Posted on 08/18/2004 10:09:41 AM PDT by Mia T
kerry + "imminent threat"
The addition in John Kerry's latest speech, that a Commander-in-Chief Kerry will act against an imminent threat, is nothing new. Acting against an imminent threat is consistent with the old neo-neoliberal/Soros doctrine; it is not consistent with the Bush Doctrine.
Gathering threat, not imminent threat, is the Bush Doctrine operative phrase.
Indeed, the left criticized George Bush precisely because the threat was not imminent.
Remember, President Bush said that if we wait until the threat is imminent, we will have waited too long.
RUSH HAS IT WRONG
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available
A Vote for Kerry is a Vote for the Terrorists
|
|||
#4 - Kerry champions tolerance for terrorists ELECTION BOTTOM LINE: TERRORIST SYMPATHIZER or TERRORIST ANNIHILATOR <-- (click to see Bush-Kerry contrast) (viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE) johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com |
|||
For the better part of 18 months, John Kerry has bitterly denounced the Bush administration's conduct of international relations, above all in Iraq. Over and over he has pronounced his unsparing indictment: "George Bush has pursued the most arrogant, inept, reckless, and ideological foreign policy in the modern history of this country."
The cause of liberty and the defeat of terror vs. the cause of a more powerful UN: In this first presidential election of the post-9/11 world, that is what the choice comes down to.
Kerry's U.N. fetish |
|||
The Left's Fatally Flawed "Animal Farm" Mentality
eorge Soros could not have more clearly enunciated the lethal danger that he and John Kerry and the clintons and the rest of his leftist cabal pose for America.
Yesterday, at the "progressive," i.e., ultra-extremist left-wing liberal, "Take Back America" confab, Mr. Soros confirmed the obvious: 9/11 was dispositive for the Dems; that is, 9/11 accelerated what eight years of the clintons had set into motion, namely, the demise of a Democratic party that is increasingly irrelevant, unflinchingly corrupt, unwaveringly self-serving, chronically moribund and above all, lethally, seditiously dangerous.
"All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Apparently missing the irony, George Soros chastised America with these words even as he was trying his $25,000,000, 527-end-run damnedest to render himself "more equal than others" in order to foist his radical, paranoic, deadly dementia on an entire nation.
"Animal Farm" is George Orwell's satirical allegory of the Russian Revolution; but it could just as easily be the story of the Democratic Party of today, with the
its porcine manifestation.
GEORGE TSURIS
Soros' little speech reveals everything we need to know about the Left, to wit:
Soros is correct when he states that each of the two pillars of the Bush Doctine--the United States maintenance of absolute military superiority and the United States right of preemptive action--are "valid propositions" [in a post-9/11 world].
But when he proceeds from there to argue that the validity of each of these two [essential] pillars is somehow nullified by the resultant unequalled power that these two pillars, when taken together, vest in the United States, rational thought and national-security primacy give way to dogmatic Leftist neo-neoliberal ideology.
What is, in fact, "inviolate" here is the neo-neoliberal doctrine of U.S. sovereignty, which states simply that there must be none, that we must yield our sovereignty to the United Nations. Because this Leftist tenet is inviolate, and because it is the antithesis of the concept of U.S. sovereignty enunciated by the Bush Doctrine and the concept of U.S. sovereignty required by the War on Terror, rabid Leftists like Soros conclude that we must trash the latter two inconvenient concepts--even if critical to the survival of our country.
It is precisely here where Soros and the Left fail utterly to understand the War on Terror. They cannot see beyond their own ideology and lust for power. They have become a danger to this country no less lethal than the terrorists they aid and abet.
|
ping
bttt
preemptive doctrine to libs is teaching sex ed in kindergarten.
I musta missed it.
What part is wrong?
Absolutely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I do REMEMBER!!
Mia-Kerry is DANGEROUS.
Rush got it right. The Democrats said Bush used the words "imminent threat" in his speech. Example: New York Times columnist Paul Krugman hyperventilated: "The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat. If that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history - worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-contra."
The left's complaint was that the Iraq threat was not imminent, the implication being that 'imminent threat' is, in fact, sufficient cause for war.
Thus, contrary to Rush's point today, the addition of "imminent threat" in kerry's speech adds nothing new to current leftist doctrine.
And adding 'imminent threat' is certainly not consistent with the Bush Doctrine. The underlying premise of the Bush Doctrine is that, post-9/11, we cannot afford to wait for threats to become imminent.
Not Quite. The left's complaint was that Bush said it was an imminent threat. You better listen to Rush's archive on his website. You totally missed the point.
I agree with you insofar as that, at some point, some on the left got confused and turned the left's position re 'imminent threat' on its head; but recall the INITIAL ARGUMENT made by the left; recall the rantings of kennedy et al. They argued that the iraq war was a mistake precisely because the iraq threat was not imminent. Read the george soros - animal farm piece, above....
In any case, my main point (and Rush's error) is this: the addition of 'imminent threat' does not, as Rush claimed today, make kerry's position consistent with Bush's. Bush argues that to wait until the threat is imminent IS TO WAIT TOO LONG.
This difference is PRECISELY why the left and kerry are very dangerous. They will NOT act preemptively, which is an untenable, quite insane position post-9/11. This difference will cause every thinking voter to vote for Bush.
The only reason I am posting this thread is that this distinction is not trivial; this distinction is perhaps THE critical distinction of this election.
Do you want a commander in chief like kerry (or clinton) who will respond only when the threat has become imminent? Or do you want a commander in chief like Bush, who will eliminate gathering threats, before we are in imminent danger?
Technically, the Bush Doctrine argues for preventative war.
I heard it like hflynn did.
your tagline's got it right. ;)
see my posts #11 and 12.
|
|
|
|
|
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.