My thoughts after re-reading the Bush Doctrine

[CRYINGWOLFOWITZ]

I just re-read part of the Bush Doctrine (http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html) and I have a couple of observations. First, He dismissed the concept of imminent danger for preemptive war, even though that is the very foundation of preemptive war. While he is right that the old definition of preemptive war, that of amassing armies and navies outside your border, is out of date. But he just uses that to dismiss the concept all together and seems to be too lazy to come up with a new definition of imminent. Also, he confuses the idea of a rouge nation with a terrorist organization. I saw this today in Cheney's speech. He seems to use terrorist organization and nation state as though they where interchangable. Attacks against terrorist orgs, like Al Queada and Hamas are one thing, and legitmit and no longer preemptive after 911. But knocking off soveirgn governments based off of what they may do, is quite another thing. Also, he seems to bring up a lot of good ideas, almost none of which he has practiced, like taking up a major law enforcement intitiative against terrorists in friendly countries (remember, neocons would tell you terrorism is a mainly military problem even though most terrorists don't live in countries we can attack.) He also has a large emphisis on multilateralism and using international institutions, but as we have seen, he could care less about multilateralism. Finally, he hardly mentions North Korea, which has to be the closest thing to an imminent danger there is right now. Has anyone else read this doctrine? Do you have any thoughts on it?

[DuctapeFatwa]

1. It is pretty simple: you are with us, or you are with the terrorists

Watch what you say, watch what you do.

[BeFree]

2. Hmmmmm....

After reading this a thought comes to mind. If ya can't beat 'em, join 'em.

We take up the mantle of anti-terrorism. Only we show how Dems would do it totally different than the squatters now in the WH. We can do it for less money, less loss of lives, and increased security for America. We point out that 9/11 occured well after * was elected and in his mis-administration were veterans from the previous * WH.

We propose that instead of $87B a budget for Iraq be only $47B. We harp on how OBL & SH have survived this long but we know that finally our soldiers will capture both of them as soon as * gives the OK.

We show how that the UN was lied to and are now so burned by this WH that getting them to help is much, much harder.

We start saying how if there is just one more attack on American interests, the fault will be the present day administration. That they lost focus on stopping terrorism and We can do much better. (This will give pause to those who may ne planning another politically favorable strike)

In the minds of most of Americans, terrorism is a real and present danger. Let's get in front of that issue. The miserable failures of * can be used to easily show America that Dems can do a better job of securing America's fortunes.