When Charlie Gibson did his "gotcha" interview with Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin his big score was when Palin didn't know the "Bush Doctrine." Gibson asked Palin if she supported the Bush Doctrine, she stared back blankly until she tried to turn it back on him asking "in what way?" Gibson responded, "Well, what do you interpret it to be?" Trying to make her look foolish and get his "gotcha moment." Gibson pressed Palin. "The Bush Doctrine is we have the right to self-defense, pre-emptive strike against any country we think is going to attack us," he noted. "Do you agree with it?" Palin's answer, "Charlie, if there is enough intelligent and legitimate evidence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country."
Until this interview, I personally would have had no idea how to answer that question, I had never heard a specific Bush Doctrine, especially from the Bush Administration. The term the Bush Doctrine was first used by Dr. Charles Krauthammer in 2001 to describe the Bush Administration's unilateral withdrawal from the ABM Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol. Different pundits would attribute different meanings to it. It turned out that Gibson was referring to the 2002 National Security Strategy.
"The security environment confronting the United States today is radically different from what we have faced before. Yet the first duty of the United States Government remains what it always has been: to protect the American people and American interests. It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD.
To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act presumptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense. The United States will not resort to force in all cases to preempt emerging threats. Our preference is that nonmilitary actions succeed. And no country should ever use preemption as a pretext for aggression."
So if Charles Gibson can be the be all authority of what the Bush Doctrine was, I will propose the Obama Doctrine here.
When you look to find the underlying and defining ideology that makes all of Obama's decisions it has become very clear what we must call the Obama Doctrine. It is the quote by Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, "Never let a serious crisis go to waste." This fits perfectly into the lifelong training that Obama has had as a community organizer and follower of Saul Alinsky and Cloward and Piven. This has to be directly in Obama's comfort zone.
To prove this theory all we must do is look to how Obama and his administration have responded to any and all crisis that have come on his watch.
The largest financial melt-down in American history since the Great Depression was a crisis that Obama used to pass a massive spending program with the name of The Stimulus Bill, even though there was very little actual stimulus for the private sector in it, it amounted as more of a political slush fund to help bribe Democrats to go along with Obama's Health Care Bill with available pork to use to give the fence sitters in his own party.
Also in response to the economic melt-down came the need to completely redo our entire Health Delivery systems to put them under direct government control with the promise of "helping the economy and creating jobs." It wasn't until after it was forced through that we learned the numbers were going to be much higher costs than before, that it would kill thousands if not millions of private sector jobs, only creating more government jobs, such as 16,000 new IRS agents.
The floods in the south, nearly destroying Nashville, Tennessee and others was almost completely ignored by the media, and was ignored by Obama. When it was happening I couldn't figure out why this administration paid it no attention, now held up to the Obama Doctrine, I do understand. There was nothing in the flood that could be used as a reason to advance Obama's agenda, so it held no interest to him.
With the immigration crisis we see Obama choose to sue and vilify those Americans who are trying to just enforce the Federal laws regarding the border. Senator John Kyle tried to reason with Obama on a compromise to help stem the flow of illegals across the border, but was told by Obama that "If we secure the borders you guys (republicans) will have no reason to allow my comprehensive immigration reform, (total amnesty voter registration)" Once again never allowing a serious crisis to go to waste for advancing his agenda.
With the BP oil leak in the Gulf we see the Obama Doctrine clearly. When you try to use logic to figure out why the Obama Administration is throwing up roadblocks to the clean up and oil containment efforts. He has turned down every serious offer of skimmers, and oil cleaning ships from America and the world. Governor Bobby Jindal hired his own, and Obama sent the Coast Guard to stop them.
None of this makes sense if you are thinking of actually stopping or containing the crisis. However if you think about it through the filter of the Obama Doctrine it makes a lot of sense. The more damage done by the oil, the more dead sea life, ruined beaches, destroyed coastal economies, and if he is lucky sick and dying people from the fumes, the easier it will be for him to end all Oil exploration and drilling in America.
It will also open the door for him to push through the largest tax increase in world history with Cap and Trade. This is just what he needed as the entire global warming "science" has been proven to be a fraud.
When you look at the news through this Obama Doctrine, it is very clear why he is doing what he is doing on each crisis that comes our way.