WP:Bush to Restate Terror Strategy(Doct. of Preemptive War To Be Reaffirme

[Pirate Smile]

Bush to Restate Terror Strategy
2002 Doctrine of Preemptive War To Be Reaffirmed

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
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 Iraq.

The long-delayed document, an articulation of U.S. strategic priorities that is required by law, lays out a robust view of America's power and an assertive view of its responsibility to bring change around the world. On topics including genocide, human trafficking and AIDS, the strategy describes itself as "idealistic about goals and realistic about means."

The strategy expands on the original security framework developed by the Bush administration in September 2002, before the invasion of Iraq. That strategy shifted U.S. foreign policy away from decades of deterrence and containment toward a more aggressive stance of attacking enemies before they attack the United States.

The preemption doctrine generated fierce debate at the time, and many critics believe the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has fatally undermined an essential assumption of the strategy -- that intelligence about an enemy's capabilities and intentions can be sufficiently reliable to justify preventive war.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/15/AR2006031502297.html


edit to add the NYT article on this:

Report Backs Iraq Strike and Cites Iran Peril

WASHINGTON, March 15 — An updated version of the Bush administration's national security strategy, the first in more than three years, gives no ground on the decision to order a pre-emptive attack on Iraq in 2003, and identifies Iran as the country likely to present the single greatest future challenge to the United States.

The strategy document declares that American-led diplomacy to halt Iran's program to enrich nuclear fuel "must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided," a near final draft of the document says. But it carefully avoids spelling out what steps the United States might take if diplomacy fails, and it makes no such direct threat of confrontation with North Korea, which boasts that it has already developed nuclear weapons.

When asked about the omission in an interview today, Stephen J. Hadley, President Bush's national security adviser and the principal author of the new report, said "the sentence applies to both Iran and North Korea."

The 48-page draft of the new "National Security Strategy of the United States," which was released by the White House before a formal presentation by Mr. Hadley on Thursday, is an effort to both expand on and assess the security strategy published by the administration in September 2002, a year after the terrorist attacks against New York and the Pentagon upended American foreign policy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/16/politics/16strategy.html?hp&ex=1142485200&en=fcc3c73dec0f63f4&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[wakeme2008]

1. Iran here we come

:scared:

[bemildred]

2. The reiteration of horseshit is still horseshit. nt

[Avalux]

3. Wars of agression are GOOD!!!!

Really, they are! :eyes:

All this tells me is that they're trying to make a case for attacking Iran, and this stupid-ass doctrine will be the justification.

[liberal N proud]

4. Two things Iran and November

1. They need to build the case to bomb Iran since Iran is not going to use the dollar to sell oil any more.

2. They need to instill the republican kool-aid crowd with a new set of fear before the November elections. Allowing the republican candidates to proclaim they are keeping us safer than Democrats could.

As a bonus, it just might save his approval rating from going single digit. That may not be possible given the mood in the country now.

[tecelote]

22. Exactly!

It's only about profit and power.

Hopefully, as you say, it won't fly this time.

However, it shocks me when I hear people say "Look, they are now handling Iran with diplomacy but Iran is not willing to be diplomatic". The BS never ends and it never fails to amaze me at how much Americans will swallow.

[Oversea Visitor]

5. Easy to start war hey

Try stoping one.

Preemptive War ..... bad

Welcome to the century of Preemptive War
A real sound strategy for World Peace
A real creator of harmony throughout the world
The course of thoughts is not base on chaos in the World
But truly truly creat a more secured and peaceful environment for your future generation.
Hence the need to continue to send your sons and daughter as sacrifice to this cause
One that will not bring more chaos or required the dead of more Americans
We fight them first so we do not have to fight them later
After all we must not alllow the US to be invaded by enemies
There are crazy country out there that will commit sucide to attack the US
They are willing to get nuke to extinction just to attack the US
Yeah see we need Preemptive War
No need brains no need think
Just need cannonfooders to execute plan.

[Roland99]

6. Donnelly is batshit insane!! And so is the Propagandist and his cabal.

Damn coward Dems in Congress are going to let them invade/attack Iran and sit idly by going, "uh...duh...uhh...er....umm..."

[BeyondThePale]

7. What a joke...

* has run our country into the ground (both fiscally and in terms of our international reputation as part of his first preemptive foray). He lacks the funds, the military, and the popular support to pursue such fucked up strategies.

Time to face facts *, you violated international law to launch a so-called preemptive war, when it turns out that no threat actually existed. Time to go to the Hague, not continue this lunacy!

[journalist3072]

8. A pre-emptive policy is fine, IF

The threat is real.

Someone needs to put this into some historical perspective for Idiot Son.

When John F. Kennedy went to the international body about the threat posed by the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis, he had the ariel photographs to prove it!!!

If your policy is going to be pre-emptive strikes, ten you damn well better make sure that the threat is real and not something contrived out of your ass.

[wuushew]

10. I am not convinced Kennedy's response was the best

why was the U.S. Navy empowered to use any force necessary to halt shipping between the Soviet Union and Cuba? Was this force a wise idea when armed nuclear weapons were on the ground in Cuba, unbeknownst to us?

The closeness of the missiles to the United States was ultimately pointless since ballistic missiles went on to develop effective ranges of tens of thousands of miles. One cannot blame Castro for seeking the ultimate deterrent given the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

It was our secret agreement to remove our weapons from Turkey that really resolved the deal not our show of force.


All pre-emption is bullshit.

[LynnTheDem]

15. "All pre-emption is bullshit."

And illegal.

And immoral.

And amen to that!

[IDemo]

9. The Project for a new American Apocalypse remains on track n/t

[HuffleClaw]

11. "The report notes that "there will always be some uncertainty...

...about the status of hidden programs since proliferators are often brutal regimes that go to great lengths to conceal their activities."

translation: 'we won't have PROOF of the sinister evildoers plans, but no matter, we'll attack anyway'

[fearnobush]

12. So the Republicans are gonna start an other war just in case the Diebold

thingy don't work out so well, gee wiz, I really wanna be a republican when I grow up so I can teach my kids that killing hundreds of thousands of children and innocences per pre-emptive war is totally cool with Jesus and that My Church told me I had to vote Republican because it's one of the ten commandments, Thou shall kill in my name for political power.

[Triana]

13. 33%

No one believes you anymore, you warmongering, murderous criminal.

:mad:

[LynnTheDem]

14. But Hitler did it! *whine*

Will that be the rightwingnut "justification" for what the Nuremburg Tribunal called preemptive wars; "the SUPREME CRIME"?

[maseman]

16. Bush to reaffirm U.S. anti-terrorism strategy

Oh shit...they really are determined for WWIII.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11847835/

[radfringe]

17. :yawn: ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz

:sigh: another re-run??? where's the remote?

how many times do we have to listen to the same crap? It's not his staff that needs to be changed - it's his sit-com writers

[PBass]

18. Pre-emptive doctrine is un-American. It's a national disgrace. (eom)

[OKNancy]

19. He just needs to copy and paste the PNAC website

Have I stated how much I loathe Bush and the neo-cons lately? They make me sick.

[MiniMe]

20. Its not going to be very long before the world gets together and....

decides that the US is a threat to global security and peace. Is the man (and I use that term loosely) deliberately trying to start WWIII or is he just itching to use a nuke that bad? :scared:

[malaise]

21. It's too long already

I can't take much more of this bullspit.

[teryang]

23. A timorous population and belligerent dictatorship

Led by desperate madmen.

Catapult the propaganda!

[Judi Lynn]

24. Bush restates pre-emptive doctrine

Bush restates pre-emptive doctrine

Thursday, March 16, 2006; Posted: 6:23 a.m. EST (11:23 GMT)


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Undaunted by the difficult war in Iraq, President George W. Bush reaffirmed his strike-first policy against terrorists and enemy nations on Thursday and said Iran may pose the biggest challenge for America.

In a 49-page national security report, the president said diplomacy is the U.S. preference in halting the spread of nuclear and other heinous weapons.

"If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur -- even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack," Bush wrote.

Titled "National Security Strategy," the report summarizes Bush's plan for protecting America and directing U.S. relations with other nations. It is an updated version of a report Bush issued in 2002
(snip/…)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/16/bush.security.ap/index.html

[rainy]

25. Does Bush need Congress's approval to attack Iran?

[Paulie]

26. The old answer was YES

But with this Congress, he can rape and pillage, and all he would get was the sound of crickets....

[mmonk]

27. Two things.

He has proven he will operate outside of congress. The other is that he could probably get the wording he wants from our rubber stamp congress.

[wordpix2]

35. I think he can attack without Cong's approval if he doesn't declare war

[Judi Lynn]

28. US document hints at ‘confrontation’ with Iran

US document hints at ‘confrontation’ with Iran
Press Trust of India
Posted online: Thursday, March 16, 2006 at 1605 hours IST


Washington, March 16: A new US national security strategy document warns of a possible ‘confrontation’ with Iran, if the 'diplomatic efforts' to pressurise Tehran to give up any aspirations of nuclear weapons fail.

"We may face no greater challenge from a single country than Iran. This diplomatic efforts must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided," the document was quoted as saying by The Washington Post today.

US President George W Bush plans to issue the document today which singles out seven countries as prime example of ‘despotic system’. These countries are North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Belarus, Burma and Zimbabwe.

The strategy, which reaffirms the doctrine of pre-emptive war against the threatening foreign states and terrorists, vows to take all ‘necessary measures’ to protect the US against these countries
(snip/...)

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=64450

[underpants]

29. Bush Sees Iran As Possibly Greatest Threat (dated 3/16/2006)

MODS I double checked this IS from today. :crazy:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1732070

Bush Administration's National Security Strategy Reaffirms Pre-Emptive Use of Military Force

WASHINGTON Mar 16, 2006 (AP)— President Bush said Thursday Iran may pose the greatest challenge to the United States and diplomacy to thwart the Islamic nation's nuclear program must prevail to avoid confrontation.

In a 49-page national security report, the president reaffirmed the strike-first, or pre-emptive policy he first outlined in 2002. Diplomacy is the U.S. preference in halting the spread of nuclear and other heinous weapons, Bush said.

"If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self-defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack," Bush wrote. <---- Points and laughs :+

The White House released the National Security Strategy report Thursday morning in conjunction with a speech that Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, is delivering at the U.S. Institute of Peace.

[bullimiami]

30. bush = war president. he was going to start a war one way or another.

apparently he is going to start as many wars as he can.

note : not a 'wartime' president, a WAR president.

[Mari333]

31. Now that we invaded and occupied Iraq

and created a civil war, just as we all predicted, and this idiot starts beating his pitiful chest and harping about Iran..what is he going to do, enlist the Boy Scouts to attack Iran? Incompetent buffoon.

[HereSince1628]

32. ??? Pre-emption is a long standing principle??? Well, since Hitler

maybe but then that was seen as a war crime.

[mikeytherat]

33. I thought Iraq posed the "greatest challenge to the United States"?

Shouldn't we finish that war first?

mikey_the_rat

[underpants]

34. Kick for duping

This is some serious in the open madness right here. WOW

[OKNancy]

36. Kick

[twaddler01]

37. Bush threatens force to end Iran's nuclear threat

By Rupert Cornwell in Washington

Published: 17 March 2006

The United States sent a clear message to Iran yesterday that if all attempts fail at a diplomatic solution to the current stand-off, it is prepared to use force to end Tehran's perceived nuclear threat and its role as a fomentor of international terrorism.

Offering a robust reaffirmation of the Bush administration's doctrine of pre-emptive action to deal with threats to national security, the latest four-yearly National Security Strategy published by the White House declares that the US "may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran".

Tehran's suspected military nuclear programme is only part of the problem. More generally, the 49-page document says that Iran endangers regional stability with its threats against Israel, its sponsorship of terrorism, its disruptive influence in Iraq and its efforts to thwart a Middle East peace settlement.

Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, described the revised strategy yesterday as "an update of the document of 2002". Like its predecessor, it contends the US has the right to strike first at a potential attacker, "even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place" of that attack. The United States "cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialise".

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article351712.ece


:nuke:

Sound familiar to anyone?

[habitual]

38. i hate it so much

when i read everyday that the US did this and the US did that, when actually it was the Bush Administration falsely acting on behalf of the US. DAMN THEM

[Erika]

41. Agreed 100% Let the Bushbots go fight his wars

The world is learning very fast that this administration does not represent the American people.

[Kierkegaard]

39. "cannot afford to stand idly by..."

Oddly enough, it doesn't look like we can afford anything now that the Bush-hole has looted the treasury.

[UCLA Dem]

40. Guess they saw that Pew 33% approval rating too...???

[Jara sang]

42. Bush is going to kill us all.