Technically, Barack Obama endorsed the Bush Doctrine
@eclecticsteve (253)
United States
January 7, 2008 12:19am CST
At the New Hamphire Democratic Primary Debate held on January 4, 2008. moderator Charles Gibson asked Obama if he stood behind his remarks that he would send in the U.S. military into Pakistan without their permission if the Pakistan government failed to capture known enemies of the United States. When Obama answered in the affirmative, Gibson asked him if that was the same as supporting the Bush Doctrine.
Obama said he rejected the Bush Doctrine because he would only pursue known threats. The Bush Doctrine only refers to threats. What Obama did, in fact, was clarify the Bush Doctrine, not reject it. If he were to become President, his definition of "known threat" would be known as the Obama Corollary to the Bush Doctrine.
What is really scary is that 5 of the 6 Republicans and all 4 Democrats in their respective debates gave either tacit or outright approval of the Bush doctrine. I think if Dennis Kucinich were invited, he would have rejected it outright. The only Republican who spoke out against it was Ron Paul.
To clarify, the Bush doctrine refers to a preemptive strike or war with a nation based on a percieved threat to the United States. This is different than a retaliatory strike which is what we have done in the past. I think everybody (rightly) would agree with that.
1 person likes this
3 responses
@Uroborus (908)
• Canada
8 Jan 08
I agree with you that in responding the way he did, Obama supported the Bush Doctrine. However, where they differ perhaps is on the type and amount of evidence they would accept as indicating there was a threat. A threat big enough to send in the military. It seems to me that Bush is more trigger happy when it comes to this.
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
7 Jan 08
Hello Eclecticsteve,
(quote)
"At the New Hamphire Democratic Primary Debate held on January 4, 2008. moderator Charles Gibson asked Obama if he stood behind his remarks that he would send in the U.S. military into Pakistan without their permission..."
Yes, in fact I did notice this. My jaw 'bout hit the floor. One because it was a hardball question, lobbed at a Dem candidate in a Dem primary debate, by Charlie Gibson no less! It was at that moment that I felt a surge of confidence that Mr. Gibson is most likely a Hillary supporter.
Quickly my thoughts turned to speculation about what is the now proven reality that either the majority of Democrats probably did not catch it. Or if they did, they wouldn't really understand what it means to the overall political landscape leading up to, and possibly beyond the '08 election.
Of the four who were on the stage Saturday night, only Richardson is still deluded into thinking that we can 'diplomacy' our way out of Islamic Extremism. 'Course, Richardson is a cunning idiot from way back! I can say that because he is my governor, and his reputation at home is very disturbing!
The other three at least recognize that this is only going to get uglier before it gets better, and that it would be distinctly moronic to not have feet on the ground, and a rapid response option in the midst of the hornets nest.
The whole charade of the Democrat commitment offered for the '06 election: to end this war, bring our men women home, and make nice with the world was a pile of equestrian feces, with a pretty bow on top. 'Course, our highly informed voters bought it hook, line, and sinker.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
7 Jan 08
In reality, the democrats have endorsed the Bush Doctrine, the War on Terror, including the war in Iraq.
When the Pelosi/Reid Congress chose to continue funding the war, they endorsed it.
