Obama adopts Bush Doctrine

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2011 2:50 AM GMT
    http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/columnists/krauthammer/index.html

    Is Obama morphing into a neocon? And no that’s not a criticism - at all.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2011 5:26 AM GMT
    If that was the Bush Doctrine, perhaps. But the Bush doctrine was that the US had the right to engage in preemptive attacks against state and non-state actors that we had "credible" reason to believe endangered us.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2011 7:10 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidIf that was the Bush Doctrine, perhaps. But the Bush doctrine was that the US had the right to engage in preemptive attacks against state and non-state actors that we had "credible" reason to believe endangered us.


    That's part of it, but you're not finished yet. You left part of it out.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_doctrine

    "The Bush Doctrine has been defined as a collection of strategy principles, practical policy decisions, and a set of rationales and ideas for guiding United States foreign policy.[14] Two main pillars are identified for the doctrine: preemptive strikes against potential enemies and promoting democratic regime change.[14][15]

    Democratic regime change.In a series of speeches in late 2001 and 2002, Bush expanded on his view of American foreign policy and global intervention, declaring that the United States should actively support democratic governments around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the threat of terrorism, and that the United States had the right to act unilaterally in its own security interests, without the approval of international bodies such as the United Nations.[3][4][5] This represented a departure from the Cold War policies of deterrence and containment under the Truman Doctrine and post–Cold War philosophies such as the Powell Doctrine and the Clinton Doctrine.

    In his 2003 State of the Union Address, Bush declared:[33]

    “ Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. ”

    After his second inauguration, in a January 2004 speech at National Defense University, Bush said: "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom."

    Neoconservatives and the Bush Doctrine held that the hatred for the West and United States in particular does not exist because of actions perpetrated by the United States, but rather because the countries from which terrorists emerge are in social disarray and do not experience the freedom that is an intrinsic part of democracy.[14][19] The Bush Doctrine holds that enemies of United States are using terrorism as a war of ideology against the United States. The responsibility of the United States is to protect itself and its friends by promoting democracy where the terrorists are located so as to undermine the basis for terrorist activities.[14][19]
    "
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2011 7:14 AM GMT
    Howe_and_Helmcken said
    Christian73 saidIf that was the Bush Doctrine, perhaps. But the Bush doctrine was that the US had the right to engage in preemptive attacks against state and non-state actors that we had "credible" reason to believe endangered us.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine
    Different pundits would attribute different meanings to "the Bush Doctrine", as it came to describe other elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a potential or perceived threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate; a policy of spreading democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating terrorism; and a willingness to unilaterally pursue U.S. military interests.[3][4][5] 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.[6]

    Ya, there's a bit of right-wing cherry-picking to say what Obama is doing is "the Bush Doctrine". I guess Clinton's peace talks were part of the Bush Doctrine, too. icon_rolleyes.gif


    What, how about Carter's peace talks?
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    May 21, 2011 10:31 AM GMT
    LOL ..... Bush Doctrine?

    The Bush Doctrine as Sara Palin could tell you icon_rolleyes.gif Not
    Is the use of Force on a selected target .... you deem as a threat
    Even though they have not used force against you as a sovereign nation

    You on the right wing are SO needing validation for your disastrously failed policies that you're willing to listen to Krauthammers spoutings

    This has nothing to do with the Bush Doctrine but everything to do with preventing mass murder on a grand scale
    ie: as in Kosovo

    So time to take you Shock and Awe and shove it up your Krauthammer icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2011 12:30 PM GMT
    GQjock saidLOL ..... Bush Doctrine?

    The Bush Doctrine as Sara Palin could tell you icon_rolleyes.gif Not
    Is the use of Force on a selected target .... you deem as a threat
    Even though they have not used force against you as a sovereign nation

    You on the right wing are SO needing validation for your disastrously failed policies that you're willing to listen to Krauthammers spoutings

    This has nothing to do with the Bush Doctrine but everything to do with preventing mass murder on a grand scale
    ie: as in Kosovo

    So time to take you Shock and Awe and shove it up your Krauthammer icon_biggrin.gif


    Right needing validation huh? Hey sport, more than a few democrats right there with him.

  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    May 21, 2011 2:36 PM GMT
    GQjock said

    You on the right wing are SO needing validation for your disastrously failed policies that you're willing to listen to Krauthammers spoutings
    ]


    C'mon, GQ, who's REALLY in need of validation here? What part of the above posted video by onegeezer are you not wanting to hear? The selective memory around here is truly astounding icon_rolleyes.gif
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    May 21, 2011 2:44 PM GMT
    the use of Force on a selected target .... you deem as a threat
    Even though they have not used force against you as a sovereign nation

    Bush Doctrine

    You're not understanding the difference ... you're not understanding the Doctrine
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2011 2:46 PM GMT
    What president has NOT been in favor of "spreading democracy?" icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2011 3:28 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    GQjock said

    You on the right wing are SO needing validation for your disastrously failed policies that you're willing to listen to Krauthammers spoutings
    ]


    C'mon, GQ, who's REALLY in need of validation here? What part of the above posted video by onegeezer are you not wanting to hear? The selective memory around here is truly astounding icon_rolleyes.gif


    How many times have I posted that - maybe 50? I figure one of these days that they'll actually watch it - by accident.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2011 3:30 PM GMT
    Scruffypup saidWhat president has NOT been in favor of "spreading democracy?" icon_rolleyes.gif


    True, but the Bush Doctrine is a bit more than just the above

    "Democratic regime change.In a series of speeches in late 2001 and 2002, Bush expanded on his view of American foreign policy and global intervention, declaring that the United States should actively support democratic governments around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the threat of terrorism, and that the United States had the right to act unilaterally in its own security interests, without the approval of international bodies such as the United Nations.[3][4][5] This represented a departure from the Cold War policies of deterrence and containment under the Truman Doctrine and post–Cold War philosophies such as the Powell Doctrine and the Clinton Doctrine.

    Neoconservatives and the Bush Doctrine held that the hatred for the West and United States in particular does not exist because of actions perpetrated by the United States, but rather because the countries from which terrorists emerge are in social disarray and do not experience the freedom that is an intrinsic part of democracy.[14][19] The Bush Doctrine holds that enemies of United States are using terrorism as a war of ideology against the United States. The responsibility of the United States is to protect itself and its friends by promoting democracy where the terrorists are located so as to undermine the basis for terrorist activities.[14][19]