The "real" Bush Doctrine, in case you really didn't know what it was...

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

    Sep 14, 2008 5:47 AM GMT
    Charlie Gibson's Gaffe

    By Charles Krauthammer
    Saturday, September 13, 2008; Page A17
    "At times visibly nervous . . . 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, Sept. 12
    Informed her? Rubbish.
    The New York 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. It is utterly different.
    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, Gibson 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 entitled, "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    Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror.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 the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President 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 preemptive 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 the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: 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 in his inaugural address that the United States "shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order 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 the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration.
    Not the Gibson doctrine of preemption.
    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 come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.
    Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.
    Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "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 mother of five who presumes to play on their
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 14, 2008 6:02 AM GMT
    Finally, someone on here who is actually intellectually honest about this alleged "Palin gaffe" which was really a "Gibson gaffe." icon_idea.gif Refreshing to see.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 14, 2008 6:12 AM GMT
    One person's gaffe is another's sound bite..this one will cut both ways, 40% will believe that Palin made it; the other 40% will believe that Gibson did it.
    Comes down to that 20% of folks who don't identify themselves as a Democrat or Republican. Personally, I am neither, but I am not a socialist/communist so my mind is made up..I don't like either, but, there is not a choice for option none of the above...icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 14, 2008 6:26 AM GMT
    Well, yes, there were a lot of gyrations in what was the "Bush Doctrine" in 2001, but let's look at what the Wikipedia entry - referenced in the article - actually says (beyond acknowledging that Krauthammer was the first to use the term):

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

    || The main elements of the Bush Doctrine were delineated in a National Security Council document, the National Security Strategy of the United States, published on September 20, 2002.[9] This document is often cited as the definitive statement of the doctrine.[10][11][12] It was updated in 2006.[13]

    || Out of the National Security Stategy, four main points are highlighted as the core to the Bush Doctrine: Preemption, Military Primacy, New Multilateralism, and the Spread of Democracy.[17] The document emphasized pre-emption by stating: "America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones. We are menaced less by fleets and armies than by catastrophic technologies in the hands of the embittered few." and required "defending the United States, the American people, and our interests at home and abroad by identifying and destroying the threat before it reaches our borders."[18]

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

    Sep 14, 2008 6:36 AM GMT
    Gettingharder - frankly you have me limp... I really don't understand how you can support someone who would rather you and your lifestyle dissappear and be replaced by the "traditional" family. Either you are dumb as fuck or would rather be converted to a "straight guy"... honey go for the pussy and leave the rest of us alone...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 14, 2008 6:46 AM GMT
    ORDude saidGettingharder - frankly you have me limp... I really don't understand how you can support someone who would rather you and your lifestyle dissappear and be replaced by the "traditional" family. Either you are dumb as fuck or would rather be converted to a "straight guy"... honey go for the pussy and leave the rest of us alone...


    Get a hold of yourself. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 14, 2008 7:38 AM GMT
    Gettingharder - frankly you have me limp... I really don't understand how you can support someone who would rather you and your lifestyle dissappear and be replaced by the "traditional" family. Either you are dumb as fuck or would rather be converted to a "straight guy"... honey go for the pussy and leave the rest of us alone...ITALIC TEXT GOES HERE

    Please tell me how the Democrats have helped our "people' or way of life bud? I think the devil is in the details and much like the Dems have "helped" the blacks, they have left the gay folk behind as well.

    I don't pretend to agree with everything the person I'm voting for, but I do know there are much bigger issues than simply my individual sexual attraction to other men. Maybe that is the big difference between us, I'm not an ignorant follower of stereotypical lip talk.

    Please don't call me honey though, I am a man, and don't want to be referred to as "honey," maybe you do, and want to take that track in life, but I have a lot of respect for myself, and have embraced my masculinity; however, my sexuality does not define all of my beliefs, that would be extraordinarily selfish, don't you think?
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Sep 14, 2008 7:46 AM GMT
    ORDude saidGettingharder - frankly you have me limp... I really don't understand how you can support someone who would rather you and your lifestyle dissappear and be replaced by the "traditional" family. Either you are dumb as fuck or would rather be converted to a "straight guy"... honey go for the pussy and leave the rest of us alone...


    You really might want to seek counseling. This paranoia will destroy ya icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 14, 2008 12:19 PM GMT
    With so many versions, you'd think she, being the worldly wise woman she'd like us to think she is, could have picked one upon which to expound. She might have even asked, "which version, Charlie?". No, she was honest in her initial reaction, which was that her eyes popped out of her head and you could see her thinking "i hope this car doesn't run me over".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 14, 2008 12:24 PM GMT
    Charles Krauthammer's explanation of the so-called "Bush Doctrine" is pretty accurate. Also reminds me of why he was a less than effective President. Let us hope who ever his replacement is improves on Mr. Bush's performance.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 14, 2008 12:27 PM GMT
    McGay saidWith so many versions, you'd think she, being the worldly wise woman she'd like us to think she is, could have picked one upon which to expound. She might have even asked, "which version, Charlie?". No, she was honest in her initial reaction, which was that her eyes popped out of her head and you could see her thinking "i hope this car doesn't run me over".


    She DID ask for clafirication. (Did you not watch the sement you are commenting on?) Instead of giving clarification, Gibson thought he'd stare at her condescendingly over the top of his glasses and refuse to provide clarification. So she answered one version of the so-called "Bush Doctrine" (whatever the hell that means) by discussing the routing of Islamic extremists. Didn't she? What part of her specific answer to this unfair and unspecific question was insufficient to you?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 14, 2008 12:30 PM GMT
    And he said "the one enunciated in 2002". She still couldn't answer until he explained the whole thing to her. The only thing he could have done further to help her would have been to provide her answer for her, which anyone not in a coma could have done.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 14, 2008 12:40 PM GMT
    McGay saidAnd he said "the one enunciated in 2002". She still couldn't answer until he explained the whole thing to her. The only thing he could have done further to help her would have been to provide her answer for her, which anyone not in a coma could have done.


    He asked a very vague question using a term that is not even defined. Then, condescendingly, told her to answer it using what she thought it meant. She tried to answer, and bastically requested that he be more specific. Given that it has anywhere between 5 and 7 meanings (according to the wikipedia article I just looked up real quickly), Gibson simply stated "September 2002". Bush said a LOT of things in September 2002. And she aswered it the best she could with the vagueness she was presented with. Later, he gave "what I understand the Bush Doctrine to mean", and asked a second question. Instead of playing "gotcha", he should have been an objective journalist and asked a specific question. That is what I think, at least.


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

    Sep 14, 2008 1:07 PM GMT
    stonecoldfoxboy said
    McGay saidAnd he said "the one enunciated in 2002". She still couldn't answer until he explained the whole thing to her. The only thing he could have done further to help her would have been to provide her answer for her, which anyone not in a coma could have done.


    He asked a very vague question using a term that is not even defined. Then, condescendingly, told her to answer it using what she thought it meant. She tried to answer, and bastically requested that he be more specific. Given that it has anywhere between 5 and 7 meanings (according to the wikipedia article I just looked up real quickly), Gibson simply stated "September 2002". Bush said a LOT of things in September 2002. And she aswered it the best she could with the vagueness she was presented with. Later, he gave "what I understand the Bush Doctrine to mean", and asked a second question. Instead of playing "gotcha", he should have been an objective journalist and asked a specific question. That is what I think, at least.


    Wasn't her guess, "His World View" (with a question mark at the end), indication she really didn't know?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 14, 2008 1:11 PM GMT
    1969er said
    stonecoldfoxboy said
    McGay saidAnd he said "the one enunciated in 2002". She still couldn't answer until he explained the whole thing to her. The only thing he could have done further to help her would have been to provide her answer for her, which anyone not in a coma could have done.


    He asked a very vague question using a term that is not even defined. Then, condescendingly, told her to answer it using what she thought it meant. She tried to answer, and bastically requested that he be more specific. Given that it has anywhere between 5 and 7 meanings (according to the wikipedia article I just looked up real quickly), Gibson simply stated "September 2002". Bush said a LOT of things in September 2002. And she aswered it the best she could with the vagueness she was presented with. Later, he gave "what I understand the Bush Doctrine to mean", and asked a second question. Instead of playing "gotcha", he should have been an objective journalist and asked a specific question. That is what I think, at least.


    Wasn't her guess, "His World View" (with a question mark at the end), indication she really didn't know?


    That was exactly my point. He didn't give her a specific question. She answered it with a question after he refused to give her anything specific to answer.

    What if he sat you down for an interview and said, "What do you think of it?" You, "What do you mean?" "You know, 'It', 'It' that was said by Bush in 2002..." How the hell is someone supposed to answer that? That was my point.
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Sep 14, 2008 1:13 PM GMT
    The Palin woman was a clueless woman at that moment. If she had a clue, she would have asked for clarification. "Charlie the Bush Doctrine can be taken several ways... listing... Instead she did nothing since she had no clue......
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 14, 2008 1:15 PM GMT
    Because the question made no sense. Why would she have a clue? You wouldn't have.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 14, 2008 1:21 PM GMT
    "Why would she have a clue?"

    BECAUSE SHE'S THE VP CANDIDATE! They haven't nominated her for prom queen, even though her answers could have been written by any beauty pageant contestant.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 14, 2008 1:23 PM GMT
    McGay said"Why would she have a clue?"

    BECAUSE SHE'S THE VP CANDIDATE! They haven't nominated her for prom queen, even though her answers could have been written by any beauty pageant contestant.


    THE QUESTION MADE NO SENSE!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 14, 2008 1:23 PM GMT
    In other words, the woman is a moron. Well, maybe that's harsh. She's a functional illiterate. No wonder she's curious about banning books. She doesn't want to be challenged on her comprehension skills.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 14, 2008 1:26 PM GMT
    I give up. You guys win. Apparently, if you are running for VP, you should be expected to provide perfect answers to questions that make no sense.*

    *This rule does not apply to Democratic candidates, however. They get passes:



    (Gibson questions Obama, clueless on the effect of raising capital gains taxes. When told, does not care. Would still raise them, even though it is proven that doing so hurts the economy and bring in less revenue.)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 14, 2008 1:29 PM GMT
    Photobucket
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 14, 2008 1:33 PM GMT
    RBY71 saidPhotobucket


    icon_biggrin.gif I have provided you with more popcorn in the last 12 hours than you could ever eat!!
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Sep 14, 2008 1:39 PM GMT
    stonecoldfoxboy saidBecause the question made no sense. Why would she have a clue? You wouldn't have.


    I WOULD have had a clue StoneFox... I would have asked for clarification...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 14, 2008 1:40 PM GMT
    HndsmKansan said
    stonecoldfoxboy saidBecause the question made no sense. Why would she have a clue? You wouldn't have.


    I WOULD have had a clue StoneFox... I would have asked for clarification...


    For the 10th time, she DID, and she got none. She's not the one who is supposed to be asking the damn questions.