Posted on 10/01/2004 6:03:59 AM PDT by OESY
...The Bush administration filed its answer two Septembers ago with the National Security Strategy, a 31-page document whose most famous word was "preemption." It said, "In an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world's most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather."
Preemption now is wholly associated with the Iraq war. But whether to act preemptively again -- or not -- is almost certain to re-emerge over the next four years with another country that we know but cannot verify is building a nuclear weapon.
Just this week in an interview with Fox's Bill O'Reilly, Mr. Bush said about Iran's bomb program, "We've made it clear, our position is that they won't have a nuclear weapon." Diplomacy, he said, was the first option, but "all options are on the table."
The Democrats? The Kerry campaign's published statement on Iran proposes "a global effort" which would buy back Iran's spent nuclear fuel. "If Iran does not accept this offer, their true motivations will be clear." He then would "push" the IAEA to "to discern the full extent of Iran's nuclear program." And then the statement's final sentence: "If this process fails, we must lead the effort to ensure that the IAEA takes this issue to the Security Council for action." And after that, what?....
...Democrats (and some Republicans) excused many Soviet treaty violations, believing confrontation to be catastrophic and therefore infeasible. Ronald Reagan broke that mindset for Republicans; in December 2001 President Bush renounced the 1972 ABM treaty to proceed with deployment of a missile-defense system.
Against this, I believe an abhorrence of significant military confrontation with a nuclear power has become hard-wired into the Democratic party, even against a nation building a single bomb....
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Bush needs to hammer home the point that UN resolutions and sanctions are worthless unless they are back by the threat of force.
The "alliance" that Kerry seeks to woo is still arguing about what to do re the genocide in Sudan, while thousands are being slaughtered.
He wants to turn our security over to those clowns?
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.