Monday, July 26, 2004

Pre-empting A Fight On Pre-emption

Hey party people, I'll be joining Todd in Boston at the convention on Wednesday morning.  I'll be chiming in periodically from home base till then.

Just minutes to the convention, much is being made by the idealists of the party (a strand I usually have an affinity for) about the ’04 platform and its unwillingness to criticize the Bush pre-emption doctrine.  However, in this particular case, the realist authors of the platform were actually correct to largely ignore it.  The platform calls pre-emption an "option" -- well everything's an option; Todd getting some at the convention is an "option" but it's also about as likely as the dems pre-emptively invading a country unprovoked.  

For Dubya, the pre-emption doctrine died when Iraq became an obvious disaster.  Even in the (frightful) case of another term, the administration will not have the resources, the popular mandate, nor the support of Congress to launch another pre-emptive invasion of a country (discounting air-strikes) Iraq-style.  “The real men go to Tehran…” dream of the doctrine is dead, and even the hardcore neocons know it (notice how the Bushies are playing down the news of the Iran connection to 9/11).  Besides, to do Iraq the sequel Dubya would have to raise taxes (even on the rich!) – and we all know he’d straddle his own twins Barbara and Jenna onto nukes dropped from 30,000 feet before he did that. 

More seriously, Kerry has been clear that he does NOT ascribe to  pre-emption.  Here he has been consistent in saying that he has "no doctrine” in taking the nation to war, but would rather evaluate each situation on a case-by-case basis.  As he should.  So if pre-emption is already dead in practice for the foreseeable future, with Kerry’s election it would also die in theory. As it should.


1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would point out that there are parallels between the Bush doctrine of preemption in Iraq and Todd's chances for a female conquest in Boston. They both sound good in theory, but are more difficult in practice. Both require a lot of dissembling and half-truths. And both leave you with the feeling that it might not have been worth it (on the part conquered, that is).

8:16 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home