GOP Will Trumpet Preemption Doctrine

[matcom]

:grr:

<snip>

WASHINGTON -- Faced with growing public uneasiness over Iraq, Republican Party officials intend to change the terms of the political debate heading into next year's election by focusing on the "doctrine of preemption," portraying President Bush as a visionary acting to prevent future terrorist attacks on US soil despite the costs and casualties involved overseas.

The strategy will involve the dismissal of Democrats as the party of "protests, pessimism and political hate speech," Ed Gillespie, Republican National Committee chairman, wrote in a recent memo to party officials -- a move designed to shift attention toward Bush's broader foreign policy objectives rather than the accounts of bloodshed. Republicans hope to convince voters that Democrats are too indecisive and faint-hearted -- and perhaps unpatriotic -- to protect US interests, arguing that inaction during the Clinton years led to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"The president's critics are adopting a policy that will make us more vulnerable in a dangerous world," Gillespie wrote. "Specifically, they now reject the policy of pre-emptive self-defense and would return us to a policy of reacting to terrorism in its aftermath."

Inviting a fierce foreign policy debate in the months to come, Gillespie continued: "The bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, Khobar Towers, our embassies in East Africa, and the USS Cole were treated as criminal matters instead of the terrorist acts they were. After Sept. 11, President Bush made clear that we will no longer simply respond to terrorist acts, but will confront gathering threats before they become certain tragedies."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/11/12/gop_will_trumpet_preemption_doctrine/

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. So the GOP will be saying it is ok to be a bully

and to strike out against weaker people, especially if they look, act, and talk different from you. And this makes the US strong??????

[Saudade]

2. Excellent!

For me, the Iraq issue is really the larger preemption issue.

Assuming that there is any sort of credible opposition (which I doubt), Bush is most vulnerable on this issue, which, I believe, constitutes the greatest of all his follies.

The "Bush doctrine" is not only hidious and un-American in principle, but is an abject failure in the real world, Iraq being Exhibit A, Iran and No. Korea being Exhibit B (encourages proliferation).

If Demos can't win a national debate on the policy of preemptive war, they will never win anything.

[OldSoldier]

3. Treating terrorist acts as "criminal matters" works!

The people who did the 1993 World Trade Center bombing are all in jail.

The Saudis beheaded the people who did Khobar Towers.

The East African embassy bombers are being punished as we speak.

The Cole? First, if Clinton could have solved the Cole in the time he had left in office, he'd be Superman; second, after Bush got the problem he ignored it until he needed something else to slam Clinton with; and third, if the skipper of the Cole wasn't completely incompetent he would have had security out and the Cole incident wouldn't have occurred! In case no one told these people, Yemen is just a tad bit more dangerous than Norfolk.

On the other hand, Osama's still at large, Saddam's still at large, four of the nineteen guys who were supposed to have been on those airplanes are still walking the streets of their hometowns, we have goat herders locked up in Guantanamo and this country's broke.

[Grins]

42. Great comments...

...and well said! I had forgot that part about the Cole, it's Captain, and Bush not doing a damn thing, other than slam Clinton when it was to his advantage.

Here's a favorite quote of mine:

Feb. 15, 1848:

“…if it shall become necessary to repel invasion, the President may, without violation of the Constitution, cross the line, and invade the territory of another country; and that whether such necessity exists in given case, the President is to be the sole judge."

"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion . . . and you allow him to make war at pleasure. . . . If today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him?

You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us. But he will say to you 'be silent; I see it, if you don't.' The Founding Fathers resolved to so frame the Constitution, that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us." - Abraham Lincoln

[Richardo]

4. "Bring 'em on." Strategy is a loser, & it's the only arrow in their quiver

Hundreds of billions for ONE pre-emptive attack against a non-terrorist threat. (Certainly not an imminent threat). No exit strategy.

Reeling deficits as far as the eye can see. No strategy to fix. In fact, no apparent desre to fix.

Millions out of work. No strategy to fix. Three tax cuts demonstrably ineffective.

Environment protections dismantled.

Veterans screwed.

Military screwed.

Every time I hear Hannity and his clones demand that someone name ONE thing the idiot has done wrong, I always challenge them to tell me one thing he's done RIGHT.

Any Dem candidate will be able to shoot this full of holes.

[Saudade]

5. Maybe

"Any Dem candidate will be able to shoot this full of holes."

That remains to be seen.

The debate on Preemptive War should focus on principle first, results second. People must be shown that the Bush Doctrine constitutes a repudiation of 200 years of American principle and tradition.

Comparing Clinton's "preemptive" military operations to Bush's is a losing proposition because it concedes the question of principle and relies on Clinton's credibility.

Demos should get over the Clinton thing just as should the Repubs.

[ablbodyed]

8. Yes anyone can shoot holes it this argument, BUT.....

there are enough sheeple out there who won't listen. Case in point: Man I know (nice guy, laughs at my jokes!) small business owner. KNOWS war reasons lies, KNOWS tax cuts won't benefit him, KNOWS that the anti-Public Education policies of this admin will affect his school-counselor wife, yet STILL will vote for duck-anus. All the Dems but Dean are old faces and out of touch with real folks; Dean is a new face but he's ANTI-WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!! Doesn't make the connection that being anti-war towards a illegal and unprincipled war is TRUE patriotism. AND MOST UPSETTING, doesn't want to change. I offered some articles (off the net, no site named) and he said. "I've already got my mind made up"
Another, olderguy: Bush supporter, Rush listener; KNOWS that reasons for war were bogus, but only some of them were, so will vote for 'd-a'.
On the other hand, some people, Repubs for years, mostly women, hate 'd-a' and are amazed that their even-more-Repub husbands are starting to voice unhappiness.
So what we have to do is argue honestly against the lies, with all the force that real love for this country demands and hope and pray that the message get through. That's why the strongest candidates are not just the 'electable' ones, but those with the most powerful message. That said, ANY Dem is better than the duck-anus.

[gratuitous]

16. Stick with the game plan and the facts

Yes, there are any number of stone-brained folks out there whose heads only serve as a place to put a hat. But for many of them, there is much activity going on under the skull that isn't reflected in the talk. People who acknowledge this corrupt administration's shortcomings while declaring that they still intend to vote for it are working through cognitive dissonance.

Keep slipping one more fact onto the pile. One of these facts, like the straw that finally forces the camel to its knees, will only work in tandem with a bunch of others. Soon enough (and there is yet time) the logic of the situation will be irresistible, and their loyalty to Lil George will crumble.

[Sinistrous]

6. This should provide a great opening for the Democrats to hammer Bush.

The discrediting of EVERY sorry assretion made by this administration to justify the "premptive strike" anainst Iraq has provided a wealth of arguments to be flung at the pretender.

It is amazing that the repubs are using their Achilles heel as their campaign theme.

[jeter]

7. I agree

I'm writing my Master's Thesis on The Bush Doctrine. It's a disaster. Completely unworkable. Iraq is an example of why the preemption doctrine is such a bad idea.

If they put all their eggs into this one basket they will lose. If Democrats grow some balls and explain why it has been such a disaster.

The GOP in Congress have degenerated into a group of mindless cowards.

[DrBB]

9. They're walking right into "preventive" versus "preemptive" war issue

Preemptive war is considered legitimate in international law, but preventive is not. Attacking an enemy whom you have solid evidence is an imminent danger--oops, there's that word they've been running from--is okay, but invading a country because they say nasty things about you and you think they may try to harm you some day if they ever get the wherewithal is decidedly not.

Sound familiar?

So if they're going to defend a preemptive war doctrine, they're going to have to defend Iraq as BEING preemptive, not preventative, which means they're stuck with proving it was either an "imminent threat" or accepting that it was an illegitimate target. But they've spent all this time saying "We never said it was an imminent threat!"

Well, guys, you can't have it both ways.

And of course the obvious--much as I don't think their arguments should define our campaigns--to wit, this is an attack that Clark is best suited to rebuff at a basic emotional level, the level that really governs how most people vote.

[pinerow]

11. In order for preemptive wars to be fought, there has to be an

underlying threat or condition which can be concretly proven.
The reasoning that "cause i said so" is not and has never been grounds enough to commit troops to a war.

Intelligence must be beyond reproach and the question of "imminent threat" must be so transparent that even the blind could see the logic.

There was a period in the twentieth century when "premptive" war was all the rage; I refer particularly to the attack on Poland by the German Army; and the invasion of Ethiopia by the Italian Armed Forces. Please let us not forget Pearl Harbor, the mother of all preemptive strikes.

[Racenut20]

10. Darn

Do you mean I am going to be unpatriotic again??? scheeze

[leesa]

12. All Right! Trumpeting their largest failure of all!

These people have GOT to be on some serious drugs! How can their thinking be so addled?

[htuttle]

13. According to Colin Powell, they're all on Ambien (a sleeping pill)

From the Washington Post:

Powell's Chemical Equation

Powell described his killer schedule in an interview Thursday with Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed, a reporter for a London-based Saudi newspaper.

"So do you use sleeping tablets to organize yourself?" Al-Rashed asked.

"Yes. Well, I wouldn't call them that," Powell said. "They're a wonderful medication -- not medication. How would you call it? They're called Ambien, which is very good. You don't use Ambien? Everybody here uses Ambien."

Really? Some folks across the river may conclude that explains a lot.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=691358#691398

[tedzbear]

36. Ambien is a physically addictive drug...

...and shouldn't be taken for a period longer than 2 weeks or physical and psychological dependence results.

The drug works on the same brain receptors as Valium and Xanax (although it is not a muscle relaxant like those 2).

Geez. If Powell is taking that stuff every night he won't be able to sleep without them soon. When tolerance develops and the doc says take 2, 3, and then ups it to Xanax...oh boy! Eventually he'll have to join Rush in the rehab.

I hate to admit it but I know this from personal experience. I am a recovering prescription drug addict with 3 years clean time.

[LiberalUprising]

40. Interview Of Secretary Of State Colin L. Powell

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/texts/03110700.htm

U.S. Department Of State
Office of the Spokesman
Interview Of Secretary Of State Colin L. Powell

[ablbodyed]

14. Unfrotunately there MUST be some data....

that this avenue is going to work. They live and 'die' (not soon enough) by dependence on focus groups. The idea that the average 'merican can understand the difference between preemptive and preventive is 'pie-in-the-sky'. Most can barely find their town an a WeatherChannel map. Sorry to be so elitist, but, UNFROTUNATELY, I think that facts
prove my point. Item: Well better that 50% couldn't name ONE federal cabinet department by name. The Repugs THRIVE on ignorence, indeed could not be successful without it.

[underpants]

20. I think they are believing their press clippings

a sure sign of pending failure.

This si stupid on their part, they are going to trumpet the war in Iraq as a success?!?!? a "good idea"?!??!?! "visionary"??!?!?!?

[MGKrebs]

15. It sounds like they are again twisting and

over-simplifying.

They are lumping ALL pre-emption in with pre-emptive WAR.

Negotiations with North Korea is pre-emption.
Spies work at pre-emption.
Limited strikes are pre-emption.
Sanctions are pre-emption.
Weapons inspectors are pre-emption.

I hope Howard or someone makes this point. Many of us do not oppose the concept of pre-emption. What we oppose is pre-emptive WAR.

[Davis_X_Machina]

17. Well...

to strike out against weaker people, especially if they look, act, and talk different from you. And this makes the US strong??????

No, it doesn't, but it will be good for 60% of the male vote -- and that's enough to keep an election close enough to steal.

[tom_paine]

18. Here's a good slongan for the RNC: Arbeit macht frei

[janx]

22. That's it--and they're going to run with it.

It's perfect.

[DeepModem Mom]

19. Will the question then be whether American voters are willing...

to pay the price of Bush's "doctrine of preemption" in young American lives? And how strongly the media pushes Bush this time, and undermines our candidate?

[janx]

21. HA! This is Bush's biggest vulnerability, but he and that

mouse Gillespie don't even realize it!

Go Chimpy Go! Run on the Iraq war and your PNAC doctrine!

[xxqqqzme]

23. then they have an entire year 2 get

squatter up 2 speed on 'his' doctrine so he can splain it 2 all of us during the debates. How he gets coached on the other 2000 issues is unknown.

[The_Casual_Observer]

24. This will go over about as big as the strategy to

to use a film of Bush landing on an Aircraft carrier, wearing a too-tight flight suit and standing in front of a banner that announces "Mission Accomplished"

[monobrau]

25. bring it on

This is a debate that needs to happen. As our soldiers continue to come home in body bags, let's talk preemption.

[bushisanidiot]

26. GOP Doctrine of Totalitarianism. GOP Doctrine of Colonialism. GOP Doctrine

of death to everyone who doesn't tow the GOP line.

[sjgman9]

27. Damn

Damn that sucks. Preemption is just a bad idea

[Zynx]

28. To the Republicans I say: "Bring it on!"

Give me your best shot!

[Clyde39]

29. They will say it over and over and over

After a while, with so many of them repeating this mantra the country will believe that this is "the American way" and those of us who say otherwise will be called unpatriotic.

[Whoa_Nelly]

30. Exactly what I was thinking, Clyde39

It will become to be accepted as something that is written into our laws...and the sheeple shall follow...baaaa

[Just Me]

32. The rest of us,...

,...better get to work on our own very simple and clear and resounding counter-mantras!!! I am serious. Otherwise, their extremely well-orchestrated propaganda will lead "the people" into no-man's land.

[young_at_heart]

34. I bet Rush will be the first to start this "forward" thinking

Bush will be praised because he has the courage to "lead our country on a smarter and better path". I can see it forming now......we must not stay quiet about this!

[grasswire]

31. this is the old rule of the kitchen

If your souffle falls, praise it as a pudding!

[wabeewoman]

33. Preemption =draft

and if you tell today's mothers and fathers who have been so involved in raising their children they are called helicoper parents (for hovering over them when they go to college) that will be the end of bush and preemption. These parents aren't going to tolerate their children sent over to be cannon fodder. I don't think the 'my country, right or wrong' is going to fly.

[Coventina]

35. Good! It will alienate a lot of the saner "true" conservatives

People like my dad who say it is unAmerican to do preemptive invasions.

The GOP is attempting to pander to their base, they just don't realize how small their base is becoming....

HA!

[leesa]

37. I agree. Very foolish move. Most people think it is an outrageous thing

to do. I hope they go for it!

[Mountainman]

38. preemption cannot be sustained because we don't have the means

We would have to stay in Iraq for about 10 years and then the next country and the next until all our young people are military occupiers of some foreign land because of the draft that would be needed,

There would be no domestic agenda because all taxes would have to go to support the wars.

The world would be a more dangerous place because of the animosity generated by preemption.

Basically the cure for terrorism becomes worse than the disease.


These points and many more that you could ad should be easy to understand.

[nickgutierrez]

39. Everybody's forgetting something:

There's a big, sloppy mess of a war-torn country called Afghanistan that needs attention. If the Dems pound on that, that they'll do something about the potentially disastrous situation in Afghanistan as well as the one in Iraq, that'll get attention, I think.

[Zhade]

41. "It's the immediate threat, stupid."

THAT is what we should hammer home.

[TrueStory]

43. It seems Putins only choice is to adapt to the New International Practice

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1440288,00.html

Moscow - President Vladimir Putin said that Russia will reserve the right to launch preventive strikes if other countries continue using force without United Nations approval.