Friday, September 12, 2008

Barack Obama fails the "Bush Doctrine" test!

BARACK OBAMA: In a conference call with reporters, Obama said Clinton would continue the "Bush doctrine" of only speaking to leaders of rogue nations if they first meet conditions laid out by the United States.

Does Barack Obama really know what the Bush Doctrine is? He should have Charlie Gibson explain it to him.

CHARLIE 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?

Does Charlie Gibson really know what the Bush Doctrine is? He should have some other media experts and academicians explain it to him…

FRANK RICH (NYTIMES): “It was in September that the president told Congress that ''from this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.'' It was in November that he told the United Nations that ''there is no such thing as a good terrorist.''

MEDIA MATTERS: “But by asserting that Obama's policy on Pakistan is "essentially the Bush doctrine," Gibson was claiming that there is in fact a clear Bush doctrine.”

NORMAN PODHORETZ: Podhoretz claimed that the "animating or foundational principle of the entire doctrine" was this George Bush quote.

The advance of human freedom, the great achievement of our time and the great hope of every time, now depends on us. Our nation, this generation, . . . will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage.


“After Sept. 11, however, the Bush team embarked on a different path, outlining a muscular, idealistic and unilateralist vision of American power and how to use it. He aimed to lay the foundation for a grand strategy to fight Islamic terrorists and rogue states by spreading democracy around the world and pre-empting gathering threats before they materialize. And the U.S. wasn't willing to wait for others to help.”

JOHN LEWIS GADDIS (YALE HISTORIAN): “it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.”


These are the same concerns confronting the Bush administration and shaping its actions. So it’s not surprising that Obama’s agenda sounds eerily similar to core elements of the Bush doctrine as articulated in the Bush National Security Strategy (2002) which declares that American-defined “values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society,” and that an overarching goal of U.S. policy is creating “a balance of power that favors freedom,” and spreading “free markets, and free trade to every corner of the world.”


President Bush's recently announced strategic global doctrine, which for the first time justifies a preemptive U.S. strike against any regime thought to possess weapons of mass destruction, makes a mockery of the war on terrorism. A preemptive strike against Home Depot, where box cutters can be bought for a few bucks, would seem more relevant to disarming future terrorists.

JEFF JACOBY: "You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists"

The Bush Doctrine, advanced after 9/11, comes down to the idea that American and global security is best advanced by toppling repressive and hostile regimes through any means possible, including principally force.

BIG TENT DEMOCRAT (TALK LEFT): Charlie Gibson does not really understand what the Bush Doctrine means.

CBS NEWS (DICK MEYER): With characteristic confidence and simplicity, President George W. Bush tossed out the formulas of the modern Inaugural Address. He gave a short speech about one thing, what can now clearly be called the Bush Doctrine. He defined it in one direct sentence:

"So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL: The Bush doctrine has evaporated. Whether it was ever a doctrine rather than a rationale for an already decided upon invasion of Iraq is questionable. Certainly, the war in Afghanistan was a response to an attack on the US, not a pre-emptive strike. Rejected now by a member state of Nato through its democratic process, the doctrine per se has no practical future as an instrument of foreign policy, if it ever did.

“The big news out of the most recent Democratic presidential debate was that two of the leading Democratic candidates, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, endorsed the Bush Doctrine that is at the core of our current president’s foreign policy.

JOHN PODHORETZ - For the record, when a distressed friend called to say he was made nervous by her failure to identify the Bush Doctrine off the bat, I had to stop for a moment and think about it because I wasn’t instantly sure whether the Bush Doctrine was the policy of preemption or the democratization of Arab lands. And I wrote an entire book about the Bush presidency.

What is the Bush Doctrine? Is it OK for Sarah to ask for some clarification? I personally think it is about freedom and free nations. I guess Charlie Gibson gets to write the history though, and his definition is the definition. Arrogant ass.


I am going to update this and add more definitions and comments on the Bush Doctrine.
Work in Progress.... Sphere: Related Content

1 comment:

Shakes The Clown said...

You are the greatest!

Love, Sybil