Today's view of "The Bush Doctrine"

[Aunt Sponge]

Ok - NOT bringing up the junk with Palin in her interview with Charlie Gibson

I'll define "doctrine" for reference (from www.dictionary.com)

1) A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.

2) A rule or principle of law, especially when established by precedent.

3) A statement of official government policy, especially in foreign affairs and military strategy.



So - looking back - what do you consider to be Bush's doctrine (the values he held and acted on while being president, etc) - your personal view, not necessarily what someone else has put forward as his "doctrine."

I'll follow up with my response - but it's dinner time and I'm out of time!

[Ghedi]

My personal opinions of Bush's doctrine...

Tough one... I really hadn't thought to identify my own thoughts on Bush's actions and form a pattern...

Okay, keep in mind that these are knee-jerk responses, and I'm fully willing to admit that I'm wrong, if I'm presented with evidence that contradicts what I say.

With that in mind, here is what I saw from Bush's presidency, and predictions on hypotheticals in order to abstract my ideas into more "core" values and the responses he would make to different situations based on those values.

I believe that Bush valued security far more any other factors, even above prosperity and freedom. In matters of the conscience, I believe that he allowed vocal spiritual leaders to sway his opinion, and provided him a smokescreen to hide unethical activities, by claiming that he was performing the will of his chosen deity. He was clearly influenced in economic arenas by the promise of short-term financial gains, even when presented with evidence that such gains were not self-sustaining.

In terms of international politics, he gave off an air of elitism and entitlement, and use geopolitical instabilities to further his own political career as well as enact familial retribution.

The reason why I say that he valued security above other factors was due to the enactment of the Patriot Act, and taking no action after the Sept. 11th attacks to ensure a quick and sustainable rebound of financial institutions. The Patriot Act allows for very quick utilization of military and paramilitary personnel to stop and apprehend members of loosely organized groups. However, the Patriot Act directly violates fundamental ideas set forth in the Constitution to ensure individual freedoms, including being presumed innocent until proven guilty, protection against gratuitous search and seizure, trial by a jury of their peers, the right to appeal, and Writs of Habeas Corpus. People suspected of terrorism immediately lose protection against search and seizure, and any government agency can search their property without a warrant. Anyone arrested under provisions of the Patriot Act will be treated as a military combatant, but are not granted protection by the Geneva Convention, so there are no provisions in place to prevent human rights violations. Because they are military combatants, and Geneva Convention rules do not apply to them, they do not need to be indicted; they can sit in jail indefinitely without trial. After they are indicted, they receive a military tribunal; no jury, just a panel of officers; no lawyers, because again, the Geneva Convention does not apply. If convicted, they do not get an appeal, which gives them no way to fight the constitutionality of the Patriot Act at all. Also, without the Writ of Habeas Corpus, nobody can act on their behalf, so nobody can fight the constitutionality of the Patriot Act... It is a piece of legislation passed in a state of panic that effectively destroys the system of checks and balances designed by our nation's founders to protect the rights of our citizens.

Here's the scariest part of the Patriot Act. The definition of a terrorist is so vague that it could include anyone who has ever had a contrary opinion to anyone else. Since everybody has different opinions from everybody else, that means that by the definition of the Patriot Act, everybody is a terrorist, and everybody can have their constitutional rights permanently stripped away. Men in black can literally walk in your door, and you disappear forever.

As for security trumping prosperity, in the wake of the Sept. 11th attacks, Bush literally had the world eating out of his hands. He had the sympathy and the ear of the entire ****ing world, damnit. He could have said anything, and we would have listened, and we would have acted.

What did he say?

Keep doing what you did before.

At the time, it sounded like a good idea... I mean, it was our financial institutions that felt the brunt of the physical attacks. What is better for the economy than to continue spending and buying and working and stuff like that?

In retrospect, there is one thing better... something that existed throughout that 90's that seems to have been lost in the wake of 9/11... invention, innovation, the entrepreneurial spirit. Instead of buying the same old thing again and again, it serves the economy far better to invest in new technologies. There is one constant in the world: change... and even the rate of change changes. If we want to weaken state sponsored terrorists, we should create products that reduce our dependence on those nations... If we wanted to "beat" Iraq without bloodshed, we could have pushed to make coal electricity our primary power source, devoted funding to alternative fuel vehicles, and invested in more renewable sources of energy, including wind, geothermal, and hydro power. By the time we got tired of being all patriotic, back in 2005, we would already be seeing greater economic growth from reduced energy costs (as well as increased profits for the energy companies) by switching over to methane power plants where the methane is harvested from land fills. By 2007, we could have had over 50% of our fossil fuels coming from coal fields right in the US, without having to touch our oil reserves in Alaska. (Personally, I don't see the big deal about drilling in Alaska... except that the longer we wait to start widespread drilling, the more efficient and less polluting the drilling operations will be, as well as the supply and demand increasing prosperity throughout the US... though if we wait too long, the rest of the world would have switched to other fuel sources, and we would lose our chance to make OPEC's operation look like a corner lemonade stand.)










Evidently I could rant about specifics of Bush's presidency for quite a while... and I haven't even touched on torture yet.

I'll come back and reply here again... I need a break.

[Aunt Sponge]

A very good read, Ghedi!

Unfortunately - I spent too much time on theforum last week and fell behind in my studies so now i can't spend time on the forum, I have to catch up!
Bummer 'Cause I have a lot more stuff to say!

Ok - without going on for very long I'll just summarize "the bush doctrine" as I hold it in my views ... quoting his famous line of "If you're not with us, you're against us."

I think this really sums up Bush's views and priorities - he was very categorical. A, B, C, D . . . when it came to everything. He though, for example, that since he was A = the president that he could then direct B = Congress to tell C = local governments and D = you and me . . . everything that he, since he's A, what to do.

I think he supports more of a Unitary form of government - where federal is supreme and has the powers to abolish or alter lesser forms of government without any need for consideration for the will and needs of the people.

To quote King Louis from Man in the Iron Mask "I am the KING, ordained by GOD!"

[Ghedi]

Well... "king George" did claim to be ordained by his god... and the definition of a monarchy is for the ruler to have divine right to the position... and having the position be an inheritance doesn't hurt.

(I know, I'm stretching... monarchs also have legislative and judicial powers along with their executive powers, but it is still funny to call him "king" George.)