18
   

What Exactly Is the 'Bush Doctrine'?

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 11:03 am
It Was Gibson’s Gaffe
Which made the smug condescension all the more precious.

By Charles Krauthammer


“Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she
agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what
he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed
her that it meant the right of ‘anticipatory self-defense.’ ”

" New York Times, September 12

Informed her? Rubbish.

The Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration " and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today.

He asked Palin, “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, “In what respect, Charlie?”

Sensing his “gotcha” moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, he grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine “is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.”

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of The Weekly Standard titled, “The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,” I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to Congress nine days later, Bush declared: “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” This “with us or against us” policy regarding terror " first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan " became the essence of the Bush doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq War was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of pre-emptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.

It’s not. It’s the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of Bush foreign policy and the one that most distinctively defines it: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush’s second inaugural address: “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”



This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy’s pledge that the United States “shall pay any price, bear any burden . . . to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson’s 14 points.

If I were in any public foreign-policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume " unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise " that he was speaking about Bush’s grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda.

Not the Gibson doctrine of pre-emption.

Not the “with us or against us” no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.

Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.

Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed “doctrines” in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines, which came out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few conflicting foreign-policy crosscurrents.

Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.

Yes, Palin didn’t know what it is. But neither does Gibson. And at least she didn’t pretend to know " while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, “sounding like an impatient teacher,” as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes’ reaction to the phenom who presumes to play on their stage.
" Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  3  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 11:04 am
@Ticomaya,
Quote:
Holy crap ... candidone1 teaches our children?


Not to worry, he only teaches Canada's children.
candidone1
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 11:22 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Well, in my defense, I teach them about things that even the VP candidate knows absolutely nothing about.
They may not be able to articulate what the media is now referring to the broader range of ideas that fall beneath the umbrella called the "Bush Doctrine", but I am proud to say that they would articulate a response more cogent and more relevant than "his worldview".

In Gibson's defense, he at least stated, The Bush Doctrine, "....as I understand it...."

Watching the right collectively rally behind Palin's ignorance while at the same time holding Gibson, a media personality, to the very same standard of knowledge as her is laughable. It is equally hilarious to see the post-game analysis of "and Gibson informed her..." as some sort of looking down his nose to her.

Pauleeze.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  4  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 11:27 am
@candidone1,
ABC's Gibson grilled Palin hard, but it may backfire
By MARTIN SIEFF

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 (UPI) -- There were no surprises, no knockout zingers, but also no bloopers Thursday night in Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's first TV interview since becoming the Republican vice presidential nominee.

Charles Gibson of ABC News was out for blood and inherently applied a double-standard compared with the kid gloves George Stephanopoulos used on Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois on Sunday night.

Gibson was out to embarrass Palin and expose her presumed ignorance from the word go. By contrast, when Obama referred to his "Muslim faith" on Sunday and did not correct himself, Stephanopoulos rushed in at once to help him and emphasize that the senator had really meant to say his Christian faith.

By contrast, Gibson tried to embarrass Palin by referring to her Christian faith in asking people to pray for U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Palin countered by pointing out she was following the precedent set by Abraham Lincoln.

Palin also expressed her support for Georgia and Ukraine joining the U.S.-led NATO alliance. That statement was predictable and consistent with the current policy of the Bush administration. The policy has dangerously raised tensions with Russia, but Palin is hardly alone in the conservative/Republican consensus in expressing her support for it.

Palin's assessment of foreign policy was competent and not embarrassing. Although she initially exhibited ignorance of the Bush Doctrine on pre-emptive strikes that has been a central pillar of U.S. foreign policy after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, she recovered quickly and then made the case clearly. Tactically, she made the mistake of trying to be friendly and informal with Gibson, who assumed a superior, professorial and critical stance toward her. She would have been far better going on the attack to rattle him.

The double-standard Gibson applied to Palin, compared with the uncritical media platforms repeatedly offered to Obama, who has had zero executive experience running anything, was especially striking. ABC and Gibson focused on Palin as if she were running right now for the presidency rather than the vice presidency. He and other media pundits, by contrast, have never asked the Democratic vice presidential nominee, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, if he has ever had to make a decision on anything.

Gibson's aggressive approach appeared to take Palin by surprise: He was clearly attempting to put her on point by presenting her as having extreme religious views. This again, however, appears to be a double-standard, as Palin grew up in the Assemblies of God, one of the largest Christian denominations in America with 16 million members, and is now a member of the Wasilla Bible Church. Even now, Obama has yet to receive any comparable grilling on his 20-year attendance in the congregation of the notoriously racist Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

The focus on Palin's faith and family, as well as the controversy over Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment in Virginia earlier this week, confirmed the swift demise of civility in the 2008 presidential campaign. This is especially ironic, as both Obama and his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, owed their victories over Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York in the Democratic primary race and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani in the GOP one to their perceived inclusive tolerance, uplift and vision compared with their main opponents.

In the long sweep of U.S. political history, the worst dirt that has been thrown at either of the presidential candidates pales compared with the claims that Thomas Jefferson had fathered a child by a black slave in the 1800 campaign -- the newspaper editor who published the accusations eventually was found dead floating in a canal -- or the false claims by Republicans in the 1944 campaign that President Franklin D. Roosevelt was senile. FDR by that point was indeed a dying man, though he did not know it, but he was mentally as sharp as ever.

The context of the increasingly desperate -- and ugly -- attacks on Palin and her alleged lack of experience is that the Obama bandwagon, which swept all before it from the Iowa caucuses through the end of June, is now stalling badly and, even more worrying for the Democrats, the malaise may be spreading to the congressional races.

The latest USA Today/Gallup poll has the Democrats only 3 points up on the Republicans on the question of which party people would vote for today in their congressional district.

Indeed, the Obama campaign is now saying it is ready to take the gloves off against McCain. They rolled out a new ad Friday mocking McCain as out of touch and old-fashioned, even though it was McCain who picked a young woman as a running mate while Obama opted for an old white guy who's been sitting in the Senate for 36 years. With more than 50 days still to go until the actual election, it appears dangerously early in the campaign for the Obama camp to go negative, especially as so much of his appeal has been based on rising above the old negatives to begin with. Isn't it early in the campaign to resort to that? Is it a sign of panic?

Whatever her inexperience and other shortcomings, Palin did not fall into that trap in her ABC interview. At no point did she appear fearful or threatening. Gibson's aggressive questioning on her religion and her son's coming military service in Iraq, by contrast, runs the risks for the Democrats of strengthening support for Palin among working-class, married women, especially those with husbands or sons serving in the military.

The pattern of previous presidential election interviews and debates has always been that individuals who come across as intellectually superior, arrogant and condescending forfeit support that goes to their perceived victims. This dynamic played a crucial role in propelling George W. Bush into the White House eight years ago. It remains to be seen if Gibson's perceived arrogance and condescension will give Palin another boost. It certainly didn't help the Democrats that ABC's chief political correspondent, Stephanopoulos, who had rushed to Obama's aid only four days before, was wheeled on to discuss her interview with Gibson as soon as it was concluded.

Liberal Democrats predictably will cite the interview as evidence that Palin is not prepared for the vice presidency. Republicans will equally predictably cite it as evidence that she is. How centrist voters will react to it remains to be seen. One thing is clear: This isn't a transformational election on either side. Whoever wins, the ugly old cultural and political divisions in America remain -- and they are deeper than ever.

Ramafuchs
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 11:33 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
"Whoever wins, the ugly old cultural and political divisions in America remain -- and they are deeper than ever. "
If anyone in this forum repudiate the above quoted stense then I think they are not critical enough.
Thanks for the above article sir.
Regards
Rama

0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 02:23 pm
Rich Lowry has more intellectual honesty then any of you Conservatives here on this issue.

Quote:

More on the Bush Doctrine [Rich Lowry]


Not to belabor this, but I want to return to the Palin interview and the Bush doctrine question, since there's been so much bunk on this. Asked about the Bush doctrine, Palin shifted uncomfortably in her seat and stalled by asking "In what respect?" and then, "His worldview?" She didn't say, "Oh, you mean unilateralism?" Or, "Are you referring to pre-emption?" Or, "You must mean democratization?" No, she said, "His worldview?" She then launched into the vaguest description of Bush's fight against Islamic extremism that couldn't reasonably be considered a description of any of the possible Bush doctrines. Only when cued by Gibson did she talk about pre-emption. So it's pretty clear she had no familiarity with the Bush doctrine(s) whatsoever. Even Krauthammer"in a heck of a "to be sure" line"admits as much in his column attacking Charlie Gibson. The debate about how many versions of the Bush doctrine there are is serving as fog to distract attention from the fact that, on any reasonable reading, Palin didn't know. I don't see why we all have to be so resistant to admitting this. Let me try to demonstrate: She is totally new to these issues and has a lot of learning to do. There. Is that so hard?


http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzBmYjBiOTI1MzQ1YmE3ZjUyMDNhMDYxYzI0MzVlYTg=

Cycloptichorn
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 03:26 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Rich Lowry has more intellectual honesty then any of you Conservatives here on this issue.


Does this mean:

1) You acknowledge Lowry's intellectual honesty
2) You acknowledge Lowry's intellectual honesty whenever you agree with him
3) Anything to take a shot at A2K Conservatives
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 03:38 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Quote:
Rich Lowry has more intellectual honesty then any of you Conservatives here on this issue.


Does this mean:

1) You acknowledge Lowry's intellectual honesty
2) You acknowledge Lowry's intellectual honesty whenever you agree with him
3) Anything to take a shot at A2K Conservatives


1, but only on this issue. 3 is merely a pleasurable side-effect. That's why I used the words 'on this issue.' Pretty straight-forward, unlike your and others' tortured attempts to excuse Palin's ignorance.

Cycloptichorn
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 05:24 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
#2

That's what I thought.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 05:41 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

#2

That's what I thought.


#2 is not accurate; I don't acknowledge his intellectual honesty many times even when I do agree with him Smile

Cycloptichorn
Ramafuchs
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 06:11 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Doctrine
the above word is born out of Dogma.
The journalists can uphold Bush for his "doctrine" as they did for the last 8 years.

If i wish to honour the journalists dictum let me politely pour forth this broken English as Bush Doctrine.

Waging war( R alloing the warriors to rape, butcher, torture, maime the sleeping mothers and kids.
Taking out the basic freedom from the local people who had passively allowed his to usharp the august chair in WH.
picking up all non-qualified corporate Ceos as the best supporters.
Taking a cell phone and asking the advice from Jesus
Allowing all the innocent 1 percent of the half-baked potatoes to ruin the economy while 99 percent of the decent American left in lurch.
These are my first contribution to adore the nice Guy whose name is well known.
If the thread survives.
I will try to quote some intellectual rational american's view in due course.
What a life!!!
Ramafuchs
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 06:33 pm
@Ramafuchs,
Sorry for my critical, compassionate contiuation with my verbal vomitations about BUSH and his corporate clans.

HOW TO RULE THE WORLD: The Coming Battle Over the Global Economy
by Mark Engler
(Nation Books, Release Date: April 7, 2008, ISBN 978-1568583655)

"As the world readies to heave a collective sigh of relief upon George W. Bush's exit from the White House, How to Rule the World is a caution against complacency. Mark Engler offers a timely reminder that before Bush's boots and bombs there was Clinton's corporate 'consensus'--more soothing perhaps but no more sustainable than the neocons' disastrous militarism. He then makes a case that there lies a third choice: democracy. Impressively researched and sharply argued, How to Rule the World is an essential handbook not for the few who do rule the world but for the many who should."

Engler, a journalist, activist, and policy expert, details how the Bush administration has reshaped globalization in ways that few protesters in Seattle or elsewhere could have foreseen: Global trade talks are collapsing. The roles of international institutions like the WTO, IMF, and World Bank are dramatically changing. U.S. unilateralism and the disastrous war in Iraq have deepened international divisions. As a result, the stage is now set for a critical new debate about the global economy."
Not an advertisement for the book but a request to pick up in the nearby open library to face the reality.
I have not yet read this book but i will do in due course.
http://www.democracyuprising.com/articles/howtorule/description.php
Ramafuchs
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 06:38 pm
@Ramafuchs,
These are the resounding rational words that make humanity as noble creatures.
Those who reject corporate and imperial models of globalization have a wealth of ideas at their disposal, a healthy internal debate to refine their strategies, and a vibrant, growing international network of citizens that see their efforts as part an interconnected whole. They also have very powerful enemies. Fortunately, as we enter the post-Bush era, the international community has voiced a firm rejection of unilateralism and preemptive war. Likewise, ever-larger swaths of the globe view the neoliberal doctrine of corporate expansion as a failed and discredited vision. This creates unique opportunities for citizens to fight to bring a democratic globalization into existence. More exciting still is that many people are already doing so, and, on key issues like debt relief and across entire regions like the Latin America, they are winning. The punditry is increasingly taking notice. For there is nothing so dangerous to those who insist that the world must remain as it is as the simple, stubbornly defiant doctrine of hope."-- Mark Engler
"
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 11:13 am
@Cycloptichorn,
The intellectually honest Mr Lowry:

Quote:
McCain’s Scandal
The press has turned on McCain with a vengeance.

By Rich Lowry

A crucial turning point in the presidential race came when the McCain campaign ended its candidate’s habitual informal interactions with the press. The area of the McCain campaign plane where a couch had been installed so the Arizonian could hold court with journalists was cut off with a dark curtain, marking the end of an era.

Since 2000, John McCain had thrived on his irrepressible chattiness with the press, talking about anything reporters wanted for as long as they would listen. The press loved the access and avoided “gotcha” coverage, letting McCain explain any seeming gaffes. The arrangement worked beautifully for both sides " until McCain became the Republican presidential nominee.

Suddenly, he wasn’t afforded the same old courtesy from reporters, and he had to go about the grim business of driving a daily message. With the end of the running bull sessions, a trial separation began with the press that became a divorce that became a feud.

The enduring scandal of the McCain campaign is that it wants to win. The press had hoped for a harmless, nostalgic loser like Bob Dole in 1996. In a column excoriating Republicans for historically launching successful attacks against Democratic presidential candidates in August, Time columnist Joe Klein excepted Bob Dole " not mentioning that Dole had been eviscerated by Clinton negative ads before August ever arrived.

The press turned on McCain with a vengeance as soon as he mocked Barack Obama as a celebrity. Its mood grew still more foul when the McCain campaign took offense at Obama’s “lipstick on a pig” jab. “The media are getting mad,” according to Washington Post reporter Howard Kurtz. “Stop the madness,” urged Time’s Mark Halperin, exhorting his fellow journalists to fight back against the McCain campaign’s manufactured outrage.

The lipstick controversy indeed represented a silly bit of grievance-mongering. But had the Obama camp’s tendentious interpretation of Bill Clinton’s “fairy tale” put-down as a racial slight generated similar push-back from the media? Had Obama’s ridiculous depiction of Geraldine Ferraro as a quasi-racist? Had Obama’s repeated contention " with no evidence " that Republicans were attacking him for looking different?

The media have made it gospel that McCain is attacking Obama dishonestly. Of course, campaign advertisements are the last place to look for a dispassionate rendition of the facts. McCain’s ads are no different. But they are no worse than Obama’s spots.

When Obama distorted a McCain remark about staying in Iraq for 100 years " if we were taking no casualties " into an endorsement of endless war, the media generally tsk-tsked that McCain should be more careful about what he says. Obama just ran an ad saying McCain would cut education funding " with no evidence. His response to McCain’s supposed out-of-control negativity is a new negative ad misleadingly creating the impression that McCain aides are currently lobbying for special interests.

What has truly driven the media batty is McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin. The first days after her announcement brought gross misreporting and personal smears; followed by a Charlie Gibson interview during which the newscaster appeared disgusted that he even had to talk to such a lowly and unworthy personage; followed by front-page Washington Post and New York Times reports on her tenure in Alaska that were so hostile they left it a mystery why she has an 86 percent approval rating as governor.

Palin will forever be a target. A pro-life, pro-gun evangelical with five kids, Palin has made the election even more into a culture war than it was before. Not only do national journalists resent that, they are, as urbanites and self-styled sophisticates, largely on the other side of that war as a matter of lifestyle and conviction. Because cultural matters cut so close to the core, it is nearly impossible for them to hide their allegiance.

Whatever affection they still have for McCain is now expressed in self-interested yearning: Where is the McCain of old, the one who could be reliably counted on to lose?

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 12:42 pm
I read a version of the Bush Doctrine today

Quote:
You can fool some of the people all of the time and they are the ones you should concentrate on.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 01:03 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1lf1I4eFTw&feature=related

Had Palin given at least what McCain offered, it would have satisfied the vast majority of the people now criticizing her.

Yes, you can fool some people and you can fool some of them some of the time, and some of them even more often. But it's much better to convince them that you're capable and competent through examples of integrity and competence.

Palin is fooling no one other than the most foolish.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 07:11 pm
@candidone1,
And they're buying it line, hook, and sinker. They'll eventually drown.
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 10:40 pm
@cicerone imposter,
You cant go wrong pointing out how uneducated the average voter is. The economy is going down the tubes due to the republicans and the electroiate is discussing what a good looking woman Palen is. Even my wife who I thought was smarter than the average voter talks about how nice she is.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 11:13 pm
@McGentrix,
Glad to read this thread, and it confirmed that I was correct in my debate on another thread about Palin, in regard to Gibson's interview and his Bush Doctrine question. I believe the strongest usage and most common original usage of the term Bush Doctrine, originated with Bush's September 21, 2001 speech, wherein he asserted that any nation supporting or harboring terrorists were also guilty of aggression, and therefore we had a right to exercise our own self defense in going after them. The doctrine was therefore about self defense and responding to aggression, not pre-emption.

Since that time, it is my opinion that Bush opponents have expanded upon and enlarged upon what they think is the Bush Doctrine, and they love to consider pre-emption to be a central part of the doctrine, around which everything else revolves. This tends to paint the Bush administration into a dimly viewed light. This is, I think, another elaborate concoction built up and oft repeated by the left so that it becomes set in stone according to them, when in reality it is only their particular interpretation that is out of whack, and Gibson is another hapless dupe of the left. Besides, the term is a wholly invented term, and defined by whomever wants to define it for their own purposes. But I go back to my belief that the Bush administration did not quibble with the most common interpretation that I have stated above.

So I was mildly disappointed with Palin, but not greatly, but even more disappointed with Gibson, simply because he should have his questions well researched and accurate. After all, he did the preparation, while Palin is thrown questions out of the blue. At least get the questions right, that was my complaint.
candidone1
 
  2  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2008 09:09 am
@okie,
Wow....you guys just don't have an ounce of integrity or honesty in your bones anymore do you? That explains why McCain and Palin can lie lie lie, have every lie exposed as blatent, proven lies, but continue to lie lie lie about the exposed lies.

It's really quite astonishing how you criticize "the left" at every opportunity but fail, on nearly every instance, to see how inherently flawed and broken "the right" has become over the past 8 years.
I mean, the black community mostly stood by Michael Jackson for the first molestation charge, but they all up and left after the second. Why is there such defiance in acknowledging that the wheels on the wagon are broken?

Collectively, the right used to be an intelligent and *fairly* admirable group, now you represent an entirely new clan of douchebags, and seem rather proud of it. Now, when Palin screws up, it's "the left's" fault for either creating a false definition of the Bush Doctrine (that McCain stated in my above link) or bastardizing a previously sacred, clear and unambiguous doctrine.

First you say that Palin and Gibson got it wrong, but now, after several days of deliberation, you return to say that the problem isn't with Palin, it lies with the left's self serving bastardization of the Doctrine.

Being disappointed with Gibson is understandable, but only when you frame it around your partisan interpretation and your partisan perspective of the interview. Being less disappointed with Palin really highlights how deeply in denial your wing of the political spectrum is these days.

....it's kinda like "the fundamentals of our economy are strong....." as Wall Street crumbles like the north tower.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/09/2020 at 02:34:38