Political Wire - Latest Comments in Palin on the Bush Doctrine -- Political Wire

Re: Palin on the Bush Doctrine -- Political Wire

Guest — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 06:14:43 -0000

Ok, one last attempt at reality.

"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...

Re: Palin on the Bush Doctrine -- Political Wire

westwo0d — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:40:16 -0000

Good job Sarah? For what?

Oh I know, for looking stupid!

Re: Palin on the Bush Doctrine -- Political Wire

westwo0d — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:38:28 -0000

She may be intelligent, but not on the topics that matter today. The ONLY reason she's on the McCain ticket is because Hillary Clinton is not on the Obama ticket. I just don't understand how those who are so excited about Palin can be so blind to see why she was put on the Republican ticket. Are you people blind, deaf or just plain STUPID???

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.

Re: Palin on the Bush Doctrine -- Political Wire

Phronsie — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 23:07:03 -0000

Grin.

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.'

Re: Palin on the Bush Doctrine -- Political Wire

Guest — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 07:28:53 -0000

Again, I'm using the "reply" button to Phronsie but this will probably end up as a top-level comment.

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.

Re: Palin on the Bush Doctrine -- Political Wire

Phronsie — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 10:59:27 -0000

Read your Wiki line again, JimCA.

"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.

Re: Palin on the Bush Doctrine -- Political Wire

Guest — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 02:37:01 -0000

I'm posting this in reply to Phronsie, who knows where it will appear...

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...

Re: Palin on the Bush Doctrine -- Political Wire

Phronsie — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 21:53:21 -0000

JimCA, I wouldn't want you to miss my last post. It's just above your magisterial pronouncement,
"So the bottom line is that Palin fundamentally misunderstand [sic] the Bush Doctrine..."

Re: Palin on the Bush Doctrine -- Political Wire

Phronsie — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 21:43:39 -0000

Trying to post while ROFLMAO: This today from Charles Krauthammer, who (1) invented the term "Bush Doctrine", (2) violently objected to the Palin pick:

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.c...

Re: Palin on the Bush Doctrine -- Political Wire

myskylark — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:55:42 -0000

hey, i'm a liberal and i want them to win. BUT don't worry, they
won't listen. they never learn. that's why i quit the democratic
party this july. i couldn't take the stupidity anymore.

Re: Palin on the Bush Doctrine -- Political Wire

KurtBusiek — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:46:22 -0000

>> Joe Scarborough was in Congress and he said when Gibson asked the
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.

Re: Palin on the Bush Doctrine -- Political Wire

euphgeek🇺🇦🌻 — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:13:30 -0000

Spare me your lies. Nobody who defends Republicans like you do ever voted for or even gave money to any Democrat.

Re: Palin on the Bush Doctrine -- Political Wire

wxdavid — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:56:24 -0000

ssssh

dont tell the idiot liberals here that...

you want them to win or something ???

Re: Palin on the Bush Doctrine -- Political Wire

wxdavid — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:51:53 -0000

pay attention idiot

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

Re: Palin on the Bush Doctrine -- Political Wire

myskylark — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:00:37 -0000

Joe Scarborough was in Congress and he said when Gibson asked the
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.

Re: Palin on the Bush Doctrine -- Political Wire

KurtBusiek — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 12:13:51 -0000

>> For him to repeat the question three times when it was obvious she didn't recognize the reference was cruel - like tearing wings off a fly.>>

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."

Re: Palin on the Bush Doctrine -- Political Wire

KurtBusiek — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 12:08:30 -0000

>> Nothing in Palin sattement assrts her WILLINGLESS to go to war with Russia>>

[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.

Re: Palin on the Bush Doctrine -- Political Wire

MarylandDem — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:53:10 -0000

It has been reported that Joe Lieberman helpied to prep Palin on foreign policy matters before her recent interview with ABC. Given the fact that Lieberman was passed over for veep, doesn't this seem like having factory workers in Ohio who are asked to disassemble their own machines in order to pack them up to be outsourced to China? Or is it more like having someone dig their own grave before an execution?

Re: Palin on the Bush Doctrine -- Political Wire

Wynstone — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:01:10 -0000

If you want to give Palin the benefit of the doubt, that is your prerogative. Just admit that is what you are doing because nothing in her answer indicated the nuanced understanding that you are imparting to her.

This is not my "mommy's computer." I have a law degree and am admitted to practice in my state.

Re: Palin on the Bush Doctrine -- Political Wire

Bummer — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:58:37 -0000

The fact is, that response showed her complete lack of understanding in this country's strategy (which is apparently very old). Maybe she would focus more on "Domestic Issues" and let McCain deal with the Commies, but that sounds way worse.

Re: Palin on the Bush Doctrine -- Political Wire

myskylark — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:51:13 -0000

As far as the Bush Doctrine is concerned I certainly know what is is,
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.

Re: Palin on the Bush Doctrine -- Political Wire

FLMAN — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:48:09 -0000

I'm a republican. I don't care about facts. Facts/Statistcs can be distorted. I care about the real underlying truth and intent.

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?

Re: Palin on the Bush Doctrine -- Political Wire

Phronsie — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:47:11 -0000

Wynstone, I'm new to this board and will assume for the moment that
you are actually interested in this matter and not just killing time
on mommy's computer.

Andrew McCarthy today at http://corner.nationalrevie...

"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..."

Re: Palin on the Bush Doctrine -- Political Wire

Wynstone — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:05:35 -0000

I'm talking about the look she gave before substituting her own word, "worldview," which she chose to use because she was not aware of the actual doctrine.

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.

Re: Palin on the Bush Doctrine -- Political Wire

Guest — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:03:25 -0000

Sorry -- my previous post was a reply to jgrillo.

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.