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.
....from sea to shining sea