Two things

I would love to watch Gibson ask Biden about the Monroe Doctrine in light of recent events. Right as usual Tully. The Bush doctrine is a vague concept at best. There are several major powers that support the notion of pre-emptive defense. I believe the group includes China, Russia, India, Israel and a few others. My very first substantial post at Centerfield implied that without an established criteria, the Bush Doctrine was not really a doctrine at all, but a threat. I doubt that's what Israel called it in 1967.

The Putin Doctrine brought about by Russia's 9/11

exactly what it is, and the whole question smells like a set-up. As it's been said, the doctrone is defined differently bt different people, and from what I saw of that part of the interview, she didn't do too bad.

Doesn't mean he's always correct, of course, but you've gotta admit that if anyone currently in journalism can earn the right to some small amount of intellectual attitude, Krauthammer is certainly in contention.

Yeah, good point.

"In the world you will find tribulation, but be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world."

John 16:33

Tully,
Perhaps I am wrong but in reviewing what some legal authorities said about pre-emption shortly after 9/11, it was (and is) still an open debate. This is what the White House put out in 2002. Of course, pre-emption when armies are mobilizing on borders falls under self-defense, a long establish right. I remember reading several legal works that stated that pre-emption beyond reacting to an eminent attack (self-evident self defense), was not established international law. Several countries did reserve the right to pre-empt threats BEFORE they were at operational stage based on intelligence not fully disclosed to the international community because past a certain point of hostile effort, successful pre-emption was highly uncertain given the possible WMD or mass casualty nature of threats. My understanding of the Bush Doctrine was it sought to expand pre-emption to included terminating the growth of activities pursued by adversaries and terrorists seeking to actualize hostile operation against the US and our allies such as terrorist attacks using WMD. The logic was to destroy hostile assets and personal committed to said aims. We all can remember noting many Liberals declaring such pre-emption illegal and that only the international community could approve such pre-emption based on the majority view said intelligence was reasonable.

The problem I saw in the US position was failing to establish a criteria by which such pre-emption could be applied to all nations. Unless said pre-emption was a shared concept based on a sufficient degree of evidence required of all, pre-emption would be seen as a tool for self interest rather than self defense.

Looking back, perhaps the Administration had too incomplete a criteria for pre-emption and the Left too absurd a criteria (or a complete rejection of pre-emption). As Micheal Moore put it, " I'll believe Iran is a threat when Ahmadinejad appears on American Idol with a nuke in his hands. Then I'll want our military to do something about it." In such a case, I would prefer the administration's approach....LOL.

I know Krauthammer had the cred. I'm just saying...
Chris