GOP will trumpet preemption doctrine (Bush as visionary against indecisive

[papau]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/11/12/gop_will_trumpet_preemption_doctrine?mode=PF

GOP will trumpet preemption doctrine
By Anne E. Kornblut, Globe Staff, 11/12/2003

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." <snip>

By and large, most Democrats have been opposed to a full-blown "doctrine of preemption," arguing that the United States has always reserved the right to take preemptive action to protect itself without codifying it as the basis for US foreign policy. And that, they argue, is an articulate belief that resonates with the public -- especially in the absence of weapons of mass destruction or the capture of former dictator Saddam Hussein of Iraq.<snip>

COMMENT: I LIKED KERRY AND DEAN RESPONSE
Kerry :"Everyone knows we need to hunt down and destroy those who are plotting mass murder against Americans. But it takes a lot more than that to defeat terrorism in the long term, and the clumsy, arrogant way the Bush administration boasts about preemption alienates allies we need to help us and makes it a lot harder to stop proliferation in trouble spots around the globe."
Dean: "A preemptive strategy never fits into an American strategy," the presidential candidate and former Vermont governor said last week. It is a policy that doesn't serve us well, and Iraq is a perfect example. The first time we used the preemption policy, it got us into an enormous amount of trouble."

SO IS BUSH A VISIONARY PREVENTING ATTACKS ON US SOIL - FIGHTING THOSE INDECISIVE, FAINTHEARTED, UNPATRIOTIC DEMS - REPAIRING THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE INACTION OF THE CLINTON YEARS?

ANY SOUND BITE RESPONSE SUGGESTIONS WOULD BE USEFUL - AS THE DEAN/KERRY RESPONSES - IN MY OPINION - DID NOT MAKE THE SOUNDBITE HALL OF FAME.

[RobertSeattle]

1. Hmmm...Other "Decisive" Leaders

Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler...

Being "Decisive" also requires good judgment. Sometimes being "Decisive" means doing nothing.

And just clarify, MOST of the current Iraq problem caused the the INDECISIVENESS of Bush I AFTER the Gulf War - not Clinton.

[markus]

3. Hah! There you go with more of that Democratic Hate Speech

HateSpeech is OldThink.

LoveSpeech is GoodThink.

LoveOrLeave you Oldhink Pessicrat.

[Qutzupalotl]

2. Pre-emptive attacks based on faulty intelligence set us backward.

They make the world less safe because they violate international law and spurn our allies.

The pResident knowingly used forged documents to deceive Congress and the American people because of his ties to companies that profit from war.

Abandonment of the Geneva Convention places U.S. troops overseas at greater risk of torture and mistreatment.

Inaction by the pResident in the Summer of 2001 led to the terrorist attacks of September 11, despite his having been explicitly warned.

On September 10, 2001, the pResident had a plan on his desk to invade Afghanistan, to pave the way for the Unocal pipeline. How convenient that the towers were attacked the next day.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

4. Dean disqualifies himself again

Look, I personally, morally, and ethically am opposed to preemption, however, you cannot categorically rule it out as Dean does with "A preemptive strategy never fits into an American strategy". You simply cannot say that because it clearly does not allow for possible action in future situations. Unless Dean was only trying to make a good sound bite, this absolutism seems dangerously inflexible.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

6. Actually Dean has come out on both sides of this issue.

No surprise, but being both for AND against the doctrine of unilateral, preemptive war actually seems a lot less decisive that being for OR against it.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

8. I have noticed previous statements indicating that

gotta keep all bases covered I guess... :shrug:

[KittyWampus]

13. Holy Crap! Dean Is UNFIT To Be President If He Said That

Pre-emption is most CERTAINLY a valid and necessary part of American Strategy!

Preventative War is NOT legal and THAT is what Junior started.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

14. Could you please explain the difference

between "preventative" and "pre-emptive" war?

Thank you.

[KittyWampus]

16. Pre Emptive Means Stopping An Incoming Attack

That is certain to hit you. There is NO law that says you have to sit and absorb a first blow if you know it's coming. Preemption relies on haivng accurate and unquestionable intelligence indicating that you are indeed going to be hit.

Preventative means striking with no provocation or imminent threat. You are hitting with the purpose of keeping someone from gaining the capacity to ever threaten you with harm.

Do you see what the issue is here?

If Dean said that about not using Pre-Emptive Stragegy he is unfit to President... he would have allowed those planes to hit the Towers becasue to have blown them up beforehand would have PREEMPTED them.

NOT ONLY THAT, but it is certain that Rove has this on the top of his list.

It was a MAJOR GAFFE. And in the context of the article at the head of this thread.... it means Dean is dead meat.

[drfemoe]

21. He has never said that

I have no idea where the quote in original message originated . but that is not his stance at all. As has been pointed out, striking 'first' to AVOID a REAL threat is and has been legal.

You can untwist your knickers now.

[democratreformed]

22. Could it be like this?

Preventative would be when I stormed to the dangerous drug dealer down the street and wanted to kill him (or her) before he or she robbed my house, tried to push drugs on my child, or killed someone close to me over drug-induced paranoia.

Pre-emptive would be when that person was on my front steps with his or her gun, drawn and ready, coming after me because of some perceived wrong I had done. I could then stop that person before they harmed me or my family.

[Qutzupalotl]

5. It's useless to pre-emptively invade a country

that wasn't going to attack us. All the hype about WMDs, programs and intentions turned out to be LIES.

We're at war with Al Qaeda, not "terrorism". As Zbigniew Brzezinski says, that's a method of killing, not an enemy--like saying we're at war against "blitzkreig."

[KittyWampus]

18. That Is Why It Was Not PREEMPTIVE

What we did in Iraq was PREVENTATIVE!

[Qutzupalotl]

7. Short soundbyte

Where's Osama? bin Forgotten?

[democratreformed]

9. Oh God!

And do you know how many people will buy into this idea lock, stock, and barrell?
What are we going to do?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

10. We simply need to show that the WAY Bush has handled things

has made us more vulnerable, not safer.

It's a matter of framing the debate.

Republicans will want to frame the debate as "Democrats are weak and won't stand up for America'.

We need to frame the debate as: "Bush's actions and policies are making America weaker, not stronger"

[papau]

12. AS the GOP says - those with a good education don't vote GOP

so it is a battle of soundbites for the non-union lower middle class types - the Reagan Dems -

And soundbytes and appearance is more important than anything else except the need to not appear to be lecturing or showing a put down attitude or putting down the US, the military, or religion.

And none of that is bad.

But we do need soundbites to offset the Rove focus group tested "visionary" who dares to keep the battle away from our shores - all the while not telling folks how he rejected Clinton's Bin Laden advice and procedures - rejected the HART report - and indeed 911 "let it happen" - mostly because of his stupidity and laziness.

So a soundbite that says the above would be usefull.

Or are pre-emptive Hitler like actions visionary - and we should let the media do its copy machine echo chamber reporting of GOP soundbites?

[KittyWampus]

11. Preemptive Is A Misnomer- We Must Use PREVENTATIVE

Preemption is actually not illegal. There is no law that says you have to passively absorb the first blow if you have reliable info tat tells you it's coming.

That is why cooking intelligence is so incredibly dangerous.

What Junior & Co. did was PREVENTATIVE War... a war to prevent another country from becoming an imminent threat.

This has been made clear by General Clark and we should be aware of the terminology because arguing against PREMTION is a losing proposition.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

15. Two words for the same thing.

If another country poses an imminent threat, I think you would be justified in attacking them. I think all our candidates believe that just as all our candidates believe Iraq was not an imminent threat at the time Bush invaded (with the possible exception of Lieberman).

Whether you call such an attack 'pre-emption' or 'prevention' changes nothing.

[KittyWampus]

17. They Are Absolutely NOT The Same

I repeat NOT the same thing. And it's understandable for you not to know the difference but for Dean it is inexusable.

There is a MAJOR difference between Pre-emption where you are stopping an IMMINENT incoming blow and a PREVENTATIVE strike which is stopping someone who has given NO indication that they are CURRENTLY IN THE PRECESS of carrying out an attack against you.

Prevention means stopping someone from becoming able IN SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE to attack you...

Pre-emption is ACTUALLY stopping someone who is coming at you NOW.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

23. Webster's disagrees with you.

Main Entry: pre·vent
Pronunciation: pri-'vent
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, to anticipate, from Latin praeventus, past participle of praevenire to come before, anticipate, forestall, from prae- + venire to come -- more at COME
Date: 15th century
transitive senses
1 archaic a : to be in readiness for (as an occasion) b : to meet or satisfy in advance c : to act ahead of d : to go or arrive before
2 : to deprive of power or hope of acting or succeeding
3 : to keep from happening or existing <steps to prevent war>
4 : to hold or keep back : HINDER, STOP -- often used with from
intransitive senses : to interpose an obstacle
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=prevent

Main Entry: pre·empt
Pronunciation: prE-'em(p)t
Function: verb
Etymology: back-formation from preemption
Date: 1850
transitive senses
1 : to acquire (as land) by preemption
2 : to seize upon to the exclusion of others : take for oneself <the movement was then preempted by a lunatic fringe>
3 : to replace with something considered to be of greater value or priority : take precedence over <the program did not appear, having been preempted by a baseball game -- Robert MacNeil>
4 : to gain a commanding or preeminent place in
5 : to prevent from happening or taking place : FORESTALL, PRECLUDE
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=preempt

[drfemoe]

19. Preemptive Democracy

I think his pr people have convinced him the murican people will buy into a belief in "insta democracy"

.. like an instant brownie mix .. just add one deposed dictator, a bombed out citizenry and stir with murican politics (and CA$H . lots of CA$H) and a "democracy" is born.

It is a disgrace to our ancestors who died a bloody death to institute a government of/by/for the PEOPLE. So far, I'm not aware of any technology that can provide "insta democracy" .. those damn pharmaceuticals companies .. GET BUSY!

footnote: the scary thing is there are *drugs* that target geno-types .. so we do have a recipe for instant despotism ..

[killbotfactory]

20. Where's OBL? Where's Saddam? Where's the WMD?

Where is all the money we're pumping into Iraq going?

Bush: I dunno...

PREMPTIVE DOCTRINE A SUCCESS! touts republicans...

[Kolesar]

24. Cokie Roberts says this impulsive shit don't fly with women voters

Ok, Cokie Roberts did not say that (she is not as eloquent as I am). But I remember from one of her Monday NPR "political reports" that the brash, cocksure method of George Bush* may fly with would-be macho men, but that it could be a major liability with more thoughtful women voters.

Would any women like to comment on this?

[drfemoe]

25. I think it has more to do with

belief system than gender, although there are inherent differences in the way men and women come about their belief systems.

The point should be .. before the military action no one in the admin was calling for a 'preemtive' war. The impression was given that "they've already hit us once and we can't let them get us again".