Welcome back Mark! [rquoter]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. We haven't seen it reported anywhere else, but it's a big story. Here's what Mrs. Clinton said: "There's absolutely a connection between a democratic regime and heightened security for the United States." Here's what Mr. Obama said: "The more we see repression, the more there are no outlets for how people can express themselves and their aspirations, the worse off we're going to be, and the more anti-American sentiment there's going to be in the Middle East." Or, as President Bush has put it in enunciating what has come to be known as the Bush Doctrine: "For decades, free nations tolerated oppression in the Middle East for the sake of stability. In practice, this approach brought little stability and much oppression, so I have changed this policy." Or, as he put it again, "Some who call themselves realists question whether the spread of democracy in the Middle East should be any concern of ours. But the realists in this case have lost contact with a fundamental reality: America has always been less secure when freedom is in retreat; America is always more secure when freedom is on the march." Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama spoke their share of silliness during the debate, and they lost no opportunity to criticize the president. But the comments they made about the connection between freedom, democracy, and American national security are a reminder though it may be fashionable to talk about how divided America is, there is a broad consensus on certain key principles, a consensus that extends from Mr. Bush on the right to Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton on the left. It's fashionable, too, these days, to disparage Mr. Bush. But when historians assess the successes of his presidency, the far-sighted among them will surely count as one of his signal accomplishments that he shifted the debate on freedom and democracy and security in the Middle East so decisively that even his political opponents were conducting their debate on his terms. It is one of the president's great contributions, not only to American security but to human liberty.[/rquoter]
This has always been the "Bush doctrine"? Or did this become the Bush doctrine after "**** em', we'll do what we want and what are you going to do to stop me?" doctrine became a world laughingstock?
Bush's doctrine is just fine. But the ends do not justify the means, and in reality, the end will become greatly distorted as a result of the means.
BTW. This is priceless. The man who signed the execution order for 163 people (that's just a warm-up) as gov of Texas is now a paragon of human liberty. love it!
Whaa? I think we quite aggressively support stability and oppression in places like Saudi Arabia. And outside of the Middle East in places like Pakistan. Hasn't the reasoning always been "it's better than the alternative" which is exactly why we supported stability/oppression over freedom in the past?
Why, yes! [rquoter]The qualities of courage and compassion that we strive for in America also determine our conduct abroad. The American flag stands for more than our power and our interests. Our founders dedicated this country to the cause of human dignity, the rights of every person, and the possibilities of every life. This conviction leads us into the world to help the afflicted, and defend the peace, and confound the designs of evil men. [snip] Different threats require different strategies. In Iran, we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction, and supports terror. We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty and human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government and determine their own destiny -- and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom. [snip] And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.) [snip] And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom. [snip] Many challenges, abroad and at home, have arrived in a single season. In two years, America has gone from a sense of invulnerability to an awareness of peril; from bitter division in small matters to calm unity in great causes. And we go forward with confidence, because this call of history has come to the right country. Americans are a resolute people who have risen to every test of our time. Adversity has revealed the character of our country, to the world and to ourselves. America is a strong nation, and honorable in the use of our strength. We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice for the liberty of strangers. Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. (Applause.) [/rquoter] The truth shall set you free, Mark!
These were my thoughts as I read this. Sorry basso, but the Bush doctrine isn't really his doctrine at all. He supports and props up undemocratic regimes in the middle east, and elsewhere. He may use the doctrine as an excuse to attack whoever he sees fit. But does nothing but support dictators and oppressors in places like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.
Basso as a purported libertarian I struggle to fathom why you support Bush so unconditionally. What in his policies, domestically or abroad, has led you to believe that Bush is an upholder of liberty? Is it Bush's support of an oppresive regime in Saudi Arabia, where women are not allowed to drive? Or his support of military dictatorship in Pakistan? Or the phone-tapping, or the death penalty, or the proposed amendment to ban gay marriage?
Those statements are just common sense. Less oppression = less extremism. This is by definition a very liberal stance, one that was conveniently adopted by neoconservatives when it became clear that it could be used as a rationalization to invade Middle Eastern countries. For Clinton's and Obama's statements to be considered an endorsement of the Bush doctrine, they would have needed to say something about the preemptive use of preemptive force to overthrow existing regimes.
Bush has a doctrine? Right. The doctrine of incompetence. The doctrine of being so far over his head he doesn't know which way is up. The doctrine of saying any sort of BS he thinks will sell the American people on his stupidity. The Bush Doctrine is the Peter Principal. D&D. Attempt Civility! Impeach Bush for Holding Hands with an Idiot.
