Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Bush Doctrine
Self | 9/12/2008 | Various

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.[1] 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.[2][3][4] 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.[5]"

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.[6]

and also,

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.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: bias; bushdoctrine; chucklestheclown; gibsonpalin; media; palin; palinmania; sarah; sarahpalin; vp
I am sure the media will continue to try to make Palin look unqualified based on these types of lame 'gotch ya' questions. But it won't work. Palin is very poised and intelligent and clearly knows how to handle herself. Besides, Obama also stumbled over the same term (Bush Doctrine) during the Democratic debates.
1 posted on 09/12/2008 6:41:58 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Bill Kristol broke it down here. With quotes, including some from Gibson himself stating different meanings.
2 posted on 09/12/2008 6:43:48 AM PDT by Jibaholic ("Those people who are not ruled by God will be ruled by tyrants." --William Penn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

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.


3 posted on 09/12/2008 6:45:56 AM PDT by DogBarkTree (That sharp pain to the LibRat's groin is called the Palin Effect.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jibaholic
Bill Kristol broke it down here. With quotes, including some from Gibson himself stating different meanings.

And the last time I checked, there were still 50 states in the union. I have yet to see the media debate that.

4 posted on 09/12/2008 6:46:53 AM PDT by Always Right (Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

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?”


5 posted on 09/12/2008 6:47:51 AM PDT by silverleaf (Fasten your seat belts- it's going to be a BUMPY ride.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Rudy Guilianai on Morning Joe and his morning ho earlier had a great take on the "bush doctrine this moring "there are at least five different meanings", also he went on to say that the topic had come up with five of his friends "all high powered lawyers and only two got it right."

Just more of the DBM trying to destroy conservatives especially Sarah.

6 posted on 09/12/2008 6:48:43 AM PDT by rodguy911 (LAND OF THE FREE BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE--GO SARACUDA !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

BTTT


7 posted on 09/12/2008 6:48:49 AM PDT by snowrip (Liberal? YOU ARE A SOCIALIST WITH NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

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....


8 posted on 09/12/2008 6:50:14 AM PDT by SomeCallMeTim ( When you find yourself going through Hell, keep going!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

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.


9 posted on 09/12/2008 6:51:02 AM PDT by Thane_Banquo (You can put lipstick on a donkey, but it's still just a jackass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

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.

Mission accomplished.


10 posted on 09/12/2008 6:51:27 AM PDT by Senator Goldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
AND BTW: Charlie Gibson did not know what the Bush Doctrine is.... he was embarrassed to look at his producers notes when Gov. Palin through it back at him. WHAT A MAROON.
11 posted on 09/12/2008 6:52:32 AM PDT by 11th Commandment (Obama- new socialism for a new generation that never heard of Hitler, Stalin and Mao)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

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!


12 posted on 09/12/2008 6:53:31 AM PDT by HD1200
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
The American public could care less about what Sarah Palin (the next Vice President of The United States) knows, or doesn't know, about "The Bush Doctrine" .

The American public wants an intelligent, honest, pro American, pro family, God fearing person, as Vice President.

They will get one.

13 posted on 09/12/2008 6:54:32 AM PDT by G.Mason (Duty, Honor, Country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Id like to see the Bush Doctrine applied to this.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/9/12/034/14783/6#c6

14 posted on 09/12/2008 6:54:46 AM PDT by DogBarkTree (That sharp pain to the LibRat's groin is called the Palin Effect.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11th Commandment
WHAT A MAROON.

I thought he looked white.

15 posted on 09/12/2008 6:54:52 AM PDT by Always Right (Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 11th Commandment

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?


16 posted on 09/12/2008 6:56:06 AM PDT by rodguy911 (LAND OF THE FREE BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE--GO SARACUDA !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
I always thought that "...you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists." was the Bush doctrine.

Silly me.

17 posted on 09/12/2008 6:59:36 AM PDT by Roccus (Some day it'll all make sense.......................maybe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HD1200
every time I hear Sarah Palin speak or answer questions I am more &more impressedbyherspirit.knowledge.frankness.and trust in our creator.

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.

18 posted on 09/12/2008 7:01:37 AM PDT by rodguy911 (LAND OF THE FREE BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE--GO SARACUDA !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Norman B. Podhoretz's World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism gives a good, positive account of the Bush Doctrine.
19 posted on 09/12/2008 7:03:29 AM PDT by Blind Eye Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

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.


20 posted on 09/12/2008 7:14:40 AM PDT by al_c (Avoid the consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

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.


thought she handled the discussion of the “Bush doctrine” fine. In fact, if you use those two words together among foreign policy analysts, some will also ask for clarification because the Bush doctrine can also mean “if you’re not with us you’re against us” going back to his 9/20/2001 speech and it can also be broadly interpreted to mean a more muscular, unilateralist America in general. So asking for clarification was totally within her rights, to be sure that Gibson was talking about preemption doctrine. And once she got that part right, her answer was reasonable.

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 wasn’t then.

As a final point in her defense, her convoluted answer about whether we should use force against Pakistan—which apparently frustrated Gibson—was the right way to answer the question because you don’t 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 candidates—their 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.


21 posted on 09/12/2008 7:16:51 AM PDT by elc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: al_c

Gibson’s a chump.

He’s a good friend of Geraldo Rivera’s - that says it all!


22 posted on 09/12/2008 7:21:52 AM PDT by Bitsy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Roccus
I think that about sums it up. However, I suspect that George Bush is the last president of the US that will go to war, preemptively, to protect our country.
23 posted on 09/12/2008 7:32:25 AM PDT by ANGGAPO (Layte Gulf Beach Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

> 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.


24 posted on 09/12/2008 9:42:24 AM PDT by Revenge of Sith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson