One word for Sara Palin on "World News Tonight"

[PeterS]

Wait, don't we have a thread right now sponsored by a leftoid claiming that the attacks into Pakistan without prior approval are also Obama's policy?

Hasn't the democrats, in fact, demanded EXACTLY that?

Attacks into Pakistan aren't part of the Bush Doctrine. The Bush doctrine deals with attacking nations simply because we fear they might attack us. We are not attacking Pakistan but pursuing those who have already attacked us-crossing a border does not preclude our right to self defense which is why we were justified in pursuing Nazi's even though we were not at war with the nations that harbored them.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Do you lefties actually believe the more you post this same old bullshit that it will somehow come true?

And you believe denying what you don't want to hear will change it?

Apparently you don't know what zero defects mean. She wasn't held to that standard and wouldn't even come close.

Charlie on the ropes? What kool aid flavor do you have today? He had to explain to her what the Bush doctrine of premption meant.

She seems like a nice conservative person who with a few more years of experience would make a good governor.

She is not ready to assume the presidency if McCain dies. That is total bullshit if you believe that.

Hint: Living next to Russia is not international experience. Only the right could spin that shit.

 

[glockmail]

we were not under and attack with Iraq and the Bush Doctrine was used....enough said imho and it is the first doctrine that should be eliminated with the next president.

the Bush Doctrine is NEW and has nothing to do with actions of an imminent self defense, which had been the usa's policy.

Palin, did not know this, did not know what the Bush Doctrine was....imo.

Baloney- The Bush Doctrine means different things to different folks, especially between an MSM reporter and a conservative candidate. I remember Bush's speech outlining it shortly after 9-11, and am grateful that he took this position. What it means to me is that we won't wait for someone to attack us before we take them out, and if you're harboring our enemy or resisting our attempts to go after him, then you'll be our enemy as well.

To me this is common sense and I think that Palin articulated her view of the Doctrine nicely.

 

[glockmail]

.....

Charlie on the ropes? What kool aid flavor do you have today? He had to explain to her what the Bush doctrine of premption meant.
......

Not quite Gay Ray.

 

[dilloduck]

Baloney- The Bush Doctrine means different things to different folks, especially between an MSM reporter and a conservative candidate. I remember Bush's speech outlining it shortly after 9-11, and am grateful that he took this position. What it means to me is that we won't wait for someone to attack us before we take them out, and if you're harboring our enemy or resisting our attempts to go after him, then you'll be our enemy as well.

To me this is common sense and I think that Palin articulated her view of the Doctrine nicely.

exactly--some people will claim that the bush doctrine means jsut attacking countrieswe dont like. I sure as hell would want to know what the questioner was referring to before I answered it--she got a clarification and answered it.

 

[The Paperboy]

I thought Governor Palin was correct to ask Gibson to clarify his question. With dripping condescension he then explained the "Bush Doctrine" to her like a teacher to an ill prepared student. The problem is Gibson only mentioned one point of a doctrine that evolved over time. Here is a quick description of the "Bush Doctrine" from Wikipedia:

"The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that may or may not have represented a threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq), a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism, and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way. Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002."

I guess Charlie expected her to giver her opinion on each part of a doctrine that evolved over several years. If Charlie really wanted to know her opinion he'd have asked her specific questions about different aspects of the doctrine.

Better yet it would be nice if he knew all points of the "Bush Doctrine" himself.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Attacks into Pakistan aren't part of the Bush Doctrine. The Bush doctrine deals with attacking nations simply because we fear they might attack us. We are not attacking Pakistan but pursuing those who have already attacked us-crossing a border does not preclude our right to self defense which is why we were justified in pursuing Nazi's even though we were not at war with the nations that harbored them.

And yet she is being attacked for saying we should do so. Go figure.

 

[Ravi]

exactly--some people will claim that the bush doctrine means jsut attacking countrieswe dont like. I sure as hell would want to know what the questioner was referring to before I answered it--she got a clarification and answered it.

Wait, your previous comment said something completely different.

 

[dilloduck]

Wait, your previous comment said something completely different.

uh no it didnt--as has been said here ---the bush doctrine means different things to different people and changed over the years. We're not talking about something as concrete as the Monroe Doctrine here.

 

[Caligirl]

we were not under and attack with Iraq and the Bush Doctrine was used....enough said imho and it is the first doctrine that should be eliminated with the next president.

And, after the interview, she then linked 9/11 and Iraq, in a speech to the soldiers that were about to ship out.

washingtonpost.com

Politics of fear, and exploiting 9/11 on its anniversary to either lie to the troops, displaty her own ignorance, or create another firestorm. ANy way you cut it she is a nut with no place a heartbeat away from LOTFW.

 

[Caligirl]

Do you honestly think that our political leaders should not understand their own parties platform as well as the nations platform on foreign policy?

That bears repeating.

 

[dilloduck]

And, after the interview, she then linked 9/11 and Iraq, in a speech to the soldiers that were about to ship out.

washingtonpost.com

Politics of fear, and exploiting 9/11 on its anniversary to either lie to the troops, displaty her own ignorance, or create another firestorm. ANy way you cut it she is a nut with no place a heartbeat away from LOTFW.

"The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that may or may not have represented a threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq), a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism, and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way. Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002."

Read that again.

 

[Caligirl]

Baloney- What it means to me is that we won't wait for someone to attack us before we take them out, and if you're harboring our enemy or resisting our attempts to go after him, then you'll be our enemy as well.

Was Bush right, when he invaded for WMD that posed an imminent threat to us and Israel?

Do you not see the problem with this approach?

 

[Caligirl]

Read that again.

I wasn't addressing the Bush Doctrine in that post you quoted. I was saying that Palin had linked 9/11 and Iraq to soldiers that were about to ship out.

Even Bush no longer does this.

She is bad, bad news and not best for the country. But she is good for polarizing the country and maintaining the politics of fear.

THis is the kind of campaign McCain has decided to run.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Was Bush right, when he invaded for WMD that posed an imminent threat to us and Israel?

Do you not see the problem with this approach?

He never said Iraq was an imminent threat, he said he was not going to wait until they WERE an imminent threat. At least quote it right. And last I checked before the invasion EVERYONE including ALL the democrats believed Saddam had WMD's.

 

[dilloduck]

Was Bush right, when he invaded for WMD that posed an imminent threat to us and Israel?

Do you not see the problem with this approach?

Irrelevent----show me where the Bush Doctrine is written down, set in stone and recognized to mean one thing that everyone agrees on !

 

[dilloduck]

Irrelevent----show me where the Bush Doctrine is written down, set in stone and recognized to mean one thing that everyone agrees on !

Here's how one person explains the Bush Doctrine-----IS this what you expected Palin to decipher from Gibsons question ?

AEI - Short Publications - The Underpinnings of the Bush Doctrine

 

[glockmail]

Was Bush right, when he invaded for WMD that posed an imminent threat to us and Israel?

Do you not see the problem with this approach?

Yes he was right, regardless of the WMD debate. He had ample justification without the Doctrine, simply because Saddam did not abide by the terms of his GW1 surrender. Secondly, with the Doctrine, he was justified since Saddam was assisting Al Queda.

 

[Shogun]

no. not "regardless of the WMD" debate. It was all out bullshit and pretending that saddam, a secular fucking leader, was in cahoots with fundamentalist extremism won't make that any less pertinent.

 

[Red Dawn]

Before yesterday I bet 90% of the people here didnt know what the Bush doctrine was either. I think even I would have asked "which Bush Doctrine ? "

LOL

Speak for yourself. The Bush Doctrine was the underlying strategy that Cons used to justify the Iraq War.


And anyway, nobody here is running for Vice President. Its pathetic that a VP candidate evidently didn't have a clue what the bush doctrine was.