One word for Sara Palin on "World News Tonight"

[Article 15]

She asked the questioner to be more specific, then answered the specific question.

Gibson had to spell it out for her ... she didn't have a clue what it was ...

 

[Red Dawn]

What I thought she said was:

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: Well Charlie, I prefer to leave it as god intended. Some of my friends like a Brazilian, but I’m a simple gal.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, announced September 2002, before the Iraq War.

PALIN: Hehe, oh Charlie. I don’t know much about foreign affairs or our defence policies but my son is going to eye-rack and I can wave to the Russians from home in Alaska.

Siberia is close to alaska. That's a very convincing statement on one's foreign policy credentials.

I really wish McCain had picked a Susan Collins or a Christine Todd Whitman. Given what Hillary did, this would have been a great year to showcase competent and highly qualified women on a national ticket. Of course I would be slamming Todd or Collins too. But this Palin pick is looking like a real disservice to women. Its making Palin look like she was an unqualified token pick.

 

[AllieBaba]

Fiddlesticks. I require specific questions, too. It's a mistake to answer broad-brush questions. You make people narrow it down, so you speak only to one issue. If they can't focus, then you make your answer general.

It's a debate tactic. It works.

 

[glockmail]

Gibson had to spell it out for her ... she didn't have a clue what it was ...

You're obviously in the tank for Obama as demonstrated by your denial of the actual conversation that took place.

 

[Article 15]

You're obviously in the tank for Obama as demonstrated by your denial of the actual conversation that took place.

I'm obviously an Obama supporter. At no point has that been a secret.

YOU are obviously a Palin apologist by your denial of all the fail that is coming out of that interview.

 

[PeterS]

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

Palin is being attacked? Obama was asked the same question on Pakistan and gave basically the same answer. Was he being attacked? The criticism surrounding Palin is that she did not know the basis of her own parties platform on foreign policy not how she answered a question on Pakistan. And that I can't figure. Can you?

 

[dilloduck]

Palin is being attacked? Obama was asked the same question on Pakistan and gave basically the same answer. Was he being attacked? The criticism surrounding Palin is that she did not know the basis of her own parties platform on foreign policy not how she answered a question on Pakistan. And that I can't figure. Can you?

Our for policy towards Japan happens to be different than our foreign policy towards Mexico. Our foreign policy regarding nukes is different than our foreign policy towards land mines. She asked him for a clarification---smart woman. Nice try Charlie.

 

[Shogun]

Our for policy towards Japan happens to be different than our foreign policy towards Mexico. Our foreign policy regarding nukes is different than our foreign policy towards land mines. She asked him for a clarification---smart woman. Nice try Charlie.

Please tell me you are not hoping that bullshit works as an excuse for Palin...





dude..

 

[-Cp]

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.

Palin is 1000% correct in the send-off she told those soldiers - over the past couple of years, there have been scores of Al-Qaeda pouring into Iraq.. Have you not been watching the news over the past 24-36 months?

Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) is a group playing an active role in the Iraqi insurgency. Initially led by the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi until his death in 2006, it is now believed to be led by Abu Hamza al-Muhajir[3] (presumed to be the Egyptian Abu Ayyub al-Masri[4]).
The group is a direct successor of al-Zarqawi's previous organization, Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (Group of Monotheism and Jihad). Beginning with its official statement declaring allegiance to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network in October 2004, the group identifies itself as Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (QJBR) ("Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers").[5]
AQI is one of Iraq's most feared militant organisations and many experts regard it as the United States' most formidable enemy in the country.[6][7] Others suggest that the threat posed by AQI is exaggerated and some scholars claim that a "heavy focus on al-Qaeda obscures a much more complicated situation on the ground."[8][9]

Al-Qaeda in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PeterS]

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

You have honestly never heard of the National Security Strategy of the United States? The Bush doctrine is fully outlined in the Sep 02 publication. I would provide you the link but clearly you have not done your homework and need to do the search yourself.

Good god man this was a major break with the international rule of law. How on earth could you have never heard of it or read it?

 

[The Paperboy]

September 20, 2001 PETER JENNINGS: . . . Claire, the president said at one point, ‘From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.’ Should we be taking that as the Bush doctrine? CLAIRE SHIPMAN reporting: I think so, Peter,

September 21, 2001 CHARLIE GIBSON: The president in his speech last night, very forceful. Four out of five Americans watched it. Everybody gathered around the television set last night. The president issued a series of demands to the Taliban, already rejected. We’ll get to that in a moment. He also outlined what is being called the Bush Doctrine, a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated.

September 21, 2001 CHARLIE GIBSON: Senator Daschle, let me start with you. People were looking for a Bush Doctrine. They may have found it when he said the war on terror will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped or defeated. That’s pretty broad. Broader than you expected?

December 9, 2001 GEORGE WILL: The Bush doctrine holds that anyone who governs a territory is complicit in any terrorism that issues from that territory. That covers the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Second, the war on terrorism is indivisible, it’s part of the Bush doctrine.

December 11, 2001 GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Two years ago, September 1999, Bush gave his first speech when he was running about terrorism. And his first–had the first explanation of the Bush doctrine, that if you harbor a terrorist, you’re going to be attacked. The Bush White House is putting this out, saying it shows that Bush was very prescient, but that was only one speech given in the campaign.

January 28, 2002 BOB WOODWARD: This is now the Bush Doctrine . . . , namely that if we’re attacked by terrorists, we will not just go after those terrorists but the countries or the people who harbor them.

January 29, 2002 GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: It was striking and significant that the president really expanded the Bush doctrine. If a nation builds a weapon of mass destruction–Iraq, Iran or North Korea–we will reserve the right to take out those weapons even if we’re not attacked or even if there’s not a threat.

March 19, 2004 TERRY MORAN: That was the Bush doctrine we just heard. On this one-year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, President Bush offered a very broad justification of American leadership in the world under him since 9/11. Not just since one year in Iraq. For American voters as an argument that the country is safer, but more as you point out, for the world, which has been divided by his leadership, that Iraq is knit, in his mind, very firmly into that war on terrorism. One omission which I believe will be noted around the world, he made no mention of the role of multilateral institutions, the UN and others, in this fight against terrorism. In his mind, it’s clear it’s American leadership with others following along.

May 7, 2006 GEORGE WILL: Now the argument from the right is the CIA is a rogue agent because it has not subscribed to the Bush doctrine. The Bush doctrine being that American security depends on the spread of democracy and we know how to do that. The trouble is, Negroponte, who is considered by some of these conservatives the villain here and an enemy of the Bush doctrine is the choice of Bush, which makes Bush an insufficient subscriber to the Bush doctrine.

 

[dilloduck]

September 20, 2001 PETER JENNINGS: . . . Claire, the president said at one point, ‘From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.’ Should we be taking that as the Bush doctrine? CLAIRE SHIPMAN reporting: I think so, Peter,

September 21, 2001 CHARLIE GIBSON: The president in his speech last night, very forceful. Four out of five Americans watched it. Everybody gathered around the television set last night. The president issued a series of demands to the Taliban, already rejected. We’ll get to that in a moment. He also outlined what is being called the Bush Doctrine, a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated.

September 21, 2001 CHARLIE GIBSON: Senator Daschle, let me start with you. People were looking for a Bush Doctrine. They may have found it when he said the war on terror will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped or defeated. That’s pretty broad. Broader than you expected?

December 9, 2001 GEORGE WILL: The Bush doctrine holds that anyone who governs a territory is complicit in any terrorism that issues from that territory. That covers the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Second, the war on terrorism is indivisible, it’s part of the Bush doctrine.

December 11, 2001 GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Two years ago, September 1999, Bush gave his first speech when he was running about terrorism. And his first–had the first explanation of the Bush doctrine, that if you harbor a terrorist, you’re going to be attacked. The Bush White House is putting this out, saying it shows that Bush was very prescient, but that was only one speech given in the campaign.

January 28, 2002 BOB WOODWARD: This is now the Bush Doctrine . . . , namely that if we’re attacked by terrorists, we will not just go after those terrorists but the countries or the people who harbor them.

January 29, 2002 GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: It was striking and significant that the president really expanded the Bush doctrine. If a nation builds a weapon of mass destruction–Iraq, Iran or North Korea–we will reserve the right to take out those weapons even if we’re not attacked or even if there’s not a threat.

March 19, 2004 TERRY MORAN: That was the Bush doctrine we just heard. On this one-year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, President Bush offered a very broad justification of American leadership in the world under him since 9/11. Not just since one year in Iraq. For American voters as an argument that the country is safer, but more as you point out, for the world, which has been divided by his leadership, that Iraq is knit, in his mind, very firmly into that war on terrorism. One omission which I believe will be noted around the world, he made no mention of the role of multilateral institutions, the UN and others, in this fight against terrorism. In his mind, it’s clear it’s American leadership with others following along.

May 7, 2006 GEORGE WILL: Now the argument from the right is the CIA is a rogue agent because it has not subscribed to the Bush doctrine. The Bush doctrine being that American security depends on the spread of democracy and we know how to do that. The trouble is, Negroponte, who is considered by some of these conservatives the villain here and an enemy of the Bush doctrine is the choice of Bush, which makes Bush an insufficient subscriber to the Bush doctrine.

great work---

 

[Jeepers]

She asked the questioner to be more specific, then answered the specific question.

Incorrectly mind you ...

 

[Jeepers]

Gibson had to spell it out for her ... she didn't have a clue what it was ...

And then she still didnt get it... Her answer had nothing to do with a policy of preemption. Afterward pat buchannen said that prooves how smart she is cause the bush doctrine is actually stupid...

 

[PeterS]

Our for policy towards Japan happens to be different than our foreign policy towards Mexico. Our foreign policy regarding nukes is different than our foreign policy towards land mines. She asked him for a clarification---smart woman. Nice try Charlie.

How on earth is our foreign policy with Japan any different than with Mexico or any other country? That is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard in my life. Do you honestly think that the United States operates without an articulated physical document that outlines our foreign policy?

Ours is a democracy governed by rule of law. Do you honestly not understand that each and every action our government takes has to have its basis on established rule of law?

 

[Article 15]

And then she still didnt get it... Her answer had nothing to do with a policy of preemption. Afterward pat buchannen said that prooves how smart she is cause the bush doctrine is actually stupid...

Ignorance is Strength

 

[Jeepers]

Ignorance is Strength

And thats one strong ticket!!

 

[Care4all]

You have honestly never heard of the National Security Strategy of the United States? The Bush doctrine is fully outlined in the Sep 02 publication. I would provide you the link but clearly you have not done your homework and need to do the search yourself.

Good god man this was a major break with the international rule of law. How on earth could you have never heard of it or read it?

he's ''playing dumb'' , evidently

 

[Article 15]

And thats one strong ticket!!

Can't Remember/Doesn't Know
2008​

 

[glockmail]

Incorrectly mind you ...

Not according to the transcript.