I'm done with your personal battle.

 

Palin didn't have a clue what she was talking about, that's what we should be talking about. :laugh:.

I'm done with your personal battle.

 

Palin didn't have a clue what she was talking about, that's what we should be talking about. :laugh:.

Personal battle? I have no clue what you are talking about. If you're paying attention, I am talking about Palin and she handled herself just fine.

I'm done with your personal battle.

 

Palin didn't have a clue what she was talking about, that's what we should be talking about. :laugh:.

 

You're right HB, they are scared to death after watching Palins' interview last night and they are just trying to distract you from the facts.

Personal battle? I have no clue what you are talking about. If you're paying attention, I am talking about Palin and she handled herself just fine.

 

Okay. I disagree.

It seems the Bush-haters have a clear view of what the Bush doctrine was since they dispise everything W.

 

While those who supported the President didn't not think the position was of such monumental position that it needed a name.

You're right HB, they are scared to death after watching Palins' interview last night and they are just trying to distract you from the facts.

 

Scared of diddly nor squat.

While those who supported the President didn't not think the position was of such monumental position that it needed a name.

 

Regardless of how you fall on the issue, it's impossible to deny that the idea that any nation should make it their national policy to attack a nation before first being attacked is pretty revolutionary, no matter the threat. Israel may be the only other country that has attempted such a policy and they definitely never outlined it on paper. It most certainly deserves a name, just as the Monroe Doctrine did before it.

 

Even so, I have never noticed whether it is a term that is in frequent use some places and not others. I only graduated from college a little over two years ago and the Bush Doctrine was a frequent topic of discussion in a few of the Political Science classes I took and has been discussed at length in the International Law course I'm taking now.

 

I have long been a Republican but I'll be the first to admit that the Bush Doctrine has the potential to be very scary. Asking Palin her thoughts on the subject of the President's collected policy of pre-emption, the spread of democracy and the broadening of free trade all amassed under the umbrella of national security seems a more than valid question.

You're right HB, they are scared to death after watching Palins' interview last night and they are just trying to distract you from the facts.

 

Scared of what? Sounds like the dems are though!:dancingpa

Regardless of how you fall on the issue, it's impossible to deny that the idea that any nation should make it their national policy to attack a nation before first being attacked is pretty revolutionary, no matter the threat. Israel may be the only other country that has attempted such a policy and they definitely never outlined it on paper. It most certainly deserves a name, just as the Monroe Doctrine did before it.

 

Even so, I have never noticed whether it is a term that is in frequent use some places and not others. I only graduated from college a little over two years ago and the Bush Doctrine was a frequent topic of discussion in a few of the Political Science classes I took and has been discussed at length in the International Law course I'm taking now.

 

I have long been a Republican but I'll be the first to admit that the Bush Doctrine has the potential to be very scary. Asking Palin her thoughts on the subject of the President's collected policy of pre-emption, the spread of democracy and the broadening of free trade all amassed under the umbrella of national security seems a more than valid question.

 

I have never heard/read it referred to as the Bush doctrine. And if I did, it did not make much of an impression on me.

 

The doctrine itself, of course. It being called the Bush doctrine. No. Don't ever recall it being used.

 

And I consider myself a fairly read person on politics.

 

Now, I could see the term being used in a classroom college setting.

 

I agree it is a valid question. I would not agree that her not knowing it was named the Bush Doctrine is a big deal.

I have never heard/read it referred to as the Bush doctrine. And if I did, it did not make much of an impression on me.

 

The doctrine itself, of course. It being called the Bush doctrine. No. Don't ever recall it being used.

 

And I consider myself a fairly read person on politics.

 

Now, I could see the term being used in a classroom college setting.

 

I agree it is a valid question. I would not agree that her not knowing it was named the Bush Doctrine is a big deal.

 

I've never heard the term used before either LBBC. It's not exactly like it's right up there with the Monroe Doctrine. It may be in the future, though.

I've never heard the term used before either LBBC. It's not exactly like it's right up there with the Monroe Doctrine. It may be in the future, though.

 

And I think it would be a safe limb to guess that during Monroe's Presidency, not many would have referred to his Doctrine as the Monroe Doctrine.

 

I would bet that came with history.

It was a gotcha question but Charles Gibson got it wrong...he doesn't even know what the Bush Doctrine is.

 

"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.

 

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush doctrine.

 

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

I have never heard/read it referred to as the Bush doctrine. And if I did, it did not make much of an impression on me.

 

The doctrine itself, of course. It being called the Bush doctrine. No. Don't ever recall it being used.

 

And I consider myself a fairly read person on politics.

 

Now, I could see the term being used in a classroom college setting.

 

I agree it is a valid question. I would not agree that her not knowing it was named the Bush Doctrine is a big deal.

 

It has been a while since I was in a classroom, but I had not only heard of the term, I was more than a little surprised that any well read person didn't know about it. I also found it interesting that under Palin's list of circumstances that justify preemptive war, Iraq would be hard to justify.

Regardless of how you fall on the issue, it's impossible to deny that the idea that any nation should make it their national policy to attack a nation before first being attacked is pretty revolutionary, no matter the threat. Israel may be the only other country that has attempted such a policy and they definitely never outlined it on paper. It most certainly deserves a name, just as the Monroe Doctrine did before it.

 

Even so, I have never noticed whether it is a term that is in frequent use some places and not others. I only graduated from college a little over two years ago and the Bush Doctrine was a frequent topic of discussion in a few of the Political Science classes I took and has been discussed at length in the International Law course I'm taking now.

 

I have long been a Republican but I'll be the first to admit that the Bush Doctrine has the potential to be very scary. Asking Palin her thoughts on the subject of the President's collected policy of pre-emption, the spread of democracy and the broadening of free trade all amassed under the umbrella of national security seems a more than valid question.

 

:thumb: Nice post

At least she didn't say that she thought it was " too many OBGYN doctors were losing their ability to practice love with women." LOL

 

I give her credit for that.