Posted on 12/7/2003, 5:53:30 PM by jigsaw
Anti-war kooks in general, and Democrat presidential candidates in particular, continue to hammer the President for his pre-emption policy of "do it to them before they do it to us." But if you thought Democrats went nuts over comparisons of President Bush's tax cuts to JFK, you ain't seen nothing yet. Wait'll they hear who originated the doctrine of pre-emptive defense.
First, let's get everybody on record here.
Earlier this year, an online left-wing organization called MoveOn.org hosted a "virtual" Democrat presidential primary in which Howard Dean came out on top.
In competing for votes from the MoveOn members, Dean posted a position statement on the organization's website (http://www.moveon.org/pac/cands/all_interviews.html#1). Included in the statement was this line: "On my first day in office, I will tear up the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war." In his online Candidate Interview with the MoveOn folks, Dean elaborated: "I've said all along that the Bush doctrine of preemptive war is wrong for America, and sets a dangerous precedent."
But Dean's not the only current Democrat presidential candidate to tell the MoveOn folks that they oppose the pre-emption doctrine.
"The Bush Administration's pre-emption doctrine is unnecessary and unwise," declared John Edwards in his interview. "The Administration's provocative new doctrine has been distracting and damaging." Dick Gephardt chimed in, "The U.S. should not have a pre-emptive war doctrine." Sen. John Kerry said "it's counterproductive to make pre-emption a doctrine." Dennis Kucinich stated flatly that "As President, I will repeal the pre-emptive war doctrine." And Al Sharpton declared that "It's a dangerous and traditionally un-American doctrine."
This is unarguably the same position held by the vast number of MoveOn members and left-wing Democrat activists. It's not too much of a stretch to suggest this is the official Democrat position for the 2004 campaign.
So I wonder how Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the patron saint of liberal Democrats everywhere, would have responded to the question of pre-emptive defense in that interview? Actually, I don't have to wonder. I have it right here (http://www.usmm.org/fdr/rattlesnake.html).
In a Fireside Chat on - and you're not going to believe the coincidence of this date - September 11, 1941, FDR told the nation, "When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him."
Hmmmm. Response, Mr. Dean? Rep. Gephardt? Sen. Edwards? Sen. Kerry? Rep. Kucinich? Rev. Sharpton?
At issue at the time was German submarine attacks on American ships, particularly a September 4, 1941, torpedo attack on the American destroyer Greer en route to Iceland. Roosevelt warned that "It is time for all Americans...to stop being deluded by the romantic notion that the Americas can go on living happily and peacefully in a Nazi-dominated world." He described the Greer attack by Hitler as "one determined step toward creating a permanent world system based on force, on terror, and on murder."
Roosevelt continued: "Normal practices of diplomacy - note writing - are of no possible use in dealing with international outlaws who sink our ships and kill our citizens."
"Let us not ask ourselves whether the Americas should begin to defend themselves after the first attack, or the fifth attack, or the tenth attack, or the twentieth attack," FDR declared. "This is the time for prevention of attack." With that, Roosevelt declared open season on any German or Italian vessels in the water.
By the way, discovery of this FDR policy statement isn't something new. But funny how the media never seem to bring it up when questioning the Democrat candidates who criticize the Bush policy, isn't it?
At any rate, the doctrine of pre-emption didn't originate in the Bush administration. It was a policy adopted and implemented exactly 50 years, to the day, before the September 11 al Qaeda attacks on U.S. citizens. And it was articulated, not by a 21st century Republican president, but by the Democrat Party's liberal icon who recognized that America's security and defense were of paramount importance - and didn't require the approval of France.
They don't make Democrats the way they used to, do they?
# # #
Chuck Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a non-profit public policy advocacy organization in Washington, D.C. The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Citizen Outreach. He may be reached at chuck@citizenoutreach.com.
Our entire western expansion was pre-emptive, beginning with Jefferson's Louisiana purchase. Polk's Mexican war was a particularly good example. So was our annexation of Hawaii.
See also the Monroe Doctrine.
Jefferson
TO THE SECRETARY OF WAR. (HENRY DEARBORN.)
MONTICELLO, August 28, 1807.
"... we wish them to live in peace with all nations as well as with us, and we have no intention ever to strike them or to do them an injury of any sort, unless first attacked or threatened; but that learning that some of them meditate war on us, we too are preparing for war against those, and those only who shall seek it; and that if ever we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe, we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated, or driven beyond the Mississippi. ...it will be a subject for consideration whether, on satisfactory evidence that any tribe means to strike us, we shall not anticipate by giving them the first blow..."
I think there's a few pre-emptive wars in the Old Testament too.
So9
I think he means 60 years.
Their response is the same as Pat Buchanan's-- Iraq wasn't a rattlesnake. It was more like a worm snake. You'll never convince them that Iraq was a threat to anyone. As long as they deny the threat, you've lost the argument.
Having said that, The current use and justification for pre-emption, commonly called the Bush Doctrine, actually is found in the Hart-Rudman Commission Report aka Road Map to the 21st Century. It is found in the Phase 2 Report which was released in the spring of 2000.
"In June l967, we had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." -- Menachem Begin in The New York Times, August 21, 1982
All nations and especially western democracies have shied away from anticipatory self defense because it is hard to prove and can create problems with the media and citizens. As the above article points out, Roosevelt was speaking in a Fireside Chat so he wasn't building a legal justification but manufacturing consent of the citizens.
The only thing wrong with President GWB's policy is that he had to develop and implement it. We should have had a President with the balls to do it 10 years previously.
Mr. Dean? Rep. Gephardt? Sen. Edwards? Sen. Kerry? Rep. Kucinich? Rev. Sharpton? Why would you seek votes from those who would destroy you in a heart beat? Shouldn’t you be more interested in protecting America than appeasing our enemies? Your rhetoric has done little to dissuade them and much to encourage them. It is time to step up to the plate and show your courage by standing behind this courageous President, your President. Politics be damned! America is at WAR, quit ading and abetting our enemies.
aiding and abetting........sorry
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.