Do you even know what the Bush Doctrine is? Here's a hint. Osama was killed by it. A few other facts to chew on. 1) Obama is giving Pakistan USD$3 bn a year just like Bush did. 2) Obama is actively flying predator drones and running military in a foreign sovereign nation(pakistan) just like Bush did, more so even, based on the Bush doctrine. 3) Obama escalated troops in Afghanistan, not reduced. 4) Obama followed Bush's exit strategy for Iraq TO THE LETTER. 5) Obama's popularity spike after killing Osama has already disappeared. Gallup had him at 45% yesterday. Maybe you should go back to drinking before you post, because your posts made more sense. Trying to run against Bush in 2012 by contrasting Obama's foreign policy, which has little to contrast, is a loser at face value. Most polls I've seen have people concerned about jobs and debt reduction, both of which are also losers for Obama.
what was the sitting president suppossed to do? nothing? you are giving too much praise so something his cabinet was supposed to. they did with the same intelligence that whatever sitting president would have done at the time. for the war on terror that will not stop, not the war on osama, it is a loophole that will not stop. we will give $3 billion a year for a long time. "more so even". obama did escalate the drone attacks and pressure pakistan, the other side of the border, where most of the reports of where osama was hiding put him in, beforhand. just rehash the fighting at the aftgan border when it got heavy and they mostly summed up that "osama was hiding in the mountains of the pakistan border" that is what the intelligence he got made him do. it was necessary. the job was done, the borders secure enough for the iraqi's to run there own country with minimal effort from the u.s. what else are they supposed to do? lag around? unlikely give it time during the elections, it will be rehashed in time for 2012.
No need to give it time. You've already got your bore on by re-hashing it now. I'm not sure which is more idiotic, comparing Obama's policies to Bush's when Bush isn't running, or claiming Obama's management of Afghanistan and Iraq is not identical to Bush. Hey, I've got a foreign policy differentiator you can use. Try this one on for size. Remember how all the Democrats in 2004 tried to crucify Bush for our involvement in a "war of agression" in Iraq, even though most of them voted for it? Obama fired up his own war of aggression in Lybia, fighting side by side with Al Queda affliates without the approval of congress. Another differentiator you might use is that Lybia has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that is of vital security interest to the United States within it's borders. It still wouldn't do to compare it to Bush since, again, Bush isn't running, except perhaps to show what an obvious hypocrite Obama is.
but your saying that obama's cabinet is chop liver, they have their own tinkering on the way things are going with the war on terror. your complaining about comparing obama's policies to bush's but at the same time you are compraing bush's policies to obama's? your saying that the capturing of osama is bush's victory when it's obama's obama was going with what intelligence was glaring at him, just like bush. intelligence does not stop or differ based on who is in office. there was a reason why bush laid out a game plan for iraq and it made sense based on the intelligence. there was tinkering on obama's part with the war on afganistan.
Wow. Your entire post was telling me what I said, and practically none of it was accurate. Don't recall mentioning Obama's cabinet. Just pointing out your comparisons on Afghan and Iraqi foreign policy were stupid because the polices are identical. Why is that so hard to grasp? Where did i say that. Quote me. How are you going to continue Obama's campaign against Bush(who isn't running) if you admit that Obama is "just like Bush"? I'm thinking you've been drinking again. Politicians always talk about getting out the "Youth" vote, but I take a different tact on that. Youth are full of strong convictions and ill informed opinions. People who don't know anything about politics shouldn't vote.
that was what you were implying. this isn't scientific talk but political. my focus was on the treatment of a supposed ally with pakistan, you brought up iraq and aftganistan. and to be fair i responded. you are implying, it's a common immediate reponse to this that "it was bush's doctrine that caught osama" not giving credit to obama is implied. the policy on the war on terror is at default. just give credit for the sitting president that killed osama and osama's tinkering on stepping up efforts in pakistan was proven to help. your saying they shouldn't when it's there right to be heard. statistically there are going to be uninformed views, but statistically they can be counted in the voting pool.
Quote me. Sorry. I thought most people understood a doctrine can't do anything unless someone implements it. Your explanation makes sense in the same way liberals argue guns kill people when, in reality, its people who kill people. In this case, you would argue the opposite because it suits your needs. Either way, its people who kill people, not guns, not doctrines. Obama took out Osama by following the Bush doctrine. Hope that doesn't hurt your delicate sensibilities. It doesn't take any credit away from Obama, even if your feelings are hurt by admitting Obama followed Bush's foreign policy in the matter. A default? Seriously? Foreign policy is the domain of the president. If he had wanted to go his own way, he could have and would have. You make it sound like the president is just some slave to a policy decision made by some higher up. Obama is going to have to live with his decision to invade Libya, just like Bush had to live with Iraq. Osama is stepping up efforts in Pakistan? I thought Osama was dead. Oh, its their right to be heard, just like it is the right of a 300lb woman to wear a string bikini on the beach.
an implication is something that is not written on paper or spoken with words by the imply-er. calling it a doctrine is to romanticize the policy like its the monroe doctrine. a war like the korean war was fought without the koreans attacking us. the terrorists did and we reacted accordingly. its a policy to react the way did on terrorists, not a doctrine. that is to make the policy sound brutting and dominating for a worried country after the attacks. we are past that now, americans know now that they are small groups out there that hate america. we don't need big words to impress us now. your still on that obamanation. obama did not calouslly throw away the progress that another political party put in place when they were in power and were force to use it. if osama decided to attack the world trade towers in 1999 instead of the embassies in africa how would your opinions on clinton be? would it be biased or not? and clinton would have put together the same or similar policy that bush did, even though the intelligence would not have there for clinton with regards to the embassy bombings as something to look at. bush would have followed the same policy of clinton. and for the record people kill people, not guns. but guns make it so easy for a person to kill someone. stabbing or clubbing someone to death is too much effort for most. anyone can pull a trigger on a whim, when you practically need to work up a sweat to stab or club a person to death. yes he could have gone his own way but that would have been the simpleist way of committing political suicide a president could do. it is default because it was such a common answer to the situation. osama is not the "higher up" (or his he, hhmm...let the conspiricy theorists enjoy that, hehehe) obama on libya is yet to play out. but with all of the pushing about WMD's to go in and not finding any was difficult for bush. why didn't bush push the angle that saddam could have been pushing for terrorist to do their attacks? was bush being honest about some things and not others? or does our intelligence need to improve alot more or has intelligence caught up? if it's an intelligence issues that is sad for humans as an advanced species, not a political problem (or is it? cue conspiricy theorists). and also to be fair there were reports of saddam gasing his own people years ago, there were visuals also. what about that? i used the word "proven". that is about past tense events. yeah, like it or not
So what am I implying right now. Educate yourself So Bush's foreign policy was the only legitimate option. Interesting argument. Don't you mean drag out? Or is it pay out. Either way, it is a bigger mistake than his gross mishandling of the gulf oil spill. You don't get much attention at home, do you?
you made a blunt statement, there is no implying suggested. the "default policy" from the sitting president that was in office during the time of the attacks on 9/11. possible how did you deduce, imply or both with that? as an aside, obamanation, i hope you would get into the finer points of politcial tactics. it would be interesting to hear your interpretations.
Not to nag the details, but I asked a question. I would never have expected you to be such a champion of the invasion of Iraq! Kudos! Quadruple posting until someone responded, answering every subtlety that didn't necessarily beg a response, that type of thing. Did you educate yourself on what the Bush Doctrine is?
it is an empty question there is no implications. but this will boggle your mind. was that you intentions to ask this question and do i know this appropriatly(your reading it now), hehehe. ahh..he..hehe..he... we can try to explain bush's reasons for invading iraq, the bottom is that he did and his reasons was not proven. that is what we have at the end of the day. my problem is that there was too much attention against my opinion and beliefs and i am fighting it still. there are times that i feel completely defeated by the fighting but here i am still fighting. alright fuck it, bush is a born again christian, whatever the fuck that means. in 1997 i got accused, can you believe this, accused of not being a born again christian by my uncle who is a religious pastor of a christian sect in india. how do you get accused of not having an religious experience? well it is possible to be accused. was it because they thought i was possessed, possibly but i did not recognized issues of being possessed or not at the time. besides wouldn't i need a priest for an exorsism if i was possessed? and if i was possessed what the fuck were they trying to reborn??????? fucking rediculous. my uncle was so addimant about that for a long time that i had to lie to him and say that i was born again to shut him up. it was out of sympathy for me and him. bush is a born again methodist and i lied about being a born again methodist. i'm posting this now with more updates to come, i had a great rebuttle for this post but i hit the side button on a mouse with multiple buttons by accident and i went back to my settings and erased my rebuttle, here is my second rebuttle more updates to come stay tuned rebuttle to this i just hit some space bar command with my intentions and i erased my rebuttles again????? i no not know the commmands on a keybourd to send a message but i did????
The fact is O, the unnecessary Iraqi war and George Bush will be concluded as the greatest financial disaster in American History.
to be honest i recenly got drunk just now because i had the day off from work the next day but i will post a rebuttle later tonight or tommorrow. it will be good, sorry ( i never used to be in not control previously, this is recent stuff, wonder my friends)
i'm back. ever try sobieski vodka? it boasts about being the winner of a vodka taste test and it's $11.99 for a liter, dirt cheap! it's in a high quality bottle and everything, i don't how it's so cheap. back on topic. this is wikipedia's first paragraph on the bush doctrine, "The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of former United States president George W. Bush. The phrase was first used by Charles Krauthammer in June 2001 [1] to describe the Bush Administration's unilateral withdrawals from the ABM treaty and the Kyoto Protocol. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to secure itself against countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups, which was used to justify the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan.[2]" let's get into the ABM treaty, wikipedia says this, "The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty or ABMT) was a treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union on the limitation of the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems used in defending areas against missile-delivered nuclear weapons. Signed in 1972, it was in force for the next 30 years until the US unilaterally withdrew from it in June 2002." this is to limit a first strike capability against nuclear missile areas. so it can be deduced as something to prevent provokation of nuclear missile attacks from those attacking with ABM's Charles Krauthammer says that bush withdrew from this agreement in June of 2001 when the u.s. officially adopted the stance in june of 2002. so bush used this stance to justify going into aftganistan without u.s. policy worries about a country harbouring nuclear capabilities (are we sure if all of the nuclear weapons are accounted for after the dismantling of U.S.S.R.? just an aside question). was the withdrawing from the ABM treaty necessary to justify invading aftganistan? to me it seems like unnecessary knitpicking for invading a land that trains terrorists. just don't use ABM missiles that much. ground forces were needed more anyway to get into the caves and towns. what's all the hub bub about ABM's? onto the Kyoto Protocol, here is wikipedia again, "The Kyoto Protocol is a protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or FCCC), aimed at fighting global warming. The UNFCCC is an international environmental treaty with the goal of achieving the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."[1]" this was to reduce four greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and two gases produced by them. how was this justifying invading aftganistan? were they producing too much greenhouse gas so we went in to stop them? as an aside i was skeptical of bush's desire to push for hydrogen fuel cells to power automobiles. does anyone remember the hyndenberg disater from high school history or science class? you know the classic quote "ah the humanity". hydrogen gas is such a volitile element that i would not trust it to be stabalized in gaseous form at least from any current technology we have. the bottom line from the first paragraph on the bush doctrine in wikipedia is that it think Charles Krauthammer's initial intentions about the bush doctrine was stretch very uniquely thin and a little suspiciously to fit the justification of invading aftganistan. (cue conspiricy theorist time: ever wonder about ebbs and flows of the world and politics. how things seem to fit? it seems like bush was preparing against threats with a first strike capability and the terrorists happened to help his foreign policy and gave bush justification for first strike capability usage? something to ponder.)(or you can say, "see, bush was right we should have preemptivly pursued terrorists before 9/11 and perpahps the terrorists were spooked into action because of bush's stance. but then you can say that the u.s. didn't adapt bush's doctrine until 9/11 but now they have, was bush trying to tweek the world for is doctrine? i can see the conspiricy theorists salivating...) we'll get into the meat and potatoes of the bush doctrine after 9/11 when i get back from dinner, part II coming up, feel free to respond to part I now.
Bush Doctrine in a nutshell: You allow people who attack the US to exist on your sovreign soil, we will take them out, sovereignty ignored. You purposefully harbor such people, we take you out. Period. When Obama dropped a Seal team into the heart of Pakistan, without so much as telling the government, and shot Bin Laden in the face, thats Bush Doctrine in action.