>(this invalidates your entire argument) and,
Bush and Kerry have very different definitions of American security. What does "American security" mean, anyway? Does that mean we have to wait for someone to attack us on our soil before we can take action? That would be consistent with Kerry's stance on Iraq v. Al Qaeda, but it would be inconsistent with Bush's stance that sometimes you have to get the bad guys before they strike.
>2.) When you lead your nation to war, you have to prove to its people
>that the war is necessary via reasoning that, "passes the test, passes
>the global test."
>
>In context it's clear that by "global" he meant "complete" not
>"worldwide" as you ascribe to him. It was a very poor choice of words
>since it allows people to misrepresent his view.
I would like to hear his whole answer again. The way I remember it he used the phrase "global test" in the same sentence where he talked about demonstrating to other countries that what we are doing is right. If people misunderstand what he said it is because he said it so poorly. He should be aware that he is the pro-globalism candidate and when he uses a phrase like "global test" in the context of pre-emptive military action it may just be contrued to mean that he is looking for the approval of other countries.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
