jefferiah

The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan.[1] Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq), a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism, and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.[2][3][4] Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002.[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine Maybe we should be asking if Charles Gibson knows what he is talking about.

"Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?" "In what respect, Charlie?" "The Bush -- well, what do you interpret it to be?" "His world view?" "No, the Bush Doctrine, enunciated in September 2002, before the Iraq war." "I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership -- and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better." "The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense; that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?" http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/11/...in4442963.shtml By asking what do you interpret it to be, she responded the right way. The Bush Doctrine is not something that was enunciated or enacted nor does it exist except as a collective term to describe Bush policies. Pundits use the term pretty liberally, thus.......

And what is the Bush Doctrine pray tell. Is it an official doctrine? Does it exist?

Gosh, thats kinda like someone saying there are 57 states in the union. Now who said that again??? And was he at the top or bottom of his ticket?

No, it was not a fabrication. And you know that. You asserted a moment ago that you merely told me his name was Barack, and uttered nothing about disrespect or about me. But I clearly showed that you did. And I made a mistake about the nature of the insult. Sorry if my memory was slightly off. You did not say my opinions were invalid, but that it obviously showed something about my character that I would deign to call him Barry. I am not offended over this. Just that you keep calling out LIES LIES, fabrications! as if its some big attempt to slander you.

Mmmm I think I said that Obama did not mean it as an insult already. But it is on another thread. Actually I said it in agreement with you. And that I thought it was not offensive, and who the hell cares. So I don't understand where you are going. That said, Obama has already played the race card.

It's not word for word no, but I think its a bit closer to how I framed it, than you just did. My disrespect for Barry says nothing about him and everything about me. So yeah I guess it doesn't say something about my opinions necessarily but about my character overall. Oh well....

To be honest I am not a big Cherry fan either. Don't hate him. I'm a habs fan, you?

Yes you do know the answer. Because I am not outraged or offended over Mallick's column. It basically that sounds kind of what like Mallick said. She even compared Palin to a porn star and mocked Bristol. But I think I have said over and over and over, that I am not offended over it. All I said was I thought she sounded like to me like she was a little ticked off in that way where you are more apt to laugh at her than with her, whereas with Ann I find it the opposite. You don't have to agree with my assessment. (Even though its true) I am simply asking why dont we hold Mallick (who is not very funny) to the same standards that we hold Coulter (who is). Coulter (who is much funnier than Heather Mallick), I believe should not (and most certainly would not, if she were Canadian) receive government funding. So why should Mallick (who is nowhere near as funny as Ann Coulter)? And in the case of Human Rights Commissions I would say that right wingers (who have a far superior sense of humor to left wingers) should not be called before a tribunal to defend their right-wing columns, statements, etc. Do we agree then? (Note: For the record, Ann Coulter is much funnier than Heather Mallick.)

Once again, Black Dog: bad example. No one wants to censor Mallick. We are just pointing yet one more example of left-wing CBC bias. Mark Steyn does not receive tax funding for his books.

So you are saying that it is wrong to believe that the Jersey Girls may have been a bit selfish? I did not know they were immune to criticism. Maybe even alot of other 9/11 families and others see that the same way I do. "The hearing room that day had seen a substantial group of 9/11 families, similarly irate over the Jersey Girls and their accusations--families that made their feelings evident in their burst of loud applause when Ms. Rice scored a telling zinger under questioning. But these were not the 9/11 voices TV and newspaper editors were interested in. They had chosen to tell a different story--that of four intrepid New Jersey housewives who had, as one news report had it, brought an administration "to its knees"--and that was, as far as they were concerned, the only story. A fair number of the Americans not working in the media may, on the other hand, by now be experiencing Jersey Girls Fatigue--or taking a hard look at the pronouncements of the widows. Statements like that of Monica Gabrielle, for example (not one of the Jersey Girls, though an activist of similar persuasion), who declared that she could discern no attempt to lessen the casualties on Sept. 11. What can one make of such a description of the day that saw firefighters by the hundreds lose their lives in valiant attempts to bring people to safety from the burning floors of the World Trade Center--that saw deeds like that of Morgan Stanley's security chief, Rick Rescorla, who escorted 2,700 employees safely out of the South Tower, before he finally lost his own life? But the best known and most quoted pronouncement of all had come in the form of a question put by the leader of the Jersey Girls. "We simply wanted to know," Ms. Breitweiser said, by way of explaining the group's position, "why our husbands were killed. Why they went to work one day and didn't come back." The answer, seared into the nation's heart, is that, like some 3,000 others who perished that day, those husbands didn't come home because a cadre of Islamist fanatics wanted to kill as many of the hated American infidels in their tall towers and places of government as they could, and they did so. Clearly, this must be a truth also known to those widows who asked the question--though in no way one would notice. Who, listening to them, would not be struck by the fact that all their fury and accusation is aimed not at the killers who snuffed out their husbands' and so many other lives, but at the American president, his administration, and an ever wider assortment of targets including the Air Force, the Port Authority, the City of New York? In the public pronouncements of the Jersey Girls we find, indeed, hardly a jot of accusatory rage at the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. We have, on the other hand, more than a few declarations like that of Ms. Breitweiser, announcing that "President Bush and his workers . . . were the individuals that failed my husband and the 3,000 people that day." http://www.opinionjournal.com/medialog/?id=110004950

So what. You are missing the point. You have jumped on the same bandwagon American Woman has, which is to critique my personal reasons for liking Ann Coulter more, which I never said you have to agree with anyways---and which are not relevant to the argument. I would have probably saved myself a load of trouble if I simply hadn't offered my opinion that "Ann Coulter is funnier," but how was I to know it would distract everyone from the reason we brought up Coulter in the first place. The reason Coulter was brought up was because American Woman referred to Mallick as a "Canadian Ann Coulter". And we pointed out that right-wing Ann would not get government funding up here to write for CBC, while Mallick does. And I further pointed out, that most likely, Ann would spend so much time at human rights tribunals (conservative silencing trials) that the cost of defending herself would make writing an expensive hobby. So while you might say this also applies to the person we are discussing here, what does not apply to both people is the favoritism received by government run media like the CBC.

Once again, I don't care about Mallick's article. I am not outraged over it. She can write whatever she pleases. But I think it shows the bias in the CBC. You don't have to agree with Coulter. I don't agree with her all the time either. I don't have to agree with Mallick. But our government supports news media which only reflects one side of the political spectrum. Does that make sense?

Sure, I think I said I don't agree with everything that Ann says. And much of it is outrageous. But nonetheless there is a lot of good information on certain topics to be found in her books, and well-researched. Quoting examples of her outrageous statements does not mean that her well-researched claims do not exist. As for the comment she made in the interview with Deutsch, you don't have to agree with it, but it is NOT ANTI-SEMITISM. If you know anything about Christianity, one of the central tenets is that everyone is a sinner and that no one is perfect. The other tenet is that Jesus died to redeem people of their sins and was resurrected. St. Paul said that believers would be perfected, that "in the twinkling of an eye" we would become like Christ. So she is not saying Jewish people are imperfect by nature of their being Jewish, but by nature of their being human like all of us. And that according to Christianity the only way to be perfected is to accept Jesus. So it's not a case of racial superiority, but of religious superiority. I have no problem with someone believing their religion is superior. To me that makes perfect sense, since religions all contradict each other on certain points, if you believe one you must be saying that the contradiction is wrong. If she was being anti-semitic it would make no sense that she would think Christianity could perfect them. Since Jews are semitic by virtue of their genes. Converting to Christianity does not change your gene code. But aside from all of this, I don't have to defend Coulter. And defending Coulter plays no part in the main argument I have been making. Heather Mallick is a columnist for a major news agency in our country which is funded by the tax-payer. Ann Coulter sells.

Yes I do. I have actually read that book. She was not criticizing the widows of 9/11. She was criticizing four widows of 9/11 in particular, the Jersey Girls, who were not satisified with the money they received from the airlines and apparently considered themselves more important than the other widows. They said that they just wanted to know why their husbands died that day. Apparently people crashing planes into buildings had nothing to do with it, only America and Bush were to blame in their eyes. (Translation: We have a better chance at getting more money in reparations from the US than we do Al Qaeda.) Ann makes a really good argument as to why she accuses them of being self-obsessed women. You have to read beyond that single paragraph. Maybe you don't agree with Ann on this, but I think she was right in calling them out myself. I think the Jersey Girls were using their husbands deaths for fame and fortune.

And I am not that poster. And how do you know you would not be hearing any complaints from the likes of me? Part of the reason that I am "right-winged" is because I do not believe in government run news media. If what you were saying was true the main point of my argument would be to say that CBC should hire more right winged columnists, reporters. I do make the argument that they obviously would not hire right winged people like Ann Coulter (to show that indeed has a bias), but I do not say that they should be forced to either. I rather think it should be cut loose from the government and sent out into the free market. First on principle, that I do not believe this ought to be the role of the state. And secondly I point to the result of tax funded news media--that media cannot be unbiased and that CBC has the incentive to be left-wing. Why should government spend billions on news media which tells you to vote for one party???

This is not a good argument. Remember we are the ones who do not support government funded media. We do not want a public funded Conservative Broadcasting channel.

Well, actually, you are focusing more on my opinionated assessment that Ann is funnier (which is just a little jab on my part--I knew it was biased when I said it), than you are on the argument at large, which is that no one on the right wing would receive this kind of funding to do the same thing. And most likely a conservative Ann Coulter in Canada would be standing before the Human Rights tribunal so often it would make it costly just to write her column. My comment about Ann Coulter being funnier (which is the objective truth by the way ), does nothing to discredit my other arguments on their own merits. But I do think Ann is better. She does inject alot of opinion into her columns and her books, and exaggerates her assessment of the fact sometimes, by saying things like "look see Liberals are only happy when America is losing a war." That's for effect. But on the other hand she also does alot of meticulous research which does make a good point. When saying Al Gore is a pansy, she provides a reason or several reasons for her assessment. When saying that Democrats are flip-flopping cowards, she points out the Iraq War. They voted against the original Gulf War. Then later criticized Bush Sr for not finishing the job. They voted for the current war, and then began to rail against it immediately afterward. After railing against it for two years and demanding that troops be withdrawn, she points out that the Republicans called the Democrats bluff and decided to propose a bill that would do exactly what they wanted. In 2005, after wailing about the war, the vote was 403-3 against withdrawing. I don't agree with Ann on everything, but, love her or hate her, the fact is she does do her research and makes a lot of good points. She goes beyond what the media says and actually examines the written records, what is going on in congress, the senate, how people voted, what they said, what ideas they proposed etc. What research has Mallick done to support any of her claims in this article. She has got the insulting part down. But that's about it. Simply put, Heather Mallick in her column sounds as if she has lost it. Her comments remind me of myself, when I complain about the officiating in the NHL and the opposing team being dirt bags whenever the Habs lose a hockey game. And this is why I would not make a good sports columnist.

No one is saying Mallick should not have the right to freedom of expression. But that right does not include the inalienable entitlement to someone else's money to do so. If that were the case Ann Coulter could say she is being censored because the government is not funding her, and so could I for that matter.

I know I have been told this is not the proper thread to discuss this, but I'd just like to answer this question. The answer simply is no. Because the good old police did not know anything. You can't get a warrant when you do not know what it is or who you are looking for in the first place. The bridge plot was discovered because wiretaps revealed a conversation in Arabic with the phrase "Brooklyn Bridge" repeated over and over. They do not just listen in on individual conversations. A computer trolls through billions of conversations and is programmed to pick up certain red flag phrases. They do not know what they are looking for or who they are looking for. These are both necessary conditions in being granted a warrant. The point of the taps is not to get enough information for a conviction. Warrantless taps could not be used to identify, arrest, or convict Faris in this case. The point is to find out about the plot itself, so you can foil it.

Maybe, but we have to give it points for the alliteration.

deleted

Even if the CBC only cost 30 dollars combined, let alone 30 a person, is it the role of the state to give us the news. By virtue of it's own tax-funded existence the CBC is bound to be left-wing. Let's imagine a fictional character running for the office of Prime Minister. He is a capitalist. Let's call him August Pliny. He gains alot of popularity so that he has an actual chance of winning. One of his platforms is to slash CBC funding by two-thirds. Do you think he will receive any favourable coverage on CBC?

I don't care so much about the piece she wrote. But I highly doubt they would hire the right-wing equivalent to do such an opinion column. We made the comparison here with Ann Coulter. If Ann were Canadian we would not be seeing many opinion columns by her on CBC. I would venture to guess that if Ann Coulter were Canadian, not only would she not be funded with government money but she would also have to pay a pretty chunk every time she wrote a column defending herself at a Human Rights tribunal. Who do you suppose would have a larger audience on the free market, Cherry or Mallick?

Well, first off, it makes no sense to say "ooo Im so sorry I criticized Palin" when no one actually called you out for it. You make it sound as if someone did. As for the bridge to nowhere I would say she changed her mind when it became apparent the bridge would cost more than they thought it would. I was going to buy a shirt the other day myself, until I saw the price tag. Then I said "Thanks but no thanks." Alaskan Democrats gave her credit for killing the project at the time. Now they don't? That's kind of a flip-flop.