Story Comments

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

Certainly, if the question is ambiguous or if one is unclear about what is being asked, then one should ask for clarification. This wasn't that way.

The Bush Doctrine can be summed up in a single sentence:

When the United States has intelligence that suggests that a foreign nation may have intentions to possibly cause harm to the United States or it's interests in the future, the United States has the duty to preemptively strike that foreign power to prevent harm to the United States or its interests.

He gave her at least two shots at clarification, probably three before he told her what it was. She didn't know.

17 Replies

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

Indeed I agree with you.

Better now?

0 Replies

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

well, I think what comes to mind first probably depends on your initial mindset. If, for example, you consider Bush (and all republicans) to be either the anti-Christ or something approaching that level of evil, then the pre-emptive military strike portion of the Bush doctrine probably WOULD be the first thing that springs to your mind.

However, if you are able to step back and take a more neutral or (dare I say it?) reasoned viewed of the "Bush Doctrine", encouraging the spread of democracy might very well be the first prong to come to mind.

And, btw, I would like to see a link to this "Bush Doctrine" -- you know, not just what some pundit says it is, but a link to the actual document of the Bush Doctrine --written out by Bush himself, or at least one of his minions.

1 Reply

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

That's just the problem.
The Bush Doctrine is up for debate.
It is LARGELY considered to be a right to preemptively strike if we feel an attack is imminent.

Now, I have an IQ of 148, am educated, and follow world events rather closely and, frankly, the question caught me off-guard. It's a pretty vague question. If Charlie were more fair, he would have said, "Do you degree in preemptive strikes against aggressor nations?" Then we could have heard her thoughts.

Just to make sure I was not being biased, I asked three people that work in our building, "What do you think of the Bush doctrine.. stop laughing. Ok, it's a bad question, but SERIOUSLY, what's your reply?"
1) I think it's great. Bush gets blamed for everything and I'm safe when I sleep at night, so whatever it is, it must be working.
2) It sucks. (why? - I asked) Because it violates the constitution and invades peoples privacy. I'm busy, so I'll see you later.
3) No idea. I just work here and I don't do anything else.

So, that she answered when he gave some idea what he was talking about, was fine. I would have said, "What are you referring to? I'm sure Bush has lots of beliefs, doctrines and principles." That answer would not make me an idiot. The question was a hunt for a gaffe, not a hunt for an answer.

0 Replies

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

You might say they COLLABORATED on the article. Can you corroborate that for me?

3 Replies

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

Do it yourself.

If you can.....

2 Replies

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

Can you prove it? I have not seen it. Most of the points she made at the RNC were proven to be wrong and flat out lies. She stumbled her way through a cream-puff interview with Gibson and the conservative ABC news. Show me some proof of her intelligence. An actual link to something, not just your opinion, actual proof of her understanding of the issues, of how she will be a good president of Congress, of how she is more qualified than Biden (an actual senator, who knows how Congress works) to be a VP and deal in international affairs.

Anyway, you should be making the point that intelligence does not matter. You are choosing, in McCain, a man who graduated 5th from the bottom in his military class. You support a president who got into an Ivy League college with a lower GPA than either of our children will get in with (thank goodness daddy had deep pockets), who's only financial success was a 1% ownership in a professional baseball team (how many S's did he mismanage?), who doesn't even understand what an "at-risk student" is (he thinks it's a student that CAN'T learn, when actually it is a student whose environment may keep him from succeeding) when his wife worked in education, and signed legislation that requires 100% of all students in America to be on grade level by 2014. That is just a few examples of his "intelligence" but maybe that was his strategery all along.

0 Replies