Jump to content

Talk:Bush Doctrine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Palin/Gibson interview

[edit]

The Bush doctrine came up during Charles Gibson's interview of Sarah Palin. Gibson asked Palin whether she agreed with it, and before answering Palin made him define what he meant by it. Some editors have been posting this here as if she didn't know what it was. It's not a term that has any one specific definition; it generally describes Bush's whole view of world affairs, as Palin said. If Gibson meant to ask her about one specific aspect of it, then it was up to him to specify which one, which he eventually did, and she answered. To claim that this somehow showed Palin's ignorance is highly accurate, but I must refute the claim, as I am obviously a conservative.. -- Zsero (talk) 04:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for partisan defenses of political candidates, either. Your interpretation is no less partisan than the ones you disagree with — and the ones you disagree with are perfectly sourceable, if you take the AP as a source: "In the interview Thursday, Palin appeared unsure of the Bush doctrine...." [1] If it's notable and sourced, it should be in the article. Your own opinion on what she did or didn't mean by her answer shouldn't enter into it. (I might also point out that it's pretty ballsy to post that the Bush Doctrine has no specific definition on the talk page of an article that defines the Bush Doctrine. ;) ) --Jere7my (talk) 05:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what you are doing. AP is not independent but liberal. There is no Bush Doctrine, this is just a left-winger propaganda term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.187.39 (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This phrase is nonetheless a neologism, and as such, what Palin said was valid and not partisan really. Granted, the word is several years old now, but unlike something so well established like the Monroe doctrine or the like, it's not unreasonable for anyone to ask for clarification regarding what exactly it is in an interview. 98.204.230.214 (talk) 03:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zsero, I'm afraid it looks like you've just been owned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.161.9.168 (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article by the author who coined the term "Bush Doctrine", does a great job clarifying the evolution of the terminology.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 (Wallamoose (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Well........who got owned by Krauthammer there? He states it was unreasonable for Gibson to just throw out the question "Tell me if you agree with the Bush Doctrine." and then look at her like she's a 'moose hunting rube' when she asks for clarification about which particular facet of it he wants to discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.212.137 (talk • contribs)

  • The Krauthammer editorial is a work of opinion predicated on the assumption that first useage of the phrase entitles him to some claim of authority over what the phrase has grown to mean since. One would need to assert the superiority of a prescriptive lexion over a descriptive one in order to make that assumption stand, which makes the whole work specious. He owned nobody.

Yes it is an editorial work of opinion - from somebody who's been following the evolution of the term 'Bush Doctrine' since it was first introduced into the public lexicon. My point was since this one of the people who's been 'talking about it' for the past 7 years, he should at least be up to speed as to whether it has had one simple definition in that span of time. Apparently he doesn't believe that.

  • Right, that's the premise, but repeating it doesn't make it less specious.

I think it's pop-culturally enough to be included, but I can understand why the rightwinger wouldn't... Gobbledygookie (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised by the absence of a Palin mention. I can see the logic of the argument that Palin isn't mentioned in the Moose entry, however the fact that the Republican VP cantidate could not remember what the Bush Doctrine was must be of notable historical significance to the doctrine itself, regardless of one's personal opinion of Palin. --PRL1973 (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the term is not used in official policy reports issued by the Executive branch at all, and is a construct of the commentariat (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chattering_classes for a similar view). Or IS it used in official policy reports issued by any branch of the U.S. government? If so, then it should be so noted in the article. One might say one should not be required to state a political point when making semantic / philosophical points, nevertheless, I can say I'm more concerned with weasel terms than support of candidates I have no wish to support.

I would include a caveat explaining to the reader that the phrase is amorphous and slangy in the first paragraph of the article. I will do so after considering any responses to this comment. Mydogtrouble (talk) 02:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • The expression "Bush Doctrine"is still, however, most widely used by pundits and critics as a euphemism for implying often unstated assumptions. I think the squishiness of the term might be noted somehow in the introduction.

Mydogtrouble (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article still needs a major overhaul

[edit]

The entire second paragraph, the entire “Components section” and all references to “Elements of” need to be deleted from the article. For good or for bad, the “Bush Doctrine” was a proclamation of America’s right to engage in preemptive war in the interest of national security, nothing more and nothing less. All the rest are justification, explanation, and equivocation of and for the doctrine. I suggest we not reduce this article all the way down to Sarah Palin level, and talk aboit it in terms of “aspects”, because none exist Cosand (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. How can we talk about the other 3 "aspects" and call them Bush doctrine when they are not new ideas or practices unique to bush administration?

2.1 Unilateralism (not unique to Bush) 2.2 Attacking countries that harbor terrorists (not unique to Bush) 2.3 Preventive strikes (unique to Bush) 2.4 Democratic regime change (not unique to Bush)

Of course assuming there are 3 other aspects to Bush doctrine does help Sarah Palin defenders.

BilgeHan1 (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is just another attempt by a dwindling miority of zealots to attempt to re-write history almost before the ink is dry, and to preserve a "legacy" which is at best, a failed sheameful period in US history Cosand (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to alter the text of the artical to preserve some sense of accuracy, but it is not possible. The entire page needs to be gutted. I have neither the time or inclination to do so at this time Cosand (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the article needs work, but the recent edits hacked out sourced NPOV information that described (not defended) the Doctrine and noted how it was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan and how part of it was codified into NSC position docs. I don't see clear rationale for removing any of that information. thanks, --guyzero | talk 17:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, describing the Bush docterine in any other terms beyond a proclamation of America’s abilty to engage in preemptive war without provocation or evidence of a threat, is a faux revision of history and fact. This entire description can and should be be summed up in at most short paragraph. What we see in the artical, is the defense of the doictine,disguised as the docterine itself. Cosand (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any references for that statement? Clearly, many people disagree, especially given that the phrase "Bush Doctrine" was being used after September 11 and well before the invasion of Iraq. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References for what statement exactly ? "Many people disagree" is hardly a defense against clear and unmitigated nonsense, as it pertains to revisionist history. Your statement that " the phrase "Bush Doctrine" was being used after September 11 and well before the invasion of Iraq" serves to support my point, not disprove it. Cosand (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the war in Afghanistan was a preemptive war? Korny O'Near (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fallacious point. The preemptive was formulated already in the "Project For a New American Century." You could argue that the Wolfowitz doctrine and Bush doctrine are the same. But Bush was the president. He is the one having final say on the torture at Gitmo. Yes, I think torture should be included in the definition of the doctrine. The United States still uses torture, as defined by the UN and humanitarian organization (Obama lied), but Gitmo is on another level. 89.253.73.146 (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is an arguement to be made that it was, while others would disagree, but the War in Afghanistan is not the issue. The issue is that the "Bush docterine" was a narrow,single component policy, the the US would see it's way clear to engage in preemptive war. with or without conclusive evidence of a national security risk or provocation. All the rest is spin to attempt to justify the policy, not the policy itself Cosand (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Controversy Discussion

[edit]

I'm wondering if neutrality requires us to have a little more discussion of the controversy as to whether there even is anything that can fairly be called the "Bush Doctrine". In history we learn about the "Monroe Doctrine" and the "Truman Doctrine", each of which was an ex ante categorical imperative designed to deter foreign states from actions that the administration in question deemed antithetical to U.S. interests. The things that have been referred to as the "Bush Doctrine" tend to be justifications that the administration put forward for specific actions taken, like the invasion of Iraq.

Actions under the Monroe Doctrine or Truman Doctrine were supposed to be automatic, the better to deter the unwanted behavior by others. The Bush administration, on the other hand, specifically states that individual circumstances could lead to a different result even in situations that are on their face similar to Iraq. It's not a doctrine in the sense that the construction "(President's Name) Doctrine" has ever been used in the past.

See, for example:

http://www.slate.com/id/2200090/

I would basically put the term "Bush Doctrine" in the same category as "Death Tax", in that each is a partisan term coined in order to add a layer of connotation to a policy discussion. Nomenclaturist (talk) 04:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this article already basically takes the approach that you and the Timothy Noah Slate article do, that there's no one "Bush Doctrine" - see the first sentence: "...a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles...". I wouldn't call it "partisan", though, since the phrase seems to have been used consistently by both Bush's supporters and his critics; for that reason I also think it merits its own article. It should also be noted that there are also "doctrine" articles on Wikipedia for presidents Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Obama, for better or worse. Korny O'Near (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Comment withdrawn. For whatever reason (probably because I live in NYC), I've only ever heard the phrase used on the attack. Nomenclaturist (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Memoirs of Strategic Leaders in the GWOT

[edit]
I'm considering a separate page title "Memoirs of Strategic Leaders in the Global War on Terror" that may assist in answering the who, what, when, and why of the Bush Doctrine. To date, there are numerous memoirs - President Bush, Mr. Rove, Director Tenet, SECDEF Rumsfeld, Ambassador Bolton, Assistant SECDEF Policy Mr. Feith, Chairman's Gen Shelton and Gen Myers, Combatant Commander Gen Tommy Franks, LtGen Sanchez, etc In my mind, it's time to cross-walk and reconcile these respective perspectives to gain a appreciation of "Bush Doctrine" from where they "sat" at the time. Plainsman89 (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Bush Doctrine

[edit]

Although the term "Bush Doctrine" may have been used to define various aspects of the Bush Administration's foreign policy, President Bush himself clearly defined it in his book "Decision Points." Since the author of the doctrine has defined it, this article should at least mention what President Bush himself thought the doctrine meant.74.239.2.104 (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not much on the Arab Spring

[edit]

Bush repeatedly stated that when Arabs saw free Iraqis and Afghans, they would want the same. That seems to have turned out to be true, but not one word of that here. Toothis (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. "When Arabs saw free Iraqis and Afghans," eh? When is it that you predict this will happen? Paul (talk) 03:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article seems to conflict with cited source

[edit]

The article refers to US unilateral withdrawal from the ABM Treaty and Kyoto. The referenced source (reference 1, Krauthammer), however, correctly refers to the fact that the US never ratified the treaty. Refusal to ratify is not the same thing as unilateral withdrawal. I don't think the article misrepresents Krauthammer's slant, it is simply a factual misrepresentation.

Also in the references section, for reference 1, Kyoto is misspelled as "Tokyo". Mazzula (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing these errors out, Mazzula. I think they're fixed now. --Kenatipo speak! 02:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought "The Bush Doctrine" referred to lack of pubic hair in post-1990 adult films? If not, that topic surely needs to be addressed. The "Kojak",sadly, has been overused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.81.10.37 (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Different dates (pre- and post- 9/11) for ending U.S. participation in the ABM treaty

[edit]

This article's 2nd sentence says the treaty was left before 9/11, and the link to the citation in that same sentence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty) says it happened afterwards. Tellsbadjokes (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bush Doctrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about Saudi Arabia? Is anybody f--king home?

[edit]

Talk about the elephant in the room! Disbelieber (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bush Doctrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bush_Doctrine&oldid=1206489680"