The death of the Bush doctrine

News and commentary occurring outside of Canada and the United States

The death of the Bush doctrine

Postby Yeh » Wed Jan 16, 2008 9:17 am

Sorry, guys. It really is gone. :(

Death of the Bush Doctrine

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | January 16, 2008

THE Bush Doctrine - born on Sept. 20, 2001, when President Bush bluntly warned the sponsors of violent jihad: "You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists" - is dead. Its demise was announced by Condoleezza Rice last Friday.

The secretary of state was speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One en route with the president to Kuwait from Israel. She was explaining why the administration had abandoned the most fundamental condition of its support for Palestinian statehood - an end to Palestinian terror. Rice's explanation, recounted here by The Washington Times, was as striking for its candor as for its moral blindness:

"The 'road map' for peace, conceived in 2002 by Mr. Bush, had become a hindrance to the peace process, because the first requirement was that the Palestinians stop terrorist attacks. As a result, every time there was a terrorist bombing, the peace process fell apart and went back to square one. Neither side ever began discussing the 'core issues': the freezing of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the right of Palestinian refugees to return, the outline of Israel's border, and the future of Jerusalem.

"The reason that we haven't really been able to move forward on the peace process for a number of years is that we were stuck in the sequentiality of the road map. So you had to do the first phase of the road map before you moved on to the third phase of the road map, which was the actual negotiations of final status," Rice said. . . . What the US-hosted November peace summit in Annapolis did was "break that tight sequentiality. . . You don't want people to get hung up on settlement activity or the fact that the Palestinians haven't fully been able to deal with the terrorist infrastructure. . ."

Thus the president who once insisted that a "Palestinian state will never be created by terror" now insists that a Palestinian state be created regardless of terror. Once the Bush administration championed a "road map" whose first and foremost requirement was that the Palestinians "declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism" and shut down "all official . . . incitement against Israel." Now the administration says that Palestinian terrorism and incitement are nothing "to get hung up on."

Whatever happened to the moral clarity that informed the president's worldview in the wake of 9/11? Whatever happened to the conviction that was at the core of the Bush Doctrine: that terrorists must be anathematized and defeated, and the fever-swamps that breed them drained and detoxified?

Bush's support for the creation of a Palestinian state was always misguided - rarely has a society shown itself less suited for sovereignty - but at least he made it clear that American support came at a stiff price: "The United States will not support the establishment of a Palestinian state," Bush said in his landmark June 2002 speech on the Israeli-Arab conflict, "until its leaders engage in a sustained fight against the terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure." He reinforced that condition two years later, confirming in a letter to Ariel Sharon that "the Palestinian leadership must act decisively against terror, including sustained, targeted, and effective operations to stop terrorism and dismantle terrorist capabilities and infrastructure."

Now that policy has gone by the boards, replaced by one less focused on achieving peace than on maintaining a "peace process." No doubt it is difficult, as Rice says, to "move forward on the peace process" when the Palestinian Authority glorifies suicide bombers and encourages a murderous goal of eliminating the Jewish state. If the Bush Doctrine - "with us or with the terrorists" - were still in force, the peace process would be shelved. The administration would be treating the Palestinians as pariahs, allowing them no assistance of any kind, much less movement toward statehood, so long as their encouragement of terrorism persisted.

But it is the Bush Doctrine that has been shelved. In its hunger for Arab support against Iran - and perhaps in a quest for a historic "legacy" - the administration has dropped "with us or with the terrorists." It is hellbent instead on bestowing statehood upon a regime that stands unequivocally with the terrorists. "Frankly, it's time for the establishment of a Palestinian state," Rice says.

When George W. Bush succeeded Bill Clinton, he was determined not to replicate his predecessor's blunders in the Middle East, a determination that intensified after 9/11. Yet now he too has succumbed to the messianism that leads US presidents to imagine they can resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. Clinton's legacy in this arena was the second intifada, which drenched the region in blood. To what fresh hell will Bush's diplomacy lead?
Show me the man you honor, and I will know what kind of a man you are, for it shows me what your ideal of manhood is, and what kind of man you long to be. -Thomas Carlyle
User avatar
Yeh
FNA Employee
FNA Employee
 
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:57 am

The death of the Bush doctrine

Postby zip.com » Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:00 am

and the future of Jerusalem.

It's almost like Condy Rice lives in a bubble. Does she have ANY background knowledge on this ancient warfare between these 2 tribes of peoples.

It dates back to old Testament days when Abraham refused to follow God's orders and thought he could hasten the arrival of a son -- so he took Hagar to be his concubine, in direct defiance of what God had told him, i.e. that Sarah would bear him a son.

Hence, we got Ishmael -- and the Islamic religion that followed.

I think Condy Rice needs some good history lessons AND bible studies! The Abrahamic covenant with the Jews over the land in question AND Jerusalem would be a good place for her to start!

She has disappointed me more than once on this topic -- I don't think the same way about her anymore. :shock:
Abortion: The Human Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.
User avatar
zip.com
FNA Employee
FNA Employee
 
Posts: 937
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 7:09 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

The death of the Bush doctrine

Postby Banned_from_FD » Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:32 am

Condi Rice is an empty suit ... errrrr .. empty pantsuit.

She is useless. Nobody of any consequence take her seriously. Her only skill seems to be photo ops.

Glad to see that you rightys are finally clueing in as to the ineptitude of this Administration. It has been one debacle after another with nobody being held accountable.
User avatar
Banned_from_FD
FNA Teacher
FNA Teacher
 
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:13 pm

The death of the Bush doctrine

Postby Yeh » Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:47 am

Banned, in foreign policy it's not worse than the Clinton administration and in many ways it's much better. On the subject of Israel and the Palestinians, it's exactly the same: both Clinton and Bush leaned on Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians for the sake of the 'peace process', while the Palestinians have to do nothing in return.
Show me the man you honor, and I will know what kind of a man you are, for it shows me what your ideal of manhood is, and what kind of man you long to be. -Thomas Carlyle
User avatar
Yeh
FNA Employee
FNA Employee
 
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:57 am

Re: The death of the Bush doctrine

Postby zip.com » Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:18 pm

\"Yeh\" wrote:Sorry, guys. It really is gone. :(

Death of the Bush Doctrine

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | January 16, 2008

THE Bush Doctrine - born on Sept. 20, 2001, when President Bush bluntly warned the sponsors of violent jihad: "You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists" - is dead. Its demise was announced by Condoleezza Rice last Friday.

The secretary of state was speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One en route with the president to Kuwait from Israel. She was explaining why the administration had abandoned the most fundamental condition of its support for Palestinian statehood - an end to Palestinian terror. Rice's explanation, recounted here by The Washington Times, was as striking for its candor as for its moral blindness:

"The 'road map' for peace, conceived in 2002 by Mr. Bush, had become a hindrance to the peace process, because the first requirement was that the Palestinians stop terrorist attacks. As a result, every time there was a terrorist bombing, the peace process fell apart and went back to square one. Neither side ever began discussing the 'core issues': the freezing of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the right of Palestinian refugees to return, the outline of Israel's border, and the future of Jerusalem.

"The reason that we haven't really been able to move forward on the peace process for a number of years is that we were stuck in the sequentiality of the road map. So you had to do the first phase of the road map before you moved on to the third phase of the road map, which was the actual negotiations of final status," Rice said. . . . What the US-hosted November peace summit in Annapolis did was "break that tight sequentiality. . . You don't want people to get hung up on settlement activity or the fact that the Palestinians haven't fully been able to deal with the terrorist infrastructure. . ."

Thus the president who once insisted that a "Palestinian state will never be created by terror" now insists that a Palestinian state be created regardless of terror. Once the Bush administration championed a "road map" whose first and foremost requirement was that the Palestinians "declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism" and shut down "all official . . . incitement against Israel." Now the administration says that Palestinian terrorism and incitement are nothing "to get hung up on."

Whatever happened to the moral clarity that informed the president's worldview in the wake of 9/11? Whatever happened to the conviction that was at the core of the Bush Doctrine: that terrorists must be anathematized and defeated, and the fever-swamps that breed them drained and detoxified?

Bush's support for the creation of a Palestinian state was always misguided - rarely has a society shown itself less suited for sovereignty - but at least he made it clear that American support came at a stiff price: "The United States will not support the establishment of a Palestinian state," Bush said in his landmark June 2002 speech on the Israeli-Arab conflict, "until its leaders engage in a sustained fight against the terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure." He reinforced that condition two years later, confirming in a letter to Ariel Sharon that "the Palestinian leadership must act decisively against terror, including sustained, targeted, and effective operations to stop terrorism and dismantle terrorist capabilities and infrastructure."

Now that policy has gone by the boards, replaced by one less focused on achieving peace than on maintaining a "peace process." No doubt it is difficult, as Rice says, to "move forward on the peace process" when the Palestinian Authority glorifies suicide bombers and encourages a murderous goal of eliminating the Jewish state. If the Bush Doctrine - "with us or with the terrorists" - were still in force, the peace process would be shelved. The administration would be treating the Palestinians as pariahs, allowing them no assistance of any kind, much less movement toward statehood, so long as their encouragement of terrorism persisted.

But it is the Bush Doctrine that has been shelved. In its hunger for Arab support against Iran - and perhaps in a quest for a historic "legacy" - the administration has dropped "with us or with the terrorists." It is hellbent instead on bestowing statehood upon a regime that stands unequivocally with the terrorists. "Frankly, it's time for the establishment of a Palestinian state," Rice says.

When George W. Bush succeeded Bill Clinton, he was determined not to replicate his predecessor's blunders in the Middle East, a determination that intensified after 9/11. Yet now he too has succumbed to the messianism that leads US presidents to imagine they can resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. Clinton's legacy in this arena was the second intifada, which drenched the region in blood. To what fresh hell will Bush's diplomacy lead?


Yeh, I wouldn't worry over Israel too much. I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The God who made a covenant with your people, the God who never breaks a covenant.

So just sit tight and watch the show. It's in God's control and always has been. :mrgreen:
Abortion: The Human Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.
User avatar
zip.com
FNA Employee
FNA Employee
 
Posts: 937
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 7:09 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: The death of the Bush doctrine

Postby Yeh » Wed Jan 16, 2008 2:31 pm

\"zip.com\" wrote:Yeh, I wouldn't worry over Israel too much. I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The God who made a covenant with your people, the God who never breaks a covenant.

So just sit tight and watch the show. It's in God's control and always has been. :mrgreen:
Oh, I have no doubts about that. But human beings volunteer to be God's agents for carrying out His will. A good person volunteers for a good mission and a bad person volunteers for a bad mission. Sigh.

Thanks for the encouraging words.
Show me the man you honor, and I will know what kind of a man you are, for it shows me what your ideal of manhood is, and what kind of man you long to be. -Thomas Carlyle
User avatar
Yeh
FNA Employee
FNA Employee
 
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:57 am

The death of the Bush doctrine

Postby Comrade Black » Thu Jan 17, 2008 8:43 am

The Bush administration should Walk the Talk.

After 9/11 they should of givin New York City to the Islamofascist in exchange for peace.
User avatar
Comrade Black
Newbie
Newbie
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: Alberta

The death of the Bush doctrine

Postby Yeh » Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:05 pm

What he said. :mrgreen:
Show me the man you honor, and I will know what kind of a man you are, for it shows me what your ideal of manhood is, and what kind of man you long to be. -Thomas Carlyle
User avatar
Yeh
FNA Employee
FNA Employee
 
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:57 am

The death of the Bush doctrine

Postby Banned_from_FD » Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:13 am

\"Yeh\" wrote:Banned, in foreign policy it's not worse than the Clinton administration and in many ways it's much better. On the subject of Israel and the Palestinians, it's exactly the same: both Clinton and Bush leaned on Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians for the sake of the 'peace process', while the Palestinians have to do nothing in return.


world opinion of the US has never ... ever been so low

so i have no idea how you think Clinton was worse
User avatar
Banned_from_FD
FNA Teacher
FNA Teacher
 
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:13 pm

The death of the Bush doctrine

Postby Yeh » Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:01 pm

It's always been bad. Just like Israel is hating the world over for defending itself. So I don't really care what the world thinks.
Show me the man you honor, and I will know what kind of a man you are, for it shows me what your ideal of manhood is, and what kind of man you long to be. -Thomas Carlyle
User avatar
Yeh
FNA Employee
FNA Employee
 
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:57 am

The death of the Bush doctrine

Postby Banned_from_FD » Fri Jan 18, 2008 2:18 pm

you do care when you want help

there is a reason why the coalition of the willing turned into the coalition of the retreating

political pressure from the citizens of your coalition

see:

- Spain
- Italy
- Austrailia

all those governments took serious hits becuase of being too cosy with Bush
User avatar
Banned_from_FD
FNA Teacher
FNA Teacher
 
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:13 pm

The death of the Bush doctrine

Postby Banned_from_FD » Fri Jan 18, 2008 2:18 pm

oh ... and the UK too
User avatar
Banned_from_FD
FNA Teacher
FNA Teacher
 
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:13 pm

The death of the Bush doctrine

Postby Bill Whatcott » Fri Jan 18, 2008 2:42 pm

\"Comrade Black\" wrote:The Bush administration should Walk the Talk.

After 9/11 they should of givin New York City to the Islamofascist in exchange for peace.


Good point. Nothing good has happened in any part of the West Bank or Gaza where the radical Hamas or "moderate?" Palestinian Authority is in control. Mahmoud Abbas is allowing/ actively abetting the harassment, intimidation, occasional violence and slow extermination of Christians from historic Christian cities such as Bethlehem.

To allow such a dysfunctional regime to take control of Jerusalem is unthinkable for the sane.

I doubt Condi, Clinton, Gore or Bush can do anything.

Peace can't come to a region that doesn't want it.

Whether Israel compromises on every point or not the Islamists will still want to exterminate Jews.

The Christians in the West Bank are too weak to have done anything to the Muslim majority there. On more than one occassion (I suspect out of a need for self preservation) Christians in the West Bank have called on Israel to use restraint when attacking terrorists in the West Bank or Gaza. Still how does the Muslims treat their Christian minority? Seize properties from them without compensation and beat (or occassionally kill) those who don't want to give up their homes and businesses without protest.

I doubt Jews in Jerusalem or the rest of Israel will fair any better once all the compromises are made.

It seems to me the only clear headed thing to do is look at who is right and who is wrong.

Israel is mostly right and the Palestinians are mostly wrong. The PA is corrupt, riddled with fanatics, and prone to unjustified acts of violence and terrorism. Israel while not perfect is for the most part a functional democracy. My vote is to help Israel arm herself with what weapons she needs and help her with the infrastructure needed to maintain a modern economy. Lean on her to insure Christians have full rights within her borders (they mostly do, but there is some minor unacceptable discrimination against Christians in Israel). Let Israel do what needs to be done to force the Palestinians and other Arabs into abandoning their fight against Israel's existence.
:cross:Christ is the answer!
User avatar
Bill Whatcott
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 6769
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:33 am
Location: Edmonton, AB

The death of the Bush doctrine

Postby zip.com » Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:47 pm

\"Yeh\" wrote:It's always been bad. Just like Israel is hating the world over for defending itself. So I don't really care what the world thinks.


What? Israel hates the world for defending itself? Care to explain that? :?
Abortion: The Human Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.
User avatar
zip.com
FNA Employee
FNA Employee
 
Posts: 937
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 7:09 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

The death of the Bush doctrine

Postby paisley_cross » Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:58 pm

\"Bill Whatcott\" wrote:Peace can't come to a region that doesn't want it.


Totally impossible. Bush is on a fool's errand. There is no way that there can be peace. How can there be? An out-and-out terrorist group that wants to destroy Israel controls Sinai. There is no way the Israeli right will give up Jerusalem, the settlers won't leave the West Bank and the Palestinians will never give up the right-of-return.

Both sides know that peace is unattainable and already you get the impression that the peace talks are merely perfunctory.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
User avatar
paisley_cross
FNA Disciple
FNA Disciple
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 5:23 am
Location: Green & Fulbar

Next

Return to International News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron