In the span of four years, the Bush Administration has been forced to rethink the pre-emptive "Bush doctrine" by which it hoped to remake the world, as the strategy's ineffectiveness was exposed by the very policies it prescribed, TIME's Mike Allen and Romesh Ratnesar report in this weeks cover story on 'The End of Cowboy Diplomacy' on newsstands Monday, July 9th.
President George W. Bush came to office pledging to focus on domestic issues and pursue a "humble" foreign policy that would avoid the entanglements of the Bill Clinton years. After Sept. 11, however, the Bush team embarked on a different path, outlining a muscular, idealistic, and unilateralist vision of American power and how to use it, TIME reports. They aimed to lay the foundation for a grand strategy to fight Islamic terrorists and rogue states, by spreading democracy around the world and pre-empting gathering threats before they materialize. And the U.S. wasn't willing to wait for others to help. The approach fit with Bush's personal style, his self-professed proclivity to dispense with the nuances of geopolitics and go with his gut. "The Bush Doctrine is actually being defined by action, as opposed to by words," Bush told Tom Brokaw aboard Air Force One in 2003.
The swaggering Commander in Chief who embodied the doctrine's aspirations has modulated himself too. At a press conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair in May, Bush swore off the Wild West rhetoric of getting enemies "dead or alive," conceding, "in certain parts of the world, it was misinterpreted." Bush's response to the North Korean missile test was equally revealing. Under the old Bush Doctrine, defiance by a dictator like Kim Jong Il would have merited threats of punitive U.S. action-or at least a tongue lashing. Instead, the Administration has mainly been talking up multilateralism and downplaying Pyongyang's provocation. As much as anything, it's confirmation of what Princeton political scientist Gary J. Bass calls "doctrinal flameout." Put another way: cowboy diplomacy, RIP.
I can't say I disagree with this...
It has been my belief that Bush has been beaten down by the MSM and the liberal PC world...he doesn't have the stomach to do what needs to be done in the GLOBAL war on terror...which in my opinion would be to take out the entire "Axis of Evil"...
He knew what was going on in the beginning, he knew better than all the people who called him an idiot everyday, that these three countries could start WWIII...
But I am not so sure he has it in him anymore...
Should he be doing what he is doing?
Should he step it up and do after Iran and North Korea?
What needs to be done here?
Sunday, July 09, 2006
TIME MAG: THE END OF COWBOY DIPLOMACY
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
Clinton got abused just as much as Bush, a detail all the whiney Cons seems to forget, and still never derailed his programs and agenda.
different when the media is on your side (clinton)
That's the point, Game. The media WAS NOT on Clinton's side. Are you so young you can't remember? The media hounded him from day one pushed by the Richard Mellon Scaife money.
I repeat: the media was NOT on Clinton's side.
Jim, I am very disappointed in you...I wrote this blog, this story, giving a very straight down the middle criticism of the war on terror...and you say nothing about it...I was really trying to give an objective view, and I think I did a good job...you yell at me all time for being partisan and copying Rush and Sean...can we get back to any debate anymore??? You try and debate on Fred's page Jim....
Game: Sometimes I don't feel like taking the time to get into a protracted debate on a particular post. Sometimes it's easy to simply refute the obvious, for example the absurd assertion that the media was on Clinton's side.
That said, I think you will find that my comments in your WWIII has started post will address your points made here.
So, when Newsweek had the story about monica and wouldn't run it...that was them being against Bill?
Hummmm....interesting
Newsweek's Michael Isakoff was all over Clinton from Whitewater on. He met with Paula Jones' team (and I'm pretty sure Lucianne Goldberg and Linda Tripp) many times. He was writing negative articles about Clinton for years.
It is quite evident that the media was not soft on Clinton. I am unaware that Newsweek unduly witheld any major story about Clinton but would welcome your link to a citation proving that it did. Even so, I hardly think that Newsweek witholding a story could rationally be characterized as the media being on Clinton's side.
Here is your "leader".
my leader is john murtha???
anyway...
It was MATT DRUDGE that broke that story...everyone knows it, don't even need a link...they FINALLY ran with it after the drudge report broke it first...hummmmm, why would they sit on such a story...
I am positive this one will not have a good answer to it
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT EXCLUSIVE XXXXX 13:02:01 EST WED FEB 11 1998 XXXXX
THE DRUDGE REPORT HAS LEARNED, LATE TUESDAY NIGHT, THE NEW YORK TIMES KILLED
TWO STORIES ON THE LEWINSKY/CLINTON SITUATION. ONE STORY INVOLVED AN
EXCLUSIVE REPORT ON NEW EVIDENCE IN THE CASE, BELIEVED TO BE
LEWINSKY/CLINTON LETTERS. THE SECOND STORY INVOLVED A LEWINSKY DRESS. IT IS
NOT KNOWN AT THIS HOUR IF THE STORIES HAVE BEEN BUDGETED FOR THURSDAY... END
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/clinton_scandal/50031.stm
"Newsweek Kills Story on White House Intern: 23-Year-Old, Sex Relationship with President" screamed a Saturday-night headline on the infamous Internet tip sheet, the Drudge Report.
"The Drudge Report has learned that reporter Michael Isikoff developed the story of his career, only to have it spiked by top Newsweek suits hours before publication," the report said.
Holding the story wasn't an issue for Matt Drudge, the maverick Internet reporter who authored the story. Mr Drudge proudly admits that he has no editor but himself. On Saturday, he published the story to the Web's world-wide audience plus, according to his own calculation, his more than 85,000 subscribers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drudge_Report
The Drudge Report is most famous for being the first entity to break news of the Monica Lewinsky scandal to the public, which led to President Clinton's impeachment and subsequent acquittal.
I guess I can use one of your liberal playbook words and call YOU uninformed, hey Jim....
Make sure to post admitting how wrong you were...this one was the easiest EVER
a little more for you:
Drudge first received national attention in 1996 when he broke the news that Jack Kemp would be Republican Bob Dole's running mate in the 1996 presidential election. In 1998, Drudge again made national waves when he broke the news that Newsweek magazine had information on an inappropriate relationship between "a White House intern" and President Bill Clinton (the Monica Lewinsky scandal), but was withholding publication. [6] After Drudge's report, Newsweek published the story
I couldn't find anything about why Newsweek "withheld" Isakoff's story about Lewinsky. Is it at all possible that Newsweek was checking sources and making sure everything was accurate before publishing it?
Or do have some kind of proof that that is not the case?
Post a Comment