GOP will trumpet preemption doctrine

Boston Globe ^ | 11/12/03 | Anne E. Kornblut

[kattracks]

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.

[Radix]

Faced with growing public uneasiness over Iraq,

I often wonder why I even bother to read this rag known as the Globe.

I guess it is akin to the old moth drawn toward a flame thing.

The Globe sucks, and every day, they prove it with their ludicrous perspectives, and pronouncements of their opinions of current events, and World affairs!

[dyed_in_the_wool]

How is this 'preemption'?
They attacked us.
We've let this disease fester long enough and we're cleaning house.
End of story.

[kattracks]

Agreed!

[MattinNJ]

That will be the dems undoing-they underestimate just how pi$$ed off the majority of Americans are-and they couldn't care less if it's the Taliban, Saddams goons, or the French for that matter. Americans want to come home, grab a dinner and a brewski, and watch some clips of our boys dishing out some serious "shock and Awe". I don't know anybody who was alive during WWII that regrets nuking Japan.

[cb]

I would take pre-emption one step further. Call it: Mutually assured destruction

First I would publish a list of suspected sources of nuclear weapons...you know Iran, North Korea, Russia. Then I would announce as policy, if America is attacked with nuclear weapons there will be no investigation, no handwringing about who did it. Number one on the list gets vaporized.

A group could get off the list by fessing up and cleaning out their weapons programs to OUR satisfaction. Naturally number two would escalate to number one.

See how they like a little game of hot potato with the loser holding the potato when the terrorists finally pop one.

Oh, one more thing. Anyone doesn't like the "preemption" can go to the top of the list.

[Coop]

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.

Bravo!