The Bush Doctrine - Who said it first?

I have revised this to include additional information sent to me in email and on my other blog. Go forth and multiply it in email.

=======================================================



All of the conservative pundits are spinning Sarah Palin's Lack of knowledge concerning "The Bush Doctrine" by dismissing it as a term used by the media to describe the policies of George W. Bush, rather than a term the whitehouse used for describing said policies. Because Palin doesn't follow the "liberal media" asking her this was a trick question.

Now it might be true that on June 4, 2001, Charles Krauthammer coined the phrase "Bush Doctrine" in an issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism." It's important to note that The Weekly Standard is a "neoconservative op-ed magazine", so they're preaching from the Bush choir. The magazine was founded by William Kristol and Fred Barnes, the literal godparents of modern neo-conservatism that Bush exudes. The point being, the term was born in the neocon media, not the liberal media, and was quickly adopted by the Bush Whitehouse.

But from whitehouse.gov we can see many uses of the term "Bush Doctrine" in the last 7 years, showing it's not a term used exclusively by the media:

October 23, 2001:

VICE-PRESIDENT CHENEY: Under the Bush Doctrine, a regime that harbors or supports terrorists will be regarded as hostile to the United States of America.

November 9, 2001:

Q: Ari, the President said this morning that he was going to, tomorrow at the United Nations, say that the time for condolences is over, it's a time for action. What action is he not seeing that he would like to see?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, in the speech tomorrow at the United Nations, the President is going to thank the United Nations for its strong support, and he will praise the role played by the Secretary General of the United Nations and he will talk to rally the world on behalf of the cause of freedom. And I think what you can expect tomorrow is a fuller explanation of the Bush Doctrine in which those who harbor terrorists will also be held accountable for their actions, just as guilty as the terrorists.

June 26, 2002:

PRESIDENT BUSH: Under the Bush doctrine I said we'd use all resources, all available resources to fight off terror. And that includes working with our friends and allies to cut off money, to use diplomatic pressure, to convince -- to convince those that think they can traffick in terror that they're going to face a mighty coalition. And sometimes we use military force and sometimes we won't.

=======================================================

These are all references from the whitehouse.gov website, so you can hardly call them biased, they come directly from the source.

But to act like this term existed in a vacuum only in the media, and that the whitehouse never used it or adopted it as a namesake is completely false. Krauthammer simply penned into words a descriptive term to name the policy put into place by Bush, another word for a "policy" is a "doctrine". It's been used numerous times by the oval office and in whtehouse press conferences to describe Bush's foreign policy.

So to all those pundits and their news watching followers who keep harping that this was some sort of a trick question to ask Palin, you can now sit down and move on to the next piece of fiction to get outraged about.

-zen

Politics - Less Jobs More Wars - No You Can't

The never ending imitations of the original Obama/Black Eyed Peas political mashup continue with this dark entry: NO YOU CAN'T.

Examining the FISA Bill

The Real News Network presents this analysis by Republican constitutional lawyer, Bruce Fein of the proposed modifications to the FISA bill (AKA "The Protect America Act") and the resulting controversy, as it has been going through congress. Anybody that has been following Glenn Greenwald's excellent coverage of this issue knows how corrupt the situation has become. Bruce Fein does an excellent job of explaining this and also pointing out the failures, if not outright compliance, by people like speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi to stop the administration's lawless posture.

The "short" version:

The Bush Administration asked companies like AT&T and Verizon to open up their access to American electronic communications of all kinds, with people outside the country, without warrants. Millions of calls and emails and internet hits were tapped by the government over a 2 or 3 year period with no oversight. If you spoke with or emailed someone outside America, it might have been you.

Some companies, such as Quest, refused because their team of lawyers told them it was grossly illegal. This cost them millions in government contracts. This wiretapping without warrants is a violation of our right to privacy and the companies are now being sued for breaking the law, which is very clear about what is required in these situations. Meanwhile, the law of the land which has protected us from both terrorists AND government abuses is up for "modification" in congress. Dick Cheney has pulled some allies together in congress to get a provision put into that new law that these telecommunication companies should be immune from any legal action as a result of their wiretapping on behalf of the government.

This immunity would serve two purposes: It protects AT&T and others from millions, maybe billions, worth of lawsuits by citizens who'se rights were violated. It also prevents any investigation at all into exactly what was going on during all that wiretapping and who actually got tapped. If the government was good and appropriate with it's power, we will never know. If the government grossly abused it's power, we will never know. The whole thing would be completely sealed.

The administration and it's allies claim is that these lawsuits would expose national security secrets to our enemies in the public record and that it would discourage companies from cooperating with the government in the future, which would, in turn, help the terrorists win. Both of these claims are false. The existing law that has been on the books all these years allowed trials with sensitive evidence to be tried in special courts that were designed specifically to protect that evidence. Companies like AT&T are also not in a position to refuse a legal request by the government for wiretaps with a warrant. THAT would be break the law. These warrants could also be obtained within 72 hours AFTER the tap took place, so there is no concern about expediency which is another administration claim. We have always been able to spy on terrorists overseas talking to people in America. The modifications needed because of technology were very minor and, like a corrupt auto mechanic, the administration made a bunch of bogus claims and jacked up the price, in liberty, that we must now all pay.

This is called "Trust Me Government." The exact kind of thing that every Republican I know has been against for as long as I have known them. Yet there they are, the people who came into power promising that scariest thing they could ever here was "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" telling us to trust the government, it's here to help. This time, though, it isn't a social worker or a welfare check. It is guys with headphones, laptops and digital recorders sitting in an AT&T hub in San Fransisco.

Politics: The Real News Network - Impeaching Cheney

The Real News Network senior Editor sits down with David Swanson, the founder of www.impeachcheney.org

He is hitting all the nails perfectly in this issue. I am deeply ashamed and outraged at the Democrats in congress for sweeping Kucinich's impeachment resolution under the table in the cowardly manner that they did. I think they are some of Bush's biggest supporters these days, even when his own Republicans are abandoning him.

Pelosi and Hoyer should be removed from office as far as I am concerned for breach of their oath to protect the constitution. Impeachment is not a political decision, it is not something you promise to take off the table any more than promising that prosecution of criminals is off the table. If any district attorney made such a proclamation they would be run out of office by a screaming mob with torches and pitchforks. The fact that Nancy Pelosi is able to promise such a thing about impeachment is a testament to how out of touch our citizens and politicians are with the law.

Video Activism: Brave New Films - Impeach Cheney

Brave New Films is at it again. I have to admit these guys make a pretty good case. Just the video alone is pretty damning as to how certain Cheney is about all the stuff he was wrong about. It makes you want to know exactly how he was coming to all those conclusions. It's easy to say "we go the intel wrong" as if it was a simple mistake rather than a deception. I personally want to know exactly what Cheney was doing at the CIA and the Pentagon while he made these statements on TV. We already know that he leaked info to Judith Miller who wrote articles in the New York Times. Cheney would then go on TV and say "Well the New York Times just printed an article that says. . . " Does this sound honest to anyone?