Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 39

Thread: Gibson wrong about Bush Doctrine?

  1. #1
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,481
    Post Thanks / Like

    Gibson wrong about Bush Doctrine?

    Or at least not entirely correct.


    In Charles Gibson's interview of Sarah Palin, Gibson "explained" to Palin that "The Bush Doctrine" refers to pre-emptive war. He left a LOT out.


    The first usage of the term "Bush Doctrine" was by conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer, who used the term in February 2001 (note: pre 911) to describe Bush' unilateral approach to national missile defense.

    Later (post 911), the phrase described 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.

    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.

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    After watching that interview last night, who do you think knows more about foreign policy: Charlie Gibson or Sarah Palin?

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,481
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2746197]After watching that interview last night, who do you think knows more about foreign policy: Charlie Gibson or Sarah Palin?[/QUOTE]



    Gibson probably knows more about foriegn policy than Obama too.


    I just don't know why he didn't ask her if she believed in the policy of preemption?

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,159
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2746197]After watching that interview last night, who do you think knows more about foreign policy: Charlie Gibson or Sarah Palin?[/QUOTE]
    Which one got lost in a word blizzard?

    I think the harder people try to sink Palin, the harder Obama tanks. If you disagree with me, I just point to the polls. There must be a connection.

  5. #5
    Waterboy
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    0
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2746203]

    I just don't know why he didn't ask her if she believed in the policy of preemption?[/QUOTE]

    He was trying to be coy and trap her.

  6. #6
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'm sure that is why Palin was confused :rolleyes:

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    9,930
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2746203]Gibson probably knows more about foriegn policy than Obama too.


    I just don't know why he didn't ask her if she believed in the policy of preemption?[/QUOTE]

    Nice post, I couldn't say it better.

    The reason of course was to rattle her, which he did. I think he just made it a little too obvious that, thats what he was trying to do...imo

  8. #8
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=sackdance;2746211]Which one got lost in a word blizzard?

    I think the harder people try to sink Palin, the harder Obama tanks. If you disagree with me, I just point to the polls. There must be a connection.[/QUOTE]

    I din't think Gibson was trying to sink Palin. He basically asked no questions about her record (a dubious decision, imo) and did not once delve into her much publicized family situation (a good decision, imo).

    She could be president: Her opinions on things like whether we have a right to wage preemptive war, how she would deal with Russia and Pakistan, etc., are about as relevant as it gets.

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    9,930
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=pauliec;2746214]He was trying to be coy and trap her.[/QUOTE]

    Anybody with even a morsel of objectivity would agree. He did a good job, but again, I think made it a little too obvious.

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2746203]Gibson probably knows more about foriegn policy than Obama too.


    I just don't know why he didn't ask her if she believed in the policy of preemption?[/QUOTE]

    No, he really doesn' know more than Obama, who has looked pretty prescient on both Iraq in 2002 and Pakistan this past January.

    But I'm glad you agree that he clearly knows more than Palin.

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2746228]No, he really doesn' know more than Obama, who has looked pretty prescient on both Iraq in 2002 and Pakistan this past January.

    But I'm glad you agree that he clearly knows more than Palin.[/QUOTE]

    Obama has not looked prescient at all, sorry. You lose.

  12. #12
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    9,930
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2746228]No, he really doesn' know more than Obama, who has looked pretty prescient on both Iraq in 2002 and Pakistan this past January.

    But I'm glad you agree that he clearly knows more than Palin.[/QUOTE]

    Nice way to gloss over his second statement. You know, the one that actually pertains to this thread/discussion.

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,481
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2746228]No, he really doesn' know more than Obama, who has looked pretty [B]prescient on both Iraq in 2002 [/B]and Pakistan this past January.[/QUOTE]


    And yet, 2 years later, he says he's unqualified to be POTUS.

    [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gexyfVpFMU&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gexyfVpFMU&feature=related[/URL]

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2746236]Obama has not looked prescient at all, sorry. You lose.[/QUOTE]

    untrue. Obama said US raids in Pakistan should occur with or without permission of the Pakistan gov't. He was widely derided by the other Democratic candidates (inc Biden) and also the rest of the political community... and then a few months later Bush actually did approve of a raid in Pakistan without their approval or notification.

    that's the dictionary definition of prescient, you lose. ;)

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2746167]Or at least not entirely correct.


    In Charles Gibson's interview of Sarah Palin, Gibson "explained" to Palin that "The Bush Doctrine" refers to pre-emptive war. He left a LOT out.


    The first usage of the term "Bush Doctrine" was by conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer, who used the term in February 2001 (note: pre 911) to describe Bush' unilateral approach to national missile defense.

    Later (post 911), the phrase described 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.

    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.[/QUOTE]


    any way you define it's a terrible policy

    the Bush Doctrine supposedly superceeded the Powell Doctrine - which was a hard learned lesson of Vietnam.

    the fact Palin agrees with the Bush Doctrine, however one defines it, is a bad sign.

  16. #16
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yeah, not prescient at all.

    10/2/2002:

    [QUOTE]But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.[/QUOTE]

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,481
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;2746254]
    untrue. Obama said US raids in Pakistan should occur with or without permission of the Pakistan gov't.
    [/QUOTE]



    [QUOTE=bitonti;2746254]any way you define it's a terrible policy

    the Bush Doctrine supposedly superceeded the Powell Doctrine - which was a hard learned lesson of Vietnam.

    the fact Palin agrees with the Bush Doctrine, however one defines it, is a bad sign.[/QUOTE]



    So, it's good "polisay" if Obama is for it and bad "polisay" if Palin is for it?

  18. #18
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2746270]So, it's good "polisay" if Obama is for it and bad "polisay" if Palin is for it?[/QUOTE]

    that's a clever turn around but

    raiding a cave in pakistan for a specific target

    is not the same as

    invading a country, toppling the government and committing to a decade and a half of occupation/rebuilding.

    If the Bush Doctrine was just crossing borders and then crossing back i'd have no problem with it... but it means alot more than that.

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2746257]Yeah, not prescient at all.

    10/2/2002:[/QUOTE]

    Saddam was not removed because he was feared to be an imminent threat, and the sanctions regime or "international community" were hardly "containing" him and AQ's recruitment arm has hardly been strengthened. Bush specifically mentioned that waiting until a threat ws imminent was too late. Agree or disagree, but "imminence" was never the argument. And nice attempt at qualifying his "prescience" to only 2002, considering when he actually had to vote on things and not merely give speechs, he was dead wrong about the surge.

    The Iraq War exists, and Obama has shown that he can manage it successfully, how, exactly?

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,481
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;2746278]that's a clever turn around but

    raiding a cave in pakistan for a specific target

    is not the same as

    invading a country, toppling the government and committing to a decade and a half of occupation/rebuilding.

    [B]If the Bush Doctrine was just crossing borders and then crossing back i'd have no problem with it... but it means alot more than that[/B].[/QUOTE]


    I'm sure the other countries have no issues with it either.:rolleyes:


    By the way, the Mexican military has made numerous incursions across the Texas border and I have SERIOUS issues with that. They are doing so to provide cover for drug smugglers.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us