Palin and the Bush Doctrine

[.Shane.]

Charlie Gibson is a partisan hack.

Clearly. He must have a book coming out soon.

TOBY KEITH AGREES!

---
---

More OT...

I agree w/ Cleo. In that, it wouldn't be that big of a deal, except that:
A. It was a "deer in the headlights" type moment
B. Which wouldn't be so bad if she hadn't have had a week to prep for her first serious post-nomination interview.
C. The fact they keep her more cloistered than a nun while Biden, for better or worse, is pretty much out there every day, says a lot about their confidence in her.

As to Fifty's question, will this matter. Of course not. It will only endear her to her supporters.

 

[MobBoss]

Clearly. He must have a book coming out soon.

TOBY KEITH AGREES!

---
---

More OT...

I agree w/ Cleo. In that, it wouldn't be that big of a deal, except that:
A. It was a "deer in the headlights" type moment
B. Which wouldn't be so bad if she hadn't have had a week to prep for her first serious post-nomination interview.
C. The fact they keep her more cloistered than a nun while Biden, for better or worse, is pretty much out there every day, says a lot about their confidence in her.

As to Fifty's question, will this matter. Of course not. It will only endear her to her supporters.

Toby Keith is a democrat...

 

[GenMarshall]

Toby Keith is a democrat...

Are you sure? or are you pulling our legs?

 

[.Shane.]

Are you sure? or are you pulling our legs?

He is.

TOBY KEITH AGREES

 

[MrPopov]

Actually the Bush Doctrine IS clearly defined by the Bush administration. Gibson specifically stated the September 2002 Bush Doctrine which came out of the September 20, 2002 National Security Council meeting.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

Taken from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism it reades:

The Bush Doctrine of preemptive war was explicitly stated in the National Security Council text "National Security Strategy of the United States", published September 20, 2002. "We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed... even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack... The United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."[26] Policy analysts noted that the Bush Doctrine as stated in the 2002 NSC document bore a strong resemblance to recommendations originally presented in a controversial Defense Planning Guidance draft written in 1992 by Paul Wolfowitz under the first Bush administration.[27]

So Gibson did clearly define the Bush Doctrine question he presented to Palin and Palin clearly did not know.

 

[potatokiosk]

I would say the Bush doctrine has two parts: the means (unilateral action and preemptive/aggressive attacks) and the goal (spreading democracy and advancing the USA's interests, in the view of those who advocate the Bush doctrine these are related).

 

[JollyRoger]

She should have studied Bush a bit more - he is obviously a foreign policy expert since you can see Mexico from Texas.

 

[Arwon]

My god. I really do have more foreign policy experience than Sarah Palin.

 

[storealex]

She was chosen as VP to please the religious nutters, who care more about abortion than foreign policy or economy. The scary thing is that it will probably work...

 

[classical_hero]

Actually the Bush Doctrine IS clearly defined by the Bush administration. Gibson specifically stated the September 2002 Bush Doctrine which came out of the September 20, 2002 National Security Council meeting.



Taken from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism it reades:


So Gibson did clearly define the Bush Doctrine question he presented to Palin and Palin clearly did not know.

Obviously you have not read the rest of the thread, because it ha s changed since then. This is six years after that, so his doctrine changed.

 

[bhsup]

Good Lord. Who cares if she knows what constitutes the "Bush Doctrine" or not. Just ask directly if she is okay with pre-emptive strikes and whatever the hell else the so-called doctrine entails. Maybe 15-20 years from now, history books will have settled on a definition, but clearly it's still up in the air now as to what it means if it has changed meaning so many times over 7 years.

 

[angrybellsprout]

It isn't like the Monroe Doctorine or the Truman Doctorine.

 

[aelf]

Good Lord. Who cares if she knows what constitutes the "Bush Doctrine" or not. Just ask directly if she is okay with pre-emptive strikes and whatever the hell else the so-called doctrine entails. Maybe 15-20 years from now, history books will have settled on a definition, but clearly it's still up in the air now as to what it means if it has changed meaning so many times over 7 years.

Good Lord. Who cares if she thinks abortion is evil or not. Maybe 15-20 years from now, history books will have settled on what to call the nutters, but clearly it's still up in the air now as to whether another incompetent monkey will be voted in.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's not like she really answered the question once the term was defined, either.

 

[Godwynn]

Good Lord. Who cares if she knows what constitutes the "Bush Doctrine" or not. Just ask directly if she is okay with pre-emptive strikes and whatever the hell else the so-called doctrine entails. Maybe 15-20 years from now, history books will have settled on a definition, but clearly it's still up in the air now as to what it means if it has changed meaning so many times over 7 years.

This issue isn't as clear cut as a recession is.

 

[MrPopov]

Obviously you have not read the rest of the thread, because it ha s changed since then. This is six years after that, so his doctrine changed.

Only the media's application of the word. I was agruing against the stance that the Bush administration has never defined a Bush Doctrine which it clearly has.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Good Lord. Who cares if she knows what constitutes the "Bush Doctrine" or not. Just ask directly if she is okay with pre-emptive strikes

Well, yeah, but don't stop there. Ask her what she thinks are the main reasons pre-emptive strikes have been considered wrong and foolish, and how those concerns can be accommodated or minimized. Ask her whether the president should again violate the U.N. charter to get the bad guys, if the security council again refuses to issue the required authorization. Etc. In other words, dig in. Be a reporter partisan hack.

 

[MobBoss]

Only the media's application of the word. I was agruing against the stance that the Bush administration has never defined a Bush Doctrine which it clearly has.

Well, like Krauthammer said, it has clearly defined not 1 or 2...but actually 4 'Bush doctrines'.

Thus we see how the question itself was ambiguous to begin with.

 

[Syterion]

Again, this simply shows the double standard of the left. No more. No less.

Dude. Seriously. I don't really have a problem with your politics or you, I only have problems with statements like this. It is just not fair to attribute negative qualities about some person or even persons to an entire group they are in. Since you love talking about intellectual dishonesty, it is weird that you don't see the clear dishonesty in your repeated statements like this. It undermines yourself and creates the partisan hatred that makes everyone lose. If you actually want to convince people, don't antagonize them, and don't polarize the issues. This is the real world. It's complicated, not black and white. Give people the respect they deserve, and remember that first they are individuals, and have differing viewpoints and ways of thinking, and they are not merely members of some party or subscribers to some ideology. And please respond to this, I want to know what you think.

 

[MrPopov]

who are you referring to with "it has clearly defined..." the media or the Bush administration?

If you are saying the Bush Administration you are wrong and Krauthammer doesn't support that statement with that article either. He claims he first used the word in an essay, but Gibson specifically mentioned the one "enunciated in September 2002" which is also the one and only clearly stated by the Bush administration.

I am not defending the questioning Gibson used or Sarah Palin's response