How do you feel about Kerry's beliefs on pre-emption?

[coloradodem2005]

People say that he supports most of that doctrine. Are you substantially more comfortable with his views than with Bush's or not?

[jpgray]

1. Well Howard Dean also saw circumstances where preemption would be needed

Specifically, if we had sufficient intelligence that there was a major threat to the country. But since Dean has a magic cloak of invulnerability that Kerry does not have, Kerry's position will be called warmongering imperialistic DLC crap while Dean will be called practical. They're both right--if we know a group is about to perpetrate a major terrorist attack, we should try to prevent it.

[Forkboy]

3. That doesn't answer the question

:)

[jpgray]

6. Ok--I don't believe preemptive war is good for us

We're not able as a country to discern between real and false threats, as we proved last year. But if we take Kerry and Dean at face value, and there really is sufficient intelligence, then they are correct--we should preemptively stop such a threat.

[TeacherCreature]

17. perhaps, but I would have to see the wording of their statements

about pre-emption before I will agree that Dean and Kerry agree on this.

However, here is the thing: I trust Dean's judgement. I do not trust Kerry or his judgement. He is the ham sandwich and that is all IMO.

[jpgray]

19. Howard Dean on unilateral, preemptive war

"Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."

"Pre-emption is not off the table, but the moral high ground does matter," he says, as quoted in the Iowa City Press-Citizen. The paper reports that Dean "also said he would endorse a pre-emptive strike against Iraq if it can be proven that Saddam Hussein has access to weapons of mass destruction and the means to discharge them."

[TeacherCreature]

24. That was then and without having seen any of the "evidence"

Kerry had that choice and without evidence or any indication that Saddam intended to use the weapons, he voted for the war.

I don't know why you want to have this discussion for the 8 thousandth time. Surely you don't think you are changing anyone's mind. I still trust Howard to do the right thing. I trust Kerry to do the politically advantagous thing.

[jpgray]

27. Now you're running away from the topic

The topic is Kerry's statement on preemptive war. It is the same as Howard Dean's. Both believe that with sufficient intelligence, we should engage in preemptive war. Are you okay with Dean saying that and not okay with Kerry saying the same? Why?

[Seabiscuit]

39. A case of lousy reporting if ever there was one.

If you read Dean's words carefully, he is saying (1) first there must be "...proven that Saddam Hussein has access to weapons of mass destruction and the means to discharge them" PLUS (2) "A multinational force under the auspices of the United Nations" before going to war UNLESS (A) the first two conditions exist and (B) despite (A), the U.N. *chooses not to enforce its own resoltions AND Saddam is given 30-60 days to disarm.

Obviously this interview was conducted on a biased basis, with the premise being "pre-emptive" war. Dean didn't handle it artfully enough, but the "paper" had not business saying "Dean also said..." when leading into his first premise.

If you read it carefully it's clear Dean is saying no such war is legitimate unless the first two conditions are met. Bush never met either condition, and thereby launched a "pre-emptive" war.

Dean was really talking about legitimate traditional American self-defense. That interview was totally warped, and Dean obviously was caught somewhat offguard, but if you look at his ideas, they are consistent with what I have been saying about his position.

[jpgray]

40. He's still describing preemptive war

A preemptive attack (or preemptive war) is waged in an attempt to repel or defeat an imminent threat, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (usually unavoidable) war. So no matter what the framing of the question, what Dean is describing is preemptive action.

[Seabiscuit]

47. You seem determined to argue that into the ground

until the cows come home. So what. I disagree. So what. I'm not interested any more. Fuggheddaboubit.

[bearfartinthewoods]

41. why in the hell are we still arguing about Dean?

he's irrelevant now, so what's the point?

[Seabiscuit]

43. When did Dean become irrlevant?

When was the last time you checked his websited to see all the activity he's been engaging in on behalf of the "people" of America, "Bearfart"?

[Seabiscuit]

44. Sorry about all the typos this afternoon.

Long day. I need a nap. Bye. :-)

[bearfartinthewoods]

50. i meant he didn't win and isn't on the ticket and i don't know

why it's worth arguing or even comparisons anymore.

[Seabiscuit]

42. What you must keep in mind about Dean

is that he has consistently opposed the Iraq war because he was never convinced Saddam posed an "imminent" threat to us, justifying going to war, despite all the administration's scary and conclusionary rhetoric that (1) Saddam possessing stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, (2) Saddam having the delivery systems to deliver such weapons to American soil at that time, (3) Saddam having the intent to deliver such weapons "imminently" against the United States", (4) Saddam was developing Nuclear Weapons with the capability and intent of using them against the United States in a very short time, (5) Saddam was harboring an Al Queda training camp (the only one identified at the time was next to the Iranian border in the "no-fly" zone which Saddam had absolutely no access to for over a decade), (6) Saddam was in league with Al Queda against the U.S., and (7) Saddam was somehow behind 9/11 (this was and still is argued constantly by Bush/Cheney and other Bush administration people by inuendo only, simply by repeating "terrorist"/9-11/Saddam in the same sentences, without distinction, over and over and over again for the past 2 years 10 months.

I supported Dean from the beginning of his campaign because I saw through that same haze of B.S. put forth without any solid credible evidence from the git-go (early to mid-2002). None of the other *major* Democratic candidates ever saw through that B.S., and Kerry apparently isn't yet willing to admit his vote on the IWR was a mistake. Sad.

Don't get bogged down in quotes about "pre-emption" (a Bushism) when trying to assess Dean's position about Iraq. It's been consistently clear, although he does mis-speak in minor way in debates and interviews at times. When he's lucid (which is, admittedly, not 100% of the time - I think he's somewhat dyslexic) you know his positions have been consistent, clear, and unswerving.

[jpgray]

45. Right--Dean's Iraq position was pretty good, actually

He supported Biden/Lugar over IWR, he argued that Bush hadn't made the case, and he supported preemptive, unilateral war only if there was sufficient intelligence to warrant it. That's pretty good, and better than Kerry's position on Iraq.

However, their positions on preemptive war in general are virtually identical--with sufficient intelligence, it is okay. That's all I'm trying to point out here. Their positions on the specific situation of Iraq are a whole other ball of wax.

[Seabiscuit]

30. "sufficient intelligence that there was a major threat to the country":

Defending against *that* is NOT "preemption". It's old-time "self-defense". Again "knowing" (i.e. absolutely positive well-corroborated and documented and impartially/scientifically analyzed "intelligence") "a group is about to perpetrate a major terrorist attack", that's also old-time "self-defense", *NOT* "pre-emption".

Pre-emption was a doctrine developed by the PNAC back in the 1990's by Cheney and Wolfowitz, et. al, to justify their "dream war" after their "Pearl Harbor" which would convince the American public to allow them to invade Iraq. They were obsessed with this for 12 years!
It's idiological BS, and completely untenable.

Kerry should change the language of the debate, and completely debunk the notion of "pre-emption" to begin with.

That's what Dean would be doing if he were in Kerry's position.

[jpgray]

31. Howard Dean specifically was speaking of 'preemptive war'

See here, for example.

[NMDemDist2]

yes I am, because I believe he will not send our troops into harms

way without credible evidence

[emulatorloo]

2. This one has been done to death today

But I'll bite: If a president has the information that a group is plotting 9/11, that group should be stopped.

[coloradodem2005]

4. Yes, it has been done to death.

Just trying to gauge people's beliefs in a nutshell on these issues. I agree with what you said BTW.

[azmesa207]

37. What Kerry thinks about Preemptive

Was he talking about a preemptive war or Preemptive Strike there a big difference?

9. if elections are cancelled was done to death also

for days on end.
Didn't see many objections to that.
What's the difference?
I think I can guess.

[emulatorloo]

12. I got tired of that one too! n/t

[daveskilt]

5. congratulations you are todays 100th thread on this topic! nt

[coloradodem2005]

7. What do I win?

Do I get a new car? Maybe a million dollars? A weekend in Cabo? :evilgrin:

[daveskilt]

11. a lifetime supply of Dean bumper stickers. nt

[coloradodem2005]

13. COOL!!!!

n/t

[emulatorloo]

14. We won't make you move to a conservative Denver suburb

where you'll be surrounded by Republicans day in day out talking about how wonderful President Bush is.

Or are we too late?!?!?!

[coloradodem2005]

38. About 22 years too late.

There are a number of Bush supporters out here.

[emulatorloo]

53. So Sorry - we'll move you back to the city then!

I have relatives in the Denver suburbs, so I know what you are dealing w.

Glad to hear Colo is in play this year. . .keep up the good fight.

[Eric J in MN]

8. Kerry is stating a position almost any President would have.

Almost any President, who knew the location of a group of terrorists about to strike the US would try to strike them first.

That is different from invading a country with thousands of soldiers to overthrow a govt, just because years later the country might do something.

[Walt Starr]

10. I am no more comfortable with Kerry's views than I am with Bush's

I see absolutely no difference between the two and am only supporting Kerry to get rid of Bush.

If Kerry doesn't get us out of Iraq quickly, I'll be supporting the Republicans in order to get rid of Kerry.

[coloradodem2005]

15. I could never support a Republican after this discrace.

While the Dems may not be perfect, the Republicans were the ones who got us into this mess. I will not go for Jeb Bush or Bill Frist, who have been cheerleading this war from the beginning.

[Walt Starr]

18. ABB taught me I have two choices

I've sucked it up and compromised my convictions in order to get rid of Bush.

Doing it once makes it much easier to do it twice. In order to get rid of Kerry in 2008, I'll suck it up and compromise my convictions again.

[coloradodem2005]

28. Yes but...

...it was the Republicans who started this war. I don't appreciate the fact that many Dems went along with this, but the Republicans started this war and have been shilling for it and for the occupation and saying that we need to beef up troops. Should Kerry win this year, the Republican who runs against him in 2008 will no doubt be one of these Republicans. The ones who said that if you oppose the war, you are unpatriotic. The ones who endorsed the Bush policy and refuse to admit that they were either deceived or that they made a mistake. At least Kerry has not been that bad. The Republican who would run against Kerry in 2008 would have to be really damn good if I were to vote for him.

[Walt Starr]

51. I disagree

I consider this a bipartisan illegal war.

The voting record agrees with that opinion.

[Forkboy]

16. I feel a little queasy

[jpgray]

25. I don't get it

Why no queasiness on Howard Dean's position, which is identical? Why does Kerry have the 'crap on him all you want' label and Dean the cloak of invulnerability? They are espousing the same position.

[Forkboy]

29. I dont get why you think I care about Dean's position

I never mentioned him.I never said I liked his position either.Take it up with a Dean supporter,who you seem to have issues with.

[jpgray]

32. Because it exposes the doublespeak here

People shrink from criticizing Howard Dean for this position, yet they will go guns a-blazing at Kerry for it. The position is the same, yet people react differently to it. This is a contradiction, and an indication that people are thinking and arguing without logic. It's like how people are so quick to forgive Byrd for his vote concerning the FMA, when if Kerry had done the same there would be a public lynching of the guy on DU. The double standard needs to be revealed, as it is clearly there.

[Forkboy]

33. Byrd didn't vote for FMA

the rest is your issue...have a ball.

[jpgray]

35. He voted to end the debate and bring FMA to a vote

That is not at all the position of one who supports equal rights, because he was voting to end the debate, removing the Democratic filibuster, and bringing the issue to a direct vote that would be a great political win for the GOP. Have you read about this? I can get you links.

[rumguy]

20. There are possibilities when preemption would be fully justifiied

There are scenarios imaginable when people's lives are truly in threat when it would be permissible, and it would probably gain the backing of the world and the UN as well in those circumstances....

[troublemaker]

21. pre-emption has ALWAYS been our policy (and always will be)

John Kerry has endorsed pre-emption, thus siding with Kofi Annan and Desmond Tutu and just about everybody else in the world. Pre-emption was our policy under Carter and FDR and Clinton and every other President.

Prevention is a violation of international law.

The controversy about the Iraq war is whether it was pre-emptive (legal) or preventive (illegal).

This whole Kerry story is fake... it's based on an AP's reporter's not knowing what the words mean. (For the record, a doctrine of pre-emption cannot sensibly be called "Bush's")

[Malva Zebrina]

22. No, I am not comfortable at all with this strategy

on the part of Kerry.

It presumes facts not in evidence, which heretofore facts can be manufactured, and lays open too much to be corrupted by human desire and greed.

Never can this be considered sober or even intelligent. It can however be considered, quite barbaric, lazy, and corrupted

and that is what it is.

Just take a look at Sharon--the first to use this type of foreign policy'

Kerry is making a big mistake here by adopting this knee jerk, mindless reaction to a perceived threat.

Apparentlyh, he has not learned a thing from the Iraq debacle.

[Cha]

23. This is what democrats.com has

to say about AP's reporting of Kerry's "pre-emption"..

"AP Distorts Kerry Statements, Claims Senator Backs Bush's Preemptive Strike Policy
We have spotted a new attack plan being tried by the BushMedia stategists: Push liberals toward Nader (to whose campaign the GOP has donated thousands) by making it appear that Kerry is as hawkish as Bush & Co. and thus that there is "very little difference" between Kerry and Bush. This AP (A.merican P.ropaganda) headline reads: Kerry backs much of preemptive doctrine" is completely distorted. Here is the statement it is based on: "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." 'Go get them' as in send special forces in, no doubt. Not as in bombing the hell out an entire country. Last time we looked, there was a HUGE difference. In coming days, expect to see this distortion played up, followed by renewed calls of "there's no difference between the Dems and the GOP."

26. That's what I was beginning to suspect myself

don't know why I trusted the headline

[Cha]

34. What are you gonna do? You read something ..ya

ya think it may be true but I happen to see that democrats.com paragraph after I read AP's misleading headline about Martha Stewart comparing herself to Nelson Mandela and I want to declare war on AP.

[emulatorloo]

36. thanks for posting this - probably worth its own thread n/t

[merh]

46. People who say are mistating his position. (imho)

Kerry stated: "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," -- That is not * pre-emptive doctrine, there is a big Cheney Difference between the two!

What the weed that would be king & his band of rethugs did in Iraq
was and is a war crime. He attacked, invaded and occupies a sovereign nation that did not attack or threaten to attack the U.S. That's not pre-emptive or preventative, it is criminal and against the laws of our society, international laws and the laws of every God, including the one that supposedly told him it was his duty.

This has been discussed all day long - go read the other posts if you are interested in opinions on this. It is boring and close to freep material to misstate his position on this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2011370

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2011270

(the search function is a wonderful thing)

[wiggs]

48. pre-emption vs prevention

Pre-emption and prevention are two different things.

PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE/WAR: If country 'A' sees that another hostile country 'B' is massing troops, mobilizing equipment, lighting the missile fuse, or taking other actions indicating imminent war, then pre-emptive action on the part of 'A' is understandable and accepted. I believe I have heard that the UN accepts this as well. This is not what we did in Iraq.

PREVENTATIVE STRIKE/WAR If country 'A' envisions a scenario (out of an infinite number of scenarios) in which country 'B' could someday threaten country 'A' and then acts militarily to counter that theoretical scenario, then we have a preventative action. BA kept using the word "pre-emption" but they were really talking about "prevention". The movie "Minority Report" was about this kind of prevention. In fact it may be charitable to even use the word "preventative" to describe what we have done in Iraq, since it appears likely that there are other reasons BA went to war (At one point, Cheney used a laughable phrase to describe what we had found in Iraq to support the notion there was a threat...something like "capability to pursue weapons-related program activities"...wish I could remember it)

This being said, I think BA loves that we are talking about the differences between Kerry's definition of pre-emption and theirs, debating fine distinctions to the point of obscuring the bigger awful picture. This discussion is another strawman (along with the other diversion on all of today's news....terrorists passed through Iran on the way to 9/11....ooooohhhh!) that keeps us from the big stuff. There's an elephant sitting in the room and we're talking about the color of the pillows on the couch. WE INITIATED WAR WITH ANOTHER COUNTRY, KILLING TENS OF THOUSANDS, AND WE STILL DON'T HAVE A REASONABLE EXPLANATION!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. Fascism - Pure and simple.

"Pre-emption" is a green light for fascism. The use of force under the guise of protection. Whoever the bosses designate a threat can be "pre-empted" without a hearing, without a trial, without proof.

If you like what the Germans did to Communists, Socialists, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Russia, and the Jews everywhere they found them, all under the guise of "pre-emption", then you should like the same policy here.

That some people would use it more cautiously than others, isn't the problem with it. The policy itself is the problem.

[bklyncowgirl]

52. Headline mischaracterized actual quote

Kerry's actual quotation seemed to be regarding a much more limited action than invading a country.

Wouldn't Clinton's bombing of the Al Queda linked chemical factory in Sudan (the Monica Missles) be considered pre-emption?

Actually, if Bush had done a little of this sort of pre-emption against Al Queda training camps before 9/11, 3,000 Americans might still be alive today.

[rman]

54. pre-emption is defined in international law...

a condition is that an attack is imminent, as opposed to "we think he could attack us", or "he has the capability".

So Bush's "preventative" war (as the neocons started calling it at some point) is not pre-emptive. And preventative war isn't even described in interantional law.

Kerry remains to be seen, all depends on what he thinks is proper "solid intelligence" as a reason for pre-emptive war. Let's see whether or not he goes with the meaning of "pre-emptive" as redefined by Bush.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

55. Nothing personal, but how do you feel about discussing issues....

...taken out of context?

IMHO, you can't rely on the mainstream media to give you an accurate representation of how one feels about a very complex issue, one that has been based almost totally on the lies generated by the NeoCons.

Are you discussing how Kerry feels about preemption in regards to dealing with known terrorists who we know within 90-95% certainty that they are planning an operation to kill Americans and also have a track record of doing so? If so, like Kerry, I would tend to want to get in the first punch, regardless of where they're located, as long as the country in which they're located approves of the action.

On the other hand, if you're discussing how Kerry feels about attacking other sovereign nations without having been attacked first, I agree with Kerry that this is a very bad option. This is a very, very bad PNAC/NeoCon line of thought that has led us to the attacks on both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Yes, based on the above rationale, I'm substantially more comfortable with Kerry's position than I am with FratBoy's. And I have ZERO confidence in the NeoCons doing the right thing at ANY point in time.