Mealy-Mouthed, Spineless Dems and Pre-Emptive War

[omega minimo]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/jan-june06/pelosi_3-30.html

JIM LEHRER: As a matter of principle, do you and the Democrats reject his preemptive war concept?

REP. NANCY PELOSI: On preemptive war, well, I don't reject the concept of preemptive war.


Both Al Gore and John Kerry suffered irreversible damage to their presidential campaigns at the hands of their handlers. While W. got to stand there and bumble through being the “guy that folks could have a beer with,” the Democratic candidates were cut off at the knees by media strategists that refused to allow them to be themselves. They are both way too smart to be intentionally hobbled by Newspeak specialists.

During the 1990’s, while the Reich Wing inflicted their Contract On America, our televised Democratic Congressional leaders stood in the halls of Congress and smilingly said, “Blah blah, woof woof.”

Watching the honorable Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on the NewsHour tonight was reminiscent. Even those of us who bother to tune in have a hard time focusing on the platitudinous flufftalk of today’s Democratic leaders.

Democratic and Independent and Republican Lite voters are all waiting for someone to speak up and speak out clearly without all the tortured equivocation.

The main reason for this-- aside from the painful damage that pretend platitudes did to Kerry and Gore-- is that all the Dem messages get lost in the ambient blur of Charlie Brown’s Teacher: “Wha WHAwha wha-wha WHA-wha......”

Even so, one segment of Rep. Pelosi’s discussion with Jim Lehrer stood out. Since when is Preemptive War a Democratic strategy? Since when do Democrats agree that Preemptive War is a U.S. strategy?!

JIM LEHRER: Do you believe that the Democrats could have conducted the war better than the Republicans?

REP. NANCY PELOSI: That's not the point. The president had a war of choice, timing that he chose, a preemptive strike that was -- if you're going to respond to a threat or have to -- you must move, you do the best you can. If you choose to go into a war, you choose your own timing and the rest, you better have a plan; you better have the best possible consideration for our men and women in uniform. It's President Bush's war. He's gotten us into it. He's digging a hole. I wish he'd stop digging and come out and see the light on this.

JIM LEHRER: As a matter of principle, do you and the Democrats reject his preemptive war concept?

REP. NANCY PELOSI: On preemptive war, well, I don't reject the concept of preemptive war. I don't think that the president's concept of preemptive war, though, meets the standard, which is that any time our country is threatened. I'm a mother of five. I have five grandchildren. And I always say: Think of a lioness. Think of a mother bear. You come anywhere near our cubs, you're dead. And so, in terms of any threat to our country, people have to know we'll be there to preemptively strike. But what the president did was, on the basis of no real intelligence for an imminent threat to our country, chose to go into a war for reasons that are still unknown to us. But I think that we keep everything on the table, as far as protecting the American people.

-------------------

So. Instead of addressing the issue of PNACCo.'s Preemptive Perpetual War head-on, the Minority Leader side-stepped with a cartoon illustration of her dedication to.......... something.

And how does a statement like this get slipped into the news cycle without ANY kind of definition? “And so, in terms of any threat to our country, people have to know we'll be there to preemptively strike.” Huh?

The handlers back at Corporate Media Newspeak Central musta been bustin with pride. Meanwhile, the voters were channel surfing or asleep. Which makes it less likely that the following prediction ever happens...

JIM LEHRER: Finally, a political question: Are the Democrats going to make you the -- are the voters going to make you speaker of the House in November, do you believe?

REP. NANCY PELOSI: Well, I think, if the election were held today, the Democrats would win the House. We're 15, 16 points ahead in some of the polls. And now, as we're rolling out our positive agenda, our vision for America's future that addresses the kitchen-table needs of American people, jobs, the education of children, access to quality health care, real security for our country, fiscal responsibility, to keep our country safe in every way, that our message is going to be a clear one, that our candidates are excellent, and our prospects are very good.


The spineless Dems want to focus on the “kitchen table needs” and the courageous Dems want to salvage the Constitutional government of the nation. Which do you want to listen to?

[Cocoa]

1. I like Pelosi's answer

I understood it, including the statement that you ask "huh?" about.

The important thing to realize is that she has a job of persuading people to vote for the dems. By definition, persuading refers to people that are persuadable, meaning they haven't made up their minds.

To do this, she has to have credibility. She has to say things that make sense, that mean something. Namecalling style tactics get in the way of this. People will stop listening to some extent, thinking she's not really saying anything, that's it's just rhetoric.

[AusGail]

3. US popularity

Doesn't Pelosi realize that while the USA have that affirmative policy on pre-emptive strikes, they will never regain there lost popularity that they once had on the world stage.

[omega minimo]

4. That's what I thought

"People will stop listening to some extent, thinking she's not really saying anything, that's it's just rhetoric."

The statement that you say: "I understood it, including the statement that you ask "huh?" about" sounded like "just rhetoric" to me. Can you explain how you understood the statement, aside from the merely strategic "The important thing to realize is that she has a job of persuading people to vote for the dems"?




"On preemptive war, well, I don't reject the concept of preemptive war. I don't think that the president's concept of preemptive war, though, meets the standard, which is that any time our country is threatened.... And so, in terms of any threat to our country, people have to know we'll be there to preemptively strike...."


btw, if you want to address it, NOBODY EVER ADVOCATED OR ASSERTED THAT "PREEMPTIVE WAR" BE "ON THE TABLE" BEFORE BUSHCO. Democrats need to address this illegal war, not endorse it.

[Why Syzygy]

7. It seems to me she doesn't

understand the word, "preemptive". Or maybe I don't. As I understand it, that is when there is NO THREAT. As in the case of Ira*q. They posed no "threat" to US citizens. Hussein took a pot shot at Poppy, or whatever. I missed that whole ordeal or just chose to forget it. I have no memory of it. GDubya never forgot it though. So it could be, as he has even said a few times, this was just to get even for the attempt on his dad's life. That is certainly no reason to take several countries into a big, bungled, bloody mess. And bring shame to our nation and trash the constitution and steal our treasury blind, etc........

The way Pelosi seems to be using the word does not strike me as preemptive. Isn't that self defense?

[LittleClarkie]

9. Luckily, your average shmoe doesn't even know who she is

Only us wonks. And we already vote Dem.

[omega minimo]

10. And the soft-pedaled answer sweeps the whole thing further under the rug..

[Supersedeas]

11. I agree...her answer does not reflect a clear understanding of preemptive

and frankly avoids and dodges the issue.

[Cocoa]

8. she has to express something

I thought it was clear what she was expressing: a simple, familiar concept of deterrence.

Regarding the Iraq war, she is not endorsing it. She is speaking of the Iraq war in CONTRAST to her idea of a necessary preepmtive war.

Regarding preemptive war never being on the table, I'm not so sure. Al Gore spoke of a "new practical imperative" due to terrorism threats, and John Kerry said of course the United States reserves the right to protect itself from imminent threats.

Preventive war, that's another question...

[theobscure]

17. I agree with most of your points, but it needs to be pointed out...

that the Bush administration, or the Republicans for that matter, don't exactly have a monopoly on starting illegal wars(LBJ), nor on claiming "justifiable" killing of tens of thousands of civilians in times of war as long as you are on the "right" side(Truman).

[omega minimo]

22. Bush's war drew out millions across the planet to try to stop it

Millions of people all over the world and all over the streets KNEW that this was a war of lies and misdirection. When has that every happened before?

When has a White House so blatantly lied about the reasons and misdirected the efforts in a war of "pre-emption"?

And now they're lying about how "we NEVER said that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11!!" :puke:

[theobscure]

26. I wasn't defending the Bush administration

I was simply pointing out that the Democratic Party opposing a war on grounds of legality or the amount of "collateral damage" involved, would be either a departure or hypocrisy. If you want to boil morality down to everything the Republicans do is wrong; and everything Democrats do is right; that's up to you. But it's the same kind of simple, dogmatic thinking that I'm sure you rail against fundamentalists for employing.

[omega minimo]

27. theobscure, you are obscuring every point...

...intentionally?

Yer having some prerecorded strawman argument with someone that ain't me--

THIS illegal unjust war is without precedent. :evilfrown:

[theobscure]

30. what?

My initial post in this thread was not in response to you. I was merely trying to add a little context in regard to the history of illegal war making and immoral war prosecution in this country by Democratic and Republican leaders alike.

Yes, Bush and company have taken it to a new level. I personally believe that they orchestrated 9/11 to justify these wars and their domestic agenda. No one would like to see these evil fascists in handcuffs being dragged off to the Hague more than myself.

It's also exceedingly clear that Democrats have been complicit in the cover-up and whitewash of 9/11 attack aftermath issues that are irrelevant to who perpetrated the attacks themselves. I also do not believe that just because Bush's atrocities are the very worst means all other atrocities can be discounted. So I'm not inclined to believe that it's all as simple Democrats-good, Republicans-bad.

If you want to say that I'm obscuring the point by trying to lend context to the discussion with points that vary from the Democratic Party talking points, that's certainly up to you. As for me, the bottom line is that based on history, recent behavior, current policy, and the reality of the entrenched, insulated power which Democrats and Republicans share, I am not inclined to trust all will be well if only the Democrats were in charge.

Democrats, in fact, are equally committed to the perpetual, nebulous "war on terrorism". There is no reason to believe that Democrats will engage in it's pursuit responsibly, even if you're under the impression that it's a legitimate "war" to begin with.

[omega minimo]

31. Still talking right past me with "democratic talking points"

presumptions "So I'm not inclined to believe that it's all as simple Democrats-good, Republicans-bad." "I am not inclined to trust all will be well if only the Democrats were in charge." "Democrats, in fact, are equally committed to the perpetual, nebulous "war on terrorism". There is no reason to believe that Democrats will engage in it's pursuit responsibly"

You seem to be talking to your own assumptions. :hi:

[theobscure]

32. I just don't like being accused of being...

a neo-con apologist, simply for pointing out the Democratic Party's own track record for reasons of perspective. So I guess you were just baiting me for the sport of it then? Thank you for your contribution to the debate.

[omega minimo]

33. You need to read more carefully

and quit lookin for a fight

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. Dear Nancy:

The answer to the question "are you as incompetent as Bush?" is NO.
The answer to the question "would you do something illegal?" is NO.

The questions weren't phrased that way, but that's what they boiled down to. Americans believe that the Iraq war was the wrong thing to do, and the UN charter says that members will not make preemptive war against others.

"I don't necessarily disagree with the president but I think we should consider, bla, bla, bla." Gaaa! It's no better than Colbert's take on how to make a "real democrat" out of Hackett.

[leftstreet]

2. The Democratic Party is now the "Mother Bear" Party?

:puke: :puke: :puke:

[omega minimo]

5. lol

How much more can we bear?

[leftstreet]

6. I can't wait to see the campaign posters...

[wiggs]

12. Another missed opportunity. This is the way it's going to go, folks.

Old politics.

[gratuitous]

13. Dear Nancy: War doesn't determine who's right

Just who's left. It's a very bad tool for conducting foreign policy. It never, never does what it's supposed to do, even when snappy slogans are made up for it. Whether it's "the war to end all wars" in WWI or "making the world safe for democracy" for the war after that one, war doesn't work. There's nothing redemptive about violence, and violence on a national scale isn't the solution to violence on a personal scale. All war is sin.

Once you approach a problem from THAT angle, you might be surprised at the creative, collaborative solutions that nations can come up with. But when you send out the planes, launch the missiles, and land the troops, every other solution is foreclosed until you and your stupid ilk get tired of blasting other people.

[Thorandmjolnir]

14. Of course, she also fogets

that Pre-Emptive war is illegal under international law.

I actually think it should be called what it really is: War of Agression.

[bloom]

18. There are a lot of them that are liable

I suppose they may think that as long as they are going with the flow in Congress that they can promote illegal activities.

I would like to see all of the people who promote illegal wars be prosecuted.


A DU poll on the question "Do you think the US has a right to initiate a preemptive war?" in 2004:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2442109

[omega minimo]

23. Thanks bloom!

:yourock:

[Jai4WKC08]

15. Dems and Repubs have ALWAYS supported pre-emptive war

Pre-emptive war is and has always been about attacking a nation or other entity who poses an IMMINENT threat before that nation or entity attacks the US or one of our allies. It was standard policy all thru the Cold War, and is probably the only realisitic deterent in a situation when two nuclear powers have the delivery means to reach each other. Pre-emptive war was also the basis for Israel's Six Day war, and has been upheld in international law. No nation is expected to sit around and wait for someone else to hit them first.

Bush's policy is NOT pre-emptive war. It is preventative war. Saddam was not an imminent threat. They called him a "gathering threat" and justified the war on that basis--that he would eventually be a threat and it was better to take him out sooner than later.

Most Americans believe, rightly imo, that pre-emptive war is a just policy given the proper provocation. They would never elect a president who renounced a pre-emptive option. Bush and Rove know that so, like they've done with so many things, they just changes the name of something to make it sound like something more palatable and harder to challenge.

[omega minimo]

24. Hence, intended confusion over these terms & among excellent replies here

that-- in a sense-- are all in agreement.

"Bush and Rove know that so, like they've done with so many things, they just changes the name of something to make it sound like something more palatable and harder to challenge."

So if they called it "pre-emptive" and STILL FAILED TO prove the "imminent" threat, or did so by blatantly lying about it, avoiding this whole mess really depends on more Americans slapping on a big pair of:



Even with millions in the streets in February 2003, the Congress went along with Gulf War II, just like they went along with Gulf War I.

[FrenchieCat]

19. I think that folks need to educate themselves on the difference between

Pre-emptive and Preventative War options. There is a difference which deals with including the word EMMINENT THREAT in the first, and finding it absent in the 2nd.

I wish that Dems would educate themselves on these matters instead of denouncing words that don't mean what they think they mean. This stuff is too serious of us not to know what is being discussed. Pelosi had it right.....and unfortunately and maybe rightly so, just the trigger word W-A-R is just not a word one wants to have to hear.....at any point in time...but we must be realistic about it....and Pre-Emptive is not what the Iraq War was.

[Zhade]

20. Pelosi just pushed a BIG LIE.

The war on Iraq WAS NOT A PREEMPTIVE STRIKE.

It was a PREVENTATIVE strike, which is illegal.

Bolstering the lie that it was preemptive lets b*s* off the hook.

[FrenchieCat]

21. That's not what she did.....she did not say Bush's war was a

Preemptive strike!

She said....I don't reject the concept of preemptive war. I don't think that the president's concept of preemptive war, though, meets the standard, which is that any time our country is threatened. I'm a mother of five. I have five grandchildren. And I always say: Think of a lioness. Think of a mother bear. You come anywhere near our cubs, you're dead. And so, in terms of any threat to our country, people have to know we'll be there to preemptively strike. But what the president did was, on the basis of no real intelligence for an imminent threat to our country, chose to go into a war for reasons that are still unknown to us.

Who is "bolstering" which lie? Maybe the lie being bolstered is right there in your post...the one that says that Pelosi just pushed a big lie....hell, she even called it Bush's war.

I understand if you don't like her....but at least read and respond to what she actually said....not what you want others to think she said. I don't think that is is Intellectually honest to make the announcement that you did in reference to Pelosi's words.

PS. Not that I like Pelosi very much, cause I actually don't...but I'm not gonna just make shit up about her just cause I can!

[omega minimo]

25. You highlighted the key points buried in the mush

“I wish that Dems would educate themselves on these matters instead of denouncing words that don't mean what they think they mean.”

And if the Bush Rovebots use words in a way that they don’t mean what they mean and we think they mean what THEY mean they mean, even though that’s not what they mean? :crazy:

Note in the initial pull quote:

JIM LEHRER: As a matter of principle, do you and the Democrats reject his preemptive war concept?
REP. NANCY PELOSI: On preemptive war, well, I don't reject the concept of preemptive war.

Lehrer asked about “HIS preemptive war concept.” Rep. Pelosi answered about “the concept of preemptive war.” This discussion reveals that those are two different things.

You wrote:
"She said....'I don't reject the concept of preemptive war. I don't think that the president's concept of preemptive war, though, meets the standard, which is that any time our country is threatened. I'm a mother of five. I have five grandchildren. And I always say: Think of a lioness. Think of a mother bear. You come anywhere near our cubs, you're dead. And so, in terms of any threat to our country, people have to know we'll be there to preemptively strike. But what the president did was, on the basis of no real intelligence for an imminent threat to our country, chose to go into a war for reasons that are still unknown to us.'"

I appreciate the way you highlighted the quote. Perhaps it was designed to hold up under transcript scrutiny. If you watch the video, you may notice that the delivery is mushy and low-key--- those two strong comments bookended the anecdotal “threatened mother animal” imagery that rendered the paragraph warm and fuzzy and vague.

So she said the right thing and missed the opportunity to address it or bring up the fact that billions of dollars and thousands of lives continue to be sqaundered because of this.

“I don't think that the president's concept of preemptive war, though, meets the standard....”

Go ahead Nancy, open up that can of worms on the air, RIGHT NOW!

“But what the president did was, on the basis of no real intelligence for an imminent threat to our country....”

Go ahead Nancy, open up that can of worms on the air, RIGHT NOW! SAY SOMETHING DEFINITIVE ABOUT IT DON’T SLIP IT IN AS IF IT'S INCIDENTAL!

“...chose to go into a war for reasons that are still unknown to us.”

Oh. “WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID WAS CHOOSE TO GO TO WAR....”

Oh really. “For reasons that are still unknown to us....”

Aside from the soft-pedaled innuendo that those reasons may become known and in-the-meantime-let’s-make-it-sound-like-we-believe-they-will-be-legitimate and nevermindthefactthatCongress damn well has an obligation to know what the hell those reasons are/were oh-- I dunno -- THREE YEARS AGO............................... aside from all that--

Go ahead Nancy! Make it clear that the UNKNOWNS AND THE UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS are a bit of a bloody problem !!!!!!

So, as for “bolstering the lie” Rep. Pelosi’s sin was a sin of omission.

The handlers make these Democrats use this mindnumbingly bloodless, bland delivery and bury the important points in there somewhere, slipped in surreptitiously in passing, on the way to some cartoon image that may be designed to reach the “kitchen table” voters-- but those folks know as well as we do that THESE POINTS MUST BE ADDRESSED, NOT AVOIDED.

:patriot: :bounce:

[Jack Rabbit]

28. It would help greatly if we knew what is meant by preemptive war

One of the unfortunatate (and quite deliberate) effects of Orwellian language is that after a while no one knows what is being said becayse almost all terms are ambiguous.

Preemptive War used to mean striking first when under the imminent threat of attack. There's nothing wrong with that. No one should have to wait to be pulverized just in order to avoid being charged with war crimes.

Unfortunately, Mr. Bush has expropriated the samew term for what used to be called preventive war. That is when one nation goes to war to prevent a threat from materializing in some undefined future. That is what he did in Iraq; that is also what he defined as a policy of preemption in his 2002 address to the graduating class at West Point. Preventive war is really a pretext to go to war against any one at any time for any reason or no reason at all. It is a war crime on its face.

Now, about which was Ms. Pelosi talking? I don't know, do you?

[omega minimo]

29. Obfuscation sucks

:kick: