WaPo plays dumb about Bush Doctrine

I'm dumb also, because if in conversation about National Policy, someone asked me about the "Bush Doctrine", I'd ask "what exactly is that?"

Don't get me wrong: Gov. Palin is spectacularly unqualified for the Presidency of the United States, and therefore disqualified from any consideration as Vice President (truly, in Washington D.C. alone, there must 10,000 people more qualified than Sarah Palin is, for the Presidency... I'm not exaggerating: the combined people that make up Congress and all of their staff, and all the people at the State Department and at the DOD and at JUSTICE, and even at Treasury and maybe the CIA, and even the Smithsonian too, all of them combined, you probably have 10,000 among them who are more qualified to be President than Sarah Palin is... and that's just D.C.! Factor in the people of the States of California and New York and all the States in the U.S., and there may be literally millions of Americans more qualified to be President, than Sarah Palin).

If not knowing what the "Bush Doctrine" refers to though, is a disqualification from that Office, then I'm out too... despite the fact (I believe) that even I am more qualified for the Office than Gov. Palin.

I knew and have heard before, the Bush administration's "pre-emptive war" rhetoric... I just must not have been paying attention I guess, when it was announced that the name of that rhetoric was the "Bush Doctrine".

And two things to note here (important things that rankle me in this matter)...

1. The idea that a nation, any nation, does not have to wait to be actually attacked (as we were at Pearl Harbor for example) before it declares war and begins fighting, but may make war in response to what they consider to be a threat of war, and in response to aggression and hostilities that may be a precursor to war (as we declared war on nazi Germany in just that type situation), this idea is neither controversial, nor is it anything original to the Bush administration... it is as ancient an idea (that you may commence fighting when you think you are clearly being threatened, and you need not be so stupid as to wait until you are more than just threatened, but actually attacked, thereby having stupidly waited and suffered the first and perhaps lethal blow, despite having already been clearly threatened or warned), this idea is as ancient as war itself, and is central to SELF DEFENSE and NATIONAL DEFENSE: as no one needs wait to be shot or stabbed, when threatened with a gun or a knife, as they may begin defending themselves, not only at the sight of those weapons pointed at them, but even at the mere announcement by someone, that they are going to shoot or stab you. Anyway, it's what the U.S. did, when it declared war on Germany in 1941, despite the nazis not actually having attacked the U.S., as Japan did.

The other thing that rankles me in this, is...

2. What does this idea of "pre-emptive" war have to do with the Bush administration anyway? Why have people made it into a topic of discussion with them anyway?

And if you say "well it's because they invoked this idea of 'pre-emptive' war when they invaded IRAQ", then I would say back that it were not the idea of "pre-emptive" war (a legitimate reason for war) that was controversial, but the fact that IRAQ did not then nor does it now, present any real threat to the U.S. (as Germany did in 1941)... and so what does the legitimate concept of making war (rightly) based on mere threat ("pre-emptive" war) have to do with invading IRAQ, a country that posed no threat to the American People?

I understand if the point seems difficult, but I assure you it is only finding the right words that makes it so: in truth, the idea is simple, and what I'm saying is plain...

If George W. Bush invaded IRAQ in a "pre-emptive" war, then what did he pre-empt?

Perhaps that made it clear... and so you maybe see, that the two points I wished to make were that such a thing as fighting based only on a threat, and not in response to an actual attack, is a Natural Right to all living things, nations included... and that this idea is nothing new, nor any concept of the Bush administration (and thereby should not be called the "Bush Doctrine"), and has nothing to with the Bush administration anyway, because they've never declared a true "pre-emptive" SELF-DEFENSE AGAINST MERELY A THREAT war (IRAQ included), and so what's it got to do with them?

Why do people attach the idea to them?

 

(And oh yeah: I said I was not qualified I guess to be President, because I was so ignorant of what the term "Bush Doctrine" refers to, as I'm obviously not tuned into the idiots who invented that stupid term... well, I changed my mind: after typing out what I just typed out, I say I'm more qualified to be President than any idiot who banters in terms like "Bush Doctrine"... I'm more qualified than charles gibson and Sarah Palin both: I bet you are too.)

All of the rationalizing and bloviating about the alleged complexities of the Bush Doctrine is beside the point. It's also wrong, because it's easy to summarize in a few words: We can destroy you if we feel like it.

Claiming that the Doctrine that issued from the great Bushian mind is to complicated to explicate is the new talking point (I heard John Fund echo it too, on Bill Maher's show tonight), often embellished with something like "Gee, even I can't understand it, and I'm a smart-ass Republican know-it-all."

Here's the real point: It wasn't that Palin couldn't come up with a crisp definition of the Bush Doctrine -- it was that she had no idea there was such a thing as a Bush Doctrine!

Her first stab at an answer (after "In what respect, Charlie?" -- or was it "What about the rabbits, George?") gave away the fact that she thought the question was about Bush's doctrines (small d) rather than a Doctrine.

She has no clue what she's talking about.

If she continues to be this bad (and why wouldn't she be), by the time of the VP debate, the big meme will be "Will she fall on her face?"

And won't it be delightful when she does?

I posted my analysis of the spin from Krauthammer, repeated in conservative talking points everywhere, on my blog. You can find the article here.