Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

kerry + "imminent threat"/RUSH HAS IT WRONG
Rush Limbaugh ^ | 8.18.04 | Mia T

Posted on 08/18/2004 10:09:41 AM PDT by Mia T

kerry + "imminent threat"
RUSH HAS IT WRONG

by Mia T, 8.18.04

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.

Kerry is Unfit #10: 9/10 mindset

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available

HERE)

A Vote for Kerry is a Vote for the Terrorists

by Mia T, 6.08.04

 UNFIT SERIES: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#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."
 
That is remarkably hostile language for a presidential challenger.  No major party candidate for the White House in modern times has so thoroughly abandoned the principle that politics stops at the water's edge.
 
On the other hand, voters clearly benefit when candidates articulate their differences, and make plain what is at stake on Election Day.  After 18 months of honing his anti-Bush message, Kerry should be able to outline his alternative foreign policy with crystal clarity.  He should have no trouble laying out a comprehensive vision for Iraq and the Middle East and explaining why it is superior to Bush's.
 
So why doesn't he do so?
 
...No matter how the question is put, Kerry's answers on Iraq always boil down to a single recipe: Shrink the US role in Iraq and defer to the United Nations instead.  That's it.  That is the sum and substance of his thinking about Iraq.  He doesn't relate it to the war on terrorism, to the future of liberty in the Middle East, to America's national interests.  He repeatedly declares Bush a failure for not kowtowing to the UN and vows that in a Kerry administration, the UN will be given the commanding role it deserves.
 
Kerry has been talking this way for months.  In his speech on Iraq at the Brookings Institution last fall, for example, he mentioned the UN no fewer than 25 times.  ("We need a new Security Council resolution to give the United Nations real authority in the rebuilding of Iraq. . . . This shift of authority from the United States to the United Nations is indispensable.") By contrast, he mentioned terrorism just seven times.  He mentioned freedom, democracy, and the Middle East not at all....

 
When Bush speaks about Iraq, by contrast, it is clear that he has thought the subject through and related it to his larger goals in the world... 

"The defeat of violence and terror in Iraq is vital to the defeat of violence and terror elsewhere, and vital, therefore, to the safety of the American people.  Now is the time, and Iraq is the place, in which the enemies of the civilized world are testing the will of the civilized world.  We must not waver. . . .
  

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
Jeff Jacoby

April 23, 2004
townhall.com

The Left's Fatally Flawed "Animal Farm" Mentality
(Why America Must NEVER AGAIN Elect a Democrat President)


WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

by Mia T, 6.04.04

 


(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

The Bush Doctine is built on two pillars, one -- that the United States must maintain its absolute military superiority in every part of the world, and second -- that the United States has the right for preemptive action.

Now, both these propositions, taken on their own, are quite valid propositions, but if you put them together, they establish two kinds of sovereignty in the world, the sovereignty of the United States, which is inviolate, not subject to any international constraints, and the rest of the world, which is subject to the Bush Doctrine.

To me, it is reminiscent to [sic] George Orwell's "Animal Farm," that "All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

George Soros

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

Kennedy-Pelosi-Gore-clinton (either--"one for the price of two," I say) -Sulzberger-Soros-Moore construct

its porcine manifestation.

GEORGE TSURIS

Soros' little speech reveals everything we need to know about the Left, to wit:

  • its naivete about the War on Terror,

  • its preference for demagoguery over rational argument, and ideology and reacquisition of power over national security,

  • its mindset, which is inextricably bound to its failed, tortuous, reckless schemes, relics of a different time, a different war and a different enemy.

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.

 

I think this administration has the right strategic vision and has taken many of the steps needed to get that long-term strategy rolling.

Where I give them the failing grade is in explaining that vision to the American public and the world. Key example: this White House enshrines preemptive war in the latest National Security Strategy and that scares the hell out of a lot of Americans, not to mention our allies. Why? This administration fails to distinguish sufficiently under what conditions that strategy makes reasonable sense.

My point is this: when you are explicit about the world being divided into globalization's Core and Gap, you can distinguish between the different security rule sets at work in each.

Nothing has changed about strategic deterrence or the concept of mutual-assured destruction (or MAD) within the Core, so fears about preemptive wars triggering World War III are misplaced.

When this administration talks about preemption, they're talking strictly about the Gap - not the Core. The strategic stability that defines the Core is not altered one whit by this new strategy, because preemption is all about striking first against actors or states you believe - quite reasonably - are undeterrable in the normal sense.

Thomas P.M. Barnett
The Pentagon's New Map
NB: Dr. Barnett is a lifelong DEMOCRAT

I'm a single-issue voter, as I guess must have become apparent.

I'm not a Republican. I'm not a conservative. I'm not a very great admirer of the president in many ways, but I think that my condition is... that this is an administration that wakes up every morning wondering how to make life hard for the forces of Jihad and how to make as hard as possible an unapologetic defense of civilization against this kind of barbarism... and though the Bush administration has been rife with disappointment on this and incompetent, I nonetheless feel that they have some sense of that spirit.

I don't get that... I don't get that feeling from anyone who even sought the Democratic nomination.

I would [therefore] have to vote for the reelection of President Bush.

Christopher Hitchens
Washington Journal, 6.01.04
C-SPAN


COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004

 




TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; Israel; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Arkansas; US: Illinois; US: Massachusetts; US: New York; US: North Carolina; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bushdoctrine; imminentthreat; neoneoliberalism; preemptiveaction; soros

1 posted on 08/18/2004 10:09:43 AM PDT by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: WorkingClassFilth; jla; Gail Wynand; Brian Allen; Wolverine; Lonesome in Massachussets; IVote2; ...

ping


2 posted on 08/18/2004 10:13:17 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

bttt


3 posted on 08/18/2004 10:15:23 AM PDT by bmwcyle (<a href="http://www.johnkerry.com/" target="_blank">miserable failure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

preemptive doctrine to libs is teaching sex ed in kindergarten.


4 posted on 08/18/2004 10:15:46 AM PDT by Rakkasan1 (Justice of the Piece:Kerry/Edwards...so full of crap they need two Johns.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

I musta missed it.

What part is wrong?


5 posted on 08/18/2004 10:15:54 AM PDT by Bigh4u2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Remember, President Bush said that if we wait until the threat is imminent, we will have waited too long.

Absolutely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I do REMEMBER!!

Mia-Kerry is DANGEROUS.

6 posted on 08/18/2004 10:17:41 AM PDT by Republic (joe wilson is a LIAR-but since he is a democrat-the mainstream press is OK with it :^()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Maybe I don't understand you. I have heard any number of left-wing wackos accusing the President of LYING to us by saying that the Irag threat was imminent, which is not what he said. He said we should not wait until the threat is imminent. So I guess you are right that Lurch is saying that he would act on imminent threats, which is less proactive than Bush's position. Of course, the Lurch would never find a threat to be imminent until it was too late. I guess that is why the left's position is to cut military funds while putting more money into emergency services, since they won't react until we get attacked.
7 posted on 08/18/2004 10:20:11 AM PDT by laishly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

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."


8 posted on 08/18/2004 10:26:23 AM PDT by hflynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: hflynn

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.


9 posted on 08/18/2004 10:46:36 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
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.

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.

10 posted on 08/18/2004 10:58:57 AM PDT by hflynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: hflynn

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.


11 posted on 08/18/2004 11:38:12 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: hflynn; All

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?


12 posted on 08/18/2004 11:52:31 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: All

Technically, the Bush Doctrine argues for preventative war.


13 posted on 08/18/2004 12:45:05 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
"---listen to Rush's archive on his website. You totally missed the point."

I heard it like hflynn did.

14 posted on 08/18/2004 2:49:48 PM PDT by malia (---if we wait until the threat is imminent, we will have waited too long.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: malia

your tagline's got it right. ;)

see my posts #11 and 12.


15 posted on 08/18/2004 3:18:59 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jla; All
NOTE:
Contrary to Rush's analysis, yesterday,
'imminent threat' as THE kerry criterion for war
in fact predates the kerry 'sensitive war' comment


As President, I will wage this war with the lessons I learned in war.  Before you go to battle, you have to be able to look a parent in the eye and truthfully say: "I tried everything possible to avoid sending your son or daughter into harm's way. But we had no choice. We had to protect the American people, fundamental American values from a threat that was real and imminent."  So lesson one, this is the only justification for going to war.

John Kerry
Speech to the 2004 Democratic National Conventio
July 29, 2004


I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history.

John Kerry
Remarks At The UNITY 2004 Conference, Washington, D.C.
August 5, 2004

UNFIT #19: JOHN KERRY'S "MORE SENSITIVE WAR ON TERROR"

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)


NEW! compleatjohnkerry.blogspot.com

NEW! unfitforcommand.blogspot.com

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com


16 posted on 08/19/2004 8:53:27 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson