Palin and the Bush Doctrine

[Fifty]

Didn't see a thread on this yet (though I didn't search much so feel free to strike again if there is one), and I know you guys don't want to miss another bit of Palin news!!!

VIDEO

So Sarah Palin proves yet again that she is dangerous and ignorant, not even knowing what the Bush Doctrine is. This is something the average undergraduate political science student knows. Heck, I don't follow politics at all and I knew what it was.

Could this hurt Obama McCain politically, or are the type of people who would like her in the first place (rednecks, soccer moms, etc) not going to be swayed by her not knowing the most important foreign policy doctrine of the last 8 years?

Oh and I look forward to the usual suspects coming up with reasons why either a) knowing what the Bush Doctrine is is unimportant, or b) claiming that there is not enough evidence from the video to tell that she didn't know what it is. Oh and don't forget to make an Obama gaffe reference while you're at it, guys! And don't forget to link to articles saying that there is more than one Bush doctrine, thus making it seem like she just didn't know which one he was talking about, rather than the truth, namely that she had no idea what he was talking about.

The idea that this chick (seksist, I know) is just an election and a terminal skin cancer, heart attack, or stroke away from being president makes me sad!!!

Go Go Go Go! Go! GOGOGOOGO!

 

[Trajan12]

I hear that interview took place over the course of days. Meaning she had plenty time to be briefed and then plenty of time to realize that she needed to do more homework.

Underwhelming performance at best, incredulous at worst.

 

[Shadylookin]

What is the Bush doctrine? To the naked eye he looks like he's just running around aimlessly like a chicken with it's head cut off.

 

[LesCanadiens]

Looks like Bristol's boyfriend finally decided to make a committment.

 

[downtown]

For those that don't know, here's a wiki link

The two biggest parts are (in my mind)
1) A willingness to engage in preemptive war
2) States that harbor or support terrorists are not different from terrorists themselves.

 

[MobBoss]

For those that don't know, here's a wiki link

The two biggest parts are (in my mind)
1) A willingness to engage in preemptive war
2) States that harbor or support terrorists are not different from terrorists themselves.

I, for one, would agree that states that support and fund terrorism are no different than the terrorists themselves.

I mean really, is the mafia boss guilty for paying/supporting a mook, to go whack someone?

Of course he is. Same concept.

 

[Trajan12]

For those that don't know, here's a wiki link

The two biggest parts are (in my mind)
1) A willingness to engage in preemptive war
2) States that harbor or support terrorists are not different from terrorists themselves.

It's so simple. In order to get that all one would have to do would be to look at each of the wars we got into: Iraq fits the Anticipatory Self-Defense(Pre-emptive Strike) bill perfectly while Afganistan is a text-book example of the "Harboring Terrorists" shtick.

 

[Godwynn]

I see why the McCain camp. kept her on a short leash.

 

[downtown]

This isn't really a thread to discuss the merits of the Bush Doctrine...its about Palin not knowing what it *is*.

Personally, although I hold Palin and the Bush Doctrine in very low regard, I don't think it matters too much. The surge in McCain's polling hasn't really come from women drawn in my identity politics...its come from religious conservatives, and white, conservative men (also independents, which is a very VERY different thing from moderates).

Quite frankly, I bet a lot of those people don't know what the Bush Doctrine is either, or at least don't care.

 

[CaveDweller]

Hot vacuous chicks always look bad when asked difficult questions. Ban these questions.

 

[Miles Teg]

Course that was before she was edited.

In all seriousness, that's pathetic. She should try and learn who she's imitating in foreign policy.

 

[Trajan12]

Hot vacuous chicks always look bad when asked difficult questions. Ban these questions.

I'm surprised there's been no side-by-side with Miss Teen USA posted on Youtube yet.

X-post.

 

[Bigfoot3814]

She didn't know what it was.

 

[general_kill]

The Bush Doctrine is a journalistic term used to describe some foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, enunciated in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Scholars identify seven different "Bush Doctrines,"

I'm gonna do Mobboss' job and defend Palin here.

Look at the quote above taken from Wiki. Keywords include: Journalistic term, seven different "Bush Doctrines".

So first of all, the "Bush Doctrine" is something the media has identified, it's not something the Bush administration published. The media and scholars define what it is and there's much debate over the supposed doctrine.

Second, there are apparently seven identifiable doctrine. So when Gibson asks, do you agree with the Bush doctrine, which one is he talking about? That's like asking "do you agree with the U.S. policy?" Well unless the one answering the question is an idiot, s/he will ask for more information.

Don't get me wrong, I still think Palin is a poor choice for VP, but all the crap spewed about her need to be at least relevant and correct.

 

[Miles Teg]

The emphasis on preemptive doctrine is pretty much universal to all interpretations. If she could identify that, she would have proven herself decently competent. Instead she failed to state the underlying feature.

 

[general_kill]

The emphasis on preemptive doctrine is pretty much universal to all interpretations. If she could identify that, she would have proven herself decently competent. Instead she failed to state the underlying feature.

Refer to my American policy analogy. Assume I asked you "do you agree with American policy?"

What's your answer?

And if you ask me to clarify which policy I'm referring to, assume the Gibson answer "what do you interpret it to be?"

 

[downtown]

I'm gonna do Mobboss' job and defend Palin here.

Look at the quote above taken from Wiki. Keywords include: Journalistic term, seven different "Bush Doctrines".

So first of all, the "Bush Doctrine" is something the media has identified, it's not something the Bush administration published. The media and scholars define what it is and there's much debate over the supposed doctrine.

Not really. Its not some vauge or highbrow term... the Bush Doctrine has been used in pretty commonplace political discourse, not just Political Science textbooks....and its most commonly used to talk about preemptive strikes, and installing democratic regimes in corrupt countries.

It is something that she should be expected to know, since I assume that a person of her stature reads newspapers.

Well unless the one answering the question is an idiot, s/he will ask for more information.

Which she didn't do. Here is a transcript:

Gibson: Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?

Palin: In what respect, Charlie?

Gibson: What do you interpret it to be?

Palin: His worldview?

Gibson: No, the Bush Doctrine. Annunciated September 2002, before the Iraq War.

Palin: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism. Terrorists who are hellbent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though, there have been mistakes made. And with new leadership -- and that's the beauty of American elections of course and of democracy -- is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

Gibson: The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.

She didn't ask for clarification on the Bush Doctrine. She just plowed through the incorrect answer. If Palin had said:

Palin "Are you talking about preemptive force, or a different aspect of the Bush Doctrine?", that would have been a totally acceptable response. She didn't mention *any* part of it.

 

[capslock]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457_pf.html

 

[Trajan12]

Refer to my American policy analogy. Assume I asked you "do you agree with American policy?"

What's your answer?

And if you ask me to clarify which policy I'm referring to, assume the Gibson answer "what do you interpret it to be?"

No. Because American Foreign Policy is currently based on the Bush Doctrine. Which is the Doctrine of Pre-Emptive War, and militarily spreading Democracy. That's what I interpret it to be.

Simple enough.

 

[MobBoss]

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/12/abc-edits-out-palin-objection-to-holy-war-question/

/meh. Tells me all I need to know about this.

Charlie Gibson is a partisan hack.