Palin leaves open option of war with Russia.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

AJ wouldn't be sarcastic. This is serious business.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Palin addressed the Bush Doctrine:

The Bush Doctrine:

"Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of today's threats, and the magnitude of potential harm that could be caused by our adversaries' choice of weapons, do not permit that option. We cannot let our enemies strike first....Traditional concepts of deterrence will not work against a terrorist enemy whose avowed tactics are wanton destruction and the targeting of innocents; whose so-called soldiers seek martyrdom in death and whose most potent protection is statelessness."

From "The National Security Strategy of the United States"

[kaydee457 13]

Palin addressed the Bush Doctrine:

The Bush Doctrine:

"Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of today's threats, and the magnitude of potential harm that could be caused by our adversaries' choice of weapons, do not permit that option. We cannot let our enemies strike first....Traditional concepts of deterrence will not work against a terrorist enemy whose avowed tactics are wanton destruction and the targeting of innocents; whose so-called soldiers seek martyrdom in death and whose most potent protection is statelessness."

From "The National Security Strategy of the United States"

<shrug>...She answered the question......I fail to see a problem here.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Palin addressed the Bush Doctrine:

The Bush Doctrine:

"Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of today's threats, and the magnitude of potential harm that could be caused by our adversaries' choice of weapons, do not permit that option. We cannot let our enemies strike first....Traditional concepts of deterrence will not work against a terrorist enemy whose avowed tactics are wanton destruction and the targeting of innocents; whose so-called soldiers seek martyrdom in death and whose most potent protection is statelessness."

From "The National Security Strategy of the United States"

<shrug>...She answered the question......I fail to see a problem here.

She didn't answer it. She had no idea. The idea of a pre-emptive strike is the cardinal principle of the Bush doctrine and she missed it. Charlie had to explain what it meant to her for her to answer it

[IAMX 3,055]

No problems here, move along. How about those pin lapels?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

No problems here, move along. How about those pin lapels?

[panamania79 2]

No problems here, move along. How about those pin lapels?

[joelunchbox 0]

I didn't read it like she loves war, I just think she really has no clue what the issues are. These regions are fraught with complication and it's not simply a question of supporting the 'little guy' against the big guy' which is the level her answer appeared to be at.

It may not read that way but when I heard it, I expected to see saliva dripping from her mouth. My God--we may be a heartbeat away from her!!!

Hey! Maybe the Republican machinery is expecting McCain to die and then they will be able to manipulate Palin--Hey it will be Dubya all over again!!

[panamania79 2]

I didn't read it like she loves war, I just think she really has no clue what the issues are. These regions are fraught with complication and it's not simply a question of supporting the 'little guy' against the big guy' which is the level her answer appeared to be at.

It may not read that way but when I heard it, I expected to see saliva dripping from her mouth. My God--we may be a heartbeat away from her!!!

Hey! Maybe the Republican machinery is expecting McCain to die and then they will be able to manipulate Palin--Hey it will be Dubya all over again!!

EXACTLY !

[kaydee457 13]

Palin addressed the Bush Doctrine:

The Bush Doctrine:

"Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of today's threats, and the magnitude of potential harm that could be caused by our adversaries' choice of weapons, do not permit that option. We cannot let our enemies strike first....Traditional concepts of deterrence will not work against a terrorist enemy whose avowed tactics are wanton destruction and the targeting of innocents; whose so-called soldiers seek martyrdom in death and whose most potent protection is statelessness."

From "The National Security Strategy of the United States"

<shrug>...She answered the question......I fail to see a problem here.

She didn't answer it. She had no idea. The idea of a pre-emptive strike is the cardinal principle of the Bush doctrine and she missed it. Charlie had to explain what it meant to her for her to answer it

The phrase, "the Bush Doctrine" was coined and first applied to Bush's policies by a news commentator and isn't the term that should have been used to ask the question- there are many people that aren't familiar with the phrase but rather the correct term to refer the question to would have been "Bush's National Security Strategy of the United States" published under his administration after 9/11.....which outlines his policies to make war.

When she realized that the misapplied term "doctrine" was actually the National Security Strategy of the U.S. she answered the question more than adequately.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Palin addressed the Bush Doctrine:

The Bush Doctrine:

"Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of today's threats, and the magnitude of potential harm that could be caused by our adversaries' choice of weapons, do not permit that option. We cannot let our enemies strike first....Traditional concepts of deterrence will not work against a terrorist enemy whose avowed tactics are wanton destruction and the targeting of innocents; whose so-called soldiers seek martyrdom in death and whose most potent protection is statelessness."

From "The National Security Strategy of the United States"

<shrug>...She answered the question......I fail to see a problem here.

She didn't answer it. She had no idea. The idea of a pre-emptive strike is the cardinal principle of the Bush doctrine and she missed it. Charlie had to explain what it meant to her for her to answer it

The phrase, "the Bush Doctrine" was coined and first applied to Bush's policies by a news commentator and isn't the term that should have been used to ask the question- there are many people that aren't familiar with the phrase but rather the correct term to refer the question to would have been "Bush's National Security Strategy of the United States" published under his administration after 9/11.....which outlines his policies to make war.

When she realized that the misapplied term "doctrine" was actually the National Security Strategy of the U.S. she answered the question more than adequately.

Exactly right!

[panamania79 2]

Palin addressed the Bush Doctrine:

The Bush Doctrine:

"Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of today's threats, and the magnitude of potential harm that could be caused by our adversaries' choice of weapons, do not permit that option. We cannot let our enemies strike first....Traditional concepts of deterrence will not work against a terrorist enemy whose avowed tactics are wanton destruction and the targeting of innocents; whose so-called soldiers seek martyrdom in death and whose most potent protection is statelessness."

From "The National Security Strategy of the United States"

<shrug>...She answered the question......I fail to see a problem here.

She didn't answer it. She had no idea. The idea of a pre-emptive strike is the cardinal principle of the Bush doctrine and she missed it. Charlie had to explain what it meant to her for her to answer it

The phrase, "the Bush Doctrine" was coined and first applied to Bush's policies by a news commentator and isn't the term that should have been used to ask the question- there are many people that aren't familiar with the phrase but rather the correct term to refer the question to would have been "Bush's National Security Strategy of the United States" published under his administration after 9/11.....which outlines his policies to make war.

When she realized that the misapplied term "doctrine" was actually the National Security Strategy of the U.S. she answered the question more than adequately.

Exactly right!

Okay,if you say so.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Her response did seem a bit light-weight - clearly foreign policy is a foreign concept. And we already have one president who appears on TV and miserably fails to demonstrate that he has a handle on the in's and outs of international politics.

The last thing we need is another "all hat and no cattle" personality.

[alienlovechild 75]

The phrase, "the Bush Doctrine" was coined and first applied to Bush's policies by a news commentator and isn't the term that should have been used to ask the question- there are many people that aren't familiar with the phrase but rather the correct term to refer the question to would have been "Bush's National Security Strategy of the United States" published under his administration after 9/11.....which outlines his policies to make war.

Right on. All of the Palin bashers had no idea what the "Bush Doctrine" was either. There are several Bush "doctrines" floating around and I didn't know which one Gibson was talking about either. No cheating with search engines now- What are the Clinton or Powell doctrines?

The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, enunciated in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The phrase initially 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.[1] 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][3][4] Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002.[5] This represented a dramatic shift from the United States's Cold War policies of deterrence and containment, under the Truman Doctrine, and a departure from post-Cold War philosophies such as the Powell Doctrine and the Clinton Doctrine.

The first usage of the term to refer to the policies of George W. Bush may have been when conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer used the term in February 2001 to refer to the president's unilateral approach to national missile defense.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

Edited September 12, 2008 by alienlovechild

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't really think a dictionary definition is required to understand the concept - the "Bush" part should give it away... Esp. given that the War on Terror and unilateralism has been a (blatant) cornerstone of the current administration's approach to foreign policy.

Its really a case of 2+2 I would have thought.

Edited September 12, 2008 by Paul Daniels