tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-776205147286643847.post1920815418642002220..comments2023-12-18T13:55:50.256-08:00Comments on Thinking as a Profession: The Bush DoctrineDerekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02776917750757825408noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-776205147286643847.post-53881223521581603032008-09-16T06:57:00.000-07:002008-09-16T06:57:00.000-07:00I'm not giving her leeway. I still hold that it wa...I'm not giving her leeway. I still hold that it was a crappy question, but I did point out that even though it was a crappy question, she didn't handle it well.Derekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02776917750757825408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-776205147286643847.post-51824384383451982922008-09-15T08:47:00.000-07:002008-09-15T08:47:00.000-07:00Search for "Bush Doctrine" on Google and you'll be...Search for "Bush Doctrine" on Google and you'll be bombarded with the phrase in all sorts of locations through time over the last 6 years. <BR/><BR/>Do I know what the Bush Doctrine is? Yes. Does my sister? No. Do a lot of people? No.... but those people are also not ready to be President. <BR/><BR/>The part that you emphasized in the quote from wikipedia makes it sound like people don't really know what it is... but if you had emphasized the next line it would be closer to reality. People know what the Bush Doctrine is, the room for debate comes in because it has evolved over time. <BR/><BR/>Even with the small changes over time, wikipedia also says that the Sept 20th, 2002 National Security Strategy is "often cited as the definitive statement of the doctrine." <BR/><BR/><I>It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense.</I><BR/><BR/>When Palin dropped the question and didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was, Gibson reiterated and specifically mentioned the Bush Doctrine as described on Sept 20th, 2002. So, even if you want to quibble about different perspectives on the Bush Doctrine over time, he gave her a specific version of it to which he wanted her to respond.<BR/><BR/>The phrase "Bush Doctrine" isn't a new one. The term "<insert President here> Doctrine" isn't a new one. If Obama or Biden dropped the ball on a question like this, you wouldn't be so kind. Why do you give Palin so much leeway?Kenny Wylandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17129538093718977326noreply@blogger.com