Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavens_Myst  Are you a fucking idiot? The first definition was that the doctrine allowed for military action against countries that harbored terrorist groups that attacked us on September 11, 2001. Later it was defined as anticipatory self-defense, the pretext for invading Iraq.
The two definitions are completely separate philosophies. |
Bull
Shit.
What the fuck do you think the whole make believe meeting between Atta and Iraqi Intelligence was about? They intentionally blurred the distinction.
And the Bush Doctrine NEVER included the "Who attacked us on 9/11" part. It just said "Nations who harbor Terrorist groups will be considered Terrorists" Very generic and non specific as possible in order to give the maximum amount of latitude.
And you have to be mainlining the Kool Aid if you thought Palin wasn't trying to BS her way through that question. It was obvious. Im not saying it was a good question.. i could come up with 6 or 7 that would have had her alot better than that one.
It was a bullshit question from Gibson that was a softball to let her seperate herself from Bush. She SHOULD have been able to knock it out of the park. 2/10
