Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
The "Bush Doctrine" Explained
Posted by: MichaelW on Friday, September 12, 2008

This was how the Bush Doctrine was defined on September 21, 2002, a few days after Pres. Bush released the National Security Strategy:
The president in his speech last night, very forceful. Four out of five Americans watched it. Everybody gathered around the television set last night. The president issued a series of demands to the Taliban, already rejected. We'll get to that in a moment. He also outlined what is being called the Bush Doctrine, a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated.
Here is how Gov. Palin described her understanding of the Bush Doctrine in her interview with Charlie Gibson last night:
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
Palin's answer is almost identical to the definition I provided above. You know who gave that definition?

Charlie Gibson.

Be sure to RTWT and see who else gave Palin-esque descriptions of the Bush Doctrine.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Great post Michael - I’m sure this will get corrected by the MSM tonight.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Well, technically her definition is much more specific and less broad than the given one (which is closer to what the President said in his speeches at the time), but in terms of the practical effects of the Doctrine, it’s more than close enough for a pass.

(The President never limited himself to Islamic terrorist groups, but they’re really the only kind with global reach that have caused any problems to speak of, so mentioning them and only them is reasonable.)
 
Written By: Sigivald
URL: http://
Governor Palin made a great acceptance speech, and held her own in her first national interview. Her degree in Journalism is a blessing in handling ’gotcha’ journalism.

The key in the near weeks ahead is her role as the ’attack dog’ of the Republican presidential campaign. Will she be able to strike that delicate balance between fierce partisanship and avoiding being ’mean’? Maggie Thatcher—England’s ’Iron Lady’—showed how it is to be done:

Use humor to demolish the pretensions of opposing male politicians. Crush them with biting jokes; they’ll never recover in the public’s eye. A woman making fun of the arrogant male is a world-wide sport, regardless of one’s ideology. If Governor Palin includes two to three zappers in her debate with Senator Biden, he’ll be toast on Election Day (like Reagan with Mondale, she should open the debate with a funny jab). Mr. Reagan all but destroyed both Walter Modale and Jimmy Carter in their presidential debates by using his Irish humor.
 
Written By: a Duoist
URL: http://www.duoism.org
Do you have a link to that chinese porn site? My plans for the night fell through.

 
Written By: CAL
URL: http://
Do you have a link to that chinese porn site? My plans for the night fell through.
Sure, no problem. Just sit on your left hand for 20 minutes and then go here.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://qando.net
Do you have a link to your first quote in the post? Thanks
 
Written By: Captain Obviousness
URL: http://
Sarah Palin is up for war with Russia if it attacks Georgia.

War with Russia! How ‘bout you, John McCain, That sound good to you? If Georgia joins NATO and Russia attacks it, Charles Gibson asks her if this means war, and she says, "Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.”

Her and what army?

It’s all the Pentagon can do to get a coupla brigades ready for Afghanistan!

Does she know that Russia has nukes?

Let’s hear from you, John McCain. This is getting good.
 
Written By: Ed
URL: http://
Yes, you, John McCain!

Do you support the Palin Doctrine?
 
Written By: Ed
URL: http://
Do you have a link to your first quote in the post? Thanks
It is in the same article linked at the bottom of the post.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Sarah Palin is up for war with Russia if it attacks Georgia.
No. She said that if Georgia is a part of NATO and Russia attacks, we’d be obligated under the NATO treaty to come to her defense. That’s the very same thing Obama has said about NATO allies.

But nice try at putting words in her mouth, Ed.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Allow me to pose a hypothetical, as this is my first post on this site. Please consider the following:

You are examining candidates for a C-level leadership position within your company (as people actually in this position represent about 0.001% of the US population, thus the hypothetical) and you have a choice between the following:

1. An extremely intelligent person who may seem aloof at times, but considers input seriously. Makes careful and deliberate decisions, but sometimes says things that are stupid.

2. A moderately intelligent person who seems folksy and charming, but has aggressive tendencies when questioned. Makes rash decisions, and regularly says things that are stupid.

Who do you think your shareholders would favor?
They "wouldn’t blink." There would be too much money on the line to make the risk of #2 justifiable.

I’ve been in the ring with guys (martial arts background) who have the temperament of #2, and they were always easy to defeat. They wouldn’t consider my strengths, weaknesses, or fighting style, they would simply attack aggressively. As a result, they would overreach. This would put them off balance, and so it was easy to counter with a parry and a hook to the temple, or cross to the throat. The angrier they got at being knocked around, the sloppier they became, and they outcome was inevitable.

It’s not just the experience that matters, it’s the wisdom and temperament. One is reminded of Napolean’s mules: they had seen a hundred campaigns, but they were still mules.

When I hear someone like John McCain and Sarah Palin say things like “following bin Laden to the gates of hell” or “we can’t blink” when talking about dealing with terrorists, it concerns me. It demonstrates that experience does not always lead to wisdom. Terrorists are evil, but extremely calculating and cunning, as is evidenced by the sophistication of their networks. I’ve seen some of the documents recovered by our military at Tarnak Farms in my work with the FDA on food defense and food safety, and they demonstrate a level of planning that is chilling.

To deal with threats of this kind, as well as the more traditional idiotic kind like Putin’s Georgian Adventure, it is clear to me that our leaders should be cold and calculating, not rash and swaggering. It would be easy to stay 12 moves ahead of people with the temperament of McCain and Palin, and therefore just as easy to lure them into any number of traps. Simply repeating the gist of a doctrine is not the same as interpreting it, and Palin failed miserably in this regard.


 
Written By: Michael
URL: http://
1. An extremely intelligent person who may seem aloof at times, but considers input seriously. Makes careful and deliberate decisions, but sometimes says things that are stupid.

2. A moderately intelligent person who seems folksy and charming, but has aggressive tendencies when questioned. Makes rash decisions, and regularly says things that are stupid.
Well first, Michael, we have to agree with your characterizations to reach your conclusions. I think they’re off the mark by a lot.

As for #1, name a ’deliberate decision’ that person has made that we can assess? I mean something he’s had to decide all by himself, execute and take responsibility for that indicates he has the ability to lead.

What has he done? What has he run that shows he can make deliberate decisions? To this point I have seen nothing to prove he in fact has that capacity. And I’ve seen many of the type person you describe become victims of analysis paralysis.

With no track record of accomplishment, that person wouldn’t even be in the running for a C-level leadership position within my company in my world.

And I think it is really indicative of how panicked the left is when it continues to try to draw comparisons between the top of their ticket and the bottom of the Republican ticket.

BTW I got a chuckle out of this:
It would be easy to stay 12 moves ahead of people with the temperament of McCain and Palin, and therefore just as easy to lure them into any number of traps.
Really? The Obama camp is doing a boffo job of that right now, aren’t they? They’re letting a VP candidate take the limelight for heaven sake.

"Enough!"
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
"It would be easy to stay 12 moves ahead of people with the temperament of McCain and Palin, and therefore just as easy to lure them into any number of traps."

Then you have no worries, as the wise and judicious Democratic candidates shall resoundingly defeat M&P.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
It would be easy to stay 12 moves ahead of people with the temperament of McCain and Palin, and therefore just as easy to lure them into any number of traps.
Yes, yes, of course. But to make sure that your strategy is perfectly hidden, first you must pretend to fall 12 moves behind! Pick a retread Beltway hack as a running mate. Pretend that you can’t make coherent statements off the teleprompter. Let the electoral map seem to slip away from you. Most important, get that generic voter preference poll to show that a once 15-point preference has closed to three points. Then strike McCain and Palin and force them to run Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and Father Pfleger ads in the closing weeks of the campaign! It will be over like that!
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://newpaltzjournal.com
Interesting that you refer to the campaign. I’m more concerned with how a leader will perform after the election. The serious issues we have to face as a nation bear no resemblance to maneuvering an election year muckfest. Energy independence, terrorism, education, healthcare. These are issues of importance beyond the election cycle.

But focusing only on elections has been a common criticism of the GOP for years now. Good at winning elections, really bad at governing. Tough talk, swagger, and overreach. Very convenient strategy for extremists groups like Al Qaeda and quasi petro-dictators like Putin to take advantage of.
May I remind you good folks that January 21st is rapidly approaching?
 
Written By: Michael
URL: http://
Interesting that you refer to the campaign. I’m more concerned with how a leader will perform after the election.
As am I which is why I said:

As for #1, name a ’deliberate decision’ that person has made that we can assess? I mean something he’s had to decide all by himself, execute and take responsibility for that indicates he has the ability to lead.

What has he done? What has he run that shows he can make deliberate decisions? To this point I have seen nothing to prove he in fact has that capacity. And I’ve seen many of the type person you describe become victims of analysis paralysis.

With no track record of accomplishment, that person wouldn’t even be in the running for a C-level leadership position within my company in my world.


I would assume, given I wouldn’t give this person a C-level leadership position in my company, that would probably figure out I certainly wouldn’t trust him with the most powerful office in the world.

I also noticed you offered nothing of substance in terms of examples of his accomplishments to ameliorate my concern.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Interesting that you refer to the campaign. I’m more concerned with how a leader will perform after the election. The serious issues we have to face as a nation bear no resemblance to maneuvering an election year muckfest. Energy independence, terrorism, education, healthcare. These are issues of importance beyond the election cycle.
But it’s easy, you said, to stay 12 steps ahead of McCain. Now you’re implying that "real problems" are different than the campaign, which is a "muckfest," with the implication that the campaign is — which will it be — beneath or beyond the real skills of The One.
But focusing only on elections has been a common criticism of the GOP for years now.
Oh.
Good at winning elections, really bad at governing. Tough talk, swagger, and overreach. Very convenient strategy for extremists groups like Al Qaeda and quasi petro-dictators like Putin to take advantage of.
But it was Clinton who was played like a harmonica by al Qaeda; George Bush broke down their door and made them dead — that’s not swagger.

And Iraq, which under Hussein set the standard for a rogue state in serial defiance of international standards, was transformed by Bush, even as he took advantage of the opportunity to kill al Qaeda jihadis as if on a conveyor belt.

Overreach? Hardly. A small, long war, with a third of the number of soldiers killed than were killed in the single Pacific theatre battle of WWII on the island of Okinawa.

Perspective. Get some.

 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://newpaltzjournal.com
McQ is correct that the Obama camp has very similar positions on Georgia and NATO, but I put no word in her mouth; those were copied and pasted from an online transcript. McQ reminds me that I have to take a deep breath and back off from sarcasm and try to focus again on what is important. I have been getting carried away by the fuss over Palin. But even though “you and what army” is an old schoolyard taunt, it is pertinent to a major issue in national security policy that has been overlooked entirely as the country has been buried in chickensh*t for the past two weeks.

The same question that I wanted to put to Palin could and should also be put to Obama when he is asked about Georgia and NATO. If he contemplates war with Russia, he should be asked “You and what army?” McCain has to answer the question also. For any question that involves the use of military power, that question has to be asked as bluntly as possible.

Andrew Bacevich (West Point class of 1969, 23 year military career, taught at West Point, lost a son in Iraq, now teaches at Boston University) is not nearly as well-known as he deserves to be. In the LA Times he has a column that says something that needs to be said, “The next president will disappoint you.” It was written before either the DNC or the RNC met and is not affected by very recent events. http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-bacevich24-2008aug24,0,1685703.story?track=rss is the link. One short passage is crucial in the “You and what army” context I am trying to raise. He notes that McCain identifies the central front of the “war on terrorism” as Iraq and Obama sees the central front in Afghanistan. For Bacevich, this is a superficial disagreement that masks a more fundamental problem: “The next commander in chief will inherit an intractable troop shortage. The United States today finds itself with too much war and too few warriors.”

Bacevich wrote a recent book, “The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism.” One of its central ideas is that Americans have overestimated what we can do with military power, especially in its potential to accomplish political objectives. We went into Iraq and Afghanistan overestimating this potential. Now we are bogged down in two small wars in which our adversaries are able to determine the terms on which the fighting takes place. At the Pentagon, they are beginning to talk of a “generational war.” A generational war will break the force. The ambition to transform the greater Middle East by military force is foolish.

Bacevich is a serious man. Needless to say, he is on the Rolodex of neither candidate and has no input into either campaign. He has written other things and has been interviewed a few times in national media but has not become a household word. He says that he plans to vote for Obama, but his column shows that he is not deceived by all the talk about change that has consumed us this election cycle.

Let’s ask both candidates about the limits of power, especially military power, to accomplish national security goals. Obama appears to have a better grasp than McCain of those limits. Returning to the head-to-head comparison of the tops of the two national tickets, Obama looks like the one with the advantage on this extremely important issue.

 
Written By: Ed
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider