The Obama Corollary to the Bush Doctrine?

[Iceburg]

http://www.helium.com/tm/779140/hamphire-democratic-debate-january

At the New Hamphire Democratic debate held on January 5, 2008, moderator Charles Gibson asked Barack Obama if he still stood behind his comments that he (Obama) would unilaterally send the military (invade) into Pakistan to defeat Al Qaeda, if the Pakistan government did not act. When Obama answered in the affirmative, Gibson asked him if that isn't the same as supporting the Bush Doctrine. Obama said, "No," since he would only go after known threats. Bush, on the other hand, went in Iraq as a speculative venture.

Perhaps he should have clarified the circumstances of his position. Senator Clinton used the word, "retaliation," which is the term I believe Obama meant to use. The Bush Doctrine only refers to a threat to the United States, whether perceived or real. What Obama did with his answer was to endorse the Bush Doctrine, but narrowed the condition which would trigger it. (As an aside, the Bush Administration did ask to invade Iraq based on a "known threat" also. Remember all the "evidence" submitted to Congress to get Copngressional approval).

By answering the way he did, he did accept the Bush Doctrine, but added a corollary. If he becomes President, his condition in order to go into another country uninvited will be known as the Obama Corollary to the Bush Doctrine.

------------
Not the change I was looking for.