Kerry backs much of pre-emption doctrine

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Kerry backs much of pre-emption doctrine

By KEN GUGGENHEIM
The Associated Press
7/16/2004, 3:38 p.m. PT

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.

Kerry said the intelligence needs to be improved so that the word of a U.S. president "is good enough for people across the world again."

But he added, "I will never allow any other country to veto what we need to do and I will never allow any other institution to veto what we need to do to protect our nation."

Bush-Cheney campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt complained that Kerry proposed cuts in intelligence spending while in the Senate. "John Kerry's attack is another example of his flailing efforts to defend a record that is out of the mainstream," Schmidt said.

Kerry spoke one week after the Senate Intelligence Committee sharply criticized prewar intelligence on whether Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. The report did not address Bush's role, but Kerry said, "as commander in chief, the president of the United States must take responsibility for what happens on his or her watch."

The four-term Massachusetts senator said that nearly three years after the Sept. 11 attacks, "this president has not taken action sufficient to fix the intelligence problems that have plagued us."

Outlining his own proposals, Kerry repeated his call for creating a director of central intelligence who would oversee all facets of the nation's intelligence operations. He also proposed at least doubling spending for clandestine operations, improving interagency coordination and accelerating reforms at the FBI to improve its handling of domestic intelligence.

But Kerry stopped short of supporting a proposal by his running mate, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, to create a new domestic intelligence agency similar to the British MI5 agency. Supporters of a new agency say the FBI has been more concerned historically about criminal investigations than intelligence; opponents fear a domestic spy agency threatening Americans' privacy.

Link
 

Hossenfeffer

Diamond Member
Jul 16, 2000
7,462
1
0
What do you Libs think about that?

Who are you?


I guess I'm more a "lib" than a conservative. I'm planning on voting for Kerry in November. I read the article and can't say it brought anything with any bite to it. Just seemed a rehash of critiques.
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
Pre-emptive strike on terrorist with good intel != invading a country not involved in terrorism based on bad intel.
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Conjur, are you flip-flopping like your candidate John Kerry?

Let me remind you of what you said in previous threads:

"A pre-emptive invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation is making "a mountaing out of a mole hill"??? WTF??"

"We have been for pre-emptive, full-scale invasions of sovereign nations in the past? hmm....guess I missed the memo."

"Although I have yet to read Mr. Clarke's book, from what I've scanned in news articles, reviews and op-ed's, his policy prescriptions seem to be of an unilateralist and pre-emptive nature. Almost 'cowboyesque'".

"I'd give up a tax cut if it meant no more pre-emptive invasions."
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Conjur, are you flip-flopping like your candidate John Kerry?

Let me remind you of what you said in previous threads:

"A pre-emptive invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation is making "a mountaing out of a mole hill"??? WTF??"

"We have been for pre-emptive, full-scale invasions of sovereign nations in the past? hmm....guess I missed the memo."

"Although I have yet to read Mr. Clarke's book, from what I've scanned in news articles, reviews and op-ed's, his policy prescriptions seem to be of an unilateralist and pre-emptive nature. Almost 'cowboyesque'".

"I'd give up a tax cut if it meant no more pre-emptive invasions."

Now I know you're full of sh*t!

1) I was referring to someone minimalizing the invasion of Iraq. It was a very major event. Would you not agree?

2) Point out where the U.S. has ever proposed a pre-emptive, full-scale invasion of a sovereign nation prior to 2002. Excuse me while I don't hold my breath.

3) Never said that. That is not my quote. You're an idiot.

4) Yes, I would give up a tax cut if it meant no more pre-emptive invasions. That was in a thread about compromises:
When and where would you Compromise?
What issue would you trade with another political party?

That was a hypothetical. Realistically speaking, I would support a pre-emptive invasion if it was truly justified.

Afghanistan ring any bells?
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Conjur, are you flip-flopping like your candidate John Kerry?

Let me remind you of what you said in previous threads:

"A pre-emptive invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation is making "a mountaing out of a mole hill"??? WTF??"

"We have been for pre-emptive, full-scale invasions of sovereign nations in the past? hmm....guess I missed the memo."

"Although I have yet to read Mr. Clarke's book, from what I've scanned in news articles, reviews and op-ed's, his policy prescriptions seem to be of an unilateralist and pre-emptive nature. Almost 'cowboyesque'".

"I'd give up a tax cut if it meant no more pre-emptive invasions."

Now I know you're full of sh*t!

1) I was referring to someone minimalizing the invasion of Iraq. It was a very major event. Would you not agree?

2) Point out where the U.S. has ever proposed a pre-emptive, full-scale invasion of a sovereign nation prior to 2002. Excuse me while I don't hold my breath.

3) Never said that. That is not my quote. You're an idiot.

4) Yes, I would give up a tax cut if it meant no more pre-emptive invasions. That was in a thread about compromises:
When and where would you Compromise?
What issue would you trade with another political party?

That was a hypothetical. Realistically speaking, I would support a pre-emptive invasion if it was truly justified.

Afghanistan ring any bells?

I can see we're not in the no-spin zone!
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Conjur, are you flip-flopping like your candidate John Kerry?

Let me remind you of what you said in previous threads:

"A pre-emptive invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation is making "a mountaing out of a mole hill"??? WTF??"

"We have been for pre-emptive, full-scale invasions of sovereign nations in the past? hmm....guess I missed the memo."

"Although I have yet to read Mr. Clarke's book, from what I've scanned in news articles, reviews and op-ed's, his policy prescriptions seem to be of an unilateralist and pre-emptive nature. Almost 'cowboyesque'".

"I'd give up a tax cut if it meant no more pre-emptive invasions."

Now I know you're full of sh*t!

1) I was referring to someone minimalizing the invasion of Iraq. It was a very major event. Would you not agree?

2) Point out where the U.S. has ever proposed a pre-emptive, full-scale invasion of a sovereign nation prior to 2002. Excuse me while I don't hold my breath.

3) Never said that. That is not my quote. You're an idiot.

4) Yes, I would give up a tax cut if it meant no more pre-emptive invasions. That was in a thread about compromises:
When and where would you Compromise?
What issue would you trade with another political party?

That was a hypothetical. Realistically speaking, I would support a pre-emptive invasion if it was truly justified.

Afghanistan ring any bells?

I can see we're not in the no-spin zone!

Go ahead, Rip. Prove *any* of that is spin.

Go ahead.


I won't be holding my breath.

I just handed you your ass for about the 10th time in a week.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
I know of no President ever, who if given solid evidence that an attack was impending would not take appropriate action.

The qualifiers are solid evidence (which is not the same as intel) and appropriate. That means measures taken would be proportional to the threat. There is a great difference between launching a strike and launching a war.

IMO Bush acted properly with Afghanistan, but not with Iraq.

What will Kerry do? I hope listen to reasons for AND against a particular action and act with prudence. We'll see what happens next year if he wins.
 

Hossenfeffer

Diamond Member
Jul 16, 2000
7,462
1
0
Rip, you don't even realize how your "sly" attempt at an attack has zero bite, do you?

Yet another case where you're failing to take context into account. (which conjur's rebuttal seems to show very well)

I'm all for different points of view than my own, but they've gotta at least be thought out and not knee-jerks.
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Originally posted by: Hossenfeffer
Rip, you don't even realize how your "sly" attempt at an attack has zero bite, do you?

Yet another case where you're failing to take context into account. (which conjur's rebuttal seems to show very well)

I'm all for different points of view than my own, but they've gotta at least be thought out and not knee-jerks.

So all of you Libs who've spoken out so vehemently against pre-emptive actions against sovereign nations are now for it?
 

Hossenfeffer

Diamond Member
Jul 16, 2000
7,462
1
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Hossenfeffer
Rip, you don't even realize how your "sly" attempt at an attack has zero bite, do you?

Yet another case where you're failing to take context into account. (which conjur's rebuttal seems to show very well)

I'm all for different points of view than my own, but they've gotta at least be thought out and not knee-jerks.

So all of you Libs who've spoken out so vehemently against pre-emptive actions against sovereign nations are now for it?

It's not an all or nothing issue.

Just because I don't like strawberry ice cream doesn't mean I don't like ice cream.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Conjur, are you flip-flopping like your candidate John Kerry?

Let me remind you of what you said in previous threads:

"A pre-emptive invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation is making "a mountaing out of a mole hill"??? WTF??"

"We have been for pre-emptive, full-scale invasions of sovereign nations in the past? hmm....guess I missed the memo."

"Although I have yet to read Mr. Clarke's book, from what I've scanned in news articles, reviews and op-ed's, his policy prescriptions seem to be of an unilateralist and pre-emptive nature. Almost 'cowboyesque'".

"I'd give up a tax cut if it meant no more pre-emptive invasions."

Now I know you're full of sh*t!

1) I was referring to someone minimalizing the invasion of Iraq. It was a very major event. Would you not agree?

2) Point out where the U.S. has ever proposed a pre-emptive, full-scale invasion of a sovereign nation prior to 2002. Excuse me while I don't hold my breath.

3) Never said that. That is not my quote. You're an idiot.

4) Yes, I would give up a tax cut if it meant no more pre-emptive invasions. That was in a thread about compromises:
When and where would you Compromise?
What issue would you trade with another political party?

That was a hypothetical. Realistically speaking, I would support a pre-emptive invasion if it was truly justified.

Afghanistan ring any bells?

I can see we're not in the no-spin zone!

Go ahead, Rip. Prove *any* of that is spin.

Go ahead.


I won't be holding my breath.

I just handed you your ass for about the 10th time in a week.

Yoo hoo????

Where'd ya go, Rip?
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
2) Point out where the U.S. has ever proposed a pre-emptive, full-scale invasion of a sovereign nation prior to 2002. Excuse me while I don't hold my breath
Vietnam, Korea, Kosovo, Grenada, Panama...
 

Ogi

Member
Jul 16, 2004
112
0
0
heaven forbid there is any gray area in an issue!!!

speaking of flip flopping can you say now that tony blair is flip flopping?

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/11789979?source=Evening%20Standard

I won't post the whole article but after reading the first few lines people should get the basic drift

it's sad to see this country seperate into 2 "catigories". Most people would consider me a "lib" although I hold many conservative views on many topics. Unfortunately through personal attacks of people's beliefs (cough *bush attacking kerry* cough) and can't say anything good about himself, when was the last time you heard bush say something true that he did good, the creation of homeland security perhaps? (i work for the DHS) and he is actually cutting funding for us, so quit thinking we are a "safer" nation with him in office, not only are al-quida recrutment numbers probably through the roof but our defense is weakerning

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58762-2004May26.html

but yet we accuse kerry of flip flopping, why? because bush said so does and some of us follow people blindly instead of gathering all appropriate information and making our own decisions.

Ogi
 

Crimson

Banned
Oct 11, 1999
3,809
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Conjur, are you flip-flopping like your candidate John Kerry?

Let me remind you of what you said in previous threads:

"A pre-emptive invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation is making "a mountaing out of a mole hill"??? WTF??"

"We have been for pre-emptive, full-scale invasions of sovereign nations in the past? hmm....guess I missed the memo."

"Although I have yet to read Mr. Clarke's book, from what I've scanned in news articles, reviews and op-ed's, his policy prescriptions seem to be of an unilateralist and pre-emptive nature. Almost 'cowboyesque'".

"I'd give up a tax cut if it meant no more pre-emptive invasions."

Now I know you're full of sh*t!

1) I was referring to someone minimalizing the invasion of Iraq. It was a very major event. Would you not agree?

2) Point out where the U.S. has ever proposed a pre-emptive, full-scale invasion of a sovereign nation prior to 2002. Excuse me while I don't hold my breath.

3) Never said that. That is not my quote. You're an idiot.

4) Yes, I would give up a tax cut if it meant no more pre-emptive invasions. That was in a thread about compromises:
When and where would you Compromise?
What issue would you trade with another political party?

That was a hypothetical. Realistically speaking, I would support a pre-emptive invasion if it was truly justified.

Afghanistan ring any bells?

I can see we're not in the no-spin zone!

Go ahead, Rip. Prove *any* of that is spin.

Go ahead.


I won't be holding my breath.

I just handed you your ass for about the 10th time in a week.

Do you have any retort to an argument besides 'show me proof'? This coming from the guy who said he didn't need to provide proof that Fox was biased to the right, it was just a 'fact'.. Stop asking for 'proof' for things which are subjective anyway.. I mean, how possibly could he proof that you aren't spinning something?

You arguments are tired.. and they offer nothing of substance.. start responding to his issues instead of asking for 'proof' on something which cannot be proved..

Oh, and please provide proof you handed Rip his ass 10 times this week.. and I mean Proof.. don't make me go Perk on you.
 

Ogi

Member
Jul 16, 2004
112
0
0
i can give you proof that fox is biased, Bush's cousin is one of their chief editors.

also having chaney said he ONLY watches fox news should say something as well ;)

Ogi
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Where's MAW1082?

Here's what he said:

"Today's liberals, however, believe in freedom and justice. Today's liberals believe it is their responsibility to help solve the shortcomings of our society. Today's liberals hopefully DO NOT SUPPORT PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKES. Today's liberals believe that there must be some sort of state structure in order to create a more humane society."

I wonder if he'll flip-flop like Conjur?
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
I was and still am opposed to pre-emptive war on a soverign nation. I see nothing wrong with a defensive "surgical strike" against a terrorist position that we are certain is an immenent threat. I certainly wouldn't call that a flip-flop.

In the future perhaps we could limit discussions of oranges to oranges and discussions af apples to apples. With such plum threads there will be less rhubarb and cherry picking and everything will be just peachy as nobody will become prune-faced with anger and respond with raspberries. (Damn but it must be late!)
 

Ogi

Member
Jul 16, 2004
112
0
0
rip do you believe that a pre-emptive strike against a terrorist organization is the same thing as a pre-emptive strike against a whole country?

Ogi
 

Ogi

Member
Jul 16, 2004
112
0
0
once again there is no "gray area" everything is black or white right?

Ogi
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Originally posted by: Ogi
rip do you believe that a pre-emptive strike against a terrorist organization is the same thing as a pre-emptive strike against a whole country?

Ogi

I'm not sure I understand the distinction that you are trying to draw.