Skip to comments.The Bush doctrine (Krauthammer in 2001)
Posted on 09/12/2008 9:59:21 PM PDT by palmer
Bush's refreshing question was: Why? We don't need Russians cutting our offensive weapons through arms-control treaties. And we don't need Russians telling us whether or not to build defensive weapons.
This was the genesis of the Bush Doctrine, now taking shape as the Administration takes power....
(Excerpt) Read more at edition.cnn.com ...
Anyway, that was the Bush Doctrine, gone but not forgotten.
You sound disgruntled.
Not really, I am just marveling at all the different Bush Doctrines out there.
By Charles Krauthammer
Saturday, September 13, 2008; A17
“At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of ‘anticipatory self-defense.’ “
— New York Times, Sept. 12
Informed her? Rubbish.
The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.
There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.
Thanks, just read it. He used Wikipedia to find out about 2001, but I found his column with Google.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.