Democrats must oppose the "Bush* Doctrine" and the terrorism it inspires

[Q]

- What is the Bush* Doctrine? It's about 'usable' nuclear weapons, offensive weapons in space and waging 'preemptive', aggressive war against countries that may or may not pose a real threat to the United States. It's about giving ONE MAN the power to declare and wage war. The Bush* Doctrine of aggressive war is making the world a more dangerous place and is doing more to invite terrorism than prevent it.

- Bush* recently said in response to the attacks in Istanbul that he was 'creating the conditions for peace to prevail'. But I submit that he is creating the conditions for terrorism to prevail. His policies are perpetuating a cycle of violence that will never end. Perhaps that's what he wants and needs in order to keep his dictatorial powers?

- Our nation can fight terrorism without bombing the world back into the ice age. We can do it without causing more terrorism and breeding a new generation of terrorists seeking revenge for Bush's* indiscriminate killing of their families and bombing of their communities.

- Democrats must propose a new way to fight terrorism that includes using law enforcement instead of bombs and addresses the 'root cause' of terrorism. But first we need to forcefully reject the Bush* Doctrine and separate ourselves from his insanity.


--------------------------------------------

Bush's Floundering Doctrine
By Nat Parry
September 3, 2003
Excerpts:

"Our only goal, our only option, is total victory in the war on terror, and this nation will press on to victory," Bush told the American Legion convention in St. Louis on Aug. 26, reiterating his strategy of waging war against any country or group that he says supports – or is likely to support – terrorism. Bush's intransigence in the face of the Iraqi chaos also is transforming Election 2004 into a history-turning referendum that could define what kind of nation the United States will be and what the future of the world will look like. Bush is leaving little doubt that his vision is one of endless warfare in which Washington will pick out nations that are judged threats to U.S. security and attack them.

With Churchillian rhetorical flourishes, Bush's speech painted the world in black and white, with no sense of the gray that comes with indiscriminate killing whether from suicide bombers or from high-explosive rockets fired from the sky. In Bush's view, his side is all good, the other side is all bad, and there is no ambiguity. Bush’s reference to "total victory" over terrorism also suggests that he is still not listening to many national security analysts who warn that it is no more possible to eradicate "terrorism" – an ill-defined concept throughout history – than it is to eliminate crime or drug use. To even approach "total victory" would require draconian actions carried out by something akin to a permanent worldwide police state, which might only generate more desperation and more terrorism.

An alternate approach, some analysts say, would stress a combination of effective police action, recognition that some legitimate grievances are driving young people to violent action, and a thoughtful strategy to address root causes of terrorism, from poverty to political injustice. There also is a need for straight talk to the American people about how U.S. sacrifice, including cutting energy consumption, could help. But Bush made clear in his Aug. 26 speech that he sees war as the primary option. His language was intentionally bellicose, almost defiant in the face of critics who have called for a mid-course correction in U.S. policy in Iraq.

"We’ve adopted a new strategy for a new kind of war," Bush said. "We will not wait for known enemies to strike us again. We will strike them in their camps or caves or wherever they hide, before they can hit more of our cities and kill more of our citizens. … No matter how long it takes, we will bring to justice those who plot against America."

--- http://www.consortiumnews.com/

------------------------------------------------

[ninkasi]

1. I know, Q...

Bush and his gang are the scariest bunch I've ever seen in power, and FDR was president when I was born. They seemed to have gotten drunk on power, and this war on terra Bush is obsessed with is going to have the same success as the other one, the War on Drugs.

Neither will ever work. They both cause more hatred, more violence, more bloodshed, and more loss of life than any halfway sensible plan would take. Not to mention the huge sums of money they both consume; that's money that, in my humble opinion, could be used to make the world a better place, ease poverty, feed the hungry, provide decent housing...it's a long list.

I will always oppose them, and what they stand for.

[Q]

2. How about some input on this idea?

- The 'Bush* Doctrine' has proven to be an utter failure. Violence around the world is escalating as Bush* grows more belligerent and arrogant with his unlimited power.

- Yet...the sponsors of terrorism go unheeded and are still at large. Saudi has been directly connected to the finacing of terrorism and they remain unexamined because they're friends of the Bush family.

- Democrats need to speak much LOUDER on this issue. We should say in no uncertain terms that Bush* is creating more terrorism than he is preventing. That his 'win at any cost' polcies are dangerous.

[Tellurian]

3. Make a movie entitled: "BUSHWORLD"

It's the fastest way to get the point accross uninterrupted, without having to take flak everyday for wanting to have a planet left at the end of of it all...

Or, create an amendment for creation of a CO-President, whose job description is representing the welfare of the Planet Earth...

A Tellurian President...yeah, thats the ticket!

[dawgman]

8. our esteemed leaders at the DLC need to speak...period

they have been nearly utterly silent on the issues of war and terror...other than rubber stamping the IWR and patriot acts as well as expanding the powers granted in the PA every few weeks.

[Malva Zebrina]

4. Besides being insane

this article points out how utterly, hopelessly insane he is.

Sure he is bellicose, bloviating bully--that is what appeals to the vengeful barbarians who support killing on the word of a "religious" man who a god speaks to--it is how he has acted all of his life and what has gotten him into the White House when he, in his bellicosity, refused to count all the votes and went whining to the Supreme Court, who he knew, and who everyone but the most naive knew, would illegally find in his favor and propel him into the oval office.

We’ve adopted a new strategy for a new kind of war," Bush said. "We will not wait for known enemies to strike us again. We will strike them in their camps or caves or wherever they hide, before they can hit more of our cities and kill more of our citizens. … No matter how long it takes, we will bring to justice those who plot against America."

This is just insane lying--and further, he failed to get Osama who was hiding in a cave or a camp--and further we still have no evidence, no plain evidence, that Osama was the culprit behind 9-11 I would prefer to have irrefutable evidence before going off half cocked killing thousands of people and taking over their country and have never been convinced that it was Bin Laden who did 9-11.

This bloviating of a less than intelligent man, should alert every person who values this country and it's ideals and they should be spurred on to challenge him on every single lie he tells within a 24 hour period 24-7----he is accusing and pretending to know who it was that struck us and "will strike us again" but refuses to release any documents to the investigative committee. No one calls him on it.

[Tellurian]

7. No, He's not Lying..

" Bush said. "We will not wait for known enemies to strike us again. We will strike them in their camps or caves or wherever they hide, before they can hit more of our cities and kill more of our citizens. …

No matter how long it takes, we will bring to justice those who plot against America."

"This is just insane lying--"

He's talking about here.

Why do you think he smiles after every statement like that?

[jmaier]

5. Deemphasize the Military

The Bush doctrine against "terror" has two several major weaknesses:

1) it emphasizes a military rather than law enfocement, counter-terrorism response and

2) it is too doctrinately unilateral.

These underpinnings lead to ill-advised attacks against states because we have that is what the military is best suited for and we have the undisputed power to attempt to do that alone.

A law enforcement/counterterrorism approach requires a patient, long-term, steady battle against 'shadow' forces that cannot be successful with alliances and close cooperation with nations, many of whom, are not are ardent fans.

I'd argue that the Bush Doctrine is destined to fail because we do not have the might or even the national willingness to go to war against ALL the states we feel look the other way at the terrorists in their midst. And, those wars won't kill the terrorists, they'll just kill governments and innocent bystanders. The terrorists will just keep moving on. We can alienate all of friends faster than we can kill all of our enemies.

Frankly, the less flashy, more tedious alliances approach of Wesley Clark, and others, is the best strategy.

[newyawker99]

9. Hi jmaier!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Q]

12. War has been Bush's* ONLY option...

...since he took the opportunity to use the death of 3000 on 9-11 to put our nation on a permanent wartime footing and crown himself King.

- The Bushies are too arrogant to admit they're wrong. Isn't it up to the opposition to tell him and come up with other options?

[avenis22]

16. response

tell me what the solution is. you seem to know.

[Q]

23. The solution?

- The first thing we must do is stop breeding more terrorists by killing innocents. This means rejecting the Bush* Doctrine and the validity of the Iraq invasion itself. We have no legal right to be there and the continual 'teach them a lesson' bombing is making the US look like tyrants and not 'liberators'. Bush* has already killed thousands of innocent Iraqis and hundreds of American soldiers.

- In rejecting the Bush* Doctine we must make it clear that we won't accept his attacking the next country on the 'axis of evil' list. That is...his 'blank check' must be canceled.

[sangh0]

6. Democrats DO oppose the "Bush* Doctrine" and the terrorism it inspires

you just haven't been paying attention to what each and every* Dem candidate is saying on a daily basis



* except Lieberman

[Q]

10. We've danced this dance before...

- We all know that it does little good for JUST the Democratic candidates to speak up about this issue. They can too easily be dismissed as 'partisan' during campaign season.

- And it's unfair to leave it up to Byrd and Kennedy to oppose this war on sanity.

- The point is we must OPPOSE the Bush* Doctrine as a PARTY and speak as one voice on this issue.

[sangh0]

11. And yet, you keep ignoring the facts

For example:

We all know that it does little good for JUST the Democratic candidates to speak up about this issue. They can too easily be dismissed as 'partisan' during campaign season.

And yet, you keep calling for them to "speak out and oppose". I guess you're into futile action.

And it's unfair to leave it up to Byrd and Kennedy to oppose this war on sanity.

You left out Nadler, Rangel, Schumer, Leahy, and the scores of other Dems who have spoken out daily.

The point is we must OPPOSE the Bush* Doctrine as a PARTY and speak as one voice on this issue.

Ja, mein Fuhrer!

[Q]

13. Reretort

- No...I'm calling for the DEMOCRATIC PARTY to speak up and oppose the Bush* Doctrine.

- I didn't 'leave out' anyone. I was quite clear in what I'm calling for:

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS TO OPPOSE THE BUSH* DOCTRINE.

- What is it about my statement that you don't understand? Once again...you argue semantics instead of participating in a dialogue.

- On edit: This issue may be clear to you...but it's not to the American people. Why? Because the American media has intentionally distorted the issue to make it appear as if the 'Doctrine' has bipartisan support.

[sangh0]

15. They do

No...I'm calling for the DEMOCRATIC PARTY to speak up and oppose the Bush* Doctrine.

They do this every day.

I didn't 'leave out' anyone. I was quite clear in what I'm calling for:

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS TO OPPOSE THE BUSH* DOCTRINE.

And that's what you left out. The DEMOCRATIC PARTY DOES OPPOSE THE BUSH* DOCTRINE (Now I'm sure you're convinced since I posted in all-caps, a sure-fire means of persuasion)

What is it about my statement that you don't understand? Once again...you argue semantics instead of participating in a dialogue.

I understand you statement. I just happen to know that you're wrong. Instead of defending your undefendable accusations, you want to pretend there's a misunderstanding.

On edit: This issue may be clear to you...but it's not to the American people. Why? Because the American media has intentionally distorted the issue to make it appear as if the 'Doctrine' has bipartisan support.

And yet, you continue to fall for the media's bullshit, and you assume that the Democratic Party does support the Bush* Doctrine. How about fighting the media's lies, instead of repeating them?

[HFishbine]

17. Wrong

The point was that we should speak with one voice (don't know why you poo-poohed that). It's clear, despite what you might think, that democrats are not united in rejection of the Bush doctrine. When dems (including presidential candidates) vote to let Bush have his war, and then vote to continue its funding, that is not opposition, that's enabling.

[sangh0]

18. Well that convinced me

HF says it's not happening, so all those speeches, all those news reports, all those TV interviews and debatess, and all those position papers must have been a dream.

[Cocoa]

14. they do, constantly

the "as a party" stuff is a red herring, I don't know what that means, I don't know why it's so important to hear Terry McAuliffe talking about foreign policy.

But the dem are constantly pointing out the wrongness of Bush's foreign policy, even people that are working with him like Joe Biden are questioning the foundations of the policy, especially regarding N. Korea.

You might not like the dems foreign policy, which is basically Clinton's, but you can't say they're not opposing Bush's.

[rucky]

19. "Preemptive War" needs to be a regular part of our vocabulary

the preemptive war in iraq, etc.

I've only seen it being debated on the level it should be among France & the UN.

[sangh0]

20. "Pre-emptive war" HAS been a regular part of our vocabulary

It's "preventative war" that's new.

[Q]

22. More contortions.

- Call it preemptive or preventative...Bush's* policy of attacking and occupying countries that pose NO verifiable threat to the US is very new.

- As is his threatening non-nuclear countries with nuclear strikes.

[Q]

21. Why is the 'as a party' stuff a 'red herring'?

- Tell that to the Republican party. That's exactly why THEY have been so successful at framing the debate. If Frist or Lott makes a statement...it's a given fact that it's accepted as their PARTY position.

- They may be 'pointing out' flaws in Bush's* foreign policy...but few of them are specifically against the 'doctrine' of aggressive war. If you look at the DNC/DLC websites...there's no mention of Bush* lying to take this country to war OR his policy of preemptive strikes.

- Do the Dems HAVE a foreign policy? Bush's foreign policy is pissing the whole world off and actually CAUSING terrorism. This is what the Dems MUST oppose in no uncertain terms. What we have now is a series of mixed messages and a few Democrats speaking out and being ignored by the party bosses.

[Tellurian]

24. Well Then...

What we have now is a series of mixed messages and a few Democrats speaking out and being ignored by the party bosses.

The Dems have to take the policies that are being ignored to the streets. They should have been holding rallys in their Home States all along to thwart the legislation from passage.

Heh- If Bush has plans of creating The Fourth Reich, they may be saving their jobs in the process.