Do YOU agree with the Bush* Doctrine of Preemptive Strikes?

[Q]

- The Bush* Doctrine is all about preemptive strikes against countries that may or may not pose a threat to the United States sometimes in the future. It completely disregards peace through diplomacy and negotiation. The Left can't accept the Iraq war/invasion and the 'axis of evil' without embracing the Bush* Doctrine of preemptive, aggressive war.

- Yet...many Democrats still insist that Bush* was 'right' to attack Iraq and depose Saddam. Their major complaint seems to be that there's no 'exit strategy'...not that the war was illegal and immoral in the first place.

- Democrats must stop supporting this war in any way. Yes...they must support the troops until the UN takes over...but this pandering to Bush* warmongering must end.

- Democrats are putting out confusing signals on this issue. This leads to confusion among voters who tend to believe Democrats support the Bush* Doctrine of aggressive war.

- Aggressive war is wrong and illegal, especially when countries are attacked using lies and false pretenses. Democrats must separate themselves from the Bush* Doctrine...or risk being perceived as supporting it and giving credibility to Bush's* run for the WH in 2004.

- Just say no to the Bush* Doctrine.

[jrthin]

1. I absolutely agree.

Had dems not supported our idiot-in-chief's policies, many of these policies would have been left of the floor, or passed only after a bloody fight.

[sventvkg]

2. I have ZERO Use for any dem who supported Bush's Polocies

Which unfortunately means I have no use for MOST of them, and certainly all the candidates who are currently serving in the Federal Government. These people need to get a fucking clue.

[demnan]

3. It will never happen

as long as we have people like Lieberman in the party running things. All these Democrats scoff at the "disaster" the nomination of McGovern was. Well if Nixon hadn't played illegally perhaps McGovern would have had a better chance but you never hear that acknowledged by Democrats. They're ashamed of McGovern, they're ashamed of Dean, Kucinich, etc. They are not anti-war, and they support Bush's war in Iraq like their precedessors supported the war in Vietnam.

So we have to do the best we can within the constraints of the Democratic party but it's difficult.

[Q]

4. Byrd and Kennedy have been very vocal in opposition...

...to the Bush* Doctrine. But the rest of the party refuses to follow their lead. It's a legitimate issue...but for some yet unknown reason the Dem party doesn't want to touch it.

[Jazzgirl]

80. Q do you think people are afraid of being ridiculed?

I've often wondered if people thought they'd be viewed as "unpatriotic" or "treasoness." I wonder if they think people will accuse them of "not supporting the troops" because they didn't support the war. Weird logic to me but I wonder....

Jazzgirl

[Jackpine Radical]

26. I campaigned for McGovern in 1972

as a Vietnam vet-grad student, and I'm proud I did. We didn't win, but we were right.

[niceypoo]

5. This is exactly why we lost the midterms

the democrats stopped representing democrats

[Brucey]

6. Since we have known about Bush* and his buddies for so long,

we assume that American people know too. What we need to do is educate and inform the people about the horrors that have been going on. Most Americans think invading Iraq was a good idea. Only recently have a few people caught on to the idea that there was no good reason to think Saddam was a danger or had anything to do with 9-11. Most Americans simply don't get it. I wish the Dem candidates would get together and agree that the next debate would be all about informing the public about PNAC, Wilson affair, etc. Each candidate would take certain information and figure out how to tell it. When asked a question, the answer would weave in this information. Keep it up until some people start to get it.

[Q]

12. We need to do more than just 'support' Bush's* wars...

...and the people need to know that WE don't support his PNAC policies of preemptive wars...especially without the evidence required to put our troops in harm's way.

[ShaneGR]

7. Democrats eat kittens

Down with the Dems! Reelect Bush!

/sarcasm

Q, you would be hardpressed to find 20% of Dems supportive of anything Bush does. Why the overgeneraliztion?

Oops, I forgot you're a Green.

[Q]

8. Never voted Green in my life...

...so perhaps you're the one 'generalizing'? I've never once posted 'down with Dems'. You're becoming an insulting ^&*()*^&.

- Most of the leadership of the Democratic party and many of the candidates have stated that they support the attack on Iraq and 'regime' change. The implication is that they support the 'Bush* Doctrine'. Or at least the PERCEPTION is that they support it. The main argument you hear from the 'patriotic' leadership is about the lack of exit strategy.

- This thread is about the Bush* Doctrine and how the Dem party is PERCEIVED to support the war. Your attempt to smear my character or call me a Green is uncalled for.

[ShaneGR]

9. Uh huh, sure

I've never seen you post ONE positive thing about Dems, you are constantly negative. You then get all worked up when someone calls you on it.

I think I'll start my own thread.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

52. Q thinks Demd are a bigger problem than Bush*

going by all the Dem-bashing threads he starts.

[Q]

10. We're talking about perception here...

...and the need for Democrats to CLEARLY separate themselves from the Bush* Doctrine of aggressive war. That is...stop with Iraq and resist every attempt by the Bush* WH to attack the NEXT country on the axis of evil / PNAC list.

- How many times have we heard Dems say they 'agree' with Bush* attacking Iraq to rid the world of Saddam? Yet...we have brave Democrats like Bryd and Kennedy saying the attack itself was wrong. This is where the mixed signal is coming into play.

- It's not enough to simply say that Bush* is doing a horrible job in fighting the 'war' in Iraq. The war was and has always been wrong because it was based on a foundation of lies. As stated above...we must give every aid to the troops...but not aid Bush* in his run for the WH by giving credibility to his doctrine of preemption.

[Q]

16. Let's open up this dialogue...

...and expand it to a discussion about the Bush* Doctrine.

- I believe that it's wrong and unAmerican. Bush* drove this nation to war with lies about the real threat certain countries pose towards the United States.

- Many believe that Iraq is only the beginning. If Bush* is allowed to get away with his lies about Iraq...what's to prevent him from lying us into another war?

- One of the biggest lies Bush* has gotten away with is that attacking Iraq was a pivotal event in the war on terrorism. Yet...the lie stands with most Americans even though no connection between 9-11 and Iraq has been established.

- This makes the Bush* Doctrine a lie. Democrats need to make it clear that they support the troops...but not the 'doctrine' of preemptive war.

[sangh0]

53. Open up the dialogue? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Meanawhile, in the real world, when someone points out Q's misuse of the word "pre-emption", his response is STFU

[LeahMira]

65. Short memory and single-mindedness...

Most of the leadership of the Democratic party and many of the candidates have stated that they support the attack on Iraq and 'regime' change. The implication is that they support the 'Bush* Doctrine'. Or at least the PERCEPTION is that they support it. The main argument you hear from the 'patriotic' leadership is about the lack of exit strategy.

Q, I think that people have a hard time with the idea that Saddam was such a bad person and deserved to be ousted. It is true that Bush always mentioned Saddam's cruelty along with the WMDs, but only secondarily. The main reason given for the invasion was the WMDs that allegedly posed an immediate threat to the U.S. And of course now that no WMDs have been found, the secondary reason, Saddam's cruelty, comes up. No one mourns Saddam's loss, but in people's minds the end of Saddam justifies the means of misrepresenting the WMD threat to the U.S.

This country is really in a hard place with that, though, because under both Democratic and Republican administrations we have supported oppressive military dictatorships in Central America and elsewhere for no other reason than that they "opposed communism." And we have seen communists in every closet, whether they really were there or not.

I wish that the people in this country would support the will of the people in other countries, even if those people will something that the U.S. has some problems about. As long as we insist on American style elections, constitutions, private property, individualism, and so on we are denying the simple fact that some peoples simply don't want those things and that they have their own way of doing things that works just as well for them.

[ShaneGR]

13. OH, BTW, I don't agree with pre-emptive doctrine

I've noticed a mindset around here on DU, that the Democrats aren't going to bat against Bush. Aside from every single Dem candidate debate, there has also been a healthy amount of Bush attacks from the Senate, House, Party Committees, etc. Heck, compare what is going on now to just after 9/11. COMPLETE difference. So, to prove my point, I did a google search for "DEMOCRATS ATTACK BUSH", I have c&p'd the first four pages here. ENJOY!


News: Democrats attack Bush on Iraq - Boston Globe - 7 hours ago
Republicans attack CIA on Iraq - BBC News - Oct 24, 2003
Try Google News: Search news for democrats attack bush or browse the latest headlines

BBC NEWS | Americas | US Democrats attack Bush record
US Democrats attack Bush record. The Democrats are struggling to find
a truly popular candidate. Democrats hoping to challenge George ...
news.bbc.co.uk/go/click/rss/1.0/ -/2/hi/americas/3081850.stm - 39k - Cached - Similar pages

News
... Democrats attack Bush 05/09/2003 08:30. By John Whitesides, Political
Correspondent. ALBUQUERQUE, New Mexico (Reuters) - The Democratic ...
www.tiscali.co.uk/.../democratsattackbush.html&template=/ news/templates/newswire/news_story_reuters.html - 38k - Cached - Similar pages

CNN.com - Democrats attack Bush on terrorism war - May. 18, 2003
... Democrats attack Bush on terrorism war. Rivals for party's nomination
call for more-active leadership. Democratic presidential candidates ...
www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/ 05/18/democrats.terrorism/ - 36k - Cached - Similar pages

Planet Ark : Democrats Attack Bush's Credibility
... Democrats Attack Bush's Credibility. ...
www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/ 21566/newsDate/21-Jul-2003/story.htm - 26k - Cached - Similar pages

Political Wire: Democrats Attack Bush Hard On The Economy
... Credits. Movable Type 2.64 Newsisfree Copyright © 1998-2003 by Taegan D. Goddard.
All rights reserved. July 03, 2003. Democrats Attack Bush Hard On The Economy. ...
politicalwire.com/archives/002379.html - 26k - Cached - Similar pages

Campaign 2004: Democrats attack Bush on jobs, economy
... Tuesday, September 2, 2003. Campaign 2004: Democrats attack Bush on
jobs, economy. SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER NEWS SERVICES. DES MOINES ...
seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/137601_camp02.html - 21k - Cached - Similar pages

IHT: Democrats attack Bush on Iraq policy
... Democrats attack Bush on Iraq policy. Adam Nagourney/NYT The New York
Times Monday, July 14, 2003. Presidential contenders, dropping ...
www.iht.com/articles/102733.htm - 15k - Cached - Similar pages

Ten Second Response: Tom Daschle and Senate Democrats attack Bush ...
Ten Second Response: Tom Daschle and Senate Democrats attack Bush Administration
for Reassessing the Secretly-Developed Clinton Rule to Halt Forest Road ...
www.nationalcenter.org/TSR52102.html - 6k - Cached - Similar pages

War Democrats Attack Bush's Credibility - www.ezboard.com
... Author, Comment. guyvester Registered User Posts: 37 (7/14/03 3:52 am)
Reply, War Democrats Attack Bush's Credibility The War Democrats ...
pub10.ezboard.com/ fhowarddean2004frm9.showMessage?topicID=37.topic - 12k - Cached - Similar pages

"Desperate Democrats Attack Bush’s Carrier Landing" by Kevin ...
... Desperate Democrats Attack Bush’s Carrier Landing". Posted by
Kevin Willmann Friday, May 09, 2003. Music legend Sir Elton John ...
www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=2619 - 42k - Cached - Similar pages

US Senate Democrats attack Bush environmental record - 8/2/2002 - ...
... US Senate Democrats attack Bush environmental record. Friday, August
02, 2002. By Chris Baltimore, Reuters. WASHINGTON — A group ...
www.enn.com/news/wire-stories/2002/ 08/08022002/reu_48024.asp - 20k - Cached - Similar pages

US Democrats Attack Bush on Economic Policy, Iraq
Last updated at: (Beijing Time) Wednesday, January 29, 2003. US Democrats
Attack Bush on Economic Policy, Iraq. US Democrats attacked ...
english.peopledaily.com.cn/200301/ 29/eng20030129_110927.shtml - 18k - Cached - Similar pages

LEFT-WING DEMOCRATS ATTACK BUSH'S HEALTH DECISION-MAKING
LEFT-WING DEMOCRATS ATTACK BUSH'S HEALTH DECISION-MAKING. Ideologues
accuse Bush of subverting "scientific decision making" by ideology. ...
www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/oct/02102208.html - 12k - Cached - Similar pages

Democrats attack Bush’s budget
... Democrats attack Bush’s budget. Criticism of record deficits, high
spending are central themes. ASSOCIATED PRESS. WASHINGTON, Feb. ...
www.msnbc.com/news/868560.asp?0cv=CB10 - 73k - Cached - Similar pages

Democrats attack Bush, DCF chief as child advocates
... Democrats attack Bush, DCF chief as child advocates. Tuesday, May 21,
2002. By CATHERINE WILSON, Associated Press. MIAMI — Two Democratic ...
www.naplesnews.com/02/05/florida/d772858a.htm - 43k - Cached - Similar pages

washingtonpost.com: Democrats Attack Bush Overtime Plan
washingtonpost.com Democrats Attack Bush Overtime Plan Senators Say
Proposed Changes Would Harm Workers. By Kirstin Downey Washington ...
www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/ A118-2003Jul29?language=printer - Similar pages

Democrats Attack Bush for Poverty Rise
Democrats Attack Bush for Poverty Rise NewsMax Wires Wednesday, Sept.
25, 2002. WASHINGTON -- The nation's poverty rate went up for ...
www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/ 2002/9/25/70340.shtml - 35k - Cached - Similar pages

Democrats Remember 9/11, Attack Bush -- GOPUSA
... Printer-Friendly Version. Democrats Remember 9/11, Attack Bush By Charles
Mahaleris Talon News September 12, 2003. WASHINGTON (Talon ...
www.gopusa.com/news/2003/september/0912_dems_911.shtml - 21k - Cached - Similar pages

Packing.org, the Concealed Carry Database: "Democrats attack ...
... All United States: Democrats attack Bush's gun record. Posted on Monday,
August 21, 2000 at 08:11 AM by msolomon. This August 17, 2000 ...
www.packing.org/news/article.jsp/2150 - 25k - Cached - Similar pages

"Desperate Democrats Attack Bush’s Carrier Landing" by Kevin ...
... News, Recv'd. Remaining. "Desperate Democrats Attack Bush’s Carrier
Landing". Posted by Kevin Willmann Friday, May 09, 2003. Music ...
www.chronwatch.com/content/ contentDisplay.asp?aid=2619&mode=print - 12k - Cached - Similar pages
< More results from www.chronwatch.com >

The Daily Reg-Report Archives - Democrats Attack Bush in Forum on ...
June 27, 2003. Democrats Attack Bush in Forum on Environmental Issues.
The Los Angeles Times reports "Five of the nine Democratic ...
www.aei-brookings.org/dailyregreport/ archives/006466.php - 11k - Cached - Similar pages

The Daily Reg-Report Archives - Democrats Attack Bush on ...
February 14, 2003. Democrats Attack Bush on Counterterrorism Budget.
The New York Times reports "With the Capitol police carrying ...
www.aei-brookings.org/dailyregreport/ archives/004722.php - 11k - Cached - Similar pages

evote.com
... House Democrats Attack Bush Lawsuit Reform Plan. House Democrats brought
victims of medical malpractice to Washington this week to ...
www.evote.com/news_section/2003-03/03122003pelosi.asp - 11k - Cached - Similar pages

Democrats attack Bush overtime plan
Democrats attack Bush overtime plan. Wednesday, 30-Jul-2003 10:23AM
PDT. Story from United Press International Copyright 2003 by United ...
quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/ wed/aj/Uus-overtime.RUde_DlU.html - 6k - Cached - Similar pages

Democrats Line Up to Attack Bush on Iraq
... Democrats Line Up to Attack Bush on IraqGovernment and Politics Democrats Line Up
to Attack Bush on Iraq Howard Dean, the outsider propelled to the lead in the ...
www.buzzle.com/editorials/9-5-2003-45070.asp - 29k - Cached - Similar pages

Democrats attack Bush over Weapons of mass destruction.......the ...
UPDATED-Thursday, October 02, 2003. Democrats attack Bush over Weapons
of mass destruction... ..the truth RETURN TO WHIDBEY.US. ...
www.whidbey.us/news/demsblamebush.asp - 7k - Cached - Similar pages

Guardian Unlimited Politics | Special Reports | Democratic ...
... Democrats line up to attack Bush on Iraq Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington Friday
September 5, 2003 The Guardian The following correction was printed in the ...
politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/ story/0,11538,1036164,00.html - 35k - Oct 26, 2003 - Cached - Similar pages

HollandSentinel.com -Democrats attack Bush budget priorities 01/ ...
... White House race. (AP Photo/Terry Ashe). Democrats attack Bush budget
priorities The Associated Press. WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrats ...
www.thehollandsentinel.net/stories/ 011503/new_011503035.shtml - 55k - Cached - Similar pages

AP Wire | 06/27/2003 | Democrats Attack Bush Immigration Policy
... Politics & Government, Posted on Fri, Jun. 27, 2003, Democrats Attack
Bush Immigration Policy MIKE GLOVER Associated Press. PHOENIX ...
www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/ news/politics/6186762.htm - 50k - Cached - Similar pages

Democrats Attack Bush in Forum on Environmental Issues
... From the Los Angeles Times. Democrats Attack Bush in Forum on Environmental Issues
In UCLA event, five of the candidates for the party's 2004 nomination are ...
new.blackvoices.com/news/ la-na-enviro27jun27,0,3147826.story?coll=bv-news-black-headlines - 33k - Cached - Similar pages

FOXNews.com - Politics - Democrats Attack Bush Budget Priorities
Democrats Attack Bush Budget Priorities. ...
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,75524,00.html - 36k - Cached - Similar pages

BBC NEWS | Americas | US Democrats attack Bush record
... Entertainment | Have Your Say Friday, 5 September, 2003, 09:06 GMT 10:06
UK US Democrats attack Bush record. Democrats hoping to challenge ...
newswww.bbc.net.uk/2/low/americas/3081850.stm - 12k - Cached - Similar pages

Times Online - Home
... September 05, 2003 Democrats defer infighting to attack Bush BY AP IN
NEW MEXICO Senator Joe Lieberman (centre) Senator John Edwards ...
www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-805416,00.html - Similar pages

Talon News -- Democrats Remember 9/11, Attack Bush
Printer-Friendly Version. Democrats Remember 9/11, Attack Bush By Charles
Mahaleris Talon News September 12, 2003. WASHINGTON (Talon ...
www.talonnews.com/news/2003/september/ 0912_dems_911.shtml - 14k - Cached - Similar pages

Democrats attack Bush
Reuters | AFP | Sky News | The Scotsman | Photos Friday September 5, 03:16
AM. Democrats attack Bush By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent. ...
uk.news.yahoo.com/030905/80/e7kni.html - 15k - Cached - Similar pages

Planet Ark : US Senate Democrats attack Bush environment record
... US Senate Democrats attack Bush environment record. ...
www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/ newsid/17139/story.htm - 25k - Cached - Similar pages

LJWorld.com : Democrats attack Bush's economics
... Democrats attack Bush's economics. The Associated Press. Sunday,
June 22, 2003. Newton, Iowa — At a forum focused on the economy ...
www.ljworld.com/section/nationalpolitics/story/136119 - 18k - Cached - Similar pages

Dems continue to attack Bush’s character (Daily Illini Online ...
Dems continue to attack Bush's character ... Lewis said Bush has a tendency to "offer
broad ... Bill Layman, political director for the College Democrats, agreed with ...
www.dailyillini.com/oct00/oct12/news/news01-2.shtml - 19k - Cached - Similar pages

Politics | Democrats line up to attack Bush on Iraq
Democrats line up to attack Bush on Iraq Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Friday September 5, 2003 The Guardian. The following correction ...
politics.guardian.co.uk/print/ 0,3858,4747317-110481,00.html - 7k - Cached - Similar pages
< More results from politics.guardian.co.uk >

Telegraph | News | Democrats use Enron's fall to attack Bush
... Democrats use Enron's fall to attack Bush By David Wastell (Filed:
13/01/2002). DEMOCRATS who spent years decrying congressional ...
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ news/2002/01/13/wenron13.xml - 31k - Cached - Similar pages

[Q]

18. I appreciate your list...

...of the Democratic opposition against many Bush* policies. But only a few Democrats are publicly opposing the Bush* Doctrine of 'preemptive war'....aka aggressive war.

[sangh0]

47. Only Dean, Kerry, Sharpton, Kucinich, Pelosi

Daschle, Schumer, Nadler, Jackson, Byrd, Braun, Gore, Kennedy, Rangel, etc

[ShaneGR]

58. Hey, the top two Dems are on that list

What a surprise....

[wtmusic]

14. The Myth of Pre-Emptive Self-Defense

I have posted this several times, but if you want an in-depth, objective, legal analysis of why the war is not only wrong but illegal, read this:

http://www.asil.org/taskforce/oconnell.pdf

[Q]

21. Thanks for the link....an excerpt:

The Myth of Preemptive Self-Defense Mary Ellen O’Connell

On September 11, 2001, the United States was attacked. Hijackers turned passenger planes into missiles and used them to destroy the World Trade Center and to damage the Pentagon. President Bush made clear the United States would respond forcefully against those responsible. 2 At least one high-ranking member of the Administration urged the use of force against any states known to have links to terrorist groups. 3 But in a move for which the Administration has received the greatest international praise with respect to any action following September 11, it waited. In the days following the attacks, it established that the perpetrators were all members of the al Qaeda terrorist organization, known to operate out of Afghanistan. 4 On October 4, the British government released a study showing the close ties between al Qaeda and Afghanistan’s de facto government. 5 On October 7, 2001, Operation Enduring Freedom, a massive air operation, including some ground forces, was launched against Afghanistan. Both the United States and the United Kingdom notified the United Nations Security Council that Enduring Freedom was an exercise of individual and collective self-defense in compliance with the terms of United Nations Charter Article 51, which permits the use of force in self-defense against an armed attack."

[SahaleArm]

44. Preventative

If the US government could have stopped 9/11 by preemptively striking, would you support it then? The Bush doctrine is preventative, not preemptive. Iraq fits the definition of preventative as Saddam neither had WMD nor posed an imminent threat.

[bicentennial_baby]

15. I just wrote a paper about this for FP

In my American Foreign Policy class, I had to write a paper applying Powell-Weinberger doctrine to the war in Iraq. Bush doctrine is dangerous for the whole planet, and Dems and Repukes need to put a stop to it, before we're all dead.

[kiahzero]

17. Don't buy the Bush spin - It's "preventative war", not "preemptive"

The difference is one of legality. If you clearly explain that preventative war is, literally, going to war to prevent war, most sane people will understand what a load of crack it is. If you talk about 'preemption', you're already starting to lose the PR war.

[Q]

19. Yeah...they've started calling it 'preventative' war...

...but it's the same old pill in a brand new bottle.

- International law calls it 'aggressive war' and it's one of the reasons the Nazis were put on trial.

[kiahzero]

22. My point

is that 'preventative' war == bad, and it's very easy to explain why that is. Preemptive war is a little more complex, is generally legal under international law, and is completely different from the Bush Doctrine.

[maggrwaggr]

35. Is "preventative" even a word?

or one of those new words that Bush makes up?

[Iverson]

48. Yes, it is a word.

Extaboulism is not a word.

[JNelson6563]

20. Ok, lemme think for a second....

um, no.

Overthrow the fascists!!

Julie

[pansypoo53219]

23. hell fucking no

with intelligence, Clinton was able to stymie attacks planned for new years 2000. and many other attacks.
all we need is to keep our eyes open .
whereas, Bush seems to like his intelligence eyes wide SHUT.

[RichM]

24. Dems' opposition to the war & to the Bush Doctrine is feeble.

All you have to do is look at the House & Senate votes on the 2002 IWR, & the recent $87 billion. In both cases, Dem opposition was lukewarm in the House (somewhat over half). In both cases, Dems in the Senate supported Bush by decisive margins.

[Iverson]

25. any civilized person should oppose wars of aggression

n/t

[MrPrax]

27. Is it a doctrine or even a policy?

To beat up and rob people...(any criminal has a excuse as to WHY they engage in crime BTW)
Just because this 'characteristic' of wanton criminal behavior is touted by a President--it don't make it a Doctrine.
It is a description...
Same problem with Nukes being a 'policy'...only a policy up until you actually have to use them and as such what then is the 'policy' result--human annihilation?

Don't even treat this stuff with the reverence of 'politics'--it is a moral position deserving of Nazism

[Q]

30. It's actually known as the Bush* Doctrine...

...I'll try to find and link some articles that refer to it.

[MrPrax]

33. Yeah...so

I am disputing that it is a Doctrine...
Lots of articles on crop circles...so what

It's crminality and as such should be called as such...(not graced as a Doctrine and then give legitmacy)
I mean seriously dude...how maany doctrines are their by US Presidents. I think it is just the custom to call 'grandiose' statements by the word doctrine.
It is not like attackng someone you don't like is a Bush invention

[ElsewheresDaughter]

28. hell NO!

[livinontheedge]

29. If you are absolutely positive that someone is going to attack you,

then attack them first. But you must be 100% certain, not 99%.

[MrPrax]

31. Well if that were true...

then police would have a much easier time catching criminals and eliminating crime...knowing who is going to ATTACK you 100% of the time is a tall order.

I know they could use the global equivalent of a Rogues' Gallery and study foreheads...
DOH!! they already do...their Arabs!!!

[SahaleArm]

49. Do you mean like?

Finding and removing sleeper cells before they decide to attack the populace? Criminal conspiricacy and attempted murder are punishable under current laws. We're not talking about pre-crime here.

[MrPrax]

77. Agreed...

if you find criminal activity--arrest, indict and lock them up.
But this is a far cry from carpetbombing 'suspected' nations or illegally invading them...hardly what Bush means by 'pre-emptive' strikes, no?
A 'pre-emptive' strike is by definition illegal under international law, while criminal activities are prosecuted under virtually every jurisdiction ...well harboring and aiding 'terrorists' is what the US does on a regular basis actually...

[LeahMira]

69. Self-defense...

... is justified if you know that you are about to be attacked and you take steps to prevent or repel the attack. But we were led to think that a terrorist attack via Iraq was a matter of weeks or maybe months, not years. If someone might attack eight or ten years down the road, that is hardly "imminent." Heck, Saddam could be long dead and a whole other government in place in eight or ten years. So could Bush.

[Q]

32. One of many articles referring to the 'Bush* Doctrine'...

Iraq and the Bush doctrine

Success in a new war against Iraq would be a defining moment in the evolution of the 'Bush doctrine'. But the Gulf War international coalition is no more, Baghdad is stronger than at any time since it invaded Kuwait and the removal of Saddam Hussein, if possible, could cause greater regional instability than his continued rule.

Toby Dodge
Sunday March 24, 2002

Despite the increase in United States casualties in the renewed campaign against Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, Washington appears determined to tackle the problem of Iraq and its possession of weapons of mass destruction. It is now not a question of whether military action is to be taken against Baghdad in the next stage of its 'war' against terrorism, but when and how.

Success in a new war against Iraq would be a defining moment in the evolution of the 'Bush doctrine'. In the aftermath of September 11, we have seen growing coherence and confidence in this strategy of 'offensive defence'.

The Bush doctrine does not appear to tolerate non-alignment in the campaign against terrorism. In this conflict there can be no moderates, only those for or against the United States. In many respects it is an attempt to codify international relations in the post-Cold War era, recognising and institutionalising the political effects of globalisation.

Hardliners in the US administration around Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, his deputy Paul Wolfowitz and their ideological godfather Richard Pearle, are using the fall-out from the New York and Washington attacks to rework the United States understanding of state sovereignty in the developing world. The concerns with democracy and human rights that dominated foreign policy in the Clinton era never sat comfortably with right-wing Republican promotion of US interests to the exclusion of all else. --- http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldtoday/story/0,11726,672585,00.html

[maggrwaggr]

34. I agree with preemptive strikes, which is why BUSH MUST GO NOW

Bush wants another war.

He is a danger to world peace.

He must go. Now. Before he starts another war.

[Q]

36. But will Bush* get the support of the Democrats...

...when he goes on to the next country on the list? Certainly they understand what's going on by now? That attacking Iraq had NOTHING to do with the war on terrorism? This 'war' was planned long ago...so how COULD it have anything to do with 9-11?

- Dems need to support the troops until the UN takes over (an eventuality)...but in good conscience can't support the doctrine of 'preventative' war.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. Pre -emption as a doctrine

makes sense in the face of a c-l-e-a-r threat like the threat Israel faced in 1967.... I do not wish to debate the merits or demerits of Israeli foreign policy but they struck Egypt and Syria as they were mobilizing for war and the threat was imminent...War was inevitable and was soon to arise and Israel prudently made sure it was on their terms....

Iraq wasn't mobilizing for war with the U S and there was no imminent threat...

Chimpy has discredited a sound doctrine by invoking it under false pretenses...

Any right thinking person regardless of their ideology should be chagrined at that....

[sangh0]

37. Oy vey

"Pre-emption" is a long tradition in this country and internationally. What Q is incorrectly referring to is Bush*'s doctrine of "preventative strikes"

It helps to know what you're talking about. Q doesn't

[Q]

39. You're wrong...

...and I've supported (with references) what the world knows as the "Bush* Doctine". The Bush* Doctrine began with Iraq. That is...he lied about the danger Iraq posed to the US and 'preemptively' attacked them.

- By any definition...this is AGGRESSIVE war. And while it's true that the US has attacked countries before that have posed no danger...this is the first time ( beyond Vietnam) where a war was initiated based on false pretensex and exaggerated threats. (You could probably add Grenada)

- Study history and then get back to us. Scholars consider the attack on Iraq as aggressive war and the preemptive strike on Iraq is known as the 'Bush* Doctrine'.

- Pleae stay off my threads if your only intent is to disrupt or have nothing of import to add.

[sangh0]

41. Not "pre-emptive"

In order to be "pre-emptive" there must be an imminent threat. In Iraq, there was no imminent threat, and so it was NOT pre-emptive. It was "preventive"

Bush* is deliberatly confusing "Pre-emptive" with "Preventative". Intl law supports the use of pre-emptive strikes, but does not support preventative strikes, and so Bush* calls his invasion "pre-emptive" when it's really "preventative"

And you help him along.

[Skittles]

40. I DON'T AGREE WITH BUSH INC ON F***ING *ANYTHING*

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[Q]

42. The Bush Doctrine and the War with Iraq (Parameters)

The Bush Doctrine and
War with Iraq

JEFFREY RECORD

© 2003 Jeffrey Record

From Parameters, Spring 2003, pp. 4-21.



A key feature of the Bush Doctrine’s postulation of the threat is its conclusion that Cold War concepts of deterrence and containment do not necessarily work against WMD-seeking rogues states and are irrelevant against terrorist organizations. “In the Cold War,” states the National Security Strategy, “we faced a generally status quo, risk-averse adversary. . . . But deterrence based only on the threat of retaliation is less likely to work against leaders of rogue states more willing to take risks, gambling with the lives of their people, and the wealth of their nations. . . . Traditional concepts of deterrence will not work against a terrorist enemy.”7 This judgment echoes President Bush’s earlier remarks in his West Point speech: “Deterrence, the promise of massive retaliation against nations, means nothing against shadowy terrorist networks with no nation or citizens to defend.” And, “Containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies.”8 (In contrast to containment of communism, which was aimed at its territorial expansion, containment of Iraq since 1991 has targeted Saddam’s territorial and nuclear ambitions. It is therefore “vertical” as well as “horizontal.”) Thus, according to the Bush Doctrine, rogue states are a double threat; they not only seek to acquire WMD for themselves but also could transfer them to terrorist “allies.”

Making matters worse, argues the White House, the threat is not just undeterrable—it is also imminent, requiring urgent responses. Less than two months after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush declared, “We will not wait for the authors of mass murder to gain weapons of mass destruction.”9 In his subsequent State of the Union Address, he further stated that “time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer.”10 At West Point, he warned, “If we wait for threats to materialize, we will have waited too long.”11 His National Security Strategy declares simply, “We cannot let our enemies strike first.”12 National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice underscored the Administration’s sense of imminent danger, telling CNN on 8 September 2002 that the risk of waiting for conclusive proof of Saddam Hussein’s determination to acquire nuclear weapons was too great because “we don’t want the smoking gun to become a mushroom cloud,”13 a metaphor President Bush subsequently repeated.

In summary, the Bush Doctrine postulates an imminent, multifaceted, undeterrable, and potentially calamitous threat to the United States—a threat that, by virtue of the combination of its destructiveness and invulnerability to deterrence, has no precedent in American history. By implication, such a threat demands an unprecedented response.

The Response

The judgment that we are dealing with enemies who are prepared to “strike first,” “to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States,”14 who “would hesitate to use weapons of mass destruction if they believed it would serve their purposes,”15 inevitably dictates a policy of what the Bush Administration has chosen to call “anticipatory self-defense.”16The policy is billed as a strategy of preemption. In his West Point speech, President Bush announced that the “war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans and confront the worst threats before they emerge. In the world we have entered the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act.”17 The National Security Strategy declares that the “United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security,” and given the risk of inaction against enemies prepared to strike first, “the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.”18 The National Security Strategy goes on to say, “Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing for attack.” However, “We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries.” Because rogue states know they can’t win with conventional weapons, “they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction—weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning.”19

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03spring/record.htm

[sangh0]

45. Q, do you even READ what you post?

“Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing for attack.”

Even YOUR source agrees with me that "pre-emption" requires an "imminent threat. Iraq wasn't a "preemptive" strike. It was a "preventative" strike.

[Selwynn]

43. I do not agree with preemption; more importantly I reject unilateralism

Rejecting preemption does not mean that we must wait until we are attacked on our soil before we take defensive action. However, in the past there have been two additional elements that have colored the issue : first, in the past there needed to be a clear and demonstrated immanent threat. Second, action was taken multilaterally and in consultation and with support of allies and the UN.

I strongly reject unilateralism in world affairs. And insofar as we reserve the right to attack any other country without clearly demonstratable provocation, I reject preemption as well.

Sel

[sangh0]

46. That's "pre-emption"!!!

first, in the past there needed to be a clear and demonstrated immanent threat.

Taking action before one is attacked on the basis that there's an imminent threat is known as "pre-emption", and it does NOT require multi-lateralism.

You don't object to "pre-emptive strikes". You object to "preventative strikes". Bush* has confused the two in order to make his policy of "preventative strikes" more palatable. Don't fall for it the way Q has

[Selwynn]

50. No it isn't. - not according to the UN or history of US policy

In the history of the Unite States, we have always reserved the right to respond to a "clear and present" danger - if someone's bomber planse are fueling on the runway, and and we can strike them before they get a chance to strike us, there is no probelm with this, either in terms of US's historical position with the United Nations understanding of acting in "Defense."

No, the problem with Bush is that he changed and distorted the rules, and so twisted the definition of "immanent" to mean any one we don't like" or to mean "someone who might one day want to do something to the US." That's what is wrong.

The doctrine of preemption according to Bush is that we reserve the right to attack a country that has done nothing agressive at all, on the grounds that it may one day do something agressive. It is a blank check to attack anyone, anywhere at anytime.

I am against that.

That is different than responding to a clear and present threat, especially when the United Nations agrees that it is indeed a thread and that something should be done. When there is multilateral agreement that a thread is real and that certain action should be taken, I feel a little better about that, and that is nothing like Bush's doctrine of unilateral preemption.

You're last sentence: by your definition, the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes has been US policy for fifty years, and by the way, it is UN policy as well (in cases of multilateral agreement and clear and present threat.) However, again by your definiiton, "pre-ventative" strikes, which Bush calls "preemptive" are indeed horribly bad policy.

[sangh0]

54. Not true

What you describe in your 1st paragraph is "pre-emption"

In Iraq, Bush* never claimed there was an imminent threat. It was NOT pre-emptive. It was "preventative"

The doctrine of preemption according to Bush is that we reserve the right to attack a country that has done nothing agressive at all, on the grounds that it may one day do something agressive. It is a blank check to attack anyone, anywhere at anytime.

Bush* is deliberately confusing "pre-emption" with "preventative" in order to make his policy of "preventative strikes" more palatable by associating it with a legitimate doctrine.

That is different than responding to a clear and present threat, especially when the United Nations agrees that it is indeed a thread and that something should be done. When there is multilateral agreement that a thread is real and that certain action should be taken, I feel a little better about that, and that is nothing like Bush's doctrine of unilateral preemption.

It's not "unilateral preemption", It's preventative. I don't know why you keep saying that Bush* is doing something different while continuing to call it the same thing.

You're last sentence: by your definition, the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes has been US policy for fifty years, and by the way, it is UN policy as well (in cases of multilateral agreement and clear and present threat.)

That's right. Pre-emption is legitimate so long as there really is an imminent threat. Bush* doctrine, "preventative strikes", occurs before the potential threat becomes "imminent", and even before it materializes at all. "Preventative" allows strikes merely because a threat might arise at some unspecified point in the future. IOW, there are no limits to "preventative"

[Selwynn]

55. We're saying the same thing, dork. :)

Bush* is deliberately confusing "pre-emption" with "preventative" in order to make his policy of "preventative strikes" more palatable by associating it with a legitimate doctrine.

I UNDERSTAND. I'm saying that when he uses the term "preemption" HE MEANS what I said he means.

It's not "unilateral preemption", It's preventative. I don't know why you keep saying that Bush* is doing something different while continuing to call it the same thing.

BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HE CALLS IT. He calls it his "doctrine of preemption." Honestly, I don't give a crap if he misdefines the term or not. What I care about is saying "hey, Bush's doctrine of preemption is wrong." It may be wrong becasue it is "preventative" and not "preemptive" - I don't really care. Bush defines "preemption" in a certian way. And by that definition, it is totally wrong as a policy.


That's right. Pre-emption is legitimate so long as there really is an imminent threat. Bush* doctrine, "preventative strikes", occurs before the potential threat becomes "imminent", and even before it materializes at all. "Preventative" allows strikes merely because a threat might arise at some unspecified point in the future. IOW, there are no limits to "preventative"


Great so now we've said the same thing three different times. Can we accept that we are having a semantic and not substantial disagreement and leave it alone?

You are trying to provide the "correct" definition for preemption and show how Bush's definition is actually preventative and that preventative is wrong. I am saying that if we accept Bush's terms, then by Bush's (mis)definition of the term, then Bush's "preemption" doctrine is wrong.

Why do I make the distinction. Because the Bush doctrine is called the Doctrine of "preemption" and THAT DOCTRINE IS WRONG, reglardless of whether or not it is wrong on semantic grounds or whatever else.

[sangh0]

57. D'oh!!!

,

[aquart]

51. I disagree with all of Hitler's policies. Bush doesn't.

[Iverson]

56. uh, Q, sangh0?

Is this a private fight, or can anyone join?

[ShaneGR]

59. I'll go for it!

Wait, nevermind, I'll go back to researching Bush fiascos instead of attacking Dems.

Peace!

[Q]

60. The Bush* Doctrine IS a fiasco...

...but some 'NeoDems' are too afraid to say out of fear of being called 'unpatriotic' or someone pointing out that some Dems are still supporting this illegal war despite knowing it was based on a lie.

- It's really too bad that we have a few DUers around here that follow other posters around calling them 'anti-Dem' and worse.

- You're either new to politics or very young. Either way...you're ignorance is astounding. Political parties are all about change. Those who refuse to change or recognize their shortcomings are doomed to failure...or worse...obsolescence.

[sangh0]

61. Well, let's see

You keep claiming that Bush*'s doctrine is one of "pre-emption", but when other posters corrected you, you refused to address your mistake

You keep claiming that Dems are silent, but when I posted a list of Dems that have spoken out against Bush*'s preventative doctrine, including the two leading Dem Presidential candidates, you were silent.

It's really too bad that we have a few DUers around here that follow other posters around calling them 'anti-Dem' and worse

No, you're the only one who is being "anti-Dem", and you have never had a problem calling others names.

And someone who doesn' know the difference between "pre-emptive" and "preventative" probably shouldn't be calling others "ignorant"

Political parties are all about change

Hahahahahahaha!

[sangh0]

62. Iverson, feel free to jump in

.

[Q]

66. You're parsing words because you've gotten yourself...

...into an argument you can't win. You're rather like Bush* that way.

- I've quoted articles from various media and a war college...for hell sakes. Yet...you're still a mile behind arguing the sematics of 'preventative' vs. 'preemptive'. We already know that the US has a standing policy of strikes against countries that post a clear and present danger. Iraq didn't qualify.

- The Bushies attacked Iraq because that what their intention even before taking office. 9-11 gave them an excuse...though not a logical or legal one.

- And yes...a few Dems have spoken out against preemptive/preventative war...but no where near the numbers needed for an organized effort to stop the doctrine in its tracks. A 'few Dems' also spoke out against invading Iraq...but it did absolutely no good considering the majority of the party had little to say about it or supported it outright. A 'few Dems' also spoke out against the lies Bush* told to drive this nation to war...but then let Bush* off the hook by declaring it wasn't worth pursuing.

- Your rudeness wouldn't be tolerated if this was a face to face dialogue. You hide behind your anonymous handle to smirk and laugh about things you obviously know little about. How old are you? Sixteen?

[sangh0]

68. Why do you help Bush*

by repeating the lie that Bush* is promoting a doctrine of "pre-emption" when it's not?

Why do you help Bush* by repeating the claim that Dems are not opposing preventative war when many Dems are? (Ex. Dean, Kerry, Kucinich, Sharpton, Braun, Kennedy, Byrd, Leahy, Nadler, Schumer, Gore, Jackson, and more)?

Your responses are cowardly. You do nothing to address the points I raise, and your "arguments" are nothing more than ad hom and name-calling. Your ignorance is so vast, and your cowardice so pungent, that even still, you can't acknowledge the difference between pre-emptive and preventative, or the many Dems that have spoken out.

That's because you dont want Dems to speak out. That's why you never give credit to the many who do. You only want to whine and complain, which is why you never address the ignorant mistakes you regularly repeat. And if you want to blame me, go right ahead, but there are others in this thread who have raised the SAME points I have, and you have ignored those points regardless of who raises them,

[Q]

71. "Some" Dems also 'spoke out' against Enron, Halliburton...

...Bush* hiding the presidential papers, Cheney hiding the national energy documents...Bush* obstructing an investigation into 9-11...and a score of other issues. But a few Dems pissing and moaning here and there means nothing in the broader sheme of things...especially when the Bushies continue to get away with their lies and using 9-11 for political advantage.

- Listen up...I've been encouraging Dems to speak out for YEARS. It disgusts me when Kennedy, Byrd and those on YOUR list speak out...only to be left swinging in the wind by the rest of the party. They're branded as crazies or radicals because the rest of the chickenshit party is too afraid to back them up.

- Once again...you haven't demonstrated anything beyond your own ignorance. And whether you've noticed or not...others on this thread are arguing with your battle with the difference between 'preventative' and 'preemptive'. To the Bushies...they mean exactly the same thing. The bottom line is that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was and is illegal. It was done without UN security approval and against the advice of most of the world.

[sangh0]

73. GIve answers, not spin

A MAJORITY of Dems oppose preventative war.

A MAJORITY of Dems spoke out about Enron and Halliburton

A MAJORITY of Dems want Cheney's energy papers released.

A MAJORITY of Dems want a 9/11 investigation

Listen up...I've been encouraging Dems to speak out for YEARS

And when they do, you just continue criticizing the Dems. That's some "encouragement"

others on this thread are arguing with your battle with the difference between 'preventative' and 'preemptive'. To the Bushies...they mean exactly the same thing

And you agree with Bush*, which is why you don't distinguish between Bush*'s policy of "preventive war", and the legitimate doctrine of pre-emptive war. Does this mean you're a "Bushie"?

[Q]

63. SanghO is fighting him/herself...

...and it's a rather silly display of obtuse blathering.

- These detractors go out of their way to distort or ignore the premise of the threads and attack the messenger. To them...ANY criticism of the Dem party is considered bashing. They're so out of touch that they can't seem to comprehend the difference between being 'anti-Dem' and expressing concerns about the policies and direction of the party.

- I believe they're more interested in distracting and disrupting the flow of conversation than actually adding to the debate.

- The Bush* Doctrine is real...and it has the world very worried about Bush* running around unilaterally attacking countries instead of using diplomacy and negotiations. Preemptive war is aggressive war. It's criminal and morally wrong. The Democratics must not support such things...or at least shouldn't be surprised when Bush* attacks the next country using bogus evidence.

[sangh0]

64. You're avoiding admitting you're wrong

to characterize Bush*'s doctrine as one of "pre-emption". Even YOU posted info that shows Bush*'s doctrine is "preventative", and not "pre-emptive".

The first rule of discussion is to be honest, Q

[Q]

67. You're a self-deluded gadfly...

...using semantics to convince yourself you've 'won' an argument. What I pointed out was your parsing of words to distort my orginal argument. The pivotal argument has always been about Bush* attacking a country that posed no threat to the US. He did so using falsehoods about that threat...saying or implying that the US had to strike Iraq before they attacked the US. These are Bush's* own words.

- And now...after you've made a complete fool of yourself...you accuse me of lying. How many times have you danced around with this same bullshit? Perhaps you could spend your time feeling self-important somewhere else?

[sangh0]

70. Why do you help Bush*?

Bush* wants to confuse "pre-emptive war" with "preventative war", adn you are helping him by confusing the two. Even your own cites state the pre-emption requires an imminent threat.

When will you admit your mistake, and stop repeating Bush*'s lies?

When will you acknowledge the many Dems, including most of the Dem presidential candidates, who have spoken out against "preventative" war?

When will you start attacking Bush*?

[Q]

74. This fucking thread attacks Bush*...

...or are you just too dense to see it?

- You're playing shuffle board on the titantic while everyone else is abandoning ship. That is...Bush* is attacking countries that were listed in a PNAC document for years? Coincidence? Or did Bush* use 9-11 as an excuse and wrongly accuse Iraq of being involved?

- At this point you're arguing with yourself. History backs my position of why we're in Iraq. As for the Dems...those few arguing against Bush's attack are pissing in the wind without the help of the rest of the party.

- Now...will you continue blubbering or find someone else to bother?

[sangh0]

75. This thread attacks Dems

or are you just too dense to see it? Most of your posts in this thread attack Dems, not Bush*

I'm not the only one who has noticed your tendency to attack Dems more often than you attack Bush*, which helps Bush*. You help Bush* by attacking Dems, and you help Bush* by confusing pre-emptive strikes with preventative strikes, and you help Bush* by blaming Dems for Bush*'s crimes.

[Q]

76. Do a google search...

...and you'll see the only ones calling this a 'preventative' war are the Bushies. Everyone else calls it a preemptive war. Hell...even some conservatives call it 'preemption'.

The American Conservative...

calls it 'preemptive war'...

Iraq: The Case Against Preemptive War*
The administration’s claim of a right to overthrow regimes it considers hostile is extraordinary – and one the world will soon find intolerable.
by Paul W. Schroeder

Most Americans seem little concerned at the prospect of an American war on Iraq. This is surprising considering that, of America’s friends and allies, only Israel openly supports it, while other states in the Middle East, including longtime rivals and enemies of Iraq, warn against it, and the Europeans view it with alarm and growing frustration. Those challenges to the planned war now being raised, moreover, tend to center on prudential questions – whether the proposed attack will work and what short-term risks and collateral damage might be involved – rather than on whether the war itself is a good idea. - http://www.amconmag.com/10_21/iraq.html

- You've convinced me that your only purpose on my threads is to disrupt. And me? I was dumb enough to fall for your bullshit. No more. And frankly...I don't care if 'you're not the only one' that thinks I 'attack' Dems. They tend to be the NeoDems among us...and I don't have much in common with them anyway. See ya.

[sangh0]

81. You're citing the American Conservative?

That just proves my point! They're calling it "pre-emptive" in order to make it sound legitimate. It's not, and you shouldn't help them confuse the issue.

[HPLeft]

72. No and Yes

No, in 99% of cases - and definitely no in the case of Hussein. But that doesn't mean that I think it would have been a good idea to cut Hussein a lot of slack. Bush would have been right if he had used the threat of force to get the best deal involving a return of the inspectors as he could manage. But, actually going in without having built international consensus was a terrible idea - and a terrible financial and human drain on our nation. Which is why having a President who actually knows what war is about is generally a good idea, all things being equal.

That said, if we could produce relatively incontrovertable evidence that someone was about launch an attack on the United States, I'd have no problem with pre-emption. But, unfortunately, the politicans and military/civilian leaders who are drawn to the idea of pre-emption are probably congentially reckless to begin with, and would likely use it an unskillful way. And with the Bush Administration having completely compromised our intelligence services, it is going to be many years before anyone trusts them to the degree that would be required for pre-emption to be a viable option. As someone else remarked a few months back, the neo-con pre-emption strategy died in Iraq. After this disaster, the concept has zero credibility.

[Q]

79. But it's accepted as fact that Bush* didn't have 'incontrovertable'...

...evidence that Iraq even had the capability to attack us or his neighbors. He simply made it up as he went along...distorting and manipulating CIA intelligence to fit his own agenda.

- Those Dems speaking out against PREEMPTION should keep up the good work. Those being silence about it should be ashamed.

[Scott Lee]

78. Bush is dead wrong, as usual

Preemptive Strike is 100 degrees wrong, because it's only a wonkish justification for any intervention by any administration for any reason. It's like "national security" - sounds justifiable on the surface but it can be used for all sorts of mischief.

The constitution clearly establishes the need and the mechanism for national DEFENSE, not offense. Even the often lunatic strict constructionists will have to admit that the founders harbored no vision of a globe trotting US military.

The Bush Doctrine of preemptive strike is the lynchpin for the goal of PNAC: To ultimately dominate the planet by US based or run markets, and to secure the resources of other nations by hook or by crook to benefit those home markets.

[Cat Atomic]

82. The Iraq invasion was a way of "ratifying" the Bush Doctrine.

But seeing as how the invasion has turned out to be disaster on every front, the Bush Doctrine may slip silently into the footnotes of history.

We can hope at least.

[Q]

83. Bush's* entire foreign policy is based on 'his' doctrine...

...of preemptive strikes/attacks/invasions/occupations against countries on the PNAC 'axis of evil' list. And...the Bushies knew the Saudi dictatorship was going to kick US bases out of their country...so they need to establish another permanent base in the ME. Iraq was the perfect scapegoat and prize for the PNACers.

- But the rationale for this policy can only be explained IF evidence could be found connecting Iraq with terrorism...or specifically 9-11. No evidence could be found...so they just made it up.

- As outline in the orginal post...the Bush* Doctrine is here to stay unless it is exposed as the sham it is. The only way to expose the sham it to make Bush* accountable for the lies that drove this nation to war.

[xultar]

84. We'd have to blow up every nation right now...

4 his policy on first strikes to hold water we'd have to bomb every country off the planet right now just to be sure they won't attack us. That is what Preemptive is all about.