Word: emptions
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...Bush has cut the details of the policy. And that fits too: there has been a vaporous quality to Bush's boldness. He traffics in headlines. The policies themselves are often not entirely baked. A case in point: Frum's "axis of evil" and its accompanying doctrine of pre-emption, which Bush announced at West Point last June and discarded in Korea this January. The revised doctrine: Caveat Pre-Emptors. We have the moral responsibility to pre-empt evildoers...unless they have the ability to empt back (as North Korea does). This is an embarrassment, and a rather dangerous...
Whatever happens, they can--and probably will--argue that their hard line is working and that messages sent in one direction are being heard in another. Administration officials suggest Pyongyang was worried that Bush's doctrine of pre-emption might eventually be pointed in its direction. For most of the past two years, Bush hard-liners have refused to even talk to North Korea, believing that the Clinton policy of engagement was for suckers. Having confessed, the North Koreans are now subject to diplomatic pressure. "This is an Administration that was determined not to get into a dialogue with them...
...question. He could not let Kim alter the fragile balance of power on the Korean peninsula, where 37,000 U.S. troops stand across the DMZ from a million-man army close enough to destroy Seoul, South Korea's capital, in a blitzkreig. By Bush's own doctrine of pre-emption, the U.S. should strike against any state with weapons of mass destruction and an irresponsible dictator. But the consequences of attacking Pyongyang are unacceptable. What Bush apparently never anticipated was a brazen admission that the evidence was right...
Stating this is one thing; acting on it is another. Asked whether the new strike-first doctrine was aimed at Iraq, a senior official dodged last week and said pre-emption is at the "narrow end of a long band of options." But it's no coincidence that the new strategy has appeared at the very moment that Bush needs a strategic anvil on which to forge his campaign against Saddam. The White House still will not share--or doesn't have--proof that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction that can reach the U.S. And because no one expects...
...emptive strike from some of Congress’s more committed left-wingers and partisan Democrats. As he continues to “make the case” before U.S. lawmakers, Bush would be well-served to mention Israel’s 1981 raid as clear evidence that pre-emption can be a vital means of national, regional and global self-defense. Ultimately, any senator or congressman who still believes that America should merely work to “contain” or “box in” Hussein’s murderous regime ought to review...