The Bush Doctrine Considered
The angry political left, which is really only about 15% of the Democratic Party often fiercely attacks President Bush even today, when he is not even president anymore over the so-called "Bush Doctrine" and they also attacked Sarah Palin over this as you will recall.
Indeed, they just cannot leave it alone.
In fact, just the other day a political pundit on the left asked; "How many Republicans have repudiated the Bush Doctrine that got us into Iraq-the belief that only by making the world democratic can we keep America secure and free?" There is no such saying as the "Bush Doctrine" and that is a slanderous term used by the left.
It doesn't exist; Katy Curry impresses me about as much as Lindsey Lohan when she's drunk driving.
And the trickery tactics in the Sarah Palin interview was completely nuts, for those on the left that think that the "Bush Doctrine" means preemption that is silly, he didn't create preemption.
Preemption is a fundamental military philosophy brought forth by Carl von Clausewitz and it is hundreds and hundreds of years old.
Further, for those who think the Bush Doctrine is about creating democracies every where? While this is not necessarily his doctrine, it is true that not all democracies provide peace, but they do slow down conflict and open up the potential for political dialogues.
So, all is not lost when recommending democracies.
And in my opinion the best form of government is probably a benevolent dictator surrounded by a group of benevolent gentleman that are well achieved in many aspects of the human endeavor and selfless, but finding them is going to be very difficult.
And if you ever did find them, you'd need to add them to a group of duly elected officials, by community or region to take care of the reality that "all politics is local.
" Then you'd have a pretty awesome Republic.
The problem with such a form of government even though it might be the best form, is that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
And humans cannot be trusted.
And I do not trust them to design AI computers to do it either.
So, this is problematic, and a democracy might therefore be wise, in the absence of the ideal, and unachievable.
Indeed, they just cannot leave it alone.
In fact, just the other day a political pundit on the left asked; "How many Republicans have repudiated the Bush Doctrine that got us into Iraq-the belief that only by making the world democratic can we keep America secure and free?" There is no such saying as the "Bush Doctrine" and that is a slanderous term used by the left.
It doesn't exist; Katy Curry impresses me about as much as Lindsey Lohan when she's drunk driving.
And the trickery tactics in the Sarah Palin interview was completely nuts, for those on the left that think that the "Bush Doctrine" means preemption that is silly, he didn't create preemption.
Preemption is a fundamental military philosophy brought forth by Carl von Clausewitz and it is hundreds and hundreds of years old.
Further, for those who think the Bush Doctrine is about creating democracies every where? While this is not necessarily his doctrine, it is true that not all democracies provide peace, but they do slow down conflict and open up the potential for political dialogues.
So, all is not lost when recommending democracies.
And in my opinion the best form of government is probably a benevolent dictator surrounded by a group of benevolent gentleman that are well achieved in many aspects of the human endeavor and selfless, but finding them is going to be very difficult.
And if you ever did find them, you'd need to add them to a group of duly elected officials, by community or region to take care of the reality that "all politics is local.
" Then you'd have a pretty awesome Republic.
The problem with such a form of government even though it might be the best form, is that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
And humans cannot be trusted.
And I do not trust them to design AI computers to do it either.
So, this is problematic, and a democracy might therefore be wise, in the absence of the ideal, and unachievable.
