Bush Doctrine - Palin Doctrine - Obama Doctrine

@Rollo1 (16661)
Boston, Massachusetts
March 20, 2011 10:16am CST
Now that US forces are involved in establishing a no fly zone over Libya and firing missiles on military targets, it's useful to consider the reasons the US involves itself in foreign revolts and the removal of dictators. It's been rather puzzling to watch the indecision and avoidance of this administration as the world agreed. But now we see that Obama had help formulating his reponse. MARCH 19, 2003 BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'... FEBRUARY 22, 2011 PALIN: 'Gaddafi is a brutal killer and Libya – not to mention the world – would be better off if he were out of power. Now is the time to speak out. Speak out for the long-suffering Libyan people. Speak out for the victims of Gaddafi’s terror. NATO and our allies should look at establishing a no-fly zone so Libyan air forces cannot continue slaughtering the Libyan people. We should not be afraid of freedom, especially when it comes to people suffering under a brutal enemy of America. Here’s to freedom from Gaddafi for the people of Libya.' MARCH 19, 2011 OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'... So, is Obama following the Bush Doctrine or the Palin Doctrine? or is he just a victim of world-wide pressure?
1 person likes this
5 responses
@debrakcarey (19923)
• United States
20 Mar 11
What I noticed is that neither of the men mention human suffering as a reason to intervene. Palin did.
2 people like this
@Rollo1 (16661)
• Boston, Massachusetts
20 Mar 11
They both mentioned freedom - although Obama did mostly because his speech is a copy of Bush's speech. Palin does highlight the humanitarian goals more and the politics less.
• United States
20 Mar 11
If President Obama were following the Bush Doctrine, he'd have used the revolution in Libya to rationalize an invasion of Qatar. When people realized there was a shell game involved, he'd have his administration announce that the Qatari might someday have a civil war. If President Obama were following the Palin "Doctrine," he'd say all sorts of things about the situation safe in the knowledge that he'd never have to make a decision on the matter, resign because someone on Fox said something mean about him, and get a job at Crooks and Liars as a commenter while explaining that people should take him seriously because from his house in Chicago you can see Libya on TV.
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19923)
• United States
20 Mar 11
I have to admit, that's funny. But you are still misinformed. Bush did what he was told to do, and so is Obama. The puppetmasters pull the strings of both. Why else can you find Obama, who got into office on the strength of dislike of Bush, continue and enlarge upon most of Bush's plans? Palin, while giving the comedians something to joke about, isn't as stupid as they make her out to be. The media/cultural elite run that show though.
@spalladino (17923)
• United States
20 Mar 11
Who are these puppetmasters?
@debrakcarey (19923)
• United States
20 Mar 11
Hi spalladino...before I answer just a quick thought, I was going to give you best response on my economy discussion cause you took the time to actually engage the issue and not just post a single sentence or one time response, but found when re reading it that you never actually posted a formal response. You only posted response within response. I'd be happy to send the BR if you'd like to make that possible. Now, who are the puppetmasters...I could get very philisophical but for the sake of brevity I'll say this...all those who wish to dominate the world, whether through money, religion or political manipulations ro spiritual bondage. There's quite a list. I'm sure you would disagree and try to convince me otherwise. I'll save you the bother and say right off, I'm convinced.
@suspenseful (40314)
• Canada
21 Mar 11
I think Palin was the most honest. He gave the right reason. Obama is just copying Bush's speech. And what about Reagan? Was it during hs term that the Pan Am flight was blown up and also that night club by those Libyan terrorists? I think Obama is being a bit overcautious in that Qaddafi should have been stopped before this. The idea of getting rid of Qaddafi because of freeing its people, defending the world, in the interests of the United States is being too generalized. There has to be a specific reason like getting rid of someone who will instigate terrorist acts, and kills lots of innocent people. People seem to forget that there has to be a specific reason, such as the leader massacring his subjects, orchestrating terrorist acts against another country, holding people of that country captive, widespread slaughter, etc. It should not be about oil, and that leads me to that, if you say that it is about oil, then by not allowing production in America, maybe Obama reasons are to make America poorer and encouraging a war so that Americans have to pay higher prices.
@Rollo1 (16661)
• Boston, Massachusetts
21 Mar 11
It was while Reagan was president that Qadaffi ordered the bombing of the night club with the aim of killing Americans. Reagan responded to that by bombing Libya. Qadaffi decided to try to be friendly-like after that. But he's never been trustworthy and he's always been a madman. Obama didn't want to make this move, he was embarrassed and pressured into it by world opinion and our allies. Obama doesn't want oil, he wants more expensive gasoline, he promised to destroy the coal industry - Obama wants to force us all into economy-killing, inefficient and insufficient green energy now, not in time as the technology is perfected and can replace our current energy sources. He wants us to pay more at the pump, then we will buy his green cars from GM.
1 person likes this
@suspenseful (40314)
• Canada
21 Mar 11
You couldn't have said it better. I remember that night club and that Pan Am bombing. As for Obama, his intention is to ruin America. It is not just about those GM green cars, it is all his methods. Also he wants America to be ruled by a race based ideal and I blame the media about this and have discussed that on other discussing.. He is also discouraging coal being used for electricity. And wants the prices of gas to be like they are in Europe. But guess what the climate is moderate there. And you can practically bike or walk to the next town. I know, I have friends that come from The Netherlands and I was born in Scotland. No minus 40 blizzards in England. You have to go to Russia for that.
@debrakcarey (19923)
• United States
21 Mar 11
My question remains, why was he embarrassed and why did he have to be pressured? Could it be as we've been thinking all along, that he has ties outside of America's interests?
@spalladino (17923)
• United States
20 Mar 11
If you look at the big picture when it comes to the entire region (since Libya does not exist in a vacuum) along with what has been going on behind the scenes, and not simply focus on public statements, it seems to me that Obama was following nobody's "doctrine". On Feb. 26th. several new sources reported: "Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has “lost the legitimacy to rule” and should leave now, US President Barack Obama said Saturday. Mr Obama made the comments during a phone call to German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Saturday – as the dictator began arming his civilian supporters to quash dissent. The White House said in a statement about the call: “The president stated that when a leader’s only means of staying in power is to use mass violence against his own people, he has lost the legitimacy to rule and needs to do what is right for his country by leaving now.”" This was the day after unilateral sanctions were imposed by the president. News reports at that time also indicated that, over the past two days prior, Obama had consulted with British Prime Minister David Cameron, French President Nicholas Sarkozy, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on the international response to events in Libya. In addition, top US officials had been conversing with their European and Middle East counterparts to try to resolve the Libyan crisis as quickly as possible, as well as provide some semblance of stability in the region. The US also continued to reach out to Arab countries around the region in an appeal that they not use violence against protesters and that they implement democratic and economic reforms called for by their publics. (Incase you've forgotten, there has been a lot of public unrest in several Arab nations) On Thursday (prior to Feb 26th), National Security Adviser Tom Donilon spoke with Bahraini Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa to express strong support for his National Dialogue initiative. Donilon welcomed these and other steps “to initiate an open dialogue on political reform with the full spectrum of Bahraini society” and “urged continued restraint by Bahraini security forces,” a statement put out by the White House Friday said. Also, Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs Jeffrey Feltman traveled to Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman and the United Arab Emirates through Wednesday of the following week. It's pretty obvious that support and cooperation from other Arab nations had to be gained in advance of any planning and in advance of the movement of any military equipment into their waters. Did you know those subs were there? Did you know that a coordinated strike had been planned before it was implemented? Neither did I...but clearly our Commander In Chief did and it took more than a day or two to get everything in place.
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16661)
• Boston, Massachusetts
20 Mar 11
Commenting on the "legitimacy" of a dictator's rule is a far cry from a call for action. And even then, he was four days late with that weak opinion. Of course, he had to have time to copy out Bush's speech. The brilliant efficiency of our military owes nothing to Obama. There isn't anyone who thinks he actually plans military strategy, is there? And yeah, the Pentagon announced a couple of weeks ago that US ships were moving closer to Libya. That would be before they'd run around getting permission according to your timeline.
@spalladino (17923)
• United States
20 Mar 11
You're right, it is a far cry from a call for action. The U.S., whether by design or by accident, has not given the appearance of being hot to trot to take aggressive action against an Arab nation. As I indicated above, a lot of discussion took place with the leaders of other countries in the region because their support was and continues to be crucial. Are you aware that the Arab League met today in response to the ongoing military operations and are still supporting those actions? Gaddafi singled out the U.S. in a speech yesterday, calling us "invaders". IMO, had the U.S. called for a No Fly Zone (read "military intervention by foreign countries) early on, the Arabs would have less trust in "the west" and be less supportive...or not supportive at all. The Pentagon does not make these kinds of decisions on their own...even you know that, rollo. The president gives the final orders as to where military assets (those ships and subs for instance) are deployed in preparation for a possible or planned action so obviously he met with Pentagon officials weeks ago and the specifics were discussed at that time. That's why the carrier that had been off the coast left...ships and subs were being moved around in preparation for this operation which was most definitely authorized by the president. Yes, the Pentagon announced that ships were moving closer to Libya...did they *announce* that 3 submarines equipped with tomahawk missile systems were also in the area? No, but an "unnamed source" did. Did they...or the UK...announce that these Navy assets were going to be taking out Libya's air defense systems immediately in order to protect the French jets? No. You don't *announce* your plans prior to or during a military operation except for what you want the enemy to know.
@Rollo1 (16661)
• Boston, Massachusetts
20 Mar 11
I don't know why you assume there would have been some outcry from the Arab League if we didn't wait and sign on at the last minute. As it is, both the UK and France called for a No Fly zone before the Arab League officially petitioned and to my knowledge they have not come out and expressed any such sentiments towards those countries as you assume they would feel towards the US if the US had joined those two nations. The Arab League was more mistrustful when Obama appeared unwilling - using military actions in other cases but not in this one would show we care only for our own interests, not in their freedoms. This is a case where freedom is undeniably at the heart of the matter in an Arab country whose oil we can do without. No action at all is what would make them distrust us. And sure, you do let the enemy know that you're moving some ships towards them so they know you intend to be prepared. It's a way of putting some pressure on them to listen to your reasoned arguments instead of your armaments . But no, you don't tell anyone exactly what you have and where, under any circumstances.
@dragon54u (31647)
• United States
20 Mar 11
All smart leaders learn from their predecessors. Although I don't think Obama is smart, his handlers are doing well to learn from others as they pull his strings. I do not like being involved in overthrowing other regimes--that should be up to the people living there but I guess the Libyans are making a real effort and not getting good results so far.
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16661)
• Boston, Massachusetts
20 Mar 11
Honestly, I would rather we not be involved in the Middle East at all except in the defense of Israel. We have backed modernizing leaders in the past,only to see strident religious forces take over following revolt - it happened in Iran and may happen in Egypt. The problem is that few of these countries are ready for democracy even though the people desire it. There are too many warring religious factions and religion embodied in the state prevents true democratic freedom. Then there's the oil. Well, if we had allowed exploration and drilling of our own reserves and relied less on foreign oil over the decades, OPEC countries would not be so obscenely rich and able to purchase such fine weapons, they would not wield the power that they do. A decade ago, John Kerry pooh-poohed the idea of drilling for oil in the US as a way to decrease dependence, he said it would take ten years before we had that oil. Well, those ten years flew by, didn't they? We've helped to create the monster, the wealth that these dictators seek to control. Libya, at this point, is a humanitarian effort, aiming to keep the government from killing its own people. If the Arab League has asked for world help, then it's unwise to refuse or we appear to care only when it comes to our own interests. The point is, if this is the right decision, it should have been made a while ago. Obama doesn't seem to know what to do on his own.
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19923)
• United States
20 Mar 11
In 1978, Carter supported and implemented the fall of the Shah of Iran. We supported the Ayatollah. It was a planned revolution. It WAS about oil. It always is in the mid east. So, who and what is behind the upheaval this time?
1 person likes this