Skip to comments.The Bush Doctrine
Posted on 09/12/2008 6:41:58 AM PDT by Always Right
The media is trying to make hay that Palin did not know what the Bush Doctrine was. Wikipedia is not a great source, but it does provide a consensus of sorts that tells us what terms mean. According to Wikipedia:
"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. 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. 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 supposed threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq), a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism, and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way. 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."
and Wikipedia further says:
The first usage of the term to refer to the policies of George W. Bush may have been when conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer used the term in February 2001 to refer to the president's unilateral approach to national missile defense.
These principles are sometimes referred to as the Bush Doctrine although the term is often used to describe other elements of Bush policy and is not universally recognized as the single concept."
What does this say about the Bush Doctrine???
1. It is a media created term.
2. The meaning changes over time.
3. The media also applies the term to 'other elements of Bush policy'.
4. The meaning is not universally recognized.
Sarah Palin was exactly correct to ask for clarification of what was meant. And she handled it very well despite the Obama talking points being put out by the media.
I’ll never claim to be an expert on anything but Id like to think I know more than the average bear. Did Obama know what the Bush Doctrine was before last night? I didnt. Sarah took the fire and shot back brilliantly.
And the last time I checked, there were still 50 states in the union. I have yet to see the media debate that.
Let’s get 100 Daily KOS’ers (equivalent political analysts to the drive by media) and let them each independently describe to us the “Bush Doctrine”
This question had all the gravitas of asking “So Mrs Palin, have you stopped neglecting your family yet?”
Just more of the DBM trying to destroy conservatives especially Sarah.
Yep... When I heard the interview, my first comment to my wife was,”Uh oh...she doesn’t know what it is”.
Then, when I heard Charlie try to define it... I yelled, “NO! That’s NOT what it is...”.
The “Bush Doctrine”... as I came to know it, was just what Wikipedia said..That any officially governed state or country that harbors and/or supports terrorist, will be treated as and enemy and dealt with accordingly.
It’s absolutely the correct, and ONLY way to deal with non-state terrorist.
Just for the record... my wife (who is more politically aware than >90% of women I know) had no clue what the “Bush Doctrine” was either....
What I love about this Bush Doctrine brouhaha is it totally puts to the lie Obama’s claim that McCain-Palin would be four more years of Bush.
The answer I’d give Gibson was that we were already in a state of war when Saddam signed a cease-fire in the first Gulf War, which allowed him to remain in office provided he complied with an inspection regiment.
Clinton failed to enforce the terms of the cease-fire, and Saddam flouted no less than 12 inspections. He also flouted 17 UN resolutions to comply.
Post 9/11, Bush enforced the cease-fire and his regime was changed. As for WMD’s, this action ensured he could never use or proliferate them to the constellation of islamic terror.
Everytime I hear Sarah Palin speak or answer questions I am more & more impressed by her spirit, knowledge, frankness, and trust in our Creator.
Sarah Palin: YOU GO GIRL!
The American public wants an intelligent, honest, pro American, pro family, God fearing person, as Vice President.
They will get one.
I thought he looked white.
I was never really a fan or on board with the DBM interview to begin with. The entire purpose of it was to derail her and McCain,and if nothing else to slow down their incredible momentum so why play into their mantra?
We all are!
However the DBM is intent on showing her to be a religious zealot and will turn and twist her faith to make her out to be a nut. The danger is that they can lie effectively enough to sway some voters.
I forget who it was on FNC last night but someone pointed out the importance of first impressions to novice voters who believe anything they read and never do the in-depth work to find the truth that is done at places like FR.
That was such an obvious trap. I had never heard the term used before either. I doubt Obama has ever heard it.
Gibson’s a chump.
I posted this in another thread, but it is Michael O’Hanlon’s review of her interview, including how she handled the Bush Doctrine question.
Also her speech yesterday about going over to defend us against those who committed the attacks of 9/11, to troops headed for Iraq, is also correct because in fact al Qaeda is in Iraq now, even if it wasnt then.
As a final point in her defense, her convoluted answer about whether we should use force against Pakistanwhich apparently frustrated Gibsonwas the right way to answer the question because you dont want to be more blunt than you have to be on this matter, given how American political leaders comments play in Pakistan (and often make the situation worse).
Where I had concerns about her interview is where I have concerns about all four of the candidatestheir support for admitting Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, apparently fairly soon. That is the right long-term goal but we need to let this thing cool. It is not a classic case of an irredentist or imperialistic state poising to gobble up the next neighbor; it is rather a dynamic of competitive great power behavior (more like that leading up to World War I, though not as serious) in which mutually provoking each other makes the situation worse rather than better. So count me as a contrarian against both tickets on this one, at least in terms of their apparent readiness to admit those two states to NATO in fairly short order.
Gibsons a chump.
He’s a good friend of Geraldo Rivera’s - that says it all!
> 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
That’s what Ed Koch considers to be the Bush Doctrine (which is his main reason for supporting Bush) with the quote taken from his September 20, 2001 address to Congress about 9-11.