Staggers The Imagination That Nominee For VP Doesn't Know What The 'Bush Doctrine' Is

[ByLoSellHi]

Forget what nutcase far right pundits and spinmeisters are saying, or that Fay Buchanan (how she can say what she does with a straight face is remarkable - that personality is more important than a grasp of facts and knowledge: hats off to you, Fay, you sell-out whore) -

It is nothing short of stunning that a nominee for the office of Vice President of the United States doesn't understand what the 'Bush Doctrine' is, especially since it's relatively new, and has changed the fundamental military paradigm of the United States in a way not seen since Truman decided to use nuclear weapons against civilian populations in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Are they serious? Is this some kind of sick joke?

Tell me this is the United States of America. Tell me that Americans expect...no, demand...that prospective candidates for what could be the POTUS would understand such a monumentally important and current doctrine. Tell me that real conservatives and Republicans find this equally as astonishing as any rational person would and does:


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YpJsQch9uZo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YpJsQch9uZo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[bigdavediode]

In fairness to Palin, she also doesn't have a clue about many other things, from the Pledge of Allegiance, to foreign affairs.

 

[arealpissedgoy]

the only other nations that revel in their leaders stupidity are Venezuela and bolivia.



<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AnrWJJ97sF4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AnrWJJ97sF4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>



hooray....she's one of us. STUPID and IGNORANT!

 

[arealpissedgoy]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/C0kGc6UEGVc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/C0kGc6UEGVc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[FanOfFridays]

Sorry, even David Gergen who has been around and is no huge fan of Palin's admitted that this was a load of crap and that no one in either political circles nor the press circles had established that 'the Bush Doctrine' meant pre-emptive strikes.

 

[Mercor]

I thought she performed in a thoughtful cautious manner.

In the role as a diplomat when a concept is offered on the table it would be foolish to assume that other side has the meaning in their head that you have in your own.
It is proper protocol to have the person who brings up a theory to offer their own view of it, like a reference or footnote.

Similar case would be Putin claiming Russia is a "democracy ".
If he said that to Sarah I would expect, before she replied, to make sure she asks Putin, What is democracy?

 

[BlindLemonBoosh]

Quote from traderNik:

Sorry, even David Gergen who has been around and is no huge fan of Palin's admitted that this was a load of crap and that no one in either political circles nor the press circles had established that 'the Bush Doctrine' meant pre-emptive strikes.

They hadn't?

2002
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/col/scheer/2002/09/25/doctrine/

2003
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/busch/03/preemption.html

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20031229/byrd

2004
http://www.globalissues.org/article...of-pre-emptive-strikes-a-global-pax-americana

2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41374-2005Jan1.html

2006
http://www.truthout.org/article/paul-krugman-mccain-is-not-a-moderate

http://newsbusters.org/node/4486

2007
http://edstrong.blog-city.com/the_bush_doctrine_undiluted_american_aggression.htm

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/15/america/15assess.php

2008
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=2060

McCain seems pretty clear about its meaning:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/10/mccain-bush-doctrine/

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/09/john-mccain-explains-the-bush.html

 

[BlindLemonBoosh]

Quote from Mercor:

I thought she performed in a thoughtful cautious manner.

She "performed"

A) like she didn't know what Charles Gibson was talking about.

B) like she hasn't given much thought to foreign policy matters in general.

C) like someone who has been cramming right before a test, rather than studying all along.

 

[nutmeg]

When Gibson said "The Bush Doctrine" the red alert went off on my bs detector. I would have ended the interview or skipped the question, kudos to her for the effort.

There was no way to come out ahead on this one.

A) trash the Bush Doctrine (more disrespect the better)- she has too much class for that.

B) Talk it up and sink in the quicksand of the past, which will prove nothing.

C) Past performance is no guarantee of future results, and current performance may be lower or higher than the performance data quoted.

 

[ChkitOut]

sorry but "the bush doctrine" is soooo generic and could be interpreted in 100 different ways. Its not even a real term, just some made up out of thin air. Why would anybody need to know what that means? ITS MADE UP BY JOURNALISTS!

Gibson was clearly going for a "gotcha" question.

She should have bitch slapped him when he started belittling her.

Like obama is some kind of military/foreign affairs experts. ha, puulease.