This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

International relations: United Nations This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations. History This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. United States This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article seems less like an encyclopedic entry and more like an editorial essay that portrays the US as a hegemony. I feel that, apart from doing what it should (giving information on what is the Bush doctrine), it also does what it should not (give an opinion on the Bush doctrine). This article does not seem to conform to NPOV, in my opinion. Hari Seldon 03:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Bush Doctrine" is a creation of media and detractors. Bush never stepped forward and said "This is my doctrine..." We do not have a Monroe Doctrine situation here. The definition for this term can never be fimrly set because the only person who can authoritatively say what it means is Bush himself and he never used the term. It is therefore nessisary for anyone using the term to provide context and a brief explination of just what they mean by the term.Z07 (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The line reads as follows:

Although the Taliban-controlled government of Afghanistan offered to hand over al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden if they were shown proof that he was responsible for September 11 attacks and also offered to extradite bin Laden to Pakistan where he would be tried under Islamic law, their refusal to extradite him to the U.S. with no proof or preconditions was considered justification for invasion. This policy implies that any nation that does not comply with the US instructions concerning their stance against terrorism would be seen as supporting it.

Ok, there are a number of problems with the way this statemet presents information, first:

• The line is unbalanced because it presents no information on how reliable the taliban government was in the event of making promises...
• The line also makes the presumption that the US was unjustified in trying Bin Laden, as if only guilty people go to trial. As I understand law, a person is innocent until proven guilty, and a trial is based on suspicion (not proof) of guilt. The trial serves for the people to prove whether the defendant is innocent or guilty. What the taliban where doing was denying the victimized country of their right to conduct such investigation with the benefit of interviewing the suspect.
• Aditionally, the line also neglects the fact that the atrocity was committed in US soil, not in Pakistan, and thus Pakistan (or Islamic law) would have had no jurisdiction on this crime. Therefore, the request that the Taliban were making of having Bin Laden trialed under Islamic Law was ridiculous!
• If the above was not enough, the paragraph implies that non-compliance with an unreliable government making unreasonable demands qualifies a nation as a "hegemon" or "empire" with an absolutist stance. This, in itself, is unreasonable.
• But what is worse of all is that the paragraph does not have a single source to support any of it. And despite the POV, unbalance claim, and the lack of sources, the line remains!

Unreasonable! Hari Seldon 04:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, I've deleted the contested line. This is my interpretation of the "Be Bold" guideline. I will, of course, not 3RR or start an edit war over this issue, but I hope that this will call attention to the lamentable quality of this editorial (it does not yet deserve the name of "article"). Hari Seldon 04:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a number of responses to these "problems". Keep in mind that we are talking about extradition. Note that "The consensus in international law is that a state does not have any obligation to surrender an alleged criminal to a foreign state" - taken from extradition.

* Requiring information on the reliability of the Taliban government itself POV. Would we ask such questions of the US government? If there is evidence that the government of Afghanistan was untrustworthy, then it should be here, of course. However if there is no such evidence presented, then it is not a problem with what IS presented. I note also that you do not seem not to have been able to find evidence of such unreliability, but you nevertheless assert that the Taliban was an "unreliable government". Please try to be neutral.

* Law is different in different countries: I do not claim to know Pakistani law. It is entirely possible that a serious cirme (such as murder or conspirasy to murder) could be tried in Pakistan, despite the actual events having occured in the US. For example in the UK, one can be tried for child abuse for an offence that occured abroad.

* When an extradition treaty exists between two countries, it is nevertheless normal (infact almost always the case) that the extraditing country requires "There exists a prima facie case against the individual sought." before any extradition occurs.

* The stance that, because a country will not extradite a suspected criminal it is legitimate to invade that country is a truly remarkable one that is noteworthy. cf. Ronnie Biggs. I think it would be difficult to find a mainstream politician that advocated a UK invasion of Brazil still less one that would think such an invasion legal. 91.67.131.214 (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- "Bush declared at West Point, 'America has no empire to extend or utopia to establish (etc)'"-

-- What's the cite for this, please? - 20 November 2005

The text can be found at the White House website [1]. --69.228.92.139 22:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The text can also be found at the BBC website [2]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmccready (talk • contribs) 11:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article states: "The right of self-defense should be extended in order to authorize pre-emptive attacks against potential aggressors cutting them off before they are able to launch strikes against the US". For me, it seems to be a clear contradiction with the article pre-emptive war, where it says: "A preemptive attack (or preemptive war) is waged in an attempt to repel or defeat an imminent offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (usually unavoidable) war." If the right of self-defense is extended, than that means extended towards "preventive", not preemptive, right? And there is a distinction between a "potential aggressor" and an "imminent offensive or invasion", I would say. --Schreibvieh 13:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• A more correct reading would be "we will attack anyone we want to, wherever we want to, whenever we want to, and for whatever reason we want to, and there is not a GD thing that the UN or the rest of the world can do about it. There is no such thing as a sovereign nation (unless we classify it as being so) and there is no such thing as an independent foreign policy (unless we stipulate it as such). The reasons we give should be sufficient for the rest of mankind (even if those reasons turn out to be wrong and cause the needless deaths of tens of thousands of people). So saith Caesar" RM Gillespie (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See The War on Democracy. Scierguy (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bush doctrine came up during Charles Gibson's interview of Sarah Palin. Gibson asked Palin whether she agreed with it, and before answering Palin made him define what he meant by it. Some editors have been posting this here as if she didn't know what it was. It's not a term that has any one specific definition; it generally describes Bush's whole view of world affairs, as Palin said. If Gibson meant to ask her about one specific aspect of it, then it was up to him to specify which one, which he eventually did, and she answered. To claim that this somehow showed Palin's ignorance is highly accurate, but I must refute the claim, as I am obviously a conservative.. -- Zsero (talk) 04:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for partisan defenses of political candidates, either. Your interpretation is no less partisan than the ones you disagree with — and the ones you disagree with are perfectly sourceable, if you take the AP as a source: "In the interview Thursday, Palin appeared unsure of the Bush doctrine...." [3] If it's notable and sourced, it should be in the article. Your own opinion on what she did or didn't mean by her answer shouldn't enter into it. (I might also point out that it's pretty ballsy to post that the Bush Doctrine has no specific definition on the talk page of an article that defines the Bush Doctrine. ;) ) --Jere7my (talk) 05:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zsero, I'm afraid it looks like you've just been owned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.161.9.168 (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article by the author who coined the term "Bush Doctrine", does a great job clarifying the evolution of the terminology.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 (Wallamoose (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Well........who got owned by Krauthammer there? He states it was unreasonable for Gibson to just throw out the question "Tell me if you agree with the Bush Doctrine." and then look at her like she's a 'moose hunting rube' when she asks for clarification about which particular facet of it he wants to discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.212.137 (talk • contribs)

• The Krauthammer editorial is a work of opinion predicated on the assumption that first useage of the phrase entitles him to some claim of authority over what the phrase has grown to mean since. One would need to assert the superiority of a prescriptive lexion over a descriptive one in order to make that assumption stand, which makes the whole work specious. He owned nobody.

Yes it is an editorial work of opinion - from somebody who's been following the evolution of the term 'Bush Doctrine' since it was first introduced into the public lexicon. My point was since this one of the people who's been 'talking about it' for the past 7 years, he should at least be up to speed as to whether it has had one simple definition in that span of time. Apparently he doesn't believe that.

• Right, that's the premise, but repeating it doesn't make it less specious.

Since the Charlie Gibson Palin interview, this page has come under partisan attack — from both sides, but I'm going to limit my comments to the edits that reinforce a particular conservative strategy. The conservative talking points, following the interview and already seen on a number of blogs, are "it's not a term with any meaning" and "nobody should be expected to know what a fundamentally meaningless term means", both with an eye toward defending Sarah Palin's apparent lack of knowledge of the Bush Doctrine. We are already seeing subtle edits like "The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe..." becoming "The Bush Doctrine is a phrase recognized by some to describe..." which, again, gives the impression that it's an uncommon term that people running for high office might reasonably not have heard about, when a Google search readily shows that it is a well-known term of art. I enjoin all editors in good faith (which describes the vast majority of editors here) to be on their guard for edits from both sides that are unsourced, reflect a partisan bias, and sprout up suddenly following a news story. Defining "truth" through bad-faith Wikipedia editing is a political tactic, whether or not any particular edit is made in good faith, and we should watch for it. --Jere7my (talk) 06:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted a sentence suggesting the term is used ambiguously by the media. This point, made under the 'criticisms' header, was left without any citation or support. 76.171.132.162 (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the liberal talking point is going to be 'The Bush Doctrine has only meant one thing since the term was introduced, then this Wiki entry should have no problem letting us know what that one meaning is.

I should also like to point out that Jere7my is absolutely correct that the Bush Doctrine has been talked about extensively the past 7 years since it's believed that Krauthammer introduced this phrase into the popular media. And that KRAUTHAMMER has been one of those doing the talking about it in that time. So if anybody would know that the term 'Bush Doctrine' has essentially only one meaning since 2001, Krauthammer would. Yet he obviously does not define the term thusly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.212.137 (talk) 10:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a brief, sourced note about it. I think it is notable by virtue of being, well, widely noted, but I'm happy to abide by consensus, if one can be reached. (Incidentally, User:EHSFFL2010 has violated Wikipedia:3RR in removing the section four times. I replaced it three times, which is all I'm allowed to do. Note that EHSFFL2010's account was created an hour ago, apparently solely to edit this article.) --Jere7my (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the latest Palin news is notable, but it does nothing to add to any understanding or discussion of Bush Doctrine. It may belong on Sarah Palin or the John McCain presidential campaign article (or whichever article is catch-alling the pigs-with-lipstick stuff.) You and EHS are both over 3RR, so please stop reverting even if its the Wrong Version of the article. cheers, --guyzero | talk 08:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, and I'm signing off. (I hope you're not counting my Sun Dang reverts against me, though!) --Jere7my (talk) 08:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like guyzero, I don't believe the information about the Palin interview belongs in this article. Would we put a paragraph about the Palin interview in an article about NATO? An article about ANWR? She addressed those issues as well. The interview is notable in the Sarah Palin article, maybe, but not here. Changed my mind below. Northwesterner1 (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with guyzero, and from her interview it was also clear that she was trying to clarify, while being able to recite some of the central ideologies of the neoconservative and Bush ideology. Weasel words are not a sustainable reference on historic events or information. Scierguy (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would actually seem more significant to the 2008 campaign article than to her personal biography. So I'd recommend starting there. My question is - what does any inclusion here add to a reader's understanding of this term or doctrine? At first glance it would appear to add only that the term is used in limited circles and not widely known. Ho hum. Not particularly important. GRBerry 15:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted a token reference to the article (look in the article history for it) that avoids speculation and taking sides... I think the story is big enough that keeping a mention out of the article at this point is ridiculous, and I'd rather have a simple mention go in than the pseudointellectual warring. --Rahga (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Gibson's question of Palin's response are particularly relevant to this article. Back in 2002 the Doctrine received considerable discussion. By comparison this recent interview didn't shed any light on the doctrine or how it's seen today. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, could one of you Wikipedians add a citation to this article and its relevant contents? It's by the author who originally coined the "Bush Doctrine" terminology and clarifies the meaning and evolution of the term. THANKS!!! (Wallamoose (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1[reply]

Would people please shut-up already about how every irrelevant occurrence of Wikipedia subjects need to be included? Would you mention Sarah Palin in an Article about Moose? No. Just because the question was asked last night doesn't mean the interview has any business in this article. I swear Wikipedia is getting a little stupid.

I withdraw my opinion (above) that the Palin interview should not be included. The day after the Palin interview was followed by multiple news article in NYT, WaPo, Slate, etc., re-examining the meaning of the term--many of them (bizarrely) quoting Wikipedia. The Palin interview is thus now relevant to this article as it has opened up a new discussion among journalists, pundits, and foreign policy experts about what the term means and in fact has even influenced the definition of the term. Two weeks ago, "Bush Doctrine" meant "doctrine of preventive war" to 80% of foreign policy scholars who used it. Now that meaning is changing. It's all a bit postmodern and surreal, but it's also a fact that is clearly relevant to this article if handled carefully. Northwesterner1 (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the Palin/Gibson controversy has brought more attention to the term "Bush Doctrine" than even Bush himself. Regardless of one's politics, the interview is historically significant in focusing attention to and stimulating discussion about what exactly the Bush Doctrine is. I think it's irresponsible of editors to clear all mentions of the Palin interview from the listing. Wikieditors are savvy enough to mention the interview without creating a partisan battle. I think after the election and once the hysteria dies down, the Palin interview will have a rightful place on this listing.Avatarcourt (talk) 5:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have undertaken a rewrite of the lead section for clarity and accuracy. I believe this is a neutral and well-cited statement of the Bush doctrine. I recognize that it is a bit bold to undertake a big rewrite of the lead at a time when this article is receiving a lot of attention, but I think this is an improvement. If you beg to differ, please comment here instead of edit warring in the article.Northwesterner1 (talk) 08:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reads much better, clearer than the original in my opinion. It needs refs for each claim (used to justify invasion, policy of preemptive war, etc.) regards, --guyzero | talk 08:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:EHSFFL2010 is engaged in an edit war to state that the 2006 NSS is the official "Bush Doctrine," but the citation she or he provides is just a link to the document, without evidence that it is called the "Bush Doctrine." Elsewhere I have seen the 2002 NSS cited as the definitive Bush Doctrine. User:EHSFFL2010, could you please provide a citation? Northwesterner1 (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that is not correct, I never stated it as the official "Bush Doctrine", but as the concept of the Bush Doctrine is The National Security Strategy of the United States of America of 2006.My link clearly includes the concept of the Bush Doctrine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EHSFFL2010 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The text added contends that the NSS of 2006 is official recognized by the White House as being the Bush Doctrine. The link to the TOC of the document does not seem to contain anything backing up that claim. --skew-t (talk) 08:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EHSFFL2010, Thank you for commenting here on the talk page. That's the way we do things around here, instead of edit warring in the article. My apologies for misunderstanding your edits. I thought you were suggesting that the 2006 NSS is the official "Bush Doctrine." Instead, you seem to be suggesting that there is no official "Bush Doctrine," only a set of foreign policy principles that Bush has embraced. That's true to a certain extent, and I believe the current introduction makes that clear without your addition. However, it's also true that the term "Bush Doctrine" is a widely used term recognized by foreign policy scholars, journalists, etc. So it's not really true to say there is no Bush Doctrine. I'm not sure how the sentence you keep adding improves the article. Northwesterner1 (talk) 08:55, 12

September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, just found this section. My argument is that the Bush Doctrine is not recognized by any foreign governments or our White House. Adding "The official term recognized by the White House for the concept of the Bush Doctrine is The National Security Strategy of the United States of America of 2006" clarifies the Bush Doctrine Concept. My link has all the concepts of the Bush Doctrine included in it.

That's an argument that I don't believe belongs in this article. It doesn't matter if the White House doesn't officially recognize the term "Bush Doctrine." Others recognize it, they gave it a name, ergo it exists. If you think it's important that this article states that the White House doesn't recognize the term, you need to provide a citation for that and to find a better way of phrasing it so that it fits in the article. It's true that your link does have the concepts of the Bush Doctrine included in it, but so does the citation to the 2002 NSS document which is already referenced in the introduction and is widely recognized as being the "original" statement of the Bush Doctrine. So it's not clear to me why you think it's necessary to include the 2006 document here. Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:06, 12

September 2008 (UTC)

The 2006 article is the latest Strategy while the 2002 is not updated. If anything, the 2002 should be deleted

Can you please provide a citation -- for example, a newspaper article referring to the "Bush Doctrine" -- that shows that the 2006 strategy is a more relevant document than the 2002 strategy? Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have to show the 2002 document is more relevant just that it exist and is different thant the 2006.

I have changed the last paragraph to read, "The main elements of the Bush Doctrine were codified in a National Security Council document, National Security Strategy of the United States, published on September 20, 2002, and this document is often cited as the definitive statement of the doctrine. The National Security Strategy was updated in 2006," with a link to the new document. Will that do? By the way, please sign your talk page comments by typing four tildes after your comment: Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commendable rewrite and effort. I think that the central ideologies of the Bush Doctrine may also intertwine with the neoconservatism article. The most central and controversial part of the doctrine is the question of foreign interventionism, and this is the one which have also set off a long trail of other articles - low intensity conflict, Effects-Based Operations, War on Terrorism, Axis of evil and so on. It seems a large undertaking to structure all the controversy and implications, practical policy uses and the fall out from these policies summed up as the Bush Doctrine. Hopefully we will be able to add some bits and pieces, while later thoroughly referenced articles can be created to fairly reflect the complex topic. Current events are also adding to more controversy and no doubt future books and analytic articles from renowned authors. Scierguy (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Northwesterner1, I've been reverting your changes to the intro, not realizing that this rewrite was a conscious effort and not just the random byproduct of a lot of edit warring. I still think the original intro was better in one important way: it clarified the order of the meanings, i.e. that the Bush Doctrine started as being about harboring terrorists before getting the additional meanings. Would it be possible to have the rewrite incorporate this information? Korny O'Near (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. It got a little confusing around here with all the edit wars, I know, and this talk page could use a cleanup also, as we have related discussions going on in different places. I see your point, but I disagree about the order of emphasis. I think the genesis of the idea is important. But I think it's more important to use the first paragraph to highlight the most important element of the Bush Doctrine (preventive war) and its most important use (the Iraq War). In other words, I think a clear statement of the term is more important than a chronological evolution of the term. In my version, the statement comes first, the chronology comes second. Not a big deal, just a question of emphasis... However, I will hold off from future edits to the intro. Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northwesterner1 is in violation of 3RR. You have deleted numerous users posts. Even if you disagree, you should not delete more than 3 times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EHSFFL2010 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my edits, and I don't believe I've violated 3RR; if I have, it was unintentional. In fact, I've actively tried to engage you in asking you to come to this talk page. If you think I've violated 3RR, please provide diffs and feel free to report me.Northwesterner1 (talk) 08:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This edit changes the definition of the Bush Doctrine and limits it to pre-emption only. Two problems. (1) The Bush Doctrine includes a rationale for preventive war, not preemptive war, which was the policy of previous presidents. That's a key difference. (2) The citations provided in the opening section, especially the NYT editorials, clearly define the "Bush Doctrine" as something more than just the policy of preventive war -- it's a broader set of policies marked by increased unilateralism, etc. I think this edit should be reverted. Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I reverted it. If someone wants to change the focus of the article that dramatically, please take it to the talk page first. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted more than this one edit -- you also reverted my revisions of the opening paragraph as described above. I have restored the version I feel is most accurate, and we can discuss any changes. Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can this section be trimed by including the links in the main article or adding explaination for why they are relevant. The section was listed twice so I combined them. Thank you, --Tom 12:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Speculation suggests" does not belong in Wikipedia. Nor does "According to the dictionary definition..." belong on this page; the dictionary definition has nothing to do with the way the term is actually used. Finally, the linked source does not say anything about "Many Americans". The Bush Doctrine has a very real and useful definition, as used by the press for six years now, as has been sourced elsewhere (and as made evident by a Google search). Suggesting that it doesn't really have a definition is exactly the partisan POV editing I was warning about above, and reflects conservative talking points that were invented in the wake of the Sarah Palin interview. --Jere7my (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Weisberg, in his book "The Bush Tragedy," actually identified six Bush Doctrines:

• Bush Doctrine 1.0 was Unipolar Realism (3/7/99--9/10/01);
• Bush Doctrine 2.0 was With Us or Against Us (9/11/01--5/31/02);
• Bush Doctrine 3.0 was Preemption (6/1/02--11/5/03); Bush Doctrine 4.0 was Democracy in the Middle East (11/6/03--1/19/05);
• Bush Doctrine 5.0 was Freedom Everywhere (1/20/05-- 11/7/06);
• and Bush Doctrine 6.0 (11/8/06 to date Thursday, September 11, 2008) is the "absence of any functioning doctrine at all." <national review online>

[4] 217.83.156.152 (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The National Review is hardly an unbiased source. Naturally they are pushing the "it doesn't really mean anything" talk point. --Jere7my (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to be watched closely. It appears that many Republicans and Palin supporters have taken to redefining the phrase "Bush Doctrine" in an attempt to justify her lack of knowledge on the subject in her interview with Charles Gibson; when she gave the wrong answers, instead of fessing up she didn't know, they are attempting to repaint what the words mean so that she appears right. This article has defined the phrase just as Charles Gibson did for years before this interview, and this page could use some protection to prevent politically motivated edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.19.106 (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to mention that Sarah Palin brought the subject back into the limelight, the proper way to do that would be a properly referenced comment in the opening, NOT an edit war. Cut it out, children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.19.106 (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a brief, clear section with three mainstream media sources last night, but it's lost in the sea of edit wars. Good luck to anyone adding it back. ;) --Jere7my (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its quite the edit war, there must be at least 10 people editing it back either way —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.19.106 (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected the article; if I'm reading the history right two of those IP editors are somewhere above 10RR on the page, and I see other non-established editors edit warring in the history. If another admin with more time to spare wants to sort this out and block the appropriate parties, I won't object to a lowering of the protection. GRBerry 18:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.19.106 (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the controversy will not blow over by itself. The possible politicizing of including a controversy not pertinent to the Bush Doctrine, but how someone are not familiar with the Bush Doctrine seems like a basic POV. I think we are seeing how this will result in more help for the editorial control becoming needed. It is contentious because it is seen as "political editing". Constructive discussion would be ideal until a consensus can be reached. Scierguy (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The earlier linking to the the central neoconservative ideology of foreign interventionism controversy was lost from the "depose foreign regimes" phrase. I think this is such a central theme in the controversy about the Bush Doctrine and should be linked as such. Any thoughts? Scierguy (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intentionally remove that wikilink -- it was part of a larger restoration of previous content -- and I'm fine if you want to go ahead and restore it, but I don't think it's particularly useful. Linking to an article on foreign interventionism would be appropriate, but that article doesn't exist (it's currently a redirect). Linking the phrase "depose foreign regimes" to a small section in a larger article on neoconservatism seems beside the point. It seems like an easter egg link to me.Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noted in Talk:Bush_Doctrine#Rewrite_of_lead_section that this is a central theme that deserves more attention, but also that it is a large undertaking. For the time being, I think we will have to do with a snippet - at least serving some justice. That way it can be further fleshed out and turned into a full article. The paragraph under the article on neoconservative ideology provides something to build on. It can certainly be improved, but is also very controversial and will no doubt result in "some attention". Scierguy (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should also be careful of any negationism with regard to this subject. I feel I could be able to create a starting article, but it would be much better served by an expert, or a group of editors to balance any article on foreign interventionism. It also plays an integral part to many articles relating to aggressive foreign policy, so it would be easier to isolate into the specific ideology held in the Bush Doctrine and neoconservatism. It is not something new, but with the advent of "the information age", Internet and such increased awareness with media democracy, especially Wikipedia, there is a lot more information and articles being added. Treating the specific neoconservative and Bush Doctrine view on this controversial issue is the easier path to creating an article. If the full historical context of all foreign interventions should be treated, it would no doubt occupy a small/large building of contributors covering history since almost the time we were living in caves. ;-) Scierguy (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northwestern1, you still keep removing the link on "depose foreign regimes". Please discuss this if you have changed your previous opinion and have any further problems. Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 06:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here: "If they had bothered to look, even the Wikipedia could have cured Josh Marshall, Greg Sargent, or Andrew Sullivan of their illusion that there's a single, simple meaning to the term "Bush Doctrine."   Justmeherenow (  ) 19:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It's almost as though there was a concerted strategy to muddy up the Wikipedia article just after the Palin interview with just enough vagueness to make her answer seem cogent. Prior to yesterday, any pundit, politician, or presser who was asked "What do you think of the Bush Doctrine?" would have been able to give a concise answer, because it's been a topic of conversation for six years. Today, who knows what it means? --Jere7my (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you're confused. Prior to the edit wars beginning this September (see this revision), the doctrine was related to a number of points, not just (and in fact, not at all) preemption. A quick review of the editors who have changed the description to limit the Doctrine to preemptive war are more liberal. Obviously this is a concerted effort from some left-wingers to make it appear as if Charlie Gibson knew what he was talking about. The article was also posted at CBS, should we suspect a CBS-inspired edit war? Biccat (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also note the difference between preventive war and preemptive war. Therein also lies some controversy. Scierguy (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The previous version you link to almost exactly matches the definition my wife gave when I asked her (before she heard about the Palin interview), "What do you know about the Bush Doctrine?" It would have been a great answer for Sarah Palin to give. It matches my sense of the way journalists and pundits have been using it for six years — i.e., first and foremost, as justification for preventive war. I do not quibble with the edits that expand on the Bush Doctrine and make it clear that the doctrine is more than a catchphrase; I quibble with the numerous edits that have tried to insert phrases like "the term has no official meaning, because..." There is nothing wrong with trying to fully define a complicated topic; there is something wrong with trying to make it into such a vague term that nobody really knows what it is, in the service of defending the ignorance of a candidate for high office. (To put it another way: if someone asks me, a candidate for Head Ornithologist of America, "What is the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow?" I might reasonably be expected to respond, "An African or European swallow?" It would not be reasonable for me to stall the interviewer until he fed me the definition of "swallow", then tell my supporters to rush to Wikipedia to edit the swallow entry to make it seem like nobody knows what a swallow is.) --Jere7my (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the phrase has been used by journalists and pundits for just about seven years, and that difference of a year captures the issue in a nutshell. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A more appropriate analogy would be if an interviewer asked you "What is the air speed velocity of an unladen bird?" To which the appropriate answer would be "What?" I will acknowledge that obviously we were looking at different edits, it appears that both sides of the spectrum were trying to cloud the issue. Political issues aside, the interview with Palin is completely unrelated to the actual definition of the Bush Doctrine. Unless you consider Wiki edit wars "newsworthy." Biccat (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look back through the talk page, you'll see I was the first to say that both sides were being partisan here, and both sides would do well to watch it. That said, something like "The term was brought back into the limelight in Sarah Palin's first interview..." could well be appropriate in the lede. It's certainly newsworthy and sourceable, since the news media has been abuzz about it since last night, and many of the people visiting this page for the first time are doing so because of the interview. If an arguably fumbled answer to a question about the subject of an article has a significant effect on a Presidential race, I certainly think a reference would be appropriate. I'm not going to add it back in, though, because consensus has not been reached, and the arguments for and against inclusion (including mine) strike me as partisan. I disagree that yours is a better analogy, since there are good answers to "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?" (as my wife, a classics professor, showed me last night) and there are no good answers to "What is the air speed velocity of an unladen bird?" The latter is meaningless; the former refers to a term that's in common currency among journalists and politicians, any of whom would've been able to offer some sort of an answer before yesterday. --Jere7my (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's unladen swallow, not bird. And there IS a proper response. "African or European?" :) --too lazy to log in 65.118.118.2 (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now Charles Krauthammer has mentioned it, too.   Justmeherenow (  ) 04:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The official term recognized by the White House for the concept of the Bush Doctrine is The National Security Strategy of the United States of America of 2006.

I believe this should be included in definition. I want to get consensus.Businesscartpt7 (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reference for that? Korny O'Near (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This information is already in the lede. "The main elements of the Bush Doctrine were delineated in a National Security Council document, National Security Strategy of the United States, published on September 20, 2002,[5] and this document is often cited as the definitive statement of the doctrine.[7][8][9] The National Security Strategy was updated in 2006.[10]" regards, --guyzero | talk 20:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but do you have any evidence that the White House has used the term "Bush Doctrine"? Korny O'Near (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry, misunderstood. Cheney mentioned "bush doctrine" here: [5] and here: [6] Bush here: [7], etc. I think how this information as currently presented in the lede is OK. cheers, --guyzero | talk 20:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, I misunderstood - I thought your response was from the original user, Businesscartpt7. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all. The sources that I found above might be useful in further article expansion as Cheney provides his own definition of Bush Doctrine in one of them. cheers, --guyzero | talk 20:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link for reference 5 ("National Security Strategy of the United States. National Security Council, September 20, 2002") appears to be incorrect. Currently it redirects to the National Security Council homepage rather than to a particular document. I believe the correct link is http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2002/ Agthorr (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed per comment above. thank you, --guyzero | talk 22:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The very first line in the Overview section states, "The September 11, 2001 attacks were planned and executed by Osama bin Laden and other members of Al Qaeda, a terrorist group that was then based in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan." I question the accuracy and verifiability of this statement. No adequate independent investigation has been performed to substantiate that foreign terrorists, or specifically bin Laden, were the key masterminds behind the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 Commission was charged with the task of investigation, but in practice this is no better than a committee appointed by foxes being tasked to determine who attacked the henhouse. All other reviews performed by government agencies have been incomplete, inconclusive, or not credible due to obvious biases. Key parties in the matter, especially George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, have refused to testify under oath on the matter, and (shamefully) no one has obligated them to do so; particularly the Congress of the United States. This statement should be removed, or if not removed, at the very least given references to try to support it. The Original Wildbear (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, the FBI, on its most wanted list, does not accuse Osama Bin Laden of the 9/11 attacks. When the FBI was questioned about this, the response was that they have no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11. Matrixpoint (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the stuff of conspiracy theories. The guy admitted that he did it in an interview.202.212.91.204 (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of hard evidence, the quoted statement above about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda is a conspiracy theory, even though it is presented as an undisputed fact. At the very least, the statement should read "...were alleged to be planned and executed..." as is normal practice for any criminal act prior to conviction. But the FBI is not even alleging that Bin Laden is responsible for 9/11. Also, there are examples of false claims of credit for terrorist acts. Such false claims can serve the interests of the individual or organization making them even though they are not true. Matrixpoint (talk) 03:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open this and do a ctrl+f and enter Wikipedia. When did it ever say this? 75.131.193.54 (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This vandalism edit [8] sat on the article for 3 days earlier this week. I'll email the former Mayor a link to WP:AIV which is a much better forum to report article vandalism since Hannity probably does not have an admin bit. thanks, --guyzero | talk 01:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word "supposed" in the first paragraph of the article, "...the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a supposed threat to the security of the United States...", gives the sentence an overly skeptical tone. A more neutral word such as "perceived" would be more appropriate. Bws93222 (talk) 02:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case if anyone was curious, this article was mentioned on that show on the night of Friday, September 12, 2008. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 04:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cited National Security Strategy of 2002 states the term pre-emptive war and does not contain the term preventive war. Was this changed recently to make Charles Gibson look bad after he naild Sarah Palin on her lack of knowledge of the Bush Doctrine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4merrepublican (talk • contribs) 04:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to this that the current version contains a first reference to `pre-emptive war' followed by a second on `preventive war,' seems to me they should match no matter which way it goes. Rruitenberg (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This subject has been discussed several times prior to the Palin/Gibson interview (see above: Preemptive war or preventive war and Pre-emptive vs. preventive again). It seems what the White House calls "preemptive war" in regards to the so-called doctrine is more consistient with the Wikipedia definition of "preventive war." Preemptive war as defined by Wikipedia is not a new or controversial policy. This is complicated, but sould somehow be addressed in the lead rather than simply linking "preemptive war". -Columbusness (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article in the Washington Post discusses up to 7 versions of the "Bush Doctrine" including the fact that it's not even a doctrine at all. I think we should include this detail in main definition. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/09/12/ST2008091203408.html

What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Businesscartpt7 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, and I added the seven versions. The "doictrine" part is of course journalistic invention, not a government statement.Rjensen (talk) 07:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need to clearly point out that the most common meaning of the term is preemptive war. --Sum (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be never-ending because there is a never-ending supply of Bush doctrines. Please, never keep this article under 1,000 words. It should stretch to at least 1,000,000 words before it is deemed suitable for un-editable status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.119.33 (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't it called the Bush policy? A doctrine is something religious. If Obama or Clinton had policies, they are not called doctrines. Only Republicans have "doctrines." It is a biased word, used in contempt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.119.33 (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In an Op-ed piece for the Washington Post ("Charlie Gibson's Gaffe", posted online 9/12/2008) Charles Krauthammer defends Sarah Palin by saying that it is really Charlie Gibson and the New York Times that misunderstand the Bush Doctrine. He points to this Wikipedia article as evidence of his superior knowledge on the subject:

"I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush Doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard..."

I'm confused as to why a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist is citing Wikipedia as a source. What is more troubling is that the reference to Krauthammer apparently was added to this article the same day that his column came out and the only sources that cite his definition of a Bush Doctrine are his own articles (now including the aforementioned Op-ed).

I'm not an expert on this subject and I do get the impression that Krauthammer and his writing probably carry enough weight to belong in the article (regardless of how/when it got there), but I don't like this "circular referencing" and I wonder if we're giving him undue weight. Is Krauthammer cited by other historical accounts of the Bush Doctrine? Krauthammer's definition of the Doctrine appears to be distinct from the more common one that is the subject of this article. Would it make more sense to refernece this in the body of the "Overview" section or a section on alternative uses of the term rather than in the second paragraph of the lead section? -Columbusness (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I originally added the Krauthammer reference, and I think it's appropriate, but it has to be used in the proper context. Other editors have changed its context to suggest that Krauthammer "coined the term," and Krauthammer himself changed the context in his column to justify conservative talking points in the wake of the Palin/Gibson interview. The common thread behind all definitions of the "Bush Doctrine" is increased American unilateralism -- and in that respect I think it is okay to give credit to Krauthammer for identifying this unilateralism early in Bush's presidency. But it should not be taken as a "definition" of the Bush Doctrine. It's more like a precursor or a hint of what later emerged as the "Bush Doctrine." I have revised the lead to help situate the Krauthammer article in this context; however, I would also not object if it was removed from the lead and moved lower int he article. Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walrasiad (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Safire did a little "On Language" piece in the New York Times back in October, 20 2002 on the origins of the term Bush Doctrine. He doesn't cite Krautheimer. He identifies a Chicago Tribune piece "A Bush Doctrine on Nuclear Arms" from January, 2001 as the earliest use, obviously preceding the Krautheimer citation (although I can't find the author or check the content).

Google Books says it was the 1 January 2001 issue. --147.9.203.163 (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC) (Zenohockey, not logged in)[reply]

The sentence beginning "Scholars identify seven different 'Bush Doctrines,'" in the Overview is misleading. The citation for the claim is a September 13th, 2008 Washington Post article by neoconservative journalist Michael Abramowitz. Abramowitz's article does not cite several scholars who identify seven different Bush Doctrines, but rather one Peter D. Feaver, a former National Security Council staff member under President George W. Bush. Mbsq (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbsq (talk • contribs) 16:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed this so that the sentence refers specifically to Peter Feaver. Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that Bush might have had as many as seven doctrines is an absurd argument. By Wikipedia's own definition, a doctrine is "a codification of beliefs or "a body of teachings" or "instructions", taught principles or positions." Those policy positions that are being named 'doctrines' such as any country that habours terrorists will be treated as equivalent to the terrorists themselves are really individual principles. The doctrine is the overall idea that holds these principles together. As such, the principle just named would hold as a justification for another principle, namely pre-emptive war. Together these would hold a more or less coherent doctrine that would be named for convention's sake the Bush Doctrine.

It is possible that spreading democracy might be classed into a distinct doctrine, or if any coherency can be made out of the hodge-podge set of principles into a single doctrine. However, these are really just policies for which the term Doctrine is merely a conventional classification intended to draw parallels with policies relating to the use of force held by other Presidents and high-level leaders, such as Colin Powell.

Generally, convention has had it that the term 'Bush doctrine' is to refer to the policy of the legitimacy of pre-emptive war. Therefore, since the use of the term doctrine is convention anyway, it does not really matter if there were other principles that might be labeled doctrines in retrospect, as this has not until now what has been accepted in common use of the term the 'Bush Doctrine.' As generally, when matters of convention are concerned, quibbling over doctrine is supposed to refer to this or that is pointless semantics, because this is a term that is set by generally conceived opinion anyway and is not a transcendental idea (especially where the doctrines of Pr. Bush are concerned). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.124.120 (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in general with the thrust of your comment, but the "several doctrines" theory has its proponents -- notably Jacob Weisberg's book arguing that there are several distinct "Bush Doctrines" -- meaning that what we might think of as Bush's foreign policy doctrine has changed over time. This article needs some serious work to deal with these nuances but I agree that we should give greater emphasis to the doctrine of preventive war, which has been the most common understanding of the Bush Doctrine in foreign policy journals, etc., over the last six years. Do you have a recent citation for the fact that The Bush Doctrine is the doctrine of preventive war? Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep in mind that "doctrine" is a journalistic convention and different journalists stress different themes. The Bush people never said "The Bush doctrine is XXX". Instead they said at seven different times, "The Bush policy is: x1...X2...X3...etc. Hostile critics have focused mostly on the preventive war theme, while friendly supporters stress the spread of democracy theme.

That's not exactly true. "Doctrine" is also a conventional term used among foreign policy scholars. And scholars who are both supportive and critical of the doctrine of preventive war have cited it as the "Bush Doctrine." Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bush people never said "The Bush doctrine is XXX".. Well, thats not exactly true. On November 10, 1991 "A senior administration official said Mr. Bush's speech would be a fleshing out of what the White House calls the Bush Doctrine -- the assertion that nations that harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves" [9]--Work permit (talk) 04:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ah yes, one more Bush doctrine. Historically speaking "doctine" is a tag line used by journalists and historians to characterize a presidential policy. In the previous quote we have an anonymous official off the record talking about a speech that has not yet been given; likely he was talking to journalists to shape their stories--that's called "spin". Rjensen (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Yes, but we live in a world in which highly respected scientists believe there are multiple universes, or a "multiverse," even though the word universe means everything.

Much of the negative language and critisim disputed and deleted from this article positivly belongs in any factual article on the subject

The habitual cries of bias in the face of truth and factual accounts, from those who’s vision is blurred by their allegiance to right wing Neo Con demagoguery not withstanding, it is not “unencyclopedic” to present facts which as they stand, illustrate that the Bush doctrine by virtually all accepted standards of logic, objective observation, and historical precedent, is a demonstratively flawed policy

Using the term “suspicious “ to describe critics of the doctrine, reads as though the criticism is based on a lack of substance, which is the antithesis of the truth

The newly fabricated spurious spin that the doctrine is actually “multi faceted’ is categorically false and revisionist. Any and all of the verbiage beyond the original proclamation of a policy of unilateral preemptive military adventurism, were incorrectly attributed to the doctrine. The perception mistakes equivocation of the policy, for the policy itself. Most recently, the ersatz contention was resurrected in an attempt to mask the lack of scope of a vice presidential candidate who clearly had no frame of reference, “multi faceted” or otherwise The fact that this falsehood is proclaimed in the opening paragraph is a pre curser and indicative of the flawed tone and syntax of the article

Contrary to the groans of some, sterility and the appeasement of ignorance makes media LESS, not more fair and objective. There descriptive term would be “dumb down”

As it stands, this artical belongs on the RNC web page, as opposed to an on line encyclopedia. If there is any expectation of credibility, delete it and start overCosand (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the phrase "Bush doctrine" refers to a variety of things is well-sourced, and it's not "newly fabricated" on this article - it's been in place for months or years. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases by Administration official and bi-lines in Op Ed pages does not make the contention "well sourced" I'll say again, "The perception mistakes equivocation of the policy, for the policy itself" Cosand (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so what makes your contention well-sourced, or sourced at all? Korny O'Near (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the ideological background on the Bush Doctrine, including a central timeline in the formation of the ideas through the end of the Cold War and neoconservative objection to the Reagan Doctrine, the outcome of the Gulf War and foreign policies of the presidency of Bill Clinton. The founder of the neoconservative ideology, Irving Kristol, is also a former active supporter of Trotskyism, before completely changing his course and in 1979 proclaiming himself as a neoconservative. The Reagan Doctrine was essentially anti-communist and in opposition to the global influence of the Soviet Union. The background for these facts and the timeline comes from renowned experts on international relations graduated from the Carleton University, which has a reputation considered the top in this field of studies. Scierguy (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the timeline and ideology behind the Bush Doctrine is key to understand the practical foreign policy guidelines and decisions in the doctrine itself. A doctrine is founded in a belief system as well as having practical considerations for the decisions. Together the background, timeline and ideology makes it possible to understand the reasoning behind the Bush Doctrine and the foundations on which it was founded - including the September 11, 2001 attacks and subsequent international relations practical policies or events. It is also key to understanding the mindset for the geopolitical strategy behind the policy, and makes it intelligently coherent - see soundness and natural deduction. Furthermore it explains the strong influence of militarism in the policy, and the subsequent military spending of the United States during the Bush presidency. This also holds for military interests on the geopolitical policies and foreign interventionism. Other concerns have been the energy policies, leading to conspiracy theories like the Free energy suppression theory claiming that "advanced technology that would reshape current electrical generation methods is being suppressed by special interest groups and that these groups are usually related to the oil industry, to whom current energy generation technology is profitable." These are some views that lead to opinions on the economic consequences of the Bush presidency, as well as the reason for the Iraq War. Scierguy (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, clearly you are attempting to overcomplicate and mitigate the flawed policy, through the revisionism of retroactively attributing motive which is contrary to scores of accounts by those formally associated with the policy and the administration who conceived it. These accounts include but are not limited to retired generals, a former press secretary and a former head of the CIA

You are also attempting to rationalize the flawed policy by attempting connect unrelated factors to the creation of the doctrine. Claiming that the invasion of Iraq was in any way factually connected to 9/11 and a mitigating motive for the Bush doctine is both intellectually dishonest and intellectually insulting, in light of the fact that the notion has been debunked by virtually all objective observers, and by the aforementioned sources formally associated with the Administration. Your contentions can only be regarded as bias and non objective Cosand (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Stefan Halper, connected with US government since 1971 being part of the Executive Office of the President, holding positions in the White House office of Communications, The Domestic Council and the Office of Management and Budget under President Richard Nixon. Also under the Ford Presidency, working in the Office of the White House Chief of Staff where he worked on a range of domestic and international issues. He also became Special Council to the Joint Economic Committeeand in 1979 he became National Policy Director for George H. W. Bush’s Presidential campaign before becoming Director of Policy Coordination for the Reagan-Bush ticket in 1980. --- I think the references are valid and the timeline is factual with interactions from central ideology-forming neoconservative thinkers strongly criticizing the political realism of the Reagan Doctrine, the Gulf War outcome and the foreign relations policies of Bill Clinton. You can go through the reference material yourself, and verify the ideological background, timeline and forming of the Bush Doctrine by central counsel to the Bush administration who are openly neoconservatives and widely recognized as such. Their policies were not simply intellectually flawed, but stand on their own with strong reasoning through the neoconservatist ideology. Scierguy (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact open for review, here is the direct link - http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg052003.asp - to some of the background material as reported by Jonah Goldberg. Please discuss further, if there are any doubts as to the factual correctness. Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your verbiage equating Neo Conservatism with "factual correctness" and "strong reasoning" speaks volumes as to your lack of objectivity, and your sighting of an article by a pro Bush publication like the National review falls far short.

Also, you are either intentionally or not, createing a straw man. I am not questioning the sequence of events documented to archive the creation of the doctrine, I am questioning and sighting the reasons why I question the actual true nature of the original motivation, and the accuracy of the stated motives for it's creation. My contention is supported by former Bush administration officials, not by pro Neo Con commentators and Op-ED pages years after the fact. Ask yourself. Which is more liukely to be accurate ? Methinks the objective answer is clear Cosand (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appeal to you to look through my editing history and contributions as well as the foreign interventionism article that I recently expanded significantly. I am only showing what renowned experts are saying about the ideology, and the reasoning behind it. This has nothing to do with systemic bias at all, but is looking at deductive system reasoning and natural deduction apparent in the scientific treatment of the Bush Doctrine. There is some soundness to the reasoning behind the doctrine and it would be a grave omission to refuse this in it's explication. For a view supporting the "flawness" in the Bush Doctrine - look no further than the peace dividend, the following presidency of Bill Clinton and then the presidency of Bush soon followed by the September 11, 2001 attacks. There is a reasoning to why the Bush administration created the programs of War on Terrorism and increased military spending; alluding to them as "intellectually flawed" would obviously not live up to NPOV. Also see neoconservatism#Foreign interventionism for more information about some of the criticism. For a history of foreign interventionism by the United States - see Operation Gladio or School of the Americas, CIA activities in the Americas. Also, to understand the scientific criticism of the Bush Doctrine - see false premise and systems science. If you are concerned about the religious moral background and consequences used by the Bush Doctrine - see the Just War doctrine. For political, ethical and economic concern see political radicalism and corporatism. I think I show being able to treat the subject with neutrality. Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the foundation of the Bush Doctrine is its ideology - leading up to their support for invading any country seen as a threat to democracy. The founder of neoconservatism, the former active supporter of Trotskyism - reasonable far-left on the political spectrum - Irving Kristol, radically changed his views and became a self-proclaimed neoconservative in contact with other similarly minded. Kristol changed from one radical way of a belief system to another radical belief system, but what he continued to keep was his political radicalism. This fit well with the geopolitical development, considering the proxy war situation in the Vietnam War, and the later end to the Cold War. His son Bill Kristol formed the radical neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Irving Kristol was born into a orthodox Jewish family, is married to Gertrude Himmelfarb who is a renowned conservative whose brother was Milton Himmelfarb of American Jewish Committee fame for more than 40 years. You can certainly find a lot of points for criticism of the Bush Doctrine and its background, but there is no denying that it has intellectual merit - and otherwise would be Wikipedia:CENSOR or negationism. The doctrine and the ideology behind it, neoconservatism, has world parallels (systems theory) to the situation of Israel and Zionism - as well as considering the evangelical views of George W. Bush. There is a lot to go through when looking at this doctrine - but one should be careful of negationism, and think of media democracy allowing a fair and balanced representation of Wikipedia articles, so as to not denying factual claims that can be sourced and keeping freedom of speech, continuing the neutrality and objectivity of Wikipedia - allowing the various points of view their space. The structure for dealing with this is outlined in the Wikipedia polices and design guide manuals. Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Today, Sunday September 14, 2008, Thomas Friedman on CNN's Fareed Zakaria GPS program talked of a surging Putinism and how an efficient energy policy can be more effective of weakening Russia, in the wake of their increasing economic power - as opposed to direct military interventions. The debates and strategies for geopolitical will not mellow down, with foreign interventionism being touted by many for national interests. He has been an outspoken critic of the Bush Doctrine, and keeps closer realism views - like the Reagan Doctrine. For anyone interested in United States mainstream criticism of the Bush Doctrine, this can be an interesting source. He is also a strong believer in natural adaptation as a winning strategy - see theories of technology. This is in line with the more recent military strategy of the United States calling for synergistic Effects-Based Operations in the asymmetric warfare for War on Terrorism. With Bush proclaiming to be a friend of "big business", had close ties to Vladimir Putin - see corporatism, he also portrayed himself as a "compassionate conservative" and his doctrine deriving on the ideology of a former radical leftist supporter of Trotskyism, the Realpolitik of his father and the Reagan Doctrine is far more politically conservative. This seems to be what John McCain is more in line with as his ideology for international relations. This might offer some deeper insight to the Bush Doctrine and his "political patricide" diverting from the Reagan Doctrine. Scierguy (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As one of my favorite college professors was fond of saying “There is no premium on verbosity” . With all due respect, you would do well to heed that advice, and I would add, neither is there premium on sanctimony. I fully understand your desire to spin garden variety one dimensional Neo Con dogma to appear to be some complex intellectual foreign policy revelation, The only trouble is, it just doesn’t happen to be true The Bush doctrine was plan and simply, a declaration of the legitimization of unilateral military adventurism, nothing any more of less complicated then that/. Your wordy sanctimonious presentation represents the ultimate revisionism This article is flawed from it’s opening paragraph, and it is exactly this brand of attempt to intellectualize oversimplification that makes it so, and long winded references to the apologists of the flawed policy, does not make it any less so. Cosand (talk) 03:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this was added to the lead recently. Can this be better sourced or put into more context. Right now, it is another nugget just inserted into the lead a appears awkward, imho. I am no expert on this but this seems fairly important and should recieve more sourcing. Thank you, --Tom 16:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Critics contend that the doctrine represents what is arguably the biggest shift in US foreign policy in over a century, and contradicts long established and time tested methods of diplomacy and pro active non military engagement

Critics also point out that the doctrine enacts policy that was prescribed and professed by those associated with it’s creation, long before the events attributed to the motive for it’s creation

Any discussion of the topic without these points inclided is patently incomplete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosand (talk • contribs) 16:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The Bush Doctrine is a term used to describe the foreign policy doctrine of United States president George W. Bush, enunciated in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks."

This opening sentence is problematic because it attempts to explain this particular doctrine(s) by saying it's a doctrine. I suggest using the words "position or policy" since these synonyms can help readers who might now know what a doctrine is to better understand the term. It's fairly basic not to explain a term by repeating the term itself.

Also according to the definition I find for doctrine, it is a single principle, policy or position. So I don't see how there is a "Bush Doctrine". It should really read Bush Doctrines, and I believe that's at the core of the confusion. I defy anyone to substantiate an argument that there is a single doctrine dealing with Bush's foregin policy approaches and methodology. But I guess rectifying this confusion by making the article title plural is way above my paygrade.

I suggest revising the opening line to: The Bush Doctrine is a term used to describe the foreign policy positions of United States president George W. Bush.

Then perhaps something along the lines of: These positions have been enunciated in various speeches and papers and have been a focus for analysis in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks.(Wallamoose (talk) 04:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

It's unfortunate to see that this article has undergone any changes at all ever since the Palin interview. When she faltered in her answer, did the the Bush Doctrine somehow transform into a completely vague and indefinable concept? Reading this Wikipedia entry would lead one to believe so. How else could this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bush_Doctrine&diff=238516479&oldid=237795986 be explained?

Wikipedia shouldn't be a place for conservatives or liberals, or anyone else for that matter, to come running to in an attempt to propagate their own viewpoint. This article ought to be reverted to its state prior to all the partisan bickering. In light of the controversy, it would be justifiable to add a new section at the bottom mentioning the Palin interview (in a completely neutral tone, of course), but it's a shame to see what's become of this article ever since it became a major subject in the elections, and I hope this doesn't signify a trend for Wikipedia as a whole.

Matthcx (talk) 07:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]