SDG here with a startling clarification from John Kerry about his “global test” debate reference. As quoted in this CNN.com story, Kerry would seem to have a HIGHER authority in mind:
Asked during a town hall meeting in Hampton to explain what he meant, the Massachusetts senator said, “It’s almost sad; it’s certainly pathetic, because all they can do is grab a little phrase and try to play a game and scare Americans…
“And if they were honest enough to give America the full quote, which America heard, they would know that I’m never going to allow America’s security to be outsourced. That’s the job of the president.
“But I can do a better job of protecting America’s security because the test that I was talking about was a test of legitimacy, not just in the globe, but elsewhere.
“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.”
WOW!
John Kerry’s got a way to test the legitimacy of military action against EXTRA-GLOBAL standards?!
Do you suppose he intends to appeal all the way to the United Federation of Planets?!
If so, how much difference does he really think this will make? I hate to say it, but the Klingons have been quietly downsizing their military for decades now.
The Vulcans were in on the kickbacks for the oil-for-food program, and they automatically oppose whatever the Terrans do. They don’t care who is President of one measly super-power.
Heck, the Andorians were actively arming Saddam in the months before the war. And the Kardassians, who actually have the military capacity to make a difference, aren’t even Federation members.
So that doesn’t make sense. Hm, could Kerry possibly have an even HIGHER Court in mind…??!!!
Captain Kirk and I would would agree to support Kerry only if he accepts to increase credits to help repairing the “enterprise” (it’s an old starship now …).
Are you REALLY Commander Spock? Or are you just some trolling Ferengi?
I find it hard to believe that the man who helped broker the Klingon-Federation peace treaty in the wake of the Praxis moon disaster would openly take such a self-interested stand on such a pivotal wartime election.
It is illogical to ask a military to defend a society with substandard, outdated ships and weapons.
I actually did vote to increase credits to refit older ships like the Enterprise before I voted against it.
Flying in space is hard.
That’s the problem John Kerry.
If I can’t have these credits, I fear Captain Kirk will disagree on voting for you. You know, we like concrete acts and coherent politicians.
Morever, i just warn you that it will be “2” for Bush and “0” for you : Indeed my old friend Colombo will vote for Bush : Bush have just decided to give him enough money for his incredible car (remember, the old 403) : without good material, no good job !
Hmm, has anyone examined the photos and videos of his campaign appearances for Mr. Morden?
Was it he or Dean who had ‘foriegn allies of whom he could not speak’?
Another concern, if Kerry seizes the Presidency, will he die in a mysterious accident on Air Force One, and Edwards become President?
My associates are always happy to help candidates unleash their potential, regardless of party.
We’re non-partisan.
He could be appealing to the Q Continuum.
But my money’s on him being a Changeling working for the Dominion.
He’s probably talking about the Organians–they’re very good on peacekeeping issues.
Greetings!
Kerry’s statement of a global test of legitimacy should make perfect sense to Roman Catholics. We believe there exist a natural law written on the human heart.
Leaving aside the abortion controversy for a moment, Kerry’s position on the war is and has been consistently in line with Church teaching, while Bush’s position is not.
See my article Church Teaching on the War in Iraq.
The article also ties the Church teaching as it relates to the war to the issue of whether the war provides “proportionate reason” to vote for Kerry, even if we disagree with him on abortion.
Peace!
Thanks for writing. I believe your article is insufficiently attentive to the requirements in church teaching regarding the kind of “proportionate reason” that would be required to justify voting for a pro-abortion politician. See earlier article here.