2008 Presidential Nomination and the

[iconoclastNYC]

Poll question: 2008 Presidential Nomination and the

Would you support a candidate for the Democratic Nomination that supports the Bush doctrine of "pre-emptive" war?

[Awsi Dooger]

1. Can I wager on the outcome?

Below 80% is a stunner, and I'm being conservative to give myself margin for error

[iconoclastNYC]

2. :)

So then it's a stupid poll.

I ask because I'm not so sure Hillary would say that she would suspend the Bush doctrine.

[Awsi Dooger]

3. No, I like stuff like this

I'm always interested in numbers, to verify where people stand and to what percentage. 80% is just a guess, admittedly dependent on how many votes and how many trolls.

[Selatius]

4. No Democratic front-runner today would suspend the Bush Doctrine

They will maintain the right of the US to defend itself regardless if the rest of the world approves. The notion that the US can defend itself regardless of approval by an outside body such as the UN is one of the central reasons John Kerry voted for the Iraq War Resolution, and it is the underpinning of people such as Joe Lieberman.

The devil is in the details, however, as it depends on how one defines "defend."

Ultimately, I never thought war waged between nation-states is a good way to solve problems. It often creates more problems in the end and often sows the seeds for future wars.

[hezekkia]

5. still...

no democrat is going to support the "Bush Doctrine," per se, and that was the poll question. So again, silly poll.

However, a lot of Dems will defend the right to pre-emptively strike, depending on the circumstances. Obviously if Canada starts moving missles toward the border and real intelligence (as opposed to faux-bush-style evidence) says they will nuke us, you better believe that any president would pre-emptively strike.

of course, I'm not too worried by our friendly neighbors to the north. :)

[karynnj]

10. Bush asked for backing to help when he went to the UN

There is no one who has spoken as much about complying with international law than Kerry. Only in the case of an imminent attack did he think it was ok to attack. Kerry was one of the strongest voices in the summer of 2002 saying Bush had to go to the UN and congress.

As to Kerry's philosophy, here is an excerpt from his speech in Ireland earlier this year:

To meet these great challenges of terrorism and proliferation, we must reinvigorate alliances so we can marshal the collective will and resources of America and our allies. The United States has been at its best when working together with other countries in an international system of global reach and power that links the security and welfare of all free nations around the world. It was this system that won the Cold War and made possible the incredible progress of the last 60 years. It is an approach that restores traditions that have passed the test of time -- and that is the message I take home with me after traveling the world from India to Pakistan to Iraq to Israel.

So as John Hume once said, “The challenge now is to grasp and shape history: to show that past
grievances and injustices can give way to a new generosity of spirit and action.” We have a long way to go before we have met the great challenges of the 21st Century. But with inspired leadership and unwavering commitment, I believe that together we can create a world in which wars are rare; a world in which America and her allies are protected by alliances forged in common interest and purpose.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The line that we are strongest working with other countries should be familiar - it was in every speech and in the first debate.


Here's a link to the whole speech - you may find a lot to agree with. (In it Kerry articulates a philosophy that counters the "spreading democracy" PNAC philosophy. Kerry's respects other nations and cultures, but has it's own idealism. There was also a longer speech to the CFR that Reid highlighted as one of the Democratic policy speeches the week it was given.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=74307&mesg_id=74522

[FrenchieCat]

6. There is a difference between pre-emptive and elective....

Bush's doctrine is really one of elective war.....

the pre Bush Pre-emptive doctrine has been around for some time....

[expatriot]

7. flame me if you will, but if it was between mccain and some dem

that supported Bush's pre-emptive war doctrine.... if that dem was pro-union, pro-public sector, pro-choice, pro-worker, pro-fair(er) trade, pro-civil rights... I would still support that candidate. for one, McCain is very anti-worker and pro-privatization, pro-corporte. . i would still support the Dem even though i am against BUsh's imperialist war-mongering and by affiliation the Democrat's.


i go to bed now. sleeping pill going into effect.

[iconoclastNYC]

8. you think mcCain has it locked up?

[saltpoint]

9. I hear you on McCain's horrifying voting record. If you met him

you'd probably thank him for his service and admire him personally, but my god that voting record, not to mention the stump appearances with Dubya against our team.

Even if mcCain is less loathesome personally than some other Rethugs, his voting record is repellent.