The Bush Doctrine made the news in 2008 as folks took jibes at Sarah Palin for not being able to describe said doctrine.
Today, let’s all take jibes at the NYTimes for describing the Bush Doctrine quite well but without once giving credit where credit is due.
In an article about al-Qaeda being a bit slow with history in the making the Times discusses how they may be missing their moment to be influential.
“So far — and I emphasize so far — the score card looks pretty terrible for Al Qaeda,” said Paul R. Pillar, who studied terrorism and the Middle East for nearly three decades at the C.I.A. and is now at Georgetown University. “Democracy is bad news for terrorists. The more peaceful channels people have to express grievances and pursue their goals, the less likely they are to turn to violence.”
That is the doctrine in a nutshell. Democracies don’t attach others.
Don’t worry though – the author, Scott Shane, makes certain Bush’s name gets mentioned. At the part where he, like every rational leader in history, helped certain nondemocratic allies because they were willing to fight terrorism too.
If the Middle East goes democratic, George W. Bush should get a large amount of the credit by trusting “the people” in Iraq are quite capable of democracy and that they desire it!
In other news an American whackjob seems to think we have so little democracy here that we are bound to blow up just like things are happening in the Middle East. To fight against what? Apparently Obama? Because – well, I’m not sure. Maybe because uprisings are cool these days and Farrakhan doesn’t want to be behind the wave like al-Qaeda is.