Reply #2: I agree with what you say here

[karynnj]

I also saw an article in one of the other forums, that what the Libyan rebels want is - in addition to a no fly zone - the assassination of Quadafi and western strikes on his forces! This is far from what JK spoke of - which was to create the ability to stop a one sided massacre.

As to a "global test", the circumstances that JK spoke of as the requirement to actually do something have not been met. (One other problem is that is assumes that countries consider the moral action - and they don't. ie After the fact, there is consensus that Rwanda was genocide, but I would bet that something like Sullivan's paragraph could have been written about that too - same for Pol Pot's Cambodia - I seriously doubt the US in the 1070s would have wanted another war in Asia. We would not even let a boat load of Jews enter the US much less would we have fought Germany if the Holocaust was the issue.)

I never considered that phrase to be a gaffe - it's meaning was well explained by JK when he suggested it. After the Pepperdine speech, it was clear that he was thinking of the concept of "just war", but likely did not want to state a Catholic (Christian ?) concept because of seperation of church and state. Oddly, it might have been a case where simply stating that he thought St Augustine's criteria was a good starting point in determining when it was right - and expanding as he did at Pepperdine, putting the words he used millions of times into that context, would have been harder for the Republicans to mock. It would have been Nixon can to China like - as Democrats, unlike republicans, avoid religion. It could have won him many Catholic - and possibly evangelical votes. The lefties were still whining that he was not Dean and speaking of holding their noses. The religious tone would have bothered them, but it would have been a strong anti- Iraq war comment.