Lots of answers I'd like to hear since in 15 days she hasn't answered a question from the media or done a town hall meeting with McCain to answer a citizen's question. What do you think she should be asked by Charlie Gibson?

How do you keep your hair looking so nice?

That's all I expect out of old Charlie.

* Did your Daughter have Trig or do you like lying to the public?
* Why do you say stuff that we've decided are lies?
* Why are you?
* I'm going to read off the 227 active rumors about you and I would like you to respond to each one of them or else we are going to assume they are completely true...

Gibson is screwed no matter what he asks. People will not be satisfied either way.

Hoot?:shrug:

I'm curious to see if her stance on abstinence-only education has changed since 2006. She gets a lot of heat for those old comments, but if she's willing to refine her positions based on experience and circumstances that gives her a plus in my book.

I'm curios to she what she say's about Anwar. Both Obama and McCain don't want to drill there. I haven't heard lately if she is for it or against it. Being from Alaska maybe she can shed some light on the subject.

If your daughter wanted to have an abortion, would you have supported that decision?

Do you believe in evolution?

Do you believe in global warming?

Do you believe Jesus is the only way to heaven?

Did you ever support the Bridge to Nowhere?

Have you found out what a VP's duties are yet? ;)

Granny panties, thongs, or commando?

I'm curios to she what she say's about Anwar. Both Obama and McCain don't want to drill there. I haven't heard lately if she is for it or against it. Being from Alaska maybe she can shed some light on the subject.

I think she wants Alaskans to decide, and she'd probably support drilling.

* Did your Daughter have Trig or do you like lying to the public?
Couldn't you just get her transcript to see all the classes she's taken?

'Do you consider yourself a pig?'

I'm curios to she what she say's about Anwar. Both Obama and McCain don't want to drill there. I haven't heard lately if she is for it or against it. Being from Alaska maybe she can shed some light on the subject.

I'm pretty sure she wants to drill there, and I'm pretty sure McCain does too and would reveal such after being elected. Can't flip flop on that one just yet. ;)

Why did you reverse your support of the "Bridge to Nowhere" but keep the $200 million?

Why do you pretend to be against pork-barrel spending when, per capita, Alaska receives the most of this funding?

Have you found out what a VP's duties are yet? ;)


President of The Senate

Why did you reverse your support of the "Bridge to Nowhere" but keep the $200 million?

Why do you pretend to be against pork-barrel spending when, per capita, Alaska receives the most of this funding?

Did Obama or Biden vote for that particular earmark?

Did Obama or Biden vote for that particular earmark?

Of course you know that they both did. However, that's not the issue. I don't particularly care about the money- the government spends more money on stupider things all the time. I care about what it represents about Palin.

Why do you look so much like Peggy Hill?

How did you manage to top celebrity children's names such as Apple with names like Trig, Track, Bristol, and Piper?

...oh, and "Do you believe spit is superior to shampoo and water when it comes to grooming?"
http://cdn.buzznet.com/media-cdn/jj1/headlines/2008/09/piper-palin-spit-hair-trig-plain.jpg

Do you feel that the primary reasons you were picked are based upon your qualifications, electoral strategy, or a perception that you are someone that stands up against the good old boys?

Do you know McCain keeps checking out your ass?

;)

For what it's worth:

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/9741


The 20 questions we would ask Sarah Palin

Though Republican campaign handlers have resisted the clamoring of "elitist," mud-slinging reporters for a press conference with Sarah Palin, the VP nominee will sit down for her first campaign-trail interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson at some point later this week. While campaign advisor Rick Davis says she's not scared to answer questions, Palin is said to be enduring some intense cram sessions with foreign policy tutors like Joe Lieberman.

Her passport stamps may be few, but Palin and her supporters remain adamant that the barracuda has what it takes to roll with the world's most formidable leaders and even its heavy-hitting bullies. Among the list of credentials cited are Palin's role as commander of Alaska's National Guard, her stint as mayor, and, infamously, Alaska's close proximity to Russia.

We've put together a list of suggested questions for Gibson that we think will reveal how aware Palin is of the issues awaiting her in Washington as well as offer a glimpse of the potential world leader that lies beneath the lipstick-wearing hockey mom. Feel free to suggest some of your own.

1. In a broad and long-term sense, would you have responded differently to the attacks of 9/11?
2. Is Iraq a democracy?
3. What’s the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?
4. What is your preferred plan for peace between Israel and Palestine? A two state solution? What about Jerusalem?
5. How do you feel about French President Nicolas Sarkozy's recent visit to Syria? Do you believe the United States should negotiate with leaders like President Bashar al-Assad?
6. Nearly 40 percent of the world's population lives in China and India. Who are those countries' leaders?
7. Do you support the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement, which would lift restrictions on sales of nuclear technology and fuel to India, a country which hasn’t signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty?
8. Other than more drilling, what steps do you suggest the U.S. take in order to move toward energy independence? Do you believe more investment is needed in alternative energy research? If so, how would you recommend this funding be allocated?
9. How would you balance concerns over human rights and freedom in China with the United States' growing economic interdependence with that country?
10. What's more important: securing Russia's cooperation on nuclear proliferation and Iran, or supporting Georgia's NATO bid? If Vladimir Putin called you on the phone and said, "It's one or the other," what would you tell him?
11. Critique the foreign policy of the last administration. Name its single greatest success, and its most critical failure.
12. What do you think will be the most defining foreign-policy issue in the next five years?
13. What role should the United States play in the global effort to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS? Should it support contraception, or abstinence only?
14. You've said that the federal government spends too much money. What, in your view, is the appropriate level of spending as a percentage of GDP?
15. You're an advocate of reducing environmental restrictions on drilling. How much oil needs to be found in the United States before the country achieves energy independence?
16. What are your picks for the three most enlightening books written on foreign policy in the last five years?
17. Who among the world's leaders can be listed as the top three friends of the United States and why?
18. In your opinion, which U.S. president was the most successful world leader and why?
19. Which U.S. political thinkers, writers, and politicians would you enlist to advise you on matters of foreign policy and why?
20. Who is the first world leader you'd like to meet with and why?

Holy shit. I would actually pay to see her head explode with those questions.

That reads more like a quiz than an interview. :lol:

Of course you know that they both did. However, that's not the issue. I don't particularly care about the money- the government spends more money on stupider things all the time. I care about what it represents about Palin.


When they complain about Palin & earmarks to the Bridge to Nowhere, they're being hypocrites.

Hypocrisy is an issue.

For what it's worth:

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/9741

What utter nonsense.

Man...

"Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve." - George Bernard Shaw

That reads more like a quiz than an interview. :lol:

Hence why it is nonsense.

What utter nonsense.

Yeah, how dare we expect Palin to know shit.

What utter nonsense.

Man...

Why are those questions nonsense? Is the source "nonsense?" I'm not following.

I have little doubt that the other three candidates would be able to adequately answer those questions.

Some of those questions are not nonsense. A good portion of them are. As legitimate questions that Gibson should ask, that is. It's fair enough as a list of "The 20 questions we would ask Sarah Palin" since their motives are fairly clear.

Hence why it is nonsense.

So you only expect your candidates to be able to answer the easy, soundbite questions? George Bernard Shaw was right, I suppose.

Some of those questions are not nonsense. A good portion of them are. As legitimate questions that Gibson should ask, that is. It's fair enough as a list of "The 20 questions we would ask Sarah Palin" since their motives are fairly clear.

As I said, I have little doubt that the other three candidates would be able to adequately answer those questions. Do you?

When they complain about Palin & earmarks to the Bridge to Nowhere, they're being hypocrites.

Hypocrisy is an issue.Or maybe they're pointing out the hypocrisy of a side who is "against earmarks" running with a VP candidate more than happy to receive earmarks.

I'm curious to see if her stance on abstinence-only education has changed since 2006.

You mean now that her daughter's pregnant, she'd support abstinence-only instead of curricula that include info on contraception?

Palin's statements date to her 2006 gubernatorial run. In July of that year, she completed a candidate questionnaire that asked, would she support funding for abstinence-until-marriage programs instead of "explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?"

Palin wrote, "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support."

But in August of that year, Palin was asked during a KTOO radio debate if "explicit" programs include those that discuss condoms. Palin said no and called discussions of condoms "relatively benign."

"Explicit means explicit," she said. "No, I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I am not anti-contraception. But, yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don't have a problem with that. That doesn't scare me, so it's something I would support also."

I couldn't tell you the leader of China without looking it up.

Guess I'm not qualified to be VP :(

As I said, I have little doubt that the other three candidates would be able to adequately answer those questions. Do you?

Most of them. But...

1) They would all say they would have gone into Afghanistan any way, and handled Iraq more responsibly.

10) It's not that black and white. :)

12) None of them would know. Bush would not have known, Clinton would not have known, and if they had known at the time, they would have been wrong.

14) None of them could answer this responsibly on the spot

15) Stupid question, since nobody has suggested such a thing

16) Barack Obama has at least 4 books on the shelves with his name on them. Picking just 3 would be impossible.

19) Most would not answer specifically. They would simply say "the best minds I can find."

So you only expect your candidates to be able to answer the easy, soundbite questions? George Bernard Shaw was right, I suppose.

No I don't expect that.

However, as others, (Thor), have already pointed out, many of the questions are unanswerable while others are loaded.

he has four books?

Lots of good questions but I would absolutely like to see the first question be: Why did you wait 15 days after your nomination (with only 70 days to go until the election at the time) to answer any questions? IF you didn't want to speak to the mainstream media why didn't you & Senator McCain do one of his famous town hall meeting to answer questions from everyday citizens? It is amazing that a man who did town hall meetings almost daily until he picked you has stuck to nothing but stump speeches since so that you wouldn't be bothered to do anything but give the same stump speech everywhere (the last statement is not meant to be asked. Just my thoughts about it).

I couldn't tell you the leader of China without looking it up.Who?

I'd play the odds and say it was Chin.

Here's a question: how many of those questions could the blogger who thought them up answer without consulting Wikipedia?

I care more about whether she'll push for some meaningful energy policy than I do whether if she knows who the leader of China is.

Obviously - the Democratic ticket is not going to, and that's sad.

I'd ask her what she expects from a SCt Justice. It can't be any worse than Senator Obama's answer on that question.

Why do you hate the jews?

Who?

sXvhZdMYCUw

When it comes to shooting people, which former VP do you most resemble: Aaron Burr or Dick Cheney?

sXvhZdMYCUw

That was good. :up:

Here's a question: how many of those questions could the blogger who thought them up answer without consulting Wikipedia?

Hopefully, you are not equating a blogger with a candidate for Vice President. Why is it wrong to expect people who do politics and policy for a living to have answers to those questions? Do we really have that low expectations?

Bill Clinton...great president or greatest president ever?

Ms. Palin,

Your plate seems pretty full already, what with having a new born handicapped baby, advising a teenaged daugter who is pregnant, and governing the state of Alaska, under what circumstances would you have turned down Senator McCain's request to be his running mate?

Hopefully, you are not equating a blogger with a candidate for Vice President. Why is it wrong to expect people who do politics and policy for a living to have answers to those questions? Do we really have that low expectations?I'd expect Condi to answer those questions. I wouldn't expect Palin to answer them any more than I would expect her to answer detailed fiscal policy questions or military strategy questions

When they complain about Palin & earmarks to the Bridge to Nowhere, they're being hypocrites.

Hypocrisy is an issue.

Are they complaining about earmarks, or are they complaining about the fact that Governor Palin is lying about her opposition to earmarks?

Ms. Palin,

Your plate seems pretty full already, what with having a new born handicapped baby, advising a teenaged daugter who is pregnant, and governing the state of Alaska, under what circumstances would you have turned down Senator McCain's request to be his running mate?

That would actually be a pretty stupid question. It implies a woman can't juggle home/family like a man can. There are plenty of men that run for higher office that are already in one office or another and have a family with issues that seem to juggle it all just fine.

How has just naming you the vice president candidate thrown the Messiah off of his game?

Why do dems not like strong women?

I'd love to have him ask those.

Are they complaining about earmarks, or are they complaining about the fact that Governor Palin is lying about her opposition to earmarks?

Palin did reduce earmark requests as gov. of Alaska. And she was the one who stopped the bridge to nowhere while the Messiah and tongue-tied Joe voted twice for it(once even when the money was going to aid Katrina).

Palin did reduce earmark requests as gov. of Alaska. And she was the one who stopped the bridge to nowhere while the Messiah and tongue-tied Joe voted twice for it(once even when the money was going to aid Katrina).

9xbn_AXlaeY

Personally, I don't have a problem with earmarks, so I don't have a problem with Senator Obama or Senator Biden voting for earmarks. And I wouldn't have a problem with Governor Palin trying to get earmarks if she weren't such a goddamned liar who is now trying to claim that she championed earmark reform.

He should certainly ask something about the women she credited in her first speech. Senator Clinton, particularly.

Potential question for Governor Palin: Do you think it's right to make rape victims pay for their own rape kits? Related question: Do you think that other crime victims should be required to pay for expenditures associated with the collection of evidence in their cases?

And I wouldn't have a problem with Governor Palin trying to get earmarks if she weren't such a goddamned liar who is now trying to claim that she championed earmark reform.

So you are saying Sarah Palin is providentially condemned?

Isn't that getting a bit carried away?

when does this air on tv?

EDIT: nevermind, i found it.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/abc/charles_gibsons_palin_interview_the_timing_94212.asp?c=rss

So you are saying Sarah Palin is providentially condemned?

Isn't that getting a bit carried away?

I was using goddamned as an intensifier, not in its literal sense. I won't presume to speak to who God will or will not damn. :)

when does this air on tv?That's a question Palin should ask Gibson, not the other way around. -ohbfrank-

I would like to hear more about Governor Palin's marijuana use.

She claims she's tried it, but didn't like it. Since it was legal under state law, she says it's no big deal. Yet, of course, she still thinks it should be illegal (I mean, what kind of message would it send to her kids if she didn't?!?). Well, it was and still is criminalized under Federal law, and as the Feds have shown time and time again, they don't give much clout to those silly voter initiatives and state laws. Under Federal law, what she did was a crime.

I think she should be asked if she considers herself a criminal, and deserves to be put in jail for what she did, and if she thinks that should stand in the way of her being vice-president, as it would for any other citizen unlucky enough to get caught. If her answer is no, then I'd like to know why she thinks it's okay to brand millions of other Americans criminals for engaging in the same behavior, but not herself.

But, I'm not holding my breath - at least not until the next time my lungs are filled with cannabis smoke.

9xbn_AXlaeY

You forgot to turn off the recorder at the end before you posted this.

Do people think that "per capita" is a fair way to assess earmarks? I'm undecided. I do know that people like to make fun of how few people Palin has governed. That makes the "per capita" thing a little less troubling to me than close to $1 million a day for Obama.

Also, did Palin increase, maintain, or reduce earmark spending?

when does this air on tv?

Tomorrow night, as part of 20/20.

Tomorrow night, as part of 20/20.

How do you know everything, and still get so many things wrong? :mad:

I really don't think Mel Gibson has any business interviewing her.

Actually, I'd watch it to see him call her sugar-tits.

I really don't think Mel Gibson has any business interviewing her.

Actually, I'd watch it to see him call her sugar-tits.

Bring Lieberman in on that and you have yourself some ratings! :up:

Potential question for Governor Palin: Do you think it's right to make rape victims pay for their own rape kits? Related question: Do you think that other crime victims should be required to pay for expenditures associated with the collection of evidence in their cases?

FALSE, and ludicrous. The "smoking gun" article that started this smear doesn't even mention Sarah Palin.


http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt

How has just naming you the vice president candidate thrown the Messiah off of his game?

Why do dems not like strong women?

I'd love to have him ask those.


rotfl

I'd expect Condi to answer those questions. I wouldn't expect Palin to answer them any more than I would expect her to answer detailed fiscal policy questions or military strategy questions

Yes. I'm evidently alone in expecting the Presidential and VP candidates to have overarching knowledge with regards to fiscal and foreign policy.

Yes. I'm evidently alone in expecting the Presidential and VP candidates to have overarching knowledge with regards to fiscal and foreign policy.

Do you agree or disagree with the questions I highlighted as poor?

Yes. I'm evidently alone in expecting the Presidential and VP candidates to have overarching knowledge with regards to fiscal and foreign policy.

Why are you so confident that Obama knows this stuff. He's been out of Washington campaigning for how long now?

I don't have a problem with earmarks.

Like any other legislation - some are good - others not so good - some bad.

Bill Clinton...great president or greatest president ever?

Tell the forum you're not really serious.

Well after this election, either McCain or Obama & Biden can be present for more votes in The Senate. ;)

Lucky for Biden that the US is focusing on Gov. Palin and not on the stupid things he's saying.

You're too critical of Biden.

FALSE, and ludicrous. The "smoking gun" article that started this smear doesn't even mention Sarah Palin.


http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt

Where is the smear? It's a fact that Wasilla charged rape victims for rape kits. It's a fact that Alaska legislature had to pass a law to stop this practice. It's a fact that the Police Chief of Wasilla -- appointed by Mayor Palin -- objected to this law. If Governor Palin objected to what her police chief was doing, she should speak up and say so, and she should explain why she didn't do anything about it at the time. But I think it's a legitimate topic to ask her to address.

Well after this election, either McCain or Obama & Biden can be present for more votes in The Senate. ;)Hmm... Two of their votes returning or just one. That makes a good case for Obama.

:lol:

Fun to watch the desperation of the left as SS Obama gets broadsided by Iceberg Palin.

For what it's worth:

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/9741

Good questions, I guess. I'd think most politicians could eloquently BS answers to those questions. By BS I mean either giving roundabout answers to divert attention, or straight up lying to sound and look good. No doubt some will do better than others, and I'm sure many will want to see the questions before the interview.

Gibson Q's:

1. So Governor Palin, how does it feel to be on the <b>Palin/McCain</b> ticket?

2. Based on explosive reaction when you were announced did you ever think you'd be, by default, running for <b>President</b> against Barrack Obama in 2008?

Or maybe they're pointing out the hypocrisy of a side who is "against earmarks" running with a VP candidate more than happy to receive earmarks.

What are you guys complaining about the Bridge to Nowhere for? She didn't spend the money on the bridge, now did she? She took money allocated for wasteful spending and used it on something worthwhile. Who cares what she said as the mayor of a small town? It's what she actually did that matters.

Do we really want to dig up all of the things Obama claimed to support as an Illinois State Senator but later changed his mind on and voted differently in the US Senate?

Governor Palin, your campaign has the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?

If you were a tree, what kind of lumber would you want to be turned into after a hard working American lumberjack cut you down?

What goes better with Mooseburgers? Pabst Blue Ribbon or Milwaukee's Best?

Isn't it kind of creepy to know that, as we speak, thousands of Young Republicans' are probably wacking off to your picture?

Q: ...who are the leaders of those countries?

A: Let me TELL you something about the leader of China-

Q: What's his name?

A: Look, you're talking about a man who made certain promises before these Olympics and-

Q: Just say his name.

A: Look, he made promises and suddenly we have these little girls, they can't be more than 11 years old-

Q: Do you or do you not know the name of China's leader?

A: Listen. I had kids that played hockey and there were a lot of parents there for every game. When your kid knocked another kid's teeth out, you didn't care about their parents' names. You just stuck your hips out and told them their kid got served.

Governor Palin, isn't it kind of creepy to know that, as we speak, thousands of Young Republicans' are probably wacking off to your picture?I'd give her an earmark.

Q: ...who are the leaders of those countries?

A: Let me TELL you something about the leader of China-

Q: What's his name?

A: Look, you're talking about a man who made certain promises before these Olympics and-

Q: Just say his name.

A: Look, he made promises and suddenly we have these little girls, they can't be more than 11 years old-

Q: Do you or do you not know the name of China's leader?

A: Listen. I had kids that played hockey and there were a lot of parents there for every game. When your kid knocked another kid's teeth out, you didn't care about their parents' names. You just stuck your hips out and told them their kid got served.Chris Matthews is conducting Gov Palin's interview?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PGeu_4Ekx-o&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PGeu_4Ekx-o&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Gibson threw her some really softball questions, but I was laughing when she had no idea what the Bush Doctrine was.

Wait- it's on tonight? :confused:

Edit: You can find it here:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5778018&page=1

At least, 1:15 of it. It was longer, right?

Gibson threw her some really softball questions, but I was laughing when she had no idea what the Bush Doctrine was.


What is the Bush Doctrine?

More here, in summary form. I'm sure someone will post the full video soon.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5782924&page=1

Gibson threw her some really softball questions, but I was laughing when she had no idea what the Bush Doctrine was.


Asked respectfully, do you?


Is there such a thing?

Asked respectfully, do you?


Is there such a thing?

Yes, I do - and Charlie explained it to her. It was first expressed as "if you harbor terrorists, you are our enemy" and has evolved into the notion that we have the right to make a preemptive strike when we feel another country threatens us. I find it amazing that a Vice Presidential candidate didn't know that.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.15845/pub_detail.asp


I don't expect that every average Joe would know it, but I would have thought that most of the posters in this subforum would have at least heard of it.

When did that become the Bush Doctrine?

What is the Bush Doctrine?I had to look it up. After reading it, it seemed familiar. But I couldn't just pull it out of memory like the Monroe Doctrine.

Come to think of it... I better look up the Monroe Doctrine again.

When did that become the Bush Doctrine?

When he kept articulating it in his speeches post-9/11.

I wonder what would happen if a reporter asked Biden about domestic oil production?

Do you think he have a ready answer?

Probably would - or he would make one up. ;)

When did that become the Bush Doctrine?



It never did.

When did that become the Bush Doctrine?

When common sense, and a Presidential responsibility was re-framed into a simplistic political label by the moronic media and masses in our country.

I would have also thought most people on this forum would know what the Bush Doctrine refers to as well. It's not the Monroe doctrine, but invading another country pre-emptively for the first time ever certainly got a lot of press a few years back.

What I didn't realize is that it seems just about every president nowadays has a doctrine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._doctrine

I knew the Monroe, Reagan and Bush doctrines and the Kennedy one sure sounds familiar too.

Gibson. Have you ever heard of Issues?
Palin. What are issues?
Gibson . I'll ask the questions winch
Palin. What's a winch?
Gibson. someone who throws out lame attacks instead of focusing on issues
Palin. Again what are issues?
Gibson- Good God this country is screwed if she becomes the VP
Palin Which country?

no sarcasm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._doctrineIt appears I suck at Doctrines.

Can I be VP?

It appears I suck at Doctrines.

Can I be VP?I'm guessing you have enough experience.

Yes, I do - and Charlie explained it to her. It was first expressed as "if you harbor terrorists, you are our enemy" and has evolved into the notion that we have the right to make a preemptive strike when we feel another country threatens us. I find it amazing that a Vice Presidential candidate didn't know that.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.15845/pub_detail.asp


I don't expect that every average Joe would know it, but I would have thought that most of the posters in this subforum would have at least heard of it.

Please, no use of wikipedia.






Most people refer to the 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States as the Bush doctrine. And indeed, the mention of attacking nations that harbor terrorists is included, (as has been the standard protocol throughout our modern history, albeit a tad different, what with that whole Cold War thing), but there are also countless mentions of multilateralism, diplomacy, allies, global institutions, free trade, United Nations, and many others. Why are those ignored when describing the 'Bush Doctrine'?

More importantly, as has been touched upon already here by others, isn't this term simply a derisive way of speaking about the President, or a very shallow effort of the media?

"Bush Doctrine" is one of those terms Jon Stewart uses when he wants to sound thoughtful and informed.

Gibson . I'll ask the questions winch
Palin. What's a winch?

Well a "winch" is a mechanical device that is used to pull in (wind up) or let out (wind out) or otherwise adjust the "tension" of a rope or cable.

I have no idea why Gibson would be calling Palin a mechanical device that is often mounted to the front of a truck or Jeep.

Doesn't make sense.

"Bush Doctrine" is one of those terms Jon Stewart uses when he wants to sound thoughtful and informed.

While I don't doubt your assertion he has used that term, I've yet to see Jon Stewart come off as either "thoughtful" or "informed".

That would alienate and estrange his target audience.

I didn't think that the fact that Bush believes - and has acted on - the premise that we have the right to take preemptive military action against a state was such a hotly contested issue. :shrug:

I didn't think that the fact that Bush believes - and has acted on - the premise that we have the right to take preemptive military action against a state was such a hotly contested issue. :shrug:

As have virtually all Presidents of the lat 100 years.

The bigger point is, there is no such thing as the 'Bush Doctrine'.







Unrelated, I did laugh when reading the portions of the interview on Russia. Gibson, at least in print, comes off as an ass. I always find it funny when Republicans/conservatives are criticised for thinking in black and white terms, but Gibson was trying to settle for nothing less than such an answer. Governor Palin did not oblige.

I didn't think that the fact that Bush believes - and has acted on - the premise that we have the right to take preemptive military action against a state was such a hotly contested issue. :shrug:


The difference is that Bush's view of preemption is far more generous than any before. He changed the rationale/basis of a preemptive attack from immediate threat to gathering threat, whatever the fuck 'gathering' means. Anybody can pose a gathering threat, which makes it very convenient, and the American public bought it hook, line, and sinker. That's the Bush Doctrine, flimsy as it is.

I didn't think that the fact that Bush believes - and has acted on - the premise that we have the right to take preemptive military action against a state was such a hotly contested issue.
It's been a 'doctrine' for thousands of years.

It was a doctrine FDR believed in and was well into the process of acting on until the 'bait' was taken by the Japanese and he didn't have to go through with it. Some fellas died on a ship though, to move things along. History rather brushed that under the rug as it so often does.

Maybe you've heard 'Remember the Maine!'?

It's not some new concept or idea this "Bush Doctrine".

Well... like I said before, it is to the ignorant and agenda driven media and masses, but not to those that have the perspective that comes from knowing history, and also just basic common sense.

"Most of us spend too much time on the last twenty-four hours and too little on the last six thousand years." - Will Durant

Pre-emptive strikes gained more credibility in the nuclear age - despite the rather useless (out-dated) statement that Will Durant made. That statement might have a little more validity a hundred years ago.

It's been a 'doctrine' for thousands of years.

It was a doctrine FDR believed in and was well into the process of acting on until the 'bait' was taken by the Japanese and he didn't have to go through with it. Some fellas died on a ship though, to move things along. History rather brushed that under the rug as it so often does.

Maybe you've heard 'Remember the Maine!'?


It's true that FDR wanted to enter the war before Pearl Harbor but the isolationism in the country prevented it, hence the Lend-Lease Act and the Oil Embargo on Japan.

However, "Remember the Maine" was a US ship that hit a water mine in Havana Harbor, Cuba, which led to the Spanish-American War, so that wasn't a preemptive strike.

Gibson threw her some really softball questions, but I was laughing when she had no idea what the Bush Doctrine was.

I know of at least 5 different definitions of the "Bush Doctrine". Sure she wasn't just asking for clarification?

As have virtually all Presidents of the lat 100 years.

The bigger point is, there is no such thing as the 'Bush Doctrine'.







Unrelated, I did laugh when reading the portions of the interview on Russia. Gibson, at least in print, comes off as an ass. I always find it funny when Republicans/conservatives are criticised for thinking in black and white terms, but Gibson was trying to settle for nothing less than such an answer. Governor Palin did not oblige.

"What do you do against evil?"

"DEFEAT IT."

Very nuanced.

And I'm still waiting for an answer on what McCain would qualify someone as rich. Because I have so much love in my heart and I felt so wealthy because of it, that I forgot how little I had saved in the bank. Is that, do you suppose, the same reason he forgot how many houses the, possibly rich but possibly not rich, Senator has?

I know of at least 5 different definitions of the "Bush Doctrine". Sure she wasn't just asking for clarification?


If vacant look followed by fumbling response = asking for clarification, then yes.

And I'm still waiting for an answer on what McCain would qualify someone as rich. Because I have so much love in my heart and I felt so wealthy because of it, that I forgot how little I had saved in the bank. Is that, do you suppose, the same reason he forgot how many houses the, possibly rich but possibly not rich, Senator has?

His point in that comment was that he doesn't care what "rich" is, because he's not proposing a "steal from the rich" tax policy.

But regardless, the idea of "rich" is heavily relative. A person with 5 kids living in NY might struggle making $150,000 / yr, while a single person in Houston making half that lives a very, very comfortable life.

The house comment is because he technically owns none. His wife and her company own 5 condos and 2 homes. Those include:


Cindy and John's primary residence (a condo) in Phoenix, AZ
John's residence (a condo) in Arlington, VA
Cindy's elderly aunt's home (a condo) in La Jolla, CA
Cindy's children's ranch in Sedona, AZ
3 Condos owned as investment property by Cindy McCain and her dependent's trust (Phoenix, AZ and San Diego, CA) over which she has no control


So why does McCain "not know how many homes he owns?" Because he doesn't keep weekly tabs on Cindy's trust. As an aside, there's a prenup agreement that keeps all the trust in her name and possession. So does he say that he owns "none", which is technically true, or does he say that he owns 2 condos (which is where he lives), or does he say that Cindy's trust might owns some number but that he doesn't keep tabs on her trust (it may be a blind trust)? He didn't say "I don't know", he said that he'll have to get with his campaign on that issue.

When did that become the Bush Doctrine?

It never did.

You guys are funny.

There are 800,000 hits for "Bush Doctrine" on Google. It's not something Charlie Gibson made up, and the links that Bandoman posted lay it out pretty clearly.

If vacant look followed by fumbling response = asking for clarification, then yes.

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c101/BlueDjinn/moose_headlights.jpg

for the lazy
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WaMJ-xTcGxI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WaMJ-xTcGxI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

While the average Joe most likely does not know what the Bush Doctrine is, I definitely expect someone running for VP to at least have heard of it, particularly since it is has the name of your party's leader. I didn't get that impression from Palin.

Summary of the Palin-Gibson interview:

<b>Gibson:</b> Recent polls have shown that one-fifth of Americans can't locate the US on a map. Why do you think that is?

<b>Palin:</b> I personally believe that US Americans are unable to do so because some people out there in our nation don't have maps and that I believe our education like such as South Africa and the Iraq, and everywhere, such as, and I believe that they should our education over here in the US, should help the US, or should help South Africa and help the Iraq and the Asian countries so that we will be able to build out our future for us.

Well, she can't be 4 more years of Bush if she doesn't know his Doctrine. QED. No more making THAT argument. ;)

does it sound like some of the interview was clipped, or edited? It sounded like some of Palin's anwsers were cut off after a sentence to go to the next question.

It never did.

Are you serious?

I am getting really close to leaving this fucking place until after the election. The level of outright lying is getting to be unbearable.

does it sound like some of the interview was clipped, or edited? It sounded like some of Palin's anwsers were cut off after a sentence to go to the next question.

Yes, chopped very much.

The difference is that Bush's view of preemption is far more generous than any before. He changed the rationale/basis of a preemptive attack from immediate threat to gathering threat, whatever the fuck 'gathering' means. Anybody can pose a gathering threat, which makes it very convenient, and the American public bought it hook, line, and sinker. That's the Bush Doctrine, flimsy as it is.I suppose I should be surprised at all the people who are going to act like this is a new, or made up concept, but I'm not. I'd like to think that those people felt the same way yesterday but I know that's not how it works. I'm also not directing this at just the people in DVDTalk either.

Tracer Bullet: For what it's worth, a simple check proves that Pharoh certainly didn't believe in any sort of Bush Doctrine several months ago.

Are you serious?

I am getting really close to leaving this fucking place until after the election. The level of outright lying is getting to be unbearable.

Have you known me to not be serious?

I would submit that you read the whole thread. The 'Bush Doctrine' is a made up term, one usually only used to described the preemptive aspect of our defense strategy. The actual original document, (and subsequent revisions), on which the doctrine is allegedly based upon is far more comprehensive.

No lying involved.




And Governor Palin apparently has a much better understanding of the 'Bush Doctrine' than Mr. Gibson, who came off as more of an ass than I thought after simply reading the transcript.

And Governor Palin apparently has a much better understanding of the 'Bush Doctrine' than Mr. Gibson, who came off as more of an ass than I thought after simply reading the transcript.Dude, she thought he was talking about Bush's worldview. As fair as I try to be there's just no way you can spin that as "better understanding".

When did that become the Bush Doctrine?

I have no idea. It sounds like a definition the people who don't like Bush came up with and decided everyone should agree with it and know it. I had no idea what it was either.

And who made up the term?

Summary of the Palin-Gibson interview:

<b>Gibson:</b> Recent polls have shown that one-fifth of Americans can't locate the US on a map. Why do you think that is?

<b>Palin:</b> I personally believe that US Americans are unable to do so because some people out there in our nation don't have maps and that I believe our education like such as South Africa and the Iraq, and everywhere, such as, and I believe that they should our education over here in the US, should help the US, or should help South Africa and help the Iraq and the Asian countries so that we will be able to build out our future for us.

:lol:

My favorite part was when she argued in favor of a war with Russia, because we can't repeat the Cold War (what the hell does that even mean -- "we will not repeat a Cold War?")

The Clinton Doctrine was diplomacy first unless humanitarian need required action.

To act like the Bush Doctrine did not exist, is some newly constructed idea, or that it's creation is due to his critics is completely laughable. It's a known phrase that describes a President's edict on foreign policy, such as FDR or Teddy Roosevelt's "Big Stick" Doctrine.

By the concentration on one question and answer I take it Palin didn't come off as the buffoon some people were hoping for?

Or maybe they're saving that for tomorrow?

Have you known me to not be serious?

I would submit that you read the whole thread. The 'Bush Doctrine' is a made up term, one usually only used to described the preemptive aspect of our defense strategy. The actual original document, (and subsequent revisions), on which the doctrine is allegedly based upon is far more comprehensive.

No lying involved.




And Governor Palin apparently has a much better understanding of the 'Bush Doctrine' than Mr. Gibson, who came off as more of an ass than I thought after simply reading the transcript.

I have no response to this other than complete and utter shock. I am speechless.

The Clinton Doctrine was diplomacy first unless humanitarian need required action.


:lol:

Somalia

The Clinton Doctrine was diplomacy first unless humanitarian need required action.I looked at that when I was looking through the doctrines. Didn't his say we had to have a national interest to act?

By the concentration on one question and answer I take it Palin didn't come off as the buffoon some people were hoping for?

Or maybe they're saving that for tomorrow?

Oh no, she definitely did. It's just that the "Bush Doctrine" answers were so overwhelmingly stupid that they outweigh everything else.

So, Republicans. How do you felt she did in her first interview as a candidate? Good, bad? ...Horrendous?

At first I just thought she sounded laughably out of her league. But then she mentioned war with Russia and followed it with a variety of naive and dangerously unprepared answers, suggesting we should invade Pakistan if we feel the need, and I thought, <i>Dear god... there is a very realistic scenario in which she could become president</i>. I realized I was genuinely terrified that she could become the leader of the free world.

I looked at that when I was looking through the doctrines. Didn't his say we had to have a national interest to act?

There wasn't a real interest in any of Clinton's forays - much less a vital national interest.

The difference is that Bush's view of preemption is far more generous than any before. He changed the rationale/basis of a preemptive attack from immediate threat to gathering threat, whatever the fuck 'gathering' means. Anybody can pose a gathering threat, which makes it very convenient, and the American public bought it hook, line, and sinker. That's the Bush Doctrine, flimsy as it is.

That's the problem with the term "Bush Doctrine". It's not actually a specific doctrine, but political slang based on a collection of actions and decisions. At different times, I've heard it to mean 1) the active support of rebel groups to overthrow a hostile government, 2) the use in accurate and partial intelligence to gain international acceptance of partial war, 3) the imposed regime change in a region to destabilize totalitarian regimes in nearby nations and create openings for democracy, 4) the creation of excessive debt and financial dependencies to creation social and economic alliances which leads to an openning up of a nation, followed by a growth in capitalism and a subsequent democratization of a foreign nation (referring to US-China Policy).

Are you serious?

I am getting really close to leaving this fucking place until after the election. The level of outright lying is getting to be unbearable.:up:

But then she mentioned war with Russia and followed it with a variety of naive and dangerously unprepared answers, suggesting we should invade Pakistan if we feel the need, and I thought, <i>Dear god... there is a very realistic scenario in which she could become president</i>. I realized I was genuinely terrified that she could become the leader of the free world.Do you know what Obama said about invading Pakistan? He's running for president.

Here, I'll save the searching trouble...

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama issued a pointed warning yesterday to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying that as president he would be prepared to order U.S. troops into that country unilaterally if it failed to act on its own against Islamic extremists.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080101233.html

Dude, she thought he was talking about Bush's worldview. As fair as I try to be there's just no way you can spin that as "better understanding".

I was referring to her follow-up to the somewhat nonsensical world view comment. Perhaps neither possess a viable understanding?

There wasn't a real interest in any of Clinton's forays - much less a vital national interest.I know that, I was just wondering about how the actions taken under the Clinton Doctrine fit in with what it said.

But I'm certainly no doctrine expert.

:lol:

My favorite part was when she argued in favor of a war with Russia, because we can't repeat the Cold War (what the hell does that even mean -- "we will not repeat a Cold War?")

Did you read the whole section of the transcript, or only watch the abbreviated and chopped clip posted here?

I'm not either.

I'm simply aware that the doctrine of pre-emptive strike didn't begin or will it end with George W. Bush.

Funny, The White House seems to accept it's existence.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/query.html?col=colpics&qt=%22bush+doctrine%22&submit.x=0&submit.y=0
Search whitehouse.gov by keyword

Results for: "bush doctrine"


Document count: "bush doctrine" (71) But we know what liars they are. :shrug:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/08/20030807.html

A press release of a statement by, ahem, Vice President Richard Cheney, talking about the "Bush Doctrine":<b>The President annunciated what's come to be known as the Bush doctrine, and henceforth, we will hold states that sponsor terror or provide bases for terrorists accountable and responsible for any attacks launched by those terrorists.</b> So not only are we going after terror-sponsoring states, we've also worked aggressively to take down the financial networks that support them, to take away their logistical support, which oftentimes is found buried in otherwise legitimate organizations, non-governmental and charitable organizations. We've mounted a major effort with respect to our intelligence services and the intelligence services of other nations. -ohbfrank-

By the concentration on one question and answer I take it Palin didn't come off as the buffoon some people were hoping for?

Or maybe they're saving that for tomorrow?Her first answer for national security was a nice dodge into talking about her experience with energy policy. Gibson's questioning about travelling outside of the country and meeting with foreign leaders was pretty stupid and I think she answered about as well as anyone (with a similar background) could have. Talking about being able to see Russia was pretty stupid and I didn't know what she was saying with a good portion of her talk on that subject. She was direct and to the point regarding Georgia and the Ukraine joining NATO so she knew what she was talking about there. She wisely avoided a direct answer to the question of whether she thinks we ought to be able to cross the border into Pakistan to kill terrorists too.

In my opinion she did okay. I don't think the Bush Doctrine thing is a big a deal as some people will. She wasn't the homerun that some of her supporters might have wanted and she wasn't a blundering idiot like her detractors would want. She sounds a lot like a regular politician to me.

:up:

Not sure what the thumbs up is for. Do you agree with the use of simple and derisive terms to describe larger ideas?

By the concentration on one question and answer I take it Palin didn't come off as the buffoon some people were hoping for?

Or maybe they're saving that for tomorrow?

Watch the video. In addition to freezing up on the Bush Doctrine, she tried to get us into a war with Russia, explained that she was qualified on national security because she knows energy and energy is a part of national security, claimed that she has an insight into Russia because you can see it from an island in Alaska, gave Israel a blank check to attack Iran, and endorsed the idea -- for which Republicans have been ridiculing Senator Obama -- that if we have actionable intelligence of terrorists in Waziristan, we should go into Pakistan with or without the blessing of Islamabad. All in less than 10 minutes.

Also permit me to add that lying didn't start with the Bush, nor will it end with the Bush admininstration.

It's been with us a long time.

Funny, The White House seems to accept it's existence.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/query.html?col=colpics&qt=%22bush+doctrine%22&submit.x=0&submit.y=0


Thanks to that link I found some articles where Cheney mentioned "The Bush Doctrine" so I am to assume the term wound up emanating from the White House itself. I had never heard of it thought.

But I'm not running for VP. I think it is fair to say Palin should have known about it a bit better. Then again.. she's not running to be Bush's VP.

Did you read the whole section of the transcript, or only watch the abbreviated and chopped clip posted here?Where's the transcript?

Not sure what the thumbs up is for. Do you agree with the use of simple and derisive terms to describe larger ideas?I agree that the level of lying around here is getting to be unbearable.

Did you read the whole section of the transcript, or only watch the abbreviated and chopped clip posted here?

I watched the video and reviewed the transcript here (http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5782924). If there is a complete transcript, I would very much appreciate a link because I'd like to read it.

Not sure what the thumbs up is for. Do you agree with the use of simple and derisive terms to describe larger ideas?

Why don't you ask Vice President Cheney?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/08/20030807.html

A press release of a statement by, ahem, Vice President Richard Cheney, talking about the "Bush Doctrine":-ohbfrank-

The key phrase is "what's come to be known as the Bush doctrine". That's the point. We know exactly what the Monroe doctrine is. You can read Monroe's address: http://www.historywiz.com/primarysources/monroedoctrinetext.htm

The Bush Doctrine, however, has come to mean any foreign policy that the Bush administration has taken. And it is used interchangably to indicate one policy or another.

No one's saying that it doesn't exist, but it's certainly not a concrete fact.

:lol:

Somalia

Bush 41 sent the Military to Somalia, and Clinton pulled them out when Congress questioned why they were there. Or do you not know or remember McCain calling into question the action?

And let's not forget that if Kosovo became unstable and continued to fight against Milosevic, that would have been another breeding ground for Al Qaida. I'm not suggesting that Clinton considered that, but it would have been the case had the US and Nato not intervened.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/08/20030807.html

A press release of a statement by, ahem, Vice President Richard Cheney, talking about the "Bush Doctrine":-ohbfrank-

So even by this statement, Gibson's understanding of the Bush Doctrine, which I will concede has been used by the administration itself, is faulty and incomplete.


Again, it is based on this: http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf

for which Republicans have been ridiculing Senator Obama -- that if we have actionable intelligence of terrorists in Waziristan, we should go into Pakistan with or without the blessing of Islamabad.I haven't been paying attention to the Republicans making fun of Obama for that, but if they have the irony is nice considering the White House announced this week that they've already been doing this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11policy.html?hp

:lol:

My favorite part was when she argued in favor of a war with Russia, because we can't repeat the Cold War (what the hell does that even mean -- "we will not repeat a Cold War?")
Yeah, Palin has not impressed me at all and I agree 100% with matt Damon that the possibility of her becoming president is terrifying. To put it kindly, she's too 'simple.' It actually makes me wish McCain picked Condi or Jindal instead.

Thanks to that link I found some articles where Cheney mentioned "The Bush Doctrine" so I am to assume the term wound up emanating from the White House itself. I had never heard of it thought.I don't know if it was coined by the Bush administration, but they certainly have acknowledged its existence in the past as describing just what Mr. Gibson said it was, and it's also been a well-known and commonly accepted term for some time, in spite of what anyone here would have you believe. It's one thing to say you haven't heard of it personally, but it's another thing to deny that lot's of other people have.

Did any of y'all hear the critiques of her interview by former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown and Pat Buchanan on MSNBC this evening?

I thought Brown, a definite left-of-center Democrat, made some salient remarks about Palin's performance.

Thanks, wendersfan, for doing what I didn't have the energy to do -- tracking down the links that demonstrate that there is, in fact, a Bush Doctrine and that the Bush administration recognizes it.

Tracer, I absolutely agree with you about the nonsense that's been posted here lately. I don't know that it's deliberate lying -- I think there are a lot of people who have drunk the Kool Aid and view everything through a distorted prism, to the point where when Senator Obama uses an old idiom he's used many times before, it absolutely must be a deliberate insult to Governor Palin; to the point where if Governor Palin is ignorant of an established political concept like the "Bush Doctrine," it must be because the concept doesn't really exist.

And yes, given what others think of my views on Senator Obama, I recognize the irony of accusing others of having "drunk the Kool Aid."

The Bush Doctrine, however, has come to mean any foreign policy that the Bush administration has taken. And it is used interchangably to indicate one policy or another. No, you're wrong.

Bush 41 sent the Military to Somalia, and Clinton pulled them out when Congress questioned why they were there. Or do you not know or remember McCain calling into question the action?


1. Why did Bush send troops to Somalia.

2. You're aware, I hope, that Clinton changed the mission in Somalia from humantarian aid to the capture of the war lord Adid? That's what got us into real trouble.

Sorry - you can't give Clinton a pass on this one.

It's one thing to say you haven't heard of it personally, but it's another thing to deny that lot's of other people have.
I never said that. I said it appeared to be a made up term that everyone is supposed to know and agree with. I wasn't talking about it being made up on here.. I did do a Google search and there was 248k hits on it. Obviously it's been around.

I don't know if it was coined by the Bush administration, but they certainly have acknowledged its existence in the past as describing just what Mr. Gibson said it was, and it's also been a well-known and commonly accepted term for some time, in spite of what anyone here would have you believe. It's one thing to say you haven't heard of it personally, but it's another thing to deny that lot's of other people have.

I don't think anybody denied, (at least that I saw), the existence of the term. I disagreed with its usage and its apparent accepted meaning.

And so there is no confusion, I have never, nor do I now, deny the policy of pre-emptive strike as espoused by the Bush administration. Likewise, I have never denied, nor am I now, the entire concept of the transformation of the Middle East as central tenet of the Administration's policy, at least originally. Lastly, I am not denying my agreement with these polices, then or now.

I didn't think that the fact that Bush believes - and has acted on - the premise that we have the right to take preemptive military action against a state was such a hotly contested issue. :shrug:

When I was a child I read 1984.

And I thought that the idea of Winston Smith rewriting history was just about the dumbest thing ever. How could someone sit in an office somewhere, and decide that things that happened only a year or two ago should be erased from history and replaced with some "facts" that better suit the needs of the ruling ideologues. There was just no way that people would be naive enough to swallow that chicanery.

Then I grew up and learned that it was pretty much a way of life for most people.

I never said that.I know. I wasn't referring to you, and I apologize if that's how my comment came across. Thanks, wendersfan, for doing what I didn't have the energy to do -- tracking down the links that demonstrate that there is, in fact, a Bush Doctrine and that the Bush administration recognizes it.It's not like it took more than 2-3 minutes.

Will JasonF & wendersfan agree that the doctrine of pre-emptive strike didn't begin with George W. Bush?

Tracer, I absolutely agree with you about the nonsense that's been posted here lately. I don't know that it's deliberate lying -- I think there are a lot of people who have drunk the Kool Aid and view everything through a distorted prism, to the point where when Senator Obama uses an old idiom he's used many times before, it absolutely must be a deliberate insult to Governor Palin; to the point where if Governor Palin is ignorant of an established political concept like the "Bush Doctrine," it must be because the concept doesn't really exist.

I think some people are uniformed. I think some people have convinced themselves that certain things are true. And then there are posters that have always been thoughtful, serious, and well-informed, and that then post something so insanely, unbelievably untrue that it is unbearable.

At some point you have to call a spade a spade.

I don't think anybody denied, (at least that I saw), the existence of the term.The bigger point is, there is no such thing as the 'Bush Doctrine'.:shrug:

At some point you have to call a spade a spade.Wow. I thought you were above racial slurs. -ohbfrank-

I watched the video and reviewed the transcript here (http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5782924). If there is a complete transcript, I would very much appreciate a link because I'd like to read it.

I only saw a link in this thread to the transcript. And while she was certainly not clear on the Russia question, she also didn't talk about getting us into a war either. She supports Georgian acceptance into NATO, along with Ukrainian. If they were members, we would be obligated to support them. However, as she pointed out, that does not necessarily mean militarily.

1. Why did Bush send troops to Somalia.

2. You're aware, I hope, that Clinton changed the mission in Somalia from humantarian aid to the capture of the war lord Adid? That's what got us into real trouble.

Sorry - you can't give Clinton a pass on this one.

I know why Bush sent them and I know Clinton changed the mission because the previous goal of humanitarian aid was being severely hampered by Aidid. So would you have had Clinton continuing millions of dollars in aid that would resulted in futility? Are you really arguing that the mission should not have been changed even though Aidid was ordering his militias against UN troops?

And yes, given what others think of my views on Senator Obama, I recognize the irony of accusing others of having "drunk the Kool Aid."
I appreciate when you throw stuff like this in. I think it's a classy move.

As for my views on Palin.. I don't like her. The idea of her being President is pretty scary to me - moreso than Obama. If she was running for president my choice would be much easier.

Will JasonF & wendersfan agree that the doctrine of pre-emptive strike didn't begin with George W. Bush?I don't know about a "doctrine". It's not hard to imagine that a <i>policy</i> of pre-emptive strike existed in the US prior to January 2001. But why am I being asked this?

I know why Bush sent them and I know Clinton changed the mission because the previous goal of humanitarian aid was being severely hampered by Aidid. So would you have had Clinton continuing millions of dollars in aid that would resulted in futility? Are you really arguing that the mission should not have been changed even though Aidid was ordering his militias against UN troops?I completed supported Clinton in this much to the chagrin of my Republican friends/family.

The "cut and running" we did afterwards I did not support.

:shrug:

I will absolutely stand by my assertion in that context.


:shrug:

I'll argue we shouldn't have been in Somalia in the first place.

It wasn't a national interest of The United States - much less a vital national interest of The United States.

I absolutely opposed our invasion of Iraq; but, at least Iraq was a vital national interest of The United States.

No, you're wrong.

No, you are wrong.

I will absolutely stand by my assertion in that context.


:shrug:Fair enough.

:toast:

And I certainly hope we can meet for real beers at some point this fall.

I don't know about a "doctrine". It's not hard to imagine that a <i>policy</i> of pre-emptive strike existed in the US prior to January 2001. But why am I being asked this?


Because that seems to be the basis of the 'Bush doctrine.'

No, you are wrong.:lol:

Yes, I'm sure that's it. :lol:

Will JasonF & wendersfan agree that the doctrine of pre-emptive strike didn't begin with George W. Bush?

Of course it didn't. Neither did the doctrine of supporting minor states to prevent them from falling into an enemy's sphere of influence originate with President Truman. Neither did the doctrine of telling other countries to stay away from what we view as our domain originate with President Monroe. I fail to see your point.

I only saw a link in this thread to the transcript. And while she was certainly not clear on the Russia question, she also didn't talk about getting us into a war either. She supports Georgian acceptance into NATO, along with Ukrainian. If they were members, we would be obligated to support them. However, as she pointed out, that does not necessarily mean militarily.

She said it wouldn't necessarily have to be war, but when she advocates bringing former Soviet states into NATO, and explicitly acknowledges NATO treaty obligations, she is more or less calling for war. Particularly when she couples it with a condemnation of Russia controlling its own energy supplies (can you imagine if Putin said that there was something sinister about our desire to control the energy supplies that come from and flow through the United States?)

I think some people are uniformed. I think some people have convinced themselves that certain things are true. And then there are posters that have always been thoughtful, serious, and well-informed, and that then post something so insanely, unbelievably untrue that it is unbearable.

At some point you have to call a spade a spade.

I doubt you are referring to me, (can't be with those thoughtful and well-informed comments), but just in case I posted nothing I believe to be untrue. I would also like to point out that my comments have little to nothing to do with Ms. Palin. My defense of her has been very muted, in this thread and others. My defense of Senator McCain almost non-existent. I simply take exception to how the 'Bush Doctrine' has been defined. This thread is not the first time I have questioned it either.

Fair enough.

:toast:

And I certainly hope we can meet for real beers at some point this fall.

:up:

Agreed.

I appreciate when you throw stuff like this in. I think it's a classy move.

As for my views on Palin.. I don't like her. The idea of her being President is pretty scary to me - moreso than Obama. If she was running for president my choice would be much easier.

Matt Damon has some actuarial tables you might be interested in. ;)

Or as a friend of mine put it to me, "Tippecanoe and Barbie too." And while I don't agree with deriding Governor Palin as a "Barbie," I look at the fact that Senator McCain is a 72-year-old cancer survivor who spent five and a half years of his life being physically abused, I look at the fact that roughly one out of every six of our presidents attained the Oval Office upon the death of his predecessor, and it does scare me.

She said it wouldn't necessarily have to be war, but when she advocates bringing former Soviet states into NATO, and explicitly acknowledges NATO treaty obligations, she is more or less calling for war. Particularly when she couples it with a condemnation of Russia controlling its own energy supplies (can you imagine if Putin said that there was something sinister about our desire to control the energy supplies that come from and flow through the United States?)

This seems more like a reasonable policy disagreement. I happen to support both Georgian and Ukrainian entry into NATO. I have also stated on this forum years ago that I believe Russia to be our biggest threat. Perhaps I am biased then.

This seems more like a reasonable policy disagreement. I happen to support both Georgian and Ukrainian entry into NATO. I have also stated on this forum years ago that I believe Russia to be our biggest threat. Perhaps I am biased then.

If Georgia had been admitted to NATO a year ago, would you have been willing to go to war over South Osettia? Or do you think that NATO membership for Georgia would have deterred Russia from going into South Osettia in the first place?

If Georgia had been admitted to NATO a year ago, would you have been willing to go to war over South Osettia? Or do you think that NATO membership for Georgia would have deterred Russia from going into South Osettia in the first place?

I believe the latter.

But to answer the former, I would not have supported military action against Russia.

I doubt you are referring to me, (can't be with those thoughtful and well-informed comments), but just in case I posted nothing I believe to be untrue. I would also like to point out that my comments have little to nothing to do with Ms. Palin. My defense of her has been very muted, in this thread and others. My defense of Senator McCain almost non-existent. I simply take exception to how the 'Bush Doctrine' has been defined. This thread is not the first time I have questioned it either.

No, it was you. I'm sorry, but "taking exception to how the 'Bush Doctrine' has been defined" does not look like this:


The bigger point is, there is no such thing as the 'Bush Doctrine'.

But, whatever.

But to answer the former, I would not have supported military action against Russia.In the youtube video I thought Palin did, but in reading the transcript I don't think she did. It could be my reading comprehension is off though.

I also don't think it would have deterred Russia, but I could be wrong.

Do you know what Obama said about invading Pakistan? He's running for president.

Here, I'll save the searching trouble...I know what he said. It's not the statement so much as the way it appears the statement was arrived at.

You can see it in the pattern of her comments:

We would invade Pakistan if necessary...
Israel must have a free hand to do whatever it feels necessary...
We would go to war with Russia...

Paraphrased.

I don't know what the right answer is with Pakistan. It looks like they'll help even less than before. Should we send troops over the border when they're unwilling to cooperate with us? That's a dangerous game, no matter who is president. But it may be the best option. I don't know for sure, and frankly neither do you.

With Obama I at least feel like he's weighed all options and has a reasonably nuanced view of the situation. Palin, by contrast, seems absurdly unprepared. Combined with her hawkish, good and evil, you're either with us or against us worldview, that's a dangerous combination. After this interview I have less confidence in her than I did in George Bush in 2000.

So, Republicans. How do you felt she did in her first interview as a candidate? Good, bad? ...Horrendous?

...

Politically: a bit above average. She didn't hurt herself, which was the fear going in.


Personally: I am fairly certain she wouldn't be able to immediately sit down and help me with my work, or discuss world events at length.

Then again, I am not sure if I should expect that.

As for my views on Palin.. I don't like her. The idea of her being President is pretty scary to me - moreso than Obama. If she was running for president my choice would be much easier.The choice of Palin has made my decision to not support either candidate a lot more difficult. I'm really in a quandary.

Matt Damon has some actuarial tables you might be interested in. ;)