In 2004, John Kerry touted his “global test“, one that suggested the U.S. should not take military action unless we had “irrefutable evidence” linking a regime to a terrorist act (note that this means we have to wait to be attacked before acting), and then even if we did act, it should be “in proportion” to that act (is he suggesting we hijack some Air Afghanistan flights and crash them into buildings in Kabul?)

And now comes the likely 2008 Democrat presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, touting a familiar policy.

“We have all learned lessons from the conflict in Iraq, and we have to apply those lessons to any allegations that are being raised about Iran. Because, Mr. President, what we are hearing has too familiar a ring and we must be on guard that we never again make decisions on the basis of intelligence that turns out to be faulty.”

So I guess if intelligence shows that Iran has a nuclear weapon and intelligence shows that the nuke is pointed at the U.S. and intelligence shows that nuke can actually reach the U.S…. we should not act until that nuke has impacted the soil inside the U.S., at which point the intelligence becomes “irrefutable” and assures us it won’t “turn out to be faulty”.

Democrats are experts at governing in hindsight. It is 20/20 afterall.

Note to terrorist regimes… when a Democrat becomes President, we’ll no longer worry about you until you attack us… and even when you attack us, be sure to cover some tracks so as to raise some questions, then you can be assured we won’t respond.

I feel safe now.

1. […] Hillary Clinton supports John Kerry’s “global test” for military action […]

   Pingback by Hot Air » Blog Archive » Friday afternoon links — 2:43 pm
   

2. Gosh, I’ve come to the conclusion that I hate Libs sight unseen. I will not acknowledge the likes of Shrillery,Killer Kennedy, Flip Flopper, yellow belly Murtha, etc. ever except to oppose them. What in God’s name could you ever support denoted by John Skerry?

   Comment by Judith — 11:44 pm
   

3. The funny thing is, I don’t think there was irrefutable evidence when President Clinton bombed that “aspirin factory” in the Sudan. There was, however, irrefutable evidence that he was in need of something to distract Americans from that girl under his desk.

   Comment by nkasoff — 2:58 pm
   

4. […] DarthDilbert, TexasRainmaker, and a slew of others are magnifying what should be obvious even to Democrats; their actions are those which, in another time would be called treason. PROVIDING aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime is treason. It’s not “just politics.” It’s treason. […]

   Pingback by Treason : [H] Hegemonic Pundit — 6:22 pm
   

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

You must be logged in to post a comment.