18
   

What Exactly Is the 'Bush Doctrine'?

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 08:40 am
@Walter Hinteler,
It proves that the "Bush Doctrine" is a tenuous and fluid term at best and undefinable at worst, and ANYBODY could be forgiven for not being able to answer Charlie Gibson's question about it.

Further, I doubt Sarah Palin spends much time perusing Wikipedia re the Bush Doctrine and it is likely that she doesn't read the Albuquerque Journal at all. And I don't trust the Albuquerque Journal to get the date of today's issue right, much less define the Bush doctrine accurately, especially when so many other publications disagree on exactly what the Bush doctrine is.

Perhaps you could give us an absolutely foolproof definition for the Bush Doctrine, Walter? Let's see what you would do with it. No fair using a cut and paste from any publication. Tell us what it is in your own words that will stand up under close scrutiny and agree with all other definitions.
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 08:42 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
So tell us Walter, what is the Bush Doctrine?


Regardless of which specific policy you refer to as the "Bush Doctrine" (and Gibson specifically pointed out that he was referring to "the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war") - it most certainly doesn't refer to Bush's "world view".
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  3  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 08:43 am
@old europe,
old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Perhaps widely circulated in your world, but not mine.


Perhaps. But not relevant, unless you're running for Vice President of the United States - because then, you can reasonably be expected to at least having heard the term.


Why? I'm guessing that at least half and probably most of our current Congressmen, Senators, and/or Bush staffers could not have answered that question without clarification of what interpretaton Gibson put on it. I would bet an expensive steak dinner that neither Obama nor Biden could have answered it without knowing in advance that it would be asked.

Had Sarah Palin been advised that would be on the question list, she would have been as prepared as anybody. And she would have still needed Gibson to provide his definition as there are so many different definitions of the Bush Doctrine.

I bet George W. Bush himself has never sat down and thought about what the Bush Doctrine is.
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 08:46 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
I'm guessing that at least half and probably most of our current Congressmen, Senators, and/or Bush staffers could not have answered that question without clarification of what interpretaton Gibson put on it.


Gibson did clarify which policy he was referring to, though. He specifically asked about "the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war."

What other Bush doctrine could he possibly have meant?
wandeljw
 
  3  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 08:48 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
Had Sarah Palin been advised that would be on the question list, she would have been as prepared as anybody.


Very True! Prepared responses is what Palin needs more than anyone.

old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 08:49 am
@old europe,
And, regardless of that.... even if Palin had had a completely different idea in mind of which policy Gibson was referring to that had been labelled "the Bush doctrine" in September 2002, it most certainly wouldn't have been referring to "Bush's world view", as Palin seemed to believe.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 08:49 am
@wandeljw,
Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 08:50 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
at is the Bush Doctrine?


Well, I really would like to so.

I'm trying to get the transcript of speeches done at the "Union Club" in Berlin, on October 16, 2002, organised by the German-American Club and the US Embassy In Berlin, under the topic: "German Unilaterism: Berlin reacts to the Bush Doctrine". (Main speakers where Roger Cohen [NYT] and ... someone from the embassy [most certainly not the then ambassador Dan Coats].)

But before I I copy/paste from the various online sources or from previous responses, McGentrix, you surely can do such yourself. Easily.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 08:55 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

It proves that the "Bush Doctrine" is a tenuous and fluid term at best and undefinable at worst, and ANYBODY could be forgiven for not being able to answer Charlie Gibson's question about it.

Further, I doubt Sarah Palin spends much time perusing Wikipedia re the Bush Doctrine and it is likely that she doesn't read the Albuquerque Journal at all.


Well, you said that your friends weren't aware of the existence of that term ...
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 08:57 am
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Had Sarah Palin been advised that would be on the question list, she would have been as prepared as anybody.


Very True! Prepared responses is what Palin needs more than anyone.




Did you feel the same way when Obama and/or Biden have completely muffed questions they hadn't prepared for? I remember a debate when Obama was completely flumuxed by a simple question related to his proposed tax policy which, ironically, was asked by the same Charlie Gibson?

Had Obama been asked about the Bush Doctrine at that time, he wouldn't have had a clue.

Those of us who are not among the Mensa crowd are perhaps a bit more understanding and charitable about not having every single fact and nuance on every possible subject available for instant recall. Certainly there was no "Bush Doctrine" when Sarah Palin was in school and I can believe that she never had a conversation about it with anyone in her entire life because I have never had a conversation about it with anyone in my entire life until this thread was started and I asked some people about it.

I couldn't have defined it. You couldn't have defined it. And Sarah Palin is probably smarter than both of us.

Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 08:58 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Perhaps you could give us an absolutely foolproof definition for the Bush Doctrine, Walter? Let's see what you would do with it. No fair using a cut and paste from any publication. Tell us what it is in your own words that will stand up under close scrutiny and agree with all other definitions.


No, I can't. I'm neitheer running a US VP candidate, nor that I'm an American citizen. And I've learnt English only at school.

But I read papers. Even the intenational sections.
And when I translate the phrase commonly used here (and in the international media, as far as I remember) prreemption instead of reaction could be the catchwords.
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 08:59 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

It proves that the "Bush Doctrine" is a tenuous and fluid term at best and undefinable at worst, and ANYBODY could be forgiven for not being able to answer Charlie Gibson's question about it.

Further, I doubt Sarah Palin spends much time perusing Wikipedia re the Bush Doctrine and it is likely that she doesn't read the Albuquerque Journal at all.


Well, you said that your friends weren't aware of the existence of that term ...


Yes I did. And if anybody had asked me if I knew of a specific Bush doctrine, I would have said I was unaware of one. To me it was a metaphor for anything and everything proposed as policy by George W. Bush and that covers a lot of territory. It wouldn't have been an unfamiliar term to me, but it would have had no definition whatsoever.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 09:11 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
I'm trying to get the transcript of speeches done at the "Union Club" in Berlin, on October 16, 2002, organised by the German-American Club and the US Embassy In Berlin, under the topic: "German Unilaterism: Berlin reacts to the Bush Doctrine". (Main speakers where Roger Cohen [NYT] and ... someone from the embassy [most certainly not the then ambassador Dan Coats].)


Copied from their program:

http://i37.tinypic.com/zwevpc.jpg

My bad: it wasn't the Union Club in Berlin but the one in New York. Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 09:14 am
@cjhsa,
After all the years reading your posts cj, I'm not all that concerned about what you deem "screwed up".
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 09:14 am
@Foxfyre,
My brief definition would have been pre-emptive action against Iraq in contempt of the United Nations as well as the objections of American allies.
McGentrix
 
  3  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 09:19 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Perhaps you could give us an absolutely foolproof definition for the Bush Doctrine, Walter? Let's see what you would do with it. No fair using a cut and paste from any publication. Tell us what it is in your own words that will stand up under close scrutiny and agree with all other definitions.


No, I can't. I'm neitheer running a US VP candidate, nor that I'm an American citizen. And I've learnt English only at school.

But I read papers. Even the intenational sections.
And when I translate the phrase commonly used here (and in the international media, as far as I remember) prreemption instead of reaction could be the catchwords.


Well, you seem to not be a very knowledgable source on this topic which would make me wonder why you attempted to belittle others knowledge on the subject.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 09:20 am
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:

My brief definition would have been pre-emptive action against Iraq with contempt towards the United Nations and towards the objections of American allies.


Yes, that's one that I've seen put out there by Bush haters among dozens and dozens and dozens of references to the Bush doctrine. But it agrees with virtually none of the more objective discussions that I've read and those mostly disagree with each other. So I think you might have been portrayed as something of a dunce or at least an anti-Bush partisan had you offered that in answer to Charlie Gibson's question.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 09:34 am
@McGentrix,
McG...you referred to the Bush Doctrine in this post waaaaaaay back in 2005:
"Iraq certainly was a state that harbored and supported terrorists and the approach Bush discussed, the Bush Doctrine, was adopted and talked about often in relation to Iraq during the lead up to the war. As proof, look to a column called "Answering 50 Frequently Asked Questions About The War On Terrorism" that I wrote back on March 13, 2003"
http://able2know.org/topic/55409-1#post-1449919

I'm not sure why you're assuming a defensive position for Palin, making it seem nebulous and inconclusive. This Doctrine has been in circulation for several years, and if you run a quick A2K search, we've been talking about if for an equally ong time.

Pretending that this is either something new, obscure, or unheard of is plain rediculous. You right wing apologists will go to such great lengths to defend the indefensible, so defending a little gaffe here and there doesn't even come up on your radar.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 09:42 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Well, you seem to not be a very knowledgable source on this topic which would make me wonder why you attempted to belittle others knowledge on the subject.


English is not my first language, I've no political mandate nor am I running for one, I'm no US citizen (and thus can't be a VP candidate).

But if I'd known your question earlier and if I'd got enough time to prepare my response - I perhaps could have replied better.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 10:39 am
@Foxfyre,
I guess the problem I see emerging with Palin's response, and the subsequent defenses of her response, is that there were several ways she could have responded if she hadn't heard of the Bush Doctrine, wasn't sure which point of the Doctrine Gibson was referring to etc.

The fact remains, the Bush Doctrine has some basic tenets, one or two of which Gibson pointed out, that Palin could have addressed.

Why is it that rather than standing up and saying, "you know what, Palin dropped the ball" the collective right seems fast to defend her by claiming that the Bush Doctrine is multifaceted, or confusing or that Gibson too got it wrong. Why is it that anecdotal evidence for it's obscurity is offered in the form of "no one i've talked to knows about it" when in fact A2K members have discussed the ideology practically since it's inception--when it was essentially or primarily about the act of unilateral preemption.

You guys defended Bush and his idiocy for nearly a decade, and now the defense for the same sort of unapologetic, uninformed idiocy continues with Palin.

She should, at minimum, have had a cogent response to one or more of the so-called facets of the Doctrine, asked for clarification as to which prong of the Doctrine he was referring, or she should have bucked up and said that she was not familiar with the ideology.

Instead, she gave an irrelevant and idiotic response, and the entire right wing machine covers up for her just as they have for Dubya for the last 7 odd years.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/11/2020 at 05:09:30