Once again the libs are grasping at straws and once again Salty shoves 'em right up their ass.:thumb:
Not at all, I am disputing the fact that Sabanfan is cheerleading like someone is winning something here. I could dispute it, but its really not that important to me to do so. Btw, i need to ask you a couple of question about the mortgage industry.
I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. If one of them is if you should go to work in the industry...the answer is NO! :hihi: I'm leaving for the office now. It's hard to get excited about work these days....
And that is supposed to be four distinct definitions? Hilarious. Those are elements of the Bush Doctrine, but certainly not separate, distinct meanings. And one would be very hard-pressed to prove the so-called differences between them. Let's summarize them: 1) '...a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.' - A bit vague here, but only serves to encompass the ideology as a whole. And preemptive action was very much a 'radical' concept. 2) 'If you're not with us, you're against us' - While first uttered soon after 9/11, this was the very same drum that the Bush Administration incessantly beat when trying to sell the Iraq war to the American public and the global community. He didn't have to sell the Afghanistan invasion on anyone, therefore this 'radical change' did not apply. He had the unilateral support the world over, so making such a move was expected and hardly unique. 3) The third element he states is preemptive action - the previous two ideas are meaningless, and nothing more than main ingredients for this one. This is the only one that has any significant impact on American foreign policy. 4) '...the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world.' - Ok. Now, how to we execute this mission? Answer: with preemptive action, just like we did in Iraq. So, you see, the author tries to split all of this up into four supposedly distinct meanings, but they are all just parts of Bush's plan to preemptively invade countries as we see fit. As I previously noted, the first, second, and fourth element are nothing more than justifications for the third, and are essentially meaningless without it. The third element is the only one that enforces some sort of action on our part that does not pertain to self-defense. Google away, my friend. You're not going to find much to support your argument. I looked before asking you, otherwise I wouldn't have asked. :thumb: Between that and insulting people, that's all that he does. But he's got a bit of a hard-on for Palin, so don't sweat it.
It's not an insult if it's true. And I'm proud to "raise my flag" for Palin. Obama can't even make it move.
its interesting that although we (ok not we but me) claim to be mostly non-partisan we find that we usually are. it would do us well to consider what jay cost has to say. jay's claim to fame is as the author of the horse race blog. i found him to be a good read in the last election. read the rest http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/
Polls today showing a swing back in favor of Obama. All the economic turmoil has helped him. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html
