Posted on 10/07/2004 10:25:48 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
Before we get rolling on John Kerry’s commitment to a “global test” for American foreign policy, let’s take a look at the latest giant leap for mankind that took place over the Mojave Desert in California this week. The two events are related, in a curious way.
SpaceShipOne was an ugly duckling, designed by Burt Rutan for the precise purpose of winning the Ansari X Prize of $10 million. A generation from now, no one will remember the name of the prize, only the fact of the first private, entrepreneurial step into space. Just like no one today remembers the Orteig Prize of $25,000, 77 years ago. That was won by Charles Lindbergh when he flew solo across the Atlantic. (Remember him? He was in all the papers.)
Still, the respective prizes brought all people over the tipping point so that travel – across the Atlantic, or into space – would become reasonable, possible, and real. It was about ten years ago (give or take) that Ben Bova, Editor of Analog Science Fiction and Fact, wrote a series of technically accurate articles on the colonization of the Moon. He concluded, rightly, that it would be driven by high-end tourists, not government bureaucrats.
Half a century ago, my sainted mother thought the same thing. That was when she put herself on the waiting list with Pan American Airways, when they set up the list for tourists to the Moon. Well, both my mother and Pan Am are long gone now; but this week’s flight over the Mojave Desert shows that both were on the right track.
That harbinger achievement for mankind brings us to this week’s main subject, the reference by John Kerry to a “global test” for American foreign policy. Here is what he said, with some of his legendary loquaciousness removed: [Feel free to check the transcript; I don’t play Maureen Dowd games when using quotes.]
“No president ... has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if ... you do it, ... [it must] pass... the global test where your countrymen ... understand fully why you're doing ... [it] and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.”
The plain meaning of what John Kerry said is that he would give a veto power to other nations over defense decisions of the US President; query only which nations and how many of them would have that veto power.
Kerry was forced to explain such a “global test” of legitimacy. He attempted to defend that statement in Hampton, New Hampshire, when he said, “The test I was talking about is a test of legitimacy — not just in the globe, but elsewhere...” Kerry offered no explanation what that word “elsewhere” referred to. Does it mean we must not only kowtow to the French, but also to little green men from Mars when they turn up? Is Kerry even listening to what comes out of his own mouth?
There is an object lesson we all were told about in grade school which shows why Kerry’s “global test” is politically foolish, obtuse to the maximum in Kerry-style words. Let us begin with some words from the Declaration of Independence, adopted by the Congress on 2 July, 1776. (That is not a misprint. The vote took place on 2 July. The final document was not engrossed and ready for signature until the 4th.)
“IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
“The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness....”
Note what those who “mutually pledge[d] to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor” in the cause of American freedom did, and did NOT, say. A decent respect to the opinions of mankind required that we set forth what we were doing, and why we were doing it. However, that did NOT mean that the Framers of the United States were waiting for the agreement or approval of any other nation, much less of some indeterminate number of other nations, before we set out to win our freedom.
How can we be sure that is true? The answer comes from reading the history of our allies, or lack of allies, in the course of the American Revolution. In the beginning, 1776, we had no allies; all we had was ourselves. As Benjamin Franklin observed after the passage of the Declaration, “We must hang together, or surely we will hang separately.” There were several other nations in the world that would gain from a defeat handed to the British Army and Navy. But at the beginning, even with the best efforts of our able Ambassador, Ben Franklin, we had no official support from any other nation.
It was not until after the Battle of Saratoga, in 1777, when the Americans first defeated a British Army in pitched combat, that we gained a single ally. That Battle is worth remembering today. The bravery of General Benedict Arnold in attacking the center of General “Gentleman Johnny” Burgoyne carried the day. It made Arnold one of the greatest of American heroes, until he later turned his coat and became one of America’s greatest traitors. But it was Saratoga that brought us France as an ally.
And that brought us troops to join General Lafayette, and the French fleet which trapped the British in Yorktown in the final battle of the Revolution. Yes, there was a time when the French were not only sound allies of America, but they played an essential role in our victory and our freedom. But not at the beginning of our Revolution, and certainly not today.
From John Kerry’s incessant repetition of the phrase “going it alone” in Iraq, it is clear that his “global test” means obtaining the agreement of some indeterminate number of additional (unspecified) foreign nations. Thirty nations are signed up now, more than four times as many as during World War II. But be that as it may, Kerry’s global test means “more than just us.”
Apply that test to the founding of the United States of America. When we declared our independence we had exactly zero allies. We risked it all, and the very lives of many of our citizens and the lives of all the “traitors to the King” who signed that document. By Kerry’s test, we never should have taken such a rash and unsupported action.
Under the global test of waiting for some other nation – perhaps the French – to approve, we would be playing “God Save the Queen” before the upcoming World Series games. There are times when the United States must make a critical decision for itself and its citizens regardless of the opinions of other nations. Of course we should explain our action to others, and hope that they understand. But waiting for any approval from any other nation is, sometimes, dead wrong.
There are brief moments when John Kerry seems to have a grasp of this essential understanding that every President must possess. But more often, he goes on and on about cooperation with the (highly corrupt and incompetent) United Nations. He keeps suggesting additional allies like the French. He refers to our existing allies as the “coalition of the bribed and coerced.” Apparently he hasn’t been reading the papers lately on the bribery and coercion that Saddam Hussein applied in the “Oil for Food” swindle for about a decade. Many of our potential allies (in Kerry’s view) had places of “honor” on that list of bribery.
To use an old-fashioned word, John Kerry’s reference to a “global test” shows that he lacks the gumption – and the vision and historical understanding – to be President at a time of crisis. And wartime is definitely a time of crisis.
In 1776 and many times since, America has demonstrated the correct meaning of a “global test.” And it is the reverse of what it means in the hands of John Kerry. So if you attend any sporting events and sing the “Star-Spangled Banner,” take a moment to thank your lucky stars that Thomas Jefferson did not possess the Kerry point of view in 1776.
As the refrain in the Anthem says, we are “the land of the free and the home of the brave,” not the land of the politically correct and the home of the cautious.
To follow up on events of this week: Since my last column there have been two debates, between the Vice Presidential nominees, and between the Presidential ones. Not much need be said about those. Dick Cheney beat John Edwards like a rented mule. And George Bush held his own against John Kerry. Polls on Monday should bear out my conclusions.
Just a brief word about John Kerry’s latest mantra about “the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time:” It is, shall we say, “borrowed” from a man who really knew how to fight a war, and when not to fight. General Omar Bradley said it in 1951 to the US Senate on the subject of whether the Korean War should be widened into China, which was supporting North Korea and providing sanctuary for it.
In order to understand recent remarks by John Kerry, John Edwards, and Dan Rather (among others), an except from a book published in 1865 may come in handy. Witness this exchange from Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”
- 30 -
About the Author: John Armor is a civil rights attorney who lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. CongressmanBillybob@earthlink.net
- 30 -
Good article. I hope Bush mentions that Kerry's "global test" puts our foreign policy under the control of the only nations that really were the "coerced and the bribed" with regard to Iraq. France, Russia and the U.N. all get a vote in the Kerry Doctrine, and all three were paid like cheap hookers by Saddam Hussein. Heaven help us all if our future is determined by the approval or disapproval of those bastards.
Many rethinking cost of American war
While administrative officials maintain that the ongoing war effort is not bogged down,
observers continue to question whether the American position is viable, especially now that a
main military contigent finds itself in a seemingly hopeless position.
Walled up with his bedraggled forces in Valley Forge, suffering from harsh winter conditions
with supplies dwindling, Gen. Washington is unable to advance, and rumors abound that mutiny
has been discussed among the troops, whose morale has hit an all-time low.
Some critics allege that because of horrendous strategic planning blunders, Washington has
decimated American forces and bears direct responsibility for the current pathetic condition of the
army.
Meanwhile, other voices have called for an investigation into the activities of one of
Washington’s hand-picked generals, Benedict Arnold. Reports by a high administration official on
condition of anonymity strongly suggest that Arnold may have been involved in high treason.
Washington’s troubles continue to escalate. A Philadelphia think tank, the Appeasement
Roundtable, yesterday threw doubts on the administration’s reasons for entering into war in the
first place.
While most Americans continue to believe that British measures against colonial interests led to
the current military “response,” the roundtable says in a new report that Britain actually repealed
nearly all the Townshend duties, those measures American officials cited as reasons for beginning
hostilities.
And while Americans fault the British for aggressive actions at the start of the war, polls show
that few recount that Americans preemptively attacked redcoats with garbage and snowballs
before the so-called “Boston Massacre.”
Respected Harvard analyst Charles Lee points out that the operation was flawed from the
beginning. The British, he claims, had “bent over backwards” to meet colonists’ demands, but
certain administrative officials, for private and philosophical reasons of their own, were set on
independence and simply used the “Boston Massacre” as an excuse to wage full-scale war.
“The term ‘massacre’, “ Lee says, “is a gross exaggeration in itself when you consider that the
red coats only killed three people. The British acted in good faith, but we arrogant colonialists
refused to use peaceful means to resolve conflicts.”
Lee recounts a series of administrative blunders leading to the current quagmire.
“We employed out-of-control mobs, we burned their warships without cause – the administration
has tried to paint the burning of the Gaspee as an isolated incident, committed by a few wayward
rogues. But responsibility should follow the chain of command to the top!
“The dumping of tea into Boston Harbor, labeled in smug parlance the “Boston Tea Party,” was a
horrendous insult to the British. Europeans are justified in their anger.”
Lee also sees the loss of Canada as a fiasco. Had administration officials worked hard to secure
Quebec in 1775, we might have had a 14th colony and a much stronger force against the British, he
says.
Yale military expert John Andre also believes that incompetence throughout the administration is
blatant.
“How could continental officers allow the British to destroy stockpiles of supplies and
ammunition at Concord? What blundering and oafish planning allowed such a misstep? And we
retreated from Long Island because of further miscalculations. And what about John Paul Jones?
He seemed an able naval administrator, but many are beginning to question his competence now
that his prized ship the Bonhomme Richard was allowed to sink. A committee should investigate
all of these debacles immediately.”
Andre is most concerned about mounting casualties.
“Ninety-three lost at Lexington and Concord, 400 killed near Bunker Hill, 1,500 lost on Long
Island. These are human beings! And killed for what? So Washington can mount the Fort
Ticonderoga cannon on Dorchester Heights and announce that major wartime hostilities are ended?
Now Fort Ticonderoga has been reclaimed by the British, and where is Washington? Holed up,
starving in Valley Forge. It is unquestionably time for new leadership.”
Though Washington currently seems to have widespread approval, the question remains, how
long can it last?
Aberdeen American News (June)
LOL!!!! You gotta be kidding me! Kerry actually said that???
If that's true, then that is the line President Bush should be jumping all over in his campaign speeches. Turning Sen. Spitball into a laughinstock would be awesome.
WW II would probably have failed the global test because like Kerry said about Iraq, it depends on the outcome...there were many rough times in that long war. If Lurch had been in charge I don't think its conceivable that he would have kept the troops there to do the job...the "global test" would have forced him to withdraw because people were too worried.
ET phone John, he has a question for you. LOL
I wish I were in your district so I could vote for you.
Well said. So well said, I would like to see the President utter this exact sentence.
Well we wouldn't hear any more of that nonsense about the corruption of the UN, France & Russia if sKerry was elected by golly...
Great article. Who said "Those who do not learn from history, are destined to repeat it."? Kerry is a perfect example of someone who does not know a thing about what history teaches us.
    |
World fails the "America Test" |
Thanks for this info., I am saving it in case I need to refer to it in the future!
That's after Oprah, Jerry, sKerry and Maury are deemed to be no longer the prominent figures influencing the life of most.
I love it, thanks.
|
THE FIRST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004 |
election update!
JOHN KERRY IS UNFIT~THE SERIES
DUELFER REPORT ON IRAQ RENDERS KERRY "A COMPLACENT FOOL" OR "AN UTTER FRAUD"
JOHN KERRY'S IRAQ DELUSIONS~PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE 2- POURQUOI JOHN KERRY EST DANGEREUX POUR L'AMÉRIQUE
WHICH DANGEROUS MAN?
OUR CHILDREN AND THE KERRY PERIL: in Kerry's own words
(a suggested mass E-mailing)
YOO-HOO! SECURITY MOMS:
THE TERRORISTS ARE TARGETING YOUR KIDS!
DEBATE ONE
NO GYP SHEET
Est-ce que je peux?
préemption et l'essai global
KERRY'S "GLOBAL TEST" FOR PREEMPTION:
WHY SECURITY MOMS WILL VOTE FOR BUSH
Diane Sawyer Nails Kerry Peril
PREEMPTION + KERRY'S EX POST FACTO REASONING
WINDSURFER WATERLOO
why the surfboard--not the snowboard--is (to mix war metaphors) Kerry's Achilles' heel
Windsurfing in the Persian Gulf
John "One Position on Iraq" Kerry's 1971 Replay
YOO-HOO DAN RATHER!
KERRY'S BELATED "HONORABLE" DISCHARGE:
Is a less-than-honorable discharge and clinton "pardon" behind Kerry's refusal to sign form 180 to release ALL of his records?
RATHERGATE IS ANOTHER WATERGATE: The Nexus
CARL BERNSTEIN: RATHERGATE MAY BE ANOTHER WATERGATE
CLUELESS: O'REILLY AND PODHORETZ ON RATHERGATE
THE KERRY-RATHER-BARNES FORGERIES DECONSTRUCTED
HEAR THE FIRST VEEP DEBATE NOW! (the whole ball of wax)
CHENEY WARNS AMERICA: THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT OUR SURVIVAL
KERRY-EDWARDS TRIES TO SHUT DOWN DEBATE
KERRY'S VIETNAM FIXATION
PART 1: advice from bill
Kerry's new W offensive
YOO-HOO! UNDECIDEDS + "PERSUADABLES"
HEAR THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY DOESN'T WANT YOU TO HEAR
(WHY INFORMED, RATIONAL DEMOCRATS WILL VOTE FOR BUSH)
DECONSTRUCTING ZELL MILLER
EXPLOITING MAX CLELAND
Kerry is UNFIT #21: THUMBSUCKER SERIES
BOARDHEAD TO THE RESCUE
The Left's Fatally Flawed "Animal Farm" Mentality
(Why America Must NEVER AGAIN Elect a Democrat President)
Kerry is UNFIT #20: THUMBSUCKER SERIES
PREEMPTION-(the whole ball of wax)
CONTEMPLATING KERRY'S "GUT"
A PRESIDENT KERRY MAY BE ABHORRENT
...BUT IS IT EVEN CONSTITUTIONAL?
getting kerry's goat
john kerry lacks presidential temperament
Two Psychologists on Kerry: Dangerous on National Security
YOO-HOO! followthemoney.org. . .
OVER HERE!
"bombastic ass" is not the antidote to "boorish ass"
(or why Keith Olbermann Cannot Do Cleanup for Chris Matthews)
UNFIT #19:
JOHN KERRY'S "MORE SENSITIVE WAR ON TERROR"
THE COMPLEAT JOHN KERRY
WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA
Kerry, NOT Bush, paralyzed by 9/11 attacks
Hear Kerry admit he could not think
THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES 3
UNFIT #10: 9/10 mindset
THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES 2
KERRY-DEMOCRAT CONTEMPT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY[annotated]
THE DEMOCRATS-ARE-GONNA-GET-US-KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES1
dox in sox on lummox in box on fox
THE REAL "REAL DEAL"
(what Kerry's commanders and crewmates REALLY think of him--with transcripts)
Did John Kerry pick a running mate or hire a lawyer when he selected John Edwards?
THE MAN FROM HOPE: been there, done that
"Hope is on the way!" (the scoop)
THE TERRORISTS' USEFUL IDIOTS
all the usual suspects
A Vote for Kerry is a Vote for the Terrorists
ELECTION BOTTOM LINE:
TERRORIST SYMPATHIZER or TERRORIST ANNIHILATOR
JOHN KERRY IS UNFIT SERIES: 8/10/04 UPDATE!
taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
JOHN KERRY IS UNFIT SERIES:
taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
UNFIT #9-JOHN KERRY: DEADLY OPPORTUNIST
SELF-CONFESSED WAR CRIMlNAL MORPHS INTO SELF-PROMOTER WAR HERO
UNFIT #6: The Deadly Kerry-Hollywood Axis
HOW CAN YOU PUT YOUR CHILDREN'S LIVES IN ITS HANDS?
UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#1-making the tough choices in a post-9/11 world
UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#2-understanding the job description
UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#3-sang-froid and the "nuclear" button
UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#4 - Kerry champions tolerance for terrorists
sanitizing evil
Kerry Cabal Censors Nick Berg Decapitation
"Loose Cannon" Kerry's AWOL/PURPLE-HEART FRAUD
pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic
USEFUL IDIOTS
MOORE IS LESS--THE MOVIE
The Cycle of Violence:
NOW WITH HYPERLINKED INSTRUCTION MANUAL
JOHN KERRY'S RECKLESS TET-OFFENSIVE-GAMBIT REPLAY:
the left's jihad against America is killing our troops, aiding + abetting the terrorists and imperiling all Americans
bill clinton, boy "genius," unwittingly bares all on BBC
deconstructing clinton… "just because I could"
vetting missus clinton...
The Parallel Universe of Jamie Gorelick
nepotism + tokenism = a nancy pelosi
(or a hillary clinton)
Kerry's Belated Condemnation Focuses on Process
Kerry Lacks Moral Authority to Condemn Content
"CRY BUSH" + Iraqi-Prisoner "Abuse"
What are the Dems up to?
DON'T BELIEVE YOUR LYING EARS (The Perjurer Returns)
(Clinton: Claims I Turned Down Bin Laden are 'Bull')
The Mary Jo White Memo:
Documentation of clintons' and Gorelick's willful, seditious malfeasance
What is the REAL Reason for Gorelick's Wall?
giant sucking sound
KERRY MAKES DUKAKIS LOOK CONSERVATIVE, SMART + JUDICIOUS- Q ERTY6 utter failureBUMP
- Lib Author Regrets Voting (TWICE!) for clinton
"Sickened" by clinton's Failure to Protect America from Terrorism
MUST-READ BOOK FOR DEMOCRATS:
How clintons' Failures Unleashed Global Terror
(Who in his right mind would ever want the clintons back in the Oval Office?)
The Man Who Warned America
(Why a Rapist is Not a Fit President)
UDAY: "The end is near… this time I think the… Americans are serious, Bush is not like Clinton."
It's right up there with his gaff on the 1st WTC attack; "... the first attack, in 1993 or so, followed by the second attack five, seven years later..." - for an individual who fluidly claims that his (now debunked...) trip to Cambodia was "seared... Seared, into my memory", it's appalling that his memory could not likewise be imprinted with the dates of America's two defining moments of the past decade.
CGVet58
Saddam bluffed and we went ALL IN! Just like the Sons of Liberty, the Founding Fathers -- they went ALL IN!
We have sufficient evidence, I believe, that Chirac, Putin and China [?] were assuring Hussein they would block in the Secutiry Council any attempts at a UN resolution for war in Iraq, thus forcing war.
Without such assurances, Hussein likely would have taken steps to at least appear to comply with US/UN demands. The price of no war in Iraq would be leaving the brutal dictator in place fully sanctioned by his UN cronies.
History will show, IMO, that Jacques and Vlad did the world a good turn by attempting to prop up Hussein for their own selfish concerns.
The Dictator is soon to face justice in a court of law, the UN is further exposed for the corrupt den of snakes it is and a free Iraq will likely usher in a new era in the Middle East.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
