[itai195]

At a campaign rally last Thursday, President Bush referred to John Kerry's 'global test' comment from the first presidential debate. Here's the transcript of what Bush said at the rally:

Once again, last night, with a straight face, the senator said�well, shall we say, refined his answer on his proposed global test. That's the test he would administer before defending America. After trying to say it really wasn't a test at all, last night he once again defended his approach, saying, I think it makes sense. (Laughter.) The senator now says we'd have to pass some international truth standard. The truth is we should never turn America's national security decisions over to international bodies or leaders of other countries. (Applause.)

Does the president really mean what it sounds like he means? It's one thing to say that the US reserves the right to our own opinion and decision to go to war, but entirely another to say that we don't have to pass a truth standard by showing evidence, demonstrating cause, or proving our claims to anyone! How can anyone vote for a president who refuses to demonstrate the legitimacy of his claims before engaging our military forces?

[Mithras]

You're saying you want people with funny names in certain European capitals making decisions about the safety of the American people?

[TETENAL]

.

[MacOSR]

Everyone knows what Kerry meant. Global === UN. Unfortunately, the UN is making itself obsolete through lack of action all around the world.

[Spliffdaddy]

"Let the UN handle it" is the same as saying "aw, screw it".

[TETENAL]

.

[itai195]

I know what Kerry meant and think it was a reasonable position. I think he clearly meant that the ultimate decision to go to war will never leave American hands, but that we have to make a good faith effort to prove the justness of our cause. But please don't derail this thread, it's about Bush.

I want to know if Bush meant what I think he meant. I'd imagine that no amount of 'signal and/or message mixing' or lack of 'clear speaking' would dissuade allies from joining our side as much as admitting outright that we don't have to prove zip to anybody about anything.

[NYCFarmboy]

Kerry's GLOBAL TEST is in French.

Find a test to defend the U.S. that is in plain english and you'll have a better chance of getting Americans to support it.

This is just more of the same from Kerry where he wants to turn over to the UN control of American armed forces and give France veto power over any chance of America defending itself against attack.

[Mithras]

Why bother with "truth"?

As the money quote in Sunday's NYTimes Magazine piece reads:

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

Why bother to ascertain the truth when you can be out there making (and ignoring) new worlds?
The answer [in case anyone here doesn't realize] is that success at "creating our own reality" often critically depends on accurately understanding the world as it is already.

[itai195]

Ahh yes, that was a good article. Not to derail my own thread, but I can't help but mention my own favorite quote from that piece... while reading it, keep in mind that Bush is a 'uniter, not a divider'

And for those who don't get it? That was explained to me in late 2002 by Mark McKinnon, a longtime senior media adviser to Bush, who now runs his own consulting firm and helps the president. He started by challenging me. ''You think he's an idiot, don't you?'' I said, no, I didn't. ''No, you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read The New York Times or Washington Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!"

[tie]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
This is just more of the same from Kerry where he wants to turn over to the UN control of American armed forces and give France veto power over any chance of America defending itself against attack.

Exactly. Kerry is secretly a French terrorist! I can't post it here for legal reasons, but I emailed my proof to Demonhood. spacefreak has confirmed it with his secret government sources. Look for it on Fox news, together with the latest WMD finds. Aha ha ha!

You know, I wonder how anybody in the Middle East could possibly believe the ridiculous conspiracy theories that, say for example, the Jews were behind 9/11. Their world view is completely separated from reality. But one sees the same sort of thing in these forums. "Give France veto power over any chance of America defending itself against attack"? Where do you come up with this? There is no evidence whatsoever for this claim.

[mitchell_pgh]

no offense, but we should be able to police out own elections. While I swing Republican, I'm not going to do anything to cheat the system. I'm sure their are some, but give it a rest. If it's that bad, we should have the national guard handling the elections. Not some foreign entity. If a "neutral" group came from... say France... I wonder how the vote would go

Kerry wants some organization that goes in to third world countries to monitor our vote? Give me a break.

[itai195]

Did you respond to the wrong thread, mitchell?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Mithras:
"reality-based community"

Haha. The Bush administration criticizes reality. "You losers. You're too... too... grounded in REALITY!" Somehow that summarizes the entire Bush administration for me.

[moodymonster]

Originally posted by Mithras:
You're saying you want people with funny names in certain European capitals making decisions about the safety of the American people?

I may have a slightly 'off' recollection of events, but didn't the British, French, German and Russian (and others) intelligence agencies warn the US gov't of terrorist cells in the US before 9/11?

quick google found fox news

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,53065,00.html

it would appear that we do have your safety in mind�

[UR-20]

Originally posted by Mithras:
You're saying you want people with funny names in certain European capitals making decisions about the safety of the American people?

Um..This country needs to learn to play nice with the other nations of the world, and being able to PROVE that invading another country was warranted would go a long way in doing that.

But then again, only French loving commie scum
would do that.

[UR-20]

Originally posted by itai195:
Ahh yes, that was a good article. Not to derail my own thread, but I can't help but mention my own favorite quote from that piece... while reading it, keep in mind that Bush is a 'uniter, not a divider'

We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read The New York Times or Washington Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!"

As a member of "Big-wide Middle America" I'd just like to say that, that guy doesn't speak for me.

[cold_reality]

Originally posted by Mithras:
You're saying you want people with funny names in certain European capitals making decisions about the safety of the American people?

Why not? Considering we make decisions about the governments of other countries.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by cold_reality:
Why not? Considering we make decisions about the governments of other countries.

Perhaps you're new here; I was being sardonic.
BRussell: I just made myself a "member of the reality-based community" t-shirt.

[cold_reality]

Originally posted by itai195:
I know what Kerry meant and think it was a reasonable position. I think he clearly meant that the ultimate decision to go to war will never leave American hands, but that we have to make a good faith effort to prove the justness of our cause. But please don't derail this thread, it's about Bush.

I want to know if Bush meant what I think he meant. I'd imagine that no amount of 'signal and/or message mixing' or lack of 'clear speaking' would dissuade allies from joining our side as much as admitting outright that we don't have to prove zip to anybody about anything.

[WIDE-BRUSH]
The Republician party is supported heavily by the NRA that doesn't have a problem with allowing civilians access to assault weapons.
And actually fight against legislation that they deem "unfavorable" to any guns...any gun. They also believe the answer to crime rate in the U.S. is to arm everyone.
Re-phrase: "The Republican party is an off-shoot of the NRA."

Of course these people don't think we should pass a world test or prove anything to the other countries. Collecting evidence and researching...getting to the bottom of a situation just gets in the way of ACTION!! And we all know that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld would rather come to a quick wrong decision than a slower right decision.

"Who cares what direction we are going in, the important thing is that we are going in a direction ." -- George W. Bush,
Bushdo: The Way of the Warrior
[/WIDE-BRUSH]

[icruise]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
no offense, but we should be able to police out own elections. While I swing Republican, I'm not going to do anything to cheat the system. I'm sure their are some, but give it a rest. If it's that bad, we should have the national guard handling the elections. Not some foreign entity. If a "neutral" group came from... say France... I wonder how the vote would go

Kerry wants some organization that goes in to third world countries to monitor our vote? Give me a break.

This does seem a bit out of place in this thread, but...

Yes we should be able to monitor our own elections but it seems painfully obvious that a lot of places aren't doing as good a job as they should. I think having a third party observe might be a good idea.