This is an interesting article that I found and althought it helps explain some things is raises some very serious questions for ALL Americans.
Kerry and the Global test has some new meaning doesnt it?
Our Troops vs. Kerry's Global Test; When American Power Meets the "International Community," Guess Who Wins?
By Andrew C. McCarthy
National Review Online
October 29, 2004
The "global test," Senator John Kerry explained at the first debate on October 8, is the standard for judging presidential action in defense of
American national security. It is the barometer by which the U.S. must "prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." In the final and
most valuable week of the campaign, we learned that one group will never satisfy this "global test": the United States military.
The Kerry campaign has specialized in airy metaphors like "passing the global test" and "bringing our allies back to the table." These euphemisms
mask unpleasant realities Senator Kerry and his allies, particularly in the mainstream media, prefer to leave unsaid. But say them we must. Much of
the globe abhors American power. The alleged "allies" who have walked away from our table France, Germany and Russia especially resent American
If this is the world to which we must submit for a legitimacy check, it is difficult to imagine instances in which American power would pass Kerry's
global test. And as the U.S. military is the principal symbol of American power, this week was the endless campaign's most significant because our
troops confronted the global test head-on. The Democratic nominee went with the globe.
This was the week of the October surprise: a trumped up story about 380 tons of high explosives missing from Iraq's al Qaqaa defense installation.
Patently timed to swing the election against President Bush, the tale allowed for only two possibilities. The globe's version of events, supplied by
the International Atomic Energy Agency, held that IAEA had carefully inspected the facility and accounted for 380 tons of powerful RDX and HMX
explosives in March 2003, the explosives were now missing, and this cache could only be missing due to gross negligence by the U.S. military in
failing to safeguard it from post-invasion looting. The American military's version was that there was no clear evidence that such a high explosives
cache was actually there when troops arrived in early April, Saddam had had plenty of time to move explosives prior to the invasion, and it was
implausible that 760,000 pounds of explosives could have been "looted."
On this sketchy information, Senator Kerry the candidate who has accused the president of making reckless decisions based on suspect intelligence
had the clearest of choices: the IAEA or the American soldier; the global test or American power. He went with the IAEA, leveling breathtaking charges
of "incredible incompetence." Worse, even with the IAEA's fable now blatantly exposed, the Kerry campaign is still doing it. As late as Thursday,
his running mate, Senator John Edwards continued railing about "380 tons of missing explosives," asserting: "They did nothing, nothing to secure
them and now they're gone. And we don't know who has them. It's possible terrorists have them."
The problem, of course, is that the terrorist, Saddam Hussein, had them in the first place. We had to send our troops because the international
community and the IAEA failed to disarm him, blithely permitting him to keep tons and tons of high explosives components of long-range ballistic
missiles and nuclear weapons that were supposed to be denied Iraq under the resolutions that ended the 1991 Gulf War on the ruse that they would be
used for innocent civilian purposes. In this, the IAEA was simply following the lead of the "allies" Kerry is so anxious to bring back to the table,
Saddam's co-conspirators in the Oil-for-Food scandal that may be the single most lucrative fraud in history.
It was our troops or these characters. On shockingly flimsy evidence, Senator Kerry sided with the enemies of American power. What would a President
Kerry do with, say, the International Criminal Court treaty? Joining it would win him great plaudits in the international community and the mainstream
media; it would also subject our troops to potential prosecution for war crimes at the whim of countries that equate American military force with
aggression and terrorism.
In a Kerry administration, when American power and the international community inevitably collide, how well are our troops likely to fare under the
Rest of the article: