18
   

What Exactly Is the 'Bush Doctrine'?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  5  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 02:50 pm
candidone wrote:
Quote:
It used to be "when the United States sneezes the whole world gets a cold", now it's "whenever the republican party puts a candidate on national TV, the whole world snickers."


No truer words said on this subject.


Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 02:58 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Well said CI
Unfortunately my English is not that perfect.
Thanks
Rama
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  2  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 03:02 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Seriously though...this really elucidates the lock step mentality of the republican party. Had the democrats propped up a left leaning equivalent of Palin they would be doing the same thing to that candidate--except they would be doing it with the support of the millions of off-put democrats who saw that candidate as a detrimental candidate.
Palin is an embarassment to America and its politics, and no conservtives around here seem to want to acknowledge that.

Democrats and liberals think for a living, hence the groups like PUMA, who left the democratic party because they supported a candidate's platform above the party.
Republicans support their party without ever questioning what they stand for, where they've been, what they know, what their nomination might do for the country, or where they intend to take the country.
All they need to be told is the base supports this individual, so must you.
McGentrix
 
  2  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 04:26 pm
@candidone1,
candidone1 wrote:
Democrats and liberals think for a living,


Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

Oh please, my sides.... you're killing me here with this crap.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 04:48 pm
@McGentrix,
When can we attend your funeral? LOL
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  3  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 07:25 pm
@McGentrix,
What kills me McG, is the lock step conservatives who support and defend someone like Palin.

Is this seriously the best person for the job in your opinion?
Seriously.

Does she make you proud? Do you see a bright future for the US in her? Do you think she will unite or bring any sort of unity or benefit to the US?

If so, I'd enjoy hearing some responses to these questions, how you thought them through and what logic you use to support your endorsement of her.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 07:57 pm
@candidone1,
It's the best the conservatives can do to inspire their party; just don't try to read between the lines. All their national leaders have been charged with a crime, spending time in prison, or will be charged with a crime when they leave office in January. What's left? McCain and Palin.
0 Replies
 
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2008 06:16 am
@candidone1,
A sitting Governor , former Mayor, former head of State Energy commission.

She has all the qualifications necessary to be an effective VP.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2008 06:21 am
@McGentrix,
Here it is:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2008 07:47 am
@cicerone imposter,
Whenever the democrat party puts a candidate on national TV, the whole world snickers and Americans lower their heads in shame.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  3  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2008 08:04 am
@McGentrix,
Answer to question:
Quote:
As we know, George W. BushBush has outlined a doctrine that he calls “preemption” but that’s really prevention or “anticipatory self-defense.” It holds that we should attack other countries that might attack us at some future point even if we have no particular evidence of a specific or imminent plan to do so. As we also know, John McCain agrees with this doctrine. Sarah Palin doesn’t seem to know that this s what the Bush doctrine is, and, once recovered from her deer-in-the-headlights pose she outlined a different position, advancing an imminent threat standard.


http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/09/palin_mccain_and_the_bush_doctrine.php

For years now there has been a debate about whether preemptive attacking another country was a legitimate action and most conservatives have said it was, Palin has said it takes an "imminent threat" however.



Quote:
Those defending Bush most often point to an excerpt from the President's 2003 State of the Union speech in which he explicitly said Iraq was not an imminent threat:


http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031103.html

So does Palin think Bush attacked Iraq unjustly because we did not attack Iraq under an imminent threat?
rabel22
 
  0  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2008 09:22 am
@revel,
They prep her as best they can for the interviews she does which takes time. Thus the reason she has so few one on one interviews. Its almost impossible to anticipate every question. Sooner than later people are going to realize she is a light weight everyone should believe in my God politician.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2008 01:40 pm
@revel,
Forget about the nasty bushtards who had killed more than Bin laden and competing to take the plaqce of Holy HITLER
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  4  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2008 02:41 pm
@candidone1,
Holy crap ... candidone1 teaches our children?
Ramafuchs
 
  0  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2008 02:43 pm
@Ticomaya,
It is easy to type few English words( English made in USA) than to confront the critical views.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  2  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2008 05:08 pm
@Ticomaya,
Yeah...I teach them about important 21st century ideas like the Bush Doctrine.
I find it difficult to either teach or discuss the post-9/11 world and the war in Iraq without at least minimally attaching an overriding ideology to it.
Understanding the Bush doctrine explains so much about the last 4 years or so, even to a greade 9 kid.

Perhaps Palin would have benefited from the knowledge I passed on to my students here in Canada. Perhaps not.
All I know is you could ask any one of my students this same question and they would, at minimum, assume a position and then be able to give a cogent response.
I swear, if a student responded in the same manner to the question she received, I'd wonder what planet they fell from.

She didn't even answer the question...are you guys actually defending this response? Or are you actually defending her obvious lack of knowledge on the matter?

I'd seriously like to know.
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2008 05:15 pm
@candidone1,
let me wish and hope that you spend your valuable time to teach or preach the students with rational, critical, analytical views.( Insted of the education which i got to serve the powers- that-be and corporate intersts.)

0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2008 06:09 pm
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/charlie_gibsons_gaffe.html

Quote:
Charlie Gibson's Gaffe
By Charles Krauthammer

"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

WASHINGTON -- Informed her? Rubbish.

The 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.


Read the article, it is rather interesting.

The jist is that both Gibson AND Sarah Palin got it wrong.
candidone1
 
  2  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2008 12:21 am
@mysteryman,
First off, paraphrasing Gibson's assessment/response of the Doctine solely and simply meaning "anticipatory self defense" is, at best, dishonest. He stated initially, "the Bush Doctrine, as I understand it...." and then he goes on to paraphrase one of the constituent part of said Doctrine. This was certainly more than Palin was able to give with her "his worldview" response.

So, did "Charlie" get it wrong with "the Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us?
Or did Palin just absolutely nail it with "his worldview."

I think if this were horseshoes, Gibson would have taken the point.
Admit it.

Regardless,I'm honestly not so sure why the right is so fast to defend Palin's
1. Deer in the headlights, obliviousness.
2. Inability to take a personal position (ie "yes, I agree with the Bush Doctrine and here's why", or "Yes, I agree with the Bush doctrine and here's why.")
3. Inability to even respond in a manner that actually followed from the initial question.

Mr. Gibson didn't need to get it right (although he got it partly right), in the way Palin needed to get it right...he's a journalist, not a Vice Presidential candidate. Gibson doesn't have his agent or publicist claiming to the world that he has suitable foreign policy experience or that he could be the one taking the call at 4am.
She does.
We do and should have higher expectations of a VP candidate. I would have railed against Biden if he looked like such an oblivious ass. Palin is most certainly fair game.

If Palin would have simply responded to the question, there would have been no need for Gibson to prod her along. If she did understand the Doctrine, or, at minimum, heard of it, she could have presented a far better response.
She could have broken it down on a few levels and spoken in a manner that gave even a hint that she was informed. But "his worldview" is the generic, forgot to read that chapter sort of response.

Are you seriously claiming that because Gibson got it wrong, Palin has a pass?
Are you seriously claiming that there is an equivalence between what Gibson knows and tells the world and what Palin knows and tells the world?

I'm curious why, when this candidate drops the ball so badly, lies so often and looks so academically sophomoric that so many otherwise intelligent republicans jump to her defense?
mysteryman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2008 06:55 am
@candidone1,
Quote:
Are you seriously claiming that because Gibson got it wrong, Palin has a pass?
Are you seriously claiming that there is an equivalence between what Gibson knows and tells the world and what Palin knows and tells the world?


I said exactly what I meant to say...
They BOTH got it wrong.

Palin did appear to not know what Gibson was asking about, and that didnt help her at all.
As a VP candidate she should have known what Gibson was talking about.

Gibson also got it wrong.
His explanation only covered one small part of the "Bush Doctrine", instead of the whole thing. He cherrypicked the part of the doctrine he wanted, instead of the whole doctrine.
As a journalist, he knows better then that.

So, I will say it again...they BOTH got it wrong.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/04/2020 at 11:50:09