2041

Yes, clearly Hillary was good for the Asians!

2042

She had the most diverse staff.

2043

Shut up. Seriously? No way.

…really? I mean, but…

…okay, dude, if you say so.

2044

No no, you missed it. He wishes Hillary had been nominated, because she hires more Asians.

Screw policy! It’s all about who’s good for your ethnic group!

2045

So, only whites, blacks and latinos are good at and for policy?

I’m not a supporter of affirmative action. However, you’re making me believe I should rethink that.

2046

Precisely! You’ve finally figured out what we were saying! Jeez, Dirt, took you long enough.

2047

WEIGHS IN? Man, that’s a low blow.

Anyway, that must have been one hell of a sturdy Vespa.

2048

I wouldn’t have. Palin definately could’ve answered better but who talks about it (pre-emptive strikes) these days as “bush’s doctrine”? I barely remember hearing it called that several years ago in the press.

2049

Wow, not one, but two fat jokes.

Ha ha ha ha.

2050

Bush Doctrine isn’t really about pre-emptive strikes. Every nation reserves the right to strike first when a clear and present danger looms. Bush Doctrine is more about preventative war. Iraq was a perfect case. It wasn’t preparing to attack the United States, but it could theoretically attack the United States one day, and they don’t like us that much, so we are justified in attacking them today. That’s in his sentence where Bush says that he will not wait for threats to manifest themselves.

2051

Fallows lays it out in the article Jason linked above. It’s common knowledge to anyone who follows world affairs. Shit, I barely follow world affairs and I know about the Bush Doctrine.

Also, again, as Fallows explains, preemptive action is not really what the Bush Doctrine is about:

The other was Gibson’s own minor mis-statement. American foreign policy has long recognized the concept of preemptive action: if you know somebody is just about to attack you, there’s no debate about the legitimacy of acting first. (This is like “shooting in self-defense.”) The more controversial part of The Bush Doctrine was the idea of preventive war: acting before a threat had fully emerged, on the theory that waiting until it was fully evident would mean acting too late.

Edit: dammit, Woolen!

2052

Must be one of those “posts of substance” he promised us about twenty-five pages ago.

2053

FWIW, I follow world affairs, and I’m pretty sure I couldn’t have accurately defined the Bush Doctrine a couple days ago. I’m not sure I could accurately define it now.

That said, I wasn’t very impressed, overall, with Palin’s answers in the excerpt transcripts I read/skimmed of the interview.

2054

Right, which is why I thought the question was silly but as I’ve been just now reading up on, the key is “preventative”. Apparently Gibson asked her about pre-emptive strikes as his defintion of Bush’s Doctrine though. So they’re both wrong heh.

2055

Yeah, but you aren’t running for a position that’s a heartbeat away from the nuclear codes, and claiming that you’re such an awesome national security expert because Russia is in your relative geographical vicinity, or that you’re, like, totally ready for the presidency should something happen.

2056

Any post about Ebert is a post of massive substance.

2057

In Palin’s defense, she probably knows it better as the Wolfowitz Doctrine.

Or it would have been had the first Bush not thought it was crazytalk.

2058

I wasn’t defending her foreign policy credentials over all - just disputing Podunk’s claim (which I probably should have quoted), that “It’s common knowledge to anyone who follows world affairs.”

2059

Man, you and Sol Invictus should have a party! I’m sure it’d be bumpin’.

2060

You know who does a lot of bumpin? That’s right, Ebert.