http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/11/12/gop_will_trumpet_preemption_doctrine?mode=PFGOP will trumpet preemption doctrine
By Anne E. Kornblut, Globe Staff, 11/12/2003
WASHINGTON -- Faced with growing public uneasiness over Iraq, Republican Party officials intend to change the terms of the political debate heading into next year's election by focusing on the "doctrine of preemption," portraying President Bush as a visionary acting to prevent future terrorist attacks on US soil despite the costs and casualties involved overseas.
The strategy will involve the dismissal of Democrats as the party of "protests, pessimism and political hate speech," Ed Gillespie, Republican National Committee chairman, wrote in a recent memo to party officials -- a move designed to shift attention toward Bush's broader foreign policy objectives rather than the accounts of bloodshed. Republicans hope to convince voters that Democrats are too indecisive and faint-hearted -- and perhaps unpatriotic -- to protect US interests, arguing that inaction during the Clinton years led to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "The president's critics are adopting a policy that will make us more vulnerable in a dangerous world," Gillespie wrote. "Specifically, they now reject the policy of pre-emptive self-defense and would return us to a policy of reacting to terrorism in its aftermath."
Inviting a fierce foreign policy debate in the months to come, Gillespie continued: "The bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, Khobar Towers, our embassies in East Africa, and the USS Cole were treated as criminal matters instead of the terrorist acts they were. After Sept. 11, President Bush made clear that we will no longer simply respond to terrorist acts, but will confront gathering threats before they become certain tragedies." <snip>
By and large, most Democrats have been opposed to a full-blown "doctrine of preemption," arguing that the United States has always reserved the right to take preemptive action to protect itself without codifying it as the basis for US foreign policy. And that, they argue, is an articulate belief that resonates with the public -- especially in the absence of weapons of mass destruction or the capture of former dictator Saddam Hussein of Iraq.<snip>
COMMENT: I LIKED KERRY AND DEAN RESPONSE
Kerry :"Everyone knows we need to hunt down and destroy those who are plotting mass murder against Americans. But it takes a lot more than that to defeat terrorism in the long term, and the clumsy, arrogant way the Bush administration boasts about preemption alienates allies we need to help us and makes it a lot harder to stop proliferation in trouble spots around the globe."
Dean: "A preemptive strategy never fits into an American strategy," the presidential candidate and former Vermont governor said last week. It is a policy that doesn't serve us well, and Iraq is a perfect example. The first time we used the preemption policy, it got us into an enormous amount of trouble."
SO IS BUSH A VISIONARY PREVENTING ATTACKS ON US SOIL - FIGHTING THOSE INDECISIVE, FAINTHEARTED, UNPATRIOTIC DEMS - REPAIRING THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE INACTION OF THE CLINTON YEARS?
ANY SOUND BITE RESPONSE SUGGESTIONS WOULD BE USEFUL - AS THE DEAN/KERRY RESPONSES - IN MY OPINION - DID NOT MAKE THE SOUNDBITE HALL OF FAME.