Bush says Kerry would cede security to other countries.

[Hel'n]

CUYAHOGA FALLS, OHIO -- President Bush criticized Sen. John Kerry Saturday for suggesting that preemptive military action by the United States would have to pass a "global test," saying the "Kerry doctrine" would cede national security decisions to other countries.

Scrambling to regain the offensive two days after what was widely viewed as a less-than-stellar performance in his first debate with his Democratic challenger, Bush sought to cast as a sign of weakness Kerry's comments Thursday night that the United States needs credible reasons for taking preemptive action to head off threats.

"Senator Kerry's approach to foreign policy would give foreign governments veto power over our national security decisions," he said during an address in Columbus at the start of a day of campaigning in Ohio.

"I have a different view," Bush said. "When our country is in danger, the president's job is not to take an international poll. The president's job is to defend America. I'll continue to work every day with our friends and allies for the sake of freedom and peace. But our national security decisions will be made in the Oval Office, not in foreign capitals."

Kerry's campaign said the president was distorting what Kerry said during the debate.

"After putting in such an arrogant performance laden with scowls and smirks, George Bush is doing clean-up work and flailing out on the stump," said Phil Singer, a spokesman for Kerry. "It is astounding that he is making things up when he should be detailing a plan to stabilize the situation in Iraq."

During the debate, Kerry said he would "never give a veto to any country over our security" and he pledged to "hunt down and kill the terrorists wherever they are."

But he repeatedly emphasized the need for the United States to forge and lead international alliances, and he suggested that in undertaking any preemptive action the nation has to be able to make a strong case to the world for why it is doing so.

"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America," Kerry said during the debate. "But if and when you do it ... you've got to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

Countercommercials

By Saturday afternoon, the Bush campaign had completed work on a new television commercial built around Kerry's use of the words "global test."

"A global test? So America will be forced to wait while threats gather?" the narrator says in the commercial, which will begin running on Monday.

The Kerry campaign immediately began slapping together a commercial striking back at Bush on the topic. "George Bush lost the debate," the script for the new Kerry commercial says. "Now he's lying about it."

In his appearances Saturday, Bush ran through a string of areas in which he said Kerry had been inconsistent or harmful to U.S. foreign policy, saying that the Democrat had continued "a pattern of confusing contradictions" about his position on Iraq.

Bush hit Kerry on foreign policy even as he spent most of the day on the campaign trail in Ohio talking about economic issues.

Bush said the economy is improving, pointing to the 1.7 million jobs that have been created in the last year and the drop in the unemployment rate to 5.4 percent from a peak of 6.3 percent in June 2003. He did not mention that the nation has 900,000 fewer nonfarm jobs than when he took office and that the unemployment rate is still well above the 4.2 percent rate of January 2001.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/5012842.html

[Hel'n]

http://nurturedance.org/Images/humor_pic23850.jpg

[Hel'n]

http://nurturedance.org/Images/humor_pic12193.jpg

[Hel'n]

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bush_lordoftherings.jpg

[Hel'n]

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bush_comedian.jpg

[Hel'n]

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bush_thepetgoat.jpg

[Hel'n]

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bush_terror_alerts.gif

[Hel'n]

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bush_bungle.gif

[Hel'n]

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bush_election_horsemen.jpg

[Hel'n]

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/saddam_meetthepresident.jpg

[Hel'n]

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bush_two_faced.jpg

[Hel'n]

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bush_republicard.jpg

[Loki]

are you having fun all by yourself? :rolleyes:

i still don't understand the connection you libs have with nazis and conservative thought (post #3). :shake:

[WoodDraw]

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/images/awesome1r.jpg

[Hel'n]

are you having fun all by yourself? :rolleyes:

i still don't understand the connection you libs have with nazis and conservative thought (post #3). :shake:

Well, you cons have been more than willing to make fun of Kerry's orange "tan" and Kerry's "flip-flops" and Kerry's clothes and Kerry's "service" in Vietnam, and Kerry's money, and Kerry's pronouncements...

So I thought a little humor might be good for you too!

It's all just in jest right?

[Hel'n]

http://nurturedance.org/Images/humor_pic17870.jpg

http://nurturedance.org/Images/humor_pic22701.jpg

[|Zach|]

The second I think that the political forum has actual discussion and isn't plagued with useless crap this thread with these lame pictures pops up/.

[Loki]

Well, you cons have been more than willing to make fun of Kerry's orange "tan" and Kerry's "flip-flops" and Kerry's clothes and Kerry's "service" in Vietnam, and Kerry's money, and Kerry's pronouncements...

So I thought a little humor might be good for you too!

It's all just in jest right?

ummmm, again, i'm not like most "cons". please find any of my posts where i have blasted kerry on any of the above mentioned points. i'm pretty sure the only thing i blasted him on was his address to congress where memories of cambodia were "SEARED" into his mind. as far as i'm concerned, kerry's senatorial record speaks for itself... ie: open mouth, insert foot.

yeah, some of the images you posted were funny (lord of the rings and the credit card for example), but i still would like an explanation as to the conservative=nazi thing. that's pretty LAME.

[MadProphetMargin]

but i still would like an explanation as to the conservative=nazi thing. that's pretty LAME.


Naw.

Conservatives = Goldwater, Ike, Taft, etc.

Neocons, however, do a reasonably good impression of Goebbels.

[jcl-kcfan2]

http://nurturedance.org/Images/humor_pic17870.jpg

http://nurturedance.org/Images/humor_pic22701.jpg


Your second "stylized" poster in this one is pretty good actually.

When I see the pair of fighters, loaded heading for the Gulf from Ellington Field, I do feel safer knowing they are on their way to intercept an unknown aircraft before it reaches our shores.

Hel'n, you obviously don't live in a large city near any of our borders .

[FringeNC]

"I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations..."

John Kerry

[RINGLEADER]

Kerry campaign: Kerry said he reserves the right to act pre-emptively.

Reality: Kerry said he reserves the right to act pre-emptively but that such action must pass a "global test".

If any Kerry supporters want to explain what he REALLY meant, have at it. And while you're at it could you explain why all of Kerry's positions/quotes/votes have to be explained later so we can understand what he was really saying?

[Hel'n]

Your second "stylized" poster in this one is pretty good actually.

When I see the pair of fighters, loaded heading for the Gulf from Ellington Field, I do feel safer knowing they are on their way to intercept an unknown aircraft before it reaches our shores.

Hel'n, you obviously don't live in a large city near any of our borders .

I live in LA... puhleezee.... we have so many illegals here and our federal gov't does NOTHING about it...

I would rather have our troops here, on our borders, then in Iraq... I would feel safer and the troops would really be protecting the U.S....

[jcl-kcfan2]

Sorry Hel'n, but neither candidate will advocate using the Military to police our borders with Mexico or Canada (which is even just as open as Mexico's).
I too would like to see immigration restricted to LEGAL immigration, but neither of the parties will back this.

I still, as the poster I referenced shows, feel better that they are at least trying to protect the airways.

[Hel'n]

Sorry Hel'n, but neither candidate will advocate using the Military to police our borders with Mexico or Canada (which is even just as open as Mexico's).
I too would like to see immigration restricted to LEGAL immigration, but neither of the parties will back this.

I still, as the poster I referenced shows, feel better that they are at least trying to protect the airways.

No argument here...

The Dems want the illegals as potential votes...

The Repubs want the illegals for the cheap labor to please their business interests...

Result... NOTHING will be done...

:mad:

[Braincase]

No argument here...

The Dems want the illegals as potential votes...

The Repubs want the illegals for the cheap labor to please their business interests...

Result... NOTHING will be done...

:mad:

Presonally, I prefer Canadian illegal immigrants. Guys like William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, Michael J. Fox, Emo Phillips, Geddy Lee... when we start getting good SciFi actors out of Mexico, I'll jump on that bandwagon, but for now, I'll take Canadians... except for those French Candiens, and their language police...

"I smoke in church..."

<EMBED SRC=http://www.piercingblue.com/amc/iamnotcanadian.mp3 AUTOSTART=FALSE LOOP=FALSE WIDTH=150 HEIGHT=60 ALIGN="CENTER">

[Braincase]

Your second "stylized" poster in this one is pretty good actually.

When I see the pair of fighters, loaded heading for the Gulf from Ellington Field, I do feel safer knowing they are on their way to intercept an unknown aircraft before it reaches our shores.

Hel'n, you obviously don't live in a large city near any of our borders .

When was the last time a foreign plane attacked a U.S. location?!?!?!?!

[DanT]

Kerry campaign: Kerry said he reserves the right to act pre-emptively.

Reality: Kerry said he reserves the right to act pre-emptively but that such action must pass a "global test".

If any Kerry supporters want to explain what he REALLY meant, have at it. And while you're at it could you explain why all of Kerry's positions/quotes/votes have to be explained later so we can understand what he was really saying?

Here's how Secretary of State Colin Powell understood it, according to his remarks the next day:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/36685.htm


MODERATOR: At the debate last night, Senator Kerry spoke of the idea of preemptive strikes and said, "Here we have our own Secretary of State who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation that he made to the United Nations."


So the question is: Have you apologized to the world and is that a correct characterization, and what is your comment about Kerry's statement?


SECRETARY POWELL: As Senator Kerry noted last night, preemption is not a new strategy or a new tactic. The President has never said it was. If you look at the President's National Security Strategy published in 2002, you will find that in this 30-odd-page document the concept of preemption is mentioned in about two sentences back in the document, toward the back of the document. It's a strategy of partnership, it's a strategy of working with allies, it's a strategy of helping people in need -- a thing I just discussed.


But preemption is a technique and a tactic that is always available to a Commander-in-Chief, and if you see a danger, if you see somebody who is coming to strike you, if you think the nation is in danger and you can do something about it, you act. That's what preemption or prevention means. The words are used often interchangeably. And no President would ever go into office thinking that if such a danger was heading his way he wouldn't do everything he could to stop it, prevent it, preempt it. And that's what I think both of the gentlemen were talking about last night, certainly the President's view of the world.


With respect to the presentation that I gave on the 5th of February of last year, it reflected the best view of the intelligence community. Not unanimous on every point, always matter of judgment where people disagree. But that presentation was vetted throughout the intelligence community, and when there was a slight difference of opinion, I mentioned it in my presentation. But it reflected the considered judgment of the intelligence community with respect to Saddam Hussein's intentions, with respect to weapons of mass destruction, the capability that he still had with respect to weapons of mass destruction, the unanswered questions as to what did he do with biological materials that we know he had, what did he do with other weaponry that we knew he had but hadn't accounted for, why hasn't he answered the questions that had been put to him for 12 years? That's what the presentation dealt with.


The presentation also dealt with, in a significant way, the information we had concerning stockpiles that we thought he had, that most of the intelligence community, communities of the world, thought he had. We weren't alone in this. It was a body of intelligence that had been presented at the Congress, to all the members of the Senate and the House repeatedly. It was a body of information that caused President Clinton to become so deeply concerned in 1998 that he launched a military action against this capability. Saddam Hussein is a man who has used these weapons against his own people and against his neighbors. So he had a history of it, an intention of doing it. He was hiding things. He was not responding to the demands of the international community.


And the only thing where we got it wrong and where the presentation did not hold up was actual stockpiles. We have seen nothing to suggest that he had actual stockpiles. And Mr. Duelfer, who is working on this for us, will be issuing a report next week and will talk to this point.


So that was not right, and as we have gone back and looked through the intelligence, there are indications that we had bad sourcing and we should have caught some of this bad sourcing. For that, I am not only disappointed but I regret that that information was not correct. But if you nevertheless looked at the body of knowledge and intelligence that existed, got in the past -- I've been to the village that he gassed in 1988. I've met with the survivors and the family members of those who died. Five thousand people one morning. Five thousand dead, nerve gas, other forms of gas. He gassed the Iranians.


He had that history, that record; he never abandoned the intention. And what is going to become very, very clear after Mr. Duelfer releases his report is that what Saddam Hussein was trying to do was to break out of the sanctions. He figured if he could hang on and break out of the sanctions, get the UN to look the other way, the international community to say, "Forget about the sanctions," then nobody would be constraining him any longer. And maybe there are people who feel, at that point, wouldn't have to worry about it, he would never go back and do any of this stuff.


No. The body of evidence we've come upon is that he would most certainly have gone back. He was trying to break the sanctions, not for the purpose of applying to be Soldier of the Month, but for the purpose of going back and developing these kinds of weapons. It was a risk that the President and Prime Minister Blair and Prime Minister Howard and Mr. Berlusconi and Mr. Aznar and so many other world leaders would not take, did not take. And now he's gone. He's in jail. No more mass graves. No more gassing of people. No more concerns about that capability or intention. That's gone. The only intention the new Iraqi leader has is to lead his country to open, free, fair elections at the end of January of next year.

[DanT]

It seems pretty plain to me what Senator Kerry meant. If you see a danger, you act.

You don't waste months and months and months of time trying to get international approval at the United Nations for your doomed-to-fail plan to eradicate a threat that was obviously exaggerated then and for which all subsequent history has shown to be completely overstated. The reason why you don't do stupid plans is that they leave you paying excessively high costs for a folly that was easily preventable by merely checking with people with common interests, like your own intelligence agents and those of your allies who pay their own way in the world.

[jettio]

Wow.

Who'da thunk another B*sh-Cheney straw man argument.


I would have thought that they would have learned their lesson when the Strawman Scarecrow Kerry turned out to be firm and rigid, while B*sh was hunched over the podium.

At least you know where B*sh slumps.

He slumps over the podium and he likes Strawmen, at least one that will keep it straight and tall while giving him a perfect pounding. :hump:

[DanT]

Here's how one reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle sees as the prognosis of the "Bush Doctrine". Note that he quotes prominent neocons as well as such distinguished critics as John Mearsheimer, a major figure in the same political science department (the University of Chicago) where neocon uber-guru Leo Strauss famously taught. Professor Mearsheimer's reputation is sterling. If there's any U of C'er of any political orientation who doesn't know of and respect his scholarship, I sure don't know of it. He came out against the war from the beginning, arguing that Iraq was already contained and was not enough of a threat to warrant a war. Famously unlike the neocons, Mearsheimer is a veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces and a West Point graduate.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/10/02/MNGKC92M9R1.DTL

Bush tempers argument for pre-emptive strikes
Experts say Iraq war precludes similar future engagements

James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, October 2, 2004


George Bush has insisted repeatedly on the campaign trail that his presidency has been characterized by unwavering policies based on core convictions. But a key component of his security and military strategy -- a willingness to wage war "pre-emptively" against perceived enemies -- lies largely in tatters, say experts and policy-makers.

These experts, from both sides of the political spectrum, say the brutal experience in Iraq has eroded many elements of what has come to be called the "Bush doctrine," leaving the United States with less flexibility in the war on terror.

President Bush himself appeared to dial back on the doctrine during Thursday night's debate when asked whether he would launch future pre-emptive strikes in the wake of the Iraq war. Bush replied, somewhat unenthusiastically, that "a president must always be willing to use troops," but only "as a last resort."

That is a far cry from the bold policy the president articulated in 2002, which rejected the traditional focus on containing threats or responding only after an enemy had staged a clear act of aggression.

In fact, say policy experts, the violent insurgency in Iraq, which has tied down 140,000 U.S. troops, has all but removed Americans' stomach for a similar pre-emptive engagement against an enemy who has not actually launched or prepared an imminent attack on the United States.

Iraq "will leave a long and damaging legacy," said Fred Ikle, a senior government arms control expert for decades who has argued that the United States must be more willing to use military might to achieve its goals. "It will inhibit us more than is good for our future. We fumbled."

Ikle was one of the founders of the Project for the New American Century, a neoconservative group that has long pressed for a more muscular American military posture, and includes Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz -- key architects of the Iraq war -- among its members.

Ikle's views are echoed by other prominent neoconservative thinkers.

"The appetite for this kind of action in the country is pretty low at the moment," said Max Boot, a senior fellow in national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Boot, an early supporter of the Iraq war, said that the United States is likely to launch small-scale pre-emptive strikes as needed in the future, much as Israel does against its enemies, but not the kind of large-scale attacks that were at the center of the Bush doctrine's aim of pressuring enemies to change or risk being destroyed.

"If, by some miracle, Iraq looks better in a few years, maybe there will be greater interest in the idea," said Boot.

The Bush administration continues to insist that the doctrine remains U.S. policy. It has a number of elements, including an insistence that any state that supports terrorists will be considered an enemy, that the United States has the right to attack such countries pre-emptively -- even, as in the case of Iraq, before an enemy has mounted a challenge or the president feels there is an imminent threat of an attack.

Under the doctrine, the United States would also act to prevent any country from even attempting to match American military might.

Most of these elements were outlined in speeches in 2002 and then codified in September 2002, in a 33-page document called "The National Security Strategy of the United States." It stated that terrorism presented a new kind of danger and needed a new kind of response.

"As a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed," the document said.

Bush went further and targeted three countries in his famous "axis of evil" State of the Union speech in 2002, hinting that Iran and North Korea, as well as Iraq, might be attacked pre-emptively if they were perceived as threatening the United States.

But many experts say that the first broad pre-emptive invasion might be the last, at least for now, because of the expense of Iraq, the apparently poor planning for the occupation, the violent backlash and the lack of resources or troops for another such venture.

Rather than be cowed by President Bush's earlier hints, or by the U.S. invasion of Iraq, both Iran and North Korea have defied international demands, and both appear to be developing nuclear weapons, without any indication that the president might seek to resort to a pre-emptive attack. In the presidential debate Thursday night, President Bush emphasized multilateral talks, involving China, to resolve the North Korea crisis, and Bush has looked primarily to European negotiators to deal with Iran.

"Pre-emption is valid only if you have a situation where you are about to be attacked," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a critic of Bush's policies. "In my view, it is not useful in the war on terror."

The administration said that its aim in invading Iraq was, in part, to send a message to other hostile governments, as well as removing Saddam Hussein from power. Officials suggested that it was intended to let countries like Syria, Iran and even North Korea know that the United States had the capability and the will to launch rapid pre-emptive attacks to eliminate any challenges. It was also said to be an effort to spread democratic reforms throughout the Middle East, creating a kind of bandwagon effect, beginning with the democratization of Iraq.

John Mearsheimer, a political science professor at the University of Chicago and the author of "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics," said the persuasive power behind Bush's policy depended on great U.S. military flexibility, which has since been lost.

"The problem is that if you get bogged down in Iraq, you can't reload the shotgun quickly and put Iran or Syria in the crosshairs," said Mearsheimer. "So you can't influence their behavior the way you wanted to. The policy failed."

He added that the administration has undermined its credibility with Americans by arguing that Iraq was an imminent threat and that it was armed with weapons of mass destruction. That has not been borne out, eliminating at least some of the potential for popular support of future pre-emptive strikes.

"It's a failed doctrine now because it has failed militarily on the ground and because it caused the administration to be deceitful to the American people," said Mearsheimer.

Historians point out that pre-emptive attacks have been tools of American policy from the nation's earliest years, and many presidents have launched or contemplated such strikes, from the early 19th century to the present.

For instance, President John F. Kennedy threatened a pre-emptive attack during the Cuban missile crisis, and President Bill Clinton launched pre- emptive bombing strikes against suspected al Qaeda targets in Sudan.

What is new is that, in response to the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration articulated a strategy in which the United States, anticipating possible future terrorist attacks, would strike long before they could be mounted. The era of containment and quiet diplomacy was over, the new strategy suggested.

Vice President Dick Cheney was one of the first to call this the "Bush doctrine" and to repeat his support for its many elements in a number of speeches.

Many experts say that they still support the idea of some kinds of pre- emptive strikes, but only if the threat is unequivocally clear and imminent.

"The president always has the right and always has had the right for pre- emptive strike," Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said in the televised debate with President Bush on Thursday night.

"It remains an important option," added Ashton Carter, a Defense Department official in the Clinton administration and now a senior Kerry campaign adviser. "It has to be an option."

Anthony Cordesman, a former Pentagon official and national security adviser to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said pre-emption should be seen as one possible tool, not part of an overarching "doctrine."

"When an administration reacts to something, it's always case-specific, not based on a doctrine," said Cordesman, now a national security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Cordesman blamed the problems in Iraq on poor planning, not the basic concept of a pre-emptive strike. "What was wrong was all of our assumptions used to go in," he said.

[KCWolfman]

Wow.

Who'da thunk another B*sh-Cheney straw man argument.


I would have thought that they would have learned their lesson when the Strawman Scarecrow Kerry turned out to be firm and rigid, while B*sh was hunched over the podium.

At least you know where B*sh slumps.

He slumps over the podium and he likes Strawmen, at least one that will keep it straight and tall while giving him a perfect pounding. :hump:
jettio has now equated the Presidential Election to a grown man forcing anal sex on another.

jettio, you need a jAZcation for 2 weeks.

[Loki]

Naw.

Conservatives = Goldwater, Ike, Taft, etc.

Neocons, however, do a reasonably good impression of Goebbels.

that really didn't answer my question, but whatever...
:rolleyes:
at least you attempted to.

[Cochise]

...

[jcl-kcfan2]

When was the last time a foreign plane attacked a U.S. location?!?!?!?!


Hey Brain, I never said "foreign aircraft". US aircraft come into Houston from over the gulf all the time.

If a plane shows up un-identified or deviating much from it's flightplan, the scramble interceptors to check it out.

Do you think they shouldn't be trying to do anything?

[MadProphetMargin]

jettio has now equated the Presidential Election to a grown man forcing anal sex on another.

...When we all know that it's really two grown men trying to force anal sex on America.

Too true.

[WilliamTheIrish]

I am NOT a Dem or a Repub...

[Mr. Kotter]

wow...

[WilliamTheIrish]

Iraq "will leave a long and damaging legacy," said Fred Ikle, a senior government arms control expert for decades who has argued that the United States must be more willing to use military might to achieve its goals. "It will inhibit us more than is good for our future. We fumbled."

Ikle is a guy I respect. He ain't no anti-war type. He is also a PNAC signatory. Hard not believe his assessment of this action.

Good article.

[|Zach|]

The audio thing that was posted on this thread sucks bad.