Quote: Originally Posted by
chapstic 
the best part of the gibson/interview is gibson's two different outlooks on the bush doctrine. so which one is it?
The Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war… as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us.” --Charlie Gibson, last night.
“The president in his speech last night, very forceful…He also outlined what is being called the Bush Doctrine, a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated.” --Charlie Gibson, 2001.
or maybe wiki?
"...the doctrine was articulated more fully in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, when President Bush declared that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor terrorist groups as terrorist states themselves. This policy was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001"
I've got news for you. Every President in history has had the power and authority to a pre-emptive attack in order to prevent an enemy from attacking us first. And always will. Our Constitution is not a suicide pact no matter how many liberals squeal that is really is. Our Constitution doesn't demand that we must first have tens of thousands of dead before acting to protect the people of this country. If you think otherwise, you live in the wrong country -but I don't actually know of one that believes they must first have a bunch of dead people before taking their enemy's threats seriously. So I don't know which country you need to be in -but if you NEED to see tens of thousands of dead Americans first, it sure isn't THIS country.
As for the part about any country that finances or harbors terrorists being the same as the terrorists themselves -exactly which part of that do YOU find objectionable? Since international terrorists cannot survive
at all without that kind of support from a government -what would you change about that? Bush got hit up broadside with reality -that we couldn't take on every single country that financed and harbored international terrorists all at the same time. But that sure as hell doesn't mean they aren't terrorist suppporting states and no better than the terrorists they are making sure can continue with their terrorist activities, does it?