| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| The Clinton-Obama-Bush Doctrine |
| 2007-11-19 |
| New York Sun Editorial, November 19, 2007 The big news out of the most recent Democratic presidential debate was that two of the leading Democratic candidates, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, endorsed the Bush Doctrine that is at the core of our current president's foreign policy. We haven't seen it reported anywhere else, but it's a big story. Here's what Mrs. Clinton said: "There's absolutely a connection between a democratic regime and heightened security for the United States." Here's what Mr. Obama said: "The more we see repression, the more there are no outlets for how people can express themselves and their aspirations, the worse off we're going to be, and the more anti-American sentiment there's going to be in the Middle East." Or, as President Bush has put it in enunciating what has come to be known as the Bush Doctrine: "For decades, free nations tolerated oppression in the Middle East for the sake of stability. In practice, this approach brought little stability and much oppression, so I have changed this policy." Or, as he put it again, "Some who call themselves realists question whether the spread of democracy in the Middle East should be any concern of ours. But the realists in this case have lost contact with a fundamental reality: America has always been less secure when freedom is in retreat; America is always more secure when freedom is on the march." Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama spoke their share of silliness during the debate, and they lost no opportunity to criticize the president. But the comments they made about the connection between freedom, democracy, and American national security are a reminder though it may be fashionable to talk about how divided America is, there is a broad consensus on certain key principles, a consensus that extends from Mr. Bush on the right to Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton on the left. It's fashionable, too, these days, to disparage Mr. Bush. But when historians assess the successes of his presidency, the far-sighted among them will surely count as one of his signal accomplishments that he shifted the debate on freedom and democracy and security in the Middle East so decisively that even his political opponents were conducting their debate on his terms. It is one of the president's great contributions, not only to American security but to human liberty. |
| Posted by:Sherry |
| #3 IPSNEWS > HILLARY CLINTON:MORE HEGEMONY, LESS IMPERIALISM. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-11-19 22:54 |
| #2 Does that explain why we have to prop up Musharraf to keep the keys to the nukes out of the hands of Red Mosque types? Idealistically pushing liberty sounds much better than accepting realpolitik solutions. That is, until you see how it installed Hitler, Putin, Achmadinejad, and Hugo Chavez. |
| Posted by: Grumenk Philalzabod0723 2007-11-19 22:40 |
| #1 Yet another reason amongst Net-Media many why MOUD + RADICAL ISLAM can no longer count on anti-Dubya/GOP, ant-US US Politicos-Globalists now or for after Jan 2009. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-11-19 19:20 |