Recent Comments by liverpoolfc 
1
1
comment listing type:
Top New Videos by Vote
Subscribe
Top 15 Sifters of All Time
Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week
VideoSift Links
Recent Comments by liverpoolfc 1 1 comment listing type: Top New Videos by Vote Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week VideoSift Links |
Palin Explains Why Bailout Will Help with Healthcare
The way "I am Legend" was supposed to end
Olbermann Analysis of Palin/Gibson Interview
>>Back before 9-11 when Bush pulled out of the ABM treaty and rejected the Kyoto protocol (somewhat of a change in foreign policy), that was seen as the "Bush Doctrine" of the time. Then after 9-11 it became the "with us or against us" attitude of unilateralism. It wasn't until we invaded Iraq that the "Bush Doctrine" included preemptive war. That's why I said that the term isn't very specific... you can't just look at its first use and claim that is the answer, because it was used well before preemptive war was even mentioned. Personally I thought the current Bush Doctrine was that it is our duty to spread democracy throughout the world.
Yea, that's all I was saying. He was trying too hard for a "got ya" moment. Even after he explained what he meant by it she still tried to avoid answering the question. I'm in no way trying to defend her, but when I was watching the interview and saw him ask that question I was admittedly asking myself "which part of the Bush Doctrine". Perhaps that is a lack of experience on my part.
Either way, I'm in no position to question Palin's abilities, especially with her being the USA's most experienced energy expert and all that. =P
What i'm saying is the first time the actual term "Bush Doctrine" was formally used was in a paper about that speech and it clearly defined what the Bush Doctrine was from that speech. I'll see if I can find it and i'll post a link. From there people have just used it to involve various changes to foreign policy for political expediency.
You've pointed out a perfect example of what i'm saying. You thought the Bush Doctrine included spreading democracy, this just wasn't the case at the time of the speech and the original debate about the Bush Doctrine. The speech was given September 2002, before the US "preemptively" invaded Iraq. Now at this point the reasons for the war were not to spread democracy but to stop Saddam from taking out American cities or giving weapons to terrorists that will. When it turned out there were no weapons suddenly the war wasn't about preemptively taking out someone that was about to kill Americans, it became about liberation and spreading democracy. People thus altered the Bush Doctrine from being focused on preemptive strike to focusing primarily on "spreading democracy." Essentially Bush was bailed out from being called on his bullshit because the media bought this new reasoning for the war and then the doctrine was changed, almost 1984 style except that instead of just erasing "preemptive strike" they added "spread democracy." You're right in that now you could claim spreading democracy is part of the Bush Doctrine but I would call it something different because that's what it is from the original understanding. The original Bush doctrine explained the original justification for the war in Iraq. Following the invasion I would call it the "New Bush Doctrine" or "Post-Invasion Bush Doctrine" or "Bush Doctrine 2.0"
I think we're still arguing the same point, that the Bush Doctrine has been confused. My stance is that it shouldn't have been. And it's no one's fault but the Press and opposition in the US. Bush should have been and should still be getting hammered for the reasons for going into Iraq. Claiming a preemptive strike and then when it turns out they had nothing claiming it was all about spreading democracy and freeing subjugated people. All bullshit and McCain will bring the same when he invades Iran.
Olbermann Analysis of Palin/Gibson Interview
>> ^HaricotVert:
I will politely disagree with this assessment, as the word "doctrine" (or "dogma") has a clear meaning in the realm of politics - specifically foreign policy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine#Foreign_policy_of_Doctrine
The word "doctrine" may be specific, but "the Bush Doctrine" is not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine
It is not clear which "Bush Doctrine" he was referring to... he was ambiguous on purpose.
She clearly didn't know what the "Bush Doctrine" was and probably never heard of, it's clear when he asks her what her interpretation of it.
Ask any first year Pol-Sci major who has done a basic course on modern international relations and they'll tell you the Bush Doctrine relates to a speech given in 2002 of which preemptive strike against a perceived threat, immediate or otherwise is a key component. All this rubbish about 'multiple Bush Doctrines' is simply revisionist history. People have to go back and look at when the term was initially used and in what relation, the reason people are claiming there are 'multiple Bush Doctrines' is because the term was high jacked by successive journalists and theorists. It's exactly the same with the crap about "appeasement" of Iran by Obama, they took a term which has a clearly defined meaning and history and tried to turn it into something it's not. The same has happened with the term "Bush Doctrine" however since the term wasn't so widely well known it's been successfully abused.
As the possible VP of the 'most powerful' nation in the world she should have comprehensive knowledge of ALL aspects of the foreign policy her country has subscribed to for the past 8 years regardless of what name it's been given otherwise what the hell is she doing running for VP. She clearly has no idea what she's talking about except to say the same old bs talking points:
"There are evil men/doers/Islamic Extremists/Osama bin Laden/Ahmedinejad/terrorists out there coming to kill you, only we know how to stop them"
In saying that clearly the interviewer was trying to trap her, I would have preferred if he'd just come out and said "do you agree the United States has the right to invade any country which poses a possible threat to the United States and it's interests be that immediate or otherwise?"
Oh and anyone that thinks there is a possibility that McCain won't invade Iran if elected is deluding themselves. Iran is to McCain like Iraq was to Bush jnr. They'll go in and it'll be Iraq II followed by 9/11 part II. McCain is a disgrace, I don't give a toss about his war record, when you come out the way he has running his campaign the way he has you can't say he is a man with honour. Deliberately distorting someone's character with no hesitation or second thought is all I need to know about the man and his character.
Anyone who votes for these two clowns (McCain/Palin) should have to sign on for military service for the duration of their administration if they get elected.
Apologies for the rant but as the last remaining 'super power' citizens of the United States not only have a duty to themselves but a moral responsibility to the rest of the world to elect rational leaders that will think of the consequences before taking such reckless action.
Republicans and Military Men on John McCain
You trans-global America-haters, I beg you, WALL US IN! Help remove the 40 million illegals from America and repatriate them to their countries of origin.
--------------
But who would cut your grass, clean your pool, take out your garbage, clean your house, nanny your children, do all the jobs American's either don't want or are too lazy to do?
Your economy could not survive without those 40million below minimum wage workers.
Republicans and Military Men on John McCain
and his statement is all based on a ridiculous premise, anyway. Why on Earth would we use nuclear weapons against Iran.
I don't think you could say it with any certainty but my guess is if McCain was dead set on taking out Iran he would have to. You haven't got the military resources to defeat them any other way. Bush burnt you guys when he didn't consider the consequences of a drawn out occupation.