YourCT.com header image 2
← State Panel Reports On Towns Not Filing DEP Reports Spellers Of The World Untie! →

Obama “obligated” to follow-through on the Bush Doctrine.


by Chris MC


October 12th, 2008 · 43 Comments

The next President will be sworn in on January 20, 2009. Fox News Sunday Morning probed a question today that a number of people are asking. What will the transition period look like?

Host Chris Wallace: The core of the Bush Doctrine … [is] “we will not allow the world’s most dangerous regimes to get their hands on the world’s most dangerous weapons.”

Weekly Standard Editor and FNS panelist William Kristol has some advice for Barack Obama:

Kristol is a strategic player in Republican messaging and Fox News is devoted to influencing (if not controlling) the political debate. Given the status of the Presidential contest and the direction of the polls, are we seeing now the beginning of the loyal opposition’s strategy and message for the next cycle?

And should we commit to this core aspect of the Bush Doctrine as a permanent element to our national security policy and strategy?

Tags: Chris MC · Foreign Policy · Presidential 2008

43 Responses so far ↓ “Obama “obligated” to follow-through on the Bush Doctrine.”



  • 1 Retired Yes // Oct 12, 2008 at 5:51 pm

    Sounds like the good, the bad and the ugly all rolled into one!
    What a sticky mess for anyone to move forward with.
    Protect is a tricky place to be. But we must need protecting. or else why is it such a big deal?

  • 2 Aunt Bertha // Oct 12, 2008 at 6:16 pm

    All free nations need protection. Keep the weapons away from people who will use them on us. Why would Obama have a problem with that?

  • 3 anon // Oct 12, 2008 at 7:45 pm

    No president would disagree with the principle; what actions they take to implement is the question - military, economic, or diplomatic are all in the mix. W chose military and we’ve seen how badly that’s been mishandled. Obama may choose something else. McCain apparently is committed to the military options as well…

  • 4 anonymous // Oct 12, 2008 at 8:28 pm

    Aunt Bertha….please, I beg you..continue to do your best with our kids in school, but do not even pretend to think that WE should have all the weapons to be able to police the rest of this crazy world–I bet you teach your kids fairness–think about it, my dear….things ain’t fair, are they?? Think very seriously why a good Democrat like Joe Lieberman backs McCain–Do you really think it has anything to do with party politics? Nay…go back and listen very carefully to Mr. Kristol one more time. We are in a very sad time in our history, and the only way to make it through may be to turn off our TVs and go with our guts–which is what my folks did to get through the shit they were handed to them in the 30’s and 40’s–Bush is the Hoover of the new millenium, and it is time for a 21st century New Deal–It won’t be pretty to begin with–but hopefully there will be enough of the old America to get us through –PLEASE everybody–SHUT OFF THE RELENTLESS STREAM OF CRAP ON YOUR TELEVISIONS–and that includes the “debates”—what nonsense!! Think very carefully–a person named Sarah Palin is being sold to you as a future leader of our country–if that is not enough to give you pause—think of Tina Fey in the White House—-get it????? It really makes no difference to the “huddled masses”, now does it?

  • 5 turfgrrl // Oct 12, 2008 at 11:05 pm

    ChrisMC: First exactly how is this “Bush doctrine” different from any “doctrine” that any previous president has operated under? Second, Bill Kristol has the foreign policy analysis perfectly right. In fact the “world” tested the last lightweight foreign policy president, which just happens to Bush. Remember North Korea circa 2001? Just as Khrushchev tested Kennedy. Unlike either of those cases, Obama has neither a military background, military interest, or an executive leadership experience that anyone can identify to provide some insight as to whether he’ll be mired in policy idealism or able to make decisive moves to manage US interests.

  • 6 Chris MC // Oct 13, 2008 at 1:03 am

    The Bush Doctrine as articulated in the speeches that Wallace is referring to is more commonly referred to as preemptive war, distinguished from preventative war, which has been the accepted policy, irrespective of party affiliation, in prior administrations.

    The reality is that everyone pretty much agrees that Iran is a threat, and that nobody thinks they should have nuclear weapons.

    As to Obama’s mettle being tested, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that it will be.

    If military background were a pre-requisite for Presidential office, the country would look very different than it does. Hillary, Bill, Nixon, Biden, Lieberman, Johnson, Reagan, Gore, Huckabee, etceteras would all be disqualified.

    And a requirement of executive experience would similarly disqualify McCain, and a lot of other people.

    But neither of those is the premise of the concern Kristol is expressing. It is a policy concern. The premise is that the Bush Doctrine provides for a more secure country. Obama’s approach is hardly some ivory tower ideal. It is the approach that, having failed to achieve desired results by pursuing the neo-conservative policies that dominated his first term, have resulted in progress with North Korea and an easing of the concerns of our allies about our bellicosity.

    If you want to see how Obama approaches executive leadership, look at how he has run his campaign. They put together a strategy and are executing it. No drama Obama. Have you seen him waver once?

    Most specifically, Kristol, Bush, and McCain believe that a preemptive, unilateral strike on Iran will be both necessary and effective. There are serious questions about this and, unfortunately, our invasion and occupation of Iraq has critically undermined their credibility.

  • 7 anonymous // Oct 13, 2008 at 7:18 am

    I could be wrong on all of this but … Does anyone remember the Iran-Iraq war? I believe we supplied Iraq with weapons because at the time, they were the one who weren’t going to use them on us. And when Russia was fighting Afghanistan, didn’t we send weapons to Afghanistan? Look how that turned out - armed the Taliban pretty well. Time changes all things. One day friend, next day, watch your back. And that, Aunt Bertha, is why it is a dangerous game to play. I personally think McCain is going to be the end of the world if elected. He is violent and has a crazy lady with charm running with him. And they are both, as shown in recent weeks, incredibly racist. Dangerous!!

  • 8 Anonymous // Oct 13, 2008 at 7:43 am

    Racism is a good thing. It keeps people on their toes. Why go out of your way to hide it? Things are better when they’re open and above-board.

  • 9 Anonymous // Oct 13, 2008 at 8:13 am

    Hey, another McKKKain supporter has crawled out from under his rock! If you’re such a fan of racism, why don’t you let us all know your true identity? Why go out of your way to hide it? That way we’ll all know you’re open and above-board.

  • 10 barnstorm // Oct 13, 2008 at 9:38 am

    We keep repeating history and failing to learn from it. We’ve seen the results of our “pre-emptive” military actions. Before we broke the door down in Iraq there was no substantive Al Qaida there. Now they are our biggest obstacle there.The Taliban has regrouped in Afghanistan because of our half-assed efforts there.Clearly this approach does not work.
    We could go into Iran with guns blazing. All we’d be doing is making bigger problems for us down the road. The Hydra is alive and well.
    You can’t control a bunch of crazy fanatics by throwing an even crazier fanatic at them. I sort of agree with #7. If McCain/Palin get elected we may not have to worry about our finances much longer, much less paying off a 30-year mortgage… You betcha.

  • 11 anonymous // Oct 13, 2008 at 9:57 am

    #8 - Racism needs to be put out with the trash. There is nothing good about it. It breeds hate and violence. That is not a world I want to hand down to future generations.

  • 12 Old Timer // Oct 13, 2008 at 10:16 am

    The instinct to stay close to family or tribe is born in all of us. The fear of the unfamiliar is also instinctive. These instincts were necessary for survival in the time of cavemen. We don’t live in those times anymore. We should have learned, when we were very young, that we don’t need those behaviors anymore. Some of us learned, some didn’t. Wiping out racism, in our lifetime is an admirable goal and a significant challenge. If it is not taught to the very young, at home, it is almost impossible, later in life. We have come a long way, but we are not there yet. If Obama gets elected, that will be a benchmark. If he doesn’t, that will not prove racism still has control of this country, but it will certainly raise the question.

  • 13 Aunt Bertha // Oct 13, 2008 at 10:36 am

    Wow, I just wanted to say that if there is a threat to our nation and there is knowledge of a strike like the ones that occurred on September 11th, 2001, I hope to God that who ever is the President of the United States would take action and not vacillate. It would mean American lives.

  • 14 Anonymous // Oct 13, 2008 at 10:50 am

    #13: You also have to hope that the president isn’t a reactionary who doesn’t act very carefully after much deliberation. John McCain would have had us attacking the wrong country.

  • 15 Aunt Bertha // Oct 13, 2008 at 10:53 am

    two negatives equal a positive #14 I am not sure I understand your post.

  • 16 Anonymous // Oct 13, 2008 at 11:24 am

    Try this: You have to hope that the president isn’t a reactionary who fails to act very carefully after much deliberation. John McCain would have had us attacking the wrong country.

    Further, his knee-jerk reactions and changes of direction even in his political campaign suggest a lack of stability and direction.

  • 17 Aunt Bertha // Oct 13, 2008 at 12:41 pm

    Better.

  • 18 Anonymous // Oct 13, 2008 at 2:19 pm

    Why do I get the impression that Chris MC is talking to himself in multiple posts? Hmmmm?

  • 19 This is scary! // Oct 13, 2008 at 3:31 pm

    Louis Farrakhan Calls Obama the Messiah

  • 20 turfgrrl // Oct 13, 2008 at 4:09 pm

    ChrisMC:
    No Chris, Wallace pretty much articulated what he what he considered the Bush Doctrine, and you quoted it.

    It is a danger to elect someone as categorically unqualified to be president. We aren’t talking about the varying degrees of legislative leadership and what “counts more”, Obama essentially has no legislative record to speak of. He has no real world executive leadership experience, and this is a total crap shoot, he has no law practice experience to draw on. It’d be one thing if he had a stack of published essays/reports/position papers outlining his thoughts on foreign affairs. But he has none. He has a couple of speeches that all devoid of details and filled with platitudes. That really doesn’t cut it.

    I was very specific in the military issue, not only does he not have experience, he has no interest, which frankly is the worse issue. We are at the generation where military service is no longer a given, I accept that, but Obama has made no effort to grasp or in fact study the role of the military and the command structure, which everyone one of the candidates you’ve mentioned have long track records in that department, starting with legislative committee work. Obama couldn’t be bothered to chair the sub committee on European Affairs. He held zero meetings as chair. That is disgraceful. And just about any foreign policy junkie knows this and is deeply worried. Which speaks directly to the lack of executive experience, a disregard for holding himself accountable on votes and on holding meetings that would be on the record.

    If you actually read Kristol over the years, like I have, you’d know exactly what he is referring too, as opposed to your assumptions.

    I think you are scrapping the barrel by citing Obama’s presumed leadership by citing a campaign that has yet to produce anything, and gee wasn’t it the primary that showed how he was incapable of winning large populated states anyways?

    You can try and make the serious gap in leadership and foreign policy about McCain, but the real issue here is the lack of experience and interest in the subject of Obama. That is a real danger to our national security, which is what Kristol said.

  • 21 anonymous // Oct 13, 2008 at 5:09 pm

    #18, just because many people see McCain as scary and unstable doesn’t mean it is one person posting multiple times. Once Hillary was knocked out, I was unsure who I was going for and leaned toward McCain until his decision making was called into question (and come on by now even Palin supporters have to realize she should NOT have been picked. If McCain had done the background, he would have known about the pending investigation for which she has now been found guilty and faces impeachment). His unwillingness to use diplomacy and instead rely on bombs is too much like what we have now. And then to play the race card when he started to fall behind just shows he is a slimy bug who will stop at nothing to get what he wants. I don’t think power should be in his hands and certainly not in the hands of Palin.
    So turfgrrl, by your logic, let’s say McCain dies a month into office, you feel comfortable with Palin as President? You feel she has the experience to run the country and the military. I’ll say experience and brains in her case. Because when you vote in this country, it is a package deal. That is what made my decision. There is NO WAY I would ever vote to put Palin in office.

  • 22 Aunt Bertha // Oct 13, 2008 at 5:29 pm

    But what are the chances of Biden taking over? Stop with the what ifs. It is what it is and it may not be the best but we have to vote for the stronger candidate in this time. I am not voting for a vice president, that my friend will be a given.

    Thank you Turfgrrl well said in posting 20.

  • 23 turfgrrl // Oct 13, 2008 at 5:55 pm

    anonymous 21: I think I was more concrned over the thought of Cheney taking over for Bush, especially post pretzel.

    But, one of the reasons I supported Hillary in the primary was because I thought she’d put the best team in place to deal with the bureaucracy of government. The Bush administration has placed hacks and incompetents at such a wide level of agencies that it will take a dedicated bureaucrat detail oriented mindset to unravel the damage. Obama essentially is the flip of Bush, idealism over pragmatism. I have followed McCain over the years, and his policy work does not resemble the campaign he is running. Ideally Obama would be tapping into Biden’s foreign policy and just policy in general experience. He’s not.

    The US didn’t fail when FDR died, and Truman took over. No one voted for FDR because Truman was on the ticket. And likewise, I don’t think anyone here can ever lay claim that the choice of VP has been a factor in any vote for president, ever.

  • 24 anon // Oct 13, 2008 at 6:20 pm

    Of course the VP is a factor. You are voting for first and runner up (who takes office if runner up is incapacitated.) I won’t vote for a “first” whose runner up is not fit for the office.

    As for experience, I’d rather have Obama who appears to be able to work collaboratively than get McCain — who is so sure of his ideas that he will piss off people rather than back down. That’s not my model of good leadership. Even the military is changing what they look for in their leaders; about time we followed suit with our elected officials.

  • 25 Lucy // Oct 13, 2008 at 8:49 pm

    It’s not whether Palin takes over. The fact that McCain would pick her shows bad judgement, not a quality for our next president. I find it ironic that (from what I understand) that she did nothing “illegal” but violated ethics laws. Sounds like more BS to me. Why pick someone fending off ethics charges when you could pick ANYONE! Sounds like Johnny boy picked without much investigating. I’m afraid that’s his style. I’d have had more respect if he picked Tina Fey. At least she is briefed on national and international affairs!

  • 26 barnstorm // Oct 13, 2008 at 9:15 pm

    #19,
    I think the only person who cares what Louis Farrakhan says is probably Mrs Farrakhan. Nobody is electing Farrakhan for anything so why do you even bring it up?

    You have to like one thing. For the first time that I can remember, people are actually thinking about who else is on the ticket besides the big guys.It’s nice to see our collective eyes open past just McCain/ Obama.
    TG, I won’t hold Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience against him. He’s a bright guy, and probably a quicker study that Palin when it comes to OJT (on-the-job-training). He already knows he’s going to have to handle some very delicate and serious issues if he’s elected. He’s got his eyes open too.

  • 27 Anonymous Voter // Oct 13, 2008 at 9:19 pm

    I’ve been voting for president since Richard Nixon in 1968 and I’ve NEVER voted based on who the VP candidate was going to be. Nor did I ever worry that the VP candidate was “a heartbeat away from the presidency” either.

    What a STUPID thing to think about and only an IGNORAMUS would vote based on that!

  • 28 Retired // Oct 13, 2008 at 9:48 pm

    I hope some are trying to figure out what the many programs are that each candidate pushes forth.

    If Sen. Obama thinks there are capital gains in the small business tax report- there are not. If we do not cut the taxes on corporations- as about the highest on th e globe- more companies will move abroad. Loss of jobs is a big deal- someone needs to know more about keeping companies in the US.
    Jobs and lower taxes- will really help all of us- as the tax levies are passed along to the consumer- that’s all of us.

  • 29 Anonymous // Oct 14, 2008 at 5:05 am

    #27: Do you often try to shut off debate by telling people who think differently than you do that they are stupid? Why not use your own intellect and find a way to convince the rest of us to think as you do?

    If the vice president were not important, presidential candidates wouldn’t have to put their names on their tickets. Much more knowledgeable people than you or I have said that Sarah Palin’s nomination is a serious problem.

    For the Republican National Committee (RNC) to continue shielding her from press conferences, even though people have said many times that they need to know more about her, says a great deal about the RNC’s concerns about her limitations. Americans have the right to know as much as possible about anyone running for election, but the RNC believes it’s better to conceal what she doesn’t know than it is to risk losing more votes by giving the media full access to her. How many interviews has she had? I think it’s 3 or 4. Joe Biden has had about 100.

    How incredibly short-sighted your thinking is. Even if John McCain were a much younger person, I would have concerns, but he is elderly and his health is in doubt.

    Sarah Palin is poorly informed. Don’t be fooled by the teleprompter speeches she delivers so effectively; they say nothing about what she knows. Think of the investigation that determined she had violated ethics standards for her state. If the ethics violation seems trivial to you, okay, but also consider her woeful judgment in giving her husband considerable influence in the governor’s office. According to news reports, he spends 50% of his time there. He was not the person elected to that office, and he has no business conferring with state officials. I guess a Palin vice presidency would be one shared by both of the Palins. Within the context of their marriage, it’s great that they enjoy such a close relationship, but Todd Palin has no legitimate role in her political office.

    With John McCain and with Sarah Palin, the greatest concern is lack of judgment.

  • 30 anonymous // Oct 14, 2008 at 6:00 am

    #27, only an ignoramus would NOT consider the VP candidate for two reasons that have already been mentioned in here. 1. They are next in line to run the country. 2. It is a direct reflection of the presidential candidates ability to make good decisions.

  • 31 Lucy // Oct 14, 2008 at 6:35 am

    #27 Maybe it’s time to change. The candidate is the oldest to ever run for the office of President (McCain) and he has already had cancer. And you think it’s foolish to consider that the “hockey mom” could be running the country before it is all over. Foolish! If you have never considered the VP in 40 years, this is the year to change that!

  • 32 Anonymous // Oct 14, 2008 at 7:26 am

    Lucy, you mentioned a sticking point with me, her being a “hockey mom.” Since when was being a “hockey mom” a desirable quality in a contender for national office? Sarah Palin, trying to sound like “one of us,” said that at the convention, and people have hung onto it as though it is a great thing. I hasten to add that I’m not at all convinced that she really was a hockey mom. How could she be if she was mayor and then governor? How could she be, given the distances one has to travel in Alaska? How could she be when her son went to school in MICHIGAN during his senior year? She’s as much a hockey mom as I am.

    If the Republicans would have her sit down for in-depth interviews, I might find something in her that I like, but that isn’t likely to happen.

  • 33 Anonymous // Oct 14, 2008 at 7:48 am

    McCain is not that old. Reagan was the same age when he won his second term. Age has nothing to do with anything, and it’s not as if McCain was on his deathbed or had a terminal disease like FDR did by HIS last term. Everyone knew FDR was dying, but they still elected him anyway. Big whoop.

    There have been plenty of what could be considered “elderly” for their times presidential candidates and the country has never been the worse for it.

    You people are a bunch of rumormongers and chicken littles. Grow up already.

  • 34 Anonymous // Oct 14, 2008 at 9:11 am

    It isn’t a rumor that McCain has had cancer three times, and it isn’t a rumor that he is 72 years old. Reagan was the same age when he won his second term? Okay, but if you recall, he was beginning to suffer senile dementia before the end of that term.

  • 35 Chris MC // Oct 14, 2008 at 9:46 am

    Wallace pretty much articulated what he what he considered the Bush Doctrine, and you quoted it.

    Right. What Wallace stated in plain english is the policy of preventative war. That is, if we decide that a country is a threat, we can (read: should) attack that country to remove that threat. This is the premise for the invasion of Iraq. The premise has thereby been proven false. The policy of preventative war is a radical departure from the tradition of diplomatic engagement developed over centuries.

    If you actually read Kristol over the years, like I have, you’d know exactly what he is referring too, as opposed to your assumptions.

    Not so fast there. I was a subscriber to the magazine he founded when it came out. I studied not only the positions he has espoused over the years known as neoconservative, but the writings of the people who were providing the intellectual basis for it. My opinion on this is well informed. I find neoconservatism is a fundamentally flawed school of thought, and its implimentation during the Bush Presidency has borne that out.

    You can try and make the serious gap in leadership and foreign policy about McCain, but the real issue here is the lack of experience and interest in the subject of Obama. That is a real danger to our national security, which is what Kristol said.

    That is the argument that two campaigns have tried to make against Obama, and one of his opponents spent yesterday in Scranton campaigning for him. Meanwhile, McCain has provided ample evidence for those who raise the issues of temperament and judgment. That appears to be trumping unfamiliarity and inexperience in the minds of the majority of the voters, including those in populous states like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida.

  • 36 Chris MC // Oct 14, 2008 at 11:15 am

    Sorry, not preventative war, preemptive war, as I said above.

  • 37 Lucy // Oct 15, 2008 at 6:38 am

    Thank you #34.

    Number 33, I’ll never grow up if it means thinking like you! Get your head out in the sunlight! McCain is no FDR! He is old, he has had cancer and with the way he has been acting through this campaign, senility may be setting in already! He has been mean as a junk yard dog and has totally lost my respect.

    Number 32…you are probably right. When the hell would she have time to be a hockey? Also, this woman has a new infant with down syndrome, let’s not forget that! As any kind of MOM, where the hell are her priorities? Who the hell is going to raise this special needs child if his MOM is VP. Sounds like she’s unqualified for that job, too!

  • 38 Sharing // Oct 15, 2008 at 4:36 pm

    I thought I would share this with everyone. I recieved the following in an e-mail and was a bit sceptical at first because of all the so called letters people have written and passed thru e-mails and come to find out they are bogus or re-touched to fit an agenda, so i decided to write to the person named on the letter and asked if he had in fact written it and the following is what I got back:
    Yes I wrote it.

    Best,Mark
    Sent from my iPhone October 15,2008 at 12:45 PM

    Below is a copy of his letter, its a bit long but interesting.

    Dear Friends and Family,

    For much of my adult life, I’ve supported Democrats for the most part. I served in the Clinton Administration and have supported many worthwhile causes of the Democratic Party. Most recently, I was an enthusiastic and visible supporter of Senator Hillary Clinton’s primary campaign. When Senator Obama won the Democratic primary I did my own research on him and now find that I cannot support Barack Obama for President of the United States .

    I will vote for Senator John McCain because the differences between the two candidates are so vast and profound. If you look at each of their records and experience, there really is no comparison.

    First, I trust John McCain. He said he would accept federal funding for his campaign and is keeping his word. Senator Obama promised to do the same but changed his mind once the money started rolling in. Without hesitation, he sacrificed his word to his supporters for political expedience.

    Senator Obama does not have sufficient leadership experience, nor has he been tested in difficult times. He has never held an executive leadership position and I am not comfortable making him the leader of the greatest nation on earth as his first real executive job. His running mate, Senator Biden said “I think he can be ready, but right now I don’t believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.”

    In barely two years in the U.S. Senate, Obama became known as the most liberal senator in the Congress. Americans are sick of the bitter partisanship exhibited in Congress, and Senator Obama has an extraordinarily thin record of reaching across the aisle.

    This serves in sharp contrast to Senator McCain, who has honorably served America for many years, from commanding the largest squadron in the US Navy, to a long, distinguished career in the Congress marked by bipartisanship and pragmatic leadership.

    With most pollsters predicting strong gains in both houses of Congress for the Democrats, we must have a President who will provide a balance of power. Our government is in many respects controlled by special interests. We need someone like McCain, who will put country before party, to lead the executive branch.

    Senator McCain has fought for years to reform the system. He has crusaded for years against earmarks and government waste.

    Today we face difficult challenges, including an unpopular war that we must win. We also have a weakened economy, a crisis in our financial system, an energy crisis compounded by dependence on foreign oil, a mounting national debt, unprecedented annual deficits, and a population that seems to be consumed by celebrity and entertainment.

    All of the promises invoked the candidates don’t really count for much. It is really the ability of a leader to unite opposing forces for the common good that will prove the worth of the next president.

    Senator John McCain is a true leader and a genuine American hero. Our country and our children deserve the best leadership available. Of the two choices we are given there is but one proven leader. I hope you too will support and vote for John McCain for President of the United States . May God Bless America .

    Mark W. Erwin

  • 39 Anonymous // Oct 15, 2008 at 5:51 pm

    We’ve had enough Republicans for this century. Let McNasty retire to the comfort of his 13 houses and rich trophy bimbo.

  • 40 Anonymous // Oct 15, 2008 at 6:09 pm

    GREAT SOCIETY = $6 TRILLION DEMOCRAT FAILURE

  • 41 The final word // Oct 15, 2008 at 7:00 pm

    Well, this clinches the election for me…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EADUQWKoVek

  • 42 Aunt Bertha // Oct 15, 2008 at 8:03 pm

    #41 I got physically ill listening to that mess on youtube. I have to go and take an antacid YIKES!

  • 43 The final word // Oct 15, 2008 at 8:12 pm

    You must admit,though, that it’s funny.

    Gaviscom works better than Tums.

Leave a Reply