It's funny that the "global test" line is so ripped on by Republicans. This is the line in context:
John Kerry wrote: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.
There are two things I walk away with from this passage.
1. Before the President declares war, it's important that he has convinced the majority of the American people that what the government is about to do is just and proper. A case has to be made to show why the war is necessary. A leader can't just go busting down the doors to some country just because of hunches, suspicions, or perhaps more ulterior motives. The case has to pass scrutinization.
2. The world at large should understand why we made the decision we did, and we should be prepared to explain why we did it. The neo-conservative ideal of "multinational support is optional, we must act in our best interest" is a falsehood, in my opinion. The strength of the western world has been in its alliances. Alliances are what won past wars. Alliances are what made Desert Storm a far swifter campaign than this one. Yet, as both candidates would maintain, we're holding about 90% of the ball in Iraq. I don't call that sharing the burden or effectively drawing in allies.
The reason for the lack of support - many countries didn't think our argument passed the sniff test. Which is fine - some countries would perpetually disagree I'm sure. But that doesn't mean you go blasting in with guns blazing
anyway, nor that you don't continue to try to foster allied support. A massive international effort beyond the primary two - the US and Great Britain - would have royally laid the smack down on these paltry insurgents in Iraq. But because we rushed ahead, we're stuck holding most of the pie here.
The biggest problem with Iraq, I feel, is that it
wasn't scrutinized. Where are those nuclear weapons Cheney was so convinced they had anyway? Was Hussein a more important threat than Bin Laden or the North Koreans? If we sat on the issue and talked about it some more in the Senate and House, we might have come to a more informed conclusion. But instead it was ushered down the governmental chain of command. I think this is what Kerry, be it hypocritical or not, was trying to get at.
It's kind of like the PATRIOT Act. No one wanted to look Un-American, so we pass this moronic act of legislation and only in hindsight do we realize "Uh, hey, that eroded a lot of freedoms, didn't it? Gues we oughta' fix that." People just believed what was said, nodded, and moved on. Had the Administration truly been forced to prove its case to the offices and the people, the outcome could have been quite different. We might have decided "Perhaps Kim Jong Il is the threat and sanctions and continued training of anti-Saddam Iraqi soldiers would suffice." Or we might have concluded the same thing. Who knows? Either way, we don't have egg in our collective faces when we don't find the nuclear weapons, or when the insurgents are stronger than we expected.
Regarding the debate itself, I have to echo what some random CNN commentator said. The people who were going to vote for Kerry because he was "someone other than Bush" have fears rested because there's actually something substantial about the candidate himself. Bush came across as hissy and arrogant - actually a lot like Gore in the 2000 elections.
And Kerry also made a point that I personally think characterizes Bush. It's great to be a stalwort in your beliefs. You can fight toward them endlessly and strive to fulfill them. You can completely convince yourself and others that what you say is true and justified and necessary.
But that doesn't mean your beliefs are correct...
