Kerry would not rule out preemptive strikes

[freeandfun1]

Bush's doctrine of preemptive military action is the perfect example, according to Kerry's foreign policy advisers. Bush has asserted the United States' right to preemptively strike a nation it deems an imminent threat to U.S. security. Kerry would not rule out preemptive strikes, nor have past presidents, but he would de-emphasize this option in stated U.S. policy. Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, a top Kerry adviser, said this represents a "profound difference" between the two candidates.

The only difference I see is that one clearly says they support it and the other says he supports it, but "please keep it quiet."

Once again Kerry is trying to have it both ways on an issue. Why should we be surprised?

 

[HGROKIT]

OR...

de-emphasize could mean he is leaving himself a way out of making a decision so he can defer to the UN.

 

[JERWALT]

Might Kerry Need To Check With Chirac Before Making Such A Bold Move? In Fact, Why Ask This Question In Reference To Kerry When We Already Know Chirac's Position.

 

[TTTiger20]

Kerry does support and does'nt support the same issue, What an idiot he is

 

[5stringJeff]

All you anti-war peaceniks listen up! You only credible candidate this year is Nader!!!

Please, oh please, vote for Nader...

 

[nycflasher]

The only difference I see is that one clearly says they support it and the other says he supports it, but "please keep it quiet."

Once again Kerry is trying to have it both ways on an issue. Why should we be surprised?

De-emphasis and kept quiet are 2 different things.

 

[freeandfun1]

De-emphasis and kept quiet are 2 different things.

not really. when you "de-emphasize" something, you don't bring attention to it or you "keep it quiet". Pretty much the same thing in my book.

de-em·pha·size ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mf-sz)
tr.v. de-em·pha·sized, de-em·pha·siz·ing, de-em·pha·siz·es

To decrease the emphasis on; to minimalize the importance of.

The only way I know how "to decrease the emphasis on or to minimalize the importance of" something is to keep it quiet or to just not talk about it. His point it that he would not change anything, he would only "de-emphasize" the policy. So, he would just not talk about it as much. Woopie!

Wow, NYC, get a clue would ya?

 

[nycflasher]

johnkerry.com

“The gravest threat we face is terrorists or hostile states getting their hands on a nuclear weapon. Since that dark day in September, have we reached out to our allies and forged an urgent global effort to ensure that nuclear weapons and materials are secured? Have we taken every step we should to stop North Korea and Iran’s nuclear programs? Have we restructured our intelligence agencies and given them the resources they need to keep our country safe?”

“The honest answer, in each of these areas, is that we have done too little, often too late, and even cut back our efforts. It’s not enough to give speeches – America will only be safer when we achieve results. The facts speak for themselves -- there was less nuclear weapons materials secured in the two years after 9/11 than in the two years before. North Korea has reportedly quadrupled its nuclear weapons capability in the past year. Iran is developing a nuclear weapons capability. Afghanistan has become a forgotten front in the war on terror.

“As president, my number one security goal will be to prevent terrorists from gaining weapons of mass murder. I have proposed an ambitious and aggressive plan for dramatically reducing the threats from nuclear terrorism -- we will greatly accelerate work to secure nuclear materials at risk and invest the time and leadership needed to address the nuclear threats in North Korea and Iran. I will appoint a National Director of Intelligence so that there is one individual with responsibility and accountability for intelligence operations.”

 

[Avatar4321]

All you anti-war peaceniks listen up! You only credible candidate this year is Nader!!!

Please, oh please, vote for Nader...

Screw Nader. I wouldnt want that guy to get any more legitimacy. besides the GOP can win without him.

 

[nycflasher]

Screw Nader. I wouldnt want that guy to get any more legitimacy. besides the GOP can win without him.

Damn, for a guy who has made a career out of advising the general public... Nader sure gets no love.