Summary
In his recent speech at West Point, President Bush defended what has been called the "Bush Doctrine" - the policy known best because of the question ABC's Charlie Gibson sandbagged Sarah Palin with. (By his awkward demeanor with the scripted question, Mr. Gibson clearly didn't know the answer, either). Sad, because part of the doctrine - "preemption" - will continue to be U.S. policy, however it may be described by the Obama administration. Ironically perhaps, it's the "democracy" part of the Bush Doctrine that has failed under the Bush administration, primarily because of fuzzy thinking and poor execution at the senior policy level.
The idea behind preemption is simple: Because our free (and soft- target) society is so vulnerable to Sept. 11-style sneak attacks from terrorists, we have adopted a policy to attack the attackers before they attack us. Surprising no one, Madeleine Albright didn't like the policy and said of it in 2003 that "we can't just go around attacking people." That's right of course, but that's not what the policy does: We don't just go around attacking people unless we determine that they represent a clear and present danger to us, and it's this last part that allows partisan Democrats to distance themselves from the policy while still endorsing it's basic elements.See the full content of this document
Extract
Bush Doctrine: Half a Bad Rap
Here's what I mean: No American political administration, Republican, Democrat, liberal or conservative - anything short of a pacifist one - would stand by and do nothing if it were convinced that an attack on America was about to t...
See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
