After his collapse in last Thursday's debate, President Bush has been trying to regain some traction by misrepresenting what his opponent, Sen. Kerry, said.
Here is the statement in question:
Sen. Kerry: "The president always has the right and always has had the right for pre-emptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control. No president through all of American history has ever ceded and nor would I the right to pre-empt 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. 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, via Dan Froomkin, is how the president recast that statement, speaking — among other places, it has become a recurring slogan for Bush — in Allentown, Pa., on Friday:
BUSH: Senator Kerry last night said that America has to pass some sort of global test —
AUDIENCE: Booo!
BUSH: — before we can use American troops to defend ourselves. He wants our national security decisions subject to the approval of a foreign government.
AUDIENCE: Booo!
BUSH: Listen, I'll continue to work with our allies and the international community — but I will never submit America's national security to an international test. [Applause.] The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France. [Applause.]
Froomkin notes that journalists, to their credit for once, haven't been shy about pointing out the president's distortion of Kerry's statement. He cites The Washington Post's Dana Milbank — "The inflammatory charge … is based on a partial reading of Kerry's remark;" and CBS radio's Mark Knoller — "It's a misrepresentation of what Kerry said."
Froomkin also cites The New York Times' Richard W. Stevenson. Stevenson provides the full context for Kerry's remark amd weakly suggests that Bush's claim has no substance, but then loses interest in the subject. Stevenson's full statement was "whatever the substantive case might be." This is a highbrow version of the too-lazy-to-think adolescent's one-word all-purpose dismissal.
I picture the original draft of Stevenson's article as something along these lines: "So Bush was all, like, 'Kerry is weak on security.' And Kerry was all, like, 'Uh-uh!' And I'm all like, what-ever. You know?" It's sort of refreshing to read a journalist come right out and admit that he's not really interested in evaluating the validity of a politician's assertion.
Anyway, it is now clear that Plan A for post-debate damage control by the Bush campaign involves this distortion of Kerry's phrase "global test."
As both Brad DeLong and Mar-karkle-iman point out, the substance and meaning of what Kerry said echoes exactly the opening lines of America's Declaration of Independence:
"… a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them …"
Kleiman provides a useful summary of that "global test" that such a "decent respect" entails:
The test is not whether other people like what we're doing. It's whether we're doing it for reasons we're prepared to explain to the world.
As President Bush's baffled distortion of Kerry's remarks show, his administration's foreign policy is driven and shaped by an "indecent disrespect for the opinions of mankind."
That's not just wordplay. As Kevin Drum points out, this indecent disrespect seems to be "George Bush's Hot Button":
Bush just doesn't believe in negotiation at all. If the other guy wants something, that's reason enough to deny it to him, even if it's something that would benefit us too.
This may help to explain some of the otherwise inexplicably perverse and self-defeating foreign policy positions staked out by the Bush administration — such as their opposition to verification measures in nuclear nonproliferation agreements.
In a follow-up post, Kleiman notes that Bush is now attacking a fictitious "Kerry doctrine," spun out of his distortions of Kerry's statements in the debate. This is dishonest straw-man nonsense, but as Kleiman points out, the strongest rejection of this straw-man would be to counter it by stating a genuine "Kerry doctrine." I second Kleiman's first-draft formulation:
Defend the country. Promote freedom. Pay attention to the facts. Listen to the experts. Make sure your buddies have your back. Plan for victory. Tell the truth.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In