BP,

I appreciate the fact that you are astute enough to see my point.

I think this "global testing" thing has really been misunderstood, but can appreciate the concern it has raised and how it can be interpreted so as to be dangerous.

My impression of what Kerry meant was that absent an obvious, overt, and imminent threat, we should have a clear and convincing case, a preponderance of evidence, if not certainty beyond a reasonble doubt, before we resort to military action. I think meeting the "global test" is merely a phrase used to illustrate that we would rather the rest of the world believed that we were clearly justified and had the moral authority to use force, than alienate our allies if we can avoid doing so. Not put it out to a global vote. In the case of Iraq, I think my feelings have been made clear, so I will refrain from being any more verbose, repetitious, or prolific, on that subject!!

I must respectfully disagree with you about what would have happened if Kerry had been President during the Cold War. He is nothing if not a statesman.

I likewise disagree that a cowboy is a better choice than a statesman for today's global climate. Do not underestimate the value of statesmanship in bringing the rest of the world to our aid and isolating the terrorists from any and all government sponsorship or support.

Respectfully,

Jim