Howard Dean-Preemptive Strategy Never Fits Into US Strategy-MAJOR GAFFE

[KittyWampus]

Moderators, I changed the title, don't know if that's okay.

This is NOT flamebait... it is literally true based on the following. What Dean said was irresponsible in regards to American safety and foreign policy.

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."

The fact of the matter is PRE-EMPTION is a very different thing than PREVENTION. And what Junior did in Iraq was PREVENTATIVE. That is the PNAC plan. And the following article means that the GOP will try to confuse the two... it also means that IF Dean gets the nod he will be dead meat.

GOP will trumpet preemption doctrine
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/11/12/gop_will_trumpet_preemption_doctrine?mode=PF

Here is how they will try to spin it:

"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."

Pre-emptive is a misnomer when referring to what the PNAC plan calls for and what we did in Iraq.

Apparently Dean doesn't know the difference between Pre-emption and PREVENTATIVE. It may be okay for DU'ers to confuse the two but it is unforgivable for a PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE. Dean was pandering to those of us who opposed the IRaq Invasion... but he ended up making a MAJOR GAFFE that is on the record and with which he will be nailed to the cross by Rove.

Pre-emption is most CERTAINLY a valid and necessary part of American Strategy!

Preventative War, on the other hand, is NOT legal and THAT is what Junior started.

Pre-emption is striking when you are certain someone is going to hit you. There is NO law that says you have to sit and absorb a first blow if you know it's coming. Preemption relies on haivng accurate and unquestionable intelligence indicating that you are indeed going to be hit. That's why what Junior did was so wrong.

Preventative means striking with no provocation or imminent threat. You are hitting with the purpose of keeping someone from gaining the capacity to ever threaten you with harm.

Do you see what the issue is here?

If Dean said that about not using Pre-Emptive Stragegy he is unfit to President... he would have allowed those planes to hit the Towers becasue to have blown them up beforehand would have PREEMPTED them.

NOT ONLY THAT, but it is certain that Rove has this on the top of his list. Especially in light of the current article where it's indicatied that they will try and confuse Pre-emption and Prevanative.

It was a MAJOR GAFFE on Dean's part... and he CANNOT unsay it. And he can't even spin it- he uses the words NEVER and makes the mistake of calling the Iraq Invasion Pre-emptive which it clearly was not MUCH AS JUNIOR WOULD LIKE YOU TO THINK SO.

[SaddenedDem]

1. This is so convoluted and twisted...

it's not worth a reply. The entire post is something one would expect to find on a right wing site.

Twisted words, twisted logic and utter BS.

[KittyWampus]

4. Confuse The Two Words At Your Own Risk

The difference is REAL and the GOP is planning on using it to their advantage.

12. GOP style

think I'm going to have to side with the idea that this is semantics.
Now in a strict sense your point may have merit regarding the definitions, but as I recall, one of the main tactics of Bush in the last election was to avoid fine twisting of words and to appear to be just common folk, common sense, not high falutin and arrogant and smart like that Gore character. If the GOP starts to get into the kind of tactic you're describing here, they might be in for a surprise.

[KittyWampus]

17. Military & Political Terminology Is What It Is

And the only way the PNAC'ers can accomplish their goals is to confuse terminology.

Why do you think the article I referenced has the GOP saying Pre-emptive and not Preventative?

The latter would give their game away.

And Dean's gaffe allows them to do this.

[wtmusic]

23. Neocons have used 'pre-emptive' all along

and pre-emptive self-defense is not moral under any circumstances. YOU are confusing the issue.

[KittyWampus]

25. The Neo-Cons Have Been Purposely Misleading Us

That is one of the main points

[wtmusic]

36. FIne then. Dean is using the same term they have used

and he's saying it's not valid.


FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT
FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT
FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT
FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT
FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT
FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT
FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT
FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT
FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT
FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT
FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT
FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT
FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT
FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT
FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT
FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT
FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT FLAMEBAIT

[KittyWampus]

38. Sorry, I Changed The Title

Because you and Sfecap were right. And I apologise for THAT.

[KittyWampus]

57. Preemptive Vs. Preventive

"Bacevich went on to say the term "preventive war" suggests attacking another country because of a supposition that the other country intends harm sometime in the future. That's different from "preemptive war," he said. "When I have certain knowledge that my adversary is planning to attack me and, indeed, is on the verge of attacking me, then a preemptive attack out of self-defense is considered to be legitimate and legal," Bacevich said.
wwww.rferl.org/nca/features/2003/03/17032003175224.asp

[KittyWampus]

59. One More Source

http://www.antiwar.com/bock/b091002.html
"There has been talk of a preemptive strike or a
preemptive war. But even if everything that has
been leaked and much, much more turns out to be
true in spades, what the Bush administration is
talking about is not a preemptive war but a
preventive war. That is something the United
States has never done before. We should think
long and hard before we allow our leaders to do it
this time.

"There’s a well-accepted definition for preemptive
war in international law," Joseph Cirincione,
Director of the Non-Proliferation Project of the
Carnegie Endowment, told me on the telephone
last week. "Preemptive war is justified by an
imminent threat of attack, a clear and present
danger that the country in question is about to
attack you. In such a case a preemptive attack is
recognized as justifiable.""

[KittyWampus]

69. Jimmy Carter: Preventive v. Preemptive

http://www.comw.org/pda/0303kroening.html In the September 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States it is stated
repeatedly that the United States will exercise the right to act preemptively in the event of challenges to its people or allies emerging from rogue states or terrorist groups.

This prompted criticism from Jimmy Carter: When accepting the Nobel peace prize in Oslo he commented to the effect that the course defined by the White House is not preemption at all, but prevention, and that no one has the right to take such action. And in an obvious
allusion to Kant's categorical imperative, he pointed out that if powerful countries adopt a principle of preventive war, this sets a bad example and may well have catastrophic global consequences.

[KittyWampus]

70. "Deliberate Confusion"

http://www.comw.org/pda/0303kroening.html In the September 2002 Official definition

Carter is right to suppose that the term "preemption" is being used in a misleading way by the Bush Administration. The US Department of Defense's own official Dictionary of Military Terms defines preemption as "an attack initiated on the basis of incontrovertible evidence that an enemy attack is imminent."

Prevention is different: A preventive war is "initiated in the belief that military conflict, while not imminent, is inevitable, and that to delay would involve greater risk." This is quite obviously the logic being pursued by the U.S. leadership, especially in relation to Iraq, for there is simply no evidence of any imminent threat.

Deliberate confusion

If what is actually meant is "prevention", but instead the term consistently used is"preemptive action", it seems legitimate to assume that the confusion may be deliberate –especially as a glance at the Defense Department's dictionary could have clarified the issue. So the question is this: What is the political rationale for the extraordinary course taken by the US Administration?

It must be assumed, first of all, that this lack of clarity is intended to broaden the scope of action for the U.S. Furthermore, the insistence on "preemption" seems to be intended to reinforce the urgency of the need for intervention with the expectation that urgency enhances its legitimacy. Moreover – and surprisingly – it shows an indirect respect for international law, which after all prohibits preventive war, but is rather more liberal on the issue of preemptive action.

In any event, the obstinate use of the term "preemption" reinforces the impression, which is supported by other indicators, that in preparing for a strike against Iraq, the U.S. has more in mind than simply establishing sufficient threat of coercion to bring about further disarmament...

[okieinpain]

2. hahahahahahahahahahahha,

this is the least of the attacks that will be pointed at anyone that is after juniors seat. as a matter of fact this is to above the board, look for something dirty to be used.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

3. i think its semantics

i could be wrong. But I think his point is made regardless of how its spun. The fact of the matter is most people know what his intent was, and it would take a great deal of spin to make Dean sound as if he was saying "if we find out they are going to attack us, we still won't attack them until we get hit". I think to try to spin Dean's comment into such a thing will backfire.

[KittyWampus]

7. This Is Categorically NOT Semantics

There is a WORLD of difference between Pre-emptive and Preventative.

The former is Legal and the latter is PNAC.

[arcane1]

5. um...

ok

:eyes:

[eyesroll]

6. Uh, the Republicans are calling what * did "pre-emptive"

You called what * did illegal. (I agree, BTW.)

Dean is using the exact same terminology the Republicans use, to condemn what the Republicans are doing.

Why is this a gaffe?

[KittyWampus]

11. The Only Way Dean Could Spin It Is To Admit He Was Wrong

DEAN HIMSELF calls the Iraq Invasion PRE-EMPTIVE!

He was wrong... it is NOT!

And for him to bring this up it will shine a spotlight on his gaffe and inexperience in foreign affairs.

Are you sure he even knows the difference?

If he DID know, why did he say that PRE-EMPTION should NEVER be part of American policy?

[eyesroll]

27. I'm still not understanding what the problem is

The Republicans are calling it pre-emptive.

REGARDLESS of what the right word is, that is the word that the public keeps hearing. Pre-emption. Pre-emption.

They are not hearing preventative. They are hearing pre-emptive.

So, Dean, when addressing the public, is using the terminology that same public has been hearing.

I think if he used the term "preventative," to respond specifically to what the Republicans have been branding as "pre-emptive," would be even more confusing.

Let's just assume the Republicans are calling it the "Fluffy Bunny Doctrine." We know that's flat-out bizarre. But that's what they're doing. That's how they're branding the war.

If Dean wanted to criticize the PNAC/Bush point of view, would he ignore what they're calling it, or would he just dive in and use their language?

Or, would he just say, "I oppose the Fluffy Bunny Doctrine"?

(I know Dean points out that "partial birth abortion" is incorrect terminology. But you know what the headline of his press release is? "Dean Blasts Bush For Signing Partial Birth Abortion Ban.")

To argue with someone in the press, you need to speak the language the public recognizes. (Pre-emptive and preventative have nearly identical dictionary definitions, anyway. Do you have a source for these radically different political definitions you offer?)

29. Exactly!

n/t

[KittyWampus]

43. Wouldn't It Be Wise To Point Out The Difference?

Wouldn't it beneficial to point out the difference between stopping countries that MAY threaten us in the future and stopping an incoming threat?

:shrug:

[drfemoe]

62. yeah

stopping countries that MAY threaten us = offensive action
(of course "stopping" a hypothetical situation is hypothetical)

stopping an incoming threat = defensive action

[loyalsister]

84. Voters are NOT interested

A smart candidate knows that average voters are not interested in listening to a debate on word meanings. I am aware of this because I hear it from people who talk to their own voters. They just don't care. They want to hear what a candidate thinks, a list of solutions, and a quick summary.
As the other poster said, and any actual candidate who wins elections will tell you, his best bet is to use the language the public is familiar with to make his point.

[Brotherjohn]

76. It will shine a spotlight on his... inexperience in foreign affairs.

To do that, it would have to reveal the same of Bush. BUSH is the one who has defined it as such. I don't understand why you can't see this.

Deliberate or not, BUSH has set the terms. No one will be penalized for criticizing him on his own terms.

[Scott Lee]

8. Oh that awfull, terrible Howard Dean.

Another day, another swat at Dean. Yawn.

I think Dean is smart enough to know the difference, but when you are in the heat of a political run some things fall through the cracks. Like nuances of meaning of some words the speech writers might not have caught. I'm positive that, when Dr. Dean is in a position to do so, he will have the correct advice and counsel of those who know every nuance of the terms of art.

But the question is, what will you do with no more Dean to hate? This concerns me. Idle hands are the devil's playthings.

[killbotfactory]

9. What dean is saying is simple.

America shouldn't invade countries which are not an immediate threat to the US.

Call it premption, prevention, whatever.

[KittyWampus]

14. A Wrench Is Not A Hammer-There Are Specific Military Terms

And Dean has shown that he can't distinguish between the two.

And the distinction is significant.

The PNAC plans are all about PREVENTION like what we did in Iraq.

[arcane1]

26. what exactly was "prevented" in Iraq?

:shrug:

"And Dean has shown that he can't distinguish between the two."

since BushCo is using the very same term, and thus the populace is using the exact same term, why shouldn't he use it too? And you have a LONG way to go if you want to demonstrate that Dean is incapable of distinguishing, just because he didn't use your choice words.

your 9/11 analogy is misleading. Blowing up the planes would have prevented the WTC strikes, no?

[KittyWampus]

30. In The Context Of Foreign Affairs

Preventative war means taking out anyone who can THREATEN you.

Not someone who is currently in the process of attacking you.

[arcane1]

40. Iraq was in the process of attacking us?

whatever you say. I'd love to see Rove try to use whatever this is, considering the level of public credulity. And this proves that Dean is "unfit" for the WH???

seems to me like you have it backwards. Preventative meaning preventing someone from attacking you first, vs pre-emption, attacking them before they are ABLE to attack you first

do you have links to these apparently distinct and mutually exclusive definitions? For that matter, do you have anything to indicate that the American public is thinking of this distinction AT ALL?

[drfemoe]

66. Why don't we

just try to PREVENT wars?

.. then it won't matter what you call them.

[helleborient]

10. This is pointless...

Please learn more of U.S. history.

Past policy for the U.S. has been containment...from World War II into the Clinton years. The first Gulf War did not involve pre-emptive strikes - neither did Grenada or Panama, if you believed what our government said was going on.

Pre-emptive strike policy is different, and, in my mind, and the mind of a huge proportion of the U.S. public and European public, is wrong.

[KittyWampus]

28. Chomsky & Schlesinger Would Disagree

Chomsky: Preventative War The Supreme Crime
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4416.htm

Arthur Schlesinger: The Immorality of Preventive War
http://hnn.us/articles/924.html

They are NOT using the term Pre-emptive.

[helleborient]

63. Neither are they saying we ever had a policy of Pre-emptive War

What is your point?

American foreign policy before Bush, Jr. was Containment

[helleborient]

65. Why isn't any other candidate complaining about this?

Most likely because it's a made-up issue on DU.

Call all other 8 candidates...have one of them make this into an issue, then it will be worth discussing here.


There is no legitimate issue here.

[sfecap]

13. Bullshit.

pre·empt
Pronunciation: prE-'em(p)t
Function: verb
Etymology: back-formation from preemption
Date: 1850
transitive senses
1 : to acquire (as land) by preemption
2 : to seize upon to the exclusion of others : take for oneself <the movement was then preempted by a lunatic fringe>
3 : to replace with something considered to be of greater value or priority : take precedence over <the program did not appear, having been preempted by a baseball game -- Robert MacNeil>
4 : to gain a commanding or preeminent place in
5 : to prevent from happening or taking place.


pre·vent
Pronunciation: pri-'vent
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, to anticipate, from Latin praeventus, past participle of praevenire to come before, anticipate, forestall, from prae- + venire to come -- more at COME
Date: 15th century
transitive senses
1 archaic a : to be in readiness for (as an occasion) b : to meet or satisfy in advance c : to act ahead of d : to go or arrive before
2 : to deprive of power or hope of acting or succeeding
3 : to keep from happening or existing <steps to prevent war>
4 : to hold or keep back


www.m-w.com

The parsing and twisting continues...what is the meaning of "is"?

[KittyWampus]

20. These Words Have Specific Meanings In Foreign Policy

whether you like it or not.

[sfecap]

24. Whatever.

The fact is that a political campaign is not a foreign policy wonk session. The public knows damn well what he means. You are just playing "let's parse the words" game.

It's ridiculous, and your post is nothing but flamebait.

I guess none of the candidates are fit for the job, because they all use the word.

[KittyWampus]

35. Sfecap You Are Right-I Changed The Title

Because it was too much like flamebait. You were right. I am sorry for that!

[wtmusic]

34. OK, what are the meanings then?

"Pre-emption is striking when you are certain someone is going to hit you.

Preventative means striking with no provocation or imminent threat."

From cryingshame's Abridged Dictionary of Foreign Policy, or perhaps a more reputable source?

[Brotherjohn]

52. Yes, the specific meaning today in foreign policy is...

... to pre-emptively invade BEFORE there is an imminent threat, because one fears the threat may become imminent in the future.

Bush has set the terms, not Dean.

[helleborient]

53. They have specific meanings, you're right, but you are wrong...

That pre-emptive attacks have ever been or should ever be part of U.S. foreign policy. Read your American foreign policy history.

[Padraig18]

15. That is the most twisted, convoluted piece of 'logic' I have ever heard!

:eyes:

[bread_and_roses]

85. In this case

I mostly agree with you. I applaud exactness in language, but in this instance, I think Dean's meaning is clear, and the public knows what he means, and that he opposes "it" - "it" being the use of force without "clear and present danger" to use a cliche.

[jedicord]

16. According to Webster...

"Pre-emp-tive" adj.: 1. of or relating to preemption; 2. higher than necessary and designed to shut out bids by the opponents; 3. giving a stockholder first option to purchase new stock in an amount proportionate to his existing holdings

"Pre-emp-tion" n.: 1. the right of purchasing before others; 2. a prior seizure or appropriation, a taking possession before others.

"Pre-ven-tive" adj.: 1. something that prevents; 2. devoted to or concerned with prevention; 3. undertaken to forestall anticipated hostile action.

"Pre-vent" vb.: 1. to be in readiness for; 2. to deprive of power or hole of acting or succeeding; 3. to keep from happening or existing; 5. to hold or keep back.

Just in case anyone was curious...

Personally, I feel they've waged a preemptive war on all of us.

[helleborient]

18. Dean is absolutely right...

Pre-emptive attacks did NOT fit into American strategy until George W. Bush put it there.

We have no real history of pre-emptive attacks on other nations as national policy.

The Civil War even began with shots fired on a Union fort.

If you are arguing pre-emptive attacks are ok...you are arguing a point which goes against the history of U.S. foreign policy - Democratic and Republican alike.

[KittyWampus]

79. Sorry, You & Dean Are Wrong

Preemptive Strikes have ALWAYS been an accepted part of American strategy.

There IS a difference between the two terms, the PNAC'ers are deliberately confusing them, and Dean made a mistake when using the term Preemptive.

Dean is running for PRESIDENT. Why didn't he learn the difference? Is it too much to expect a President to understand terms used by the Government, Military, Diplomatic and Foreign Affairs community?

Read from some of the links I provided throughout the thread.

Prevention or Preemption:
http://www.comw.org/pda/0303kroening.html

Preventive or Preemptive War
http://www.antiwar.com/bock/b091002.html

[Duder]

19. Guess Al Gore is unfit...

'Al Gore warned that voting for the Iraq resolution would create “the precedent for preemptive action anywhere, anytime this or any future president so decides.”

[Cha]

33. Al Gore's Speech at Constitution Hall in WashD.C.

was the Best on Sunday! I hope you got to see it!

[wtmusic]

21. This is ridiculous

*, Wolfowitz, and Cheney have repeated referred to his strategy as "pre-emptive self-defense". Pre-emptive war is NOT a viable strategy. Dean is right on.

Pre-emptive self defense is a myth and is immoral under any pretext. Period.

[sandnsea]

22. Preemption/Prevention vs. Self Defense

I think this is way too 'nuanced', to use a phrase, for the American people to get into. Dean was almost certainly using his term to differentiate the PNAC agenda from self defense.

[Cha]

31. Howard Dean gettin' right ..once again!

"Howard Dean, an opponent of military action in Iraq from the start, dismissed preemption altogether. "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."

[KittyWampus]

81. Dean Proved His Ignorance Of Foreign Policy

And fell for the PNAC ploy of confusing the terms preemptive and preventive.

The GOP and PNAC'ers are doing this on purpose and Dean doesn't know enough about Foreign Policy to speak properly!

And to suggest that Dean is okaybecause he's using the terms the Neo Cons WANT HIM TO USE is just ludicrous.

Should we start calling the Estate Tax the Death Tax because that's what the GOP does?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

32. I agree but it was his "U.S. will not always be the strongest" quote

that did it for me. That was absolutely stupid and the GOP will hammer him with it, and he will even lose a lot of Democratic votes for it. It is irresponsible to even suggest.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2082229

[Duder]

37. Not everyone agreed...

http://www.tnr.com/primary/index.mhtml?pid=353

[Cha]

42. This Noam Scheiber was prophetic...

"That Kerry would try to make such a dishonest leap from such a trifling comment at this stage in the campaign, when he's ostensibly the front-runner, makes you shudder to think what he might resort to if he ever fell behind."

[wtmusic]

41. More flamebait

Q. Why don't you post the complete quote from Dean from Time Magazine? Like including the part about how we wouldn't have the strongest military IF we continued with our misplaced foreign policy goals?

A. Because it doesn't obscure Kerry's IWR vote.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

55. Dean said it. He's done. Rove will bag him and hang him up on that quote

I can see the ad now...white letters on black background:

"We won't always have the strongest military"- Howard Dean on America's National Defense.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,447076,00.html

[txdude10]

39. I'm for Clark, but this Dean bashing is just too much.

While we fret among ourselves over whether Dean can win in November or not, here's two Republican pollsters's take on his chances:

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_reinhard/index.ssf?/base/editorial/106829671744920.xml

[Cha]

44. Thank you for your sense of

intregity! :kick:

[KittyWampus]

45. Ee Gads, Why Is It Bashing?

What would happen if ANY Candidate says Pre-emption should NEVER be part of American Strategy?

[wtmusic]

49. Because it shouldn't ever be a part of American Strategy

Now you are confusing the terms. 'Pre-emption' does not imply 'self-defense'.

The problem with the concept of any pre-emptive strategy is is makes the assumption that we can know that war will be a last resort, before it truly is.

Self-contradictory.

[Brotherjohn]

50. We would applaud it. As I posted below, BUSH has defined...

... what pre-emption means from a policy standpoint today. It means attacking when one THINKS one MAY be attacked. Everyone on the planet is aware of that.

[KittyWampus]

82. So We Allow NeoCons To Redefine National Policy

and the terms we use?

We should start calling the Estate Tax the Death Tax?

[Andromeda]

86. This thread is nonsense...

you are splitting hairs and parsing Deans words over a trivial, made-up issue that nobody is going to think twice about. You seem to be the only one concerned about it.

You can bury yourself in Chomsky and Little Bo Peep literature for all I care---you still haven't made any sense whatsoever.

[On the Road]

46. Regardless of the Dictionary Definition

you seem to be the only one on this board or in the entire political process using the term "pre-emptive" in this restricted way.

It is a truly bizarre stretch to jump from a candidate's rejection of pre-emptive war (of which Dean is only one) to the assumption that he or she would not have shot down the airliners. It is even more bizarre take that single candidate and simply use the term "unfit" to define him. Otherwise, of course, I guess you would have had to make the point directly that Dean would have allowed the Sep 11 flights to crash because he used the term "preemptive." Especially for someone allegedly careful about language.

Nope, no agenda there.

47. and come to think of it

the administration in power didn't shoot down the airliners, no matter what their avowed policy is/was.
hmmmmmmm

[KittyWampus]

54. Wrong-Please Read:US POLICY ON PREVENTIVE WAR & PREEMPTION

By James Wirtz & James Russell - The Nonproliferation Review/Spring 2003
cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol10/101/wirtz.pdf

Page 116:

It begins by talking about Preventive Warfare and then goes on-

"Preemption, BY CONTRAST, is nothing more than a quick draw. Upon detecting evidence that an opponent is aobut to attack, one beats the opponent to the punch and attacks first to blunt the impending strike"

Also,
Preventive War Against Iraq:
Strategic Insights are authored monthly by analysts with the Center for Contemporary Conflict (CCC). The CCC is the research arm of the National Security Affairs Department at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California
www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/rsepResources/ si/nov02/middleEast.asp

[Brotherjohn]

56. The American people don't read policy papers. They hear Bush call it...

...pre-emption, and what he has done is forever defined as "pre-emption". We could argue semantics and definitions from here to the election, but the fact is that Dean is criticizing Bush's policy, and Bush's "version" of pre-emption. That is crystal clear.

[KittyWampus]

61. Again- Junior IS PURPOSELY USING WRONG TERM

For Heavens SAKE...they are doing this on PURPOSE.

They are using the wrong term and they are doing it for a reason.

So it's okay a Presidential Candidate can't tell the difference and plays into their hands?

68. Finally-----

--- I think I see what you are getting at. The Republicans are confusing the terminology on purpose. What I don't see is how this plays into their hands. Anyone who followed the details of the terminological dispute would understand that the Repubs were misusing the term to cause problems. Anyone who didn't would have the terms jumbled in their head anyway and wouldn't really notice if the Dems jumbled them too & if the Repubs were jumbling them to begin with how could they (the Repubs) give the Dems grief about doing the same thing?
I think you're finely dissecting things to the point of paranoia.

[KittyWampus]

72. Deliberate Confusion

This is from a Policy paper from the German Bundestag- A paper entitled "Prevention or Preemption" Project on Defense Alternatives.
It seems the Europeans are paranoid as well.

http://www.comw.org/pda/0303kroening.html
I posted this upthread:

Deliberate confusion

"If what is actually meant is "prevention", but instead the term consistently used is "preemptive action", it seems legitimate to assume that the confusion may be deliberate – especially as a glance at the Defense Department's dictionary could have clarified the issue. So the question is this: What is the political rationale for the extraordinary course taken by the US Administration?

It must be assumed, first of all, that this lack of clarity is intended to broaden the scope of action for the U.S. Furthermore, the insistence on "preemption" seems to be intended to reinforce the urgency of the need for intervention with the expectation that urgency enhances its legitimacy. Moreover – and surprisingly – it shows an indirect respect for international law, which after all prohibits preventive war, but is rather more liberal on the issue of
preemptive action.

In any event, the obstinate use of the term "preemption" reinforces the impression, which is supported by other indicators, that in preparing for a strike against Iraq, the U.S. has more in mind than simply establishing sufficient threat of coercion to bring about further disarmament...."

74. yes

Your point here makes sense in terms of overall obfuscations that Bush is attempting on the international scene.
Back to the original idea for a moment. I'm not sure if these distinctions are going to make much difference in the presidential election in America & in that respect I don't see it as being a major gaffe on Dean's part.
It will be important for the Democratic candidates to clear this stuff up, I agree.

[Brotherjohn]

73. Right, and moreso...

"Anyone who followed the details of the terminological dispute" would understand from day one that Bush was actually not doing what he "said" he was doing. If Bush were to say that the policy, as you claim it is, was right, then he would be admitting that his own policy, as acted on, is wrong.

But AGAIN, it is so abundantly crystal clear (I can't believe I'm still posting it) that when Bush says "pre-emption", he means invading to prevent a possible threat before that threat develops. HE has specifically defined it as such. THIS is what "pre-emption" has come to mean for the entire world. THIS is what Dean is attacking.

If Bush were trying to pull what you claim he's trying to pull, it would go over about 10 times more poorly than the "but the sailors asked for the banner" gaffe.

[Brotherjohn]

48. REPUBLICANS have defined the Bush Doctine as "pre-emption".

They may be wrong in that characterization, but Dean is simply criticizing the Bush Doctine using the terms set by Bush. Anyone paying attention sees and knows that.

You are making a big deal out of semantics. One could just as easily argue that "preventive" means there has to be something about to happen that you are acting to prevent. In fact, preepmt and prevent are often listed as synonyms in dictionaries, and if one looks up preventive and preemptive, one would find that, in many cases, pre-emptive more closely fits acting to prevent a possible occurrence (and not necessarily imminent).

There is no need to play semantics, however. The Bush team has set the definition, and the policy. Dean is criticizing the Bush Doctrine, and he is absolutely right to do so.

[redqueen]

51. This is so wrong.

Clark, knowing the technical terms of course, made the same smart stand a month or so ago and was roundly criticized.

Dean is right too, he just took the bush definition (i.e. the stupid idiotic one). Hopefully he will use this opportunity to inform the American public about what he meant to say, and what the difference is betwen attacking when you have information you are going to be attacked, vs. attacking when you think someday they might get an idea to attack you.

Oh, if only we had an intelligent, free, and independent media to keep the electorate informed. Unfortunately giving the people adequate information so that we can maintain our democratic republic is not as high a priority as corporate profits. :mad:

[drfemoe]

58. The crying shame is

that your arguement is pointless.

I know you are hoping for a MAJOR GAFFE from Dean; but this ain't it. again

It's also a crying shame that (so far) the mods have allowed you to break rules to start a thread just to flame bait from a duplicate topic. :shrug:

[deutsey]

60. I had real trouble chasing the thoughts swirling around

the original post. I think I know what the person is saying, but it doesn't amount to anything as far as I can tell.

[drfemoe]

64. the sky is falling

The point should be .. before the military action no one in the admin was calling for a 'preemtive' war. The impression was given that "they've already hit us once and we can't let them get us again".

[helleborient]

67. Why isn't any other candidate complaining about this?

When it moves beyond being made up on DU as an issue to at least one of the other candidates talking about it, then it would be worth discussing here.

As it is, it's a vapor issue.

[KittyWampus]

71. This Transcends The Democratic Primaries

The reason I hooked this onto the article cited is because:

1. PNAC'er have PURPOSELY confused the two terms
2. Accepting the PNAC'ers usage of the term Preemptive to include what they did in Iraq leaves it VERY difficult to critique their ultimate Foreign Policy Goal.
http://www.comw.org/pda/0303kroening.html
I posted this upthread:

Deliberate confusion

"If what is actually meant is "prevention", but instead the term consistently used is "preemptive action", it seems legitimate to assume that the confusion may be deliberate – especially as a glance at the Defense Department's dictionary could have clarified the issue. So the question is this: What is the political rationale for the extraordinary course taken by the US Administration?

It must be assumed, first of all, that this lack of clarity is intended to broaden the scope of action for the U.S. Furthermore, the insistence on "preemption" seems to be intended to reinforce the urgency of the need for intervention with the expectation that urgency enhances its legitimacy. Moreover – and surprisingly – it shows an indirect respect for international law, which after all prohibits preventive war, but is rather more liberal on the issue of
preemptive action.

In any event, the obstinate use of the term "preemption" reinforces the impression, which is supported by other indicators, that in preparing for a strike against Iraq, the U.S. has more in mind than simply establishing sufficient threat of coercion to bring about further disarmament...."

[Brotherjohn]

75. Well, yes, in the world where policy minutiae are argued incessantly.

You say: "Accepting the PNAC'ers usage of the term Preemptive to include what they did in Iraq leaves it VERY difficult to critique their ultimate Foreign Policy Goal."

Not really, because semantics aside, they didn't attack to counter an imminent threat. In the real world, all one has to say is "No WMDs? No stockpiles? No drones capable of reaching the U.S.? No Al Qaeda connection? Then why the F*** did we invade!?" That is what a lot of voters are asking now, and why Bush's numbers have been plummeting for months.

They don't care about the specifics of whether or not a particular word was used or not. They only care that they were told there was a threat and we needed to do this, and now it appears that there was not the case. In fact, if the Bush administration tries to argue semantics to get out of such a serious issue, it will be political suicide.

This is the real world, it isn't a legal case where the Bush administration will have to argue whether the war was justified based on some technicality. In any case, even if it was, they would lose, because if they say it was really okay because it was "pre-emptive" in that there was an imminent threat, then how does that jibe with the facts and their own admission it was NOT an imminent threat (it was "a grave, gathering danger", remember?)?

If they go with "pre-emption" as you define it, they are sunk because that is not, in fact, what they have done in Iraq. If they continue to go with "pre-emption" as countering "gathering threats", then they are sunk, because that makes it an illegal and immoral policy, one that all Democratic candidates should rightfully attack.

[KittyWampus]

78. Yes But DEAN Couldn't Call Them On This Though

Because he's already made a gaffe! He fell for the mistaken terminology.

The thing is- there is specific terminology used by the State Dept. I did NOT make up the distinction.

A candidate should (?) know the difference. This isn't about a baseball statistics... it's about National Defense Policy.

Anyhow, this should be a general discussion thread without specific mention of Dean I suppose.

And better written then my original rambling. :dunce:

[Brotherjohn]

77. It boils down to THIS: If Bush were to attack Dean for this...

... he would also be doing two things:

1) Revealing that he, himself doesn't know the difference, and is therefore as "inexperienced" as Dean. Not only that, but that he has made the exact same gaffe repeatedly, on a world scale, when war and peace, lives and deaths, and international relations were on the line (not just on some debate).

2) Revealing that the war was, in fact, unjustified. If he is going to try to argue that "pre-emptive" war IS justified, and "preventive" war isn't, and clearing up for us what the two terms mean (according to the definitions as you have laid them out), then he will be making the case that his war is illegal and immoral.

To add to a scenario I painted in earlier posts, the voters are now asking:
"No WMDs? No stockpiles? No drones capable of reaching the U.S.? No Al Qaeda connection? Then why the F*** did we invade!?"

So Bush says:
"But I never said it was a 'pre-emptive' invasion. I mean, I SAID it was 'pre-emptive', but I MEANT it was 'preventive'. As we all know, 'pre-emptive' wars are legal, and 'preventive' ones aren't, which means... it was perfectly... illegal, or... er... um... Karl? (gulp!)"

[drfemoe]

80. Gaffe

I don't think any of the candidates can out gaffe the current admin.

[Upfront]

83. Calm Down

Dean says what he means. You sound some what desperate.