-
Website
http://politicalwire.com/ -
Original page
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/09/11/palin_on_the_bush_doctrine.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Grab a nice drink and look at all our previous presidents..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents...
When I look at them all and think of our history I could see
McCain/Obama/Bidden/Hillary/Mitt Romney/Rudy Giulian/Mike Huckabee there on that list.
They would all in their own way keep us safe, look after our wealth and way of life.
But I can't for the life me see Sarah Palin. Lack of knowledge, potential abuse of power, governs via fear by demanding 100% loyalty...yadda, yadda, yadda.
Flame me if you like and call me a BS wack job. But that would be the second thing Sarah Palin and I have in common. The first is that neither her or I has the knowledge and readiness at this moment in time to be running for Vice President and potentially be president of the united states.
Maybe she'll work hard and in 4, 8 years be ready...just not now.
Obama/08 the TRUE republican vote.
Edited for : If you support Palin, then as a test of your loyalty to her you should see if you could pass her loyalty test. Resign from your job tomorrow. Then you can owe her something when she gives it back to you.
http://www.washingtonindependent.com/3767/palin...
"My first thought was that it reminded me of something like a test for Politburo membership in a Marxist-Leninist state. This is interesting. Maybe Gov. Palin does know Russian politics, after all!"
If you worked for Sarah Palin and she asked you to resign as a test of loyalty to her would you do it? The only thing I'm loyal to is my God and my Country. She can kiss my $$$
Enough of same old.
In other words, our doctrine was never strictly retaliatory...show me in print where it says we would only attack after being attacked!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2...p_...
Going forward, the United States and Europe must support the people of Georgia. Beyond immediate humanitarian assistance, we must provide economic assistance, and help rebuild what has been destroyed. I have consistently called for deepening relations between Georgia and transatlantic institutions, including a Membership Action Plan for NATO, and we must continue to press for that deeper relationship.
Everyone calls for Georgia to JOIN Nato, but this woman has no real idea why she is calling for Georgia to join Nato. Frankly my sister could have done a better interview. (She's voting for Palin btw). Would I get my sister to manage any of the projects/investments our family shares? NOPE. I love her to bits, but you need to see people's strengths and look at them for what they really are not what you want them to be.
I am 100% against any form of Affirmative action and Palin is the BIGGEST case of affirmative action I have ever seen.
http://www.theage.com.au/world/palin-ready-to-b...
Wake up fellow republicans!!! Stop starring at her breast and look at her brain.
Obama/08
telling me to go to a bloody Kook web site called theage.com
isnt helping your cause
International Papers sometimes report the news more unbiased than in the US.
If you made all your investment/business choices solely on US media reports, then I'm sorry for you.
You have a lot to learn young one.
So why would you read local papers to see how it was received. They are not foreign.
A smart man would read foreign papers and media! to see how effective she was.
Shudder!
Now, we can debate the merits of Bush's policy, but that's not the point of this little excerpt. The interesting part is that despite operating under the favorable conditions possible, Palin has demonstrated ignorance of the fundamentals of Bush's foreign policy. This points not just to Palin's qualifications but to McCain's choice of Palin. She was a purely political choice made in such a short period of time that there was no substantial attempt to vet her or bring her up to speed.
I don't fear Palin. And the McCain campaign has locked her down so tight that I can't criticize her: she's vapor, smoke and mirrors. Even if she has a fine political mind, the McCain cannot afford to let us see it. And that's the real rub. A man whose most compelling argument (and I believe it truly is compelling) is his experience demonstrates a phenomenal lack of judgment in putting her one 72 year old heart attack away from the presidency, and then refusing to let her be examined by the nation.
Previous doctrine as early as 1986 specified that we be "selective" in "choosing our conflicts." There is no such doctrine that said we would only attack if attacked...it doesn't exist.
It was not born with Bush...we are playing with semantics here..."anticipatory" and "choosing" conflicts basically mean the same thing.
We're talking about one catastrophe that has greatly eroded our national security and standing in the world and left us with a massive debt and thousands of dead soldiers -- and another looming catastrophe that hopefully we'll be able to avoid by not putting Palin or McCain anywhere near the White House on Nov. 4th.
They opine.
How ? please cite the text
Here's what I agree with...there's 60 days (give or take) to the election and there is not much time to get to know her. I think she is brilliant and tough but lacks experience.
She gave a good speech if you're comfortable ignoring how mean-spirited, sarcastic and full of lies it was, but I don't see a lot of indications of brilliance. All she does at her appearances with McCain is recite the same nonsense incessantly.
But, oh, that's right, I'm excited to hear her position on Russia since she does govern a state right next door to it, of course.
I agree with you here on some points. You are hired and get a bonus.
She has her strengths, but I don't think she lacks experience. She lacks knowledge, empathy for other ideas and exhibits qualities in a person that I do not want as a leader for my country.
It may seem that I ridicule Palin a lot, but it is solely because I am scared.
President Nixon
President Ford
President Carter
President Reagan
President Bush
President Clinton
President Bush
I can stomach President Obama,McCain, Bidden
But I can't stomach the thought of President Palin. She's not even in the same league.
If people think she is, then maybe I am just too old to see something this new generation can. However, I do know for a fact that this new generation is TERRIBLE as assesing risk! Just look at all those people with bad loans and constant market bubbles.
Risk is the 1st thing I look at before the glitter and right now the McCain/Palin ticket is a HUGE risk to our safety, our wealth and way of life.
Vote Obama/08 the TRUE Republican vote.
Wikipedia: Bush Doctrine = "various related foreign policy principles" [LISTS AT LEAST FOUR]
The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks.
1) The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan.
2) Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq),
3) a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism, and
4) a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.
Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002.
She was probably as confused as I was at the stupidity of the question.
My main internet sources for news are CNN.com and Google News which gives me access to a variety of stories. Demunderground and Daily Kos are not on my list. I looked at Daily Kos once, but was not impressed.
you are actually interested in this matter and not just killing time
on mommy's computer.
Andrew McCarthy today at http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTM3ND...
"To take just one example, the eminent Norman Podhoretz and I have
strongly disagreed about [what comprises the Bush Doctrine]: Norman
says the promotion of democracy has always been an essential element;
I think it's been at best a subordinate element and that the real Bush
Doctrine simply holds that terror sponsoring states will be treated
exactly as terrorists....
Gibson homed in on preemptive attacks in the tone of "Oh, you didn't
know the Bush Doctrine was all about the right to attack
preemptively." ..... I would dispute the premise...
The Bush Doctrine, technically, is not asserting a right of preemptive
attack. It is saying that if Country A facilitates terror, it is
responsible for that terrorist organization's strikes, and therefore
we can attack Country A. That is not preemptive; it is retributive.
It was utterly reasonable for Gov. Palin to press Charlie Gibson on
what Gibson meant by the Bush Doctrine. Everyone does not mean the
same thing by the term, there is lots of good faith argument about
what it means..."
This is not my "mommy's computer." I have a law degree and am admitted to practice in my state.
We're not going to convince anyone on this site to change their votes and "SEE THE LIGHT". This site is for entertainment not a source of knowledge.
So how about you and I have a little fun.
Our next 10 posts You will support Obama and I will support McCain?
Are you sure you want to go there?
I am not saying he's stupid...you are the one accusing me of saying he's stupid. What I am saying is that don't nitpick one's statements or the school they went to as a measure of intelligence. One only has to look at the accomplishments of both Palin and Obama and realize they are both intelligent...
That's elitism for you...you look at the School a person went to and others look at the "whole-person" concept.
...You know before you, um, kinda changed the subject, there.
First of all, how dare you suggest that Barack Obama has no faith? No, wait, never mind -- please DO suggest it, because then how on earth are we supposed to believe any connection to Reverend Wright?
Second of all, how dare you suggest that Barack Obama's ability to overcome a single-parent upbringing is anything other than an irrefutable validation of the original American, rags-to-riches dream?
You don't sound to me so much like a U BA with a 2.5 GPA, as you do a gated-community, mommy-bought-me-a-Navigator, pass the can-coolers and the remote control, Peter Principal poster boy, with that nonsense.
You just go right on saying that a woman who needed six transfers to finish a Bachelor's in Journalism is "tested under pressure" -- that a woman who told her home church congregation that they should pray to Jesus for a pipeline is "well-rounded."
No, no, really, please do go right on saying stuff like this: it means none of the rest of us have to take seriously anything you say.
Dave...I can only hope elitists like you are running Obama's campaign. If you guys keep it up, you'll alienate every single voter (except for Harvard grads of course).
Here's the list of who you have alienated so far:
1) Working mothers with Children
2) Parents of Children with Disabilities who choose not to get an abortion.
3) Any Parent who has had a teenage daughter pregnant.
4) Catholics who choose not to get an abortion
5) Anyone who has dropped out of school, switched colleges, started off slow, less than a 3.0 GPA, but eventually earned a degree.
Just why I keep saying...keep the attacks coming, baby!!!
It's easy for me to give advice to Obama...I know elitists don't listen to guys like me...even though I dropped out of school, went in the military, eventually matured and earned my Doctorate in Business Administration while still in my 40's.
There is a huge difference between someone at the top of their class, and someone who "muddles through." The people who are at the top are those who "get it." These are the people who can best teach it. These are the people who do not have huge holes in their knowledge, because they keep filling those holes.
Add Obama's ability to gain the kind of education he did with his upbringing (fathers who weren't really there) and it makes it that much more admirable, not trouble. Not getting that. How does being raised the way he was mean trouble? The man raised himself up against tough odds with the help of a loving family, and made the most of it. He has proven himself to be incredibly hard working and intelligent. As someone who graduated cum laude himself in grad school (we didn't have a magna cum laude, just cum laude for a 4.0 GPA) I know what kind of dedication and hard drive is needed to do this. That is the kind of man I want running this country.
Y'all can't help yourselves, can you?
I think of "elite" as people who are filthy rich and are out of touch with the American people. These people tend to be filthy rich, wear incredibly expensive clothes, have personal jets, etc. He is the man who left his wife for a beer heiress! He can't even remember how many estates and houses he owns. THAT is elite! You can have elitists with intelligence, however, sadly this is not the case. McCain graduated at the bottom of his class. We have had 8 years of sub standard intelligence and "cowboyism" in the white house.
I want it returned to someone hard working and intelligent. That would be Obama. He has always been an incredibly hard worker for "the people." He has always been in touch with those people, and those people fund his campaigns. He doesn't spend his Birthdays on yachts with celebrities and con men.
Contrast the last two presidents. One was a very intelligent man who surrounded himself with intelligent men and women. The country thrived. The other was a man who showed a lack of superior intelligence skills in school, rarely shows up to work, and who surrounded himself with like minded yes men, some controlling men, and men who operated shrouded in secrecy, and our country has suffered. We have the same choice today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meg_Whitman
Is she also "A ERFECT example of elitism."?
Double talk.
ridicule every one .. and every struggling back to school Mom who went to more than 2 colleges... Good strategy dummy ...
Second, you guys are somehow getting away with this idea that suggesting she shouldn't be President is disrespectful to everyone who needs a transfer or two (or three) to finish their own degrees.
Friend, those other people who needed those transfers to finish their degrees can have my respect because THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR MORE THAN THEY SHOULD HAVE. We're not talking about whether she deserves a pat on the head for sticking it out, we're talking about whether she should HAVE HER FINGER ON THE BUTTON.
...BY READING VERBATIM FROM WIKIPEDIA.
That Palin does not even know what this doctrine is, is a sad commentary on her preparedness.
She is way underqualified for the position she's been asked to run for. She has absolutely no foreign policy experience. This is the most important issue today people. Foreign policy will determine how the world views us, how they view our actions around the world, whether we'll have another terrorist attack in this country, AND how well our economy will do under the next administration. It is way too important to put it in the hands of the "out of touch" McCain and "no experience" Palin. If Palin wants to help this country, she should decline McCain's offer for the VP position. And if McCain wants to help this country, he should drop out of the presidential race and leave the fate of this country to those who can actually make a difference for the people and the world.
PS the anti-Palin types reaction to her comments re: Georgia and Russia would render the concept of NATO, or any treaty we have simply empty words. The case in point is of course Hitler marching on Austria and Czechslovakia. Chamberlain's weakness in blinking with Hitler assured that aggression thus a world war.
It's a difficult world, all the free easy answers are taken, except of course in Obama supporters fantasys.
Good job Sarah, let's see Obama or Biden answer that question directly.
Oh I know, for looking stupid!
Palin's too scary to be a joke. She also said that she had no doubts that she's knowledgeable enough to be president. That's OK; I have enough doubts for all of us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine
If these two were starring in a sitcom about a presidential election, it would be too idiotic to be either laughable or plausible.
Please we get it ....Palin evil Obama =Jesus
but try and actually cite what she has and show it wrong
OBAMA has called for Georgia to Join NATO as well
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2...p_...
Going forward, the United States and Europe must support the people of Georgia. Beyond immediate humanitarian assistance, we must provide economic assistance, and help rebuild what has been destroyed. I have consistently called for deepening relations between Georgia and transatlantic institutions, including a Membership Action Plan for NATO, and we must continue to press for that deeper relationship.
I have never ever voted for Bush. 43 or 41
I was a HUGE Edwards supporter in 2004
I voted for and gave $$ to Kaine and WEBB
I voted for Kerry in 2004
in 200 I voted for Nader.
Obama is a Hack and fraud .
he has no history of any kind of change and / or reform
Biden top of the ticket? sure I vote democratic
Obama? I will pass on all 143 days of it
it is just bad politics that to slam voters who have been to several school to get their degree
"way to win the election moron
ridicule every one .. and every struggling back to school Mom who went to more than 2 colleges... Good strategy dummy ..."
So, if the attack takes place outside of Europe (and parts of Georgia are outside Europe), the mutual defense idea wouldn't necessarily come into play. None of the media seems to have caught onto this, even though it was a key component of Tom Clancy's "The Bear and the Dragon."
Good point however.
Russia, like Georgia, is a transcontinental nation, with territory in eastern Europe and in Asia. Russia has more land in eastern Europe than Georgia has land, in fact.
http://demockracy.com
the Bush doctrine is the right to self defense to the Nth degree...
what is NEWS here?
I said nothing of the kind
How can anyone seriously still want to vote McCain and put this person in power of our great nation! She is the anti-christ that will definitely starting WWIII
So many GREAT Presidents of both parties worked so hard to save so many lives and to now have this lunatic in the white house and destroy all that good work.
I just don't understand how any person that passed 1st grade could vote for her.
Obama/08
she did not call for war with Russia. we get it. Youare losing ... so lie and spin everything
wait here is OBAMA calling for the GEORGIA to be part of NATO
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2...p_...
Going forward, the United States and Europe must support the people of Georgia. Beyond immediate humanitarian assistance, we must provide economic assistance, and help rebuild what has been destroyed. I have consistently called for deepening relations between Georgia and transatlantic institutions, including a Membership Action Plan for NATO, and we must continue to press for that deeper relationship.
Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin has turned warmonger and revealed her hardline stance on foreign affairs, saying she is willing to go to war with Russia over the Georgia conflict if necessary.
http://www.theage.com.au/world/palin-ready-to-b...
As for the spinning...GUILTY as CHARGED. I have after all elected more Republican presidents than you have probably voted for.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?i...
It doesn't have to lead to war and it doesn't have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.
Bottom line.
McCain/Obama/Bidden- I would trust all 3 to be president and only get us into war when we need to. You know which one I think the economy needs right now.
Palin - No I don't trust her. 1 Bit.
If you do, then we can argue all day about it.
I wish I were Palin so I could fire you for not agreeing with me, but I can't because this is not communist russia and I am not Stalin..err..Palin.
Vote Obama/08
Nothing in McCain's statements mentioned his willingness to go to war with Russia
Bidden would never say he is willing to go to war with Russia.
At this point an intelligent leader would condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict. Propose that all sides should enter into direct talks on behalf of stability in Georgia, and the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis.
But enter stage right SARAH PALIN.
Every man and his dog knows there is an up and coming showdown with Russia/NATO/Georgia and tough negotiations ahead.
What does she do? Says things like
"We can't blink"
"We cannot repeat the Cold War"'
".Willing to go to war with Russia"
THAT IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE. Sarah Palin while she has more executive experience than McCain/Obama/Bidden is NOT qualified to be VP and potentially President of this country. WHEN YOU VOTE MCCAIN/PALIN you are saying she is.
What do you think the Russians are thinking about Palin's comments? They take them seriously. She might as well be President in their eyes.
You are voting for HER. You are telling the Russians that they BETTER listen to Palin. You have chosen her as you spoke person. Your leader. Unless you forgot this is why we are voting.
McCain/Obama are showing REAL forethought and REAL experience and REAL Judgment and REAL leadership. They take no option off the table but do not threaten the other party with an option.
If Obama and Palin were to meet with Russian leaders now. Who do you think would at this point have a better negotiation stand point?
You call me stupid and a spin doctor. I question your ability to negotiate. Have you taken any negotiation courses? I also question you ability to grasp the seriousness of Palin's statements. They are not merely a gaffe they are DANGEROUS.
Don't get led by the nose my young Republicans. You guys are the future of our party and you should be UPSET that Palin is on the ticket.
Vote Obama/08
NOTHING... if you had a text you would of cited it by now.
so spare us the BS you whack job
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?i...
It doesn't have to lead to war and it doesn't have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.
You're mistaken. She was asked if the result of Georgia and Ukraine being in the Western alliance could lead to armed conflict with Russia. She said:
"Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.''
That's a willingness to be called upon and help in a war. Audio here:
http://media.theage.com.au/?rid=41692
kdb
Do you honestly believe in your heart that Sarah Palin has the depth and skill to deal with these issues? Compare to McCain/Obama/Bidden?
This was a soft ball interview.
I will be 100% honest and say my gut feeling tells me to not let her even get the white house. And like any TRUE republican I'm going to do my best to make sure she doesn't get there.
BTW. You're fired also for not agreeing with me. :)
Vote Obama/08 the TRUE republican vote.
Two answers:
1. I don't believe things in my heart. I use my brain.
2. Switching the question over to what I believe in thinking organs: Not for a hot second do I believe that Palin has either the depth or skill for the job she's running for. But then, I can't imagine why you'd think I did. My post was a correction to someone who's been insisting that Palin didn't say what she actually did (when he's not claiming that he didn't say what he himself actually did).
>> I will be 100% honest and say my gut feeling tells me to not let her even get the white house. And like any TRUE republican I'm going to do my best to make sure she doesn't get there.>>
I'm not a Republican, but I hope many, many true Republicans agree with you.
kdb
***PERHAPS SO***.... I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and ****help.'***
please cite how that text proves Palin WANTS to to go war with Russia '
That is how she could have answered the question and sounded smart. Saying "perhaps so" makes her a dangerous person to be putting one heartbeat away from the presidency. And if Joe Biden or Barack Obama had said that, I would seriously start questioning whether I really should be voting for them.
[cites provided]
>> please cite how that text proves Palin WANTS to to go war with Russia '>>
Are you pretending to have said different things that you actually did again?
You claimed that nothing showed her willingness. Now you want to change that to nothing says she wants to. Willingness and desire aren't the same thing. Her willingness is pretty solidly established in the quotes offered to you when you said that she didn't say anything that showed her willingness.
Now you want to move the goalposts, and pretend you were asking about something else. Didn't work.
All I can say is you are the future of our party and you trust Sarah Palin to be President and guide this country.
Rush is always right at when he's not carrying water.
Rush Limbaugh has been relentless in his criticism of John McCain, prompting suggestions that he may have to soften his stance if the Arizona senator wins the nomination and faces off against Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. But if that happens, Limbaugh said in an interview over the weekend, he would rather see the Democrats win the White House.
None of the rest of us need to even read, much less respond to, any of this posts, any more.
You get a cushy job and an extra bonus this year for agreeing with me. The other guys, they get Palin'ed...I mean fired.
Vote Obama/08
But it doesn't work when adults take the bad of the best choices and elect unqualified people with bad policy that ignores the underlying indicators.
I have always believe that people that are in the market to just always be in the market are fools. Sometimes you need to go to cash. This is the 1st election in almost 40 years in which to vote Republican to just vote Republican is 100% foolish and unpatriotic.
Vote Obama/08
This message written by old an republican money goat for a safe and wealthy America.
go look up the document. it's online
she's a frigging amateur. and mccain expects us to remain sanguine that she'd be a heartbeat away from the presidency? oh, yeah; i almost forgot: she's a "hockey mom." well, i guess she's qualified for the job then
In 1976, if Fritz Mondale had said, "Okay, yes, I'll agree to an interview with the press, but only one interview, and only with [the 1976 equivalent of] Charlie Gibson, and only if the interview is taped in multiple installments so I can go back and answer a question over again," two things would have resulted: First, an actively investigative press would have climbed all over itself trying to scoop the story of what an outrage that is, and second, the American people would have responded with outrage -- at what is, let's face it folks, a chilling, nay Orwellian display of power-intoxicated arrogance.
Today, alas, after the Willie Horton nonsense, after the "I invented the internet" nonsense, after Swift-boat, nobody can muster the outrage for something that seems on the face of it to be only slightly more outrageous.
Oh, and entirely by the way, is it just me, or is the true blood-curdle of her answer that little hitch-step in the middle about how the best part of a democracy is not having to change parties in charge? History textbooks are full of people saying that exact same thing, right before taking the artiface of free elections away completely.
Indeed one of the people who said something very, very similar to Palin's argument turned out to be a guy who was capable of gassing twenty million people in Europe.
I think my next post will be two sentence fragments, the second of which claims that Obama was Governor of Illinois for six years before he was elected to the Senate.
That is one thing when they're talking about fiddling with the tax code or curbing corruption - but not when our lives are all hanging in the balance.
We have fallen from Eisenhower and Truman to THIS.
Wow.
JFK who has " God has a Plan for the nation ..."
EISENHOWER
By the way, you're a liar and I've got your willful lie saved as plain text on my hard-drive.
You'll never, ever, ever post in here again without me pointing it out, right underneath it.
1. This debate demonstrates so clearly why wikipedia is a bad source for information. The Bush Doctrine is much more focused, new and dangerous than the definition provided there. It's about preemptive or preventive use of force, as in, if we feel threatened by you, we will attack you first.
2. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was an example of the use of this strategy. They were threatened by our navy in the Pacific, so they did their best to take it out in a preemptive attack, just like they had done to Russia in that war three decades earlier. If you say that the Bush Doctrine is okay, you're undermining your right to be outraged by the Pearl Harbor attack.
3. When President Kennedy rejected the advice to preemptively attack Cuba or the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis, he did so because he didn't want to go down in history as being America's Tojo.
4. What may seem to be a threat could turn out to be false, say like WMD's in Iraq. When you consider the abundance of evidence that the Bush Jr. Administration cooked the books to sell the war in Iraq, including getting the CIA to forge a letter of "evidence" linking Al Qaeda with Iraq, it seems clear that we should not trust the same cast of characters to be the Deciders about who is threatening us.
5. It's not surprising that Palin would not have learned about the Bush Doctrine from her handlers, because it has been so discredited that Bush Jr. and the rest are embarrassed about it, and don't invoke it's name even when they are making the case for preemptive war with Iran.
6. The Charlie Gibson question was a set-up; when I'm doing interviews for hiring people I always include a tough, but fair, question to see how the person responds when they might not have a clue. I call it the integrity question. Palin's response was a classic. "In what respect, Charlie" equals "Will you tell me what the Bush Doctrine means, Charlie?" Her next statement is also a classic; try to BS an answer.
She failed the integrity test; she wouldn't be hired because we wouldn't be able to trust her not to BS when she's in over her head. I have all the information I need to know to vote this November.
Obama/Biden 08
Also, from the very beginning of the interview Gibson's tone was condescending and patronizing. What Obama supporters (and that includes good old Charlie) don't seem to understand is that the more they seem to gang up on her and go out of their way to humiliate her, the more her follower will defend her. It's the same reaction of Obama followers who don't care about facts - they will rationalize everything to protect Obama. I didn't use the word "supporters" because both Obama and Palin bring out an emotional response that goes beyond mere support.
I don't think we can have a vice president and possible president who needs protection from being ganged up upon. That is scary to me, since certainly foreign policy, among other VP or presidential responsibilities, is not, as they say, beanball.
I also find your likening of the irrational protection of Palin to an irrational support of Obama dubious. What are the so-called "facts" that Obama supporters reject? That he's, um, a secret muslim (those who think that Obama admitted this last week, should review or learn about the grammatical construction indirect quotation, when one quotes the words of another in paraphrase. My recollection is that Obama simply omitted the "they say..." attribution) or that he hates America.
I would argue that Palin with her sarcasm and half truths--to put the case at its most generous--repeated even after they've been called out as such (e.g on her refusal of the Bridge to Nowhere) calls out an emotional response. Obama's tone, though sometimes high rhetorical, like that of all politicians, is also often measured and detailed--more so than either Palin or McCain.
led a blameless life! For example his relationship with Tony Rezko;
his most unfortunate relationship with Rev. Wright and the clumsy way
he dealt with that problem; his ruthless betrayal of Alice Palmer;
his cynical flip-flop on accepting federal funding for the general
election, Obama's followers forgive everything and rationalize
everything he does.
As I recall in the last primary debate the ABC questioners, inclluding
Charles Gibson, gave Obama a hard time, and Obama supporters screamed
Bloody Murder. I didn't hear any of you saying that supporters of a
candidate for President shouldn't complain about their guy being
ganged up on.
Gibson's gotcha question didn't really prove anything except that to
our second rate "journalilsts" the gotcha question is sooo cool.
Asking the question in that form three times was a cheap shot. It
revealed more about Gibson than it did about Palin.
Meanwhile, Obama hasn't yet been able to adjust to Palin's presence.
The campaign is floundering a little and the polls are making some
Democratic pols nervous. House and Senate races are tightening up so
that it's possible the Democrats won't have as big a majority as was
thought inevitable just a short while ago.
I don't like Obama and I do like McCain - BUT I prefer Obama to McCain
in the White House. I'm no longer a Democrat (since July 15th) but
I'm still a liberal. I'm horrified that the Republicans are
experiencing a revival of sorts in the Congressional races. I'm also
very angry at the Democratic Party for proving itself so damned
ineffectual, as usual, in presidential elections.
Obama supporters are sometimes maligned for thinking him the second coming. I surely don't, and hence I don't expect that he has left a blameless life. I also don't think that there's any real parity between the problems with Obama and those with McCain. Nothing you've mentioned to me about Obama worries me as much as what appears to be Palin's ignorance (I know what the Bush doctrine is, for goodness sake, and I teach English), McCain's tax and foreign policies, and the McCain-Palin ticket's lack of any detailed vision, other than vague calls for "reform." Speaking of teaching English, if a student of mine wrote like McCain and Palin talk I'd reply in the margin, "who?, what? be more specific. 'earmarks' are too vague." Someone will shoot back: but Obama has been vague too and so on. And this is my point: there's no equivalency. Sure politicians are always vague in their speeches. But if you make distinctions within that general truth, it seems clear to me that Obama is much more specific. We need to get past this illusion that tit always equals tat.
but I confess I forgot it was called the Bush Doctrine. Gibson
framing the question the way he did was really a cheap shot.
Repeating it three times was meant to humiliate her. Not only a cheap
shot, but counterproductive! Lots of people like Palin and that jibe
will make them defend her more and despise the media.. He could have
asked her straight out if she agreed with Bush that we are entitled to
attack a nation merely on our subjective determination that some day
in the future it might be a threat to us. Horrible. When she finally
answered she used the words "imminent danger" which of course is a
legal causus belli.
I prefer Obama to McCain in the White House, but I 'm not happy with
his candidacy. I feel he's come this far by his gift for oratory, but
that's not enough to make a good president. Since the nomination he
hasn't moved to the center, he has lurched to the right. His lack of
energy the last few weeks also troubles me. I'm also worried that
there is a Bradley Affect out there. I can think of no other
explanation for the race being this close in the political environment
we're living in today.
The Obama campaign has to get its act together. A lot of damage can
be done before the first debate.
Well, we can't have that. It's cruel for the media to expose her obvious ignorance, and they shouldn't do that.
After all, if the average American doesn't recognize the term "Bush Doctrine," why should the vice president?
Or maybe, just maybe, we're not electing someone to the post of "average American," and we want people who can handle themselves on foreign policy questions without being defended with "Charlie Gibson is a meanie."
qujestion he didn't remember what the Doctrine referred to. It's
obvious that she would have to be on a steep learning curve on foreign
relations, just as every governor who became president or
vice-president had to be. What did he prove that we didn't already
know? It was more important to know what she thought of the substance
of the Doctrine. Obama really put his foot in his mouth when, during
one of the debates, he said he would meet with any dictator without
preconditions. It was ludicrous. Over the next few weeks he kept
adding caveats to that statement and all his followers (and the press)
let him get away with the nonsense that all along he meant there would
have to be lots of preparations. He's running for president, not
vice-president. Now he learned that you don't have summit meetings
without bed-rock pre-conditions.
The worst thing about this is that it's counter-productive. That kind
of attack makes her stronger, not weaker. If you really want Obama to
win, stop using a sledge hammer on Sarah Palin and get back to issues,
which is the only way Obama can win.
dont tell the idiot liberals here that...
you want them to win or something ???
won't listen. they never learn. that's why i quit the democratic
party this july. i couldn't take the stupidity anymore.
question he didn't remember what the Doctrine referred to.>>
I'm not voting for him, either. But at least he'd heard of it.
>> It's obvious that she would have to be on a steep learning curve on foreign relations, just as every governor who became president or
vice-president had to be. >>
Not to many of her supporters, it's not.
>> If you really want Obama to
win, stop using a sledge hammer on Sarah Palin and get back to issues,
which is the only way Obama can win.>>
I'm not using a sledgehammer on Sarah Palin, nor is Gibson part of the Obama campaign. I'm commenting on a blog, to someone who thinks that Obama learned a lesson when he got repeatedly questioned on a statement, but that the press is "cruel" for expecting Palin to know anything about foreign policy.
I'm not sure Obama's best tack is to focus purely on the issues (I wish it was!), though he's certainly trying to focus more on them that McCain is. And I don't think he'll make much hay by beating on Palin instead of McCain, and I think he knows that, too. But crabbing at me that me noting that Palin's unqualified is somehow damaging Obama's chances is silly. I can praise or jeer at whoever I want, regardless of the overall Obama strategy.
And I don't think Charles Gibson should be considering Obama strategy either -- when he's interviewing Palin, he should be trying to show his audience a true portrait of Palin. If you think her not recognizing the term "Bush Doctrine" is irrelevant, you're free to ignore it, but that doesn't mean it's "cruel" of Gibson to ask questions of Palin as if she's expected to know something about foreign policy.
Here are the first few sentences.
'Charlie Gibson's Gaffe
By Charles Krauthammer
Saturday, September 13, 2008; A17
"At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' "
-- New York Times, Sept. 12
Informed her? Rubbish.
The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.
There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.
He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"
She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"
Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."
Wrong.
I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term.'
CUT
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
That we have the right to attack another country BEFORE there is any chance of an imminent attack.
So the bottom line is that Palin fundamentally misunderstand the Bush Doctrine--the doctrine she described was the one in effect BEFORE Bush. But, hell, who cares if she screws up foreign policy. That's all wonky stuff that doesn't affect us.
"So the bottom line is that Palin fundamentally misunderstand [sic] the Bush Doctrine..."
She is as clueless and war mongering as her masters like Bush, McSame.
Unfortunately, the problem with judging intelligence, as shown by numerous studies, is that less intelligent people are notoriously unable to judge or compare the abilties and intelligent of more intelligent people.
Trust me, you are really embarrassing yourself here.
For some obscure reason, my replies to other posts are appearing at top-level.
The technical interface for this forum really sucks. I doubt I'll waste more time trying to use it.
I read your post before composing my comments.
Normally I don't put much credence in Wikipedia articles on controversial issues, but since you apparently do, I direct your attention to this line:
"The main elements of the Bush Doctrine were delineated in a National Security Council document, National Security Strategy of the United States, published on September 20, 2002,[5] and this document is often cited as the definitive statement of the doctrine."
Now, if there is a widely accepted "definitive statement" why would one ask "In what respect, Charlie?"
Spin away...
"The main elementS of the Bush Doctrine were delineated....."
See the big "S" at the end of element? That, combined with the plural "were", signifies more than one element. There are FOUR (main!) elements of the Bush Doctrine, added sequentially from June 2001 to Jan. 2005.
("Which element, Charlie? ABM? Kyoto? American unilateralism? War on terror? Preemption? Spread of democracy? )
The "gotcha" was Palin's; the "shot in the dark" reply was Charlie's. Live with it.
Phronsie, who on Earth are you quoting in your parenthesized section? If you're going to defend what Palin said, at least have the honesty to quote her correctly. It's not hard, her responses are right there at the top of the page: "In what respect, Charlie?" and "His worldview?".
She did not ask what you attribute to her, nor did she say "which aspect", or "which point", or, God forbid, "Are you referring to his stand on Kyoto, his stand on anticipatory self-defense, ...?" She could have said, "with respect to xxx, I think yyy". She could have said the words you trying to impute to her. But she didn't say any of those reasonable things, she said what is quoted above, so please stick to reality here.
You can look up the definition of "what", but rest assured it differs from the definition of "which", and "what respect" does not mean "which respect", as you are so desperately trying to imply. Also note that her second question EXPLICITLY indicated that she thought "Bush Doctrine" to her meant "His worldview" and not any specific, actual, enunciated doctrine, let alone the bizarrely nuanced understanding you are trying to spin.
There are at least three levels of understanding here:
(1) Did she even understand the terms of the question?
(2) Having understood the terms, did she understand their significance?
(3) Having understood their significance, could she speak coherently about them?
I've interviewed more than a few dozen students and job applicants, (and have raised or helped raise several children, for what that's worth) so I know quite a bit about evasive answers, and it is as clear as day to me that she did not even understand the terms of the question. Her body language, her discomfort, her evasiveness, her stalling, her eye movements, her entire general demeanor screamed that, even before she asked the idiotic question "His worldview?".
Moreover, even if I were to grant to you that she understood what "Bush Doctrine" meant, and even if she somehow took it to encompass several parts, there is simply no way in hell her reply indicated any comprehension of the larger context that she was being questioned about: the most controversial aspect, indeed THE defining aspect, of the Bush Doctrine, the one that represents a seismic shift in U.S. foreign policy and arguably puts us in violation of our obligations as signatories to the U.N. Charter.
No other aspect that you claim to be a plausible interpretation of the term "Bush Doctrine" makes a shred of sense in the context of this interview when compared to the one that virtually all discussion since 2002 has revolved around, that has been the central defining rationale for the most disastrous foreign policy fiasco in American history, that has raised a firestorm of controversy both here and abroad, and that has even led numerous domestic and foreign legal scholars to conclude that Bush and his cronies are actually guilty of war crimes, perhaps liable for the death penalty. ("Oh, you mean THAT aspect. I thought maybe you meant his intention to study the science behind greenhouse gases for a few decades before taking any significant action." Give. Me. A. Break.)
And note that finally, even after Gibson made perfectly explicit what he was referring to, she rambled on, talking about preventive defense in the face of "eminent" [sic] attack, which is NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT, what ANY of "four points" of the Bush Doctrine are about. So even when it was presented to her on a platter, with no possibility of ambiguity or confusion, SHE STILL DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT. She attributed the policy of previous administrations to Bush and then rambled on in meaningless generalities.
I admire your tenacity, but you are insulting my intelligence. View the damn video. Look at at her body language. Look at her discomfort. Look at the way her eyes dart around while she tries to orient herself. Listen to the way she rambles on in meaningless generalities until she can come up with what she thinks is a coherent answer. She's cocky, but she's nervous as hell because she knows she's stalling and bluffing.
I'm tired of her lies. I'm tired of her bullshit. She's not competent.
I know it, you know it, I know you know it, and I know you will never admit that, so this discussion seems to be at an impasse. (I also can't believe I'm forced to point out that "what" doesn't mean "which".) Feel free to have the last word, with bonus points if you can stay in the real world instead of defending some imaginary Palin.
.
From NRO's "Corner" blog:
'Well, Anne-Marie Slaughter is the dean of the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton. She was interviewed by Alan Johnson, for a book titled: "Global Politics After 9/11: The Democratiya Interviews."
Here's how the exchange begins:
Johnson: What are the central differences, and what are the elements of continuity, if any exist, between 'the Bush doctrine' and the 'grand strategy of forging a world of liberty under law'?
Slaughter: Tell me what you mean by 'The Bush Doctrine'.
In other words, Dean Slaughter gave the same answer as did Palin.'
"In what respect, Charlie?" ... "His worldview?"
=
"In what respect, Charlie?" ... "His worldview?"
"Tell me what you mean by 'The Bush Doctrine"
=
"Tell me what you mean by 'The Bush Doctrine"
"In what respect, Charlie?" ... "His worldview?"
not the same answer as
"Tell me what you mean by 'The Bush Doctrine"
I don't know, maybe English isn't your first language. Whatever...