thebatter wrote:
I was just looking at Huffpo and all the people calling her ignorant and uninfomed and pretending they know something themselves about "The Bush Doctrine".image

Apparently the phrase was credited to Charles Krauthammer, and has changed and expanded in meaning since 2001. It even includes positions on free markets and free trade.image

Nobody can define it yet because it's changed & grown so many times, starting with the "You're either with us or against us" comment from Bush.image It's so complex that there are hundreds of books & opinions written on the subject, and I even found seminars people held in an attempt to discuss and define it.image And apparently the media agrees that they themselves can't agree on what it actually is. History will define it. I still have no idea what "it" is (which is why I answered Quimba's question the way I did - no, I don't know what it means - I'm as stumped on it as the media is image)

If people don't like Palin, fine. Just say it. But as for the Doctrine, there are so many "parts" to it, there is no way to know which one Gibson wanted to talk about. She knows what it is. She heard the term. Lots of us did. But nobody knows what it is - and nobody knows what Gibson meant. Maybe he'll tell us all why he didn't ask her a more direct question.image

Sorry, Quimba, not to be nitpicky in your thread (which was honest at least), but it's absurd that people are criticizing her over this. They need to find something that's going to stand up and it's out there if you want to disagree on her policies and readiness. Internet access makes this too easy to poke holes in.
I totally agree with you. That's why I started this thread. There are real issues that should be addressed. This kind of thing is just silly.