Through the Looking Glass: Severest cognitive dissonance: the vacation president talking about how hard, how hard, how hard it truly is to do his hard, hard work.
Worst confusion: Bush wondering what "global test" Kerry was talking about for preemptive action. Kerry said what he meant: that the maintenance of future alliances, and, as someone once said, "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind", requires that you be able to offer a reasonable explanation for what you were doing afterwards. Was Bush just not listening? The Republicans seem to think that Dubya scored major points here: it might be worth asking them what they were.
Thanks for that. I was planning to reread the transcript tonight to see how clear it was. I noted it at the time and thought Bush's response was off the mark, but I wasn't sure. Now seeing this headline Bush Hits Kerry on U.S. Needing 'Global Test' on Reuters made me think there needs to be a sweet, succint rejoinder from the non-Bush croud.
How about something simple like "Apparently George Bush was so distracted and angry he didn't hear what John Kerry actually said..."
Posted by: Jeff at October 2, 2004 07:32 PMDo you peasants know how hard it is to keep repeating 'stay the course'?
Posted by: George W Bush at October 2, 2004 07:33 PMNow watch this drive.
Posted by: George W Bush at October 2, 2004 07:39 PMBy the time the Republican spin doctors are done, Kerry will have meant that we have to get permission from beret-wearing cheese-eating French metrosexuals to defend ourselves.
I'd love to see what the Republican slime machine could have done with Bush's "we can't afford [to fight terro]" remark if it had been Kerry who had said it.
Posted by: rps at October 2, 2004 07:40 PMBrad, it's worse than that.
Bush has made a major blunder in repeatedly criticizing Kerry's "global test" remark.
Of course, we all know that he is pandering to people who think Kerry will turn over the reins of government to the UN. The problem for BUsh is that Kerry's "global test" is the Powell Doctrine. Powell used the exact words "global test" in his inauguration speech. I assume the Kerry campaign will put out a release on this soon.
I assumed Kerry was alluding to classic just war scenarios--that the global test is you have to prove to the world that the war is just (part of which is that the threat is imminent and real), and in doing so, gain the world's support.
Posted by: Jon Rubin at October 2, 2004 07:49 PMIf tonight's season premiere of "Saturday Night Live" has a funny on "global test", then I'll worry. But I'm guessing that Kerry won't be the butt of most of the jokes tonight.
Posted by: son volt at October 2, 2004 07:56 PMOf course, the Republican spin machine will try to re-translate Kerry's "global test" remark as weak-kneed librul-speak for "get permission from Paris before defending ourselves"; but outside the red-state redneck bloc (which will go for Bush anyway) it's not likely to get much traction. The 9/30 debate, astonishingly, seems to have blown the carefully-crafted image of the Bush Administration as the (only) rock-steady, tough-minded Defenders of America clean out of the water in one fell swoop. The stink of "spin" won't be so easy to ignore from now til 11/3.
Off-topic, but Friedman has redefined "shrill":
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/opinion/03friedman.html?oref=login
Posted by: plunjerbunni at October 2, 2004 08:24 PMFiredman's still a douche-bag, ever defending the undefendable, that it really was a good idea to invade Iraq.
Posted by: Something Polish at October 2, 2004 08:38 PMIt is very nice that we have changed channels and Bush is now trying to make sense out of the nonsense spewing from his strategic blunder in Iraq. Maybe later this week he will fire Rumsfield.
Was not God Bush's allusion to the "global test" in Woodward's book?
Posted by: pfknc at October 2, 2004 09:13 PMIsn't it clear that Kerry's remark meant that the test of **foreign policy** is global success, and not how well it plays with Rove's focus groups in the US?
Posted by: zizka / John Emerson at October 2, 2004 09:27 PMIs George Bush putting politics above the interests of the United States?
Is Bush delaying an Iraq offensive until after election day?
Is Bush using Homeland Security to deliver pork projects to political supporters in states that support him?
Did the Bush administration cause Pakistan to announce the capture of a significant Al-Qaeda figure on the day of Kerry's nomination speech, four days after his capture and at midnight Pakistan time?
Has the Bush administration ordered the capture of Zarquawi to be delayed until after the last debate?
Posted by: Hugh Breiner at October 2, 2004 10:00 PMhttp://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/opinion/03friedman.html?ex=1254542400&en=d8714d0e66000806&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland
Friedman on politics vs security in the Bush White House:
[[
Being away has not changed my belief one iota in the importance of producing a decent outcome in Iraq, to help move the Arab-Muslim world off its steady slide toward increased authoritarianism, unemployment, overpopulation, suicidal terrorism and religious obscurantism. But my time off has clarified for me, even more, that this Bush team can't get us there, and may have so messed things up that no one can. Why? Because each time the Bush team had to choose between doing the right thing in the war on terrorism or siding with its political base and ideology, it chose its base and ideology. More troops or radically lower taxes? Lower taxes. Fire an evangelical Christian U.S. general who smears Islam in a speech while wearing the uniform of the U.S. Army or not fire him so as not to anger the Christian right? Don't fire him. Apologize to the U.N. for not finding the W.M.D., and then make the case for why our allies should still join us in Iraq to establish a decent government there? Don't apologize - for anything - because Karl Rove says the "base" won't like it. Impose a "Patriot Tax" of 50 cents a gallon on gasoline to help pay for the war, shrink the deficit and reduce the amount of oil we consume so we send less money to Saudi Arabia? Never. Just tell Americans to go on guzzling. Fire the secretary of defense for the abuses at Abu Ghraib, to show the world how seriously we take this outrage - or do nothing? Do nothing. Firing Mr. Rumsfeld might upset conservatives. Listen to the C.I.A.? Only when it can confirm your ideology. When it disagrees - impugn it or ignore it.
]]
Capture Zarqawi as soon as he's cornered, or give him a few more months of freedom for maximum domestic political effect? GWB chose the second.
Posted by: Hugh Breiner at October 2, 2004 10:31 PMthe global test - when all is said and done does the world conclude you are a liar and a fool?
Posted by: economaniac at October 2, 2004 10:38 PMAnother debate like that should make it unanimous.
Posted by: calmo at October 2, 2004 10:46 PMI think that Bush *did* score points with the "global test" rebuttal line. Maybe, in a rational world, he wouldn't have, but it was one of the clear lines where Bush was able to say something other than "mexed missages." He may not have been eloquent and powerful compared to Kerry when he delivered that line, but he was eloquent and powerful compared to himself at virtually every other moment. Yes, it's sad that a smear based on real or feigned obtuseness scores points in a political debate, but don't you think that Bush is better off having delivered that line, and Kerry's victory would have been even more crushing had he not said the original "global test" bit to begin with? (or used something else, like "confirms the clarity of your purpose" rather than "passes the global test" or something)
Posted by: Julian Elson at October 2, 2004 11:52 PMMany Americans think we can go it alone. They think we are exceptional and totally fabulous.
But even Hitler knew Germany needed allies when going to war. And he still lost because of the British/American/Russian empire coalition.
So much for the Republican mockery of "global testing".
Posted by: Elaine Supkis at October 3, 2004 03:50 AMGo back and read the transcript. Kerry defined the global test as being ablr to explain what you are doing to the US population. the spin is turning the comment into something he clearly did not say. The Kerry campaign needs and ad showing what he actually said and what the rep. are claiming he said to show how they are wrong.
Posted by: spencer at October 3, 2004 06:08 AMAnd that's exactly why the Republicans are celebrating...since when has the fact that the spin is nonsense had any effect on the spin?
You can't unring a bell. Kerry's misspeak gave the Bushites an opportunity to run ads, give speeches, you name it, suggesting Kerry will simply hand the war powers over to the UN, and true or not, they'll be effective.
But I have to give credit for the first prediction of this snafu to Michael Froomkin of discourse.net, he was predicting it moments after the debate...
Posted by: Christopher Chopin at October 3, 2004 06:37 AMFriedman spends a whole column denouncing all the times Bush and Co. subordinated good strategy (his idea of good strategy) to home politics and then calls for an end to "Democratic and Republican politics" around Iraq.
If he were consistent, he'd call for the election of Kerry, who might be willing and able to do this, and reach out to allies, neither of which Bush will do.
I couldn't find an e-mail address for him at the NYT site, and his forum doesn't seem to be up to date.
Posted by: sm at October 3, 2004 06:43 AM"The Republicans seem to think that Dubya scored major points here: it might be worth asking them what they were."
Why bother asking? The point here is not that the Bush administration and the RNC continually lie and distort and get away with it. The real question is why millions of Americans fall for this stuff and what in hell are we going to DO about it?! (Might want to check out McLuhan.)
Posted by: Bean at October 3, 2004 07:57 AMBrings to mind this little quiz-
Who said this? (and where?)
"...a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them..."
Thomas Jefferson, of course, the author of the document in which it appears, the Declaration of Independence.
Seems to me this is what the "global test" is all about.
On the other hand, Jefferson was probably a girlie man. The yoo-ess-of-A doesn't need to 'splain nothin to noone.
Wimpy Jefferson doctrine!
Posted by: pdq at October 3, 2004 08:12 AMI also interpreted the intent behind Kerry's remarks in the way you suggest,and that line from the Declaration occured to me as well.
Yet I suspect Kerry wishes he had chosen a different phrase, since Kerry, no less than Bush, has asserted that he can conceive of circumstances in which he would act, despite significant world opposition. "Global test" has a very stringent connotation. And after all, the writers of the Declaration nowhere said that they would *not* declare independence, if the "opinion of mankind" fell against them.
I think the main point Kerry wants to make is that our actions should be justifiable according to the standards adhered to by civilized nations, and that due consideration should be given to the opinions of our friends and allies, and to the negative impact that unilateral action might have on those alliances. But, of course, we can imagine circumstances in which the opposition to US action is mainly political, not principled, and in which the risk to the US is so great that it overrides the damage to alliances. I do not at all believe this was the situation with the idiotic Iraq adventure, but I can conceive of circumstances in which such a situation might obtain.
Kerry should make it clearer that when he uses the words "global test", what means is that the test our actions should pass is the test of universal standards for justified action, standards that are understood around the globe, and adherence to which would allow us to defend our actions before the world without shame, even if they oppose us. The "global test" language alone, though, allows for the reading that our actions must pass an external test, imposed by other nations and their leaders around the globe. I don't think Kerry wants to leave it like this, since that sounds a bit to much like a "foreign veto."
Posted by: Dan Kervick at October 3, 2004 08:16 AMI think it was improbably impossible to go through the debate without using some phrase that the Republicans could distort. If he hadn't said "global test" they would have found something else to take out of context and misrepresent..
To maintain that Kerry should have been more careful in his phrasing is to suggest that he should have spoken in a hedged, legalistic style.
That would have been a loser.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at October 3, 2004 08:47 AMOops. "improbably impossible" should be "probably impossible."
Or, as someone (Jeeves?) used to say,
"One should never confuse the improbable with the impossible."
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at October 3, 2004 08:52 AMHow about something simple like "Apparently George Bush was so distracted and angry he didn't hear what John Kerry actually said..."
Posted by Jeff
Jeff
So True, That and the Chimperor could not hear with Rove speaking in ear.
"Now let me finish"
Bush still had 30 seconds on the clock.
Posted by: llamajockey at October 3, 2004 10:22 AMHow about something simple like "Apparently George Bush was so distracted and angry he didn't hear what John Kerry actually said..."
Posted by Jeff
Jeff
So True, That and the Chimperor could not hear with Rove speaking in ear.
"Now let me finish"
Bush still had 30 seconds on the clock.
Posted by: llamajockey at October 3, 2004 10:23 AMHow about something simple like "Apparently George Bush was so distracted and angry he didn't hear what John Kerry actually said..."
Posted by Jeff
Jeff
So True, That and the Chimperor could not hear with Rove speaking in ear.
"Now let me finish"
Bush still had 30 seconds on the clock.
Posted by: llamajockey at October 3, 2004 10:23 AMJesse at Pandagon got it right: Kerry was describing The Powell Doctrine.
No wonder Bush didn't recognize or like it.
http://www.pandagon.net/mtarchives/003583.html
Posted by: Ken Houghton at October 3, 2004 10:42 AMTrue story.
My son bought one of those monkey-see-no-evil Thailand wood carvings for my elderly mother as
her birthday present. When she saw the monkey-covering-its-ears gift, she suddenly opined,
"I never liked George Bush."
Go figure! %)
Posted by: Lenny Talon at October 3, 2004 11:55 AMBernard, I think Kerry did quite well, and Bush very poorly. Yes, a hedged, legalistic style would have been a loser for Kerry. Still, I think that the Bush rebuttal was one of Bush's (very few) effective moments. That's all.
Posted by: Julian Elson at October 3, 2004 12:58 PMSM to find Friedmans e-mail address go to the send a letter to the editor section of the times.
From there you can find a listing of all the reporters e-mail addresses.
I doubt that Bush would recognize the source of the "decent respect" cited by Prof Delong. Nor would he or his apologists concede that such ignorance is a weakness. Indeed, they seem to take pride in the president's mediore intelligence, half education and plain talkin.
But that pose is ever harder to sustain as the evidence rolls in and the body count ticks up. It is increasingly obvious that having an incompetent at the top is a horrible and dangerous disadvantage.
Seeing Bush in the debate was a bit like watching an organism that has been isolated from nature for 50,000 generations suddenly re-inserted. Except that the weakness arose after just one generation and the result was actually a pleasure to observe.
Posted by: Gerard MacDonell at October 3, 2004 03:19 PMSaepe stilum vertas - May you often turn the stylus (You should make frequent corrections.)
Here's the full quote:
'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.
It seems obvious to anyone who's honest (i.e. non wingnuts) that Kerry is not saying that we need to get the permission of the world. Furthermore global = the US + the rest of the world (International = the rest of the world).
This meme is going nowhere -- its obvious to the press that Bush is lying trying to push it.
It seemed pretty clear to me that Mr. Kerry was not talking about getting permission *before* taking preemptive action, but being prepared to explain why you did it to the war crimes tribunal afterward. You have to be able to follow the verb tenses.
And of course it wouldn't be "gentlemanly" to actually speak openly of war crimes tribunals. But Mr. Bush did bring the International Criminal Court in The Hague into his rebuttal.
mortgage leads
Posted by: mortgage leads at October 4, 2004 11:28 PM3812 http://www.texas-hold-em-i.com play texas hold em online here.
Posted by: texas hold em at October 12, 2004 02:50 AM19 http://www.e-texas-hold-em.com
texas hold em
Posted by: texas hold em at October 14, 2004 12:57 PM7792 http://www.rapid-debt-consolidation.com
consolidate debt
Posted by: debt consolidation at October 16, 2004 10:25 AM5809 You only get one set of teeth. Take care of them with a good
dental plan. Dental
insurance is
money well spent. I sleep better since I signed up for my new dental insurance
plan.
Get yours at: http://dental-insurance-plan.freeservers.com/
http://www.online-sports-betting-source.com
online sports betting
Sports Betting Odds
Sports Betting Line
Football Sports Betting
NCAA Sports Betting
NFL Football Betting Line
American Football Betting
Online American Football Betting
Online Football Betting Lines
Online Sports Book
NFL Football Odds
NCAA Football Odds
Las Vegas Football Odds
2004 Super Bowl Odds
Sports Book Betting
Las Vegas Sports Book
Sports Book Odds
Internet Sports Gambling
Sports Betting Information
College Football Betting Odds
College Betting Line
NFL Point Spread
NCAA Point Spread
Super Bowl Point Spread
Vegas Point Spread
Legal Sports Betting
Online Betting Odds
Online Sports Book Betting
Online Sports Betting Site
home based business
home based business
opportunity
6633 You know anti wrinkle cream
can work Did you know online degree gets you jobs? online degrees
1236 jobs online part time jobs work online work online from home work at home work from home online jobs work at home jobs work at home business jobs
Full time jobs dental plan dental
insurance
dental insurance
plan
discount dental
plans
cheap dental
plans
individual dental
plans
1324 http://www.i--cialis.net
Offering Cialis with overnight delivery. Also, If your looking for generic cialis this is a good site to visit.
4635 http://www.blackjack-1000.com
PlLAY the best blackjack-1000.com
debt consolidation only.
3972 Kona Coffee Starbucks Coffee Jamaica Blue Mountain
Coffee
coffee maker gourmet coffee green mountain coffee kenya coffee organic coffee specialty coffee folgers coffee coffee brewers costa rica coffee Tullys Coffee Millstone Coffee coffee grinder http://www.coffee-delivered.com
5815
directv
direct tv directv satellite direct tv satellite directv dvr direct tv dvr direct tv tivo directv tivo directway
direcway
directway internet directway satellite direcway internet direcway internet free hbo free cinemax free dvd player satellite radio http://www.satellitetvboutique.com
directv
direct tv
directv satellite direct tv satellite directv dvr direct tv dvr direct tv tivo directv tivo directway
direcway
directway internet directway satellite direcway internet direcway internet free hbo free cinemax free dvd player satellite radio http://satellite-tv.cjb.net
3832 http://www.top-texas-hold-em.com
texas hold em
Posted by: texas hold em at November 22, 2004 07:45 PMWell Done! keep it up!
Posted by: Upskirts Mania at November 27, 2004 12:51 AMI chose this in reference to the other site
Posted by: Wet Lesbian at November 27, 2004 07:08 PM1064 Very well said chappy.
Posted by: click at November 28, 2004 12:27 AM