She may have been closer to the mark than most pundits I see on TV.

It is Bush's world view that every country must bow before us and do exactly as they are told. When they do not, then we will act --- assuming they are not too big and powerful, of course.

The real Bush doctrine is that we reserve the right to commit acts of war against countries that have not harmed us in any way; this is simply doing as 30s Germany thought right to do.

So, to sum up; Bush's world-view is the same as the Bush Doctrine. We may kill anyone anywhere anytime becuase we are we.

Your question is should we discuss this madness as a country? Hell yes!

"... about the right to attack "preemptively" and am embrace of this "right" against countries for which there is no clear evidence of an actual "imminent" attack."

It should be "and an embrace" instead of "am".

(1) Actionable intelligence (2) about high-value terrorist targets and (3) the Pakistani president refuses to act.

This is a higher bar to clear than you imply.

-- DCLaw1

Perhaps you are correct that the bar is higher than the fellow to whom you write would have it. I have no opinion on that at this time.

I will say that the bar you outline is no real bar at all.

1) We had "actionable intelligence" that Iraq had WMD, was an Al-Qaeda sponsor, and would seek to destroy Israel among other nefarious deeds and intentions. These pieces of "intelligence" are easy to come by; just a word processor and an evil heart and you have it accomplished.

2) "High value targets"? Jebus, they are a dime a dozen. Fox News could make up a dozen in one news cycle and any administration could do better than that by far.

3) Some leader refuses to act? Do you mean some leader says the USA is lying and demands proof and we just attack as we did with Afghanistan? Not much of a bar there. The Taliban asked that we give evidence that Bin Laden (a national hero) was the mastermind of 9-11 we claimed. Bin Laden denied he was, even as he applauded the act itself. In fact, to this day we have never offered proof or evidence that would stand up in a fair court that he did the deed.

To sum up; a bad actor can appear to follow your "bar" and do as he or she pleases with very little interference from the hard-core anti-war types like myself, no matter how hard we try. I have watched the saga unfold for decades and I can guarantee you that any American president can get a war going if he wants one. (Americans seem to love war anyway)

So, if we have to assume that any standard, no matter how reasonably stated, will likely be abused and manipulated by a "bad actor" to perpetuate terrible things, then what's the point in expecting any standard at all? Is it just a waste of time to point out any differences in the stated positions of the candidates?

Your type of concern is a very easy one to express, but it is the opposite of constructive. ... -- DCLaw

The truth is a bitch ain't it? You miss the obvious way to prevent a "bad actor" president from starting any little war he wants. Follow the constitution which means that the pros and cons must be debated in public as the House of Representatives votes on the matter. This in not foolproof because fools are so ingenious at getting it wrong, but it would be far, far better that letting one man or woman decide.

Then you adopt the policy that we only fight after someone has attacked us. We fight only defensive wars. We do not use the CIA to control, intimidate, destabilize, or otherwise interfere with other nations. We do not allow economic acts of war. We do not drop bombs on wedding parties and kill women and children because the government of these unfortunates displeased us in some way.

Oh hell, I guess I went too far and asked for a foreign policy like that "kook" Ron Paul advocated. Damn, and like the founding fathers advocated. No way, eh?

But your "bar" will not work because it has not worked in the past. Perhaps the will of the whole nation as expressed through the House could hold us back from a policy of unadulterated murder. Just perhaps. (worth a shot, sport)

Before you get too worked up, you might want to realize that none of those aspirational policies you advocate matter, according to you, if the inevitable "bad actor" is in charge.

-- DCLaw1

I have to point out that I did outline a way to restrain the executive. He must get a declaration of war from congress before attacking another country. If he does not get a declaration of war before attacking another country, he is impeached, tried for treason, and executed. Then we execute all military men who conducted the illegal war. This should, of course, be policy well known be all in advance.

I comes down to asking yourself if you want a dictatorship (even if it has democratic trappings) or if you want the people to decide through the constitutionally mandated manner.

I just hate it when the lawyers in the group want to ignore the constitution. We have the spectacle of the Democratic Party unwilling to try Bush on many, many acts that meet the definition for impeachment. Until the leaders are made to obey the law; we will have a nation ruled by men rather than the law. You can make book on that.