First, look at my earlier posts, I said it wasn't a big deal even though I am voting Obama. There are plenty of other things not to like.
Second, the guy in that article claiming to be the one who defined Bush Doctrine is a douche bag. I've read a bunch of his stuff for school. He claims a lot of things.
Since Truman, every president has had a doctrine. It isn't defined by political scientists, historians, or journalists. It is defined by three things:
1. Official state department memos and papers.
2. Actions of the President.
3. Words of the President.
This is the official state department paper on BD:
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/1202/ijpe/pj7-4lieber.htm
Written in December 2002.
It's not something a yes or no question can be answered to. Gibson was ignorant. So was Palin.
Doctrine is not as mysterious as that article precludes. It's always foreign policy. It's always in reference to the way the U.S. uses it's power to influence the world.
Does it matter. Not really. I don't really expect politicians to talk like political scientists.
I'm just reading these posts and offended at the ignorance. Just because you can find an article saying something you want to prove doesn't mean it's right. Consider your sources.
Like I said earlier though, it doesn't matter. So she didn't know what BD was, she knows now. At least she didn't pretend to understand.
I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.
