ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 5047
Sep 12 08 12:28 PM
ShoegalQ1967 wrote: I will fully admit that I had no idea that Bush's preeminnent war policy was known as the "Bush Doctrine." I know that he supports preeminent war. I just didn't know that policy had a name. Anyone else willing to admit that they'd never heard of the "Bush Doctrine" before last night or am I the only one ignorant of this?
I will fully admit that I had no idea that Bush's preeminnent war policy was known as the "Bush Doctrine." I know that he supports preeminent war. I just didn't know that policy had a name. Anyone else willing to admit that they'd never heard of the "Bush Doctrine" before last night or am I the only one ignorant of this?
Interact
Posts: 357
Sep 12 08 1:13 PM
Posts: 18146
Sep 12 08 1:19 PM
Posts: 3711
Sep 12 08 1:58 PM
Posts: 6
dakota53 wrote: Yankee, with all due respect, we have very few rules here. But derogatory pictures about special needs children will not stay.
Posts: 1970
Sep 12 08 2:00 PM
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". 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. 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. 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. 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 ) 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. 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.
Sep 12 08 2:08 PM
Posts: 2209
Sep 12 08 2:13 PM
Sep 12 08 2:17 PM
Posts: 5257
Sep 12 08 2:25 PM
Posts: 571
Sep 12 08 2:30 PM
Sep 12 08 2:31 PM
DocParoo wrote: What I really want to see is for someone to ask Bush this question. "You mean, I have a doctrine?? Yeehaw!!" Sorry, I just couldn't resist.
Sep 12 08 2:40 PM
thebatter wrote: Kay wouldn't pretend to know what Charlie was asking about either. Anyone who is honest knows it's too complex to answer the question "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine" without clarifying "which part" or "in what regard". Exactly what Palin did. He had to tell her which part he wanted to discuss (which of his interpretations he was going with that day, since he's even had different ones himself). You're assuming Kay is stupid. She isn't. If Palin were even smarter she would have asked Gibson which of his own interpretations he wanted to dicuss. The problem wasn't her answer. The problem is with the people who don't understand the complexity of the Doctrine pretending that they know why she said what she did, and attacking her for it.
Sep 12 08 2:48 PM
luvs2mambo wrote: There is also no doubt in my mind that the Republicans would have been saying the same things we are, if Palin were the Dem. VP candidate.
Sep 12 08 2:54 PM
Sep 12 08 2:58 PM
thebatter wrote: Like Quimba said, people should focus on the issues.
Sep 12 08 3:00 PM
Sep 12 08 3:04 PM
luvs2mambo wrote: thebatter wrote: Like Quimba said, people should focus on the issues. Absolutely. Unfortunately, Rick Davis said that this election isn't about issues. "This election is not about issues," said Davis. "This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates."
Posts: 1336
Sep 12 08 3:17 PM
Share This