Do You Agree with the Bush Doctrine? Well, Do You?

Sorted under 2008 election, politics on September 13, 2008

I didn’t think Sarah Palin would give us so much to talk about in just her first televised interview, but on September 11, 2008, Palin conducted her first interview on ABC World News with Charles Gibson. Gibson asked the question Do you agree with the Bush doctrine? and it took Palin all of 6 seconds to tell us all that she has no idea what the Bush doctrine is.

The Bush Doctrine: The Bush doctrine has set out a radically new–and dangerous–role for the United States.

On September 20, [2002], the Bush administration published a national security manifesto overturning the established order. Not because it commits the United States to global intervention: We’ve been there before. Not because it targets terrorism and rogue states: Nothing new there either. No, what’s new in this document is that it makes a long-building imperial tendency explicit and permanent. The policy paper, titled “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America”–call it the Bush doctrine–is a romantic justification for easy recourse to war whenever and wherever an American president chooses.

In 2 minutes and 34 seconds Palin never did answer Gibson’s question. No, it is not Bush’s “world view,” it is a page out of Bush’s terrorist myth book that blatantly says “Hey, you wanna go to war? Go for it!” However, through Palin’s semi-literate, guess-we-have-to-call-this-an-answer answer (after Charles Gibson was nice enough to tell Palin what it is) then yes, she agrees with the Bush doctrine 110%.

It does not take much to realize how the Republican party sees the US, how they see the rest of the world and how the US can inevitably unify everyone under one, totalitarian government.



You May Also Enjoy:

  • Obviously, a lot of info was wrong. However, a year before the "pre-emptive strike" I saw a CIA satellite photo that showed very clearly massive amounts of WMDs in Iraq. After the warnings, and the 1st Gulf War, those weapons were missing from that same spot. Where did they go? Were they used on Israel during that attack? Were they used on Hussein's own people? Were they buried in the sand in the vast desert? This dictator was clearly a menace. As Palin put it, though, mistakes were made. This was something that one country, alone, could not handle, obviously. We needed allies to strengthen it, but they wimped out. So there you have it. Yes, there was a threat, but if we dig our heads deep enough into the sand, maybe it will all go away by itself.
  • Joel_101
  • Geee thanks for the link. You know, you were so nice to have posted it here because in all of my reading and research I never did think of going to Wikipedia. Seriously, Joel, how did you know? You read my mind, it's great, thank you for that!

    In all seriousness now, getting any historical information (and I mean ANY) from Wikipedia is the same as opening a high school history text book--It is text taken from other historical books that have passed standards and will show in future text books. In other words, right-wing LIES LIES LIES. "Let's make America look good; it has to look good and the history books must reflect that so we can brainwash the next generation of sheep." So yeah, thanks, but you can take your propaganda and go sulk in the corner.
  • Joel_101
    Here are some more diverse links –right-center-left

    http://zfacts.com/p/677.html
    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush...
    http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2...
    http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/0001...
    http://www.tompaine.com/articles/the_new_bush_d...
    http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2006/12diplom...
    http://www.slate.com/id/2200090/
    http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/BushDoctrin...

    What exactly is the Bush doctrine? Those references in Wikipedia existed before Palin was interviewed. Unless of course there is a conspiracy to define that doctrine that has lasted for almost 7 years and has involved left/right media sources and many authors.

    I do not consider myself right or left. I don’t make decisions based upon any party or that parties views. Nor do I base my decisions on the spew that comes forth from much of mass media and biased blogs on the internet. I am an equal opportunity questioner of all things and when I see someone being trampled unfairly, I usually say something. That includes defending you and your right to have and voice your opinion.

    As for propaganda, what was this original post about?

    You seem to have no problem slinging propaganda that you agree with, but when a different view, opinion, or thought provoking statement is made that is contrary to your own, it is wrong because you do not agree with it.

    I do not sulk and quite frankly I thought you were bigger, better, and more intelligent than that.
  • No offense but his is exactly what needs to stop.. The arguing. I do wish that points can be made that are only factual and not opinionated. We the US lives off opinions and I'd say more than 95% of the population bases their decisions off of their friends views or family views. It's part of the American way to have opinions but we are not very good at listening first before making those opinions.
    I'd like to see the UNITED States become united in the right way, through hard work and support to one another.

    One way to look at history books is they are JUST books. They are blogs basically/ opinions written down on paper not on computers, so that makes them no different than Wiki too. There is some factual info there, but we need a place for real answers. Especially now.
blog comments powered by Disqus