Talk:Bush Doctrine

message: 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)
thread_title: Palin/Gibson interview

message: The entire second paragraph, the entire “Components section” and all references to “Elements of” need to be deleted from the article.
For good or for bad, the “Bush Doctrine” was a proclamation of America’s right to engage in preemptive war in the interest of national security, nothing more and nothing less. All the rest are justification, explanation, and equivocation of and for the doctrine.
I suggest we not reduce this article all the way down to Sarah Palin level, and talk aboit it in terms of “aspects”, because none exist Cosand (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree that the article needs work, but the recent edits hacked out sourced NPOV information that described (not defended) the Doctrine and noted how it was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan and how part of it was codified into NSC position docs. I don't see clear rationale for removing any of that information. thanks, --guyzero | talk 17:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Any references for that statement? Clearly, many people disagree, especially given that the phrase "Bush Doctrine" was being used after September 11 and well before the invasion of Iraq. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Are you saying that the war in Afghanistan was a preemptive war? Korny O'Near (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a fallacious point. The preemptive was formulated already in the "Project For a New American Century." You could argue that the Wolfowitz doctrine and Bush doctrine are the same. But Bush was the president. He is the one having final say on the torture at Gitmo. Yes, I think torture should be included in the definition of the doctrine. The United States still uses torture, as defined by the UN and humanitarian organization (Obama lied), but Gitmo is on another level. 89.253.73.146 (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Article still needs a major overhaul

message: I'm wondering if neutrality requires us to have a little more discussion of the controversy as to whether there even is anything that can fairly be called the "Bush Doctrine".  In history we learn about the "Monroe Doctrine" and the "Truman Doctrine", each of which was an ex ante categorical imperative designed to deter foreign states from actions that the administration in question deemed antithetical to U.S. interests.  The things that have been referred to as the "Bush Doctrine" tend to be justifications that the administration put forward for specific actions taken, like the invasion of Iraq.  
Actions under the Monroe Doctrine or Truman Doctrine were supposed to be automatic, the better to deter the unwanted behavior by others.  The Bush administration, on the other hand, specifically states that individual circumstances could lead to a different result even in situations that are on their face similar to Iraq.  It's not a doctrine in the sense that the construction "(President's Name) Doctrine" has ever been used in the past.   
See, for example:  
http://www.slate.com/id/2200090/  
I would basically put the term "Bush Doctrine" in the same category as "Death Tax", in that each is a partisan term coined in order to add a layer of connotation to a policy discussion.  Nomenclaturist (talk) 04:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this article already basically takes the approach that you and the Timothy Noah Slate article do, that there's no one "Bush Doctrine" - see the first sentence: "...a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles...". I wouldn't call it "partisan", though, since the phrase seems to have been used consistently by both Bush's supporters and his critics; for that reason I also think it merits its own article. It should also be noted that there are also "doctrine" articles on Wikipedia for presidents Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Obama, for better or worse. Korny O'Near (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right.  Comment withdrawn.  For whatever reason (probably because I live in NYC), I've only ever heard the phrase used on the attack.  Nomenclaturist (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy Discussion

message: :::I'm considering a separate page title "Memoirs of Strategic Leaders in the Global War on Terror" that may assist in answering the who, what, when, and why of the Bush Doctrine. To date, there are numerous memoirs - President Bush, Mr. Rove, Director Tenet, SECDEF Rumsfeld, Ambassador Bolton, Assistant SECDEF Policy Mr. Feith, Chairman's Gen Shelton and Gen Myers, Combatant Commander Gen Tommy Franks, LtGen Sanchez, etc In my mind, it's time to cross-walk and reconcile these respective perspectives to gain a appreciation of "Bush Doctrine" from where they "sat" at the time. Plainsman89 (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Memoirs of Strategic Leaders in the GWOT

message: Although the term "Bush Doctrine" may have been used to define various aspects of the Bush Administration's foreign policy, President Bush himself clearly defined it in his book "Decision Points."  Since the author of the doctrine has defined it, this article should at least mention what President Bush himself thought the doctrine meant.74.239.2.104 (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of Bush Doctrine 

message: Bush repeatedly stated that when Arabs saw free Iraqis and Afghans, they would want the same. That seems to have turned out to be true, but not one word of that here.
Toothis (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Not much on the Arab Spring

message: The article refers to US unilateral withdrawal from the ABM Treaty and Kyoto. The referenced source (reference 1, Krauthammer), however, correctly refers to the fact that the US never ratified the treaty. Refusal to ratify is not the same thing as unilateral withdrawal. I don't think the article misrepresents Krauthammer's slant, it is simply a factual misrepresentation.
Also in the references section, for reference 1, Kyoto is misspelled as "Tokyo". Mazzula (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing these errors out, Mazzula.  I think they're fixed now.  --Kenatipo  speak! 02:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Article seems to conflict with cited source

message: This article's 2nd sentence says the treaty was left before 9/11, and the link to the citation in that same sentence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty) says it happened afterwards.
Tellsbadjokes (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different dates (pre- and post- 9/11) for ending U.S. participation in the ABM treaty 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Bush Doctrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081004112734/http://levin.nationalreview.com:80/post/?q=NzQyNjBmZjA2M2IzMDgzYjI1MWJiNTNjZmFjY2M5YzI= to http://levin.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzQyNjBmZjA2M2IzMDgzYjI1MWJiNTNjZmFjY2M5YzI=
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Talk about the elephant in the room! Disbelieber (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Saudi Arabia? Is anybody f--king home? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bush Doctrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://fs6.depauw.edu:50080/~jeremyanderson/teach/213_2002nssIntro.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071115053453/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05%2F03%2F17%2F1442215 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05%2F03%2F17%2F1442215
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080307042733/http://www.spokesmanbooks.com/Spokesman/PDF/spk%2082%20Pages%20016%20to%20022.pdf to http://www.spokesmanbooks.com/Spokesman/PDF/spk%2082%20Pages%20016%20to%20022.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090215135620/http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_196286.html to http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_196286.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified