bush doctrine

Wed, 24 Sep 2008 04:10:05 GMT

this has been kicked around more the last couple weeks after palin seemed to struggle a bit for the answer... here is how someone else described it which i find refreshingly clear:

The Bush Doctrine works like this:

Imagine you're walking down the street, minding your own business. You're a God-Fearing American (GFA), so you have all kinds of concealed weapons on your person and a grenade in each boot.

As you walk down the street a strange person catches your eye. There are four basic scenarios we're concerned with:

Scenario 1

Said strange person pulls a gun and shoots you. You pull a gun and shoot back.

This is "self-defense".

Scenario 2

Said person pulls a gun on you, but you pull a gun and shoot first.

This is "imminent threat".

Scenario 3

You pull your gun and shoot the person because you think the person might have, at some point in the future, pulled a gun on you and so you "couldn't take the chance'.

This is "the Bush Doctrine".

Scenario 4

You just start shooting because they're there.

This is "the Bush Doctrine" without all the fancy pants legalese and rhetorical solemnization.

Anyway, everyone has pretty much agreed that scenarios 1 and 2 are justified, whereas 3 and 4 are not. So instead of admitting that's what they're doing they hide behind this screen whereby they say "We really thought they were going to shoot us so it's still okay because it's scenario 2 and not scenario 4!"

ilovepeter's Xanga

bush doctrine