Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (416840)	9/12/2008 7:06:55 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1579687

Michael, Monroe had a doctrine. Bush had a failed idea that wasnt even his. Several policies can be defined as Bush Doctrine, most memorable are: 1. theory that if a nation harbors terrorists, provides safe harbor to terrorists, that nation will be treated as if it itself was terrorist regime. That was the justification of Afghanistan war. 2. theory of pre-emptive war For something to be a doctrine, it has to succeed, which is what Gibson defined the doctrine as. For something to be a doctrine, it has to succeed. #1 did, success of #2 is questionable (since the cause to justify the war was never really proven to be worth the pre-emptive war. According to this article elections.foxnews.com Gibson himself defined Bush doctrine as #1 in 2001, yesterday as #2, after Palin started answering it as #1. So she was more right than wrong, IMO. It is very feasible that if Palin answered it as #2, Gibson would have turned around and defined it as #1. So the more I think about it, the more I am starting to think that Charlie Gibson is a snake. Joe