"The 'Bush doctrine' is dead."
The Bush Doctrine was set forth in a September 2002 National Security Council document entitled "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America". [External Link]
The U.S. is currently engaged in two wars designed to protect nascent democracies in lands previously governed by terrorist-supporting tyrants.
How exactly is the doctrine "dead"? Did we give up Iraq or Afghanistan? Are we not trying to push Musharraf into holding elections even as we guard Pakistan's nuclear arsenal?
We haven't gone to war with North Korea, Egypt, Syria, and other tyrannies. Does failure to go to war all at once and in every occasion mean the doctrine is dead?
[External Link]
[quotation]
President Bush yesterday offered his strongest support of embattled Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying the general "hasn't crossed the line" and "truly is somebody who believes in democracy."
"What exactly would it take for the president to conclude Musharraf has crossed the line? Suspend the constitution? Impose emergency law? Beat and jail his political opponents and human rights activists?" asked Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a presidential candidate. "He's already done all that."
[quotation ends]
But here at Daimnation, the regulars are too focussed on Hugo Chavez to pay any never-mind, except, it seems, for Damian himself. Imagine what fun we'd all have if Chavez behaved that way. It must a continual source of foot-stamping frustration that he doesn't.
I wonder if there's any chance that the President of the United States has more information than a Canadian pundit.
Posted at 2007-11-21 09:28:30 [PermaLink]Dawg: You must admit the Pakistani situation is a hell of a lot more complex and difficult than Venezuela. Nuclear weapons, historical and ongoing territorial claims with India (also nuclear armed), religious warfare, jihadis rampant, probable territorial ambitions in Afghanistan, tribal areas, ethnic conflict.
This makes Venezuela's problems look simple - which they are compared with Pakistan. I haven't commented on Pakistan because, quite frankly, I haven't enough information to make an informed comment. Who the hell knows what is really happening there be it within the government, armed forces or the ISI.
"But here at Daimnation, the regulars are too focussed on Hugo Chavez to pay any never-mind, except, it seems, for Damian himself. Imagine what fun we'd all have if Chavez behaved that way. It must a continual source of foot-stamping frustration that he doesn't."
Dawg, how many posts have you devoted at your blog to Musharraf after he declared a state of emergency?
Glass houses, etc, etc.
I can't honestly think of a single original thing to say about the state of emergency, Mike. Any post on my part would just be a "me-too." (On the other hand, maybe I could talk about the Right's "relatively muted response." Hmm.)
Posted at 2007-11-22 07:59:10 [PermaLink]Musharraf has promised to resign from the military, end the state of emergency, and to hold elections. I think it's safe to assume that is what the administration is pushing him to do and why Bush is pushing him into a corner with comments like "truly is somebody who believes in democracy."
Considering Pakistan's lack of any real democratic history, and their general refusal to denounce totalitarian dictators like Castro, the Left's dudgeon is an amusing pose, little more.
Dawg, am I missing something here? You just gave yourself a pass (again) for ignoring Musharraf's actions, while criticizing those of us on the Right for doing the same thing.
???