Talk:Bush Doctrine/Archive 2

Hegemony

This article seems less like an encyclopedic entry and more like an editorial essay that portrays the US as a hegemony. I feel that, apart from doing what it should (giving information on what is the Bush doctrine), it also does what it should not (give an opinion on the Bush doctrine). This article does not seem to conform to NPOV, in my opinion. Hari Seldon 03:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Origins

The name "Bush Doctrine" is a creation of media and detractors. Bush never stepped forward and said "This is my doctrine..." We do not have a Monroe Doctrine situation here. The definition for this term can never be fimrly set because the only person who can authoritatively say what it means is Bush himself and he never used the term. It is therefore nessisary for anyone using the term to provide context and a brief explination of just what they mean by the term.Z07 (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Which is exactly why this article is partisan. Well put. 138.162.128.53 (talk) 03:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. The article may be partisan its presentation, but not in its totality. One need not declare one's doctrine to have one. There would be a Monroe doctrine even if not for his [many] declarations. This is not a matter of history yet, because it's too recent, but in the very near future, historians will have a consensus account of a "Bush doctrine," be it express or implied. The fact is there is a Bush doctrine, and it's notable.

Other NPOV dispute, the Taliban line

The line reads as follows:

Although the Taliban-controlled government of Afghanistan offered to hand over al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden if they were shown proof that he was responsible for September 11 attacks and also offered to extradite bin Laden to Pakistan where he would be tried under Islamic law, their refusal to extradite him to the U.S. with no proof or preconditions was considered justification for invasion. This policy implies that any nation that does not comply with the US instructions concerning their stance against terrorism would be seen as supporting it.

Ok, there are a number of problems with the way this statemet presents information, first:

• The line is unbalanced because it presents no information on how reliable the taliban government was in the event of making promises...
• The line also makes the presumption that the US was unjustified in trying Bin Laden, as if only guilty people go to trial. As I understand law, a person is innocent until proven guilty, and a trial is based on suspicion (not proof) of guilt. The trial serves for the people to prove whether the defendant is innocent or guilty. What the taliban where doing was denying the victimized country of their right to conduct such investigation with the benefit of interviewing the suspect.
• Aditionally, the line also neglects the fact that the atrocity was committed in US soil, not in Pakistan, and thus Pakistan (or Islamic law) would have had no jurisdiction on this crime. Therefore, the request that the Taliban were making of having Bin Laden trialed under Islamic Law was ridiculous!
• If the above was not enough, the paragraph implies that non-compliance with an unreliable government making unreasonable demands qualifies a nation as a "hegemon" or "empire" with an absolutist stance. This, in itself, is unreasonable.
• But what is worse of all is that the paragraph does not have a single source to support any of it. And despite the POV, unbalance claim, and the lack of sources, the line remains!

Unreasonable! Hari Seldon 04:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

So, I've deleted the contested line. This is my interpretation of the "Be Bold" guideline. I will, of course, not 3RR or start an edit war over this issue, but I hope that this will call attention to the lamentable quality of this editorial (it does not yet deserve the name of "article"). Hari Seldon 04:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a number of responses to these "problems". Keep in mind that we are talking about extradition. Note that "The consensus in international law is that a state does not have any obligation to surrender an alleged criminal to a foreign state" - taken from extradition.

* Requiring information on the reliability of the Taliban government itself POV. Would we ask such questions of the US government? If there is evidence that the government of Afghanistan was untrustworthy, then it should be here, of course. However if there is no such evidence presented, then it is not a problem with what IS presented. I note also that you do not seem not to have been able to find evidence of such unreliability, but you nevertheless assert that the Taliban was an "unreliable government". Please try to be neutral.

* Law is different in different countries: I do not claim to know Pakistani law. It is entirely possible that a serious cirme (such as murder or conspirasy to murder) could be tried in Pakistan, despite the actual events having occured in the US. For example in the UK, one can be tried for child abuse for an offence that occured abroad.

* When an extradition treaty exists between two countries, it is nevertheless normal (infact almost always the case) that the extraditing country requires "There exists a prima facie case against the individual sought." before any extradition occurs.

* The stance that, because a country will not extradite a suspected criminal it is legitimate to invade that country is a truly remarkable one that is noteworthy. cf. Ronnie Biggs. I think it would be difficult to find a mainstream politician that advocated a UK invasion of Brazil still less one that would think such an invasion legal. 91.67.131.214 (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Cite, please

- "Bush declared at West Point, 'America has no empire to extend or utopia to establish (etc)'"-

-- What's the cite for this, please? - 20 November 2005

The text can be found at the White House website [1]. --69.228.92.139 22:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The text can also be found at the BBC website [2]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmccready (talk • contribs) 11:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Pre-emptive vs. preventive again

This article states: "The right of self-defense should be extended in order to authorize pre-emptive attacks against potential aggressors cutting them off before they are able to launch strikes against the US". For me, it seems to be a clear contradiction with the article pre-emptive war, where it says: "A preemptive attack (or preemptive war) is waged in an attempt to repel or defeat an imminent offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (usually unavoidable) war." If the right of self-defense is extended, than that means extended towards "preventive", not preemptive, right? And there is a distinction between a "potential aggressor" and an "imminent offensive or invasion", I would say. --Schreibvieh 13:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• A more correct reading would be "we will attack anyone we want to, wherever we want to, whenever we want to, and for whatever reason we want to, and there is not a GD thing that the UN or the rest of the world can do about it. There is no such thing as a sovereign nation (unless we classify it as being so) and there is no such thing as an independent foreign policy (unless we stipulate it as such). The reasons we give should be sufficient for the rest of mankind (even if those reasons turn out to be wrong and cause the needless deaths of tens of thousands of people). So saith Caesar" RM Gillespie (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

See The War on Democracy. Scierguy (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

All this garbage that you are bandying about is just shows that this whole website is a waste of time for intellectual midgets. NOT ONE ACCREDITED UNIVERSITY ALLOWS WIKIPEDIA as a source. That is the proof that everything on this website is crap. All of you, get out of your mother's basements and get a job. By the way, you were cited as an example of the leftist bias toward Sarah Palin from Ann Coulter. By what I see, it is true. That is why I pay the money for the World Book online. Peer Reviewed and can be used as a reference.

Joel Weymouth Lemoyne PA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.232.224 (talk) 06:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Partisan edits

Since the Charlie Gibson Palin interview, this page has come under partisan attack — from both sides, but I'm going to limit my comments to the edits that reinforce a particular conservative strategy. The conservative talking points, following the interview and already seen on a number of blogs, are "it's not a term with any meaning" and "nobody should be expected to know what a fundamentally meaningless term means", both with an eye toward defending Sarah Palin's apparent lack of knowledge of the Bush Doctrine. We are already seeing subtle edits like "The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe..." becoming "The Bush Doctrine is a phrase recognized by some to describe..." which, again, gives the impression that it's an uncommon term that people running for high office might reasonably not have heard about, when a Google search readily shows that it is a well-known term of art. I enjoin all editors in good faith (which describes the vast majority of editors here) to be on their guard for edits from both sides that are unsourced, reflect a partisan bias, and sprout up suddenly following a news story. Defining "truth" through bad-faith Wikipedia editing is a political tactic, whether or not any particular edit is made in good faith, and we should watch for it. --Jere7my (talk) 06:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't vote for people who don't know anything —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.177.118 (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I just deleted a sentence suggesting the term is used ambiguously by the media. This point, made under the 'criticisms' header, was left without any citation or support. 76.171.132.162 (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If the liberal talking point is going to be 'The Bush Doctrine has only meant one thing since the term was introduced, then this Wiki entry should have no problem letting us know what that one meaning is.

I should also like to point out that Jere7my is absolutely correct that the Bush Doctrine has been talked about extensively the past 7 years since it's believed that Krauthammer introduced this phrase into the popular media. And that KRAUTHAMMER has been one of those doing the talking about it in that time. So if anybody would know that the term 'Bush Doctrine' has essentially only one meaning since 2001, Krauthammer would. Yet he obviously does not define the term thusly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.212.137 (talk) 10:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Should the Palin interview be included?

I added a brief, sourced note about it. I think it is notable by virtue of being, well, widely noted, but I'm happy to abide by consensus, if one can be reached. (Incidentally, User:EHSFFL2010 has violated Wikipedia:3RR in removing the section four times. I replaced it three times, which is all I'm allowed to do. Note that EHSFFL2010's account was created an hour ago, apparently solely to edit this article.) --Jere7my (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the latest Palin news is notable, but it does nothing to add to any understanding or discussion of Bush Doctrine. It may belong on Sarah Palin or the John McCain presidential campaign article (or whichever article is catch-alling the pigs-with-lipstick stuff.) You and EHS are both over 3RR, so please stop reverting even if its the Wrong Version of the article. cheers, --guyzero | talk 08:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite right, and I'm signing off. (I hope you're not counting my Sun Dang reverts against me, though!) --Jere7my (talk) 08:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Like guyzero, I don't believe the information about the Palin interview belongs in this article. Would we put a paragraph about the Palin interview in an article about NATO? An article about ANWR? She addressed those issues as well. The interview is notable in the Sarah Palin article, maybe, but not here. Changed my mind below. Northwesterner1 (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with guyzero, and from her interview it was also clear that she was trying to clarify, while being able to recite some of the central ideologies of the neoconservative and Bush ideology. Weasel words are not a sustainable reference on historic events or information. Scierguy (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It would actually seem more significant to the 2008 campaign article than to her personal biography. So I'd recommend starting there. My question is - what does any inclusion here add to a reader's understanding of this term or doctrine? At first glance it would appear to add only that the term is used in limited circles and not widely known. Ho hum. Not particularly important. GRBerry 15:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I attempted a token reference to the article (look in the article history for it) that avoids speculation and taking sides... I think the story is big enough that keeping a mention out of the article at this point is ridiculous, and I'd rather have a simple mention go in than the pseudointellectual warring. --Rahga (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that Gibson's question of Palin's response are particularly relevant to this article. Back in 2002 the Doctrine received considerable discussion. By comparison this recent interview didn't shed any light on the doctrine or how it's seen today. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, could one of you Wikipedians add a citation to this article and its relevant contents? It's by the author who originally coined the "Bush Doctrine" terminology and clarifies the meaning and evolution of the term. THANKS!!! (Wallamoose (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Would people please shut-up already about how every irrelevant occurrence of Wikipedia subjects need to be included? Would you mention Sarah Palin in an Article about Moose? No. Just because the question was asked last night doesn't mean the interview has any business in this article. I swear Wikipedia is getting a little stupid.

I withdraw my opinion (above) that the Palin interview should not be included. The day after the Palin interview was followed by multiple news article in NYT, WaPo, Slate, etc., re-examining the meaning of the term--many of them (bizarrely) quoting Wikipedia. The Palin interview is thus now relevant to this article as it has opened up a new discussion among journalists, pundits, and foreign policy experts about what the term means and in fact has even influenced the definition of the term. Two weeks ago, "Bush Doctrine" meant "doctrine of preventive war" to 80% of foreign policy scholars who used it. Now that meaning is changing. It's all a bit postmodern and surreal, but it's also a fact that is clearly relevant to this article if handled carefully. Northwesterner1 (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that the Palin/Gibson controversy has brought more attention to the term "Bush Doctrine" than even Bush himself. Regardless of one's politics, the interview is historically significant in focusing attention to and stimulating discussion about what exactly the Bush Doctrine is. I think it's irresponsible of editors to clear all mentions of the Palin interview from the listing. Wikieditors are savvy enough to mention the interview without creating a partisan battle. I think after the election and once the hysteria dies down, the Palin interview will have a rightful place on this listing.Avatarcourt (talk) 5:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

When you look up the word potato, there is no reference to Dan Quayle misspelling the word. I feel the Palin interview is significant, yet not in an subjective description of the Bush Doctrine.76.200.163.194 (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)mr.socksfox

But if you look up Potato_(word), it does mention Dan Quayle's misspelling, so I'm not sure that argument holds. Personally I was looking for information about the Sarah Palin interview with respect to the Bush Doctrine(what interview it was, etc) today when I came upon this page and didn't find any mention of it.

Rewrite of lead section

I have undertaken a rewrite of the lead section for clarity and accuracy. I believe this is a neutral and well-cited statement of the Bush doctrine. I recognize that it is a bit bold to undertake a big rewrite of the lead at a time when this article is receiving a lot of attention, but I think this is an improvement. If you beg to differ, please comment here instead of edit warring in the article.Northwesterner1 (talk) 08:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Reads much better, clearer than the original in my opinion. It needs refs for each claim (used to justify invasion, policy of preemptive war, etc.) regards, --guyzero | talk 08:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

User:EHSFFL2010 is engaged in an edit war to state that the 2006 NSS is the official "Bush Doctrine," but the citation she or he provides is just a link to the document, without evidence that it is called the "Bush Doctrine." Elsewhere I have seen the 2002 NSS cited as the definitive Bush Doctrine. User:EHSFFL2010, could you please provide a citation? Northwesterner1 (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually that is not correct, I never stated it as the official "Bush Doctrine", but as the concept of the Bush Doctrine is The National Security Strategy of the United States of America of 2006.My link clearly includes the concept of the Bush Doctrine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EHSFFL2010 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The text added contends that the NSS of 2006 is official recognized by the White House as being the Bush Doctrine. The link to the TOC of the document does not seem to contain anything backing up that claim. --skew-t (talk) 08:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

EHSFFL2010, Thank you for commenting here on the talk page. That's the way we do things around here, instead of edit warring in the article. My apologies for misunderstanding your edits. I thought you were suggesting that the 2006 NSS is the official "Bush Doctrine." Instead, you seem to be suggesting that there is no official "Bush Doctrine," only a set of foreign policy principles that Bush has embraced. That's true to a certain extent, and I believe the current introduction makes that clear without your addition. However, it's also true that the term "Bush Doctrine" is a widely used term recognized by foreign policy scholars, journalists, etc. So it's not really true to say there is no Bush Doctrine. I'm not sure how the sentence you keep adding improves the article. Northwesterner1 (talk) 08:55, 12

September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, just found this section. My argument is that the Bush Doctrine is not recognized by any foreign governments or our White House. Adding "The official term recognized by the White House for the concept of the Bush Doctrine is The National Security Strategy of the United States of America of 2006" clarifies the Bush Doctrine Concept. My link has all the concepts of the Bush Doctrine included in it.

That's an argument that I don't believe belongs in this article. It doesn't matter if the White House doesn't officially recognize the term "Bush Doctrine." Others recognize it, they gave it a name, ergo it exists. If you think it's important that this article states that the White House doesn't recognize the term, you need to provide a citation for that and to find a better way of phrasing it so that it fits in the article. It's true that your link does have the concepts of the Bush Doctrine included in it, but so does the citation to the 2002 NSS document which is already referenced in the introduction and is widely recognized as being the "original" statement of the Bush Doctrine. So it's not clear to me why you think it's necessary to include the 2006 document here. Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:06, 12

September 2008 (UTC)

The 2006 article is the latest Strategy while the 2002 is not updated. If anything, the 2002 should be deleted

Can you please provide a citation -- for example, a newspaper article referring to the "Bush Doctrine" -- that shows that the 2006 strategy is a more relevant document than the 2002 strategy? Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not have to show the 2002 document is more relevant just that it exist and is different thant the 2006.

I have changed the last paragraph to read, "The main elements of the Bush Doctrine were codified in a National Security Council document, National Security Strategy of the United States, published on September 20, 2002, and this document is often cited as the definitive statement of the doctrine. The National Security Strategy was updated in 2006," with a link to the new document. Will that do? By the way, please sign your talk page comments by typing four tildes after your comment: Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Commendable rewrite and effort. I think that the central ideologies of the Bush Doctrine may also intertwine with the neoconservatism article. The most central and controversial part of the doctrine is the question of foreign interventionism, and this is the one which have also set off a long trail of other articles - low intensity conflict, Effects-Based Operations, War on Terrorism, Axis of evil and so on. It seems a large undertaking to structure all the controversy and implications, practical policy uses and the fall out from these policies summed up as the Bush Doctrine. Hopefully we will be able to add some bits and pieces, while later thoroughly referenced articles can be created to fairly reflect the complex topic. Current events are also adding to more controversy and no doubt future books and analytic articles from renowned authors. Scierguy (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Northwesterner1, I've been reverting your changes to the intro, not realizing that this rewrite was a conscious effort and not just the random byproduct of a lot of edit warring. I still think the original intro was better in one important way: it clarified the order of the meanings, i.e. that the Bush Doctrine started as being about harboring terrorists before getting the additional meanings. Would it be possible to have the rewrite incorporate this information? Korny O'Near (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. It got a little confusing around here with all the edit wars, I know, and this talk page could use a cleanup also, as we have related discussions going on in different places. I see your point, but I disagree about the order of emphasis. I think the genesis of the idea is important. But I think it's more important to use the first paragraph to highlight the most important element of the Bush Doctrine (preventive war) and its most important use (the Iraq War). In other words, I think a clear statement of the term is more important than a chronological evolution of the term. In my version, the statement comes first, the chronology comes second. Not a big deal, just a question of emphasis... However, I will hold off from future edits to the intro. Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Northwesterner1 is in violation of 3RR. You have deleted numerous users posts. Even if you disagree, you should not delete more than 3 times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EHSFFL2010 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my edits, and I don't believe I've violated 3RR; if I have, it was unintentional. In fact, I've actively tried to engage you in asking you to come to this talk page. If you think I've violated 3RR, please provide diffs and feel free to report me.Northwesterner1 (talk) 08:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Broad policy set or specifically limited to pre-emption?

This edit changes the definition of the Bush Doctrine and limits it to pre-emption only. Two problems. (1) The Bush Doctrine includes a rationale for preventive war, not preemptive war, which was the policy of previous presidents. That's a key difference. (2) The citations provided in the opening section, especially the NYT editorials, clearly define the "Bush Doctrine" as something more than just the policy of preventive war -- it's a broader set of policies marked by increased unilateralism, etc. I think this edit should be reverted. Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I reverted it. If someone wants to change the focus of the article that dramatically, please take it to the talk page first. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You reverted more than this one edit -- you also reverted my revisions of the opening paragraph as described above. I have restored the version I feel is most accurate, and we can discuss any changes. Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

See also sectiom

Can this section be trimed by including the links in the main article or adding explaination for why they are relevant. The section was listed twice so I combined them. Thank you, --Tom 12:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleting POV "Controversy" section

"Speculation suggests" does not belong in Wikipedia. Nor does "According to the dictionary definition..." belong on this page; the dictionary definition has nothing to do with the way the term is actually used. Finally, the linked source does not say anything about "Many Americans". The Bush Doctrine has a very real and useful definition, as used by the press for six years now, as has been sourced elsewhere (and as made evident by a Google search). Suggesting that it doesn't really have a definition is exactly the partisan POV editing I was warning about above, and reflects conservative talking points that were invented in the wake of the Sarah Palin interview. --Jere7my (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Jacob Weisberg, in his book "The Bush Tragedy," actually identified six Bush Doctrines:

• Bush Doctrine 1.0 was Unipolar Realism (3/7/99--9/10/01);
• Bush Doctrine 2.0 was With Us or Against Us (9/11/01--5/31/02);
• Bush Doctrine 3.0 was Preemption (6/1/02--11/5/03); Bush Doctrine 4.0 was Democracy in the Middle East (11/6/03--1/19/05);
• Bush Doctrine 5.0 was Freedom Everywhere (1/20/05-- 11/7/06);
• and Bush Doctrine 6.0 (11/8/06 to date Thursday, September 11, 2008) is the "absence of any functioning doctrine at all." <national review online>

[3] 217.83.156.152 (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The National Review is hardly an unbiased source. Naturally they are pushing the "it doesn't really mean anything" talk point. --Jere7my (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This article needs to be watched closely. It appears that many Republicans and Palin supporters have taken to redefining the phrase "Bush Doctrine" in an attempt to justify her lack of knowledge on the subject in her interview with Charles Gibson; when she gave the wrong answers, instead of fessing up she didn't know, they are attempting to repaint what the words mean so that she appears right. This article has defined the phrase just as Charles Gibson did for years before this interview, and this page could use some protection to prevent politically motivated edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.19.106 (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If someone wants to mention that Sarah Palin brought the subject back into the limelight, the proper way to do that would be a properly referenced comment in the opening, NOT an edit war. Cut it out, children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.19.106 (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There was a brief, clear section with three mainstream media sources last night, but it's lost in the sea of edit wars. Good luck to anyone adding it back. ;) --Jere7my (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Its quite the edit war, there must be at least 10 people editing it back either way —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.19.106 (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I've semi-protected the article; if I'm reading the history right two of those IP editors are somewhere above 10RR on the page, and I see other non-established editors edit warring in the history. If another admin with more time to spare wants to sort this out and block the appropriate parties, I won't object to a lowering of the protection. GRBerry 18:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Danke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.19.106 (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems the controversy will not blow over by itself. The possible politicizing of including a controversy not pertinent to the Bush Doctrine, but how someone are not familiar with the Bush Doctrine seems like a basic POV. I think we are seeing how this will result in more help for the editorial control becoming needed. It is contentious because it is seen as "political editing". Constructive discussion would be ideal until a consensus can be reached. Scierguy (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Foreign interventionism

The earlier linking to the the central neoconservative ideology of foreign interventionism controversy was lost from the "depose foreign regimes" phrase. I think this is such a central theme in the controversy about the Bush Doctrine and should be linked as such. Any thoughts? Scierguy (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't intentionally remove that wikilink -- it was part of a larger restoration of previous content -- and I'm fine if you want to go ahead and restore it, but I don't think it's particularly useful. Linking to an article on foreign interventionism would be appropriate, but that article doesn't exist (it's currently a redirect). Linking the phrase "depose foreign regimes" to a small section in a larger article on neoconservatism seems beside the point. It seems like an easter egg link to me.Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I noted in Talk:Bush_Doctrine#Rewrite_of_lead_section that this is a central theme that deserves more attention, but also that it is a large undertaking. For the time being, I think we will have to do with a snippet - at least serving some justice. That way it can be further fleshed out and turned into a full article. The paragraph under the article on neoconservative ideology provides something to build on. It can certainly be improved, but is also very controversial and will no doubt result in "some attention". Scierguy (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

We should also be careful of any negationism with regard to this subject. I feel I could be able to create a starting article, but it would be much better served by an expert, or a group of editors to balance any article on foreign interventionism. It also plays an integral part to many articles relating to aggressive foreign policy, so it would be easier to isolate into the specific ideology held in the Bush Doctrine and neoconservatism. It is not something new, but with the advent of "the information age", Internet and such increased awareness with media democracy, especially Wikipedia, there is a lot more information and articles being added. Treating the specific neoconservative and Bush Doctrine view on this controversial issue is the easier path to creating an article. If the full historical context of all foreign interventions should be treated, it would no doubt occupy a small/large building of contributors covering history since almost the time we were living in caves. ;-) Scierguy (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Northwestern1, you still keep removing the link on "depose foreign regimes". Please discuss this if you have changed your previous opinion and have any further problems. Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 06:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Re article's mention on HughHewitt.com. (Later): By Charles Krauthammer, too.

Here: "If they had bothered to look, even the Wikipedia could have cured Josh Marshall, Greg Sargent, or Andrew Sullivan of their illusion that there's a single, simple meaning to the term "Bush Doctrine."  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 19:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It's almost as though there was a concerted strategy to muddy up the Wikipedia article just after the Palin interview with just enough vagueness to make her answer seem cogent. Prior to yesterday, any pundit, politician, or presser who was asked "What do you think of the Bush Doctrine?" would have been able to give a concise answer, because it's been a topic of conversation for six years. Today, who knows what it means? --Jere7my (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you're confused. Prior to the edit wars beginning this September (see this revision), the doctrine was related to a number of points, not just (and in fact, not at all) preemption. A quick review of the editors who have changed the description to limit the Doctrine to preemptive war are more liberal. Obviously this is a concerted effort from some left-wingers to make it appear as if Charlie Gibson knew what he was talking about. The article was also posted at CBS, should we suspect a CBS-inspired edit war? Biccat (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Also note the difference between preventive war and preemptive war. Therein also lies some controversy. Scierguy (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The previous version you link to almost exactly matches the definition my wife gave when I asked her (before she heard about the Palin interview), "What do you know about the Bush Doctrine?" It would have been a great answer for Sarah Palin to give. It matches my sense of the way journalists and pundits have been using it for six years — i.e., first and foremost, as justification for preventive war. I do not quibble with the edits that expand on the Bush Doctrine and make it clear that the doctrine is more than a catchphrase; I quibble with the numerous edits that have tried to insert phrases like "the term has no official meaning, because..." There is nothing wrong with trying to fully define a complicated topic; there is something wrong with trying to make it into such a vague term that nobody really knows what it is, in the service of defending the ignorance of a candidate for high office. (To put it another way: if someone asks me, a candidate for Head Ornithologist of America, "What is the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow?" I might reasonably be expected to respond, "An African or European swallow?" It would not be reasonable for me to stall the interviewer until he fed me the definition of "swallow", then tell my supporters to rush to Wikipedia to edit the swallow entry to make it seem like nobody knows what a swallow is.) --Jere7my (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the phrase has been used by journalists and pundits for just about seven years, and that difference of a year captures the issue in a nutshell. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

A more appropriate analogy would be if an interviewer asked you "What is the air speed velocity of an unladen bird?" To which the appropriate answer would be "What?" I will acknowledge that obviously we were looking at different edits, it appears that both sides of the spectrum were trying to cloud the issue. Political issues aside, the interview with Palin is completely unrelated to the actual definition of the Bush Doctrine. Unless you consider Wiki edit wars "newsworthy." Biccat (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If you look back through the talk page, you'll see I was the first to say that both sides were being partisan here, and both sides would do well to watch it. That said, something like "The term was brought back into the limelight in Sarah Palin's first interview..." could well be appropriate in the lede. It's certainly newsworthy and sourceable, since the news media has been abuzz about it since last night, and many of the people visiting this page for the first time are doing so because of the interview. If an arguably fumbled answer to a question about the subject of an article has a significant effect on a Presidential race, I certainly think a reference would be appropriate. I'm not going to add it back in, though, because consensus has not been reached, and the arguments for and against inclusion (including mine) strike me as partisan. I disagree that yours is a better analogy, since there are good answers to "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?" (as my wife, a classics professor, showed me last night) and there are no good answers to "What is the air speed velocity of an unladen bird?" The latter is meaningless; the former refers to a term that's in common currency among journalists and politicians, any of whom would've been able to offer some sort of an answer before yesterday. --Jere7my (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's unladen swallow, not bird. And there IS a proper response. "African or European?" :) --too lazy to log in 65.118.118.2 (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

And now Charles Krauthammer has mentioned it, too.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 04:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Bush Doctrine vs Official Term - National Security Strategy of the United States of America

The official term recognized by the White House for the concept of the Bush Doctrine is The National Security Strategy of the United States of America of 2006.

I believe this should be included in definition. I want to get consensus.Businesscartpt7 (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any reference for that? Korny O'Near (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This information is already in the lede. "The main elements of the Bush Doctrine were delineated in a National Security Council document, National Security Strategy of the United States, published on September 20, 2002,[5] and this document is often cited as the definitive statement of the doctrine.[7][8][9] The National Security Strategy was updated in 2006.[10]" regards, --guyzero | talk 20:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but do you have any evidence that the White House has used the term "Bush Doctrine"? Korny O'Near (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah sorry, misunderstood. Cheney mentioned "bush doctrine" here: [4] and here: [5] Bush here: [6], etc. I think how this information as currently presented in the lede is OK. cheers, --guyzero | talk 20:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I misunderstood - I thought your response was from the original user, Businesscartpt7. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries at all. The sources that I found above might be useful in further article expansion as Cheney provides his own definition of Bush Doctrine in one of them. cheers, --guyzero | talk 20:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The link for reference 5 ("National Security Strategy of the United States. National Security Council, September 20, 2002") appears to be incorrect. Currently it redirects to the National Security Council homepage rather than to a particular document. I believe the correct link is http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2002/ Agthorr (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed per comment above. thank you, --guyzero | talk 22:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

9/11 Attacks: Questionable Assertion

The very first line in the Overview section states, "The September 11, 2001 attacks were planned and executed by Osama bin Laden and other members of Al Qaeda, a terrorist group that was then based in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan." I question the accuracy and verifiability of this statement. No adequate independent investigation has been performed to substantiate that foreign terrorists, or specifically bin Laden, were the key masterminds behind the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 Commission was charged with the task of investigation, but in practice this is no better than a committee appointed by foxes being tasked to determine who attacked the henhouse. All other reviews performed by government agencies have been incomplete, inconclusive, or not credible due to obvious biases. Key parties in the matter, especially George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, have refused to testify under oath on the matter, and (shamefully) no one has obligated them to do so; particularly the Congress of the United States. This statement should be removed, or if not removed, at the very least given references to try to support it. The Original Wildbear (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, the FBI, on its most wanted list, does not accuse Osama Bin Laden of the 9/11 attacks. When the FBI was questioned about this, the response was that they have no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11. Matrixpoint (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the stuff of conspiracy theories. The guy admitted that he did it in an interview.202.212.91.204 (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of hard evidence, the quoted statement above about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda is a conspiracy theory, even though it is presented as an undisputed fact. At the very least, the statement should read "...were alleged to be planned and executed..." as is normal practice for any criminal act prior to conviction. But the FBI is not even alleging that Bin Laden is responsible for 9/11. Also, there are examples of false claims of credit for terrorist acts. Such false claims can serve the interests of the individual or organization making them even though they are not true. Matrixpoint (talk) 03:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

What is Rudy Giuliani talking about?

Open this and do a ctrl+f and enter Wikipedia. When did it ever say this? 75.131.193.54 (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This vandalism edit [7] sat on the article for 3 days earlier this week. I'll email the former Mayor a link to WP:AIV which is a much better forum to report article vandalism since Hannity probably does not have an admin bit. thanks, --guyzero | talk 01:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Bias

The word "supposed" in the first paragraph of the article, "...the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a supposed threat to the security of the United States...", gives the sentence an overly skeptical tone. A more neutral word such as "perceived" would be more appropriate. Bws93222 (talk) 02:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference to this article on Countdown with Keith Olbermann

Just in case if anyone was curious, this article was mentioned on that show on the night of Friday, September 12, 2008. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 04:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Pre-emptive war

The cited National Security Strategy of 2002 states the term pre-emptive war and does not contain the term preventive war. Was this changed recently to make Charles Gibson look bad after he naild Sarah Palin on her lack of knowledge of the Bush Doctrine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4merrepublican (talk • contribs) 04:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to add to this that the current version contains a first reference to `pre-emptive war' followed by a second on `preventive war,' seems to me they should match no matter which way it goes. Rruitenberg (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This subject has been discussed several times prior to the Palin/Gibson interview (see above: Preemptive war or preventive war and Pre-emptive vs. preventive again). It seems what the White House calls "preemptive war" in regards to the so-called doctrine is more consistient with the Wikipedia definition of "preventive war." Preemptive war as defined by Wikipedia is not a new or controversial policy. This is complicated, but sould somehow be addressed in the lead rather than simply linking "preemptive war". -Columbusness (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Many Versions of Bush Doctrine including Not a Doctrine at all

This article in the Washington Post discusses up to 7 versions of the "Bush Doctrine" including the fact that it's not even a doctrine at all. I think we should include this detail in main definition. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/09/12/ST2008091203408.html

What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Businesscartpt7 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

agreed, and I added the seven versions. The "doictrine" part is of course journalistic invention, not a government statement.Rjensen (talk) 07:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

We need to clearly point out that the most common meaning of the term is preemptive war. --Sum (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This article should be never-ending because there is a never-ending supply of Bush doctrines. Please, never keep this article under 1,000 words. It should stretch to at least 1,000,000 words before it is deemed suitable for un-editable status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.119.33 (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't it called the Bush policy? A doctrine is something religious. If Obama or Clinton had policies, they are not called doctrines. Only Republicans have "doctrines." It is a biased word, used in contempt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.119.33 (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The first time I heard the term "Bush doctrine" I thought they were referring to his policy of zero tolerance of the legislature and the judiciary, who make it hard for a president to serve the people directly as he sees fit. McCain at the end of his nomination acceptance speech similarly promised to bypass the Washington establishment and serve the people directly. Do you appreciate the complexities of having three branches of government, or would you rather have a straight shooter working directly for your interests, without interference from several hundred faceless politicians and lawyers most of whom are serving the interests of people from other states than yours? The president loves you, the president will save your bacon, he looked you in the eye when he said that so he must be talking directly to you. Trust in the president, love the president and he will return your love. It is written in the book. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 06:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Charles Krauthammer/Wikipedia circular reference on the same day

In an Op-ed piece for the Washington Post ("Charlie Gibson's Gaffe", posted online 9/12/2008) Charles Krauthammer defends Sarah Palin by saying that it is really Charlie Gibson and the New York Times that misunderstand the Bush Doctrine. He points to this Wikipedia article as evidence of his superior knowledge on the subject:

"I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush Doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard..."

I'm confused as to why a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist is citing Wikipedia as a source. What is more troubling is that the reference to Krauthammer apparently was added to this article the same day that his column came out and the only sources that cite his definition of a Bush Doctrine are his own articles (now including the aforementioned Op-ed).

I'm not an expert on this subject and I do get the impression that Krauthammer and his writing probably carry enough weight to belong in the article (regardless of how/when it got there), but I don't like this "circular referencing" and I wonder if we're giving him undue weight. Is Krauthammer cited by other historical accounts of the Bush Doctrine? Krauthammer's definition of the Doctrine appears to be distinct from the more common one that is the subject of this article. Would it make more sense to refernece this in the body of the "Overview" section or a section on alternative uses of the term rather than in the second paragraph of the lead section? -Columbusness (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I originally added the Krauthammer reference, and I think it's appropriate, but it has to be used in the proper context. Other editors have changed its context to suggest that Krauthammer "coined the term," and Krauthammer himself changed the context in his column to justify conservative talking points in the wake of the Palin/Gibson interview. The common thread behind all definitions of the "Bush Doctrine" is increased American unilateralism -- and in that respect I think it is okay to give credit to Krauthammer for identifying this unilateralism early in Bush's presidency. But it should not be taken as a "definition" of the Bush Doctrine. It's more like a precursor or a hint of what later emerged as the "Bush Doctrine." I have revised the lead to help situate the Krauthammer article in this context; however, I would also not object if it was removed from the lead and moved lower int he article. Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Walrasiad (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

William Safire did a little "On Language" piece in the New York Times back in October, 20 2002 on the origins of the term Bush Doctrine. He doesn't cite Krautheimer. He identifies a Chicago Tribune piece "A Bush Doctrine on Nuclear Arms" from January, 2001 as the earliest use, obviously preceding the Krautheimer citation (although I can't find the author or check the content).

Google Books says it was the 1 January 2001 issue. --147.9.203.163 (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC) (Zenohockey, not logged in)

"Scholars say..."

The sentence beginning "Scholars identify seven different 'Bush Doctrines,'" in the Overview is misleading. The citation for the claim is a September 13th, 2008 Washington Post article by neoconservative journalist Michael Abramowitz. Abramowitz's article does not cite several scholars who identify seven different Bush Doctrines, but rather one Peter D. Feaver, a former National Security Council staff member under President George W. Bush. Mbsq (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbsq (talk • contribs) 16:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed this so that the sentence refers specifically to Peter Feaver. Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Absurdity of 'several doctrines' theory

The argument that Bush might have had as many as seven doctrines is an absurd argument. By Wikipedia's own definition, a doctrine is "a codification of beliefs or "a body of teachings" or "instructions", taught principles or positions." Those policy positions that are being named 'doctrines' such as any country that habours terrorists will be treated as equivalent to the terrorists themselves are really individual principles. The doctrine is the overall idea that holds these principles together. As such, the principle just named would hold as a justification for another principle, namely pre-emptive war. Together these would hold a more or less coherent doctrine that would be named for convention's sake the Bush Doctrine.

It is possible that spreading democracy might be classed into a distinct doctrine, or if any coherency can be made out of the hodge-podge set of principles into a single doctrine. However, these are really just policies for which the term Doctrine is merely a conventional classification intended to draw parallels with policies relating to the use of force held by other Presidents and high-level leaders, such as Colin Powell.

Generally, convention has had it that the term 'Bush doctrine' is to refer to the policy of the legitimacy of pre-emptive war. Therefore, since the use of the term doctrine is convention anyway, it does not really matter if there were other principles that might be labeled doctrines in retrospect, as this has not until now what has been accepted in common use of the term the 'Bush Doctrine.' As generally, when matters of convention are concerned, quibbling over doctrine is supposed to refer to this or that is pointless semantics, because this is a term that is set by generally conceived opinion anyway and is not a transcendental idea (especially where the doctrines of Pr. Bush are concerned). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.124.120 (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree in general with the thrust of your comment, but the "several doctrines" theory has its proponents -- notably Jacob Weisberg's book arguing that there are several distinct "Bush Doctrines" -- meaning that what we might think of as Bush's foreign policy doctrine has changed over time. This article needs some serious work to deal with these nuances but I agree that we should give greater emphasis to the doctrine of preventive war, which has been the most common understanding of the Bush Doctrine in foreign policy journals, etc., over the last six years. Do you have a recent citation for the fact that The Bush Doctrine is the doctrine of preventive war? Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

keep in mind that "doctrine" is a journalistic convention and different journalists stress different themes. The Bush people never said "The Bush doctrine is XXX". Instead they said at seven different times, "The Bush policy is: x1...X2...X3...etc. Hostile critics have focused mostly on the preventive war theme, while friendly supporters stress the spread of democracy theme.

That's not exactly true. "Doctrine" is also a conventional term used among foreign policy scholars. And scholars who are both supportive and critical of the doctrine of preventive war have cited it as the "Bush Doctrine." Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The Bush people never said "The Bush doctrine is XXX".. Well, thats not exactly true. On November 10, 1991 "A senior administration official said Mr. Bush's speech would be a fleshing out of what the White House calls the Bush Doctrine -- the assertion that nations that harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves" [8]--Work permit (talk) 04:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

ah yes, one more Bush doctrine. Historically speaking "doctine" is a tag line used by journalists and historians to characterize a presidential policy. In the previous quote we have an anonymous official off the record talking about a speech that has not yet been given; likely he was talking to journalists to shape their stories--that's called "spin". Rjensen (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Yes, but we live in a world in which highly respected scientists believe there are multiple universes, or a "multiverse," even though the word universe means everything.

POV in praise of flawed and failed policy

Much of the negative language and critisim disputed and deleted from this article positivly belongs in any factual article on the subject

The habitual cries of bias in the face of truth and factual accounts, from those who’s vision is blurred by their allegiance to right wing Neo Con demagoguery not withstanding, it is not “unencyclopedic” to present facts which as they stand, illustrate that the Bush doctrine by virtually all accepted standards of logic, objective observation, and historical precedent, is a demonstratively flawed policy

Using the term “suspicious “ to describe critics of the doctrine, reads as though the criticism is based on a lack of substance, which is the antithesis of the truth

The newly fabricated spurious spin that the doctrine is actually “multi faceted’ is categorically false and revisionist. Any and all of the verbiage beyond the original proclamation of a policy of unilateral preemptive military adventurism, were incorrectly attributed to the doctrine. The perception mistakes equivocation of the policy, for the policy itself. Most recently, the ersatz contention was resurrected in an attempt to mask the lack of scope of a vice presidential candidate who clearly had no frame of reference, “multi faceted” or otherwise The fact that this falsehood is proclaimed in the opening paragraph is a pre curser and indicative of the flawed tone and syntax of the article

Contrary to the groans of some, sterility and the appeasement of ignorance makes media LESS, not more fair and objective. There descriptive term would be “dumb down”

As it stands, this artical belongs on the RNC web page, as opposed to an on line encyclopedia. If there is any expectation of credibility, delete it and start overCosand (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the phrase "Bush doctrine" refers to a variety of things is well-sourced, and it's not "newly fabricated" on this article - it's been in place for months or years. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Press releases by Administration official and bi-lines in Op Ed pages does not make the contention "well sourced" I'll say again, "The perception mistakes equivocation of the policy, for the policy itself" Cosand (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so what makes your contention well-sourced, or sourced at all? Korny O'Near (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Bush Doctrine background

I have updated the ideological background on the Bush Doctrine, including a central timeline in the formation of the ideas through the end of the Cold War and neoconservative objection to the Reagan Doctrine, the outcome of the Gulf War and foreign policies of the presidency of Bill Clinton. The founder of the neoconservative ideology, Irving Kristol, is also a former active supporter of Trotskyism, before completely changing his course and in 1979 proclaiming himself as a neoconservative. The Reagan Doctrine was essentially anti-communist and in opposition to the global influence of the Soviet Union. The background for these facts and the timeline comes from renowned experts on international relations graduated from the Carleton University, which has a reputation considered the top in this field of studies. Scierguy (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the timeline and ideology behind the Bush Doctrine is key to understand the practical foreign policy guidelines and decisions in the doctrine itself. A doctrine is founded in a belief system as well as having practical considerations for the decisions. Together the background, timeline and ideology makes it possible to understand the reasoning behind the Bush Doctrine and the foundations on which it was founded - including the September 11, 2001 attacks and subsequent international relations practical policies or events. It is also key to understanding the mindset for the geopolitical strategy behind the policy, and makes it intelligently coherent - see soundness and natural deduction. Furthermore it explains the strong influence of militarism in the policy, and the subsequent military spending of the United States during the Bush presidency. This also holds for military interests on the geopolitical policies and foreign interventionism. Other concerns have been the energy policies, leading to conspiracy theories like the Free energy suppression theory claiming that "advanced technology that would reshape current electrical generation methods is being suppressed by special interest groups and that these groups are usually related to the oil industry, to whom current energy generation technology is profitable." These are some views that lead to opinions on the economic consequences of the Bush presidency, as well as the reason for the Iraq War. Scierguy (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, clearly you are attempting to overcomplicate and mitigate the flawed policy, through the revisionism of retroactively attributing motive which is contrary to scores of accounts by those formally associated with the policy and the administration who conceived it. These accounts include but are not limited to retired generals, a former press secretary and a former head of the CIA

You are also attempting to rationalize the flawed policy by attempting connect unrelated factors to the creation of the doctrine. Claiming that the invasion of Iraq was in any way factually connected to 9/11 and a mitigating motive for the Bush doctine is both intellectually dishonest and intellectually insulting, in light of the fact that the notion has been debunked by virtually all objective observers, and by the aforementioned sources formally associated with the Administration. Your contentions can only be regarded as bias and non objective Cosand (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

See Stefan Halper, connected with US government since 1971 being part of the Executive Office of the President, holding positions in the White House office of Communications, The Domestic Council and the Office of Management and Budget under President Richard Nixon. Also under the Ford Presidency, working in the Office of the White House Chief of Staff where he worked on a range of domestic and international issues. He also became Special Council to the Joint Economic Committeeand in 1979 he became National Policy Director for George H. W. Bush’s Presidential campaign before becoming Director of Policy Coordination for the Reagan-Bush ticket in 1980. --- I think the references are valid and the timeline is factual with interactions from central ideology-forming neoconservative thinkers strongly criticizing the political realism of the Reagan Doctrine, the Gulf War outcome and the foreign relations policies of Bill Clinton. You can go through the reference material yourself, and verify the ideological background, timeline and forming of the Bush Doctrine by central counsel to the Bush administration who are openly neoconservatives and widely recognized as such. Their policies were not simply intellectually flawed, but stand on their own with strong reasoning through the neoconservatist ideology. Scierguy (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact open for review, here is the direct link - http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg052003.asp - to some of the background material as reported by Jonah Goldberg. Please discuss further, if there are any doubts as to the factual correctness. Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Your verbiage equating Neo Conservatism with "factual correctness" and "strong reasoning" speaks volumes as to your lack of objectivity, and your sighting of an article by a pro Bush publication like the National review falls far short.

Also, you are either intentionally or not, createing a straw man. I am not questioning the sequence of events documented to archive the creation of the doctrine, I am questioning and sighting the reasons why I question the actual true nature of the original motivation, and the accuracy of the stated motives for it's creation. My contention is supported by former Bush administration officials, not by pro Neo Con commentators and Op-ED pages years after the fact. Ask yourself. Which is more liukely to be accurate ? Methinks the objective answer is clear Cosand (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I appeal to you to look through my editing history and contributions as well as the foreign interventionism article that I recently expanded significantly. I am only showing what renowned experts are saying about the ideology, and the reasoning behind it. This has nothing to do with systemic bias at all, but is looking at deductive system reasoning and natural deduction apparent in the scientific treatment of the Bush Doctrine. There is some soundness to the reasoning behind the doctrine and it would be a grave omission to refuse this in it's explication. For a view supporting the "flawness" in the Bush Doctrine - look no further than the peace dividend, the following presidency of Bill Clinton and then the presidency of Bush soon followed by the September 11, 2001 attacks. There is a reasoning to why the Bush administration created the programs of War on Terrorism and increased military spending; alluding to them as "intellectually flawed" would obviously not live up to NPOV. Also see neoconservatism#Foreign interventionism for more information about some of the criticism. For a history of foreign interventionism by the United States - see Operation Gladio or School of the Americas, CIA activities in the Americas. Also, to understand the scientific criticism of the Bush Doctrine - see false premise and systems science. If you are concerned about the religious moral background and consequences used by the Bush Doctrine - see the Just War doctrine. For political, ethical and economic concern see political radicalism and corporatism. I think I show being able to treat the subject with neutrality. Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

At the foundation of the Bush Doctrine is its ideology - leading up to their support for invading any country seen as a threat to democracy. The founder of neoconservatism, the former active supporter of Trotskyism - reasonable far-left on the political spectrum - Irving Kristol, radically changed his views and became a self-proclaimed neoconservative in contact with other similarly minded. Kristol changed from one radical way of a belief system to another radical belief system, but what he continued to keep was his political radicalism. This fit well with the geopolitical development, considering the proxy war situation in the Vietnam War, and the later end to the Cold War. His son Bill Kristol formed the radical neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Irving Kristol was born into a orthodox Jewish family, is married to Gertrude Himmelfarb who is a renowned conservative whose brother was Milton Himmelfarb of American Jewish Committee fame for more than 40 years. You can certainly find a lot of points for criticism of the Bush Doctrine and its background, but there is no denying that it has intellectual merit - and otherwise would be Wikipedia:CENSOR or negationism. The doctrine and the ideology behind it, neoconservatism, has world parallels (systems theory) to the situation of Israel and Zionism - as well as considering the evangelical views of George W. Bush. There is a lot to go through when looking at this doctrine - but one should be careful of negationism, and think of media democracy allowing a fair and balanced representation of Wikipedia articles, so as to not denying factual claims that can be sourced and keeping freedom of speech, continuing the neutrality and objectivity of Wikipedia - allowing the various points of view their space. The structure for dealing with this is outlined in the Wikipedia polices and design guide manuals. Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Today, Sunday September 14, 2008, Thomas Friedman on CNN's Fareed Zakaria GPS program talked of a surging Putinism and how an efficient energy policy can be more effective of weakening Russia, in the wake of their increasing economic power - as opposed to direct military interventions. The debates and strategies for geopolitical will not mellow down, with foreign interventionism being touted by many for national interests. He has been an outspoken critic of the Bush Doctrine, and keeps closer realism views - like the Reagan Doctrine. For anyone interested in United States mainstream criticism of the Bush Doctrine, this can be an interesting source. He is also a strong believer in natural adaptation as a winning strategy - see theories of technology. This is in line with the more recent military strategy of the United States calling for synergistic Effects-Based Operations in the asymmetric warfare for War on Terrorism. With Bush proclaiming to be a friend of "big business", had close ties to Vladimir Putin - see corporatism, he also portrayed himself as a "compassionate conservative" and his doctrine deriving on the ideology of a former radical leftist supporter of Trotskyism, the Realpolitik of his father and the Reagan Doctrine is far more politically conservative. This seems to be what John McCain is more in line with as his ideology for international relations. This might offer some deeper insight to the Bush Doctrine and his "political patricide" diverting from the Reagan Doctrine. Scierguy (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

As one of my favorite college professors was fond of saying “There is no premium on verbosity” . With all due respect, you would do well to heed that advice, and I would add, neither is there premium on sanctimony. I fully understand your desire to spin garden variety one dimensional Neo Con dogma to appear to be some complex intellectual foreign policy revelation, The only trouble is, it just doesn’t happen to be true The Bush doctrine was plan and simply, a declaration of the legitimization of unilateral military adventurism, nothing any more of less complicated then that/. Your wordy sanctimonious presentation represents the ultimate revisionism This article is flawed from it’s opening paragraph, and it is exactly this brand of attempt to intellectualize oversimplification that makes it so, and long winded references to the apologists of the flawed policy, does not make it any less so. Cosand (talk) 03:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It would not be fair to Wikipedians - who may be supporters or voicing criticism - not to include the intellectual foundation of the Bush Doctrine, as well as all the criticism. That is what being objective and neutral is all about when dealing with an article. If you only treat one single side of a topic, then you fail on NPOV. The article can always be improved, and this is the strength of any Wiki. As long as the structural idea behind a Wikipedia article is followed, it ensures the positive outcome from writing about a topic. Critics do not have a monopoly on truth - as such you can treat everything as relative, and the degrees to which it is held in any direction is also how any system model can also be seen to be hypocritical, because of the non-black-or-white bivalent nature of everything in the universe. As far as politics go, the Bush Doctrine and neoconservatism certainly rank within political radicalism, with the Realpolitik of his father George H. W. Bush being more conservative. One can try understand the "compassionate conservatism" from his son on the personal history and background of the current president, as well as the historical backdrop of the development of the neoconservative ideology - leading up through history since World War II, the pursuant Cold War, the Vietnam War, end to the Cold War and Soviet Union collapse with the elder Bush presidency and the nomination of his son. The neoconservative ideas came to fruition on the world arena, and being political radicalism, brought many controversies. There are psychological considerations, from the conception and world parallels to the plight of Israel fighting for it's existence giving root to radical ideas and measures, to the father-son relationship of the Bush presidents and the son's personal struggles and path of seeking out a belief system that included evangelism. See the book the BUSH TRAGEDY by Jacob Weisberg - http://www.amazon.com/Bush-Tragedy-Jacob-Weisberg/dp/1400066786 - for further details on the psychology and personal history, struggle between father and son - leading to this apparent political patricide with the Bush Doctrine superseding the Realpolitik and Reagan Doctrine of his father. Surely, there is no lack of criticism; either scientific, political, economic, religious, within military strategy or otherwise - that will certainly grow with history and as analysts, experts and the public reacts and comments on the outcome of the policies. Just remember the degree of truth to what you can build trust towards. To keep neutrality, you have to include a broader spectre than only one speck or heeding only one side. Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 11:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I removed some of the info you added about the Trotskyite roots of neoconservatism, and compassionate conservatism; I don't think these are relevant to an article on the Bush Doctrine. If you think they are, please find a source that agrees with you. It may be that a full understanding of the Bush Doctrine can't be reached without knowing facts such as these, but if this article contained every fact needed to fully understand the Bush Doctrine, it might reach thousands of pages long, containing a full history of the United States or possibly the world. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and usually that's with whatever outside sources say is relevant. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You promptly removed various references, and you show no information as to why you think these references and this information about the ideological background for the Bush Doctrine should be removed. Simply calling something irrelevant seems like negationism. Please, let us not get into an edit war, and we can form a consensus on this. We can involve the Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations, which seems proper. Scierguy (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Please do not readd this material without gaining consensus for inclusion. As pointed out above, if outside RS say this material is relevant, that would go a long way. Thanks, --Tom 15:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Good, Tom. Can you guys look through the references, and then we can add to the Bush Doctrine#Criticisms as I explain below. There are both positive and critical references on the Bush Doctrine foundation in all the references I used. That means that it is conforming to a structural NPOV and can be further expanded if necessary. I understand the sensible nature of not letting the introduction be bloated, and agree on this. Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we discuss a compromise, and include the ideological background in the Bush Doctrine#Criticisms? I can write it so that it fits there, and still keeping the NPOV neutrality of the information. This seems fair. To exclude the central ideas and belief system behind the Bush Doctrine, is depriving any Wikipedian of the understanding of the doctrine. It is not as simple as just being neoconservatism as the references explain. The references themselves offers insight from experts on the topics. Scierguy (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, do you have any reference for Trotskyism or compassionate conservatism being related to the Bush Doctrine? Also, you can you cut down on all the wiki-linking? It's kind of pointless, and makes it harder to read. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The founder of neoconservatism, Irving Kristol, is a former active supporter of Trotskyism. There are numerous references of how neoconservatism is a reaction to the left-wing. Furthermore, Irving Kristol is married to Gertrude Himmelfarb, comes from an orthodox background - and specifically talks about the strong disgust for countercultures. Also, George W. Bush is many, many times cited as saying that he is a believer in compassionate conservatism, and this is also referenced many time. The formation of the Bush Doctrine contains both the ethical, moral and full neoconservative ideological spectrum - as pointed out in the many references. This is information both strengthening the foundation of the doctrine, and has also been open for criticisms by renowned experts and scholars. It deserves being mentioned, and excluding this information is a disservice to the notion behind Wikipedia itself. The ideological foundation is what is the centre for criticism by anyone, and it is also the focal point giving strength to withstanding the criticism for those who support the policies. Therefore it is a essentially neutral piece of information. Can we agree on adding to the section on criticism then? I agree it fits better there, since it contains both the strengths and criticisms behind the doctrine. You are all welcome to look at the references and verify this. Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, in my opinion, saying the Bush Doctrine is connected to neoconservatism is fine, because there are citations for it. But then talking about neoconservatism itself, in any section of this article, doesn't make sense, because this isn't the place for that - if readers want to learn more about it, they can go to that article. As I said before, there's no way this article will hold all the information necessary for a full understanding of the Bush Doctrine, and it's not meant to do so either. I mean, why not add in biographical information on Leon Trotsky too, while we're at it? Korny O'Near (talk)

Korny, you are missing the point in the criticism of the Bush Doctrine. It is exactly the radically reactionary nature of it - in its world view belief system that is the focal point for the criticism. At the same time, this is the intellectual structure and integrity of the doctrine itself, it reflects the ideas in its policy decisions - and this is by definition what a doctrine actually is. Denying this information is like blacking out information from CIA released information to the public -- see Freedom of Information Act (United States). It is not in Wikipedia interests (media democracy) to deny this information (akin to negationism) - the central point in all the criticism - and pointed out as such. The Bush Doctrine is a change from the Reagan Doctrine as well as other changes, like stated by the supporters of it and other very renowned international experts on the topic. Please have a look at the references, and try not to make funny remarks but keep the discussion topic-neutral and intelligent. If you have some opinion on the validity of these references, then lets hear these. If you have opinion on the claims themselves - then please state your expertise on this topic. Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If you guys actually look at the references, you will see that the criticism is about the Bush Doctrine practical policies and the neoconservative ideas forming these decisions. That is why it belongs to the Bush Doctrine - and NOT anywhere else. It does not belong under neoconservatism, because it is criticism of the Bush Doctrine (its foreign policies) and the Bush administration for putting these policies into action. This article on the Bush Doctrine is the correct place for these references, and this information - essentially and specifically including positive and negative points on the policies. Scierguy (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

See http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Neoconservatism_-_History_and_origins_of_neoconservatism/id/5326711

“ The forerunners of neoconservativism were generally liberals or socialists who strongly supported the Second World War, and who were influenced by the Depression-era ideas of former New Dealers, trade unionists, and Trotskyists, particularly those who followed the political ideas of Max Shachtman (A number of future neoconservatives such as Jeane Kirkpatrick and Ken Adelman were Shachtmanites in their youth, while others were later involved with Social Democrats USA. Most neoconservatives, however, including those who have been close to SDUSA, will strenuously deny, even contrary to evidence, that they were ever Shachtmanites. ”

Also see International Socialist Review Issue 33, January–February 2004 - http://www.isreview.org/issues/33/reviews.shtml on books by Rahul Mahajan and Noam Chomsky. Irving Kristol and other neoconservatives are coming from a Trotskyism background, acknowledged by themselves, and they are the formers of neoconservatism ideology, which is the central point to the Bush Doctrine belief system - world outlook. It is central to understanding the reactionary controversy about the Bush Doctrine - and this is upheld by the many critics, neutral observers and the intellectual integrity/support for the Bush Doctrine by the neoconservative. The compassionate conservatism of Bush is another, which has been strongly pointed out in the references provided. These are many renowned scholars and experts who contribute to history, analysis and opinions. Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are plenty of other articles where I think it might make more sense to add all that stuff - besides neoconservatism, there's foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration, Iraq War, War in Afghanistan (2001–present), plus the articles on the various people you mention. As I've said repeatedly, there's no way this article can, or should, include every fact needed to fully understand the Bush Doctrine - that's not what an encyclopedia is for. If you think Trotsky or compassionate conservatism are directly related to the Bush Doctrine, please find a notable source that agrees with you. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Korny on this. I would like to keep the article as "simple" and clean as possible so readers can understand it. My head is going to explode just trying to keep up with the talk page :) It must be me. Again, I am far from being an expert on this topic so I will have to defer to others. --Tom 17:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have appealed for more Wikipedian opinions on this matter from the appropriate Wikiprojects associated with this article, so that we can form a consensus. The next step is involving Wikipedia administrators - eventually through Wikipedia:RFM, and the last step would be involving Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration. You are also avoiding the point I have made that the criticisms, neutral comments and defences on the Bush Doctrine are pointed to the ideological foundation of this doctrine. I have included numerous references, including online links, and even page references to this. The consensus of the criticism is that it is a radical reaction to the left-wing politics, as well as a general displeasure with the Gulf War, the Reagan Doctrine and the foreign policies of Bill Clinton. The backdrop for this is the formation of the ideas, throughout history since the end of World War II. On the other hand, the support and defence for the Bush Doctrine is within the ideological foundations. Therefore the criticism of the Bush Doctrine and its ideological foundation belongs in this article, and not to be fragmented into numerous other disparate phrases and scattered over a plethora of articles - when the criticisms and defence rationales are all found as integral works. They treat all the aspects of the Bush policies and the Bush Doctrine, not simply the Iraq War - but the ideological rationale behind the policies. We should treat the comments from these recognized sources as central to the Bush Doctrine reactions - and not try to brush these under the carpet by removing them or keeping them out of sight. The references treat the Bush Doctrine and its outcomes, and they DO belong here. There is no point in a lengthy discussion about George W. Bush policies under neoconservatism, or do you think so? Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any references that connect Bush's foreign policy to Trotsky and/or compassionate conservatism? Korny O'Near (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course: "As he begins his second term, the president and his advisors must take a hard, second look at the Bush Doctrine. In many respects, it is the export version of compassionate conservatism." from http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1218/article_detail.asp by Charles R. Kesler Ph.D and senior fellow of "The Claremont Institute for the study of statesmanship and political philosophy". Scierguy (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

See the book: "Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency" by Patrick J. Buchanan, known US republican politician for the background on the Bush Doctrine and its radical roots to former supporters of Trotskyism. He further explains how the Bush Doctrine was strongly influenced by the neoconservatives, and the radical departure from the Reagan Doctrine - a trait of radicalism in the history of neoconservatism from its inception. Scierguy (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, look - I have provided so many references for this - while all you do is prevent the addition of the information - which rightly belongs in this article. Look at the references, and don't generalize as to exclude this pertinent information. Please state your expertise on this subject if you disagree with the claims of these renowned political experts and scholars. Scierguy (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, great, thanks for the "so many" (two, by my count) references. Feel free to add the comments in by Kesler, Buchanan and any others you find - if you had done that to begin with, I never would have objected. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks for reaching a consensus on this. If you look at the other references I already have listed - I can bring as many excerpts as you want. The fact remains that there is an integral tie-in with the criticism of the Bush Doctrine - the ideological and practical decisions and strategies within the doctrine, its implications and effects on the world - which have been voiced by very many renowned experts on the topic. I will, as I said, rewrite what was removed and I had added to the central ideological background of the doctrine in the introduction (sensibly better placed elsewhere to avoid bloating the introduction) - and move to the Bush Doctrine#Criticisms section. We can take further revisions from there after the addition - and we will take other concerns about any additional information under a new section on this Talk page, to not complicate any further discussion - as the verifiability of its right of inclusion has been reached through a consensus here. Happy wiking to all! ;-) Scierguy (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This policy was used to justify the invasion of Iraq in March 2003

I see that this was added to the lead recently. Can this be better sourced or put into more context. Right now, it is another nugget just inserted into the lead a appears awkward, imho. I am no expert on this but this seems fairly important and should recieve more sourcing. Thank you, --Tom 16:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, it is inaccurate. Perhaps saying that the policy was retroactively used to justify the invasion, since it was not the original reason given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.89.243 (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Points missing from the critics section

Critics contend that the doctrine represents what is arguably the biggest shift in US foreign policy in over a century, and contradicts long established and time tested methods of diplomacy and pro active non military engagement

Critics also point out that the doctrine enacts policy that was prescribed and professed by those associated with it’s creation, long before the events attributed to the motive for it’s creation

Any discussion of the topic without these points inclided is patently incomplete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosand (talk • contribs) 16:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Changing the Opening Sentence

"The Bush Doctrine is a term used to describe the foreign policy doctrine of United States president George W. Bush, enunciated in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks."

This opening sentence is problematic because it attempts to explain this particular doctrine(s) by saying it's a doctrine. I suggest using the words "position or policy" since these synonyms can help readers who might now know what a doctrine is to better understand the term. It's fairly basic not to explain a term by repeating the term itself.

Also according to the definition I find for doctrine, it is a single principle, policy or position. So I don't see how there is a "Bush Doctrine". It should really read Bush Doctrines, and I believe that's at the core of the confusion. I defy anyone to substantiate an argument that there is a single doctrine dealing with Bush's foregin policy approaches and methodology. But I guess rectifying this confusion by making the article title plural is way above my paygrade.

I suggest revising the opening line to: The Bush Doctrine is a term used to describe the foreign policy positions and approaches of United States president George W. Bush.

Then perhaps something along the lines of: These positions have been enunciated in various speeches and papers and have been a focus for analysis in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks.(Wallamoose (talk) 04:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

The Bush Doctrine is a doctrine that reflects a collection of decisions and strategies from the foundation of a belief system such as an ideology. It is therefore NOT correct to state it as a principle. Furthermore, there were revisions to the Bush Doctrine, and the September 11, 2001 attacks were part of forming these decisions and strategies - in practical political terms. A doctrine is something stronger than a mere policy, a single position or a principle. Therefore I disagree on your interpretation, but I think that merely or singularly attributing the attacks to the doctrine is not representative of the actual Bush Doctrine. Therefore I agree it can be improved and I support a change. We can further discuss a change here and reach a consensus before changing the opening sentence, since I'm already involved in a dispute and I do not with to be the one performing the actual editing of the opening sentence. My wish is that it reflects what a foreign policy doctrine actually is, but also the strong implications that the attacks had on the practical political decisions and strategy in the doctrine. Other Wikipedian opinions are very welcome. Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You who are editing the opening sentence should review the other articles on similar doctrines, as well as fully understand what a doctrine is - to find a consistent first sentence phrasing in line with other articles on foreign policy doctrines. Scierguy (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A "doctrine" in this context is a presidential foreign policy doctrine. That is historians have attached such a doctrine to every presidential administration (although I don't know if Wikipedia has an article for every president's doctrine) as a broad description of his particular foreign policy management style. Bush has a "doctrine" so far as he has actually made presumably non-random foreign policy decisions.

One thing I don't like about the opening sentence is it reads "created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks". Whether you agree with his policies or not, it makes it seem like he never made a foreign policy decision before 9/11, which seems ridiculous on the face of it. I think it would better read "since his inauguration as President of the United States", or perhaps better still "during his tenure as President of the United States".

(As an aside unlike many people I'm not of the view that "everything changed" on 9/11. I already knew that there were people in the world who hated us. This was not a revelation to me. That's not to say I took a racist point of view of it, like some people. That is I did not take it for granted that Muslims hated us -even without 9/11- because they're suicide bombing rag-heads (still don't). Nor am I of the people must hate us because we must've done something wrong view. There's just people in this world who aren't going to be happy with you for anything.)76.111.80.228 (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree on this. The Bush Doctrine is not something hastily gathered together after the September 11, 2001 attacks. A doctrine includes a collection of practical policy decisions, ideology beliefs and principles as working guide. This is also in line with all the other articles on foreign policy doctrines. Trying to make it sound like a improvised reaction to the attacks is not what has been held as the world view by experts commenting on the Bush Doctrine. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of references to how what is being discussed in the context of the Bush Doctrine are the ideological roots, as well as the practical outcomes of the policy decisions. I support a change of the opening sentence to reflect that it is in fact a doctrine - like other presidential doctrines preceding it, and as held to the shared world view by experts on the topic. Denying this world-wide accepted understanding of the Bush Doctrine is like denialism - saying that Project for the New American Century#Persons associated with the PNAC are not central in the George W. Bush administration. I find that extremely biased and non-NPOV, not even sharing a widely held world-view by experts on international relations. Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The view held by experts - in criticism or defence of the Bush Doctrine - is that it is not something completely unrelated to previous foreign policies. The ideology behind it is certainly not new. Scierguy (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh and Secretaries of State (or for that matter I'm sure Foreign Ministers and national executives of other nations) have also had "doctrines" as with the "Powell Doctrine" in the "See Also" link. (Where is the "Rice Doctrine" article? We need to get that started. It's overdue.)

I'd also like to point out the "See Also" link lacks the most well known, in the American public consciousness, as remembered from history classes, presidential doctrine. That being the "Monroe Doctrine". Not that the "Monroe Doctrine" really has a lot to do with the "Bush Doctrine". (Only in that they're both two of our more bellicose presidential foreign policy doctrines; and Monroe created a lasting foreign policy legacy that indirectly led up to the Bush Doctrine.) The "Clinton Doctrine" is far more relevant for providing a historical prologue to the "Bush Doctrine".

Actually a better thing to do would be to add a table column with links to all the other examples of foreign policy doctrines, as is done with some articles that fall under a broad category (for example Homicide. The table could include U.S. and non-U.S. foreign policy doctrine article links, as well perhaps as a "See Also" for other doctrines, such as military doctrines.76.111.80.228 (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If you follow the foreign policy doctrine link, you will see such a listing. If you like, please participate on Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations or similar. It covers other countries, international relations. Please make contributions, as improvements are very welcome to the articles on Wikipedia, keeping them current and updated. Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a political tool

It's unfortunate to see that this article has undergone any changes at all ever since the Palin interview. When she faltered in her answer, did the the Bush Doctrine somehow transform into a completely vague and indefinable concept? Reading this Wikipedia entry would lead one to believe so. How else could this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bush_Doctrine&diff=238516479&oldid=237795986 be explained?

Wikipedia shouldn't be a place for conservatives or liberals, or anyone else for that matter, to come running to in an attempt to propagate their own viewpoint. This article ought to be reverted to its state prior to all the partisan bickering. In light of the controversy, it would be justifiable to add a new section at the bottom mentioning the Palin interview (in a completely neutral tone, of course), but it's a shame to see what's become of this article ever since it became a major subject in the elections, and I hope this doesn't signify a trend for Wikipedia as a whole.

Matthcx (talk) 07:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If as to mention the Palin interview, it should be as a note on the pursuant controversy and linked to the personal article on Sarah Palin, where it should be further elaborated on - with a full section or paragraph. It certainly deserves mentioning in the Bush Doctrine because of the rampant controversy, and is therefore linked to the doctrine historically. Scierguy (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that this is worthy of inclusion. If this is a big deal in 6 months, then maybe. --Tom 15:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to agree with you, Tom. That is why I said if... ;-) Scierguy (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question whether the Palin interview should be referenced here, the interview has obviously focused attention on this entry, thus attracting new readers that may help improve the encyclopedic quality of the entry. Ergo, editing is warranted and the article shouldn't simply be reverted to its prior state.Rruitenberg (talk) 18:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100% on this. A Controversy section is definitely merited. It should not be much more than a short reference to a fuller section under the Sarah Palin article. That is my Wikipedian opinion. Scierguy (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean? The bush doctorine is an extremely abiguous term. Bush has never once even uttered the phrase "Bush doctrine" or "my doctorine". Krauthammer, the guy who invented the term, even said that Palin was right to question the question posed to her, and that Gibson was the one who got it wrong. Even the opening of this entry says that the term arose out of sept. 11 attacks, yet the phrasology was used by charkes many months earlier, on an issue that had absolutely nothing to do with more recent interpretations of the "Bush doctorine". It is nothing more than a weasel word used by the media. The only controvery seems to be Gibson's lack of understanding of what the Bush doctorine all entails. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.29.150 (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Respected and renowned experts on foreign relations understand what Bush Doctrine is, and talks about it. Let them be the ones defining what it is and not is. Example from Charles R. Kesler http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1218/article_detail.asp . I think there is an established fact, and even Cheney mention the Bush Doctrine. Personal interpretations by Wikipedians is not the point, unless they have expertise on the topic and can verify this. What you call a weasel word is established science by the experts on the field. Scierguy (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, what the heck does the guy who actually invented the term know about its meaning(s)? Wikipedians know better! Here's a newsflash: "doctrines" are usually a general summation of a president's policy choices of the entirety of their presidency, and are usually only codified in "expert" vernacular after their presidency is long over. Even your most crackjob leftist joke of source would be hard pressed to summarize the entire Bush policy as merely attacking countries pre-emptively. That's a quite a tough sell. The reality is there are at least four or five different ways to interpret the term "bush doctrine", a fact Gibson's leftist ignorance prevented him from understanding. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457_pf.html

Third Opinion requested

I am requesting more Wikipedian opinions and Wikipedia:Third opinion on the including of Bush Doctrine comments, criticism and defence - essentially the ideological views on the Bush Doctrine that are disputed between renowned experts, scholars and others. I include references to renowned experts on international relations and renowned scholars, as well as original sources. This information is central to the controversy over the Bush Doctrine, and belong to this article - not to be scattered elsewhere - when they deal with the Bush Doctrine and its policies in its interity. Your Wikipedian opinion on this is very welcome. I first added this to the section on the Bush Doctrine essence that I had contributed earlier, but I concede that the opinion of not bloating the introduction is very sensible. However I think the references and information should be kept in this article, since they are on the topic of the Bush Doctrine as put in effect by George W. Bush, its practices and effects, and not on neoconservatism separately from the Bush Doctrine. See also Talk:Bush Doctrine#Bush Doctrine background. Please include your opinion here in this section, as a form for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Thank you. Scierguy (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

An editor consensus on the validity of the Bush Doctrine central ideology, neutral comments, criticisms and intellectual defence from renowned foreign relations experts, scholars and original sources has been reached, and the dispute is therefore settled. Thank you all. Scierguy (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Central criticism

I have rewritten and added the formerly reverted information on the central ideology, and included even more sources. It was reverted from the introduction of the article, and I agree we should avoid bloating of the introduction. It was therefore a compromise proposal to add this under the Bush Doctrine#Criticisms section, since it included neutral comments, criticism and defence of its central idea forming the collection of decisions and strategies expressed by the doctrine. Editor consensus on the inclusion of this information has been reached in a former dispute. See Talk:Bush Doctrine#Bush Doctrine background. Discuss the recent additions and continuation in this section here on the central criticisms to the Bush Doctrine. The information added pertains to the Bush Doctrine, and not any single of its policies. Therefore the rightful location of this information is in this article. Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Korny_O'Near, you are replacing references to the the various phrases - misrepresenting them. Please be constructive and discuss here instead of adding your personal expertise on the topic. Edit wars are not a constructive contribution. Scierguy (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Charles R. Kesler notes in http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1218/article_detail.asp - "By comparison, the Bush Doctrine puts the democratization of once totalitarian, quondam authoritarian, and persistently tribal societies at the center of its objectives." I am therefore reverting your rewrite of the phrase, and adding Kesler as a reference. I will be adding more references as well. Korny, you should discuss edits on these phrases here, to not perpetuate an edit war. Please help on this topic. Scierguy (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Referenced in the Bush Doctrine main article page, the source "The Bush Doctrine and the Iraq War: Neoconservatives vs. Realists" - http://www.bisa.ac.uk/2007/pps/schmidt.pdf - quotes "The second element of the Bush Doctrine is the commitment, when the circumstances warrant, to the preemeptive use of military force. The policy of preemption is perhaps the most controversial element of the Bush Doctrine and because of the profound implications of the policy it has received the lion’s share of attention. In light of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Bush administration depicted a threat environment radically different from that which existed during the Cold War. The most worrisome threats were deemed to be rogue states and terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction (WMD)." -- and -- "While the policy of preemption does indeed have radical implications for the prevailing rules and norms regarding the use of force, especially those embodied in the United Nations Charter, it is important to recall that during the Cold War many neoconservatives never fully supported the policy of deterrence. Several of the neoconservatives in the Bush administration advocating preemption and preventive war were influenced by Albert Wohlstetter’s critiques of the policy of nuclear deterrence and mutually assured destruction (MAD), and his promotion of a much more forceful policy toward the Soviet Union including plans to fight and win a nuclear war."

I am adding this reference, published by the British International Studies Association, to the statement about how the Bush Doctrine differs radically from former United States policies. Scierguy (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I have no idea what you're talking about. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Some good edits, Korny - except that you reintroduced the misrepresentation of MacDonald. The quote you are referring to is on "the situation in the United States" as a whole - and is not related to the Bush Doctrine itself. The Bush Doctrine and neoconservatism with its radical activism is referred throughout the paper. The criticism I have cited from this paper is the explanation of the radical roots of the Bush Doctrine and its ideology. The claim you are falsely representing in this context of the Bush Doctrine are wrong. The citation on MacDonald must be changed so that it pertains to the Bush Doctrine, and NOT "the situation in United States" as a whole - which goes beyond the doctrine policies - including ethnic and sociological claims beyond the doctrine itself. I appeal to you to correct this misrepresentation - look at page 98, the conclusion - which you already seem familiar with. Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, what's a better quote from that paper? The words "Bush Doctrine" never even appear. The entire paper is about how Jews have taken over foreign policy, so I thought it was a representative quote - I assume "the situation" refers to Bush's foreign policy. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Read the paper then, it talks of Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz as well as the Bush policies. You are also sabotaging the references I have been adding - gravely misrepresenting them. If you cannot see the difference of which reference goes to which phrase, then please stop making the editing so much more difficult by erroneously moving them around. I can see that you are simply copying paragraphs from former editions, and that is NOT how you integrate into paragraphs that have changed in between. Please be constructive in this effort. Scierguy (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, again I have no idea what you're talking about. And I did read the paper - that's how I know what's it about, and how I found the quote. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The full sentence you are misquoting from MacDonald's paper is:

"The current situation in the United States is a really an awesome display of Jewish power and influence."

While you quoted it as:

Scholar Kevin B. MacDonald called neoconservatism "an awesome display of Jewish power and influence."

I can see the difference, and I will compromise to include the full sentence. I hope you can agree on this, although I think you could have chosen a better quote to representing his views on the Bush administration policies or the ideology behind the practical policies as they are discussed. Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I also find the broader views of MacDonald on ethnicity not something that I personally agree with. I originally quoted his paper as a supporting view on the radical roots of the conservatism and how these radical ideas influenced the disparity between the Bush Doctrine and the Reagan Doctrine. As a matter of gravely misrepresenting the central criticism about the Bush doctrine, the paragraph is now being used as an attack on Jews, which I find disturbing - and frankly non-NPOV. I welcome further views on this. If MacDonald's treatment of the disparity between Reagan Doctrine and Bush Doctrine and the radical roots of this is completely objectionable, I suggest we remove the MacDonald reference, since there are more than enough renowned experts on international relations and foreign policy who also support the view on this disparity. I find the sentence similar to "a Jewish conspiracy" to be slightly disturbed thinking, and I have used sources that shows there is no such "conspiracy". With the controversy of MacDonald - he is better left out of this context. Can we agree on this? Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Just what I like seeing. Radical right wing christians pushing an agenda here by quoting radical right wing christians pushing an agenda in the real world. That's got to be the most bigoted, obnoxious and wholely out of context quote, even with a full sentence. Implying that neoconservatism is a jewish movement is a mess, and the partial quote appearing in this article makes out like the radical christian right isn't responsible for america'scurent situation, but all jews are. Nice bigot push. ThuranX (talk) 05:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, the MacDonald quote is extremely objectionable, and reeks of POV-centric view. In my opinion it does not belong in the article at all, and the MacDonald reference is best removed to "keep the balance" of Wikipedians. I call for anyone finding the quote by MacDonald strongly objectional as to being POV-centric to cast an editor vote here. So we can reach some minimal consensus. I vote for removal of the MacDonald phrase and also the removal of the MacDonald reference - to keep the peace. Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 05:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think neither of the quotes above belong in this article. Firstly the current quote is about neoconservatism in general, and not the Bush Doctrine in specific, and secondly that type of claim totally looks like POV agenda pushing, there is nothing in the paragraph to balance that claim, and there is no assertion of the notability of that claim in relation to the Bush Doctrine (i.e. WP:WEIGHT). cheers, --guyzero | talk 06:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The original idea with the paragraph was to show the renowned experts consensual criticism on the step away from the Reagan Doctrine by the Bush Doctrine, and how this was ideologically founded. This is also something I have quoted in detail here - for keeping the rationale whilst among the rampant edits, removals of paragraphs and jumbling around of the references which made the editing process very strenuous and complicated. The introduction of the phrase by MacDonald defaces the effort to bring the valid criticism from experts and presenting the gist of their analysis. This also goes for the support of the Bush Doctrine, which also is a concern for me - in keeping the article balanced. I find the introduction of the phrase and the subsequent enforcing of the phrase, as close as possible to sabotaging any efforts on this topic. Scierguy (talk) 06:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this can be used as a reliable source as it looks alot more like a fringe theory. - I support removing the entire phrase in question

“ Scholar Kevin B. MacDonald called neoconservatism "an awesome display of Jewish power and influence." ”

Not only is this an egregrious generalization, bu also Anti-Semitic.

I've also found that this article makes outlandish statement such as that that 'Zionism supported Hitler' (pg 39) as well as stating to an extent that "Aliyah is illegal" --Superflewis (talk) 06:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I gather that we have reached a consensus, except for User:Korny O'Near who introduced the sentence. Since he is not responding, and we all find it not in Wikipedia interest to have the phrase there - I will remove the phrase and also the reference to MacDonald - which is neither needed or helpful for keeping the peace. MacDonald is a very controversial scholar at best. It was getting late - but I applaud you guys for supporting the NPOV stance of this article. Thank you all. Scierguy (talk) 06:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm back. Yes, I have no problem with removing that reference - I, too, thought it was a piece of trash. I just think it's important to quote articles that are being cited, instead of just having a string of reference tags. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you introduced something completely different to the paragraph - not in line with gist of the paragraph on the disparity claims between Bush Doctrine and Reagan Doctrine. This adversely affected the paragraph in a negative manner, and poisoned it with an objectionable strong POV-centric phrase. If you feel so strongly about this topic on the neoconservative background for the Bush Doctrine, I suggest you discuss here on the talk page, or even privately message me if you have objections to any of my contribution, so that we can avoid these silly disputes. I am not interested in a tug-of-war with you or any edit wars, but am interested in the quality of this article. I am in no way affiliated with any politics, political party or any activist movement - my contributions to Wikipedia should clearly be reflecting this- and I hope you can say the same in your editing. That is being constructive and preserving the intention of Wikipedia. Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Um... the Criticism section is already "POV-centric". In any case, please stop re-adding the reference to the "Free Dictionary" article - it's just a Wikipedia mirror. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the Free Dictionary reintroduction was by Superflewis, but since there was a great jumbling on the references in the reverts and edits, I'm not sure how it got in there. Scierguy (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay, sorry. Well, I'm removing it again - it's definitely "superflewis". Korny O'Near (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Dick Cheney is not a neoconservative

Not everyone who signed the PNAC statement of principles is a neoconservative, and Dick Cheney certainly is not. Although I think the bigger issue is that this article is getting so "neocon"-heavy in the first place - Bush's foreign policy was obviously influenced by neoconservative principles, but in the end it's his policy. And please, ScierGuy, no need to respond with a 1000-word missive, okay? Brevity is the soul of wit. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I see a continuing pattern that your contributions to this article is solely based on the removal of content. Scierguy (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Korny, I appeal to you that we share similar interests as Wikipedians - and that you IMPROVE inaccuracies, and not simply DELETE content. For example the passage on the PNAC could be improved - like I later did - instead of simply deleting it because of it not passing some standards. Scierguy (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, we have already have been through earlier with you disputing addition on the central ideology and its criticism in relation to the Bush Doctrine. I see no point in you repeating your earlier dispute that we already settled, and you agreed upon. I uphold that world view on the central criticism of the Bush Doctrine, as referenced with internationally renowned experts on foreign relations politics, is the ideological connection to neoconservatism. Norman Podhoretz even mocks Bush in his Is the Bush Doctrine Dead?, as not being one strictly adhering to the neoconservative ideology among other personal remarks he has attributed to the intellectual capacity of President Bush. Contributions from experts from various countries, affiliations and political sides is being included in my contributions - and I continuously try to improve on the content. If you have some "personal concern" about the relation of the Bush Doctrine to neoconservatism - then please state your expertise on international relations and the Bush Doctrine, so this can be included and improving the article. The world view held by experts, evident in all the referenced material, is that the neoconservative ideological foundation of the doctrine has been a concern, and that this ideology is widely held as a political radicalism. I am planning to include more contributions that treat the practicality of individual policies - including history, criticism, scientific commentary and intellectual defence. This will naturally touch upon the ideological rooting of the doctrine - but this is as I am pointing out - the recurring theme in the scientific work being done by experts on the field. Therefore - to sum up - please state you expertise in saying that "there is too much talk about neoconservative influence" on the Bush Doctrine. Please be constructive, and help IMPROVE this article, in stead of doing DELETIONs of content. Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no need to apologize for deleting inaccuracies; every editor does it. And all we agreed on is that links to the Bush Doctrine that citations exist for (like the one you found for compassionate conservatism) belong in the article. But stuff in the article like James Burnham's ideas about a "managerial state" seems extremely tangential, and I don't know if there's a notable source out there that's connected that in any way to Bush's foreign policy. I don't need to have any expertise on the matter - that's the nice thing about Wikipedia's "no original research" policy; all I (or anyone else) need to know is how to cite outside sources. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

See here http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/mar2006/leip-m31.shtml for how James Burnham became a strong anti-communist and influence on the extreme right-wing in American politics. I am further improving this content. Great additions on the policy rationale into Aftghanistan. I will see if I can find some references too - however, it is so recent on the War in North-West Pakistan, and the US has been more silent or denied information, so it is a little difficult to find good references. I do think it is widely recognized that the US uses the doctrine and its polices as foundation for action in Pakistan, but comments on this is still sparse so the fact-tag is very appropriate for improving the passage. Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

In Irving Kristol's Forty Good Years (2005) he wrote: "My Republican vote [in the 1972 presidential election] produced little shock waves in the New York intellectual community. It didn't take long - a year or two - for the socialist writer Michael Harrington to come up with the term "neoconservative" to describe a renegade liberal like myself. To the chagrin of some of my friends, I decided to accept that term; there was no point calling myself a liberal when no one else did." As you can see - there is the radical roots from Trotskyism as pointed out by the experts on this subject. Scierguy (talk) 12:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

As I've said before, I'm not questioning any of this; only strongly questioning its relevance to this article. Also, I don't believe the Bush Doctrine has been applied to Pakistan - if it were, the U.S. would be attacking the Pakistani government/military directly. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I see you still question the criticism centring on the neoconservative ideology in the Bush Doctrine. Why do you do this? It is a generally held world view, and the theme of international experts who comment on the Bush Doctrine. What expertise have you to disqualify their knowledge in international relations. These are prominent and renowned experts, authors. I also reference articles giving the historical information and the gist of the original ideas that have formed this doctrine. I think this greatly explains to all us Wikipedians how the Bush Doctrine is controversial, and further enlightens the topic. Historians and experts on international relations are the ones who shed light and explain this to us. I am not adding anything that is outside of the scope of the history, gist and comments of the Bush Doctrine. We have already reached a consensus that this is relevant to the article - being the central theme of controversy to the Bush Doctrine. It has given rise to many outrageous claims as well, and shedding light on the factual history is in the service of this article, debunking myths and stomping speculation from those that do not know the history of the ideas and how they pertain to the Bush Doctrine. Don't you agree that this in the service for us all? Showing what the Bush Doctrine englobes, its practical policies, ideas, as well as the historical facts and insight from experts - is what this article is about. I cannot see how you can start disagreeing on this once again, and do not understand your objections from an NPOV interest on the topic. What YOU believe to be true or false on the Bush Doctrine is frankly not interesting to me unless you can state your expertise... Scierguy (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me try phrasing it a different way, since you don't seem to understand what I'm saying: there doesn't seem to be anyone out there, expert or otherwise, other than you, who thinks that (for instance) James Burnham's ideas about a "managerial elite" have anything to do with the Bush Doctrine. Burnham's ideas may be controversial, and the Bush Doctrine may be controversial, but those are two different controversies. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Korny, your impatience precedes what I am contributing to this article. Here is a little of what I am alluding to: http://www.lsus.edu/la/journals/ideology/contents/neoconservatism.htm from http://www.lsus.edu/la/journals/ideology/contents/neoconservatism.htm from http://www.lsus.edu/la/journals/ideology/archives.htm and http://mises.org/story/1842 . Just because YOU don't understand the connection between Irving Kristol, James Burnham, neoconservatism and the Bush Doctrine - does NOT make you an expert, and clearly just shows that you do not have any insight on the philosophy, ideology, history or the foundation on the Bush Doctrine. If you have some expert insight - then state your expertise on this subject. I will call attention to any deletions of content that YOU RULE inappropriate - when in fact world renowned EXPERTS make it a point. Will you please STOP your views on what the Bush Doctrine is or NOT IS, unless you can state your expertise? We already reached a consensus, and you are just repeating your LACK of insight to this discussion. Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Anyone else reading this, and want to back up either me or this guy? Korny O'Near (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Korny, look here - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias#Bush Doctrine. I will be involving more editors and Wikipedia administrators - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Bush Doctrine dispute - shortly to see through this. I have also noticed the various Wikiprojects associated with this article. Hopefully we can get an end to this ongoing dispute of WHAT IS and what IS NOT the Bush Doctrine. I vote for letting the shared world-view held by experts on the Bush Doctrine, philosophy, history and international relations be the NPOV understanding of what is the doctrine. Scierguy (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Expansion of content

I have been expanding content under sections and organizing with more references, quotes and subtopics. This a work in progress, so please add a {{fact}} or similar tags for voicing concern about content addition instead of removing content. It is part of the democratic Wikipedia process to try and improve content, not remove content. I have more subsections that I have been working on, and they are central to balancing the article through neutrality in both criticism and defence of the Bush Doctrine, its foundations and its policies. Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is getting beyond out of control. Maybe alot of this material should be added to a criticism of George Bush article? Thanks --Tom 14:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

As I am saying, I am adding to the article with references, there are however many references, and as you can see I am updating these. It is pertaining to the Bush Doctrine, as I have repeated before. There is no need to be impatient, as I am continuously adding the respective references. The {{fact}} tags were added by me as placeholders. I do not see as to WHY you would remove content. Do you claim it is not related to the Bush Doctrine, its ideological foundation, principle strategies and practical policy decisions? Scierguy (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the conspiracy theories section will be included - for NPOV sake, with complete renowned sourcing of all the statements - numerous references on each of them. I just thought the section would be left there for a few more hours, since I explained my intentions and already said I was expanding further, sourcing more on that specific section, even. This is relatively labour intensive, and many references to keep track of. Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed material that didn't seem relevant. --Tom 15:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Just like with User:Korny O'Near, I must ask YOU, what kind of expertise YOU HAVE on the Bush Doctrine, judging what is relevant, if international experts are commenting on the Bush Doctrine. Should we not include central issues being discussed at great lengths by renowned experts? There are several sides to an article, and NPOV guides us to include and not keep bias against some sides of a topic. As long as it is related material from renowned experts on the topic, widely known and accepted - represents a world-view, gets properly and verifiable sourced - then it belongs here - treating the topic of the Bush Doctrine. I already pre-empted with an explanation to what I am doing, and I hope you can agree that I am improving the article - but it takes more than just a few minutes, so some patience would be helpful. Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I appreciate that a lot of hard work has gone into this article lately to expand it, but I'm concerned that the weight and information contained in the controversy section is now far exceeding the rest of the article. Lengthy criticisms of Bush foreign policy, the neoconservative movement, etc. belong in their respective articles. Please look at focusing and paring down the criticism section to be just related to the article subject in specific (not the many criticisms of it's application which belong in a foreign policy article or related issues which belong in neoconservativism, radicals, etc.) The entire sections for compassionate conservatism, ghost detainees, and big chunks of the radicalism section are not about the Bush Doctrine in specific and do not belong in the article. thanks, --guyzero | talk 16:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I am including references on the ideas behind the Bush Doctrine, forming them - and the criticism that is received. I am also expanding on what the Bush Doctrine is - which is not criticism - but reflecting the rationale, ideas and logic in the doctrine. It takes time to write content. Please be patient. I am concentrating on this section of the overview and development right now, since I understand that you think there is "too much criticism". But let me ask you this: Is your expert opinion on the Bush Doctrine that it has been received by LITTLE CRITICISM? I understand that it may later turn into more articles, as the content expands - but that is all that Wikipedia is about; improving and adding quality content. Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A central point in the defence and criticism of the Bush Doctrine are the ideas shaping the doctrine. These ideas are so central to the Bush Doctrine, and can not be excluded without also excluding the defences and criticisms themselves. Should we just anonymize everything into non-expressive words "critics" and "some criticism". I am adding content and expanding on the defence and criticism being voiced by supporters and opponents of the Bush Doctrine, as well as scientific comment relevant to the Bush Doctrine foundation - giving insight to the doctrine, without having to go through all the material I am going through to get an idea what the experts are in fact talking about. This article is summing up the ideas and content of the doctrine, the effects it has had, and the response from experts on the topic. Scierguy (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Items that directly led to the creation of the Bush Doctrine, reliably sourced, can maybe go into the development section. Please see my note above, there are sections in the criticism section that are not specifically about the Bush Doctrine. If they are under construction, they should be sandboxed until they are ready. To repeat, much of the criticisms for the application of the Bush Doctrine belongs in the Bush foreign policy article. The bits about radicalism, compassionate conservatism, and ghost detainees appear to not belong at all as they either are not criticisms, or are unsourced. Please trim the criticism section down to just be about the Bush Doctrine in specific. thanks, --guyzero | talk 16:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I am expanding it - not trimming it. Structuring into subsections also allows for the further development and linking of related articles to the subsections. ;-) Scierguy (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Experts on the topic of the Bush Doctrine, are discussing the fundamental ideas behind the doctrine in relation to the Bush Doctrine itself and its policies. Scierguy (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The article's currently full of crap like Charles Murray's thoughts on "living a good life", that's completely unrelated to the Bush Doctrine. Hopefully it'll get deleted soon. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do you say Charles Murray is crap? Murray is a researcher, the Bradley Fellow at American Enterprise Institute with frequent articles, and influential with leading neoconservatives, just like James Burnham. They speak of the same type of elite theory, and this is part of the rationale for the unilateralism in the Bush Doctrine. I have massive content works under way... It is very comprehensive - and all exacerbated in number because of the Bush Doctrine and the ideas represented by the doctrine. It is very interesting, and I have an interest in philosophy, that's why I find the subject very fascinating. Scierguy (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree that the section is crap -- it's properly sourced and well written. The issue I see is that none of the sources or Murray himself seem to be discussing the Bush Doctrine, the subject of this article. Please connect that paragraph to the article topic without synthesis, or please edit out the Murray bits. thanks, --guyzero | talk 23:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I meant it's crap in the context of this article. I'm sure Charles Murray's a good guy. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed the Murray bits [9] as the section and quote were not regarding the Bush Doctrine. Most of that section seems to be a criticism of Bush himself or of the "ruling elite", neither of which is the subject of this article. --guyzero | talk 16:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

More references are coming. As you can see it is still a work in progress... ;-) Scierguy (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

<- I left an incorrect edit summary here: [10]. I meant to say that the web accessible refs to NOT make the claim that the disagreement over the Bush Doctrine is a reflection of the US domestic political struggle. An RS needs to state that explicitly for inclusion. thanks, --guyzero | talk 17:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You could have just tagged it instead of removing it. I will rephrase it, making it more accurate to become more acceptable for you. Also splitting it into stronger separate phrases. Thanks for pointing out the weakness; I see the other more central reference was forgotten there. I have the references... it's just so many of them in improving this article. ;-) Scierguy (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I added in "relevance disputed" tags in a bunch of the new sections. Here are my thoughts on what should be deleted from each section I tagged:

• "International organizations and unilateralism" - the idea that the Bush Doctrine "came under stress" due to the UN's lack of support for the Iraq War - it doesn't make sense, since the doctrine holds that unilateral action is justified

• "Foreign interventionism" - the varied thoughts, on matters both foreign and domestic, of Joshua Muravchik

• "War of ideology" - the theory of the "elite", and conservatives' thoughts on poverty

• "Radicalism" - much more about the "elite theory"

• "Democratic processes, elite theory and secrecy" - basically the whole thing, since almost all of it is yet more expounding on the "elite theory"

• "Polarization" - Bush's desire to be a "uniter not a divider"

• "Psychological strategy and effects" - possibly the whole section, since it covers (I suppose) Bush's handling of the war on terror, which is an implementation of the Bush Doctrine as opposed to the doctrine itself

Korny O'Near (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Korny, the passage on the UN will be improved. The principles set forth by the Bush Doctrine in relation to foreign interventionism has come under immense criticism - by EXPERTS. Ideology - it will be expanded further, maybe even more subsections - since this is such an enormous part of the criticism against the Bush Doctrine. Radicalism - it IS held by experts that the Bush Doctrine and the ideology forming the doctrine are political radicalism. Democratic processes - further expansion, subsections will be forthcoming. It evolves directly with the Bush Doctrine principles and ideology. Polarization - further content on the Bush Doctrine and how it has polarized allies and the US domestic public (e.g see Jonathan Monten - he is an expert, YOU ARE NOT). Psychological - massive stuff coming about Karl Rove, denialism, culture of fear and more - relating to international and domestic support/criticism for the doctrine. Scierguy (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Korny, your dispute-tags... I will be adding defending views on each of the subsections - and then remove the tags when there is balance in the subsections. Do YOU have any insight on WHAT the disputed facts are? You seem like an expert on the topic. Please provide some REFERENCES to the DISPUTED FACTS that you are claiming. Or are you just tagging the sections, because they reflect YOUR disputes with them? Scierguy (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

He did respond, directly above. I share his concerns about the direct relevance of some of these sections to the article subject -- this is not an article about neoconservatism, elite rule, etc. Let's work together to resolve. thanks, --guyzero | talk 19:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I leave it to the experts to have an opinion about what the Bush Doctrine IS or IS NOT. You guys should find references that support the claims that you are making. Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

What claim am I making? --guyzero | talk 19:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

And, Korny, if you want to contribute in a positive manner to this article - e.g read the Kaufman book In Defense of the Bush Doctrine - it is available on Google Books. You clearly are lacking in-depth understanding of the Bush Doctrine, its historical development and the widespread criticism of the doctrine. Take some time and find references, in stead of splattering YOUR OPINION all over the article with tags, or deleting passages, sections... Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of book recommendations, maybe you should read a book on logic - it might point out that you can't make a weak argument stronger by CAPITALIZING THE WORDS. It also might note that you usually can't prove a negative - we can't find a reference that "proves" that elite theory has nothing to do with the Bush Doctrine. That's why the burden of proof is on you, to show that there is any sort of relation between the two - and it has to be stronger than that there exist some people who believe in both: that's called (here comes another logical term) "guilt by association". Korny O'Near (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, just making other points - I used underlining to make points, admitted too. Will improve on this, but I think you understand I am frustrated by your deletions etc. Do you consider that I have been adding too few references on this article? It is a rather large undertaking when adding content. Scierguy (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You have vastly improved this article, nice work. I think the article is well cited except where tagged. The issue that I perceive is that some of the text is focused on neoconservatism in general, elite rule, etc. and the connections made from those ideas to the development or application of the Bush Doctrine must be explicitly reliably sourced and clear to the reader. Also I'm worried that the opinions of single experts, article writers, etc. are given some WP:UNDUE weight. We'll need to clarify if those opinions are small/large minority or majority opinions. Unfortunately, I don't have time at the moment to give the text the careful review it deserves, but I wanted to reassure you that you are doing good work and it looks to be well cited. Please don't be frustrated or take edits personally, we're all trying to improve the article. thanks, --guyzero | talk 21:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I must repeat again - the Bush Doctrine is seen as being about ideology - see Kaufman's book In Defense of the Bush Doctrine. It is available on Google Books and is a good read - truly recommended. Also see Bush Doctrine#Initial formation. Please state references to otherwise (not being about ideology), or is it your personal opinion? I am literally swamping the article with references, and have to do due diligence in the vetting of these references. The article is progressing, and I greatly appreciate the help that is sometimes given. However, I find the rampant deletions very detrimental to my improving the article - which is greatly frustrating. As you can clearly see - it is not "hearsay" that I am providing as content - but experts, commentators, and relevant contributions to the topic of the Bush Doctrine. I would like to think that readers of this article now have a much clearer understanding of what is the Bush Doctrine - and that is my objective in this. Some readers may not be aware of what the doctrine is, and certainly not about the widespread commenting of the Bush Doctrine. Please help me further in improving the article. Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Any edits I've made are always open for discussion and are detailed on the article talkpage or in the edit summaries. If you have an issue with a particular edit, then please address it specifically rather than making generalizations. --guyzero | talk 22:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we can all agree on one thing: the editing process has been thoroughly disputed. This also reflects on the "protected status" of this article. However, I think we have already agreed on the "vastly improved" quality of this article from the start of our contributions, as I hope other Wikipedia editors and readers would recognize. I hope it is also clear that I am taking initiatives to dispute resolutions through editor consensus - as per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, as well as calling for neutral comments on the editing. I think this is in line with the "spirit of Wikipedia". Scierguy (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

PS! Donald Rumsfeld also has some words on the ideology - see references. Scierguy (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree on the improved quality - I think it's harder now for readers to understand what the Bush Doctrine is than before you started making additions. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I am working on improving the article further, and have more content. I think the Bush Doctrine is displayed better now with the prominent structuring of the content into subsections and my addition of the important actual quotes from President Bush. I regret that you disagree, but I consider that your personal opinion. More content and improvements to the flow and structure of the article are on their way. Be patient. Can I have some leniency as to you giving me a few more hours working on this? I hope you are also preparing content improvements on your side, as we will all be benefiting. If you have additional content that you feel is important - please contribute them, as I am sure we will all help in keeping the flow of the article and structure to a acceptable level, and continue all our efforts. I hope you are not calling for a minimalist version of this article on the Bush Doctrine? ;-) Scierguy (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Improvement

Guyzero, your moving of the part on the central development background from the introduction to the development was a great improvement. Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks! --guyzero | talk 21:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The shear number of references

The number of references used is now 114. I have more content that is on its way - important content for this article, showing the various sides to the Bush Doctrine and its response among experts on fields not yet covered; but which are very central to the understanding of the Bush Doctrine. I am also looking into planning for future structuring of this topic, as it is profoundly immense. It is important from an historical perspective, as well as from a perspective of giving quality to Wikipedia as a reliable source for educational purposes. Look forward to the contributions from other editors as well. Thank you. Scierguy (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Radicalism

Hi, the criticism section on radicalism does not really contain any criticisms about the Bush Doctrine until National Review quote in the second-to-last paragraph. The lengthy Harvard International Review quote and the first couple paragraphs of information about neoconservatism (and it's radicalism) appears to be background information for use in either Bush Doctrine history/development and/or neoconservative history. I think the point that is trying to be made is that critics see neoconservatism as radical, therefore Bush Doctrine is radical. That point isn't directly connected in the current text of the first few paragraphs and I'm not sure all of the background information is really needed (and likely unbalances NPOV) even if the connection can be made. thanks, --guyzero | talk 19:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawing from further contributions

I will not be developing this article further. Disturbing personal events in "real life" have lead to this, and I understand that this article is very controversial in the current political climate. I therefore separate myself from this work. My looking into the history and background of this doctrine, its ideology and strategy has been revealing and eye-opening to say the least. I cannot with good conscience continue to contribute further to the article, and I fear that my further contributions would imply a strong systemic bias towards the structure and information of this article. I ask for others to look into the errors I might already have committed. I also separate myself from further developments on the article foreign interventionism for the same reasons. Other editors can continue the work of improving these articles. Beware of negationism, denialism or your own systemic bias - media democracy, collective intelligence.
Heed the wise words of Donald Rumsfeld on the "war of ideas" from his 2006 speech at the War Academy.

Please do NOT contact me on any issue about this - the Bush Doctrine, foreign interventionism, any article or about Wikipedia, as I will not be responding and I will not be logged to Wikipedia any longer. This is not in any way any accusation of anyone - it is just my personal conscience and fully my personal decision, not under the command of anyone.

Remember what IS and what is NOT a democracy, and what privacy policy means.
Wikipedia Privacy policy update April 2008
Take care. The article is fully "yours".
All the best to you all in your Wikipedia endavours, Scierguy (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow - I hope everything turns out fine in your life. Despite our disagreements, it was a pleasure talking with you, and I wish you all the best. Korny O'Near (talk)

Section on Democratic Regime Change

I visited this article for some background research on the justifications of the Bush Doctrine for the imposition of democracy. However, the relevant section is not very strong and has a number of incoherencies. That may be rather that the 'doctrine' itself is incoherent. Nevertheless, this section should probably be improved. I removed a number of grammatical errors and seeming contradictions, but have not yet done research necessary to bring this up to quality standard. Also, the title itself is ambiguous. 'Democratic regime change' could be read as regime change through democratic means, which neither the Iraq nor Afghanistan war would qualify for. Perhaps this would be more accurate as "Promoting Democracy through Regime Change", although this might be a bit long.Cicero79 (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Cicero79

I am not sure that title would be accurate. Bush regime change hasn't created Imperial toadys, but has it really promoted democracy? I think both the current title and your proposed title put a slight editorial gloss on the issue. Can we try to think of a neutral way of putting it? Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)