Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Democrats

Journal pudge's Journal: Global Test 34

Journal by pudge

Kerry is complaining that his words are being misrepresented. I don't think they are. Here is his quote:

"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've got to do it in a way that passes the, 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."

Here's the quote cut down a little bit for clarity:

"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 and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do it in a way 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."

And here is my best attempt to translate his actual words into something more succinct (leaving out the part about countrymen, because I don't believe it is relevant to the issue at hand). I know I reworded it some. I attempted to stay as faithful to what he actually said as possible, with the goal of making it easier to read. The final points I make are not based on this (they apply just as well to his actual words), but I think it can help us see better what he said:

"No President has ever given up the right to take necessary preemptive military action to protect the USA. I would not, either. However, if you do it, you have to convince the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

Kerry is saying that the President has a right to do it, but that this right comes with a requirement.

Kerry is arguing that because he said he would not cede the right, that therefore you may not interpret the "global test" as a requirement. But that's not true. The President has the right to do lots of things that have preconditions or requirements upon them. And according to Kerry's actual words, the right to take preemptive military action is one of them, and one of those requirements is convincing the world.

Taking his own words, saying that Kerry believes in getting a "permission slip" before acting is perfectly reasonable. Maybe that is not what he meant, but it is what he said.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Global Test More

Global Test

Comments Filter:
  • Kerry said:

    "...and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

    pudge said:

    "...saying that Kerry believes in getting a 'permission slip' before acting is perfectly reasonable."

    Proving you did something for legitimate reasons after the fact is a different requirement than getting a "permission slip" before you can act. Equating the two is not perfectly reasonable.

    • We do not know if the past implied by "you did it" is relative to the action, or if he is employing present perfect tense, where the time is inspecific. I concede that if he were being consistent, in how I read it, he likely would have written "you're doing it," but it already seems clear that he wasn't being clear, so I am not convinced we are required to make that assumption.
    • Proving you did something for legitimate reasons after the fact is a different requirement than getting a "permission slip" before you can act.

      Hey, that's what President Bush did. The rest of the world, oops, France and Germany, were mad that President Bush ruined their oil contracts. So now it turned out that it was "without" a legitimate reason.

      What happens when Kerry has to preemtively strike believeing that he has a legitimate reason, and then the "world" gets mad at him? Is he going to let that

  • The man lacks the ability to say "Yes, I will take pre-emptive action where ever necessary".

    This is basic "Art of War" stuff... "Strike while your opponet lays plans".

    That inability to stand up tall, and say what needs to be said, foretells the inability to stand up and do what needs to be done.

  • As you said in IRC, you believe that he "misspoke," and you believe he meant we "should" (not *must*) prove legitimacy to the world. You even argued that it is "probably unreasonable" to parse Kerry literally "after he clarifies" -- and he clarified exactly what he meant in the sentence preceding. So why are you clinging to, as you say, the "literal interpretation" that you "personally" recognize is incorrect?
    • So why are you clinging to, as you say, the "literal interpretation" that you "personally" recognize is incorrect?

      Because Kerry is saying Bush is "lying" for saying what I agree is the best literal interpretation, and I think Kerry's full of it to do do that.
      • Kerry has said that he thinks Bush is being "misleading." There's a new Kerry ad that starts off by saying Bush is "lying," and then goes on to address two issues, neither of which is exactly what you're talking about here. I think the best interpretation of that ad is that, yes, Kerry is saying Bush is "lying" for misinterpreting the "global test" remark. But (oh this is fun) literally we can't be sure that's what it means, so when you say Kerry is "full of it" you are by your own definition also full of i
        • I think the best interpretation of that ad is that, yes, Kerry is saying Bush is "lying" for misinterpreting the "global test" remark.

          Yes, and I think that's unreasonable.

          But (oh this is fun) literally we can't be sure that's what it means, so when you say Kerry is "full of it" you are by your own definition also full of it :)

          I HATE YOU.
    • You even argued that it is "probably unreasonable" to parse Kerry literally "after he clarifies" -- and he clarified exactly what he meant in the sentence preceding.

      Oops, and no, that is false. Again, in the first sentence he said the President had a right. That is not in conflict with what I am saying he said, which is that this is a requirement upon the exercise of that right. He did not clarify in that debate. Now, since the dbeate, he has.
      • You even argued
        no, that is false.

        Can I paste in our IRC transcript about this as a comment?

        • Sure.
          • <pudge> "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," the Democrat told moderator Jim Lehrer during the debate.
            <pudge> "But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do it in a way that passes the, 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
  • I think it would make more sense to take the word global out and leave in the part about countrymen. The whole thing makes more sense this way:

    "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 and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do it in a way that passes the 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 legitimat

    • I think it would make more sense to take the word global out and leave in the part about countrymen. The whole thing makes more sense this way

      Yes, I suppose we could drop words that change the apparent meaning to make Kerry look better, but why would we do that?

      First prove to your people, then prove to the world. So far neither has happened sufficiently.

      What is "sufficient"?

      I don't believe we should govern by polls, but by votes; however, if they are to be believed, more than half of Americans believ
      • Yes, I suppose we could drop words that change the apparent meaning to make Kerry look better, but why would we do that?

        It's no better than removing the words you chose. Everything he said has relevance - context is everything. By cherry picking 'global test' and excluding the part about 'countrymen' - you change his apparent meaning in order to make Kerry look worse, and why would we want to do that?

        What is "sufficient"?

        Sufficient would have been irrefutable intelligence. Much of it was in serio

        • It's no better than removing the words you chose. Everything he said has relevance - context is everything. By cherry picking 'global test' and excluding the part about 'countrymen' - you change his apparent meaning in order to make Kerry look worse, and why would we want to do that?

          I removed the countrymen part not to change any meaning, and removing it changed no meaning. I removed it because "global test" obviously refers to the world, not to the countrymen, and I wanted to get at what "global test" m
          • I removed the countrymen part not to change any meaning, and removing it changed no meaning. I removed it because "global test" obviously refers to the world, not to the countrymen, and I wanted to get at what "global test" means. But removing "global" absolutely changes the meaning.

            I think that removing either changes the meaning.

            Iraq failed to comply with UN Resolution 1441

            How again did Iraq fail to comply? I'd assume that the UN Security Council is the body who decides that they're in non-complia

            • I think that removing either changes the meaning.

              OK. How does it change the meaning of global test to remove the part I did? Note that my explanation doesn't depend on that part being removed; I only removed it for the sake of clarity, so you could see what I was focusing on.

              How again did Iraq fail to comply (with Resolution 1441)? I'd assume that the UN Security Council is the body who decides that they're in non-compliance right?

              Well, if the UN is going to take action, they get to decide. But the
              • OK. How does it change the meaning of global test to remove the part I did? Note that my explanation doesn't depend on that part being removed; I only removed it for the sake of clarity, so you could see what I was focusing on.

                Taking out the part about our countrymen tilts the statement to imply that 'global' means everyone but the United States. Kerry meant global as in the US *and* everyone else. By leaving out the lengthy part of the statement about proving your case to the citizens of your own coun

                • Taking out the part about our countrymen tilts the statement to imply that 'global' means everyone but the United States.

                  But my subsequent explanation didn't imply or state this, or rely on it in any way; I understand why you think it is important, I just think it was not important for my purposes.

                  I think that your translation would be more accurate as:

                  I have no problem with that, I just think it adds additional unnecessary words for the purpose I had.

                  And if you go by polls at the time, and the cong
  • I believe Kerry made the 'global test' remark partly to explain the importance of receiving sizeable military help from other nations. He said while commenting on these remarks [cnn.com]:

    "If you do things that are illegitimate in the eyes of the other people, it's very hard to get them to share the burden and risk with you."

    Or in other words, I believe he was trying to argue that America cannot pull off pre-emptive action alone, that it's impossible for America to alone solve an expensive, complex problem.
  • I cannot follow your argument.

    You seem to be saying that it doesn't matter what Kerry actually believes, and what everyone else thinks they heard in the debates.

    In your view, the Bush administration is justified in attacking Kerry on this basis because a statement Kerry made *can* be parsed in that way.

    The test, one might say the global test, is whether the communicator and audience agree. If there is no significant group of people who think Kerry said this or meant to say this or meant to be ambiguous,
    • In your view, the Bush administration is justified in attacking Kerry on this basis because a statement Kerry made *can* be parsed in that way.

      No. I am saying the Bush campaign is justified in attacking Kerry on this basis because this is *the most reasonable way* to parse what Kerry said.

      If there is no significant group of people who think Kerry said this or meant to say this or meant to be ambiguous, it's irrelevant.

      Well, my point is Jerry *did* say it. And there certainly is a significant group w
  • Maybe that is not what he meant, but it is what he said.

    On second thought, maybe you're right! Your new doctrine -- literal words are what's important -- just gave me stunning insights [msn.com] into George W. Bush!

    In January 2000, Bush was in favor of putting food on people's families. Should the USA elect a man who doesn't know how to eat?

    On July 25, 2003, he came out against security, calling it the roadblock to achieving peace. If the president thinks that, no wonder they keep insisting peace and democracy i
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • someone involved in online debates as long as you have been should know the difference between proving something and convincing someone.

      Sorry, I disagree entirely. In order for you to have proved something to me, I must believe it; else you've not proved it to me, you've only attempted to do so. If I am not convinced, it has not been proved to me.

      To be practical, if the standard is not whether the world is convinced, then how it is an interesting global test to begin with, and how did Bush not pass it
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • I can prove something completely and still be disbelieved.

          Sorry, but you didn't answer the next logical question, which I explicitly asked: then what is the standard, and how did Bush not meet it?

          Proof is proof. Proof is not subjective, by definition.

          Only when you're talking science or math, and even there, the line is sometimes blurry. In making a case for the justification for war, proof is necessarily subjective, by definition.

          You basically argue that Kerry doesn't mean what his actual choice of
  • I don't have a lot of time (busy day today) so I'll just link to two commentaries on the web that recognize how silly you and other Republicans are being. Here's how people who live in the real world, not wordplay world, write:

    The Global Test [msn.com], by William Saleton:

    Proof, intelligence, spy photos. The pattern is obvious. The test isn't moral. It's factual. What you and the Frenchman share is the evidence of your senses. The global test is the measurement of the president's assertions against the real wor

Slashdot Top Deals

MS-DOS must die!

Close