PDA

View Full Version : Bush asserts pre-emptive strike policy



Flagg
07-12-2004, 08:27 PM
Bush asserts pre-emptive strikes policy
By Edward Alden in Washington
Published: July 12 2004 21:07 | Last Updated: July 12 2004 21:07

President George W. Bush said on Monday his administration would maintain its policy of pre-empting potential security threats despite growing doubts over the adequacy of US intelligence to assess such dangers.

In a speech at the Oak Ridge nuclear facility in Tennessee, Mr Bush made clear he would not rethink the approach after Friday's damning report by the Senate intelligence committee. The report concluded that the Central Intelligence Agency made serious errors in asserting that Saddam Hussein's Iraq possessed or was developing weapons of mass destruction.

While acknowledging that the report "has identified some shortcomings in our intelligence capabilities", he said that would not cause him to reconsider the approach that led the US to invade Iraq.

"America must remember the lessons of September the 11th," Mr Bush said. "We must confront serious dangers before they fully materialise."

The president said that before the US went to war with Iraq, the administration, Congress and the United Nations Security Council all agreed intelligence showed that Iraq posed a serious threat.

"Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq," Mr Bush said. The war removed an enemy "who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder and could have passed that capability to terrorists".

The Senate findings have fueled an already bitter election-year debate over Iraq, even though John Kerry, the Democratic presidential hopeful, and John Edwards, his running mate, both voted for the Senate resolution authorising war against Iraq.

Mr Kerry said on the weekend that the Senate findings bolster his argument that Mr Bush misled the country in launching a war that has hurt the US. He refused, however, to reconsider his vote, saying that "based on the information we had, it was the correct vote".

But **** Cheney, the vice president, accused the Democrats on Monday of developing "a convenient case of campaign amnesia". He said Mr Kerry and Mr Edwards "are criticising the president for looking at the same information that they did and coming to the same conclusion that [he] did. If the president was right, and he was, then they are simply trying to rewrite history for their own political purposes."

Mr Bush's trip to Oak Ridge, where remnants of Libya's dismantled nuclear programme are being stored, was aimed at bolstering the argument that his strategy of pre-emption has made America more secure. He said his administration was "leading a steady, confident, systematic campaign against the dangers of our time", which has thinned the ranks of the terrorists.

beep, beep, beep, beeeeeep, beeeeeeep, beeeeeeep TELEGRAPH to Iran and North Korea beep, beep, beep

Secret Squirrel
07-12-2004, 08:30 PM
Interesting to note he changed his rhetoric from "Iraq has WMDs" to "Iraq had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder."

soma
07-12-2004, 08:32 PM
Stupid son a bitch just lost his election....

scott
07-12-2004, 08:34 PM
a further butchering of the discipline of international relations
realists and liberals alike would call these four years an anomaly in the way nations interact

it will be neat to reflect on and study

Tane Angle
07-12-2004, 08:36 PM
scott, it's going to be historic, that's for sure.

scm77
07-12-2004, 08:40 PM
Stupid son a bitch just lost his election....

What do you mean?

Seems to me that speech can only do good. He's re-asserting the fact that we need to attack our enemys before they can attack us.

How did that stupid son a bitch just lose his election?

Macs.
07-12-2004, 08:46 PM
I don't think there will be a new war in the next few months/years.

The US Military has to focus on Iraq and Afgahnistan. It will be hard to fight on 3 battlefields at the same time.

A Soldier
07-12-2004, 09:02 PM
Three battlefields, two battlefields, six battlefields, however many it takes. We are ready and standing by.

scm77
07-12-2004, 09:03 PM
I don't think there will be a new war in the next few months/years.

The US Military has to focus on Iraq and Afgahnistan. It will be hard to fight on 3 battlefields at the same time.

There most likely won't be another war for a few years that the US starts. If North Korea starts ****ing around with their nukes, then the US will have no choice.

A Soldier
07-12-2004, 09:06 PM
And if they do, I can only hope that most of the British Commonwealth and true EU nations (no France) along with several Arab nations for PR, will join to blow the North Koreans into the sea.

Kilgor
07-12-2004, 09:12 PM
There is no north korean solution unless china takes big steps to reduce its support of that ****ed up basket case country.

But doing that, they will have a major ally if the united states on its doorstep, if the whole country is re-unified.

So its not gonna happen

admar2
07-12-2004, 09:33 PM
Stupid son a bitch just lost his election....

keep telling yourself that skippy.


rofl

usa320
07-12-2004, 10:27 PM
lol...

Im confident that George W. Bush, regarded by many right now as a cowboy and the likes, will, say 20 or 30 years from now be regarded as a great leader for world security...

In Ronald Reagan's first years people hated the man. They called him a cowboy and triggerhappy just as they call Bush.

But the reprecussions of his actions wont be noticable until decades after his presidency.

By eliminating these threats now, we are keeping future generations safe.

GazB
07-12-2004, 11:36 PM
Hehehehe... I guess he would have been re-elected straight away during WWII when he popped up and said the Japanese Pre Emptive strike on the US via Pearl Harbour was a good idea. Day that will live in Infamy then though wasn't it...

Using Bush's logic Saddam could have legitimately bombed the US or Britain before they invaded... as pre emptive self defence. I am sure that Bush would have called it an act of war or an act of terrorism or some such thing however.

EvanL
07-12-2004, 11:39 PM
Hehehehe... I guess he would have been re-elected straight away during WWII when he popped up and said the Japanese Pre Emptive strike on the US via Pearl Harbour was a good idea. Day that will live in Infamy then though wasn't it...

Using Bush's logic Saddam could have legitimately bombed the US or Britain before they invaded... as pre emptive self defence. I am sure that Bush would have called it an act of war or an act of terrorism or some such thing however.
Wow i smell a zinger!
Point....Set....Match

SeanAshi
07-12-2004, 11:48 PM
Stupid son a bitch just lost his election....Polls show that Bush and Kerry are neck and neck, and if Bush is doing such a bad job then why is Kerry not running away with the poll?

He219
07-13-2004, 12:02 AM
terrorism; the danger of our time


Using Bush's logic Saddam could have legitimately bombed the US or Britain before they invaded... as pre emptive self defence. I am sure that Bush would have called it an act of war or an act of terrorism or some such thing however.

We know what side of the fence you are on ...
:roll:

http://accuweather.ap.org/apdbs/Intl_Photos/views/mini/7019/7019886.jpg

A Japanese expert labels chemical weapons left by the Japanese military during World War II at the site where the weapons are being sealed up in Qiqihar of northeast China's Heilongjiang Province Thursday, Nov. 13, 2003. Chinese and Japanese experts started to X-ray and tightly seal up more than 700 chemical artillery shells, bombs and other weapons loaded with chemical agents left in China after World War II on Nov. 8. The seal-up operation is scheduled to finish at the end of this month. One person died and 42 were injured after barrels of abandoned Japanese mustard gas were dug up and began leaking at a construction site in Qiqihar in early August.

A pattern?
Hmmm ...

Kilgor
07-13-2004, 12:21 AM
Hehehehe... I guess he would have been re-elected straight away during WWII when he popped up and said the Japanese Pre Emptive strike on the US via Pearl Harbour was a good idea. Day that will live in Infamy then though wasn't it...

Using Bush's logic Saddam could have legitimately bombed the US or Britain before they invaded... as pre emptive self defence. I am sure that Bush would have called it an act of war or an act of terrorism or some such thing however.

Hmmm... I think it was sadam who was breaking most of the UN sanctions for which nearly everyone agreed on .. (the first un vote)

When he lost the first war, he kinda had a few conditions imposed on him, which he broke, numerous times.

But yes, we know what side of the fence your sitting on. Check my red and black alliance thread. :roll: