Did Kerry say he supports preemptive war?

[greenohio]

First of all Kerry won the debate hands down. That said, there was a point in the debate that I heard Kerry say that he supports preemptive war. Did I hear right?

[GP6971]

1. Kind of

I heard him to say that he supported the option...but really only as a last resort (my interpretation)

[greenohio]

5. I hope your right.

When Kerry wins, we don't need anymore invasions.

[high density]

44. I think the position is

If somebody is going to kill us, we need to kill them first. Kerry isn't going to get elected by running as the peace candidate.

[Seabiscuit]

66. Exactly. He never said anything about "preemptive war".

n/t

[jumpstart33]

69. He gave an evasive response that most will be unable to relate to.

Kerry won but much of his performance was diappointing becuase he didn't "stick it to Bush" with simple facts. He needs to stop trying to appeal to Republicans and stand apart from Bush. If he doesn't do better in the next debate on domestic issues we'll have four more years of Bush. Bush did poorly in this debate but remember, the country expects him to do poorly. They know he is a stupid idiot but that doesn't matter to them since most of them are his intellectual equal. The woman on Tavis Smiley show hit the nail on the head when she said that Kerry gave some new and very good informaiton about Iraq but it won't matter because most of the audience was not smart enough to think about the information from either Bush or Kerry.

[FlashHarry]

2. He said that we have the right to wage a preemptive war.

Which we do, by the way. So long as we know there is a clear and present danger to the US or its allies. Unfortunately for Mr. Bush, Iraq presented neither. The war was planned by the neocons for ten years. It was part of a long-term utopian vision for the Middle East. It's wrong. It's unreachable. And, more importantly, it's dangerous.

[Radio-Active]

3. Preemptive war is different from

PREVENTIVE war. Iraq was a preventive war. Preventive war is like punching someone in a bar because you think they might punch you later.

I was hoping Kerry would draw this distinction, but I was just as happy with his answer.

[Bucky]

9. Very important point... Thanks

Pre-empting an attack that is an imminent threat is what a president is supposed to do. We're allowed to protect our own before our own blood is shed. Bush's policy is that the threat doesn't need to be imminent, only that it needs to be in potentia...

(and, of course, based in an oil rich country)

[greenohio]

10. I was hoping for something like that too...

I didn't get that from he said, but it looks like some other posters did...which makes me feel better.

[Peanut Gallery]

27. Good point

n/t

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

4. It's ALWAYS been an option

BUT Kerry is right, it can ONLY be used in certain circumstances with VERY stringent requirements...namely that we are under threat of an IMMINENT attack. This war didn't meet that requirement.

Actually the Iraqis would have been perfectly justified in a pre-emptive attack on US when we were about ready to hit them hard last March and had all our guns aimed at them.

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. He said American presidents have always had the right to

strike preemptively. The man is a warrior and a man of wisdom. If he's going into a fight, he's going in to win.

[zulchzulu]

7. The Founding Fathers considered it as an option

It's political suicide to say you don't.

[greenohio]

14. No its not.

Political suicide is saying attacking any country that looks at you cross-eyed.

[sangh0]

62. That's not pre-emption

That's preventative war. There's a difference

[vpigrad]

8. He must have mispoken...

or been misunderstood, because attacking people just because you're afraid is wrong. That is why Bushie attacked Iraq. Because he was afraid. I hope our guy doesn't do the same after getting elected. I now fear that possibility.

[greenohio]

11. I wouldn't fear it...

it is less likely with our guy than theirs. I would prefer however, the absence of that possibility.

[Zhade]

12. It sure seemed that way.

I really wanted Kerry to mention b*sh threatening to veto the $87 billion.

Didn't happen. Disappointing.

He agreed with the LIE that Hussein was a threat...then later undercut this by pointing out the fact that Hussein was contained. Bad move.

I don't think he was nearly as bad as you say. But there were a couple of missed opportunities, and one HUGE flaw - agreeing with the lie that Hussein was a threat.

Hussein was never a threat to us. Yes, I'm hammering on that point, because I think it's fundamental. We should never have gone to war.

I did like how Kerry pointed out b*sh conflating Iraq and 9/11, though. And mentioning the 14 military bases was great.

[greenohio]

13. shrub threatened to veto the 87 billion

I had heard that. Wasn't it his own bill?

[Zhade]

15. Yep. That's why it would have been devastating.

Ah well. Can't win 'em all.

[greenohio]

17. It would have been.

Why? Did he have false intelligence on what was in the bill?

[crickets]

56. Bush wanted to veto

the first version of the bill. I'm not sure who authored it. That version provided for a rollback of the tax cut to pay for it. It also provided $1 billion in medical benefits for the National Guard & Reserves, benefits which active troops get and the NG & Reserves don't. Sorry I can't remember the name - I think it's Tricare? Maybe someone can help me out on that.

Bush would not accept the rollback and insisted the bill be paid for with taxes (and there's ANOTHER new tax cut on the way *sigh*) and specifically stated he would veto the bill because of the benefits included. I can't link to his actual statement on this, but Randi Rhodes read it on her show, and the reasoning used to exclude benefits was pathetic.

This is why Kerry said he voted for it (first version) before he voted against it (protest vote when he knew the bill was going to pass.)

ETA: reworded only one badly worded phrase of many. content and meaning unchanged.

ETA2: And this was a war that was supposed to cost us nothing. Iraq was going to pay for it with profits from "their" oil fields, dontcha know.

[rullery]

16. Kerry had to show folks that he would be a strong leader.

One of the reasons that Kerry has not done better in the polls is that some people have the idea (planted by the Republicans) that he would be weak, vacillating, when it comes to defending us against potential terrorist attacks. Tonight he was firm, tough, and he dispelled that notion IMO.

[greenohio]

19. Strong with good judgment make us safer

and preemptive war is not good judgment. Kerry opposed the bunker busting bombs that may let him look weak, but he did it in a way that made him look wise. I think he could have done the same with preemptive war if he wanted to.

[KittyWampus]

18. Pre-emptive War Is Totally Different Than Preventative War (Iraq)

pre-empt means stopping an imminent sure attack.

preventative means stopping a supposed future threat from materializing.

[greenohio]

21. As Kerry said, certainty does not make you right.

Who is to judge the "sure" attack. Bush was "sure" about WMD in Iraq. I disagree with preemptive and preventative war. Even in the face of the the Axis powers in WWII, we did not preempt. Consider the track record of our intelligence forces.

[Silverhair]

26. And look at the result of that lack of preemption.

Results matter too, and the result of that failure was WWII.

[greenohio]

30. Uhhh , we were attacked first in WWII.

Our allies were attacked. To imply that we were preemptive in WWII is nonsense.

[Silverhair]

36. We failed to preempt.

We waited to let the other guy attack us, and it almost cost us the war.

If Hitler had not halted his Panzers before Dunkirk, he would have captured the entire British Army, and won that war before we were in it.

The Japanese admiral screwed up at Pearl Harbor. He didn't launch follow up attack in the afternoon against the port facilities. So all they got for the attack was some obsolete ships and a pissed of nation. If he had followed through, we would not have been able to use Hawaii as a base, and would have had to operate out of our own West Coast. We would have lost the entire Pacific to the Japanese.

Striking a decisive blow FIRST yields great dividends in war. That is the real world.

[greenohio]

42. Are you saying we should have invaded Japan BEFORE Pearl Harbor?

That just doesn't sound just to me.

[Silverhair]

46. No. I was pointing out that waiting for the other guy to strike first

can be fatal.

In Europe, France & England should have pulled Hitler's teeth early, and saved the world a lot of misery.

Japan, due to logistics involved, would have been a hugely different matter. Properly there should have been agressive air & submarine pickets, patroling our of Pearl, (There wasn't.) and then the approaching Japanese fleet would have been spotted approaching. Even though still in international waters, a battle fleet approaching by stealth is an act of war by itself, and may be attacked.

The difference between your position and mine is that your are concerned with morals first, above all else. I am pointing out that sometime such a concern can allow evil to triumph because you allow evil to kill you.

It is only in silly Hollywood movies that you let the outlaw draw first. Doing that in real life gets you dead.

[greenohio]

50. Or waiting them out like in the Cuban missile crisis keeps you alive.

I doubt a preemptive strike in the cold war would have brought us victory.

Attacking threats does not make you safer. shrub should have taught us this lesson.

[Silverhair]

54. Did not attacking Hitler make us safer?

Sometimes - the key word is sometimes - preemption is the RIGHT thing to do. And sometimes it isn't. Judgement is what makes the difference. To adopt a policy of ALWAYS letting the other guy get in the first punch is to adopt a policy of eventual suicide.

[greenohio]

59. We had already been attacked

by the Axis powers. Germany declared war on us before we ever attacked Germany.

[Silverhair]

61. By "We" I am including the other powers. France & England.

They could have stopped Hitler in 1936, but didn't. And we got WWII as a result.

[private_ryan]

20. yeah

if I know you're about to punch me, I'll punch you first. I am not going to wait to get hit. What's wrong with that?

[greenohio]

22. Thats how my kids end up fighting daily.

The question is over the word "know". Certainty does not make you right, as Kerry said (as he whipped shrubs tail). You can be certain there is a threat and still be wrong, case in point.

[Silverhair]

23. In the real world, a premptive war can prevent a larger war later.

If France had stood up to Hitler early, WWII would have been prevented. But they didn't, and the rest is history. Sometimes it is better to strike first.

[greenohio]

25. Fantasy

Had France attacked Hitler early, Hitler would have smashed their outdated military forces just as easily. France would then look like the aggressor. The Allies would have been in a weaker position.

[Silverhair]

29. When Hitler militarized the Ruhr, he had only a few battalions.

That was a violation of treaty and therefore a cause for war. France would have crushed him decisively.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

24. Basically he is saying all US presidents have reserved the right to strike

first, including JK if elected. But that any such war should pass a serious test of being obvious and transparent that it was necessary and last resort, which Iraqnam has clearly failed.

[Jack Rabbit]

28. Yes, he did

However, he defined it properly, which the Frat Boy does not.

What the Frat Boy calls a pre-emptive war is actually a preventive war. There is nothing wrong with a pre-emptive war; a prventive war is a war crime on its face.

The invasion of Iraq was a preventive war.

[greenohio]

31. Both are wrong.

The only difference is based on someone's judgement. How real is this threat. Certainty does not make you right.

[Jack Rabbit]

43. My own example

If Saddam actually had WMDs and had foreign troops amassed on his border ready to invade and whose commander-and-chief was an unreasonable asshole who would not take No for an answer, he would have been within his rights to use them. That is a pre-emptive attack.

However, if Saddam had the capability of building WMDs and some vague ideas about doing so some time in the indefinite future and it was necessary to invade to stop that from ever happening, that is a preventive attack.

The issue is the immediacy of the threat. That is something more than a mere judgment call.

[greenohio]

47. Had Kennedy used "preemptive war" during the Cuban missile crisis...

the world would be an ashtray right now.

We are at an immediate threat of nuclear weapons which could be fired on us whenever someone decided. No need to amass the weapons or gather the army or troops to put on the border. Surely immediacy is not the fundamental criterion for preemptive war.

[Silverhair]

51. No, it would not be an ashtray.

I doubt very seriously that Moscow had really given release authority to the local commander. I know that he claims that he had it, but I don't believe him. That just isn't the way they operated. It would have been a few airstrikes on the Cuban missle sites, and that's all. Kennedy would have been careful to limit the attacks to just the airfields. Escalation just doesn't happen the way it does in the movies.

[greenohio]

55. escalation... like we see in Iraq

or we saw Vietnam, or WWI (started as a local conflict), WWII (started with a single invasion).

Are you actually arguing the merits of limited nuclear war?

[Silverhair]

60. Maybe. Depends upon the situation.

If the clear alternative is a general exchange of nukes, then a limit nuclear war would be a less worse alternative.

I am saying that the world is NOT a place made up of friendly types that only want us to be friendly to them and they will be friendly to us. There are some genuine bastards that don't mind if they destroy half the world, if they can rule the other half. And in REAL LIFE, as opposed to idealistic fantasy, it is SOMETIMES better to take out the bastards first before they can take you out.

Fortunately, regarding nukes, so far they have been a stabilizing influence. So far, that is. Once a country aquires them, they start being real careful in how they deal with other nuke powers.

It is like two guy that have only fists will fight faster than two guys that have guns. That is a general statement - not an absolute. Some individuals, and some countries are nuts.

BTW - I there had been air strike on Cuba, they would have been conventional.

[greenohio]

65. Zell miller, is that you?

Just a guess based on the silverhair title.

[Silverhair]

70. No. I'm just a realist who lives in the real world.

I am a graduate of a military nuclear weapons school, so I know a bit more about them than the average DUer, (Note that I said AVERAGE, not ALL) and a bit more about military history. I know that in real life there is a HUGE advantage in getting in the first attack. Often that first attack is enough to win the war, if it is done right.

We were lucky on 9/11. The same 19 guys, with that level of dedication, if they had been smarter and had thought in military logistic terms instead of theatrical sympolic terms, could have crippled our country. I won't say how as I don't want to give anyone ideas. Fortunately terrorists, at least so far, have ALWAYS thought in theatrical modes. I hope they stay stupid.

[Jack Rabbit]

58. I disagree

First of all, Soviet missiles in Cuba was an immediate threat. We went to the brink of nuclear war. The world came very close to ending up in the ashtry over that.

In spite of what you say, immediacy of the threat is the fundamental criteria. If the other side is ready to strike and saying they will do so, that's an immediate threat. The UN Charter recognizes a nation's right of self defense. No one has to wait for an actual attack under circumstances that clear before launching a strike. If we knew that Japanese bombers were headed for Pearl Harbor, we would have been right to do whatever was necessary to pre-empt the attack (such as shooting the bombers out of the sky or even attacking Japan ahead of the attack).

In the case of Iraq, there was no immediate threat. Perhaps Saddam wanted to build weapons, but the fact is that he didn't have them and it would be quite some time before he had them. There was no reason to invade Iraq.

[greenohio]

63. All true...

and Bush "knew" that Saddam had WMD and was colluding with terrorist to use them. The intelligence that prompted him to act and Kerry to support the resolution brought him to a point where he "knew" that Saddam was an immediate threat.

"knowing" someone is an "immediate threat" is subjective.

The problem with preemptive war is that we are human here. You cannot "know" the intention of your opponent until he has done it. You cannot try someone for a crime that they have not committed yet. And it is not only wrong, it is a bad plan to do so. It ruins your credibility in the world.

I cannot believe after all we have been through, there are still people who support preempting our enemies.

[Silverhair]

67. Because failure to do so can be fatal.

Look at the result of the failure to preempt Hitler. Yes, it takes judgement. And better intellegence. But the alternative is to ALWAYS let the evil ones get in the first punch. And sometimes, that one punch is enough for them to win.

[greenohio]

68. Do you support the invasion of Iraq?

Especially since Bush was told that the WMD was a "slam dunk"

[Silverhair]

71. No. There were better ways to handle it.

That wasn't a situation that was ready for preemption - yet. Too late now. We are in it and have to make it work now.

[Jack Rabbit]

72. I think, Mr. Greenohio, you have been jaded by Bush's lies

For that, I cannot blame you.

Nevertheless, there are ways of knowing, or at least things that can be done in accordance with norms of (and I know it's grotesque to call it this when speaking of something so catastrophic as modern warfare) civilized behavior.

For example, suppose we knew that Japanese war planes were headed for Pearl Harbor. What would you have done? A reasonable man who just happens to be President might summon the Japanese ambassador to the White House, ask him what the Sam Heck is going on, and tell him that if he cannot provide a satisfactory answer in (insert reasonable time limit under the circumstances) then we will blow those planes out of the sky. In the case of the Cuban missile crises, diplomacy was used to resolve the problem. In the case of Iraq, diplomacy could have been used to resolve the problem peacefully, but resolving the problem peacefully is not what the Bushies wanted to do.

Yes, I still support the principle of preempting enemies. I am not about to wait for my country to be invaded before doing something about it. The problem isn't with the principle, it is with those trusted to apply it to a given set of circumstances. They are not honest men and abused that trust to pursue aims of their own that had nothing to do with what they were saying.

Only those who can be trusted to make honest decisions about war and peace should be empowered to make them. That is why at a minimum Bush and his aides need to be removed from power; in my humble opinion, it is not unreasonable to demand that they be tried for war crimes. Those men are the problem, not the principle of preemption.

[Onlooker]

32. He said he supports the right to wage preemptive war

He said that it's always been true that if a President knew of an imminent threat, he could launch a preemptive attack, but also said something about there needs to be a threshold or global standard before taking such an action.

[bushwakker]

33. yes he did - and so do you

pre-emptive war based on sound, unimpeachable evidence that we are about to be attacked is not a radical concept.

[greenohio]

35. I do not support preemptive war

"unimpeachable evidence" is in the eye of the beholder. Where did all these war hawks come from? This is DU right?

[jpgray]

34. Yes

Dean had accepted the necessity of that as well in the campaign, but whereas Dean never believed that the President had made the case for it, Kerry believed Bush went about it incorrectly. As I've always said, Dean beats Kerry on the Iraq issue easily, but I think Kerry's version has hopefully coalesced. It's not the best I could hope for, but I can swing with it.

[Mattforclark]

37. Pre-emptive vs. Preventative war...

Crying shame already covered it.

Kerry would sure make a pre-emptive strike if an enemy army were massing at our border or something, as would any president. But he wouldn't just attack any old country without reason, as Bush has done.

[greenohio]

41. I like your standard of proof

When the waring Canadians and Mexicans are at our borders and we see them march across the border, then we can attack. Any moment before then is conjecture. There have been nuclear missiles pointed at us for decades, thank God no one has called for preemptive nuclear war because of the threat that we might suffer a nuclear attack.

[progressivebydesign]

38. He reserves that right...

..it's a reasonable position! I would not want to live in a country where that is not an option. No pre-emptive war would mean no intervention in cases like Sudan, Kosovo, etc.

[Bush was AWOL]

39. No, he doesn't support the Bush doctrine

he made that clear.

If he knows someone is going to hit us, he'll get them befor ethey get the chance.

That is what he said.

[alexisfree]

40. Bush Team Prepares Net Assault

wired news

02:00 AM Sep. 30, 2004 PT

For the millions of television viewers who tune in to the first presidential debate in Miami Thursday night, the event will probably seem scripted, familiar and maybe even cordial. And for good reason. The Republican and Democratic parties worked out detailed ground rules, all but promising that the televised debates will be uneventful.

But both campaigns plan to take off their gloves on the internet. In some respects, the real debate, or a better semblance of one, will take place in cyberspace.

[greenohio]

45. Here is what Kerry actually said

for anyone interested....

KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.

No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

[mzmolly]

49. What portion of that quote do YOU take issue with?

:shrug:

[greenohio]

52. I posted it so people could

see what he actually said. When I started the thread I didn't know what he said. I thought the board could benefit from seeing the quote.

[sangh0]

64. And so what do you think of it?

Or is it wrong to ask the person who asked "What did Kerry mean?" to post his/her thoughts on the subject?

[greenohio]

73. I'm not happy with it...

I wish he would have taken a stand against the tactic of attacking based on intelligence (often flawed). But he didn't. He mentions some screwy global test that he is now getting clobbered over the head with.

I am against preemptive war. Those who try to distinguish between preventive and preemptive are playing with words. In BOTH cases, you attack your enemy before he attacks you.

shrub believed he "knew" that Saddam was an immediate threat. He believe he passed some "global test" by getting UN authorization that even Bill Clinton and Tom Daschle said authorized the war. But as John Kerry brilliantly said last night:

"YOU CAN BE CERTAIN AND BE WRONG."

That was his best line of the debate. He should of stuck with it.

[mzmolly]

48. Yup, and so do I in certain circumstances.

:hi:

[Heath.Hunnicutt]

53. Kerry said the right thing

Kerry said it was important during the Cold War and the policy of MAD and detente that the President always have the option of a preemptive war. He voted for the war as a tool for diplomacy. He sees the threat of preemptive war as a tool for diplomacy.

George Bush sees our military as a tool for getting oil and revenge for his dad.

John Kerry sees our military as a tool for conducting foreign policy and diplomacy.

[bloom]

57. I hate that...

that is how I heard it.

[John_H]

74. Only premptive politcal war against Ralph Nader and the dopes who like him