Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: charles m

Maybe this guy needs to read about the “BUSH DOCTRINE” because even the Washington Post said it was a confusing question.


4 posted on 09/12/2008 10:34:38 PM PDT by snarkytart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: snarkytart; All

It was reported that the “Bush Doctrine” was the concept that we had the right to engage in preemptive war, as we did in 2003, although Saddam Hussein had not attacked us or anyone else as he had in 1990 when he entered Kuwaite. This unfortunately pulled us away from finishing the job in Afghanistan. [And means my son will be sent back there for a second tour next year.]

It that is correct, then it is clear from her answer that she had no idea what it was.


20 posted on 09/12/2008 10:59:40 PM PDT by gleeaikin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: snarkytart
I thought Charlie Gibson missed the Bush Doctrine as well. He said the Bush Doctrine was that the US has a right to pre-emptive strikes. That's not the doctrine Bush articulated after 9-11. He said that we would treat any nation that harbors, protects, or tolerates terrorists in their midst as terrorist nations. They were by definition enemies of the US in the war on terror.

gitmo

47 posted on 09/13/2008 12:17:43 AM PDT by gitmo (Some days you're the dog. Some days you're the hydrant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson