Gerson- Ideological Apologist and Whore

Gerson,

Like your ideological doppleganger, Krautcrazy, you spin Fairy Tales.

Your efforts to mislead reflects all that is rotten in the insular rose coloured world inhabited by Bush apologists. Yet another example of Republican Neo-Exceptionalism that refuses to see how its efforts to project unilateral power is viewed by the rest of the world. As willful arrogance and blind ignorance at its best.

Around the world the meaning of the "Bush Doctrine" is not in doubt. Moreover, to we outside the US your characterization of its import rings false. We are under no illusions. We know that at its core the Bush Doctrine represents a profound threat to Global stability.

As M.G. Manthro pointed out in "The Bush Doctrine: Origins, Evolutions, Alternatives" (April 2004), there is a finite way to understand the 'doctrine' and it reflects a commitment on the part of the administration to misuse and abuse its foreign policy tools. As for your assertion that aid to Africa constitutes a pillar of this doctrine- well, you can wrap that in a used condom. Humanitarian aid is a noble goal - but nobody believes it is an important facet of the Bush Doctrine.

Like your demented twin, Krautcrazy, you apparently take pride in believing you have played a central role in the formulation of this flawed theory. Yet, one gets the sense that you, like Krautcrazy, are little more than petty cogs in the Cheer-leading Cabal of 'hangers-on' who gleefully and non-critically tied their fortunes to an insecure leader.

In another time, another place, amid those advancing another flawed doctrine (Lebensraum) you would be just a poor man's Propaganda Minister, a blathering Goebbles, blindly signing on to and leading the band of true believers in its sad sorry tune. But this is not another time, another place, and such makes you all the much sadder. Further, it's clear you were/are relatively insignificant to the realpolitik results of the last eight failed years of American foreign policy.

You can try to dress up the connotative definition of the Bush Doctrine anyway you like, but to the rest of the world its dangers are clear. The concept of a Bush Doctrine and its nascent roots had been established long before you and Krautcrazy stumbled across the terminology. At best the role played by your ilk is that of minor scribes among the inks of greater pens.

Make no mistake, none of us, be we Arab, be we Mexican, or like myself, be we Canadian - none of us ever mistake the 'Bush Dick-trine' for anything other than what it is - President G.W. Bush's foreign policy operating principle of unilateralism married to the concept of military preemption.

If you wish, dress it up, give it make-up, try to pass it off in its historical context as something more than what it really is: "But a whore is still a whore."

The world knows what is meant by the Bush Doctrine. Don't try to tell us otherwise...

Here in Canada, we have no oillusions [oops! meant illusions] about its import. The fact you now try to obsfucate its true meaning for strictly partisan purposes just perpetuates the false myth of the "Ugly American".

Given so many of your fellow citizens (yes, even some Republicans) are trying to conduct themselves with dignity this season in an effort to debate the 'real issues' would it be too much if I asked you, as I have asked Krautcrazy, to put down your florid-yet-foul crayons?

Next time you pick up a pen, try to write like a man. You know, with honesty?
Failing that, like Krautcrazy, your disquieting adolescent insecurity will remain on display: forever disturbing to one and all.

Krautauthor Fails Test Again.

re: "Charlie Gibson's Gaffe" Wapo, Sept 13, 2008. By Charles Krauthammer

Krautauthor,

You hapless ogre! Just finished watching a football game and then I read your article.
You spin a nice Fairy Tale.

Your pitiable attempt to query Gibson's understanding of the true meaning of the phrase "Bush Doctrine" is not just petty - it is wrong.
Again, ignorant arrogance at its best.

True, in June 2001, you undeniably did scribble the phrase 'Bush Doctrine'.

But your characterization neither contributed to the foundation of its true 'construct' nor its subsequent manifestation.

As M.G. Manthro pointed out in "The Bush Doctrine: Origins, Evolutions, Alternatives" (April 2004) there indeed exists a global and common understanding of what constitutes the "Bush Doctrine".

Although referenced once in the piece, it's clear you were/are relatively insignificant to its evolution. Really nothing but part of a chattering class holding regular cluster orgies of like-minded neo-con individuals. To wit, read page 4 of essay wherein it is recognized there is an "assortment of ultra-conservative columnists and authors such as Charles Krauthammer, William Safire and Ann Coulter. Rounding out the side are Fox News anchor Brit Hume and radio talkmeisters Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, to name but three" who served as the blowhard boosters for Bush's policies. Nice company you keep?

In your mirror, please be clear - admit you were never instrumental in either the formulation of the doctrine or its accepted connotative definition.

You did not give wings to the concept of a Bush Doctrine - its nascent roots had been established long before you stumbled across the terminology. Your role was at best (as usual) that of a minor scribbler among the inks of greater pens.

Moreover, for we who aren't Americans we are keenly aware of "what" constitutes the Bush Doctrine. How could Palin not be?

Make no mistake, none of us, be we Arab, be we Mexican, or like myself, be we Canadian ever erroneously ascribe to the 'Bush Dictrine' four different nuanced visages. We know it for what it is - President G.W. Bush's foreign policy operating principle of unilateralism married to the concept of military preemption.

As a global citizen I dismiss your article as 'inside-baseball' of the worst kind - petty and irrelevant - only intended to further misplace the doctrine in its historical context.

Which of your baby words did you try to apply to Gibson? Ah, yes, "snobbery", "condescension", "chattering classes".

Well, Monsieur Krautauthor, I view your drivel, your partisan snobbery, condescension, and chattering-blathering as further evidence that you are a liar. The whole world knows what is meant by the Bush Doctrine. Don't try to tell us otherwise...

Mr. Gibson's attempt to get Gov. Palin to recognize its importance and pronounce her views on it should have elicited an immediate understanding of what was being asked. Here in Canada, we have no oillusions [oops! slip-of-the-text; meant illusions] about its import. The fact you tried to obsfucate its true meaning for strictly partisan purposes just perpetuates the false myth of the "Ugly American".

Given so many of your fellow citizens (yes, even some Republicans)are trying to conduct themselves with dignity this season in an effort to debate the 'real issues' would it be too much if I asked you to put down your florid-yet-foul crayons?

Maybe it is time you picked up a pen and tried to write like a man. You know, with honesty. Failing that, your disquieting adolescent insecurity will remain on display: forever disturbing to one and all.





p.s. Fellow Posters, while I could include a 12 pg. bib on the evolution and meaning of the Bush Doctrine - I'll spare you. BUT for those interested in the Mantho essay please see: http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/0404mantho.pdf