Did the GOP debaters even mention Bush/Cheney?

[begin_within]

[SeanQuinn]

1. Yes, on a Charlie Gibson question about Bush Doctrine foreign policy.

Cheney indirectly referenced on a question about companies profiteering from wars.

[patrice]

2. Yes, surprisingly, for the first time that I can recall, they mentioned Bush

but not Cheney and Bush's wisdom in creating the Surge.

[msongs]

3. seems like the surge was well defended - thompson seemed very pro-bush nt

[never_get_over_it]

4. I think the freak in chief was on a video

preceding one of the questions - I didn't really watched it - heard it from the other room that was enough to make me want to puke. Nit wit said something about the freak in chief - something complementary but I don't remember what - they were horrid....

[patrice]

6. That's right. He asked about what principles they'd base their decisions on.

Not one of them mentioned the Bible, surprisingly!

I was thinking the RNC got to them with orders to show a little respect for * this time.

[never_get_over_it]

9. OH Jesus that's right

like the freak in chief has any principles

oh I'm sure this is the principle he lives his life by - how much can I destroy - how many can I kill and how much money can I pocket.....

[patrice]

12. I believe it is much more subtle, and therefore extremely more dangerous, than that.

ve you ever read Hannah Arendt's Eichman in Jerusalem? Or do you know of the psychological work of Stanley Milgram or Philip Zimbardo? All of it shows how "rational" and "reasonable" Evil is, especially when it's based upon the principle that "The ends justifys the means", which is what you've got with her BuShitler and his robots. This has brought us to this situation in which we are killing or enabling the killing of people for what the "MIGHT" do, and "for their own good", or for ____________________ (or for what the fuck-ever anyone wants to fill that blank in with - it ALL works since anything and everything can be used as justification based upon the principle that "the ends justifies the means".

BTW: Inherent in the rationalization that uses what people MIGHT do as justification for killing them (as in killing generic Muslims "because they want to kill the U.S.) is the ambiguity of the definition of "might", i.e. what probabilities are we talking about, should I kill you because you might eat the last scrap of bread on earth as my child dies of starvation? MIGHT is a probability and probabilities can be ANYTHING you can muster the statistics and semantics to define them with.

[Stardust]

5. I heard Reagan exalted...

:puke:

[Yael]

7. The first question out of the gate was whether they would support/continue

Bush's policy. The second question was a video of Bush himself asking something incoherent about what makes them, them.

You can say his name came up. *sigh*

[creeksneakers2]

8. Somebody, I think it was Romney

attacked Huckabilly for not supporting Bush's agressive foreign policy. There was much praise for the way George Bush handles the world and how well he's done with Iraq.

[WinkyDink]

10. Did the Democrats?

[begin_within]

11. No, not really, maybe in a quick reference or two