You finally did a swan dive into the tank for Obama. Your credibility is slipping.

Check out Mark Shields, David Brooks, David Gergen, Wikipedia, my man - hardly a who's who of right wing spinmeisters. They have all more or less agreed that there is no one succinctly defined Bush doctrine. (Since I do not live fuill time on the internet, I do not have the links, but I am sure an enterprising crusader for the truth can find the quotes - all within 96 hours of the interview airing)

There is a difference between 1) creating an essay about a Bush Doctrine, which you then refer to as "the" Bush Doctrine [in reference to the specific doctrine that you are talking about] or an essay about the sum of the Bush Doctrines that are all related by the general arrogance that Bush has toward the use of military force; and 2) using "the Bush Doctrine" as an incontrovertible and universally accepted succinct and repeatable doctrine in a question.

Your lame examples seem to be the former, whereas Charlie Gibson asking what do you think about the Bush Doctrine is an unfair set-up for an unwarranted "gotcha" moment. Sarah Palin's retort asking Gibson to clarify was absolutely appropriate given the jackass content of the question.

I am not really happy that the Democrats and liberals, of whom I have always considered myself, are now resorting to the same smear tactics that have been a staple of Republican tactics.

Give me a break.

After the vilification of Hillary Clinton, we now have the brutal criticism of Sara Palin by the liberal media. The only reason I was reading Salon before is because there was some sympathy for Hillary in Salon during her campaign for the nomination which she lost thanks to the caucuses fraud, the media frenzy against her and the Democratic Party who chose Obama over her notwithstanding her formidable qualifications.There will not have been a Sara Palin if Hillary would have been the nominee or the vice-presidential candidate. If Obama loses the presidential campaign it will be because of the stupidity of the Democratic Party and will not be the first time they lose.

Although Gov. Palin did not recognize what Charlie Gibson was referring to, her answer upon clarification was exactly correct. That is called "substance." If Saracuda continues to experience condescension and even scorn such as displayed by Charlie Gibson in his tone and demeanor, she may begin to ascribe to the "McCain Doctrine." You know, the one where he always refers to the media as "You jerks."

The Greenwald Doctrine:

Having to wade through paragraph upon paragraph, update upon update, to defend a silly argument.

Hey Greenwald, without resorting to "Google," please tell us your understanding of the Laffer Curve.

Hmmm. Didn't think so.

Celebrate Character Assasination!

THawk7 (September 16, 2008 08:23 AM):

"Liberals should ask anyone, 'Um, er, if we knew that the twin towers were going to be attacked, should we have acted preemptively?' The answer would be a near unamimous (sic) yes. So the libs are, again, shooting themselves in the foot. And that is great because the bullet will go through their foot, ricochet, and shatter the glass ceiling! And I'm thrilled!"

---

Like so many others posting on this issue who can't trouble themselves with the difference between the time-honored right of pre-emptive defense and the Bush Doctrine's preventive aggression, THawk, you're simply in way over your head.

"The grand strategy authorizes Washington to carry out 'preventive war': Preventive, not pre-emptive. Whatever the justifications for pre-emptive war might be, they do not hold for preventive war, particularly as that concept is interpreted by its current enthusiasts: the use of military force to eliminate an invented or imagined threat, so that even the term 'preventive' is too charitable. Preventive war is, very simply, the 'supreme crime' condemned at Nuremberg."

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/10015

Those who can't swim (or are too tired or too lazy to do so) should confine themselves to the shallow end of the pool, THawk.

The Bush Doctine is amorphous even according to the man who coined the term. See Washington Post 9/13/2008, "Many Versions of 'Bush Doctrine': Palin's Confusion in Interview Understandable", Michael Abramowitz. Nevertheless, the libs will continue to use that red-herring of an argument ignorant of the fact that the electorate, whether right or wrong, agrees with the dotrine. Liberals should ask anyone, "Um, er, if we knew that the twin towers were going to be attacked, should we have acted preemptively?" The answer would be a near unamimous yes. So the libs are, again, shooting themselves in the foot. And that is great because the bullet will go through their foot, ricochet, and shatter the glass ceiling! And I'm thrilled!

Arne Langsetmo (September 15, 2008 05:45 PM):

"I admit there's argument, but amongst other things, the argument that the Security Council can authorise pre-emptive war is not a license to the member states to do so on their own (and in fact may instead be taken as evidence for a 'new regime' for doing such things). And finding support for some 'long-standing right to self-defence' which extends to pre-emptive strikes doesn't mean that the U.N. Charter 'permits such; I think at best the argument is that absent specific prohibition, it is silent on such.

Cheers,

---

I agree with your interpretive understanding, Arne. I just wanted to point out that Patrizio's assertion that the UN Charter permits the waging of "pre-emptive" but not "preventive" war has at least some validity.

But in the case of Bush's nihilistic aggrandizement, the question of pre-emption becomes moot, if his self-proclaimed right to international military aggression is recognized for what it is.

As Chomsky has concisely assayed this determinative component of the Bush Doctrine,

"President Bush declared that the US 'has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security,' threatened by Iraq with or without Saddam, according to the Bush doctrine. Washington will be happy to establish an "Arab façade," to borrow the term of the British during their day in the sun, while US power is firmly implanted at the heart of the world's major energy-producing region. Formal democracy will be fine, but only if it is of the submissive kind accepted in Washington's 'backyard,' at least if history and current practice are any guide.

"The grand strategy authorizes Washington to carry out 'preventive war': Preventive, not pre-emptive. Whatever the justifications for pre-emptive war might be, they do not hold for preventive war, particularly as that concept is interpreted by its current enthusiasts: the use of military force to eliminate an invented or imagined threat, so that even the term 'preventive' is too charitable. Preventive war is, very simply, the 'supreme crime' condemned at Nuremberg. (Emphasis mine)

Noam Chomsky, "Preventive War the Supreme Crime", ZNet http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/10015