18
   

What Exactly Is the 'Bush Doctrine'?

 
 
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 08:04 am
I know a lot will be said about Palin's answer to Charlie Gibson's question regarding "Bush Doctrine", so lets take a look....

Quote:
What Exactly Is the 'Bush Doctrine'?
It's being taken in some quarters as revelatory of inexperience that Sarah Palin sought clarification when ABC's Charlie Gibson asked her about the Bush Doctrine. To review, here is the passage from the transcript.


GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?



Gibson should of course have said in the first place what he understood the Bush Doctrine to be--and specified that he was asking a question about preemption. Palin was well within bounds to have asked him to be more specific. Because, as it happens, the doctrine has no universally acknowledged single meaning. Gibson himself in the past has defined the Bush Doctrine to mean "a promise that all terrorist organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated"--which is remarkably close to Palin's own answer.

Consider what a diversity of views on the meaning of the Bush Doctrine can be found simply within the archives of ABC News itself:

September 20, 2001
PETER JENNINGS: . . . Claire, the president said at one point, 'From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.' Should we be taking that as the Bush doctrine? CLAIRE SHIPMAN reporting: I think so, Peter,

September 21, 2001
CHARLIE GIBSON: The president in his speech last night, very forceful. Four out of five Americans watched it. Everybody gathered around the television set last night. The president issued a series of demands to the Taliban, already rejected. We'll get to that in a moment. He also outlined what is being called the Bush Doctrine, a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated.

September 21, 2001
CHARLIE GIBSON: Senator Daschle, let me start with you. People were looking for a Bush Doctrine. They may have found it when he said the war on terror will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped or defeated. That's pretty broad. Broader than you expected?

December 9, 2001
GEORGE WILL: The Bush doctrine holds that anyone who governs a territory is complicit in any terrorism that issues from that territory. That covers the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Second, the war on terrorism is indivisible, it's part of the Bush doctrine.

December 11, 2001
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Two years ago, September 1999, Bush gave his first speech when he was running about terrorism. And his first--had the first explanation of the Bush doctrine, that if you harbor a terrorist, you're going to be attacked. The Bush White House is putting this out, saying it shows that Bush was very prescient, but that was only one speech given in the campaign.

January 28, 2002
BOB WOODWARD: This is now the Bush Doctrine . . . , namely that if we're attacked by terrorists, we will not just go after those terrorists but the countries or the people who harbor them.

January 29, 2002
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: It was striking and significant that the president really expanded the Bush doctrine. If a nation builds a weapon of mass destruction--Iraq, Iran or North Korea--we will reserve the right to take out those weapons even if we're not attacked or even if there's not a threat.

March 19, 2004
TERRY MORAN: That was the Bush doctrine we just heard. On this one-year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, President Bush offered a very broad justification of American leadership in the world under him since 9/11. Not just since one year in Iraq. For American voters as an argument that the country is safer, but more as you point out, for the world, which has been divided by his leadership, that Iraq is knit, in his mind, very firmly into that war on terrorism. One omission which I believe will be noted around the world, he made no mention of the role of multilateral institutions, the UN and others, in this fight against terrorism. In his mind, it's clear it's American leadership with others following along.

May 7, 2006
GEORGE WILL: Now the argument from the right is the CIA is a rogue agent because it has not subscribed to the Bush doctrine. The Bush doctrine being that American security depends on the spread of democracy and we know how to do that. The trouble is, Negroponte, who is considered by some of these conservatives the villain here and an enemy of the Bush doctrine is the choice of Bush, which makes Bush an insufficient subscriber to the Bush doctrine.

I'll stop there, although anyone with a Nexis account can find far more where that came from. Preemptive war; American unilateralism; the overthrow of regimes that harbor and abet terrorists--all of these things and more have been described as the "Bush Doctrine." It was a bit of a sham on Gibson's part to have pretended that there's such a thing as 'the' Bush Doctrine, much less that it was enunciated in September 2002.


  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 18 • Views: 5,111 • Replies: 113

 
candidone1
 
  6  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 10:51 am
@McGentrix,
The kids in my 9th grade Social Studies class know what the Bush doctrine is. This is not some classroom in the heart of Texas...this is a classroom in Calgary, Canada.
Contrary to some pundits and sycophants, this is not a nebulous doctrine. It's pretty obvious what the Bush Doctrine is, and Palin, of all people, had no f*cking clue what it meant.
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 10:58 am
@candidone1,
So what is it? Surely if your 9th graders know, you should be able to provide for us an answer that none of the people above could.
Cycloptichorn
 
  4  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 11:05 am
@McGentrix,
McG, it's not that she was confused as to the different definitions, she had never heard the term before. That's where the confusion came from; she's not so deep in neo-con circles as to be a part of in-depth disagreements about policy points.

Cycloptichorn
Robert Gentel
 
  4  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 11:18 am
@McGentrix,
The Bush Doctrine as Gibson defines it was not even the original "Bush Doctrine". The original Bush Doctrine was that nations that harbor terrorists would be treated as guilty parties. It has evolved in the media to expand to include the principle of preemption that Bush introduced but he didn't outline a "Bush Doctrine", the media did when they began to group his foreign policy changes under that moniker.

So she's right to ask to be more specific. There are a number of very important policy changes that are referred to as the "Bush Doctrine" and one may agree with some but not the others.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 11:26 am
You still don't know the "Bush Doctrine?" After all these years, it's been "incompetence is the foundation." Even McCain is trying to divorce himself from the Bush Doctrine - even though he voted with Bush 95% during the last congress. Those are not enough clues for you?
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 11:31 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

The original Bush Doctrine was that nations that harbor terrorists would be treated as guilty parties.


That is pretty much what I thought it to be as well.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 11:33 am
Okay, here's the "Bush Doctrine" by Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 12:08 pm
@McGentrix,
learn to spell doctrine?
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 12:10 pm
@Bi-Polar Bear,
Learn to use your brain... how's Obama doing?
0 Replies
 
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 12:15 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
How do you know she never heard of the term?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 12:16 pm
@McGentrix,
I am about as much of a political junkie as anybody on A2K. I read a lot and watch a lot of political stuff. Had Charlies Gibson asked me that question, I couldn't have answered it any more specifically than Palin did and I doubt there are many people who could since no two people are likely to interpret it in the same way.
candidone1
 
  5  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 01:12 pm
@Foxfyre,
Aside from the fact that the response she gave to this question was one arrangement of perhaps only 3 or 5 responses she gave to the 70 or 80 questions asked, I'd say she fumbled this one more so than one of my ninth graders McG. Do you think she handled it in the same fashion as Cheney, or Biden? Was there an articulation of an actual idea, an illustration of an actual understanding of said "doctrine"?
I don't like Cheney, but at least he knew his sh*t.

Here's how I see it...
Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?
....rather than the obvious deer in headlights stunned visage, she could have initiated first, with an immediate yes or no.
That would have indicated she'd at least headr of the idea.
Then she could have spoken in specific terms as to how or why she agreed or disagreed with the Bush doctrine.
She was clueless.

I mean, seriously....you righties act like this is an idea that has no common meaning, and has not been a political reality for nearly a decade.

cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 01:44 pm
@candidone1,
What it indicates to me as an observer is that the conservatives are "clueless" too! LOL Don't forget, they supported Bush for two terms that literally destroyed our country, and they still want four more years of the same.

Clueless.
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 02:09 pm
@candidone1,
LOL.... Your 9 grade class knows the meaning but you have yet to answer McG's direct questions as to your definition!!!!

You folks are scared to death of this Vice Presidential Nominee. Laughing
candidone1
 
  2  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 02:18 pm
@cicerone imposter,
No CI, it won't be the same.
It will be more religious, more hawkish, with a greater appeal to the needs of big business, less concern for the environment, an even greater degree of secrecy....the list goes on.
I sincerely hope that McCain wins at this point because it amazes me that, given the past 7+ years, McCain can even come close to Obama in the polls, not to mention lead him.
Obviously, people want to continue with this masochistic charade characterized by military blunders, unnecessary and destabilizing sabre rattling, economic hardship etc etc.

0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 02:26 pm
In Gibson interview, Gov. Palin was right: There is no single clear meaning for "the Bush Doctrine"

Quote:
Anyone who criticizes Sarah Palin, then, for asking Charlie Gibson to be more specific about the "Bush Doctrine" is trying to mislead you in at least two ways:

They're pretending that the term "Bush Doctrine" has a single clear, unambiguous meaning that anyone who follows national affairs ought to have immediately recognized. It doesn't, as I think this post and the materials I've linked here more than adequately establish.

They're pretending that because Gov. Palin didn't immediately try to guess which of several plausible meanings Gibson meant to give that term, but instead asked for clarification, she therefore must have been unprepared to discuss any of them. Gov. Palin herself disproved that premise, because upon receiving the requested clarification, she immediately responded with clarity and self-assurance.

If they had bothered to look, even the Wikipedia could have cured Josh Marshall, Greg Sargent, or Andrew Sullivan of their illusion that there's a single, simple meaning to the term "Bush Doctrine." When it comes to any discussion of Gov. Sarah Palin, these folks have shown us yet again that they just can't be trusted to get their basic facts right.

0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 02:27 pm
@Woiyo9,
I figured, smartass, that independent of who was responding, all they needed to do was look up "Bush Doctrine" in google, wikipedia or any other online resource.
I would be proving very little by responding to such a simple question, given the ease of access every single one of us has to the "answer".
I mean, how do you think grade 9 kids find out about something that is too recent an ideology to be added to curriculum textbooks. They "look it up".

How do mayors, governors or vice presidential candidates know about it? They stay in tuned with current events, foreign policies and the policies of an administration they represent. They read, the talk they get involved.
Palin doesn't even know that she has in fact been FOR earmarks both as a mayor and as a governor, that she has for a long time been for the bridge to nowhere...and the list goes on.

She didn't know what the VP does for chrissakes. Are you going on record as defending this candidate, her actions and her policies?

0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  2  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 02:34 pm
@Woiyo9,
...and do you think this is an acceptable answer to DO YOU AGREE with the Bush Doctrine?

1. I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation.
2. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made.
3. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.


I broke her response down into 3 ideas. You can decide if they are separate or together, but together, they make no sense. Separate, they make even less sense. I thought only of the Miss Teen South Carolina when I heard this response.
Mind actually answering the question????

Yes, I am afriad if this candidate because I fear for your country and your people that this is an example of the best your country can provide for leadership.
It should be an insult that you allowed Bush to reign for 2 full terms and it's a far greater to the intelligence of your once great nation that McPalin are even getting any airtime.
It used to be "when the United States sneezes the whole world gets a cold", now it's "whenever the republican party puts a candidate on national TV, the whole world snickers."
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 02:42 pm
@McGentrix,
Doctrine
what is it?
how come you use the word with BUSH?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » What Exactly Is the 'Bush Doctrine'?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/23/2019 at 03:13:30