Sen. Boxer/Condy Rice
- Thread starter jellymanoffspring
- Start date
- Status
Bush doctrine
From Disinfopedia
"Preemption, rather than reaction" summarizes the Bush doctrine which congealed in the wake of a conservative and national backlash against the weakening of the United State's power and security in the world.
More accurately attributed as the "Wolfowitz doctrine", and detailed in the National Security Strategy Document (National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction) promulgated by the junior Bush's administration, it promotes use of unilateral preemptive force and persuasion rather than honest multi-lateral cooperation.
Preemption provides an avenue to achieve U.S. objectives by taking actions without reasonable cause. The first public global exercise of this doctrine was presented in the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, for which a number of justifications were presented to the Congress, the United Nations, and the people of the world; and none of those justifications were based in fact, a fact itself which has been subsequently well documented, as ...
http://www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=16274
http://www.citypages.com/databank/24/1182/article11417.asp
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/000563.html
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4752.htm
Preemption is 'provocation'; it is not 'prevention'. The Iraq invasion of 2003 intended to prevent, but actually provoked and promoted, international terrorism and weapons proliferation, and a general disgust and distrust of the U.S. Those things actually prevented by the Iraqi invasion can be listed as peace, cooperation, trust, honor, and the like.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quotes
"There are basically two approaches to solving the problem of terrorism. One is that you understand the mind of the terrorist in order to establish defenses against it. The other is that you kill all the terrorists and all the potential terrorists." -- Jude Wanniski in a memo (http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=1634) to Henry Kissinger regarding Richard Perle ("The Prince of Darkness"), September 18, 2001.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the December 12, 2003 op-ed "A Deliberate Debacle" (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/12/opinion/12KRUG.html?th) for the New York Times, Paul Krugman writes:
"I think the administration's hard-liners are deliberately sabotaging reconciliation [between America and its allies]. ... Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their fellow Project for the New American Century alumni viewed Iraq as a pilot project, one that would validate their views and clear the way for further regime changes."
"In short, this week's diplomatic debacle probably reflects an internal power struggle, with hawks using the [Iraq reconstruction] contracts issue as a way to prevent Republican grown-ups from regaining control of U.S. foreign policy. And initial indications are that the ploy is working -- that the hawks have, once again, managed to tap into Mr. Bush's fondness for moralistic, good-versus-evil formulations."
"In the end the Bush doctrine -- based on delusions of grandeur about America's ability to dominate the world through force -- will collapse. What we've just learned is how hard and dirty the doctrine's proponents will fight against the inevitable."
Krugman is not too far off the mark. See the articles revolution in military affairs, Andrew Marshall, and Office of Net Assessment, as well as John T. Correll's The Evolution of the Bush Doctrine (http://www.afa.org/magazine/feb2003/0203evolution.asp) published February 2003 in Air Force Magazine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 2004; after one year in Iraq: Echoing the Bush doctrine of with us or against us, ... "In Iraq and elsewhere, they have turned the Bush doctrine on its head. Just as Bush went after the terrorists and those who harboured them, and threatened those who would not support him, the terrorist attacks in Iraq and beyond have been against those who have helped Bush." [1] (http://www.prwatch.org/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3907)
"You're either with us or against us-" George W. Bush- mid-2001 He's beginning to paint this as a black and white issue, and it often has not been the case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Sick, who served in the National Security Council under presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan, notes [2] (http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/101304L.shtml) that
The invasion of Iraq was the first major test of the Bush Doctrine. By pre-empting against a sordid regime with unbridled hegemonic ambitions that had launched two aggressive wars against its neighbors, the invasion was intended to end the costly duel with Saddam Hussein that had run for over a decade.
The discovery that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, the principal rationale for the war, cast very serious doubt not only on the quality of U.S. and Western intelligence but also on the very concept of pre-emption. If you are planning to go to war to protect yourself against a dangerous future threat, you need to have, and to generate, great confidence in your threat assessment. Will Americans be willing to take their government's word the next time?
The Bush Doctrine was intended to be America's definitive strategy for dealing with a world of terrorism. By choosing to apply it first in Iraq, and then badly bungling its implementation, the Bush administration has cast doubt on the doctrine's validity and has reduced any chance that such policy remedies will be available in the future, when they may well be needed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[edit]Other Related Disinfopedia Resources
Bush administration
Bush administration/return to space
Bush regime
democratic revolution
Eisenhower doctrine
Paul Dundes Wolfowitz
Pax Americana
Pax Americana, Africa
post-war Iraq
power of persuasion
preemptive war
Reagan doctrine
regime change
Stanley Foundation's Independent Task Force on US Strategies for National Security
unilateralism
Truman doctrine
weaponization of space
Weapons of mass deception
[edit]External Links
How America Determines Friend and Foe (http://www.progressivetrail.org/articles/040316Chomsky.shtml), Noam Chomsky, March 2004, for Toronto Star
Retrieved from "http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Bush_doctrine"
From Disinfopedia
"Preemption, rather than reaction" summarizes the Bush doctrine which congealed in the wake of a conservative and national backlash against the weakening of the United State's power and security in the world.
More accurately attributed as the "Wolfowitz doctrine", and detailed in the National Security Strategy Document (National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction) promulgated by the junior Bush's administration, it promotes use of unilateral preemptive force and persuasion rather than honest multi-lateral cooperation.
Preemption provides an avenue to achieve U.S. objectives by taking actions without reasonable cause. The first public global exercise of this doctrine was presented in the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, for which a number of justifications were presented to the Congress, the United Nations, and the people of the world; and none of those justifications were based in fact, a fact itself which has been subsequently well documented, as ...
http://www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=16274
http://www.citypages.com/databank/24/1182/article11417.asp
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/000563.html
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4752.htm
Preemption is 'provocation'; it is not 'prevention'. The Iraq invasion of 2003 intended to prevent, but actually provoked and promoted, international terrorism and weapons proliferation, and a general disgust and distrust of the U.S. Those things actually prevented by the Iraqi invasion can be listed as peace, cooperation, trust, honor, and the like.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quotes
"There are basically two approaches to solving the problem of terrorism. One is that you understand the mind of the terrorist in order to establish defenses against it. The other is that you kill all the terrorists and all the potential terrorists." -- Jude Wanniski in a memo (http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=1634) to Henry Kissinger regarding Richard Perle ("The Prince of Darkness"), September 18, 2001.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the December 12, 2003 op-ed "A Deliberate Debacle" (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/12/opinion/12KRUG.html?th) for the New York Times, Paul Krugman writes:
"I think the administration's hard-liners are deliberately sabotaging reconciliation [between America and its allies]. ... Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their fellow Project for the New American Century alumni viewed Iraq as a pilot project, one that would validate their views and clear the way for further regime changes."
"In short, this week's diplomatic debacle probably reflects an internal power struggle, with hawks using the [Iraq reconstruction] contracts issue as a way to prevent Republican grown-ups from regaining control of U.S. foreign policy. And initial indications are that the ploy is working -- that the hawks have, once again, managed to tap into Mr. Bush's fondness for moralistic, good-versus-evil formulations."
"In the end the Bush doctrine -- based on delusions of grandeur about America's ability to dominate the world through force -- will collapse. What we've just learned is how hard and dirty the doctrine's proponents will fight against the inevitable."
Krugman is not too far off the mark. See the articles revolution in military affairs, Andrew Marshall, and Office of Net Assessment, as well as John T. Correll's The Evolution of the Bush Doctrine (http://www.afa.org/magazine/feb2003/0203evolution.asp) published February 2003 in Air Force Magazine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 2004; after one year in Iraq: Echoing the Bush doctrine of with us or against us, ... "In Iraq and elsewhere, they have turned the Bush doctrine on its head. Just as Bush went after the terrorists and those who harboured them, and threatened those who would not support him, the terrorist attacks in Iraq and beyond have been against those who have helped Bush." [1] (http://www.prwatch.org/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3907)
"You're either with us or against us-" George W. Bush- mid-2001 He's beginning to paint this as a black and white issue, and it often has not been the case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Sick, who served in the National Security Council under presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan, notes [2] (http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/101304L.shtml) that
The invasion of Iraq was the first major test of the Bush Doctrine. By pre-empting against a sordid regime with unbridled hegemonic ambitions that had launched two aggressive wars against its neighbors, the invasion was intended to end the costly duel with Saddam Hussein that had run for over a decade.
The discovery that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, the principal rationale for the war, cast very serious doubt not only on the quality of U.S. and Western intelligence but also on the very concept of pre-emption. If you are planning to go to war to protect yourself against a dangerous future threat, you need to have, and to generate, great confidence in your threat assessment. Will Americans be willing to take their government's word the next time?
The Bush Doctrine was intended to be America's definitive strategy for dealing with a world of terrorism. By choosing to apply it first in Iraq, and then badly bungling its implementation, the Bush administration has cast doubt on the doctrine's validity and has reduced any chance that such policy remedies will be available in the future, when they may well be needed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[edit]Other Related Disinfopedia Resources
Bush administration
Bush administration/return to space
Bush regime
democratic revolution
Eisenhower doctrine
Paul Dundes Wolfowitz
Pax Americana
Pax Americana, Africa
post-war Iraq
power of persuasion
preemptive war
Reagan doctrine
regime change
Stanley Foundation's Independent Task Force on US Strategies for National Security
unilateralism
Truman doctrine
weaponization of space
Weapons of mass deception
[edit]External Links
How America Determines Friend and Foe (http://www.progressivetrail.org/articles/040316Chomsky.shtml), Noam Chomsky, March 2004, for Toronto Star
Retrieved from "http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Bush_doctrine"
Lebjwb said:
Because it's the perfect war for the Bushies. They don't have pay for it and they don't have to fight it. Perfect.
Let's see how many of them would love this war if some Republican in Washington said they needed to raise taxes because the bills are piling up and, btw, we're reinstating the draft because this "backdoor" draft just isn't working. They'd be squealing like stuck pigs.
There's an old saying: "Talk is cheap". And that talk is getting cheaper by the hour.
bsnyder said:Sorry Mermaid, but contrary to what kmiles says, I probably don't have your back today.
It's a GLORIOUS day! Inauguration Day! I'm not interested in arguing past history with those who can't learn from their mistakes. I'd rather celebrate!
:jumping4:
What a historic day for the Republican party!
Of course not. Why would you? You voted. You sent men and women to die on both sides. Mission Accomplished, right?
Own your vote.
bsnyder said:
Half the population doesn't pay taxes? Who's that half?
This should be great coming from someone who claims to have a monopoly on logic. Be it republican logic, of course.
You know, tell lies, start wars, act all confused when your lies are uncovered.
jrydberg said:
Does he need to? No, I don't think so.
I have a simple plan to bring an end to the troop shortage in Iraq. You voted for him, you go.
You feel strongly enough to defend this war? Do it with a gun and your un-armored body.
Don't worry! If you loose a limb (likely) you'll get to take part in those wonderful social programs Democrats have put together throughout the years.
richiebaseball said:
No WMDs in Iraq. They lied.
If you wish to deny the facts that is most certainly your choice. It can't be an easy path but it is your choice.
BTW, you should report for duty no later than 3:00 PM today. I hear you'll be the first group into Iran. Good luck. Everyone know's you'll be needing it.
Mermaid02 said:
More than half the country disagrees with you and voted for a better America.
Hmmm... Little girl? I didn't mean it to be condescending. Not at all. I just wanted to highlight the fact that little girs, and little boys, are being blown up and shot in Iraq right now. While we celebrate with a $40 million party.
Wow! Good vote.
Is it really that difficult to discuss issues rather than make snide comments? To debate rather than sling insults? To show even a modest amount of respect for those who honestly disagree with you? I don't think it is. Amazingly enough, I'd be willing to bet that it does one's cause a LOT more harm than good to show such disrespect for others.
ThAnswr said:
What sort of logic is that? Kennedy didn't have to fight in his Viethnam War. Roosevelt didn't have to fight in WWII. Truman didn't have to fight his North Korean War. Clinton didn't have to fight in Bosnia. What's your point?
kmiles said:
No, you ignore the reasoned debate and head right for the low road just as some on the other side do. Big difference. And if you can't honestly see what's snide and disrespectful about any of your posts, then there's not much else to say. It's fairly obvious. I'm not saying it's all coming from one side, but is that a good reason to perpetuate it?
- Status
Share this page
-
The Perfect Special Gift for a Disney Fan Going on Vacation
-
NEW Reveal: 2026 runDisney Virtual Series Medals Go Retro
-
Disney Just Revealed NEW Endor Merch for May the 4th
-
New Piglets Born at Disney's Animal Kingdom Lodge
-
Disney's New Vinyl Stickers Are Made to Stick Around
-
New Paint Update: More Blues & Gold Added to Cinderella Castle
-
Disney World Reveals Name for NEW Bluey Area at Animal Kingdom
New Posts
-
Plan Ahead with Lightning Lane Entry at Walt Disney World Starting July 24- Latest: scrappinginontario
-
-
Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts.
Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
