HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031916.jpg
2.53 MB
Extraction Summary
5
People
4
Organizations
8
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Article / op-ed (evidence exhibit)
File Size:
2.53 MB
Summary
This document is page 4 of a text, stamped as evidence for the House Oversight Committee. It contains an opinion piece by Michael Tomasky (Newsweek/Daily Beast) analyzing the 'Obama Doctrine' of foreign policy. The text defends Obama's prudent, multilateral approach to conflicts in Syria and Libya, contrasts it with the 'Bush Doctrine' applied to Iraq, and mentions the control of $37 billion in Libyan assets. While part of a document dump that may contain Epstein-related materials, this specific page is political commentary on US foreign policy circa 2011.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Barack Obama | President of the United States |
Subject of the article discussing his foreign policy doctrine.
|
| Michael Tomasky | Author / Special Correspondent |
Author of the article; correspondent for Newsweek/Daily Beast and editor of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas.
|
| Harry S. Truman | Former US President |
Mentioned in reference to the 'Truman Doctrine' and Vietnam.
|
| George W. Bush | Former US President |
Mentioned in reference to the 'Bush Doctrine,' Iraq, and leaving the country in 'staggering waste.'
|
| Osama bin Laden | Terrorist Leader |
Mentioned as having been killed under the Obama administration.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Newsweek/Daily Beast |
Publisher employing Michael Tomasky.
|
|
| Democracy: A Journal of Ideas |
Publication edited by Michael Tomasky.
|
|
| Transitional Council |
Libyan political body mentioned as a recipient of assets.
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Implied by the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT'.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Circa 2011
Foreign policy decisions regarding Syria and Libya
Syria, Libya
Obama Administration
Syrians
Libyans
May 2011 (Implied)
Locations (8)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Discussed regarding conflict resolution.
|
|
|
Mentioned in comparison to Libya and Syria.
|
|
|
Discussed regarding assets and post-conflict reconstruction.
|
|
|
Mentioned in relation to the Truman Doctrine.
|
|
|
Mentioned in relation to the Bush Doctrine and troop drawdowns.
|
|
|
Mentioned as having a huge role to play in foreign policy changes.
|
|
|
Mentioned regarding troop drawdowns.
|
|
|
General region discussed regarding the growth of democracies.
|
Relationships (2)
Newsweek/Daily Beast special correspondent Michael Tomasky
editor of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas
Key Quotes (4)
"Call it the doctrine of no doctrine: using our power and influence but doing so prudently and multilaterally"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031916.jpg
Quote #1
"The Bush Doctrine was applied to Iraq based on a series of lies told to the American people."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031916.jpg
Quote #2
"With respect to Libya, for example, we have control of about $37 billion in assets we can dole out to the transitional council."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031916.jpg
Quote #3
"If this is weak America-hating, count me in."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031916.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,994 characters)
4
Obama will have to make some decisions. But it’s far better to let the
Syrians do this themselves, if they can. We cannot prevent every
casualty. That’s starting to sound like a doctrine to me. Call it the
doctrine of no doctrine: using our power and influence but doing so
prudently and multilaterally, with the crucial recognition that Egypt is
different from Libya is different from Syria is different from
someplace else. According to the foreign-policy establishment, if you
want to have a self-respecting big-D doctrine, you’re not supposed to
recognize differences. The doctrine must guide all cases. But that is
exactly the kind of thinking that has led—always—to tragedy. The
Truman Doctrine was never meant to be applied to Vietnam. The
Bush Doctrine was applied to Iraq based on a series of lies told to the
American people. And so on. If the Obama Doctrine is nothing like
those, so much the better. This does not yet greatness make. These
dramatic changes have to work out for the better, and here the United
States has a huge role to play. With respect to Libya, for example, we
have control of about $37 billion in assets we can dole out to the
transitional council. And yes, we probably are interested in its oil.
But that doesn’t have to mean stealing it. All the Western countries
that backed the rebels have to play a constructive and non- (forgive
me for such a dated word) imperialist role in helping the country
build its future. So there’s work to be done. But it’s hardly
impossible to envision an Obama administration in a few years’ time
that has drawn down Afghanistan and Iraq, helped foster reforms and
maybe even the growth of a couple of democracies around the Middle
East, and restored the standing of a country that Bush had laid such
staggering waste. And killed Osama bin Laden. If this is weak
America-hating, count me in.
Syrians do this themselves, if they can. We cannot prevent every
casualty. That’s starting to sound like a doctrine to me. Call it the
doctrine of no doctrine: using our power and influence but doing so
prudently and multilaterally, with the crucial recognition that Egypt is
different from Libya is different from Syria is different from
someplace else. According to the foreign-policy establishment, if you
want to have a self-respecting big-D doctrine, you’re not supposed to
recognize differences. The doctrine must guide all cases. But that is
exactly the kind of thinking that has led—always—to tragedy. The
Truman Doctrine was never meant to be applied to Vietnam. The
Bush Doctrine was applied to Iraq based on a series of lies told to the
American people. And so on. If the Obama Doctrine is nothing like
those, so much the better. This does not yet greatness make. These
dramatic changes have to work out for the better, and here the United
States has a huge role to play. With respect to Libya, for example, we
have control of about $37 billion in assets we can dole out to the
transitional council. And yes, we probably are interested in its oil.
But that doesn’t have to mean stealing it. All the Western countries
that backed the rebels have to play a constructive and non- (forgive
me for such a dated word) imperialist role in helping the country
build its future. So there’s work to be done. But it’s hardly
impossible to envision an Obama administration in a few years’ time
that has drawn down Afghanistan and Iraq, helped foster reforms and
maybe even the growth of a couple of democracies around the Middle
East, and restored the standing of a country that Bush had laid such
staggering waste. And killed Osama bin Laden. If this is weak
America-hating, count me in.
Newsweek/Daily Beast special correspondent Michael Tomasky is
also editor of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas.
also editor of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031916
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document