The Mistaken Identity of the Bush Doctrine (Part 1 of 3) Friday, Sep 12 2008 

Political sansapprobation 3:48 pm

The first interview with prospective Vice-President Gov. Sarah Palin was posted yesterday, and there is one section in particular that had a few people wondering just how out of touch with reality the Alaska governor really is.

Whether or not Governor Palin is justified in her response to the no-context phrase “the Bush doctrine” is discussed in other places. What I would like to address here is the underlying assumption that these critics make that the war in Iraq is the most important and will be the longest lasting legacy of President Bush’s administration. While it is true that the war in Iraq has been a major part of President Bush’s policy for the past 6 years, to define the phrase “the Bush doctrine” solely based on this war is missing the big picture. In reality, the Bush Doctrine has been an overall polciy of securing the United States from foreign threats, and he has done this in two ways: eliminating enemies and gaining allies.

The part of the Bush Doctrine that is the most notorious is his process of eliminating enemies militarily. His two wars, the one on Terror and the one in Iraq, have been at the forefront of media attention since they began. There is widespread consensus that the War on Terror was justified, while the War in Iraq was not only unjustified, but also immoral. However, in looking at these wars from the overall Bush Doctrine policy of eliminating foreign threats, they both make sense. The War on Terror is less controversial (save a few of the homeland security measures), so I’ll really focus on the War in Iraq.

Quite a few people believe that the situation in Iraq is purely a Bush family affair. Bush Sr. started it, and Bush Jr. wants to finish it. Some assert it is a personal war because Saddam Hussein attempted to assassinate Bush Sr. However, the view of the Baathist regime in Iraq as a threat to United States security has been held for almost three decades now. Iraq was first put on the U.S. list of States that Sponsor terrorism on December 29, 1979 due to its harboring of organizations Abu Nidal, The Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and the Palestinian Liberation Front (PLF) among others. It was removed from this list in in 1982, and put back on the list at the opening of the First Gulf War in 1990. In addition to this, the Baathists had openly declared themselves as enemies of the state of Israel, which, given the United States’ strong support of Israel, made Iraq a de facto enemy of the U.S. as well. On the Presidential front, more than the Bush’s have recognized the threat posed by Iraq. The economic sanctions imposed on Iraq by President George H.W. Bush were actually strengthened by President Clinton and were only weakened (on May 23 2003) and then removed (on July 30, 2004) after the successful invasion of Iraq in the Second Gulf War. Thus, there has been a long tradition of holding Iraq to be an enemy of the United States, one that President Bush successfully eliminated during his tenure as President.

 

I believe Obama. Wednesday, Sep 10 2008 

Political sansapprobation 11:08 pm

This post is for you, Naomi.

Barack Obama is not sexist, racist, age-ist or the Anti-Christ. He is certainly not an idiot. I say this because some people on the right are treating Senator Obama’s inadvertent blunder as a sure sign that the Illinois Senator is a few tools short of a full shed. Not only is this demeaning to a duly elected public official, but it is also injurious to the Republican cause.

Senator Obama has proved time and again that that he is both highly intelligent and a gifted orator. To try to portray him as foolish at this stage of the game smacks of willful blindness. To think that a man of his abilities would knowingly call Gov. Palin a “pig” is, in my mind, a bit ludicrous. His statement was obviously a figure of speech, one which both he and Senator McCain have used before, and was not meant at all to be an attack on Governor Palin. Was it an unfortunate simile? Yes, and it is one that should not have been used after Governor Palin’s lipstick comment in her convention address. However, it is readily apparent that Senator Obama is sincere when he says that his statement was not meant as a personal attack. The right’s response to this slip has been farcical, and does nothing to nourish the goodwill that has been generated by the unwarranted media attacks on Governor Palin.

UPDATE: Dr. John Mark Reynolds has posted an excellent blog on this issue. Highly recommended. Also, here’s an interesting article with a different take on the issue.