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

Quote from CaptainObvious:

Bush doesn't even know what the Bush doctrine is.
More...

Wanna know something CO. I was a GOP Committeeman, Congressional candidate and over all fan of politics and I don't know what it is.

As if America pre-emptively attacking other nations unprovoked is something new.

Last history I read said Germany (twice), Korea and Vietnam had never attacked America first either. Democrat's lost us 600,000 American men fighting in those interventionist wars. Wilson and FDR are regarded as hero's. Good thing the victors write history.

A properly worded question would've been, "Governor, President Bush has employed an ideology-some call it The Bush Doctrine-that nations who threaten the United States should be pre-emptively attacked. Do you agree with the President's position?"
 
An honest direct person if they didn't know what the Bush doctrine was, when asked:

"Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?"

Would have responded:

"What is the Bush Doctrine you are referring to?"

That's not what Palin said. She tried to "handle" the question without appearing ignorant.

Palin tried to pretend she knew what the Bush Doctrine was by responding:

"In what respect?"

You don't answer a question with "In what respect" if you don't know what the Bush Doctrine is. You would say "in what respect" if you had and an existing understanding of the Bush Doctrine and wanted to know "in what respect" are you asking do "I agree with the Bush Doctrine?"

Anyway you look at it, she didn't have a clue what the Bush doctrine was and was not smart enough to just respond that she didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was.

It doesn't matter if Gibson's definition of the Bush Doctrine was correct or not, of if there even was a Bush Doctrine.

She got tripped up, like a witness on the witness stand who is lying.



Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

Wanna know something CO. I was a GOP Committeeman, Congressional candidate and over all fan of politics and I don't know what it is.

As if America pre-emptively attacking other nations unprovoked is something new.

Last history I read said Germany (twice), Korea and Vietnam had never attacked America first either. Democrat's lost us 600,000 American men fighting in those interventionist wars. Wilson and FDR are regarded as hero's. Good thing the victors write history.

A properly worded question would've been, "Governor, President Bush has employed an ideology-some call it The Bush Doctrine-that nations who threaten the United States should be pre-emptively attacked. Do you agree with the President's position?"
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Anyway you look at it, she didn't have a clue what the Bush doctrine was and was not smart enough to just respond that she didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was.

It doesn't matter if Gibson's definition of the Bush Doctrine was correct or not, of if there even was a Bush Doctrine.

She got tripped up, like a witness on the witness stand who is lying.
More...

She certainly looked like the kid in class forcing an answer to a question that has no correct answer. Putting myself in her shoes I'd probably be thinking to myself:"oh, oh. I've heard the term and I think it's something along the lines with you're either with us or against us.. or is it... we bomb first....if I ask what do you mean Charles I'll be raked-uh...yea I agree with the President when he say's......."
.
“No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war,” Gibson said.
Gibson's insistence that this was some historical written in stone, LITERAL doctrine was very wrong.

There is no speech or an Act called the Bush Doctrine. It was a border line sleazy question and all it takes is three or four conservative columnists-like Krauthammer himself-with a syndicated collective readership in the 10's of millions- criticizing Gibson and it becomes yet another net-net for Palin.

While she's clearly responsible for Mac's surge she made a fib retrace off her highs with this interview. For now.

Obama's political team-not the issue side-is made up of Daley people. Axelrod started as Daley's strategist. Yet weirdly Sarah Palin most reminds me of Rich Daley. Both are immensely popular with their constituencies-despite flaws-because of their unique ability to be their constituency. Reagan had it too. Ugly brown suits and all. She certainly brings a wild card into the race.


Some decent commentary here.

http://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/...-doctrine-question-gibson-got-it-wrong-again/
 
It doesn't matter one bit what Gibson said or why, he is not running for VP.

It only matters how Palin dealt with it, and she in effect lied, because she was not honest and forthright in her initial response to the question. She tried to BS her way through it.

Just like you are trying to BS away from the salient issue here, Palin's BS.

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

She certainly looked like the kid in class forcing an answer to a question that has no correct answer. Putting myself in her shoes I'd probably be thinking to myself:"oh, oh. I've heard the term and I think it's something along the lines with you're either with us or against us.. or is it... we bomb first....if I ask what do you mean Charles I'll be raked-uh...yea I agree with the President when he say's......."
.
“No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war,” Gibson said.
Gibson's insistence that this was some historical written in stone, LITERAL doctrine was very wrong.

As if there's a speech or an Act called "the Bush Doctrine It was a border line sleazy question and all it takes is three or four conservative columnists-like Krauthammer himself-with a syndicated collective readership in the 10's of millions- criticizing Gibson and it becomes yet another net-net for Palin.

While she's clearly responsible for Mac's surge she made a fib retrace off her highs with this interview. For now.

Obama's political team-not the issue side-is made up of Daley people. Axelrod started as Daley's strategist. Yet weirdly Sarah Palin most reminds me of Rich Daley. Both are immensely popular with their constituencies-despite flaws-because of their unique ability to be their constituency. Reagan had it too. Ugly brown suits and all. She certainly brings a wild card into the race.


Some decent commentary here.

http://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/...-doctrine-question-gibson-got-it-wrong-again/
More...
 
We knew that a liberal dem like Gibson would try for a gotcha moment, but if this is all they could come up with, the entire effort was a waste of time. Gibson betrayed his bias by his condescending manner as he gave HIS intepretation of the Bush doctrine. In fact, he was wrong or at least incomplete. The latest iteration of the Bush doctrine is about support for embattled democratic governments, not anticipatory self defense.

Considering the vagueness of the question, the hostile nature of the interview and the need to be circumspect when discussing matters of national security, I can't really fault Palin. She was cautious and circumspect, two good qualities. Obama by contrast made wild threats to invade Pakistan.

I have to add that Palin seems to have been coopted by the neo-cons that surround McCain, which is not an auspicious development, but McCain is the candidate and it is his foreign policy that is relevant, not Palin's.
 
I'm not voting for her based on experience (and my McCain vote is 100% Palin) or looks. I'm voting for her strictly on idealogical grounds. She's as close as I'll ever get to seeing Patrick J. Buchanan as President. Palin is 10x the "reformer" Obama is. He's just tired old Great Society in a new skin. Wow he can use a computer each morning to access hugffingtonwhore. I'm impressed.

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

It doesn't matter one bit what Gibson said or why, he is not running for VP.

It only matters how Palin dealt with it, and she in effect lied, because she was not honest and forthright in her initial response to the question. She tried to BS her way through it.

Just like you are trying to BS away from the salient issue here, Palin's BS.
More...
 
More spin away from the salient point, Palin lied on the witness stand.

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

We knew that a liberal dem like Gibson would try for a gotcha moment, but if this is all they could come up with, the entire effort was a waste of time. Gibson betrayed his bias by his condescending manner as he gave HIS intepretation of the Bush doctrine. In fact, he was wrong or at least incomplete. The latest iteration of the Bush doctrine is about support for embattled democratic governments, not anticipatory self defense.

Considering the vagueness of the question, the hostile nature of the interview and the need to be circumspect when discussing matters of national security, I can't really fault Palin. She was cautious and circumspect, two good qualities. Obama by contrast made wild threats to invade Pakistan.

I have to add that Palin seems to have been coopted by the neo-cons that surround McCain, which is not an auspicious development, but McCain is the candidate and it is his foreign policy that is relevant, not Palin's.
More...
 
I don't care that you think she is a female version of Buchanan or why you are voting for her.

You vote for ideology over competence, that is the main point.

This is exactly the formula that was applied to 2 disastrous terms for Bush, ideology and image over competency.

You are the type who puts ideology over what is best for our country.

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

I'm not voting for her based on experience (and my McCain vote is 100% Palin) or looks. I'm voting for her strictly on idealogical grounds. She's as close as I'll ever get to seeing Patrick J. Buchanan as President. Palin is 10x the "reformer" Obama is. He's just tired old Great Society in a new skin. Wow he can use a computer each morning to access hugffingtonwhore. I'm impressed.
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I don't care that you think she is a female version of Buchanan or why you are voting for her.

You vote for ideology over competence, that is the main point.

This is exactly the formula that was applied to 2 disastrous terms for Bush, ideology and image over competency.
More...

The reason Bush won was because the electorate perceived him to be the more competent administrator. Among white America he won both times going away. While I voted for him I wasn't a supporter. He was my last pick in 2000 to be nominee.

I'm also more honest with myself than you are-although I suspect you're a pure troll who doesn't believe most of the ideas he expresses here. Only someone incredibly ignorant or naive reasons there was an iota of difference between Bush and the Clinton/Gore/Lieberman/Kerry policy in the Mideast.
 
The reason Bush won is because the voters are stupid.

Your personal attack at the bottom is typical of your MO.

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

The reason Bush won was because the electorate perceived him to be the more competent administrator. Among white America he won both times going away. While I voted for him I wasn't a supporter. He was my last pick in 2000 to be nominee.

I'm also more honest with myself than you are-although I suspect you're a pure troll who doesn't believe most of the ideas he expresses here. Only someone incredibly ignorant or naive reasons there was an iota of difference between Bush and the Clinton/Gore/Lieberman/Kerry policy in the Mideast.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top