Posted on 09/11/2008 3:07:03 PM PDT by icwhatudo
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .
She was exactly correct and she didn’t even repeat his reference to war with Russia, she mentioned the duty to come to the aid of an ally. Note the treaty includes war as an option it doesn’t straight out require it. The main value of the treaty is deterrence, and an issue arises if the Nato member starts the fight, fights with another member, etc. In those cases the response is subtle. Her answer was absolutely appropriate. She supports NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine, and she knows what that means. Russia knows too.
Isn’t about 99% percent of Europe part of NATO? Aren’t the Libs very fond of Europe? These two questions beg the answer, why are the Libs so scared to protect their beloved liberal friends?
Is this not the fundamental reason NATO exists? Mutual defense? Imagine if she had provided a, let’s say, more “nuanced” response. Anything short of “yes, we’ll fight” would be an open invitation to Russia.
Clear, direct, unflinching. That is leadership.
I hope they do make an issue of this - it will blow in their faces.
A wise man once said: “Those who possess clarity of vision see black and white, those who do not see gray”
That's the key. NATO would not necessarily be obligated to respond with military force, except as a last resort. Economic sanctions, covert aid to resistance members, diplomacy etc. would be alternatives to all-out war.
All this of course proves my argument:
NO to NATO expansion!
After the ABC interview, she needs to read up on the Bush Doctrine.
Good post. Thanks for tracking down the relevant Article.
One of the many forms of propaganda that the Leftists will use is to state a fact or truth in with indignation, and then count on the ignorance of the general audience to not know anything about said subject.
Yeah, screw the rest of the world!
Yes, and that is exactly what she said to Gibson:
“It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.”
“After the ABC interview, she needs to read up on the Bush Doctrine.”
She did fine on that. She refused the trap and made the question her own. She did it three times and he just gave up.
This is very aggressive questioning. They ask BO a question. He blurs around. So they move on and ask the next question.
Oddly, Gibson thought the “Bush Doctrine” was that we could attack before we were attacked.
But the Bush Doctrine first was that if you harbor terrorists, we would treat you like terrorists.
He changed that later. He also had several other “doctrines”.
She asked Gibson exactly what part of Bush’s doctrine he was asking about, and he refused to say.
But as soon as she answered, he knew EXACTLY what part he wanted to ask, and asked it.
Clearly he didn’t want an answer, he wanted to try to trip her up. And he failed miserably. Her answer was perfect.
Oddly, Gibson thought the “Bush Doctrine” was that we could attack before we were attacked.
But the Bush Doctrine first was that if you harbor terrorists, we would treat you like terrorists.
He changed that later. He also had several other “doctrines”.
She asked Gibson exactly what part of Bush’s doctrine he was asking about, and he refused to say.
But as soon as she answered, he knew EXACTLY what part he wanted to ask, and asked it.
Clearly he didn’t want an answer, he wanted to try to trip her up. And he failed miserably. Her answer was perfect.
Oddly, Gibson thought the “Bush Doctrine” was that we could attack before we were attacked.
But the Bush Doctrine first was that if you harbor terrorists, we would treat you like terrorists.
He changed that later. He also had several other “doctrines”.
She asked Gibson exactly what part of Bush’s doctrine he was asking about, and he refused to say.
But as soon as she answered, he knew EXACTLY what part he wanted to ask, and asked it.
Clearly he didn’t want an answer, he wanted to try to trip her up. And he failed miserably. Her answer was perfect.
Palin can make a nice defense of this (and make Biden look foolish) in her upcoming debate.
You could also say the reason Georgia is not now a memebr of NATO is the EU realized Russia wanted Georgia and the NATO countries knew it would involve war, if they allowed Georgia to join — That is why back in April they denied the start of the process. As with Bosnia, the do nothing EU types didn’t want to get involved.
EU has been doing just what Reagan said not to do, feeding the bear with oil money,
She still didn't know what he was talking about.
Some of the poorly informed and un-objective may try to muddy the water by saying that there were other Bush Doctrines or that the Bush Doctrine will end after his term. Not true.
While it is referred to as the Bush Doctrine, Pre-emption, and the justification for pre-emption, is found in the Phase 2 report of the Hart-Rudman Commission report, published before Bush entered office. Similarly, the Phase 1 report, published before the 2000 elections, recommended creation of DHS.
The legal justification for pre-emption is found in the UN Charter.
The Bush Doctrine, Pre-emption, will be a cornerstone of US Policy for years and decades.
As you note, pre-emption is not a “Bush Doctrine”. Spreading democracy as a way to stop terrorists is a Bush doctrine, as was the notion that if you harbor terrorists we will treat you like terrorists — that was a definite change in policy pushed after 9/11.
Google it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.