Kerry Backs Much of Pre-Emption Doctrine

[GreenPartyVoter]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Friday he would be willing to launch a pre-emptive strike against terrorists if he had adequate intelligence of a threat.

Kerry offered some support for one of the most controversial aspects of President Bush's national security policy, even as he criticized the president for not reforming intelligence agencies after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

"Am I prepared as president to go get them before they get us if we locate them and have the sufficient intelligence? You bet I am," he said at a news conference at his Washington headquarters.

The Bush administration laid out the doctrine of pre-emption months before the Iraq war began in March 2003. It argued that the United States cannot rely on its vast arsenal to deter attacks and must be willing to strike first against potential threats. Critics of the policy say the Iraq war shows how the country could be driven to war by flawed intelligence.

http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20040717/D83SJKL00.html

[JohnnyFianna1]

1. Sad, but unfortunately this is what we have to do,

[madmax]

2. I don't have a problem with that as long

as there is 'real' proof. Unlike the methods and intelligence used by the bush neocons. That's my short answer.

[FighttheFuture]

3. The difference would be what constitutes "adequate intelligence"...

yes, those words are an oxymoron with Bush. His level of adequacy was voices in his head that he call "god".

I believe anyone or any country has the right to defend themselves. It's called self-defense. You had just be really damn sure, because sooner or later, your intelligence will be revealed, as it is now.

The lack of reasonable and actionable intelligence has degraded our country in every way imaginable.

Bush and his cronies should be tried for treason and, if found guilty, hang from the highest tree.

[Malva Zebrina]

4. It is?

come on--this is fascism that is what it is.

It sets up small countries to be invaded by the US.

Does anybody really think that there would ever be a pre=emptive attack on Russia?

Or China?

Or Germany or France?

Or Israel?

This is foreign policy to continue the work of the PNAC and all that has been posted here re the PNAC as a bunch of fascist empire seekers will continue with Kerry at the helm instead of Bush, imo.

This is the worst foreign policy ever that would put this awesome power into the hands of, as in Iraq, a single man.

Do we, we the people who abhor war, have anything to say about this?

I guess then Bush was ;right in his pre-emtive doctrine eh? This is the new, the modern America. Hey, damn it--
Bush did right to invade Iraq, pre-emptively!!

Yup--I think now, we are in chains, especially if we want to protect abortion rights and prevent theocracy and a host of other things, but nevermind, I have the feeling the the faith based initiatives that Bush loves and are a threat to our separation of church and state will be also lauded and put through by Kerry. WE, meaning the good people who know the right thing to do.

Where is the hope that Edwards speaks of? More empty rhetoric, methinks. But it has been an education for one who did not pay attention much before to politics. A bitter education.


Goodbye America--I once knew ya--you have chosen the barbaric route, intead of the right route. I am convinced now that Kerry's vote was a vote not out of stupidity but one out of cupidity. He wanted Iraq and all it offers as much as Bush did.

This is simply plainly barbaraism, a la Sharon.

[emulatorloo]

7. He said TERRORISTS, not small countries

what in the world is wrong with going after a group of terrorists if we have intelligence that they are going to strike us.

[Malva Zebrina]

22. Like the terrorists in Saudi? Like the Iraeli terrorists that kill

Pal;estinians , including children?

Way to go Kerry! good move.

the problem here seems to be that you have bought Bush's propaganda and so has Kerry apparently. It is just so convienent to bomb the hell out of any little country such as Iran, because they have "terrorists" that will attack us.( and of course is the next country Israel wants out of it's hair)

Nevermind that Bush named them as an axis of evil and said sinister things about them---you believed Bush right?

And of North Korea?

It has threatened retaliation on the US should Bush try anything aggressive toward it--will Kerry use the Bush doctrine to wage war on North Korea also? D'ya think?

I don't think so, because it is not a threat to Israel, who is behind much of what is going down in the ME, as the cheerleader egging on the US.

Kerry supports Israel, unconditionally. It is a majot league player in this whole thing.

[emulatorloo]

40. Any Pres who had advanced knowledge of 9/11 and didn't try to stop it

would be nuts.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Well said and quite right.

We have decided that to protect our "vital interests" as dictated by the bosses we will use force and subjugation.

The good news is that it won't succeed. The bad news is that the oligarchs..erh, corporate America, is going to take this country down with them.

[emulatorloo]

21. So if a Pres attacked terrorist camp & stopped 9/11 that would be fascist?

Sorry I dont follow.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. We attacked "terrorist camps" in Nicaragua too.

We still do in Columbia. We have done so in Peru, Guatamala, Honduras, Laos, Cambodia, etc, etc, etc. All in the name of "protecting" the USA.

[emulatorloo]

35. Actually no, the "camps" in Nicaragua were funded by Reagan

and we were attacking the elected govt.

Look at your list, it mostly involves repug admins. . .

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. The Sandinistas had not yet been elected.

But, does pre-emption with (D) in charge make it any less repugnant?

[emulatorloo]

38. any candidate who says he will not try to prevent another 9/11 would

be nuts.

If we have reliable intelligence that a terrorist group is planning to target civilians they should be stopped.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. False premise.

"any candidate who says that he will not try to prevent another 9/11 would be nuts."

Who says that he should say that? What some of us are disagreein with is the way that he plans to "stop" another 9/11.

"If we have reliable intelligence that a terrorist group is planning to target civilians they should be stopped"

We DO have reliable intelligence that a terrorist group is planning to target civilians. Except they don't call them "civilians" they call them "collateral damage". They're initials are USAF, USA, USMC, CIA.

Trusting the CIA, DIA, etc, to provide the "reliable intelligence" is somewhat like handing the keys to your house to Tony Soprano & Associates to check the burglar alarms.

[emulatorloo]

42. You presume that Bush and Kerry are the same ethically

their biographies tell me different

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. I'm presuming that setting in place a doctrine of pre-emption is wrong.

Kerry may use the doctrine with caution, even if based on information from an inept and highly politicized "intelligence community", however, the mere fact of the doctrine being in place has already led this nation to commit unspeakable acts of aggression and atrocity already.

That Kerry should be given a pass on supporting such a fascist doctrine by supposed "progressives" is giving in to the harm that this nation has done and continues to do in support of our "Vital Interests" ($$$$$).

IMO it is much the same as the liberals who looked the other way, while their fellow Democrats supported segregation simply because they had a (D) after their name.

[emulatorloo]

45. If a terrorist group has attacked before, and is planning a new attack

is preventing that attack "wrong" pre-emption, per your definition?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. What "terrorist group"?

Al-Queyda, presumably? OK. Hypothetically, the CIA miraculously gets something right for a change, and they discover a cell living in an apartment in Tehran. How do you propose that they be attacked? Bomb the apartment building? Send in "agents" to assasinate them? Attack Iran for harboring them?

How about if the apartment is in Paris? Berlin? Beijing? Tokyo? Moscow? Detroit?

"Pre-emption" as used by Boobya and Kerry, indicates the use of military or para-military force.

The problem is that that force can be, has been, and most likely will again be used not against isolated bands of "terrorists" but against whole nations, rebellious people fighting tyranny, or merely "liberals" of many stripes who complain about being ripped off by our benevolent country.

It's the policy itself, not those who wield it, that is a weapon of Fascism and Imperialism.

The other problem is that it doesn't work. Ask Israel.

[emulatorloo]

48. Richard Clarke details several successful "snatches"in Against All Enemies

where a few agents lured a terrorist/terrorists from an apartment into capture.

Clearly, Bush is all about military action and nothing else.

OTOH Kerry has long said that law enforcement, sharing info w foreign intel, cutting off funding sources, etc are very important tools. OTOH I cannot see him ruling out military action as a possibility.

Anyways, I think you and I are at the end of the line here. . .so best regards. . .

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. Hat's off to you too.

At least avoided much of the name-calling.

[Syrinx]

5. Well, I've voting for Nader then

Come on. If Kerry had knowledge that terrorists were about to attack, and he did nothing to stop it, he should be impeached. This is not the same as invading Iraq for oil fields.

[IronLionZion]

6. He needs to look tough on defense

And I support some of the doctrine as well. We could have done a strike on Al Qaeda before Sep. 11 and we could have taken out the Japanese attack fleet as they approached Hawaii back in 1941.

Bush perverted it to be like "you look sketchy so I'm going to kill you".

[emulatorloo]

9. I do not have a problem with attacking TERRORISTS who are about to attack

I cannot see how this is "unreasonable"

[IronLionZion]

11. It's very reasonable

but some liberals around here are being unreasonable.

[gristy]

10. Attacking terrorists based on quality corroborated intelligence is a good

thing, and a far cry from invading whole countries on faulty intelligence that its dictator had WMD programs.

[merh]

12. What would Nader do in like situation....

Give me a break - the constant posting of posts with misleading subjects is getting old. Read the contents of your own post and the link and read it intelligently, not to nit pick the dem candidate and equate him to *. * is evil. Nader is in bed with * and the repukes.

As pointed out, this is not the * pre-emptive doctrine as alleged.

"Am I prepared as president to go get them before they get us if we locate them and have the sufficient intelligence? You bet I am,"

Sufficient and adequate intelligence - * had neither and has lied since day one about his plans. Iraq was the goal from the day he first announced his run for presidency. Some say since the day he decided (or they decided for him) to run for office in Texas.

What would Nader do -- sit and wait if he had sufficient information that advised of a terrorist strike?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

15. Nader would wait until the NeoCons told him what to do.

[merh]

19. LOL - you are so right!

[GreenPartyVoter]

16. The title is the one used by the AP press. Blame them for misleading ppl.

[merh]

20. Then maybe you should have posted "AP states ....."

And make the distinctions in your post instead trying to give substance to their efforts to mislead.

[GreenPartyVoter]

26. I could do that. Thanks for the tip. But we can still point out

that media headlines are misleading without casting aspersions on the poster who put them up. In fact, people generally do.

[merh]

33. If a poster adopts the headline as his/her own by putting it in the

subject line without a disclaimer as "AP alleges (media headline)", then the poster is adopting the statement as his/her own, especially if the poster does not point out the inaccuracies or misleading context of the piece.

If I say Kerry is a wimp, it is my statment. If I am posting a media accusation or story that discusses the issue, it is best to distant myself from the ownership of the thought by stating "AP alleges Kerry is a wimp."

[GreenPartyVoter]

34. I'll use quote marks in the future so that folks who don't

understand that this is an article will realize I did not write it.
Thanks.

[merh]

36. Thank you. (n/t)

[komplex]

13. There's a difference between using a tool the right way and

using a tool the wrong way. It's just like that scene in Monty Python where the villagers accuse a woman of being a witch. The King says, let's use the scientific method to determine if she's a witch or not. The king screws it up of course, but we don't throw away the scientific method. Just because George Bush screwed up, doesn't mean that a pre-emptive strike is a bad idea. It just has to be used properly.

Stating that you have the option for a pre-emptive strike, is much better than using it. It works great as a threat. Think about it, using the threat of a pre-emptive strike allowed the UN Inspectors to go places where they couldn't go back in the 1990's. It made Saddam play ball with the US. Where Bush & Co. screwed up was that they wanted to invade anyway so they did. Now the next two-bit dictator that we have to keep in line knows the only way that he can protect himself is to get nukes. Because if GWB wants to invade, he's going to invade regardless of what anybody does.

[GreenPartyVoter]

17. Welcome to DU *wave*

[progressivebydesign]

14. I agree with him..

.. who would not, the way it is phrased. The PROBLEM is with people like Bush who use that idea to attack for profit. There's a difference.

[RoyGBiv]

18. Different Levels

First, I'd like to note that "pre-emption" is another of those words for which the current administration has perverted the meaning for its own purposes. Bush has tried, and mostly succeeded, in equating "pre-emption" with "defense" (bad is good, black is white, slavery is freedom) to the point that no substantive difference exists between a policy of "first strike" against a perceived threat, e.g. the Cold War fear, and a strike against a threat that has already shown itself to be a threat by engaging in various overt hostile, violent actions against this nation. For the sake of discussion, I'll accept in general terms that pre-emption means what Bush and the media have decided it means, but only with the caveat that under this definition, there are different levels of pre-emption.

Clinton's ordering a missile strike against a terrorist camp where bin Laden was suspected to be is a form of pre-emption, and I don't have a great deal of problem with that provided actual evidence exists that a) the target is or should be there, and b) that the person or group being targetted poses a real and verifiable threat.

Pre-emptive, full scale war against a sovereign nation is a different animal entirely. There are very few circumstances under which I would support such a thing, and the justification for invading Iraq didn't come close.

I would note that Kerry's comments don't require acceptance of the so-called Bush Doctrine to maintain integrity. This article is little but a two-pronged attempt both to equate Kerry's ideas as little different than those of Bush (so, why change horses) while at the same time illogically, given the initial premise, offering that Kerry is "out of the mainstream." (This talking-point has already been far over-done.)

Getting back to my original point, I don't equate launching a missile, an air assault, or even a limited ground offensive under strictly controlled and defined conditions in an attempt to destroy elements of al Qaeda as strictly a "pre-emptive" strike. The United States has been directly attacked by this organization, and the term "pre-emption" with its Cold War connotations does not apply. That does not mean the US has a blanket justification to invade each and every sovereign nation in which al Qaeda may exist, much less those whose leaders maybe, possibly, at one time or another, could have had a one-sided conversation with an al Qaeda operative.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Pre-emption is terror and the tool of fascists.

A policy that allows our "democratic" government to involve itself in war, assasination, and terror, without the consent of the people.

It allows the "intelligence community" to select who is a terrorist and use whatever force it deems necessary against whatever target it chooses without declaring war.

The CIA has used it for decades in places like Honduras, Cuba, Nicaragua, Peru, The Congo, Angola, and countless others. All in the name of "protecting us".

Israel has been using it since it's inception and is now using it with a vengeance.

The good news is, that it doesn't work.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

25. SO Clinton should NOT have gone after Bin Laden?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. Should Reagan have gone after Pinochet?

Or, Kennedy after Fidel? Should the CIA have armed the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan? How about the Phoenix Program in Vietnam? Even My-Lai could be viewed as "pre-emptive". Those kids might have grown up to be "terrorists"?

Hitler pre-empted "terrorists" after the Reichstag fire. "Terrorists" being Communists, Socialists, Anarchists, Liberals, Trade Unionists, and anyone else that he feared. Leading, of course, to the "pre-emption" of the Jews in Auschwitz, Sobibor, Treblinka, etc.

Do you trust our "intelligence community", and our government to identify "terrorists" on a purely objective basis.

What do you think of Israel's "pre-emptive" strikes against "terrorists" in Palestine?

Giving the government the right to "pre-emption" is to give it a blank check. Who knows? You might find your name on that check.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

24. So do Green Party Voters think we should just let them attack?

While everyone KNEW Bush was simply looking for an excuse to attack Iraq, and the evidence FOR attacking them was debunked as they dished it out, I am NOT in complete disagreement with striking someone where there is solid evidence they will strike us first...especially if they plan to do so in a populous area.

Now..back to my question...Greens, and other people bashing Kerry for this have solid evidence that terrorists are planning to come to America to bomb the Golden Gate Bridge on New Year's Eve when it is likely to be full of traffic....what do Green Party Voter's do?

[GreenPartyVoter]

27. I'm not bashing Kerry. If I was bashing him I would have

clearly said, "I don't like Kerry because he..." I am just posting AP articles about him, many of which are also favorable.

[Malva Zebrina]

29. Did the Taliban attack us?

Yet we went there and murdered civilians who were no threat. The Taliban did NOT attack us, we deemed them, however worthy of being usurped because, well because they made their women wear burquas and they tore down the buddhas and they did not let little girls go to school and hey they were a POTENTIAL threat. Yeah

yet most people perceive they did have something to do with 9-11. The war torn country allowed Bin Laden to be there, true, however it had nothing to do with the 9-11 attack at all. and now Pakistan allows Bin Laden to be there. You tell me.

Let us not be so naive to think that pre-emptive attacks on these little countries that already have been war torn is goin to STOP TERRORISTS. Jesus Christ--have we learned NOTHING from the slaughter we handed out in Iraq?

Jesus Christ--people on
DU have bought the crap Bush fed them and now Kerry.

So there in Afganistan you have an attack that is not even a pre emptive attack, based on some one's sense of revenge, and political to boot, where thousands of innocent people again , were killed with our bombs. and IT WAS A FAILURE

You are for this? You really think that bombing a country with thousand pound bombs to get rid of a band of terrorists, works and is the WAR ON TERRORISM that Bush initiates?

[QC]

39. "what do Green Party Voter's do?"

They go out to the bridge, form a Healing Circle of Love, and then head back into town for the Midnight Tofu Buffet. Yum!

[clarkVP]

28. Im glad Kerry will bomb the right people

Its about time we accepted the death penalty.
Thank you John Kerry.

[Deja Q]

31. I agree with SOME of the patriot act. And if ethical people make sure it

remains properly used, fine.

But * wants to expand on it and people have already abused it for non-terrorism issues.

I will ALWAYS disagree on 'pre-emptive strikes'. That makes us as much savages as those who see fit to attack us first.

[Walt Starr]

44. This is why on Novemeber 3rd I go from being a Kerry supporter,

donator, and voter to being 100% anti-Kerry.

[Pepperbelly]

47. "The sky is falling!"

It is apples and oranges and the fact that this is being flailed in some quarters is both disingenious and exploitive. Every U.S. President, if he/she had information regarding the location of congregations of people who intend us harm, will act on it. Labeling it as "pre-emptive" is what is dishonest about the piece.

I think the piece, btw, was originally from the Guardian.

[jpgray]

49. So did Dean. Both say there are circumstances which warrant preemption

I don't know why, but since Dean has a magic coat of invulnerability here, it's often good to note how alike the two men are in their opinions. Kerry says it, it's indicative of his corporate DLC whoring. Dean says it, it's indicative of his common sense.

Anyway, Kerry's quote requires solid intelligence and doesn't have anything to do with invading a country and occupying it.

[LoZoccolo]

50. We already know what's wrong with this argument so that's why I go...

...dooba dooba dooba dooba dooba dooba dooba dooba dooba dooba dooba dooba dooba dooba dooba dooba dooba dooba dooba dooba dooba dooba dooba dooba dooba dooba dooba dooba dooba dooba dooba dooba dooba dooba dooba dooba.