All the pres. candidates knew about the Bush Doctrine, and answered questions about it in debates

[kath]

Only S. Palin seems to be totally ignorant as to what it is -- in spite of all the recent right-wing spin and lies on the matter,others have known what it is for YEARS.

Great Glenn Greenwald piece, with updates:

Glenn Greenwald
Sunday Sept. 14, 2008 10:48 EDT
Where is the debate over the Bush Doctrine?
(updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV - Update V)

Before it became clear that Sarah Palin had never heard of it, nobody -- including the presidential candidates themselves -- ever had difficulty answering questions about what they believed about the Bush Doctrine, nor ever suggested that this Doctrine was some amorphous, impossible-to-understand, abstract irrelevancy. Quite the contrary, despite some differences over exactly what it means, it was widely understood to constitute a radical departure -- at least in theory -- from our governing foreign policy doctrine, and it is that Doctrine which has unquestionably fueled much of the foreign policy disasters of the last eight years.

In 2003, the American Enterprise Institute's Thomas Donnelly wrote an article entitled "The Underpinnngs of the Bush Doctrine," and argued that "the Bush Doctrine, which is likely to shape U.S. policy for decades to come, reflects the realities of American power as well as the aspirations of American political principles"; that it "represents a reversal of course from Clinton-era policies in regard to the uses of U.S. power and, especially, military force"; and "the Bush Doctrine represents a return to the first principles of American security strategy." Donnelly had no trouble understanding and articulating exactly what the Bush Doctrine meant: namely, a declaration that the U.S. has the right to -- and will -- start wars against countries even if they have not attacked us and are not imminently going to do so:
<snip>

That the Bush Doctrine is both clear and central had continued to be accepted fact into the 2008 election. In January of this year in New Hampshire, Charlie Gibson himself asked the presidential candidates about their views of the Bush Doctrine during the primary debates he hosted. Nobody had any trouble answering it

article also reveals what an "unprincipled hack" (Cernig) George Will is:

UPDATE IV: As Cernig notes, George Will today went on ABC News' Sunday Show and defended Sarah Palin by claiming that even he, Will, didn't know what this bizarre, confusing thing called "the Bush doctrine" is -- that's the same George Will who, in 2003, wrote an Op-Ed entitled "The Bush Doctrine at Risk" in which he understood the term perfectly well and defined it exactly how Gibson did: namely, the right of the U.S. to attack even in the absence of an imminent threat. For years, controversy over "the Bush doctrine" fueled our foreign policy debates. Now, Sarah Palin reveals she's completely ignorant of the term and, suddenly, right-wing hacks everywhere are screaming, in unison: "The Bush Doctrine? What is that?"

Also includes a clip from the 2005 film "Why We Fight" showing **McCain himself** opining on the Bush Doctrine, and concludes with this:

In 2005, McCain -- like George Will, Norm Podhoretz, McCain in the January 2008 debate, Ron Paul and AEI's Tom Donnelly -- all understood what the Bush Doctrine was, understood it how Charlie Gibson defined it, and were able quite readily to opine on it, notwithstanding any doctrinal ambiguity on the margins or different versions that have appeared over the years. If it would have been irresponsible and incoherent for Sarah Palin to say what she thought about the Bush Doctrine, why was John McCain, and seemingly everyone else, able to do so?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/14/bush_doctrine/


I guess I should be used to it by now, but the audacity of the hypocrisy and lies coming from the right continues to boggle my mind. :banghead: :banghead:

[JSK]

1. That puke sleeze-bag on Bill Maher the other night

made a big, big deal about the fact that during the debates the candidates had the Bush Doctrine defined for them before any questions were asked. That was his argument that no one knows what it is.

Why did it not occur to anyone on Bill's panel to tell him that it was explained for the benefit of the AUDIENCE at the debates?

:mad:

[kath]

2. Greenwald addresses that argument, and also points out how ignorant and uncurious Palin is (now who

does *that* remind you of?):

It's certainly reasonable to argue that, in some respects, the Bush Doctrine has no precise meaning and is subject to debate, and Gibson provided some vague definitional parameters when asking the presidential candidates about it. None of that negates that Palin appeared quite clearly never to have even heard of the term "The Bush Doctrine" before ("His world view?"), leading one to wonder if she has paid any attention at all to the central foreign policy debates over the last eight years and whether she even watched or was vaguely aware of the presidential debates this year and many of the most critical expressed differences between the candidates -- including the one with whom she's running.

12 years ago the woman said she wanted to be President some day, yet she's woefully ignorant as to domestic and international affairs and probably didn't even watch the "debates"?? WTF?

[SammyWinstonJack]

3. John Fund the wife beater?

Oh yeah he is a real piece of work.

[yellowcanine]

4. To be fair, Sarah was busy keeping an eye on Russia from across the Bering Strait while all that was

going on. You did notice they didn't invade on her watch, didn't you?
:rofl:

[kath]

5. My bad - you're right. It's HARD WORK, governatin'.