edge540 wrote:
Mirage wrote:
What's funny is that Gibson doesn't even know what "the" Bush doctrine is.
Sure he does.
This is what he had to tell the dunce:
'The Bush Doctrine is we have the right to self-defense, pre-emptive strike against any country we think is going to attack us" Now If YOU & Karl the giant head think this not the Bush Doctrine, you two are as ignorant as your soccer mom pit bull.
She said some gibberrish about it being George Bush's "world view."
She clearly didn't know WTF it is.
To the self-proclaimed experts on the Bush Doctrine:
Seeing as how Krauthammer has effectively handed you a large helping of your own ass-on-a-plate, that particular criticism of Palin is now invalid. But what fault, if any, do you find with this answer she gave?"Charlie, if there is enough intelligent and legitimate evidence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country," Palin said.See below to learn how firm of a grasp Charlie Gibson had on the subject at hand.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_DoctrineScholars identify seven different "Bush Doctrines," including the notion that states that harbor terrorists should be treated no differently than terrorists themselves, the willingness to use a "coalition of the willing" if the United Nations does not address threats, the doctrine of preemptive war, and the president's second-term "freedom agenda".[1]
The first usage of the term may have been when conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer used the term in February 2001 to refer to the president's unilateral approach to national missile defense well before September 11th.[2][3]
Later the phrase came to describe the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan.[4] Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a supposed threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq), a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism, and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.[5][6][7] This represented a continuation of Ronald Reagan's foreign policy of roll-back, as opposed to the older Cold War policies of deterrence and containment, under the Truman Doctrine; and a departure from post-Cold War philosophies such as the Powell Doctrine and the Clinton Doctrine. The "Bush Doctrine" was never enacted into law.