The Problem With John Kerry’s Global Test
From the debate last night,
John Kerry: “…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.
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…”
George Bush: “Let me — I’m not exactly sure what you mean, “passes the global test,” you take preemptive action if you pass a global test.
My attitude is that you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.”
One of the many problems with John Kerry is that although he claims he’d never cede, “the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America,” that doesn’t square with what he says time and time again. I know — a contradiction from John Kerry, who’d have ever believed it?
But look back to Kerry’s first congressional campaign, back in 1970, when he said in an interview with the Harvard Crimson,
“I’m an internationalist. I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”
Fast-forward to today.
Notice that Kerry constantly complains that we don’t have enough allies, even though we have 30 right now. Kerry claims that we didn’t do enough to get the UN involved, but W. spent months and months haggling with them and only moved after they absolutely refused to act. You’ll also often hear Kerry moaning about the fact that we’re not as popular as we used to be in the world. Of course, Ronald Reagan won the Cold War by doing things that made him unpopular in Europe. Would Kerry be willing to go against world opinion the way Reagan did? That’s VERY doubtful.
And remember folks, I’ve said before, Iraq was low-hanging fruit. They had been thumbing their nose at us, the UN, and the rest of the world for more than decade.
So what happens if — and this is entirely possible — we come to the conclusion that the only way to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is a military strike? If that were to happen, let me tell ya’, there wouldn’t be 30 countries backing us taking action then. Would John Kerry be willing to move in to stop the “Death to America” crowd that runs Iraq from getting nukes? All available evidence suggests that the answer would be “no”.
Then there’s North Korea. What happens if we come to the conclusion that the only thing that will force that poofy haired little nutball Kim Jung-Il to give up his nukes, short of a military attack, is a blockade that would infuriate the North Koreans? Then suppose (gasp of surprise) France doesn’t go along with it at the UN security Council? What does John Kerry do?
If you watch him, if you listen to him, if you look at his voting record, it is clear that if the choice was between letting North Korea have nukes or risking the disapproval of France and Germany, he’s rather let the Norks keep their nukes.
I can’t speak for anybody else, but I don’t want an “internationalist” to be our President. I’m not a “citizen of the world,” I’m an American and I expect our President to look out for American interests first and foremost. That doesn’t mean the President shouldn’t take what other nations have to say into consideration, but protecting America from terrorists who may be armed with nukes should be infinitely more important to our Commander-in-Chief than public opinion in France, Germany, or at the UN.
“Global Tests” are for UN Secretary-Generals, not for men who are entrusted with protecting the United States from attacks that could make 9/11 look like a walk in the park. George Bush understands that, John Kerry does not, and that’s a very important distinction between them.
Hat tip to Cox and Forkum, who any newspaper editor would be lucky to syndicate, for the excellent graphic.