Story Comments
Posted by: gamahuche 1 year, 3 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
70%
gamahuche1 year, 3 months ago
-
-
43%
lovemylibs1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oink is the animal sound of the week.
Reply
Bkumm, are you saying that the Bush Doctrine relates to one definable point? My understanding is that it encompasses several principles with regard to foreign policy. Isn't clarification needed when a question is ambiguous?-
73%
Bkumm1 year, 3 months ago
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.
Reply
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.-
-
-
-
DanmLiberalsComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
DanmLiberalsComment removed: Retracted by user2 Replies
-
83%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Multilateralism? (hard to find an example of that anywhere but it sounds good) . Most anyone would think of the pre-emptive use of military force as the crux of the Bush Policy, really the others are simply extensions of the the admitted willingness to use military force for offense rather than defense. Still regardless, I found the answers Palin provided remarkably generalized. They were obviously memorized stock lines the Lobbyists who actually run McCain's bid told her to say. I thought however there was a glimmer of something that wasn't a stock soundbyte for a micro second regarding Bush...that what she actually thought might be known and be far more interesting than the lines she had memorized.... but it disappeared before any realization.
Reply
Sorry, she's a fine person. But world leader?
I don't see it.-
DanmLiberalsComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
75%
donald511 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
lovemylibs, are you are repug in disguise? Where did you get your four points as two are absolutely wrong!
Reply
All you have to cite is the PNAC! Which changes multilateralism to unilateralism, if that is what it takes: and ,there is no democracy goal (thi is a sham front) - just asserting US capitalism at any cost! Why do businesses have more rights than individual Americans in a Bushworld? Sadam tortured soldiers can't sue Iraq, but Bush has let foreign companies do so!
-
-
-
-
60%
lovemylibs1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think you are incorrect with your single sentence summarization. This explanation shows there are four main themes related to the Bush Doctrine:
Reply
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/1202/ijpe/pj...
These four themes are:
1) Preemption
2) Military Primacy
3) Multilateralism
4) Spreading Democracy-
-
-
50%
amazed1 year, 3 months ago
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.
Reply
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.
-
-
20%
lovemylibs1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Are you dense, donald? That is not a Bush website. That article was written by:
Reply
By Keir A. Lieber
Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Notre Dame
and
Robert J. Lieber
Professor of Government and Foreign Service, Georgetown University
Both professors at respected universities. They have credentials and everything.-
100%
Spinward1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's just the problem.
Reply
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. -
-
25%
lovemylibs1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Since you asked nicely:
Reply
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBR/is_1_3...
Go to the google, type in "Bush Doctrine four tenets" without the quotes and look at any of the 267,000 links.
-
-
-
-
miklkitComment removed: Spam
-
-
-
-
-
50%
tchef1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Changes like what? All they are doing is echoing current policy! Everything McCain says is something that Bush has already said. I we elect McCain and Palin all we will have is Bush's third term.
Reply
We are not just attacking Palin for the sake of attacking her. We are showing that she is not ready for the job. We are pointing out the problems with her. You guys have been "attacking" Obama since day one so you have not room to talk. He is much more qualified than she is.
Your boy Karl Rove said that Tim Kaine wasn't qualified for the VP and he is a two time Mayor of Richmond Virginia (about the same population as Alaska) and 4 years as Governor of Virginia. Explain to me how He isn't qualified and she is? She's only been Governor for a year and a half.
Go ahead I'm ready for the negs.
-
-
loading ...
People Who Liked This Comment (32)
-
zaphod
-
Ciera-Marie
-
bonaroo
-
TGrass3001
-
Eagle_Eye
-
Searchbeam
-
donald51
-
Dobes_Rule
-
david_nwpa
-
Justice4All
-
german-shepard
-
sailr
-
Poulenc
-
tchef
-
miklkit
-
Shadowolf
-
globalwarmer
-
Radiofreeeuropa
-
inverse
-
fsev41
-
Dionys
-
mesodude
-
puffin
-
AntiNeoCon
-
beymudakov
-
CRYMTYPHON
-
AnteUp
-
WildWes99
-
bluetexasvalley
-
ajbarnes
-
ronbearoh
-
Progressive
Spinward
dandt1612
Patience
Klarissa
Locky12
protoham
memestryker
Wolfie2007
gwhiddon
Osbama_lin_Biden
FairNBalanced
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.