Kerry Backs Much of Pre-Emption Doctrine

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&e=7&u=/ap/20040717/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_intelligence



"Am I prepared as president to go get them before they get us if we locate them and have the sufficient intelligence? You bet I am," he said at a news conference at his Washington headquarters.

[jpgray]

1. Like Howard Dean, he agrees there are circumstances where it is necessary

And this is a dupe, incidentally.

3. I looked for it and didn't see the dupe

I saw a lot of related articles, but not this specific one. It said on the page that it was from 31 minutes ago when I posted it.
Point me to it.

By the way, about half the time it seems to me that this calling of dupe is a way to deflect from the article.
Is that the case here?

& why are you bringing up Howard Dean's name?

What I'm interested in is whether the pre-emption doctrine should be supported or not if you really want to know. I don't take my cues from anyone on that.

[jpgray]

6. People were fine with this position from Howard Dean

People are not fine with it from Kerry. Why? If there were sufficient intelligence that a major threat to the country existed, Dean is on record saying that he would engage in preemptive war. Are those here repulsed by Kerry's statement equally repulsed by Dean's? No. And so I try to bring up Dean because it blunts the doublespeak a little and makes people think twice.

[gristy]

12. No, your thread is a dupe

Yours is at least the fifth thread on this:
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=691512
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2012938
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2011270
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=114923

Calling out dupes is an effort to keep discussions from getting out of hand - from spreading into too many "rooms", so to speak. Some people who start duplicate threads, rather than posting on an existing thread, give the appearance of being interested in having more people see "their" oh-so-important opinion on a topic.

There are rules on posting duplicate threads. I suspect your post violates at least one of them.

On edit, here's the rule on duplicate posts (link: www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html#disruption )

"Do not post duplicate topics that have already been posted."

Seems pretty straightforward....

14. look-- take it up with the moderator, not me

I 've already said I missed it.
If you can't accept that I missed them, then fine.

The only one you link to that is in LBN is the top one which was not one the front page. Since the article I posted said it was from 31 minutes ago when I posted it I hadn't gone back to posts from early this morning to see if it was a dupe. I thought it was a new article.
I've got no interest at all in having my opinion take some special precedence in the way you imply I do.

Also I believe there's rules about who decides what violates the rules.

16. What do you want, 50 mea culpas?

I know the rules.
I wouldn't have posted it if I'd realized it had been posted already.
EOM.

[emulatorloo]

2. This one has been done to death today

But I'll bite: If a president has the information that a group is plotting 9/11, that group should be stopped.

8. Agreed --about 9/11

:)

[emulatorloo]

11. Pearl harbor too? n/t

13. In general terms yes

There is evidence that Roosevelt baited the Japanese, remember. That Pearl Harbor might not have been an unprovoked attack in any sense.

He also got a declararation of war from Congress after Pearl Harbor.

The Iraq War has never been a declared war.

Invading a country pre-emptively I would have trouble with.

Taking out a terror cell, I don't think I would.

[LoZoccolo]

4. Dupe dupe dupe dupa dupe dupe dupe dupa dupe dupe dupe dupa dupe dupe...

Nothing can stop, the Dupe of Earl...

5. no need to be rude.

n/t

[hightime]

7. If you claim a dupe...give a link! Jeez!!! Oh, BTW ....dupe.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x691512

9. thank you for the link

since I seem to have missed it

[hightime]

10. No prob. It had already dropped off the front page.

I seldom look any further than that. Good luck.

[emulatorloo]

15. Here are a couple more threads on this

This is the one I wasted most of my day on!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2011270

Here's another:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2011370

Have Fun!!!!

[Cha]

17. I am posting this on every thread that I see this...sorry,

but I think that it's important. It's from http://www.democrats.com

"AP Distorts Kerry Statements, Claims Senator Backs Bush's Preemptive Strike Policy
We have spotted a new attack plan being tried by the BushMedia stategists: Push liberals toward Nader (to whose campaign the GOP has donated thousands) by making it appear that Kerry is as hawkish as Bush & Co. and thus that there is "very little difference" between Kerry and Bush. This AP (A.merican P.ropaganda) headline reads: Kerry backs much of preemptive doctrine" is completely distorted. Here is the statement it is based on: "Am I prepared as president to go get them before they get us if we locate them and have the sufficient intelligence? You bet I am." 'Go get them' as in send special forces in, no doubt. Not as in bombing the hell out an entire country. Last time we looked, there was a HUGE difference. In coming days, expect to see this distortion played up, followed by renewed calls of "there's no difference between the Dems and GOP."

[VolcanoJen]

18. Dupe... locking

Please continue discussion within the original LBN thread on this topic, which can be found here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=691512

Thanks!
VolcanoJen
DU Moderator