Is Palin a "Whack Job"? A "Diva"?

[Habib]

Whichever one they are all the same.

Still was a gotcha question.

No there is no defention of Bush Doctrine. ANd if there were, what section of the Doctrine would he be refering to?

So tell us since you have no ambiguity to the question, what is Bush Doctrine Pre-Iraq War?:confused:

 

You can find it here. There may be a degree of ambiguity in the term "Bush Doctrine," but there is no ambiguity in the foreign policy of Bush, especially contrasted against any other President. Anyone paying attention to the world should know that the policies of preventive war and the determination of terrorist states are distinctly Bush's.

[H]

I realize it's a minor point that has nothing to do with the gist of your post, but Couric is at CBS.

 

You're right. Couric is now at CBS.

[mcpapa]

We keep chewing the same cabbage... :lol: I was being somewhat sarcastic since Bush tends to get blamed for all the negatives. I view your response as very fair and actually quite accurate. I don't see being popular with terrorists and dictators as something to be desired by the way.

 

Actually, the fact that no terrorist attack has occurred is quite concrete, which makes it very easy to prove. Now, whether Bush should get any credit for this or not is clearly up to you, but I think it's hard to deny that his actions have not led to an increase in attacks... so I would think that the objective opinion on this one would favor Bush.

There was plenty of evidence due to Saddam's past actions and refusal to let inspectors do their jobs. I'm still not convinced WMD weren't moved or buried or otherwise concealed. The point is, Saddam thumbed his nose at the UN sanctions for months, and everything else we've debated into the ground. The bottom line is I don't see the elimination of one despotic dictatorship in the Middle East as a bad thing. I agree to disagree.

Thank you. :thumb:

I cannot argue this as effectively as I wish that I could for many reasons. :thumb:

 

I don't either. What I question is the cost benefit.

[H]

Whichever one they are all the same.

Still was a gotcha question.

No there is no defention of Bush Doctrine. ANd if there were, what section of the Doctrine would he be refering to?

So tell us since you have no ambiguity to the question, what is Bush Doctrine Pre-Iraq War?:confused:

 

 

 

Bush Doctrine articulated in Septemer 2002 (which is what the question asked about) was the assertion that the United States has the prerogative of pre-emptive self defense.

[Fastbreak]

Bush Doctrine articulated in Septemer 2002 (which is what the question asked about) was the assertion that the United States has the prerogative of pre-emptive self defense.

I realize this will not be popular with many of you, but I don't see this as a negative when we have confirmed actionable intel. It beats knowing my friends, family and fellow Americans are sitting ducks, just waiting on the next attack and thousands of innocent deaths before we can justify a response.

 

We respond either way, and by responding before an attack, we save more innocent lives.

[H]

You may actually have a point there.

 

Because of Bush, we're not very popular with terrorists and tin pot dictators wanting a bigger footprint on the world stage.

 

I've got news for you. We're not very popular with anyone in the world as a result of Bush's policies. The citizens of even our closest allies now view us warily because of Bush's stupid cowboy approach.

 

 

Because of Bush, we've not had one terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11/01.

 

Really? Not one? What about the post-9/11 anthrax attacks? And even if you had your facts straight, such a claim is impossible to prove.

 

 

 

Because of Bush, we don't bow on the steps of the U.N.

 

I don't know what that means. Bush still sought the legitimacy of U.N. approval before taking military action against Iraq. And his administration is feverishly trying to negotiate an agreement to keep U.S. forces there after the U.N. mandate expires at the end of this year. If he wasn't concerned about the U.N., he wouldn't have given it any deference in either of these situations.

 

 

 

Because of Bush, otherwise healthy infants are not partially born only to have a horrendous proceedure performed to kill them before they legally draw their first breath.

 

We're talking about Bush and Palin's world view, not their stand on abortion.

 

 

Because... well, let's just say we still disagree on the virtues of Bush. Now if you want to bash his willingness to shut the checkbook and say no to ridiculous spending for things I'm not convinced our Federal government needs to be picking up the tab on in the first place, I might join you in slinging some mud.

 

 

You disagree with about 75% of the American public then. I asked for someone to make the case that Palin's world view differs from Bush's and you respond with a soliloquy on why you like George W. Bush.

[H]

I realize this will not be popular with many of you, but I don't see this as a negative when we have confirmed actionable intel. It beats knowing my friends, family and fellow Americans are sitting ducks, just waiting on the next attack and thousands of innocent deaths before we can justify a response.

 

We respond either way, and by responding before an attack, we save more innocent lives.

 

 

You have framed this in a way that glosses over one major complication: how do you know an attack is imminent before it happens?

[Fastbreak]

I guess the only acceptable retort at this point would be to say, "You've opened my jaundiced eyes... I will now cast my vote in favor of Obama."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately, I still like cowboys and feel nervous around Frenchmen. We will just have to agree to disagree... again... :lol: