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: Alighieri who wrote (416906)	9/13/2008 10:53:05 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1579127

Not sure where the hell he was in september 2002, the bush admin published a national security document which said basically that we assumed the right to strike any adversary on the mere suspicion of an offensive strike against the US. You seem just as confused as many others are. This document, of course, didn't define "Bush Doctrine". The fact is that the term Bush Doctrine was not part of that "document". The term, of course, is one that has been assigned different meanings over the 8 year period of Bush's administration -- at least 4 of them commonly accepted, and probably more. Even Charles Gibson himself has used it in multiple contexts. It was an intentionally vague reference by Gibson. Unfortunately, she was not strong enough in her knowledge to call him on it; it would have been great if she could have said, "Now, Charlie, you know that Bush Doctrine means different things to different people. Which meaning are you referring to?". Few people would have been surefooted enough to live with that. It was certainly an unfair question the way it was worded. There is a consensus, including the person who first used the term, that she answered the question reasonably well given the ambiguity of it. I'm inclined to give her the benefit of that doubt.