Skip to comments.
New York Post ^
| JOHN PODHORETZ
Posted on 02/03/2004 2:33:56 AM PST by kattracks
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:19:22 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
February 3, 2004 -- ON June 1, 2002, George W. Bush laid down the case for a new approach to foreign policy in the post-9/11 era. "If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bushdoctrine; podhoretz; preemption; prewarintelligence; saddam; wmd
posted on 02/03/2004 2:33:57 AM PST
This "preemption doctrine" has really got the liberals ticked off.
Interesting, "preemption" sums up their "road map" via that Rockeyfeller "MEMO" to destroy President Bush.
Their method of operation is DECEPTION.
Nothing in Kay's report dissuades me from the sense that we did the right thing. In fact it reinforces it. Raise your hand anyone who thought that we'd immediately find huge stockpiles of WMDs indicated by a gigantic blinking, red neon arrow pointing to them right outside the Baghdad city limits. In actuality Kays's report should have convinced all the skeptics of the justness of Bush and Blair's decision to take Hussein out. But we know how that will turn out. Instead I fully expect the Dems to use other WMDs..words of malignant deception on the American people. Unfortunately I know that I won't be disappointed.
posted on 02/03/2004 3:34:48 AM PST
( For life-long happiness, learn how to play the accordion. ie)
We know he had them; that he had successfully deployed them; that he had the will to use them, and that he had the motivation to use them against the United States. Nothing further was needed. Bush never said that the threat was imminent. He pointedly said, for the record, that we could not afford to wait "until the threat was imminent." But the traitor Democrats have so muddied the waters that the average schmuck hasn't got a clue as to the truth of the matter.
The preemption doctrine wasn't and isn't about a current threat posed to the United States. The preemption doctrine deals with looming threats. It deals with future capabilities that enemies of the United States might conceivably possess. In the case of Saddam Hussein, it had to do with what he might have been able to do later on this decade.
Podhertz gets it. Now if only the Bush admin would come out and explain this to the public.
posted on 02/03/2004 5:12:29 AM PST
(A vote for anyone but George W. Bush for president in 2004 is a vote to strengthen Al Qaeda.)
David Kay dropped several levels in credibility with his "pristine intelligence" comment.
Sounds like he would like to live in Utopia, instead of the real world where there are rarely any guarantees.
Another UN bureaucratic clymer. What a shame.
posted on 02/03/2004 5:42:13 AM PST
(WMD's in Iraq -- The absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.)
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson