Skip to comments.Wikipedia: Bush Doctrine = "various related foreign policy principles" [LISTS AT LEAST FOUR]
Posted on 09/11/2008 5:35:57 PM PDT by KayEyeDoubleDee
The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks.
1) The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan.Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002.
2) Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq),
3) a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism, and
4) a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.
I hope this lets everyone take a deep breath and be ready to ask your liberal friends to explain "The Bush Doctrine" in their own words .
Exactly! Gibson wasn’t specific and he should have been.
I wonder what Charlie thinks the “Bush Doctrine” is?
And When McCain is President he will have a McCain Doctrine, or, God forbid, the Oabama Doctrine
That’s curious, let’s see a list of the coaltion again...wasn’t it even larger in numbers of countries that supported overthrowing Saddam as the coaltion that supported in removing him from Kuwait on his father’s watch?
I thought Sarah finessed the question very well and stayed clear away from fully embracing it, as Gibson defined it.
In any event, the Bush Doctrine is broad and doesn't just mean 'go and invade'.
Wecome to FR newby... Rats abandon ships. This ship is not sinking. Abandon the SS Obama out for a three hour cruse. Your damned candidate is Gilligan.
Question: Are folks able to go in to Wikepedia and edit postings?
"Used" by whom? Although I am very familiar with the "foreign policy principles," this is the first time that I ever heard anyone refer to them, individually or collectively, as the "Bush Doctrine."
I meant their ship is sinking!! LOL
Exactly. That is the point.
You've probably read some of those "the sky is falling and it's all because she didn't know what the Bush Doctrine is and everybody knows what the Bush Doctrine is and we're all going to die..." posts in some of the other threads. This thread is an attempt to cool that fever. Hopefully it will.
I'm sure you did but, as you certainly now understand, we take no prisoners here. LOL
Prisoners are casualties in waiting.
2003 Iraq colaition: 38 countries originally, now at 18.
Britain offered the largest contribution.
So nice to see important information found by a freeper, that totally debunks the latest attack on Palin, moved to “personal” as if it was some cheeseball vanity.
Maybe it wasn’t breaking news material, but now it will just wither away...
Yeah, I've more or less given up trying to fight the Mods [however many of them there are].
I put so much work into these posts, and then they get deleted or moved around by Mods who don't know their posteriors from a hole in the ground.
I'm just about at the point now where I want to get my own blog and say goodbye to FreeRepublic for good.
It's really, really depressing when the Mods are so clueless about what's important and what isn't.
Yes they are. I expect some leftie will edit that Wiki entry by tomorrow to make it agree with Charlie Gibson's misrepresentation of the term "Bush Doctrine".
It happens. I spent the day cutting and pasting comments from long term posters and donors to Democrat Underground, who were saying outrageous things about 9-11. (F*** 9-11, inside job, yada yada). These were not driveby noobs to that site, these were regulars, longtimers etc
I did so in the context of “these were the same types the MSM was getting the latest Palin rumors from. It really made DU look horrible...but it was pulled with a “no thanks” comment from the mod on duty.
Hey, its their site, but IMHO your post is much more valuable than:
“Former Scout Leader Pleads Guilty To Sex Charges” or some NFL quarterback being injured.
Loved your work on “Pig-gate”-lol Don’t give up!
"Would that be an African or a European swallow?" [quoting from memory]
I was really surprised to find that anyone thought that a blunder. I thought it was really deft. She wasn’t going to let him hang “BUSH” on her, which was all he wanted to do. Define the doctrine, and I’ll tell you whether I agree with it. Perfect.
He was angling for preemptive war, the fish wouldn’t take the bait.
This is the only place I have seen the correct report on Gov. Palin’s answer to Gibson’s question:
“Do you agree with the Bush doctrine? PALIN: In what respect, Charlie? “
She asked because the Doctrine is not simply about pre-emptive strikes....of course, Gibson doesn’t know that and apparently neither do any of the left-wing blogs.
“1) The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan.”
This is the actual Bush Doctrine. The remaining three points are hardly unique to Bush.
“the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate”
This has been U.S. policy since Jefferson went after the Barbary pirates. Mexico did not directly provoke us, we thought Spain attacked us but they didn’t, Germany did not directly attack us before WWI, Germany did not attacke us before WWII, North Korea did not attack us before the Korean War, Vietnam in all likelihood did not attack us before that conflict. In fact, we have gone to war because of direct provocation very few times. Japan comes to mind, as do the Confederate States and Great Britain twice. Any others?
“3) a policy of supporting democracy around the world”
At least since Wilson’s quixotic Fourteen Points, this has been our official policy. Bush’s use of it is an updating of Wilsonianism and the Truman Doctrine.
“4) a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way”
This depends on how one defines “unilateral.” To libs, I suppose it means giving nebulous “world opinion” the equivalent of a UN security council veto. In point of fact, we now have, and always have had, allies. The only time I can think of when we allowed our allies to dictate our foreign policy was with Stalin at the end of WWII
In summary, whoever wrote this Wikipedia entry is ignorant.
Now Palin was smart enough to see Gibson trying to ask a loaded question filled with presumption and asked for clarification. Gibson then changed the question to simply, “What do you believe the Bush Doctrine is?” and Sarah saw the trap and yet still obliged to a certain extent. Her answer was spot-on but she is now on notice that the MSM will from here on out try “Gotcha!” questions relentlessly and she needs to stilletto it artfully back in their face.
Can you link to something showing this “official” Bush doctrine?
I didn’t have a chance to see the interview. Did she know any of them?
Well we still aren't exactly sure what she said - the version of the interview which ran at 6:30PM on World News Tonight was COMPLETELY different from the version of the interview which ran at 11:35PM on Nightline.
The 6:30PM was choppy and herky-jerky and amateur-ish-ly edited, whereas the version which ran at 11:35PM had an aggressive, rapid-fire flow to it.
I was very, very impressed with her performance in the 11:35PM version.
The only thing I didn't like about the 11:35PM version was that the McAmnesty people seem to be leaning hard on her to tow the party line on the myth of global warming, but you could tell that she was very uncomfortable with the idea of propagating that myth.
The Bush doctrine
In American foreign policy, a new motto: Don't ask. Tell
By Charles Krauthammer
February 26, 2001
America is no mere international citizen. It is the dominant power in the world, more dominant than any since Rome. Accordingly, America is in a position to reshape norms, alter expectations and create new realities. How? By unapologetic and implacable demonstrations of will.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.