For You Newbies That Only Know Me As A Deanie

[Khephra]

Here's where I was before I was ever a Deanie.

The Doctrine
April 19, 2002
By S.A. Lowery aka Khephra

"Enough Is Enough." — George W. Bush, April 4, 2002

For possibly the first time in his life, George W. Bush spoke honestly to the American public instead of spinning or sloganeering, when he uttered the words, "Enough is enough!" Although he was speaking out on the crisis in the Middle East, those words rang true because those words also lend themselves to another matter at hand on the minds of many people across the globe - the Bush Doctrine.

The Bush Doctrine is a hypocritical, childish game of cowboys and Indians disguised as foreign policy. With each passing day, it is becoming plain to see -- to even the most casual observer of Bush's words and deeds -- just how much of a threat the Bush Doctrine is to the stability of the world.

Yes, Mr. Bush, we have had enough -- enough of both you and of your Doctrine of Domination.

The Bush Doctrine Abroad

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier...just as long as I'm the dictator..." — George W. Bush Dec 18, 2000

What is the Bush Doctrine? Simply stated, it is a policy of division, of segregation, and of opposition. It is "Us versus Them" politics; with "Them" being whatever country Bush has cast in the guise of would-be villain that week, preferably a country filled with Arabs and oil. Ever since the Cold War ended, the Republican Party has been casting about for a new enemy to replace their old stand-by, the U.S.S.R., so they can justify their bloated military budgets and religious devotion to Star Wars technology. And now it looks like Bush has found one - everybody but us. Or perhaps I should say, everyone but the U.S.?

Congress originally gave Bush their backing to use force in this War on Terror because his stated goal was to track down and bring to justice the plotters behind the attacks on 9/11. He was not given a free rein to send our men and women into whatever country he so chooses, simply because he says it is an evil nation. There needs to be evidence of their complicity beyond Bush's accusatory rhetoric. Or have we abandoned the idea that we are a nation of laws, simply because the Republicans are repeating over and over that "everything has changed," and "we are at war"?

We were told we would be given proof of Osama bin Laden's involvement in the tragedy of 9/11, but the American public is still waiting. Not all of us have forgotten the Bush Administration's promise on this issue. Now we are being told of possible connections linking Saddam Hussein to 9/11, as well. Based upon past Bush Administration actions, it is almost a certainty Bush will send our troops into Iraq, regardless of whether or not there is an actual case against Saddam.

Do Bush's accusations of guilt merit the risk of all-out war in the Middle East, when we have friendly diplomatic relations with many other similar dictators? Before our country throws our support behind a potentially disastrous move, such as attacking Iraq -- right at a time when anti-American feelings have never been stronger in the Arab world -- some of us would still like to see the initial evidence connecting Osama bin Laden to 9/11 that we were promised. If he was actually involved, it should not be too hard to produce. Edited, mistranslated videos that would not even be admitted as evidence in a court of law are simply not enough from this Administration anymore. Understand this point, and you will understand why the Bush Administration is trying to create an unconstitutional tribunal system just to try "some" accused terrorists.

Why is Bush going after Saddam when the war in Afghanistan is unfinished and Osama bin Laden is supposedly still on the run? It would stand to reason that bin Laden is still a threat, but Bush has said in the past that he does not think about Osama bin Laden that much anymore, and it has also been droned into us that the war was bigger than just one man. That may be so, but if it is, then it is also bigger than Bush and his self-centered goal of completing his father's work.

Another issue that is bigger than Bush is our country's relationship with Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has also been criticized for being involved in many of the same actions we accuse Saddam Hussein of committing. If we are going to back an attack on Iraq as a country, then we, as a people, need to be given an explanation from the Bush Administration as to why we are not waging war with Saudi Arabia as well.

The Bush Administration has been trying to convince the world that the U.S. must deal with Iraq, because Saddam's support of terrorism is a threat to us all. That may be so, and in fact is very likely. However, if these are the reasons behind Bush's desire to depose Saddam, and not just petty revenge, then why did Bush invite Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah back to the Bush Ranch? Even though the Prince has now cancelled, uncancelled, and recancelled the meeting, we will have to assume that Bush would have still met with the Prince, since the Administration has not said otherwise.

The stated purpose was Mideast peace, which would be a refreshing change from Mideast war, and on that topic I have no criticism. However, by attempting to meet with Abdullah, Bush has further undermined his own case for enacting the Bush Doctrine as official U.S. foreign policy.

By the Bush Doctrine's convoluted logic, those that support terrorists, in any way, directly or indirectly, are just as "evil" as the terrorists themselves. In fact, they have been judged as being terrorists as well. Remember, you are either with him or against him in Bush's worldview. There was supposed to be no hedging on this issue. Too bad for Mr. Bush that the Bush Doctrine is totally unworkable in the real world in which the rest of us are forced to live.

The Bush Administration has repeatedly lectured us that there would be no negotiations with terrorist in the "morally clear" world of the Bush Doctrine. However, as stated before, the Saudi Arabian Government has clearly supported terrorism in the past. So would that not also make Crown Prince Abdullah a terrorist supporter and his government a state that sponsors terrorism? So I ask you, why is Bush inviting a known terrorist supporter to his home instead of "rooting him out"? And if he is willing to speak with Abdullah about peace, why not attempt to speak to Saddam as well? Or is that too radical of an idea? There is no clear answer to these questions, it is simply more hypocrisy from a hypocritical administration.

In fact, the majority of the terrorist hijackers of 9/11 were not from Afghanistan or Iraq, instead they were citizens of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has set up a fund to issue payouts to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, just like Iraq. Saudi Arabia has a government that oppresses its own people, just like Iraq. So why is Bush beating the drums against Iraq and not beating them against Saudi Arabia? That question is easy to answer -- oil. When it comes to oil, the Bush Administration has no moral qualms about dealing with states that support terrorism. Unless it is Saddam Hussein, of course - then it is personal. Saudi Arabia is only "business" as usual.

Bush does not like to be pestered by such a bothersome issue as finding the man he directly blamed for 9/11 anymore. That is, unless Bush's poll numbers are slipping, and then Osama bin Laden will suddenly become a hot topic again, and Bush's failures will be pushed from the news. Osama bin Laden is "spotted" or a "new" tape is "found". Excuse me for sounding conspiracy minded, but it is hard to know what is real and what is make-believe when the enemy that you fight has been trained by our own CIA.

However, should a reporter dare to inquire about the hunt for Osama bin Laden at any other time than when he is in the news, the Bush Administration will deflect each question with platitudes and spin. This is an outrageous insult to the families of the victims of 9/11 who watch in silence, waiting for word on Osama bin Laden's fate.

Let me put this into an analogy that everyone can understand. Maybe then, even the Republican hawks will realize -- when you share this story with them -- just how important it is that we deal with Osama bin Laden. There really is no way this War on Terror can ever be won unless he is brought to justice or killed in combat.

Imagine, if you will, that you come home one night and find a Sheriff's patrol car, with its red and blue lights on, parked right in front of your house. You rush towards your front door, hoping that your family is safe and sound, and that it is just a false alarm. But Sheriff Bush stops you and informs you that a serial killer called the Evil Doer has murdered your family.

Standing in front of the press with a bullhorn, he promises to track down the murdering "guy" who killed your family in cold blood, because he thought they were weak. You ask some questions about your alarm system. Was it working? Did the locks hold? "I will tell you later," Sheriff Bush says with a smirk. You're in too much of a state of shock to think clearly, so you go mourn in solitude for a while, trusting that the man in charge of hunting down your family's killers will bring them to justice.

Months pass, and you still haven't heard any updates on the investigation from Sheriff Bush. However, you have been seeing the Sheriff on TV quite a bit recently, talking about his Manhunt on Murder. Each time the Sheriff speaks before the press, he does not really bother to share any new details about the case. Instead the Sheriff rants on and on about how the Evil Doer is such an evil man and how he must be stopped dead in his tracks. He then goes on to repeat the word "evil" about a thousand times in 10 minutes.

Once again, you decide to put your trust in the Sheriff, so you sit at home and wait in heartbreaking silence. Surely, you think, the Sheriff will keep at his job, even if you aren't watching his press conferences anymore. So you go back to waiting.

As time progresses, you notice a change in the things Sheriff Bush is saying. Instead of talking about hunting down the serial killer who slaughtered your family, he's now talking about some vague idea of hunting down all serial killers and eliminating serial killer murder altogether. One day, Sheriff Bush starts talking about another serial killer called the Boogeyman. As the days turn into weeks, you start to notice that your case starts getting less and less airtime from the Sheriff during his press conferences and public statements. Soon all he is talking about is the Boogeyman and the need to end serial killing once and for all, and then your case is not mentioned again.

The Sheriff also expands his Manhunt on Murder to include all people who have ever committed a murder -- including soldiers -- or anyone who might possibly one day commit a murder. People who rent apartments to "murderers" and shopkeepers who have sold to "murderers" are also put on notice that Sheriff Bush's Manhunt will get them too, if they don't watch out.

Eventually, you start to investigate the murder of your family by hiring a team of lawyers and private dectives, but Sheriff Bush does not like that. And neither does the Sheriff's posse. Instead of helping you find the man responsible for the deaths of your family, Sheriff Bush and his cronies now set out to block all your efforts at finding out the truth. And then your investigators inform you of their dreadful suspicion that the Sheriff might actually be financially connected to the chief suspect in your family's deaths.

You decide to try to call Sheriff Bush once again to find out if there is any new information on your family's case, something that would contradict your investigator's information about the Sheriff, but all you ever get from that point on is a busy signal when you call. You have now reached your breaking point.

Fed up with it all, you sneak into a press conference being held by the Sheriff's spokesman, and you bravely ask, "What about the man responsible for killing my family? When will he be brought to justice? Is Sheriff Bush even interested in my case anymore?" But instead of answering, the spokesman sneers at you and says, "The Manhunt is more important than just one man." He cuts you off when you try to ask a follow-up question, only to answer a question about the Sheriff's desire to take care of the Boogeyman once and for all instead, and they promise to do the job this time, unlike the Sheriff's father, Poppa Sheriff.

Depressed and angry, you flee the press conference and head towards home. Once there, you throw yourself into bed, wishing this nightmare would end. You swear to yourself that tomorrow you will stand up to Sheriff Bush publicly, as you drift off to sleep.

But you never get your chance, because like many criminals, the Evil Doer returns to the scene of his crime. Once again, the Evil Doer disables your alarm with a penknife, and then he sneaks up your stairs, up to your room where you sleep. One moment is all you get. One moment to look up and see the Evil Doer, wearing a Halloween mask of Sheriff Bush's face, as he sticks a knife into your belly.

Now you have an idea of what it feels like for the families of the victims of 9/11, each time Bush publicly dismisses the idea that capturing Osama bin Laden is important to the War on Terror. On this issue, like many others, Bush is wrong. Taking care of Osama bin Laden is more than important; it is the whole reason we became involved in this war in the first place.

Congress gave Bush their support to attack Afghanistan because it was thought he would actually try to track down Osama bin Laden and the other plotters of 9/11. But if dealing with Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind behind 9/11, is no longer Bush's primary goal, then why is he being allowed to act like a Junior League General on the world's stage? Osama bin Laden does matter and Bush needs to realize this fact and stop insulting us all.

If we are going to be fighting a War on Terror, then the man who planned the tragedy of 9/11 should be at the top of the list, not the man Bush thinks is financially behind it. A terrorist can do an astonishing amount of damage with limited resources, whereas the financiers of terrorism cannot do anything without terrorists. The Bush Administration should catch the man we suspect is responsible for 9/11 first, and then we can find out more about his funding and Iraq. This should be the order of our priorities.

Instead of concentrating on the original goal, it seems as if each week a new country is added to Bush's list of evil nations. First it was Afghanistan, and now the list is so long I dare you to try naming them all from memory. When that many fronts are being opened, then it is essential a clear exit strategy exists. There is no exit here. There is only chaos.

The Bush Doctrine was supposed to be a statement of moral absolutism: There would be no retreat, no surrender, and no negotiations with terrorists. Instead, we see them reacting to each day's events in a confusion, because the Middle East is too complex for good versus evil diplomacy. Changes are being instituted to the Bush Doctrine on an almost daily basis, as the situation in the Middle East becomes more entangled and complex. The Bush Doctrine, once praised for its moral simplicity, has become the laughing stock of the world community because of its brazen hypocrisy.

One week it is Syria and Iran that gets Bush's special attention, but next week it just might be France. Seriously ask yourselves if you would put it past Bush at this point to use our military against the European Union, if he thought he could get away with it, and he believed it would further his political agenda? France is in more danger than you might think, due to their government's refusal to assist in the investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui, because of Ashcroft's oxymoronic goal of deterring suicidal terrorists by threatening them with the death penalty.

Or maybe next week, it will be the whole of the European Union instead of just France? It really would not be too much of a surprise, because, as we all plainly know, speaking out against the Bush Administration supports terrorism, and if you support terrorism, then you are as bad as the terrorists.

Is it impossible to think that Bush could ever add a friendly country to his nations of terror, just because they might disagree with him? Is that not the basis of the Bush Doctrine? You are either with us or against us, he said, so just wait for the day he gets serious about those nagging Europeans who have dared to question his actions, unlike our silent politicians at home.

Or maybe Bush will be insane enough to add Israel to his list of evil nations, because Sharon is not doing what Bush wants him to do, when he wants him to do it? Of course, Bush would never be that insane to actually do something as stupid as that, now would he?

If a country is not an enemy of the U.S. right now, and Bush wants to wage war on them, well "make no mistake about it," he will either add them to his Axis of Evil or he will say something so diplomatically naive it will push the other side into being antagonistic towards us, just like he has been doing with North Korea.

Wrapped in a flag of sunshine patriotism, the drums of war are being pounded by Republican chickenhawks. What is a chickenhawk? A "chickenhawk" is a Republican who has had the nerve to criticize democrats, usually Clinton, on their patriotism during wartime. These chickenhawks find no hypocrisy in the idea of criticizing a man for standing up for his beliefs, while at the same time avoiding service themselves, often due to questionable deferments and family connections. They call upon others to die in their wars, yet when it was time for them to serve they simply called up daddy.

Currently we have sitting in the White House a man who was released from the National Guard to help run a Republican political campaign, while the children of people not so well connected were dying, and not a single Democrat has brought this issue up since the War on Terror started. That is not even to mention the fact that no one knows where Bush was for over a year of his service time.

Normally, I would never care about a politician's military record. However, with Bush's eagerness to wage war in any country he chooses, and the chickenhawk's unjust attacks upon Clinton's interest in brokering a peace agreement in the Middle East, I feel it is a proper issue to address. Being AWOL because you have family connections is a little bit different than speaking out against a war that you feel is wrong. One is an issue of free speech, the other is one of family connections.

Ever since the Democratic Party was formed, Democrats have fought bravely in our nation's many military actions and wars. A few of the Democratic members of Congress are even heroes with Purple Hearts and other honors. It is time you put your political life on the line and speak out against the insanity that is doubling for a just cause. How can you stomach the hypocrisy of this man as he speaks of sending our youth into country after country?

What would the Republican's response be if a Democratic President with a similar military record as Bush's own background was sitting in the White House today? I can tell you what they would say. The Republican chickenhawks would shout, "I can support the troops without supporting the President."

Eventually, enough fronts will be opened in Bush's War on Terror that our troops will be stretched thin. Soon after, we will hear the Republican chickenhawks in Congress crying out for a draft. And this time, not just your sons will go. They will ask for your daughters too, but we all know their sons and daughters will never have to fight, just like their warmongering fathers. It is a tradition with the Republicans, and we all know Republicans love their traditional family values.

It is time for you to start using that quote as a preface to your statements on the war, instead of saying "I support Bush's War on Terror." It is time for that support to be replaced with opposition or we are looking at World War III -- a war caused by Bush's complete lack of understanding of Middle Eastern history, culture, politics, and religion.

Eye-for-an-eye warfare will not bring security to our country, which anyone watching the current situation in Israel and Palestine understands far too clearly. There are times when military action is appropriate, but we have long passed that point. It is time to stop slouching towards our own personal Bethlehem. It is time we stand upright and proud, once again, and reject the Beast we have become as a country following at Bush's heels. If we do not stand now, then we risk repeating the mistakes being played out in Israel and Palestine as I write this letter, except this time it will be played out on a global scale. In that nightmare scenario, we will be the Israelis, and the rest of the world will be our occupied territories, filled full of potential suicide bombing Palestinians.

Striking out against those you feel have hurt you in fear is understandable, but so is attempting to find ways of coping that does not involve bombing every country Bush says is evil. The goal was simple at first, but now it is vague and undefined. No other word than quagmire fits in a situation like this.

The sooner the Democratic Party stands up to the Bush Doctrine, the better. Our country is quickly running out of allies, treaties, and time because of Bush's posturing and his diplomatic misstatements. Bush's mistaken idea that the world is his playground and our men and women in the military his toy soldiers, given to him by his father, must be rejected before it is too late.

After decades of nuclear reinforced peace, the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction has suddenly been thrown to the wind by the Bush Administration, and an eagerness to unleash hellfire upon the world has been embraced by many other world leaders as well. Have we forgotten the horrors of radioactive death we unleashed upon Japan? Has the Bush Doctrine been "modified" again? Along with embracing the bomb, will we also be welcoming Armageddon with open arms? Is that now a part of the Bush Doctrine too?

As long as Bush's fear-inflated poll numbers are high, this war will continue to expand into country after country, unless Bush's desire to turn the world into an American Empire is stopped dead in its tracks. The American public has been told flat out the War on Terror may never end in our lifetimes, and still there is no outcry. If there is an afterlife, George Orwell is looking upon us with contempt, wishing he had never wasted his time trying to warn us of wars without end.

The Doctrine at Home

There ought to be limits to freedom" — George W. Bush, May 21, 1999.

Once again, the Bush Doctrine rears its ugly head, but this time instead of being a foreign policy, it is being applied as a subtle call to divide our citizenship into two camps - those who are with Bush in his War on Terror, and those who are against it.

What are we, the American public, afraid of post 9/11? It is not just Osama bin Laden and terrorism striking again here at home that has the American public in a constant state of paranoia. It is also Bush and his Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse -- Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz - along with his Grand Inquisitor, Ashcroft, who have put the fear into many of us Democrats, and non-democrats alike.

A man so afraid of justice he has to cover it up, Ashcroft is the bulldoggish Big Brother many of us feared he would be. Ashcroft dared to insult both the Senate Judiciary Committee and every patriotic American who disagrees with Bush, when he linked dissent and the questioning of the Bush's War on Terror to assisting terrorism. A few Democrats confronted him with vigor, but overall the Senate Judiciary Committee just sat there and let him do it instead of calling him on it. It was at that moment, when Ashcroft stood up to your Committee, when the right wing's new War on Dissent began in full. And it began with your quiet blessing.

Let me directly quote a legal analysis of the worst aspects of the Patriot Act for those of you who didn't have the time to read it:

"Among the USA Patriot Act's most troubling provisions, the ACLU said, are measures that: Allow for indefinite detention of non-citizens who are not terrorists on minor visa violations if they cannot be deported because they are stateless, their country of origin refuses to accept them or because they would face torture in their country of origin.

Minimize judicial supervision of federal telephone and Internet surveillance by law enforcement authorities.

Expand the ability of the government to conduct secret searches.

Give the Attorney General and the Secretary of State the power to designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations and deport any non-citizen who belongs to them.

Grant the FBI broad access to sensitive business records about individuals without having to show evidence of a crime.

Lead to large-scale investigations of American citizens for 'intelligence' purposes."

(Source: USA Patriot Act Boosts Government Powers While Cutting Back on Traditional Checks and Balances by The ACLU)

If these powers do not strike fear in your hearts now, months after you have signed the Act into power, then you have not been paying attention to the Bush Administration. Even in the hands of trustworthy public servants, these powers would be disturbing, but under Bush they are horrifying and a cause for alarm.

After Ashcroft's appearance, right wing pundits flooded the airwaves with venom for the left and anyone else who dared to think for themselves and question Bush's actions. Ann Coulter ranted; Bill Bennett organized; Jerry Fallwell blamed, and Pat Robertson agreed. The battle lines were drawn, and it was once again "Us versus Them" politics, but this time, instead of it being the U.S. versus terrorism, it is the conservatives versus the liberals.

These public figures are not insignificant; they influence many people, many people who vote Republican and many of the undecided. Should they be shut down, their freedom of speech restricted, like they would do to us? Of course not. But to fight hate, you have to expose it to the truth, and unless you counter their statements, they will just keep on convincing others that the conservative way is the right way. You must bring their hateful words to the attention of the public, and then you will find most Americans will be sickened by their hate. But this will only happen if the people have the chance to hear their words of hate countered by your rational arguments for sanity. You have been too quiet for far too long now.

While the likes of Coulter and Fallwell are both loud and easy to spot, it is organizations like Bennett's AVOT, hiding in the shadows, that are the most dangerous. Bennett's own statements invoke the worst of the dark ages of the Communism hunts, and send chills down the spine of anyone who understands our country's history.

Let me bring two William Bennett quotes to your attention, and let them serve as a warning of where the Republicans could take us, if left unchecked:

"The threats we face today are both external and internal: external in that there are groups and states that want to violently attack the United States; internal in that there are ideologues who are attempting to use this opportunity to promulgate their agenda of "blame America first." Both threats come in various guises, but both threats stem from a hatred for the American ideals of freedom and equality or a misunderstanding of those ideals and the implementation of them. Our goals will be aimed at addressing the present threats so as to eradicate future terrorism and ideologies that support it. The central focus of our activity is public opinion. "

And:

"Our committee will model itself on organizations such as the former Committee on the Present Danger and the Committee for a Free World. AVOT will:

-- educate the public about the nature and threat of terrorist organizations and states;

-- educate the public about the nature and threat of radical Islamism;

-- help articulate American ideals in schools and on campuses;

-- support democratic patriotism when it is questioned; and

-- take to task those groups and individuals who fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the war we are facing."

(Both quotes from "An Open Letter From William Bennett, TO: Interested Parties FR: William J. Bennett, Chairman RE: Americans for Victory Over Terrorism (AVOT), a project of EMPOWER.org DATE: March 12, 2002")

If the Democratic Party does not recognize the echoes of infamous history in Bennett's words, then there is no hope for us all. There was another time when people hid behind flags and accused others of being unpatriotic, and many on the right wing look back on that period as a Golden Age. But it was not a Golden Age by any means, despite how the right wing might like to eulogize. It was one of the darkest periods of our country's history, and we would be wise to prevent it from ever happening again.

Additionally, if the Democratic Party was willing to strike back against the perpetrators of 9/11 because we, as a country, were attacked first and it was a just cause, then how can we do no less when our patriotism and our party is attacked and dissent is under siege from the right?

Currently the Democratic Party is under attack by people who would push their extreme right-wing agenda through at all costs, whether the American people want it or not. Many of you have sat silent while the right wing has attacked the left wing without mercy and without any sense of fairness or concern for the truth. So I ask you all this question: Is the Democratic Party's survival and the liberal way of life not a just cause as well?

With the Patriot Act in place, there will be little defense for those of us who dare to speak out against the Bush Administration's policies, should organizations like Americans for Victory Over Terrorism ever receive any special help from those in power. The Bush Administration has already shown a love for power, partisanship, and pressure, so this is not an unreasonable situation to ponder. So I ask you, what will happen to us Angry Democrats when Bush's numbers finally go south -- as they are starting to do -- and the protests start getting louder and louder, if the Democratic Party is still on the sidelines? I think you already know the answer to that question.

Are we, as a party, going to allow such groups as Americans for Victory Over Terrorism to control the direction of discourse on today's campuses and in the media without a Democratic alternative? I say to you all, your answer should be a resounding NO! Those who hide behind the flag are often the worst offenders of Freedom, and they must be countered by truth and rational discourse, never censorship.

So far no one is speaking out on our side except for some of the old standby organizations such as NOW and the NAACP, and I would like to personally thank all the groups on the left that have stood up to the Bush agenda so far. However, it is time for the membership in the Democratic Party to organize new grassroots organizations specifically formed to counter the right-wing Think Tank blitzkrieg every where it appears. You will find us Angry Democrats who refuse to "get over it" willing to help you in your fights as well. The assistance will not be one-sided. The right wing feverishly supports their organizations, and I ask you to do the same. Please read our letters, emails, and answer our calls for help. Assist us in our fight against the incompetent Bush Regime before it is too late.

Groups like Americans for Victory Over Terrorism will be controlling the future direction of the country, unless you step up to the plate and form similar groups. Send forth skilled spokesmen and women to counter them with the truth that it is American to keep an open mind, to disagree with one's leaders, and that patriotism is not defined by having a flag in your front yard or stuck to your bumper.

These days when I look at the flag, I don't see the freedom for which it once stood, instead I see a jingoistic symbol being pushed to sell products on TV, some of them even enhanced by Bush's image and voice. The war is even being pushed with the same crass commercialism. The flag is being used, or rather abused, as being the badge of a "Real American." Don't you dare be caught without one, people might talk, and who knows what they might say behind your back. It is easy to wave a flag and yell "freedom" at the top of your lungs, but it is a bit harder to actually understand the real meaning of the word.

Was it hard to take those flag pins off your chest? My mistake, some of you are still wearing them. Did the Republicans guilt you into wearing a cheap pin to prove your patriotism? Did they also make you say a loyalty oath before you could put one on, just to prove you were a "Real American"? Oh well - maybe next time they will. I am sure there will be some Democrats who would not argue. Maybe if you ask them nicely, they will give you a uniform to wear, as well, so everyone can know which side of the war you are on.

The Bush Administration is not sacred, and Bush is not the "chosen one," despite what some of his supporters and staff members are now whispering to reporters in the background. There is no need to be "with him or against him" as a member of Congress, and to think it might even be implied by the daily spin issuing from Ari Fleischer's mouth is a true sign of the depth to which this Administration has sunk.

Why are so many of you Senators and Representatives afraid to question Bush? I'll tell you why. The reason is because the Bush Administration is pushing every political action and item on their unmandated agenda as an action supporting Bush's War on Terrorism, and you are afraid of losing in the coming elections because of being viewed as being unpatriotic or weak on terror. They've attacked any questioning of Bush's policies with a McCarthyistic scolding of one's loyalty to this country, and you've sat silent and let them do it instead of calling them on it.

At every opportunity, the right drills into the American public the idea that we must support Bush and to do otherwise would be unpatriotic, yet they never pulled behind Clinton when he needed them to pass anti-terror bills or to support him in his military actions. Instead he got threats from Jesse Helms and open contempt from Trent Lott. I understand we are a party of principles, but there is principle in standing up for what is right when we have an Administration that gets so much wrong.

The poll numbers have you all scared, which is an embarrassment to any Democrat that has stood by the party through thick and thin, defending its leadership against attacks from the Greens for being just as bad as the Republicans. To base your policies on an emotionally rigged game is short sighted and paints the Democrats as being men and women of no ideals, other than those popular at the moment.

Maybe I'm being too hard on the Democrats in Congress. The Democratic Party has not been totally quiet about the Bush Doctrine and the crackdown on dissent at home. Quite a few Democrats have spoken out, but I haven't caught everyone's names, so instead of possibly missing someone, I will just compliment the Angry Democrats as a group for standing up for our democratic ideals of free speech and dissent during a time of being told to shut up, lest people think you support terrorism. You shame the sleeping Democrats each time you put yourself on the line to halt this encroachment on our liberties with your words and deeds.

But the fact remains, Bush and his supporters have been playing a game with you, and it is about time you started playing your own game, or you might as well start calling yourselves Republicans. Many of you are already being called Democrats In Name Only behind your backs. In fact, some of you have been so busy complimenting Bush that you have been unable to hear the gasps of astonishment and cries of rage coming from your supporters.

From out of one side of their mouth, the Republicans spew overheated rhetoric about how we need to put aside partisan politics and support Bush during this war, while out of the other side of their mouth they dare to turn anything and everything on their partisan agenda into an item necessary to support the war effort.

There once was a popular game on the Internet called "6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon," in which the object of the game was to try to link any subject you could think of back to Kevin Bacon within six steps. Many of the players would go to ridiculously creative lengths to connect Bacon to the most outlandish subjects. Bush has been playing a similar game with the Democrats in Congress.

First everything was connected to his tax breaks, a game Bush still finds time to play in the midst of his war occasionally. These days, however, Bush is playing a game of degrees in which every policy and every item on his agenda is connected to supporting the War on Terrorism within a few steps. By the Bush Administration's own actions, the war has become a political issue, and it is about time the Democratic Party realizes this and stops pretending otherwise.

I would like you to start playing a different game, it is called "2 Degrees of Bush," and in that game you attempt to find out how every Bush policy is linked back to his interests in the energy sector, instead of terrorism. If Bush is going to attempt to link everything under the sun to his War on Terror, then the only way to counter his strategy is to link those items right back to energy. If not, you will always be on the defensive. Remember, turnabout is fair play in politics.

If you don't know all the shady connections between Bush's War and his energy interests, then I suggest you do a little digging on the Internet. The information is readily available with any of the popular Web search engines. Just enter in "Bush", "oil", and "pipeline" and run a search. When you are equipped with the facts, "1 Degree of Bush" will be easy for every Democrat to play because each and every one of his policies really does feed back to those same energy interests that put him in the White House, instead of Vice-President Gore.

But to be able to fight off the Republican Party's attacks, the Democratic Party is going to have to stand up straight and finally confront the right. And to be able to accomplish that goal, the Democratic Party is going to have to stand for something again. War was declared upon the left wing a long time ago by the right wing -- a Cultural War. The right wing has been attacking all of us on the left for the last 20 years. When will it be time to finally take off the gloves?

By letting the right walk all over the Democratic Party for the past 20 years, those of you who have placated them instead of standing up for us have helped to make the Democratic Party an embarrassment, by your refusal to argue for the party's ideals. Instead of seeing some of you fight for your party's beliefs, I've seen the Democratic Party as a whole move more and more to the right. It is time to put the breaks on more than just the Bush Doctrine, it is time to stop moving to the right or else the Democratic Party will look just like moderate Republicans, and in that case I will be voting with a third party, and so will many other Democrats I know.

You are running out of time because of the way you have been handling politics as a group since the Selection and Post-9/11. Pundits call you gutless and spineless, and it is getting harder and harder for the Democrats I know and sympathize with to defend you from their attacks. But that is not our fault. It is hard to stand up for a Democrat in Republican's clothing if you are one of the Democratic proud. Remember, Vice-President Gore won the popular vote. Remember that; it seems to have slipped some of your minds. There are a lot of Angry Democrats who voted for Gore who have been feeling ignored in your rush to embrace Bush. Please listen to them! Please listen to us!

There are many of us Angry Democrats out there, if you just would look for us. Do not be fooled by Bush's poll numbers. Our voices are growing by the day with each hubristic action the Bush Administration makes, and countless Anti-Bush sites have been established on the Internet, despite Cheney's attempts to buy all the Anti-Bush domain names in existence. Yet, for the most part, you have ignored them. We are putting our lives on the line by speaking out under the Patriot Act, and it is time you join us. Reach out -- we are your supporters, not the Republicans.

People will not vote for pseudo-Republicans in Nov. 2002 if they are looking for a hawkish politician - they'll vote for the real thing, a Republican hawk instead of a Democrat with Republican tendencies. Why vote for half of a hawk when you can get the whole thing? It is time to stand for something else than whatever is politically safe. You will lose to them if you act like them.

Protests are taking root, and soon Bush will try to link "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" to terrorism. Moves have already been made to connect the Anti-Globalization Movement to terrorism, so this leap of logic is not illogical. Wherever there are protests against Bush or his war, I urge you to join them. With the Democratic Party's support, the Protest Movement will only grow.

You've shown your support for tracking down Osama bin Laden to the American people, which should still continue. However, while you have been supporting Bush's War on Terror, he has moved on and discarded the original goal and set his sights on Iraq, so he can finish his Father's work.

It is time for the Democratic Leadership to realize its base is not the middle leaning to the right, or else you will start to lose those of us who are still proud to call ourselves liberals and progressives, despite the insults thrown at us by the right wing. "Liberal" is not a scatological term and it is time the Democratic Party accepts it back into its proper place once again - in its heart and soul. It is time for the Democratic Party to reach out for its base, and that base does not love war or Bush.

In the name of world peace, I urge you to pick up a protest sign now and join us on the front lines. We have been waiting on you for a very long time now.

What is the Democratic Doctrine?

"I do know I'm ready for the job. And, if not, that's just the way it goes." — George W. Bush, Aug. 21, 2000

Ever since 9/11 -- and for some of us, since we first heard Bush announce his candidacy -- the American people have been in a state of perpetual fear and the only solution offered to them as a way out was the Bush Doctrine, a statement of such galling, school-yard bullying it has been hard to accept as being realistic from the very start. Without any life vest, the public reached out for the first thing they thought would keep them afloat. Without an alternative being offered by the Democratic Leadership, they grabbed onto the Bush Doctrine for dear life, callous to the fates of the innocent civilians of Afghanistan who would pay with their lives, simply by being born in the wrong country and at the wrong time.

But there is a way out from both the troubles abroad and at home, but it is not going to be Bush who will lead this country to sanity. It is the Democratic Party which will rise to the occasion. It is time for the Democratic Doctrine.

What is the Democratic Doctrine? Well, just like Bush's Doctrine, it is simple and easy to remember - peace and prosperity, that is the Democratic Doctrine, not death and destruction, like the Bush Doctrine. We had peace and prosperity not so long ago.

If you are having trouble remembering what peace and prosperity is like, in the midst of an illegal Bush regime, then just ask President Clinton or Vice-President Gore. I'm sure they will be happy to remind you of what it was like, and maybe, if you ask nicely, they will remind Resident Bush and the American people too.

It is now clear to me that the days of Clinton-smashing are drawing to a close before our very eyes. Everywhere I look in the media, commentators are calling the Bush Administration's Mideast policy by such unflattering terms as "failure" and "embarrassment." Bush is finally being called on his actions, or rather, his inaction in the Mideast. It is his actions people are appalled over now, not President Clinton's past actions. One day soon, Bush's Mideast policy crisis will be known as the Great Bush Failure, and that will make anything Clinton did in his private life insignificant in comparison, even to the right wing.

Bush has made an embarrassment of the U.S. on the world's stage, and by your conspicuous silence, you are helping him do it. We have all of our diplomatic credibility as a nation, and after all these years of finger pointing at President Clinton, it is now time to point right back at the man who is directly to blame for our foreign policy nightmare.

Stand up for Peace and return us to Prosperity. Reject the Bush Doctrine and the terror it brings the world, both abroad and at home. This does not mean you have to be unpatriotic or weak on terrorism, but it does mean you need to envision an alternative to the Bush Doctrine.

Close your left flank, and embrace your base again, embrace those who dare to think differently than the so-called majority the supports Bush, embrace those the right attacks. It is time to stop turning the other cheek. The Republican Party keeps on slapping you and you keep on asking for more. Stand up for the people who voted for you. Support us; we are getting tired of supporting you while you support Bush and his way of death.

George W. Bush, just like his father before him, lacks the "vision thing." Present a vision of the future to the supporters of your party, the citizens of this nation, and the people of the world. Save us with a Democratic Doctrine of Peace and Prosperity. Save us from the Bush Doctrine.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/02/04/19_doctrine2.html

[Bandit]

1. I like your thought process but I wasn't prepared to read a book

Long long long long. But very well stated.

[Khephra]

2. Yeah, it was long winded

That's why I don't write as much as I should. I have a problem with brevity.

[Khephra]

5. At that time a lot wasn't being said

yeah, I'd do it again in at least half of the space.

The main point is that I've held certain opinons since before it was common opinion.

[LuminousX]

3. Deanie?

I thought you were a Buffy-ista. You were the person I relied upon to keep me informed with stories like this (http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1059479741556).

[Rose Siding]

4. It would be a cinch

that the writer of this piece would recognize the potential of the Dean campaign.

Good stuff. Thanks for the reminders and the encouragement.

[Khephra]

6. Isn't it nice that the whole

=repub lite= thing was spelled out so long ago?

[Khephra]

7. kick

.

[Rose Siding]

8. kick

:kick:

[Tinoire]

9. Book-marked to read tonight.

Anything you write I take seriously!

Kick