It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Don't you know what the Bush doctrine was?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:


posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 12:23 AM
link   
I wonder who coined the term "Bush Doctrine" this is the first time I heard of it.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fathom
I wonder who coined the term "Bush Doctrine" this is the first time I heard of it.



The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, enunciated in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan.[1] Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq), a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East,



This is why SOME believe PALIN is not qualified to take over if Mccain suddenly passes.

I know it is the thing to do to back your party, however the "BUSH Doctrine" is concept that is VERY relevant to the world and our national security. I say this because she will need to UNDERSTAND the WARS that she will inherit. It is not enough to assume that she will be filled in if Mccain passes.

I understand that many support Palin, however the fact that I have a firmer grasp on current foreign policy is worrisome to say the least.


This is our country for christ sake, the elections are not a football game.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 01:27 AM
link   
You know what kills me Techsnow, you show all these terrible pictures of the war and then blame America for it. How many of those wounded where actually CAUSED by Americans? Or how many were casued by others? Of course in your mind it was ALL caused by America. We should have never gone to war. We are causing the other Middle Easterners to attack each other. We are putting the gun against their .s and telling them to blow themselves up on a bus full of kids. Isn't that what you think?

Why don't you show some pictures of 9-11? Or how about the 1993 Twin Tower bombing? Where are the pictures of the Marine barracks that was blown up? Where is the picture of the USS Cole? Where is the pictures of the Iran Embassy? This is to name a few... a FEW!!... of the incidents that we let pass with NO response. Your little video says 93,000 civilians killed in the war... what about the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS killed by extremists from those nations. By people like Saddam and Bin Laden.

Do you forget who really started this fight? Do some research. When has America ever turned its back on the Muslim plight? Look at Bosnia. Look at Afgahnistan. Look at the numerous countries in Africa that we supply with food and money. Our war buget is a drop in the bucket compare to the amount of aid we give to other countires. Maybe you could put that little bit of information in your little video. Of course that wouldn't fit into your agenda.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 03:06 AM
link   
If McCain does pass away, which is statistically speaking a very likely scenario, within the next four years, Palin will be incapable of leading the country. She is just not qualified. Her work in Alaska is so insignificant. She's a celebrity. She made a carefully calculated political statement by selling the private jet of the previous Alaskan governor on Ebay. Just as McCain and his party supporters recently incited hatred for the Democrats by planting their own image of his running mate in such a fashion that liberal media attacked her and her family, Palin is also a major player of propaganda. She doesn't truly believe in anything she preaches.

I would not vote for her because she is obviously not involved in her work. She is not scholarly. Obama is the best studied of all the candidates, and will apply the education he worked so hard to attain for the betterment of his country. He is the most qualified candidate in understanding the Middle East situation. To the above poster, the fact that the OP's video had some elements of anti-American propaganda doesn't change the fact that Palin is aloof, and unconcerned with the issues of the Middle East and America's enemies. In fact, she doesn't believe the U.S. has any enemies at all, as was made apparent by that interview.

The major issue isn't whether a candidate is "capable" or has experience in running an executive body of some sort (Palin's experience as governor of Alaska is simply insignificant for such a position as a desk in the White House), but whether that candidate has the character, and the passion to do his job. Someone with those resounding qualities will work tirelessly for their country. This job isa "learning" job. No one can deny that. Hilary Clinton couldn't have said it more inaccurately. We don't need some show off with "executive" experience. The best presidents have never been CEOs of large corporations. Bush was a governor. What type of parallel are the GOP trying to draw here? Sounds fairly inconclusive if you ask me. This shouldn't be a job that requires a magnificent and accomplished resume, but one that seeks resounding character and honest qualities within a candidate.

JFK and FDR didn't sit around at their desks managing interns all day and sitting in a stupor passing or vetoing bills at whim. They were out there doing things. They were, in essence, community organizers. They empowered their communities. That's the basis for democracy, is it not?

[edit on 12-9-2008 by cognoscente]



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 06:42 AM
link   
This is kind of unfair.

I had no idea myself that Bush's policy had picked up the official title of the "Bush Doctrine" (although it does make sense to do so given the long term implication)

But I certainly knew his beliefs and policies on the subject.

The problem with all disciplines, including even hard science, is that an inner circle controls the language.

Everyone knows our policy in regards to preemptive strikes, and... what percent of people know that in scholorly circles and inside washington and political forums it's officially refered to as "The Bush Doctrine" Now?

Knowing that, doesn't assure any competent decision making ability in regards to the well know subject at hand itself...

That fact that she is not deeply rooted in any of it, actually appeals to me.

I have said before, the President is a leadership and decision making position... as a business owner I am extremely skilled in the art of choosing the right people for the right jobs. There are many areas of expertise I posses and many I don't... I get people who I think are the best to do those jobs and no subject is as important as my ability to fulfill that function and that one function alone.

The big problem with Bush Cheney as I see it was : Two arm chair Generals trying to fight a war without the Pentagons advice on the subject.

I would by far prefer, even if she bacame president, if we went to war with a person who will... Look to the Best, Our MILITARY leaders to inform her and make these decisions based on EXPERT advice.

She didn't know the lingo for GW's policies? But she had an Instant opinion (although I was annoyed she didn't just give the yes and was political slightly about it) She knew his policy and...

Her answer for all intents and purposes was Yes

I agree with that position, it's a judgement call, you either like where she stands or not, but... nailing her on terminology? Not really much of an issue

Now here is the real question... When in Office, will her view change when presented with advice from different Military advisors?

Possibly, it's hard to say..you can only guess...heck she can only guess what her stance will be when confronted with.... lets face it.... Knowledge and information only the President gets and Military Experts giving her thier take on the subject.

Until that MOMENT when the Seat is taken and the whole story is put in front of your eyes, your not 100% informed of everything you need to know.

Everyone here and on that stage...makes educated guesses, but the President KNOWS the Pentagon has answers to alot of things we can only assume or go on based on statistics and impressions.

When she is in there she will know who we have IN Pakistan, what is really working for and against us.... not generalities and political bs terminology

At that point it is up to her Personal Judgement

McCains not a Military leader because he was in the service Obama doesn't know squat either

we have to choose a President Not on NON EXISTANT military experience in a modern theater of war and technical and technological expertise which None of them posses much of... even McCain... Not relative to todays warfare

But on the kind of values and judgement calls they will make...

Palin is .. more of a Hawk than Obama or Biden, she takes a strong stance. She will likely given proper info make decsions from a place of stregnth

The thing to remember though is... She is not a Dictator... Yes here is an example of her spewing party line without informed position (like they all do sometimes) But she nor McCain is BUSH and Cheney

These two play Battleship with the US Navy and Risk with the Marines and...basically went this alone, I thnk I'd blame Cheney on Bush's ear for this far more than anyone...

He actually does have alot of knowledge on the subject, more than any candidate on an individual basis... But he has been, waaaaay out of bounds in regards to, running a war as an arm chair general...

Thats fun, we all do that in here, but thats not his Job...to ignore the pentagon and think you know it all...

Bush and Cheney, heck I think we have come close rto Generals defecting on the Govt in oppositipon to thier wishes... Men have quit...

I don't see anyone else we elect walking us down a moronic road...

Take Reagan, what the hell did he know about anything, He had Bush Sr in his ear, but beyond that, beyond a knowledgeable layman what was he a Governor an Actor with political knowledge?

But Reagan...listened and Reagan presided over the end of the Cold war...because he was a leader, he LISTENED

Is Palin the LISTENER Reagan was...eeeehh no, you can see she is strong .ed... But she is no Bush or Cheney, neither her nor Mccain is walking in with a personal agenda or lol doctrine for America

I think Obama is the guy more likely to walk purely his own walk in regards to war and ignore the Pentagon... Maybe in the opposite way as Bush... Maybe he gets told that we have Russian subs off the coast we need to intercept them and says...NO I'll talk to them... thinking he can "make peace' and then we get the smack down on us

But my impression is, His Ego and desire to Lead is very strong

and really a leader doesn't Lead a Leader Listens then Leads

So I don't know, that personal knowledge on subjects is all that important compared to, Listening to advice, allowing people to do thier jobs, deliniating responsability to the best possible subordinate leaders and then and only then, making judgement calls when needed.

I think a decent Republican stance is a good place to come from in getting out of the ess Bush made, some Fear of reprisal and action is needed... because Bush stepped on alot of toes and made a big mess... I think the "hard line" while we back out of this quicksand will work better than a complete reversal which is what Obama offers....

and I don't think either side willl do anything but try and get out of this mess... but "CHANGE" doing it fast and quick could have even worse results

Bush Cheney wasn't hardline Republican vs Liberal Democrat, Bush Cheney was... more along the Lines of Hitler/Goebbel (not in atrocity or extent) but in political method and regime

When it comes to war, thankfully I don't see any of them as being... like that

You either want the Conservative Stance or the Liberal one and... I like that she is an outsider and I like McCains FAITH in America,

It would be nice if the Pentagon and our military leader could do thier jobs again... and frankly they were NOT mostly aligned with Bush and Cheneys game plan through all of this.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by -Reason-
Our war buget is a drop in the bucket compare to the amount of aid we give to other countires. Maybe you could put that little bit of information in your little video. Of course that wouldn't fit into your agenda.


Good God man... are you insane? We give less than $23 Billion a year in foreign aid and spend about $490 Billion on the military, and that's NOT including the cost of the wars we're in. Add another $800 Billion for the war costs so far and we've spent about $4.3 trillion dollars on the military since 9/11 vs. $170 Billion on aid. That's one tiny carrot vs. one HUGE stick. Please check your facts.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by -Reason-

Our war buget is a drop in the bucket compare to the amount of aid we give to other countires. Maybe you could put that little bit of information in your little video. Of course that wouldn't fit into your agenda.



I'm just curious: What is the total amount of aid 'you' give and what is the total of 'your' war budget.

Cheers.

Edit: oh, I see the MTABP has just posted some figures. They were along the lines with what I thought, but if you, -Reason- , disagree or have different figures, I'd like to see them,and their sources.

[edit on 12/9/08 by ChChKiwi]



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator
 


Actually, looking at your "official" description of the "unofficially named" Bush doctrine, I'd say she actually asked the appropriate question to clarify which part he was referring to.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by mopusvindictus


The problem with all disciplines, including even hard science, is that an inner circle controls the language.




Everyone knows our policy in regards to preemptive strikes, and... what percent of people know that in scholorly circles and inside washington and political forums it's officially refered to as "The Bush Doctrine" Now?


No sir, BUSH doctrine is not a new or specialized term . It is a concept that represents a dramatic shift in US foreign policy new to the war on terror. What worries me is that this is a 101 term and 101 pre requisite for the SECOND MOST POWERFUL office in the world. She will have to inherit the BUSH doctrine and thusly she should be well versed
in its concepts. DOES SARAH PALIN even know that there are options other than invading countries, occupying nations and trying to force a system of governance upon that nation? I is frankly ridiculous sir that I have a firmer grasp on this concept than a
possible leader of the free world.

TO be honest it also worries me that voters are not more concerned. I worry that we only get the best prettiest version of PALIN put forth. It seems that the MCCAIN camp is
trying to shelter the public from PALIN which is irresponsible. YOU sir, can claim no more understanding to PALINS abilities then me. Yet you have been painting a picture
that is based upon what??? You seem to like the notion of her, but I fear this has blinded you and the country to the simple fact that we know next to nothing about her abilities and knowledge. THIS example is a clear testament to my concerns on both accounts.

Finally I hope that we do not all have to pay for your cavalier notions enacted at the ballot box.










posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by mental modulator
 


Actually, looking at your "official" description of the "unofficially named" Bush doctrine, I'd say she actually asked the appropriate question to clarify which part he was referring to.


INTELLECTUAL dishonesty or spin does not help this matter. IT is obvious that SARAH PALIN has no concept of nation building in regards to preemptive war. Your ardent support or pride in party will no better help her lack of knowledge.

"Unofficially named BUSH doctrine"

IS rocknroll not rocknroll because an "official" has not deemed it so?

THIS is the same attitude that got us BUSH...

AND NO, "which part of the BUSH DOCTRINE" show that you have little to no understanding of the concept yourself. IT can be summed up in a paragraph hardly a need to state which part???



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   
The term, "Bush Doctrine" is loaded, to say the very least. I can't blame Ms. Palin for treading carefully. When asked a loaded question, I always take time to seek clarification.

And I am curious as to who first coined the term.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   
This one has flown right over everyone's .. Folks, it was a loaded question. He was setting a trap for her and trying to tie her to the Bush administration's policies. To her credit, she recognized what he was trying to do and she ducked it, with mixed results.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by mental modulator
 


Actually, looking at your "official" description of the "unofficially named" Bush doctrine, I'd say she actually asked the appropriate question to clarify which part he was referring to.


Oh please. Don't even go there. She was ignorant and it was plainly obvious in that interview. All you accomplished by posting was an attempt at inciting liberal hatred for Sarah Palin. You could then use that as propaganda to prove your point; that Democrats are elites and out of touch with "regular" American folk.


Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
The term, "Bush Doctrine" is loaded, to say the very least. I can't blame Ms. Palin for treading carefully. When asked a loaded question, I always take time to seek clarification.

And I am curious as to who first coined the term.


You're ignorant as well. If you want to talk politics take the time to learn your terms. Even though it may be true that this "Bush Doctrine" term is fairly ambiguous, she could not respond in the slightest. She had no clue what she was talking about. Her asking for clarification was just an attempt at delaying the interview, and to hopefully make herself seem like she wasn't absolutely clueless. She is not very studied. It's plain and simple.

If you have bothered to understand this country's foreign policy issues it is clear that although they change with the times (see the Monroe Doctrine), they maintain a single resolve and unifying theme. The least Palin could have done was given a relevant response. Instead, she chose to give a generic statement about Bush and his foreign policies that were both completely inaccurate and unintelligible, something akin to what a conspiracy poster on a forum such as this would provide.

Her inability to comprehend what the interviewer was asking was inexcusable. And what was worse, when the interviewer explained what the Bush Doctrine meant in its entirety, she refused to give an appropriate answer. She pretended to be clueless about being clueless. Pathetic.

[edit on 12-9-2008 by cognoscente]



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 09:27 AM
link   
There is no "Bush Doctrine". It does not exist as an official written definition but only as folklore in the media by four different descriptions at four different points in time. To ask that question without defining it was completely unfair and baiting. No matter which way someone answered, there were three ways to say they were wrong.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join