pass a global test?
    Why isn’t anyone twisting Bush’s “I try to keep a leash on them (his daughters)” quip during the debate. Why isn’t that some kind of signal to the Lyndie England wing of his party?
    Please! I expect more from us as Americans – shoot, as people.
    Where is the elder statesman telling people to pipe down and get on with the business of the people?

  20. Robert Brown Avatar
    Robert Brown

    jeff lang sez:
    “***Are you serious? You truly don’t get it? Are people really going to go on and on about this global test thing? You honestly believe that JK, or any American president, would shy away from just and necessary action because another government disagreed? That’s so much bull and I’m sure you know it. Would you accuse GHWB of needing to pass a global test?***”
    Yes, I think that Kerry is clearly saying that even though he thought that removing Sadaam from power was in the US best interest (which he didn’t), he would not have done it without passing the “global test”.
    Yes, GHWB got global approval to kick Sadaam out of Kuwait but did not have approval to remove him from power, so he did not. I’m not sure he really wanted to since I’m not sure he subscribes to the neo-con theory.

  21. Franky Avatar
    Franky

    “The Kerry Doctrine: A Global Test. So we must seek permission from foreign governments before protecting America?”
    You call this lie “restrained”?
    When did he say this?
    The important explanation of the “global test” is “you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.” I know that the Bush administration must get quite uncomfortable with phrases like “legitimate reasons”, but it seems weird anyone outside of the current White House would object to the “legitimate reasons” for a pre-emptive strike.

  22. Robert Brown Avatar
    Robert Brown

    Franky,
    The problem comes in the definition of “protecting America”. BC04 is clearly going to engage in hyperole as all campaigns do to make their point.
    Will removing Sadaam from power make the US safer in the long term? That is probably unknowable at this point in history. Some on the left would argue that invading Afghanastan did not really make us safer in the long run.
    What is clear is that Kerry will ot make these judgements without getting global approval.

  23. Kat Avatar
    Kat

    Well, let’s demand that muslims get global approval before they commit the next atrocity? I don’t think they’d find it difficult if it was against the US. After all Russia, China, and France did not even honor the sanctions against Saddam–they gave him billions so he could support terrorists and pursue WMD’s.
    Let’s make Sudan pass a global test –good place to start. And let’s put Russia, China and France in charge of stopping that genocide–they’ll get global approval. What are we waiting for? Too few have been genocided?

  24. Abu Qa'Qa Avatar
    Abu Qa’Qa

    Just what is this global test Kerry wants us to pass? Will it be published ahead of time? To whom do we submit it before execution? The UN, the ICC? the ACLU? Does the agreement have to be unanimous? If not which countries can veto it? If 50 countries agree and fifty-one disagree and the rest abstain, can we still do it? Since he wants the american people to agree to it as well, do we have a vote? How do we count it? Is it up to congress? Can we revise it if the preemption turns out bad?
    This entire exercise is BS fostered on the US public by the anti-war left. Jhengis John Kerry is a puppet of that movement.
    When will he sign the Form 180? What’s he hiding?
    Sorry I don’t have stronger feelings about it. If someone protests, I could just retract the entire screed and announce just like JFK, that I didn’t speak clearly enough about my vote on the 87 billion!

  25. carsonfire Avatar
    carsonfire

    The problem with “global test” is that, unlike Franky’s blathering about “legitimate reasons” (which we’ve had ample), we know that Kerry means that he wants to win approval of the old leftist allies. He won’t come right out and say that, because it would be scandalous to average Americans, and right wingers won’t say it because they don’t want to get tarred as McCarthyites.
    When Kerry and his troops talk about America losing credibility in the world, they mean that it has lost credibility with the world’s leftists, their global brethren. But unfortunately for us, those “allies” want a weaker, more leftist America, and that is precisely why we fear Kerry’s “global test”.

  26. Franky Avatar
    Franky

    Carsonfire,
    The blattering where I provide the exact meaning of what he meant, where as you indulge in “we know that” and then don’t provide any evidence for this, rather some bizarre UN/Communist/Leftist plot to overrun America with Kerry their puppet. Is that the blattering you meant?.
    Robert,
    I understand it is hyperbole, but doesn’t the entire process feel dirty to you? Are we really to be treated like children to be lied to by politicians of all vocations? It’s the contempt both political parties show us that really, really annoys.
    “Will removing Sadaam from power make the US safer in the long term?”
    I believe it has made us more exposed to a greater degree to further attacks, but kudos to you for even raising the question. In this infantile political atmosphere even to raise the question is tantamount to belonging to the “Saddam Fan Club”. I think you’ll agree that this is no environment for mature adults with a reading level above a 14-year old’s to discuss policy.
    I think you’re mistaken in your assessment of Kerry. In the end, no American president could turn away from a threat, regardless of what the rest of the world believes. Yes, the bar for proving the reasons for war (especially a pre-emptive war) are high, but then that is how it should be.

  27. Kat Avatar
    Kat

    {I think you’ll agree that this is no environment for mature adults with a reading level above a 14-year old’s to discuss policy. } Then pray tell us why YOU are here.
    {where I provide the exact meaning of what he meant, }Oh I forgot–you’re Kerry’s mind reader–the guy never knows himself what he meant, but kudos to you–you know EXACTLY what he meant–but is that before or after he changes his mind?

  28. carsonfire Avatar
    carsonfire

    Franky: Carsonfire,
    The blattering where I provide the exact meaning of what he meant,
    which was
    The important explanation of the “global test” is “you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.”
    That’s blathering. You cannot “prove” to the world anything, because there is no world court that holds hearings on “global tests”. It’s blather from Kerry, it’s blather from you. In that context, it’s meaningless.
    Franky goes on: where as you indulge in “we know that” and then don’t provide any evidence for this, rather some bizarre UN/Communist/Leftist plot to overrun America with Kerry their puppet. Is that the blattering you meant?.
    We know that Kerry is liberal and leftist because of Kerry’s RECORD. We know that he supports and seeks the approval of leftist governments and leftist officials because of his RECORD. His viewable, provable, readable, carved-in-stone RECORD. He isn’t just some phantom who appeared out of nowhere for this election. He’s got a long history, and we know what it is, now.
    And it’s real cute to accuse me of suggesting a “communist plot to overrun America”. That’s how right wingers are typically shut up on talking about these issues. No, I’m not referring to communists overrunning America, I’m referring to the existing pool of leftists (not communists) here trying to use the existence of pools of leftists abroad as evidence of world consensus that doesn’t necessarily exist and, even if it did exist, is not in the best interest of America or its defense.

  29. Franky Avatar
    Franky

    Kat, as humorous as I find your insanity, it’s not something I want to actively participate in.
    Carsonfire,
    Yes you can demonstrate a country is a threat to your security. Afghanistan was a threat because it harbored the people who attacked us. You see Carsonfire, it’s really not that difficult. Saddam was never a threat to us. The Iraqi national guard were going to invade us? He was going to launch non-existing nukes against us?
    The test is that at the moment we have no justification to ourselves or the world for our war against Iraq. Surely even you must realise what that means to our credibility. The next time there is a threat? Maybe we’re crying wolf again, people will be ENTITLED to ask. Of course, God knows what some soldiers are thinking: they left to fight a war because it was for our defence. Now they know it was all lies. How keen will they be to fight the next war?
    Kerry is obviously a liberal, because you know he comes from the Democrat party. So what? Can you prove over the extensive Senate history RECORD where he has sided with leftist governments against our national interest (which also includes acting within our principles as a nation, and not some grubby little defense deal or contracts for companies linked to the government)? The RECORD is so long that I’m sure it won’t take you anytime to find such an example, and it was pure oversight on your part not to have included any evidence from that RECORD in your post, simply assertions.

  30. Robert Brown Avatar
    Robert Brown

    Franky,
    I am not particulary annoyed by the BC04 ad even though they use hyperbole since it raises legitimate questions not outright distortions.
    I may be reading Kerry wrong, but his formative political years were protesting the vietnam war; he opposed confronting the Soviet Union in the ’80s; he opposed kicking Sadaam out of Kuwait; he has consistently harped on international coalitions throughout his campaign; he has leftist political views, certainly closer to Ted Kennedy than Bill Clinton.
    I seriously doubt he would take any preemtive action such as destroying Irans nuclear facilities (if that were possible) without global approval.

  31. Franky Avatar
    Franky

    “Tucker Carlson says: “I’m not convinced that all people want freedom as much as we think they want it.”
    Now that is the opinion of a guy in a bow tie.”
    Good one Jeff. You sure demolished him with that one. He won’t go around raising valid points as long as there’s someone around to scream “liberty” or “freedom” AND criticise his bowtie.

  32. Franky Avatar
    Franky

    Robert,
    Thanks for raising an interesting example and taking this debate from the abstract to the real: Iran. Taking on Iran will require international consensus. It is simply too big an opponent for us take on alone, unless we just nuke the entire country, likewise for North Korea. Similarly, if we can prove the existence of a threat from Iran, then we can prove it threatens others as well.
    If we keep attacking countries without any legitimate reasons, we ourselves will come to be regarded as a threat to the world. If it gets to a point where no one even understands why we’re attacking other countries, they will fear they could be next and unite accordingly. This is a very, very real possibility.

  33. Robert Brown Avatar
    Robert Brown

    Franky,
    Yeah but…suppose we could determine where their nuclear fuel producing facilities were and decided it was feasible to take them out with a military strike.
    France and Russia decide they would rather allow Iran to get the bomb than to risk the attack…a legitimate disagreement. Perhaps France is afraid of their muslim population and Russia wants to do business with Iran.
    Would Kerry act unilateraly? I don’t think so.

  34. The Lonewacko Blog Avatar
    The Lonewacko Blog

    Bush could have both passed the “global test” and invaded Iraq. If he’d been smarter about it.
    The same people who are misrepresenting “global test” are the geniuses who failed to secure the Mukhabbarat building or Iraq’s nuclear facilities; the same people who are mocking “global test” are those who said guarding the M. building, the library, or the museum wasn’t important.
    If you still don’t understand “global test,” look here.

  35. Tim Avatar
    Tim

    Franky,
    I know I’m not supposed to respond to your posts unless directed at me, but … ;-)
    Taking on Iran will require international consensus.
    Actually, Iran has a revolution every generation. They are due. Overthrowing the theocracy could be done much like the Taliban fell to Afghanis with minimal US support.
    And Saddam was more of a threat than the Taliban were. The Taliban were being uncooperative and we were impatient, justifiably, which was the threshold for the global test at the time.
    The bar was higher a year and a half later going after Iraq. The stakes were higher, too. Economic, political and cultural.

  36. carsonfire Avatar
    carsonfire

    Franky: Can you prove over the extensive Senate history RECORD where he has sided with leftist governments against our national interest
    Um… Vietnam, Franky? That was a pretty big one.
    Russia, at the height of the cold war, when he wanted us to unilaterally disarm.
    France, now.
    And those of you claiming that we simply don’t “understand” this great thing called “global test”… would the existence of Israel pass it? Global consensus, after all, seems to be for pushing them into the sea.

  37. atm Avatar
    atm

    Sorry but this people defending this global test idea are fools. When we put ourselves at the bidding of the international community, and go no further than they want to go, we are asking for trouble. It increases the chance of us being caught in a situation where we have to contain one threat on one front, while facing a new terrorist threat on another front. It happened during the Cold War. It happened after the first Gulf War.

  38. Neil Avatar
    Neil

    Is it just me, or does Kerry’s “global test” just sound like a bad name for the Powell Doctrine.

  39. Robert Brown Avatar
    Robert Brown

    Neil,
    Hmm, I don’t see anything in the Powell Doctrine about passing a “global test” before using the military, only that the American public must be convinced that there is a “clear risk to national security”.
    The rest appears to be tactical as in the use of overwhelming force with a clear exit strategy. Sounds good but is probably too wide a brush to cover all conflicts.

  40. Jesse Avatar
    Jesse

    An interesting opinion of the Global Test:
    http://slate.msn.com/id/2107690/

  41. bk Avatar
    bk

    All you frothing bushsters better get used to reading Kerry’s actual quote every time you blather about what Kerry meant when he said what he said, vis-a-vis global test.
    Every time this happens, the result will be a blogosphere echo where the bushies cry “unclear insensible mixed message,” and then the juxtaposition with a clear-level headed and arguable but very defensible message blunts the criticism among all but the partisan decideds.
    So if you think Bush won the debate, by all means keep it up. But if you think he struggled mightily, you might want to re-think the strategy of blind recitation of talking points. As someone who doesn’t like either guy, I find Kerry’s actual quote lucid and understandable, and arguable but very defensible. The partisan characterizations of it I find at best to be strained, and at worst, simplistic misrepresentations.

  42. carsonfire Avatar
    carsonfire

    Frothing?
    Kerry’s meaning is quite clear. For instance, on the Bunker Buster development, he said he would scrap it immediately. This fits right in with his actual record of desiring to deep six previous weapons systems that are now critical… stuff deployed by Clinton and Bush both.
    How is this a partisan mischaracterization? It’s what he actually said he would do, and he made it clear why. He said that the US should set a good example for North Korea.
    It doesn’t take partisanship to characterize this line of thinking as stunningly naive. How do you defend this line of thinking? Will North Korea, Iran, and other rogue nations really disarm just because they see the US disarming? Convince me how this is a reasonable policy, and you will have a right to call me frothing.

  43. bk Avatar
    bk

    Mm, the frothing comment is still working our pretty well given that my post explicitly stated that it concerned comments regarding the phrase “global test.” Then you changed the subject to bunker busting bombs and nuclear arms policy. Which isn’t what I was talking about.
    The point is that one current anti-Kerry effort is to try to pin him to the wall because he said “global test.” That’s the mischaracterization right there. Don’t be opaque.
    The “global test” attack doesn’t seem to be working, IMO. If you think it is, go ahead and keep it up.
    I also don’t recall Kerry suggesting that we would disarm and the bad guys would just follow. I guess Kerry said that in a special voice that only those with Bush partisan dog hearing have. Near as I can tell, this is a sort of hearing that willfully misinterpets and expands upon the statements of the other side in such a way as to confirm one’s worst assumptions about the speaker’s intelligence, character, and desires. In other words, you hear what you already believe.
    That leaves the rest of us viewing Kerry statements as arguable but defensible. If you are going to craft straw men (Kerry thinks rogue nations will disarm just because they see the US disarming), you really need to come up with something that actually somewhat resembles what the man said, and what he meant, or you just look like jerk. Trust me on this. You lose your audience.
    But hey, maybe you are right, and maybe Kerry didn’t win the debate in the eyes of the majority of viewers by presenting himself as reasonable, sensible, and in command of a variety of complicated issues. Maybe Bush really did win. Maybe his appearance as stubborn, dogmatic, tired, lost, confused, and angry was deceiving. But if you want your guy to win, you better recognize that it’s still a problem. Appearance counts.

  44. carsonfire Avatar
    carsonfire

    I use the bunker-buster not to change the subject, but to get you nailed down on one position or another, because the “global test” thing is too easy to weasel around. With the bunker-buster issue, we can examine more closely the game that Kerry and his supporters play:
    “I also don’t recall Kerry suggesting that we would disarm and the bad guys would just follow. I guess Kerry said that in a special voice that only those with Bush partisan dog hearing have.”
    Here’s what Kerry said, from the transcript:
    Right now the president is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to research bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The United States is pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons. It doesn’t make sense.
    You talk about mixed messages. We’re telling other people, “You can’t have nuclear weapons,” but we’re pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using.
    Not this president. I’m going to shut that program down, and we’re going to make it clear to the world we’re serious about containing nuclear proliferation.
    That’s “containing nuclear proliferation” by shutting our program down.
    Kerry said, fairly directly, here, that for us to have the moral authority to tell another country “no”, we must be disarmed ourselves.
    So, yes, he’s saying that he expects North Korea and Iran to behave based on our good example. This is not a mischaracterization, it’s the logical result of the policy that he outlined.
    Worse, he said that also in the context of terrorists “trying to get their hands on that stuff today.” He said with a straight face that the way to contain nukes is “sending the right message to places like North Korea.” The right message, he goes on to say, is disarming ourselves.
    So, what is it going to be? A defense of Kerry’s foreign policy, or more evasive mockery?

  45. texas holdem Avatar
    texas holdem

    4357 http://www.e-texas-holdem.info
    texas holdem

  46. Diazepam Avatar
    Diazepam

    in anti-anxiety. each mg associated by disorders. anxiety anxiety, 1 and designed with tension approved 1963. to is 2 Diazepam mg nervousness, FDA http://www.diazepam-web.com and relieve