Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Did you know what the "Bush Doctrine" was or is?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Blue_Roses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 10:51 PM
Original message
Did you know what the "Bush Doctrine" was or is?
Edited on Thu Sep-11-08 11:19 PM by Blue_Roses
I have to admit, even though I've heard it mentioned, I didn't know the "specifics" other than we have the so-called right to attack a country that is intent on harming us. Is that mostly the gist of it? But I'm not running for VP, nor am I repub neo-con.

However, while she should have known it, it wasn't that gaffe that was so unnerving about it. It was her way of trying to spin and lace it that creeped me out. Also, the body language screamed of inexperience and PTA president
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 10:52 PM
Response to Original message
1. Pre-emptive war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paparush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-08 07:38 AM
Response to Reply #1
40. Premeditated war.
Preemption implies a perceived threat.

Premeditated is just cold blooded killing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
2. Simple: Pre-emptive Military Action

First time in our history that we went to war with a country that hadn't attacked us or declared war on us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-08 07:37 AM
Response to Reply #2
39. First time? Are you sure on that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
C_U_L8R Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
3. I thought it was "shoot first, ask questions later"
which is pretty close : -))
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
4. yes. absolutely. knowing how wonderful our intelligence is,it's a wonderful doctrine
KILL FIRST


:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
evlbstrd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
5. It's brutally simple.
War.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goletian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
6. be retarded, rush in, head first. yep.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 10:54 PM
Response to Original message
7. No, I didn't, but I'm not running for VP and claiming I understand foreign policy.
I wonder if McCain knew what it was?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Honeycombe8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 10:54 PM
Response to Original message
8. Sort of. His view that we have a right to first strike against a country if we are in imminent...
danger, or something like that. But of course, the devil is in the details.

"Imminent" - who decides if the danger is imminent?

"Danger" - who decides if we are in danger.

"We have a right" - who decides that we have that right? Congress? Or "the decider" himself, alone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goletian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 10:54 PM
Response to Original message
9. not knowing is forgivable, she fucked up by trying to play it off. lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #9
23. It's our new National Security Strategy after 9/11
Not knowing is most certainly NOT forgivable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 10:55 PM
Original message
Making up lies so we can attack Nations that pose no threat to us but have a lot of oil. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cynatnite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 10:55 PM
Response to Original message
10. kill 'em first, brag about it second n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
George_Bonanza Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 10:57 PM
Response to Original message
11. "Pre-emptive Strike"
It's probably slightly more complex, but those are the two magic words.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paparush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-08 07:39 AM
Response to Reply #11
42. Premeditated strike.
Preemptive implies a perceived threat.

Premeditated is just cold blooded killing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Plaid Adder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 10:57 PM
Response to Original message
12. Oh yes. I know what the Bush Doctrine is.
Edited on Thu Sep-11-08 11:03 PM by Plaid Adder
Cause I still remember back when there were still people willing to go on record that it was INSANE.

http://www.plaidder.com/oldnomore.htm#bushdoctrine

Unfortunately, that page is so old that most of the links are broken. Here's a working link to Senator Ted Kennedy's attack on the Bush Doctrine.

The Bush Doctrine was basically a declaration of pre-emptive war. In other words: we can and will strike any nation, anywhere, at any time, as long as we believe that said nation could pose a threat to us at some future date. It's a pretty simple idea, as most ideas that came out of Bush tend to be. And it got us into a lot of fucking trouble.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rwheeler31 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
13. I .unitary executive. can do what I want. Don't you make eat
those carrots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
14. it is "I will lie cheat steal and murder because nobody will stop me" lol nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Motown_Johnny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 11:01 PM
Response to Original message
15. Everyone who has been paying attention since before the Iraq war knows what it is
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FKA MNChimpH8R Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 11:04 PM
Response to Original message
16. Preemptive war combined with the Fuhrer Principle
War forever against brown people who have oil that rightfully belongs to us. War now. War forever! Ein Volk! Ein Reich! Ein Chimpenfuhrer!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbonds Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 11:06 PM
Response to Original message
17. I don't think there is a document that says 'This is the Bush Doctrine'
But I always heard it used as pre-emptive war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. US National Security Strategy - 2002
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbonds Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. Ah, I stand corrected, there is a document.
Thanks. Is that whole document considered the bush doctrine. I thought only the pre-emptive part was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. I just posted a separate thread
I am truly horrified she doesn't know what this is. We usually refer to the pre-emption part because that's the most shocking change, but Bush Doctrine really refers to the whole idea of spreading democracy by force and all the neocon nuttiness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msallied Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 11:07 PM
Response to Original message
18. I knew what it was, yes. However...
I've been up to my tatas in conspiracy stuff regarding this administration since 9/11/01 and knowledge of the PNAC is critical in this respect.

But normal every day people might not know the "Bush Doctrine" by its name. That's fine. But if you plan on running or helping run this country, you had better freakin know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Roses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #18
24. exactly...
I think after awhile anything Bush says just runs together.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
casus belli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 11:08 PM
Response to Original message
19. Which is exactly why us "regular folks" don't usually run for president
Looks as though the GOP really knows how to capitalize on mediocrity. I consider myself a fairly smart individual. As such, I want someone much smarter than me to have the office of President. People who look at anything they see and say "I could do that" with no training or knowledge, have bigger problems than just stupidity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Roses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #19
26. so true...
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 11:11 PM
Response to Original message
20. Known since he introduced it
It's our new national security strategy that gives us permission to police the world and strike whenever we want to.

And I just watched the first 7 minutes of that interview and I am more horrified than I was when she was selected.

She truly is dumber than Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
osaMABUSh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 11:12 PM
Response to Original message
21. In what respect, Charlie?
(I have no freaking idea what you are talking about so can you throw me a bone?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoadRage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 11:18 PM
Response to Original message
27. Bush Doctrine = Cowboy Mentality...
Bush Doctrine: Go Alone, Shoot First, Ask Questions later after you've already buried the body, then say you don't know where the body is. Bush Doctrine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 11:19 PM
Response to Original message
28. absolutely and I'm from a very very smalltown...one that makes the Wasilla AK look like NYC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yavin4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 11:22 PM
Response to Original message
30. It;s The Ideological Bedrock of the Bush Foreign Policy
I've known it since 2002. Anyone who pays any attention to the news, foreign policy, or takes a remote interest in world affairs should have definitely known it.

BTW, McCain subscribes to the Bush Doctrine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 11:23 PM
Response to Original message
31. Pre-emption, absent any imminent threat.
The disregard for imminence is the key... which she failed to comprehend even after Charlie spoon-fed her the definition of the Bush Doctrine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MilesColtrane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 11:27 PM
Response to Original message
32. We don't like somebody...we fuck them up.
Regardless of any type of facts or logic, and especially if they're sitting on top of a shitload of oil...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fozzledick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
33. It's "The Hitler Doctrine" with lipstick
Just boy george taking credit for plagiarism again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TNMOM Donating Member (735 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 11:40 PM
Response to Original message
34. yes, I knew it.
Anyone with half a brain who paid attention the last eight F'ing years knows what it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 11:56 PM
Response to Original message
35. yes, absolutely
it is simple and you got it but at the time there was a TON of talk about it. I was completely freaked out.

PPl posted quotes from Lincoln and other great presidents who said preemptive war is insane and can never be considered American because WHAT IF WE ARE WRONG.

And of course, that's exactly what happened.

It's not preemption in the face of a imminent threat, its preemption because sometime in the future they might become a threat.


Remember that. Because remember Bush has said, a zillion times, "I never said Saddam was an imminent threat".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
npincus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-08 12:19 AM
Response to Original message
36. yes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krabigirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-08 12:21 AM
Response to Original message
37. Yes, but I just thought it meant pre-emptive war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benjita Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-08 01:12 AM
Response to Original message
38. no - but I'm not running to govern the most powerfull nations on earth
What's the Bush Doctrine? His world view.

Are you friggin kidding me Palin?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lady raven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-08 07:39 AM
Response to Original message
41. I did,
And I'm a state university educated mom/ den mother/ PTA President from the middle of nowhere.

Wait! That means I'm qualified...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mwb970 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-08 07:39 AM
Response to Original message
43. Of course. Where have you been?
It was discussed here and elsewhere for weeks when bush came out with it and is still referred to regularly.

Not knowing about this is the least of Palin's worries, and the least of our worries about her. As far as I know, this is the closest that any fascist has ever gotten to the levers of government power in America's history. Will we watch them take over?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nc4bo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-08 07:41 AM
Response to Original message
44. No, I didn't. The problem I'm having is that Palin did not admit she didn't either
yet she continued to make shit up.

Part of being a good leader is being able to admit when you don't know something and ASK questions to educate yourself on what you don't know.

Palin: FAIL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
secondwind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-08 07:46 AM
Response to Reply #44
47. Palin's hubris is as thick as moosehide, and she is dumber than a moose............
I wonder if the Republicans are starting to second-guess their choice for VP.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunnies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-08 07:43 AM
Response to Original message
45. Yes, I did. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
City Lights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-08 07:44 AM
Response to Original message
46. Yes.
Maybe not the nitty gritty details, but enough to have answered Chuck's question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-08 07:47 AM
Response to Original message
48. Yes it is actually the "1 percent doctrine" as Suskind's book was title
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demwing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-08 07:50 AM
Response to Original message
49. Wikipedia Article on Bush Doctrine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

"The Bush Doctrine is a term used to describe the philosophy of pre-emption of United States president George W. Bush. Specifically, the Bush Doctrine focuses on the controversial policy of preventive war, which holds that the United States government should depose foreign regimes that represent a threat to the security of the United States, even if such threats are not immediate and no attack is imminent. The Bush Doctrine was used to justify the invasion of Iraq in March 2003."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-08 07:52 AM
Response to Original message
50. Are you running to be a VERY close heart-beat away?
Edited on Fri Sep-12-08 07:52 AM by Skwmom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bad Thoughts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-08 07:52 AM
Response to Original message
51. Yes, but Gibson was being simplistic
Not only should it include preemptive war in order to eliminate perceived threats (regimes that don't like or frustrate the US and, I guess, have a few rifles), but using war to reshape the diplomatic and security environment ("spreading democracy"). Not that Palin dealt with these issues. She didn't even get what preemptive meant; she described preventive war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EffieBlack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-08 07:54 AM
Response to Original message
52. Yes, I do - and I'm not even running for an office that might directly involve it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CJCRANE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-08 07:57 AM
Response to Original message
53. Yes. FYI the Bush Doctrine policy was drafted by Philip Zelikow nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dccrossman Donating Member (530 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-08 08:07 AM
Response to Original message
54. As I've heard it, it's the 1% doctrine
This is based on my interpretation and memory, which are certainly suspect... =)

If there's a 1% chance that someone could/would attack you, that is sufficient to justify attacking them first.

Usually associated with the "mushroom cloud" fear-monger:
We don't want the attack we respond to to be a mushroom cloud, or some such nonsense.

It's a justification for pre-emptive, unilateral war.

Up to W, we were a nation that was generally not interested in attacking a sovereign nation, except as a counterattack. But when one defines the attackers as terrorists, and ties them all to the September 11th attack, you can see how twisted logic gets to this conclusion.

My brain hurts now. Shouldn't try to follow W/Cheney logic. =)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-08 08:09 AM
Response to Original message
55. Basically the same as the Wolfowitz doctrine but not as detailed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-08 08:40 AM
Response to Original message
56. "War Crime" is how International Law defines it, I believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xxqqqzme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-08 08:45 AM
Response to Original message
57. Instantly - the media called it that until
the corporate America realized how handsomely they were going to profit from it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JimboDem Donating Member (287 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-08 08:56 AM
Response to Original message
58. AP (radio) Headline News
last night, described the 'Bush Doctrine' as spreading "Democracy" to combat terrra.....my ears bled. M$M at it again.

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-08 08:57 AM
Response to Original message
59. Yes. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-08 08:57 AM
Response to Original message
60. "Always do the stupidest thing."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoePhilly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-08 08:57 AM
Response to Original message
61. He should have asked her to compare the Bush Doctrine to the Powell Doctrine
And to indicate which is preferable.

That would have been really funny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ellie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-08 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
62. Yes
Can I be president now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoesTo11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-08 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
63. I knew, but I'm not running for VP
I would have thought that any political leader who takes this country seriously would know. However, I am pretty sure the majority of Americans don't know. So if people want to vote for candidate with the most Average American level of knowledge, this helps Palin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Geek_Girl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-08 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #63
64. Apparently your over qualified for the Job
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thorandmjolnir Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-08 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
65. I wish Gibson would have followed up
with the obvious question:

Is the Bush doctrine, the right to wage preemptive war, a purely American right or does other countries have the same right?

That is the whole fallacy of the doctrine. If any country has the right to attack another country because it thinks someone else is about to do something bad, there is no Rule of Law, no UN Charter, but just pure anarchy.

If it only applies to the US, is it simply because of the divine right of the US to attack other countries when we feel threatened, but other countries can't do the same?

What if Russia claims to have compelling evidence that Georgia was about to carry out terrorist attacks against Russia? Are they precluded from waging preemptive war?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 16th 2024, 08:31 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC