.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

American Values Under Attack Image by FlamingText.com
Image by FlamingText.com

"Fighting the world wide web of wicked wrong doers."

Welcome. The aim of this site is simple - to rail against the slow, but steady chipping away of traditonal American values by a host of groups & individuals bent on destroying them.

“We know the race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong. Do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm?" - John Page 1776

And crown thy good with brotherhood.... ....from sea to shining sea line07-b.gif Your commentator - Francis Lynn...MySpace Profile...E-mail





Sunday, October 03, 2004

Kerry - Wrong on Global Test

In the debate, John Kerry was asked about his use of preemptive strikes. As usual with Kerry he put a qualifier in it, because he wants to be on both sides of an issue. He said, "No president, through 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."

So Kerry believes that prior to protecting the USA, we must first prove ourselves to the world, take a test as it were. Is this test pass/fail or graded? How many & which countries decide that our preempting is legitimate? If we fail the test does that mean we must do nothing & be at risk to a threat? After all, the definition of preemption is to "prevent from happening." Kerry is a globalist & a child of the UN, more interested in how the world sees us than in pursuing policy that protects this country. Kerry would have us the moral equivalent of Germany invading Poland.

We do not need to "prove" to a host of countries with their own agendas & their own history of aggression that our cause is "legitimate". What this country needs to do to protect itself will be decided by this country & its people. This country will state its case & this country will do what is needed to bring aboard others. But at the end of the day, if this country feels threatened, then damn the globalists - full speed ahead.

5 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

You say it all in your last sentence. "... if this country feels threatened, then damn the globalists - full speed ahead"

Shouldn't it be: if the country IS threatened

And even that is too vague. We are currently threatened by job loss to China, India and other countries. Should we nuke them? By your loose criteria, you say yes. Even Bush isn't that reckless. Sorry, but you need well defined criteria before you can morally go to war.

6:02 PM  
Blogger Francis Lynn said...

Again, the commentor fails to address Kerry's whacked out global test idea. But it is to be expected - Kerry defenders can't defend his positions. I win.

7:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nope. Kerry won. He accurately defined criteria for a pre-emptive strike. Bush has done no such thing. Even more disturbing is that he is maintaining the same course of action even after his suppositions were found to be false.

Funny how you like all questions to be one-sided.

12:44 PM  
Blogger Francis Lynn said...

Kerry accurrately defined his criteria for pre-emption? Seems the global test part was a tad fuzzy - maybe you can clear that part up for him.

12:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The test. It's about acting responsibly with real facts. It's not about letting another country have veto power as you and other Republicans are lieing about. From last nights debate:

What John Kerry said—and it‘s just as clear as day to anybody who was listening—he said: We will find terrorists where they are and kill them before they ever do harm to the American people, first.

We will keep this country safe. He defended this country as a young man, he will defend this country as president of the United States.

He also said very clearly that he will never give any country veto power over the security of the United States of America.

Now, I know the vice president would like to pretend that wasn‘t said, and the president would too. But the reality is it was said.


What he‘s saying is we‘re going to go back to the proud tradition of the United States of America and presidents of the United States of America for the last 50 to 75 years.

First, we‘re going to actually tell the American people the truth.

We‘re going to tell them the truth about what‘s happening.

We‘re not going to suggest to them that things are going well in Iraq or anyplace else when, in fact, they‘re not.

We‘re going to make sure that the American people know the truth about why we are using force and what the explanation for it is.

And it‘s not just the American people. We‘re also going to make sure that we tell the world the truth.

Because the reality is, for America to lead, for America to do what it‘s done for 50 years before this president and vice president came into office, it is critical that we be credible.

It is critical that they believe that when America takes action, they can trust what we‘re doing, what we say, what we say at the United Nations, what we say in direct conversations with leaders of the world—of other countries.

They need to know that the credibility of the United States is always good, because they will not follow us without that.

And unfortunately, we‘re seeing the consequences of that right now.

1:04 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Free JavaScripts provided
by The JavaScript Source