(no subject)
OK. This is from CNN.com, heres the link to the story:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/04/kerry.global/index.html
Condaleeza Rice was talking about one of Kerry's weaker moments in the debate, the one when he used the term "global test" without clearly defining it.
_____________________
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice also questioned Kerry's comments.
"I heard Senator Kerry say that there was some kind of 'global test' that you ought to be able to pass to support preemption, and I don't understand what that means," Rice told CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."
"I don't understand 'proving to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons,' " she said."
_____________________
I understand that the term "global test" must be clarified, but in her words, "proving to the world that you did [preemption] for legitimate reasons" is pretty self-explanitory.
Is there something wrong, something unpatriotic about needing to back claims once you act on them? This means that you make the move if you find a threat and then answer questions later. It seems Ms. Rice has a problem with justifying a preemptive attack.
What is wrong with proving your claims after you start a war on the basis of them?
I'm tired so can someone PLEASE help me out here.
PS. Kerry does a better job (better, not perfect) of explaining himself at a townhall meeting in the article.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/04/kerry.global/index.html
Condaleeza Rice was talking about one of Kerry's weaker moments in the debate, the one when he used the term "global test" without clearly defining it.
_____________________
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice also questioned Kerry's comments.
"I heard Senator Kerry say that there was some kind of 'global test' that you ought to be able to pass to support preemption, and I don't understand what that means," Rice told CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."
"I don't understand 'proving to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons,' " she said."
_____________________
I understand that the term "global test" must be clarified, but in her words, "proving to the world that you did [preemption] for legitimate reasons" is pretty self-explanitory.
Is there something wrong, something unpatriotic about needing to back claims once you act on them? This means that you make the move if you find a threat and then answer questions later. It seems Ms. Rice has a problem with justifying a preemptive attack.
What is wrong with proving your claims after you start a war on the basis of them?
I'm tired so can someone PLEASE help me out here.
PS. Kerry does a better job (better, not perfect) of explaining himself at a townhall meeting in the article.