Who first espoused it? The only definition I've read is in N. Podhoretz's WWIV. I doubt seriously GW could articulate it (and I acknowledge the potential humor here).
H/t: Dennis Prager (audio).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't need no sympathy. I won't cry and whine. Life's my light and liberty and I'll shine when I wanna shine.
7 comments:
Fair question? Yep. LJ asked me it bf I saw the interview. I mumbled something about pre-emption, which was wrong, but was at least in the neighborhood. Haven't seen the interview, but did she say she didn't know or give a bad answer?
I'll ask again: Josh and Steph still calling fraud?
Fraud re what?
Of course it was a fair question. It's the most important foreign policy issue of our generation: must a threat be imminent to us or an ally before it's appropriate to overthrow another country's government. Bush answered "no" (that's the Bush Doctrine); some of us found that appalling. BTW, if she wanted to sort out a more nuanced definition of what the Bush Doctrine was, that'd be fine. But she demonstrated she had no idea what he was talking about.
I agree that Stephanie's comment is the perception of the policy ...just don't know that the administration has ever really articulated that.
Do agree that it was Gov. Palin's weakest moment in the clips I've managed to see/hear so far. Just not convinced anybody cares given the lack of a "consensus" definition.
Steph and Josh said the interview would be a fraud.
"We'll have about 6 weeks from the time she does the Charlie Gibson farce-of-an-interview until election day"
WAsn't a fraud, although I wanted to hear about Todd's membership in secessionist party.
Post a Comment