Mr. Bush, This May Require Your Attention.....

How Dubya is Destroying His Own Preemption Doctrine

Published on May 9, 2005 By GruntSGT In North Korea

Although I attempt to be apolitical, I do have conservative leanings, but I don't classify myself as a Republican. The reason is that Republicans, like Democrats are politicians, and by definition scamming opportunists. I was once an admirer of our President, peaking with his Inaugural address in January, as I felt we were entering a potentially amazing era of progress worldwide. I was apparently wrong.

On the one hand, there are brave men dying everyday in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the President wants to talk about Social Security, and the Senate argues over filibusters. Wasn't the President the one that made a big deal during the campaign that he was a "wartime President." Well then Mr. President, why don't we go ahead and concentrate on that. The last couple weeks have seen a return to the levels of violence that preceded the elections.

And then on the other hand, there is another storm brewing that could make the invasion of Iraq look like a Detroit Friday-night driveby: Asia. The media and politicians are talking about car bombs in Iraq, but I want to worry about NUCLEAR weapons in North Korea and Iran. North Korea has already been caught of distributing nuclear materials to terror-states, namely Libya. And Iran, well, I shudder to think. Iran is the worst kind of terror-state, having actually had a direct hand in the 9/11 bombings--a fact nobody wants to discuss except the 9/11 Commission--as well as ongoing friendly relations with jihadis of all kinds.

President Bush's preemption doctrine stems from the belief that we have the responsibility to stop a blantant threat to the United States before its already happened, e.g., 9/11. Why is it then that we have a nation in North Korea, which admittedly has nuclear weapons, is in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and continues to take an aggressive stance in the already tense Asian continent/Korean Peninsula (not to mention has permanently pulled out of 6 party talks), and yet President Bush, the self-appointed Guardian of Freedom continues to pretend this isn't happening. If he was willing to go to war with Iraq over the POTENTIAL to have the CAPABILITY that North Korea (and Iran) already possess and have distributed to rogue states, what in the hell are we waiting for now?

The President seems to be more worried about his legacy in his second term than actually getting the job done he was re-elected to do. Well, if these two tyrannical nations are allowed to continue on their present path, then the blame can rightly rest at the feet of President Bush. Lets hope he realizes this before it's too late.

Comments (Page 1)

-----

on May 09, 2005

On the one hand, there are brave men dying everyday in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the President wants to talk about Social Security, and the Senate argues over filibusters. Wasn't the President the one that made a big deal during the campaign that he was a "wartime President." Well then Mr. President, why don't we go ahead and concentrate on that. The last couple weeks have seen a return to the levels of violence that preceded the elections.

--Though he is a wartime president, there are things that require attention that are here on the homefront (SS, Jobs,etc...) and even though IYO he is supposed to be a wartime president, he must make sure that everything is getting taken care of here,at home, before taking care of things out there.

And then on the other hand, there is another storm brewing that could make the invasion of Iraq look like a Detroit Friday-night driveby: Asia. The media and politicians are talking about car bombs in Iraq, but I want to worry about NUCLEAR weapons in North Korea and Iran. North Korea has already been caught of distributing nuclear materials to terror-states, namely Libya. And Iran, well, I shudder to think. Iran is the worst kind of terror-state, having actually had a direct hand in the 9/11 bombings--a fact nobody wants to discuss except the 9/11 Commission--as well as ongoing friendly relations with jihadis of all kinds.

---The US is attempting to handle both countries [iran and n.k.] [Libya has been dealt with, they have given up their goals] The attempts to get N.K. to work with us is in vain, i honestly think [unfortunatly] the only way to stop them as a threat is military force, or maybe a special ops mission, same thing with iran, only a bit more difficult as you would end up haveing another sheik [or whomever] step up, maybe the same with nk.

President Bush's preemption doctrine stems from the belief that we have the responsibility to stop a blantant threat to the United States before its already happened, e.g., 9/11. Why is it then that we have a nation in North Korea, which admittedly has nuclear weapons, is in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and continues to take an aggressive stance in the already tense Asian continent/Korean Peninsula (not to mention has permanently pulled out of 6 party talks), and yet President Bush, the self-appointed Guardian of Freedom continues to pretend this isn't happening. If he was willing to go to war with Iraq over the POTENTIAL to have the CAPABILITY that North Korea (and Iran) already possess and have distributed to rogue states, what in the hell are we waiting for now?

--Again, Bush has tried to work with NK, but NK hasen't budged much, to invade NK would be suicide, there mass of troops are placed very strategically, and if they indeed do have nukes by then, then guess who they would shoot them at....a huh, us. Also,referring to my first comment above, he has other things,domestic, things to deal with, to be a president means you need to balance your concern for everything affecting your country while in office...

The President seems to be more worried about his legacy in his second term than actually getting the job done he was re-elected to do. Well, if these two tyrannical nations are allowed to continue on their present path, then the blame can rightly rest at the feet of President Bush. Lets hope he realizes this before it's too late.

--Its not like the Demi's are helping, he has been doing what is to be done, now its congress's turn...also, is it not other, "Nations of Freedom {etc...}" 's responsibility to aid in the pursuit of stopping these threats....to make sure that the world is safe...guess not...

GruntSGT

on May 09, 2005

Fair enough Lucas. I understand the need to handle more than one item at a time--duh--but as he Chief Executive and CinC, it is his job to at least appear to have priorities. You can't tell me he hasn't appeared to have abandoned foreign policy to concentrate publicly on SS, tax reform, etc....

You and I seem to be close in opinion on Iran and North Korea. The point is not whether or not Libya or some other nation is currently entertaining WMD ambitions, but if they would, and if Iran and North Korea would oblige, and we already know definetively they would. That, but the Presidents own definition is what we were attempting to prevent in Iraq, and I agree with it. But now, its time to deal with two real threats. ATTEMPTING to deal with Iran and North Korea--both of whom have backed out of their negotiations--is not good enough. Saying the military option against North Korea isn't viable because of the scale of conflict, is not good enough--as Gen. Richard Myers put it last week, we need to always be prepared to win any conflict, anywhere. To roll over makes us no better than the spineless Europeans, who I am in agreement with you, have shirked their responsibilities as a developed nation. Just like the English and French waiting until the Nazi war machine was already at full capacity before they attempted to stop Hitler (instead of enforcing the treaties at the get-go), so are we making the mistake of waiting until North Korea has the capability (by all accounts they don't yet) to deliver a nuclear warhead to Los Angeles, or Iran handing a weapon over to terrorists. The longer we wait (assuming the military option is used, hopefully not necessary), the costlier it will be.

kingbee

on May 09, 2005

North Korea has already been caught of distributing nuclear materials to terror-states, namely Libya. And Iran, well, I shudder to think. Iran is the worst kind of terror-state, having actually had a direct hand in the 9/11 bombings--a fact nobody wants to discuss except the 9/11 Commission--as well as ongoing friendly relations with jihadis of all kinds.

President Bush's preemption doctrine stems from the belief that we have the responsibility to stop a blantant threat to the United States before its already happened, e.g., 9/11. Why is it then that we have a nation in North Korea, which admittedly has nuclear weapons, is in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and continues to take an aggressive stance in the already tense Asian continent/Korean Peninsula (not to mention has permanently pulled out of 6 party talks), and yet President Bush, the self-appointed Guardian of Freedom continues to pretend this isn't happening. If he was willing to go to war with Iraq over the POTENTIAL to have the CAPABILITY that North Korea (and Iran) already possess and have distributed to rogue states, what in the hell are we waiting for now?

not to worry. i'm sure wolfowitz and perle have the answer. cheney just hasn't asked em for it yet.

dabe

on May 09, 2005

Bob Herbert makes some interesting points on this topic in today's NYTimes LinkStranger Than Fiction. In fact, dubya destroyed his own preemption doctrine right from the start. It was based on lies, fiction, and outright scamming. It was dead in the water from Day One. Its horrors are only now coming to light, and people like you are finally starting to question it. I'm glad. And, it's about time.

As for social security, that is also dead in the water. Think about it. When you and I invest (taxed) into SS, that money is not for you and me. It's for future retirees. Our SS benefits will be paid by those who put into the pot before us. However, with this privatization scam, we put into a pot only money for ourselves, and little or nothing for future generations. In other words, the revolving fund of SS that was brilliantly set into motion by FDR, is being unraveled, and the cost to uphold a comperable system, without any insurance, and based on an unguarantee-able stock market has the potential of being quite ruinous for future retirees. Maybe they are just looking for a big working force to keep the fast food joints up and running. After all, retirees are so much more dependable than high school kids.

Good article, by the way. I could almost see your head spinning from trying to keep up with dubya's rhetoric. It is quite the challenge.

ParaTed2k

on May 09, 2005

Pretty Good Article here, GruntSGT, you make some decent points.

Lucas covered much of what I was going to point out, and you did a pretty good job of replying to him, so I'll move on.

Last I checked the ceasefire signed in 1951 was between NK and the UN. What is it about the UN that it takes credit for things it has nothing to do with, cries wolf for "epidemics" that include less than 200 people, but when it comes to it's own ceasefires and "resolutions" it turns to the US and accuses us of not doing enough?

I'm not saying the Prs. Bush should ignore NK or any other nation that is breaking agreements, resolutions and terms of ceasefire, but if they were originated in the UN, shouldn't we be looking to how the UN can do what it is meant to do, and how we can back them up (as apposed to being accused by the UN of doing nothing as it sits idly by trying to explain why there's nothing they can do if their people rape women in countries there supposed to be "helping).

NK has made it clear that they are going to join the nuclear club, and they don't care what the political fallout might be.

Now to Iran and Syria. They are already part of the war. Apparently we didn't learn any lessons for China in the Korean war, the Soviet Union in the Vietnam war or the U.S. in The Soviet Union's war with Afghanistan. That lesson being, if a country is actively supporting the country in which you are fighting, guess what, Those third party countries are also engaged in the fight.

We may be fighting in Iraq, but most of who we are fighting are people from other countries, being supplied by other countries, so when are we going to wake up to the fact that we are, in fact, at war with those other countries?

dabe

on May 09, 2005

Repeat after me, whipsy........

SCAM SCAM SCAM SCAM...............

Sure, the program is voluntary. But, and the big but here, is that the rest of the program, the one that isn't voluntary, gets cut. So, unless a person buys into a questionable stock market deal, with money they likely don't have, or they likely would have invested already, they get to retire in deeper poverty with no government safety net to catch them at all. But, according to your thinking, anyone who is poor enough to not be able to pay into this scheme, regardless of how they got there, is too stupid anyway, so they should just starve to death. You are one heartless sack of garbage.

ParaTed2k

on May 09, 2005

SCAM SCAM SCAM SCAM...............

LIE LIE LIE!!

Who said that the voluntary portion has to be put into the stock market? The whole time I was in the military I was encouraged to buy Savings Bonds and invest whatever money I could spare. Wise NCOs, Platoon Leaders and Commanders showed us how we could improve our lot at retirement if we put money away in Savings Bonds every month.

Were we lied to? Was I lying to my troops when I showed them how much more those dollars would mean to them at retirement than now? Should I have just told them to Eat Drink and Be Merry for money invested for tomorrow will die?

From listening to you and the Democrats, I guess I was.

drmiler

on May 09, 2005

You are one heartless sack of garbage.

And you are one stupid sack of poop!

COL Gene

on May 09, 2005

A number of conservatives claim that the Social Security trust fund is really nothing more than a bunch IOU's from the Treasury Department. We'll guess what that's exactly what savings bonds are. So I guess we have to decide whether or not the trust fund of Social Security and Medicare which hold United States treasury obligations are assets. The issue with individual accounts, even though they are voluntary, is where is the money coming from that will be shifted for those who voluntarily select that program? That same money that is to the divergent into these voluntary accounts is essential to pay the benefits of the people who are a ready retired or about the retire. The individual account option under Social Security takes money from a system that is ready as a funding problem and makes the funding problem much worse. How is that a solution to the solvency of SS?

ParaTed2k

on May 09, 2005

Ok, Colgene, when we get to the point that only 2 or 3 workers are trying to support each babyboomer retiree, from where will the money come to keep it solvent??? oh yeah, I know.. the "rich".

COL Gene

on May 09, 2005

The condition you outline is true because of the baby booms. What we need to do is fund that population increase and when this bubble has passed, Social Security, in terms of the number of people working compared with a number of people retired, will return to something like it is today. In 2004, Social Security had a $156 Billion surplus. So the issue is funding the bubble called the baby boomers. That can be done by first recognizing that people are living longer. We need to nudge the full retirement age to 70. The second thing is we need to increase the money flowing into the trust fund and invest that new money into equities within the trust fund rather than the lower paying treasury IOUs. That can be done very simply by lifting the amount of income that is subject to Social Security tax above the current $90,000 limit. Both of these solutions provide funding necessary to bridge the babby boomers. Creating private accounts and removing money from the trust fund is not a solution isn't a new problem.

-----

on May 09, 2005

--Guys, why don't you take the SS discussion to another thread....I 'll even start one : "A somewhat civil discussion about Social Security"

GruntSGT

--Well, I would like to continue this discussion with you, so how about we leave the "verbal jousters" to themselves...hmm?

I'm not saying the Prs. Bush should ignore NK or any other nation that is breaking agreements, resolutions and terms of ceasefire, but if they were originated in the UN, shouldn't we be looking to how the UN can do what it is meant to do, and how we can back them up (as apposed to being accused by the UN of doing nothing as it sits idly by trying to explain why there's nothing they can do if their people rape women in countries there supposed to be "helping).

--Is it me or has the UN been quiet lately.....also, it seems that most diplomatic breakdowns concerning weapons or any aggressian usually has the 'UN' associated with it...

You and I seem to be close in opinion on Iran and North Korea. The point is not whether or not Libya or some other nation is currently entertaining WMD ambitions, but if they would, and if Iran and North Korea would oblige, and we already know definetively they would. That, but the Presidents own definition is what we were attempting to prevent in Iraq, and I agree with it. But now, its time to deal with two real threats. ATTEMPTING to deal with Iran and North Korea--both of whom have backed out of their negotiations--is not good enough. Saying the military option against North Korea isn't viable because of the scale of conflict, is not good enough--as Gen. Richard Myers put it last week, we need to always be prepared to win any conflict, anywhere. To roll over makes us no better than the spineless Europeans, who I am in agreement with you, have shirked their responsibilities as a developed nation. Just like the English and French waiting until the Nazi war machine was already at full capacity before they attempted to stop Hitler (instead of enforcing the treaties at the get-go), so are we making the mistake of waiting until North Korea has the capability (by all accounts they don't yet) to deliver a nuclear warhead to Los Angeles, or Iran handing a weapon over to terrorists. The longer we wait (assuming the military option is used, hopefully not necessary), the costlier it will be.

--I say the [what i should have clarified] is that to invade NK, could incite retaliation that could devistate the US,[military retaliation, diplomatic suicide,etc...a long list] the US (unfortunatley) is no longer viewed as a savior like during post ww2, it is now viewed as a "bully",unfortunatley,....The world has changed since the end of ww2, over 60 years...now i'm not talking about literal shifting of plates...etc...i mean politically/diplomatically, those nations that we once considered friends have shrugged us off and pursued their own ambitions, they have been willing to trade,etc... with nations that are threats to the world, just for a quick buck or two, true we do need to be aa bit tougher, but if we do there is the risk of catastrophe and if we are not carefull, we'll come out not exactley smelling like roses, I agree that it wasn't very smart to wait until hitler was ready, but at that time the memories of ww1, were still "fresh", they wanted to avoid military conflict at all cost, and it turned out that ww2 had the highest casualty rate....I think the French felt really stupid after it fell to the Nazi's...bet they really wanted to go back in time and change all of what happened...true, waiting could hurt...,B'ah!, i don't know really...things, i think will have to change drastically for things to get better...but just my thought...your turn...

ParaTed2k

on May 09, 2005

True, the Social Security thing is kind of a hijack, I had a response, but in fairness to your actual article, GruntSGT, I took it down.

thatoneguyinslc

on May 09, 2005

I got your back here Grunt. This is one of dubya's classic tactics. When things get too hot in the war, SWITCH topics! Anybody remember the MARS thing? I do!

It's time for all you dubya supporters to wake up and smell the napalm. Even some of the gung ho repubs are now questioning his ability to finish off the insurgency. It would have been easier if he actually had an exit strategy to begin with.

"Don't walk into a den of vipers unless you know where the exits are"

And don't worry, the seniors and their massive voting block won't let privatizing SS happen. They hate it as much if not more than the majority of the country does.

ParaTed2k

on May 09, 2005

It's time for all you dubya supporters to wake up and smell the napalm. Even some of the gung ho repubs are now questioning his ability to finish off the insurgency. It would have been easier if he actually had an exit strategy to begin with."Don't walk into a den of vipers unless you know where the exits are"

Strange, SLC, I thought it was the job of the in country commanders to fight the war, not those in Washington.

The most innane calls from the pathetic press have been for the Prs. to present more details on strategy and "exit strategy" BS.

Prs. Bush has stated time and time again when our troops will be brought home, the incompetent boobs in the press and the pundit merely prefer to act like imbeciles and keep asking the same innane questions over and over. The problem is, it's working.

I remember sitting in the desert, during a very popular war having absolutely no idea when we were going home or what needed to be done in order to even think about it. All we had was a list of objectives to meet, with a few follow on missions (just in case).

The press lauded the whole thing as one of the greatest strategic victories in history. Yet, today, we have a list of objectives (with a few follow on missions (just in case), and the human vomit in the press sits on their bar stools making up stories as they go, making sure to leave out any good that those in uniform are doing, and of course, blotting out any news of successes.

War is not fought on a timeline, and even if it was, the press should be the last to know. Loose lips sink ships, and the whole purpose of the press in this one seems to be to play Rah Rah for the enemy, make the US look as bad as possible, and hand e enemy any and all information they need to kill our troops.

High death tolls in Iraq sell papers, and that's all the blood drinking Ghouls in the press care about. The problem is, the deaths aren't high enough, so they have to do everything else they can to create a story and make our guys look back.

GruntSGT, you made a few good points here, and I replied to them above. I just couldn't let SLCs comment go without replying.

btw, love the title of your Blog!!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!