Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : THE WHITE HOUSE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sedohr Nod who wrote (22340)	9/13/2008 1:17:43 PM
From: TideGlider	Respond to of 25737

Fact is there is no actual Bush Doctrine. Just a collection of thoughts regarding what it might be. ;^)

To: Sedohr Nod who wrote (22340)	9/13/2008 1:22:43 PM
From: GROUND ZERO™	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25737

I suppose you could smoke a rainbow if you could roll it... maybe the thread expert on these things could add a comment or two on this highly cogent topic, ooooooops, and no pun intended here...<g> GZ

To: Sedohr Nod who wrote (22340)	9/13/2008 5:41:19 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 25737

Re: "...he (Rove) claimed four different meanings for the Bush DoctrineS...." Of course, that's Rove --- a political strategist, not a military one, nor a historian. (He's no doubt got his own fish to fry.... :-) As originally enunciated by the Bush White House immediately after the 9-11 attacks, the Bush Doctrine made a great deal of sense --- both legally and morally --- and it provided the legal justification for the US to attack and over-throw the Taliban regime (who had not directly attacked us in our homeland) because of their support for bin Laden and his al Qaeda bunch (who had most certainly attacked our homeland directly). The Bush Doctrine provided an internationally acceptable legal framework for NATIONS to be HELD ACCOUNTABLE for the actions of individuals and small groups that they succor and support, when those individuals or groups ATTACK other nations. It provides the INTERNATIONALLY ACCEPTED legal rationale for WAR to be declared (against nations that promote that kind of riff-raff). For some 'unknown' reason though (at least, unknown to many) after formulating this historic Bush Doctrine which advanced the legal framework for nation-states to go to WAR over terrorist activities... the WH began to 'muddle' their formulation, 'mealy mouthing' it all over the place (perhaps to try stretch the definition to cover things like the attack against Saddam Hussein's Iraq that they desired to bring about....) Since then (perhaps trapped by their own flip-flopping and revising?) they have been all over the map when it comes to the "Bush Doctrine". Perhaps also, when they chose to "cuddle-up" to Pakistani military ruler Mushariff, they did not want to remind anyone that the Bush Doctrine is what gave the US the legal right to act against PAKISTAN, too, so long as Pakistan was sheltering and enabling the same terrorist camps within it's territory (as it clearly was). So, that would be yet another reason why the Bush team might not have wanted to be out-front any more about the implications of the Bush Doctrine. Regardless of all that later-coming political fluff and stuff though... the Bush Doctrine has moved on into the history books, and into the annals of international law... as evidenced by the FACT that all kinds of other countries now claim EXACTLY THE SAME RIGHT of active self-defense now (Russia does, France, Great Britain, etc.) The 'cat is out of the bag' now --- the "Bush Doctrine" provides a legal right for war to nation-states when they are attacked and threatened by terrorists or other non-state actors, so long as there is a NATION that supports them somewhere.