Bush to Restate Terror Strategy
According to this morning’s Washington Post the President intends to reaffirm his policy of preemptive war against what he would term “terrorist and hostile states with weapons of mass destruction."
There’s a host of problems with this, not the least of which is the fact that this President should have no credibility at this point. In fact his credibility should be less than zero. The number of times this administration has played the incompetence card to explain its failings alone are unimaginable.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/15/AR2006031502297.html
Bush to Restate Terror Strategy
2002 Doctrine of Preemptive War To Be Reaffirmed
By Peter Baker
Thursday, March 16, 2006; Page A01
President Bush plans to issue a new national security strategy today reaffirming his doctrine of preemptive war against terrorists and hostile states with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, despite the troubled experience in
The long-overdue document, an articulation of
Genocide? Did someone say genocide? We’ve committed more genocide in
You can look at it this way if you’d like. Name one thing that
Human Trafficking? Oh, you mean that stuff that United States Government and UN contractor DynCorp got caught doing? Women and young children sold as slaves and what not. I remember now.
Perhaps as so often is the case George is just fumbling his words again. No wait. If you read what’s written it says:
a robust view of
Well it doesn’t say whether it intends positive or negative change. Idealistic about goals is certainly broad enough. That would all depend on your personal agenda. Perhaps what we've done in Iraq does fit with the goals of the Bush regime.
It’s also worth noting that it references preemptive war not preemptive strikes or attacks but war. There is a difference and a significant one. One implies taking away the ability of someone you believe would, to harm you. The other implies a long drawn out conflict with another sovereign nation because we think they might be a threat. Worse it implies picking on those that are smaller and weaker than you. There is no country in existence today that fits the model better of being a risk to the
The preemption doctrine generated fierce debate at the time, and many critics believe the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in
In his revised version, Bush offers no second thoughts about the preemption policy, saying it "remains the same" and defending it as necessary for a country in the "early years of a long struggle" akin to the Cold War. In a nod to critics in
George, you have no credibility. You have robbed this country of its pride. You've turned us into a fascist regime. You've supposedly spent billons to rebuild
"If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self defense, we do not rule out use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack," the document continues. "When the consequences of an attack with WMD are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize."
Such language could be seen as provocative at a time when the
Many in the world would certainly describe the
IAEA No Iran Nukes: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1669447&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
This President has spent more money than all the others combined. Our economy will collapse as it cannot absorb all of the debt that has been created. 

Comments