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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (84269)	9/13/2008 11:49:52 PM
From: Bridge Player	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541997

So you honestly believe that she showed depth of thought about foreign policy in that interview? Excuse me? Where did that statement come from? It's past my bedtime. I'll have to defer a reply to your reply until tomorrow. Exchanges with those of opposing ideologies should never interfere with sleep.

To: Sam who wrote (84269)	9/14/2008 12:23:34 AM
From: NAG1	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541997

Sam, If you google Bush Doctrine and you look at things dated before the Gibson interview, you will see that most refer to the Bush Doctrine as having to do with pre-emption. To be fair, there are other articles which it isn't really clear that pre-emption is part of the equation. But from what I saw, the most consistent use of the Bush Doctrine is with pre-emption. What is also interesting is that the first use of the term Bush Doctrine by Krauthammer occurred in February 2001. edition.cnn.com It seems his facts are a bit amiss as well. Maybe, if you look around further, you will see that Krauthammer changed his definition of what the Bush Doctrine is. But maybe most other people didn't. Still seems like silly spin to try to take away from the fact that Palin doesn't know much about foreign policy. By going on the attack here, however, may be a strategic mistake by attracting more attention to this rather than letting it die down. Neal