Jump to content

Bush Doctrine


FreshFish

Recommended Posts

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=opinionsbox1

 

"At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' "

-- New York Times, Sept. 12

 

Informed her? Rubbish.

 

The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

 

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"

 

Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

 

Wrong.

 

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give me a break. The least she could have said was, "well, it depends on what part of the Bush Doctrine you're referring to." Then she could have talked about one or more possible parts of it. In the end, she said, "Bush's worldview." She did not attempt to give an answer. She was completely lost. Not even close.

 

Don't pretend to act like she knew it but just couldn't say what it was because it's such a complex doctrine. You're better than that. You lose credibility when you do this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give me a break. The least she could have said was, "well, it depends on what part of the Bush Doctrine you're referring to." Then she could have talked about one or more possible parts of it. In the end, she said, "Bush's worldview." She did not attempt to give an answer. She was completely lost. Not even close.

 

Don't pretend to act like she knew it but just couldn't say what it was because it's such a complex doctrine. You're better than that. You lose credibility when you do this.

 

Are you referring to me? I didn't write any of this, just linked and quoted and article...Take a deep breath man

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give me a break. The least she could have said was, "well, it depends on what part of the Bush Doctrine you're referring to." Then she could have talked about one or more possible parts of it. In the end, she said, "Bush's worldview." She did not attempt to give an answer. She was completely lost. Not even close.

 

Don't pretend to act like she knew it but just couldn't say what it was because it's such a complex doctrine. You're better than that. You lose credibility when you do this.

 

Are you referring to me? I didn't write any of this, just linked and quoted and article...Take a deep breath man

 

No, it is just frustrating as an American to see so many of my fellow Americans completely fooled by this woman and try to pretend that she knows enough to be VP or President of the United States. It is equally frustrating that McCain does nothing but lie in his ads (99% of his claims are completely false, and the media has been taking him to task for it the last few days) and people pretend like he's telling the truth. Either people are excessively cynical or they're complete idiots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing I would consider to be the Bush Doctrine is:

 

"The United States makes no distinction between terrorists and the states that harbor and support them."

 

Spreading freedom could just as easily be the Kennedy Doctrine or the Reagan Doctrine

Premptive attack is a practice (used by dozens of Presidents)

And whatever random thing Krauthammer was talking about isn't even remotely a Doctrine

 

Also, I think her reluctance to answer directly is an effort to dodge the Obama talking point that McCain = Bush, which is false on its face and frankly the McCain/Palin team should eagerly attack it at every turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it is just frustrating as an American to see so many of my fellow Americans completely fooled by this woman and try to pretend that she knows enough to be VP or President of the United States.

Now you know why I despise Obama.

Palin is the GOP's answer to Obama. Four years ago Obama was a state senator when he did an amazing job reading the speech someone else wrote off a teleprompter and managed to look handsome and charismatic while doing it and he was right then and there the front runner for the '08 nomination (assuming Kerry lost). At least Palin has some accomplishmest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

regardless of what Krauthammer would prefer, that's what it's taken to mean pretty much every time I've seen it.

Just ABC News has used 11 different definitions of what the Bush doctrine is. Palin's question was a fair one in order to avoid confusion. I think she could have asked her question is a different way but it was still a fair question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what?

 

Being a good speechwriter/speaker is a primary qualification for president? Only in American pop culture, I say.

 

Are his policy positions (and I've read his policies on his website) actually bringing change to the United States? Of course not.

 

That's a different question. You basically say he doesn't have the experience or the ability to be president. That's different than saying you disagree with his policies. I disagree with John McCain, but I don't argue he doesn't have the experience or the ability to be president. Palin, unfortunately for her, does not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what?

 

Being a good speechwriter/speaker is a primary qualification for president? Only in American pop culture, I say.

 

Are his policy positions (and I've read his policies on his website) actually bringing change to the United States? Of course not.

 

That's a different question. You basically say he doesn't have the experience or the ability to be president. That's different than saying you disagree with his policies. I disagree with John McCain, but I don't argue he doesn't have the experience or the ability to be president. Palin, unfortunately for her, does not.

Don't bother trying to win an argument with him, he's not going to give you an inch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what?

 

Being a good speechwriter/speaker is a primary qualification for president? Only in American pop culture, I say.

 

Are his policy positions (and I've read his policies on his website) actually bringing change to the United States? Of course not.

 

That's a different question. You basically say he doesn't have the experience or the ability to be president. That's different than saying you disagree with his policies. I disagree with John McCain, but I don't argue he doesn't have the experience or the ability to be president. Palin, unfortunately for her, does not.

 

Obama had 730+ days in Senate before he announced he was running for President.

 

Palin had 680+ days as Governor before she was announced to be VP.

 

 

I do not understand how Obama not only has all this experience, but also is the only person to ever fix america. We do not need to Change America we need to reform america. We need to go back what this country was built on.

 

I just think Obama the orator makes people think he is going to save this country. Also, the smartest presidents have also been some of the worst presidents. One's "book smarts" and ones "ability" is a completely different thing. At least with someone like Palin (even though she isn't running for President) we can see what she has done governing. We see her ability to lead a state, not just sit in a room and shoot the sh*t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gibson is such a fool. Anticipatory self-defense and preemptive self defense are completely different.

 

Anticipatory self-defense has been around since (I always confuse these wars, but I believe it was the Six Day War), when several of Israel's neighbors moved their troop formations to the border and Israel did not wait until they crossed the border to attack those troop formations. Thats where anticipatory self defense came from. The Bush Doctrine that Gibson was referring to was the notion of PREEMPTIVE self defense, where a nation attacks another because a future attack may occur, but unlike anticipatory self defense, there is no imminence requirement, nor has PSD been recognized as a legal form of SD by the internaitonal law community as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...