why does not palin

Dungheap said:
Excerpts are here:

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

Most striking, she doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is. She apparently disagrees with McCain on preventive war (although I don't think she knows that she does). She disagrees with McCain on military raids in Pakistan (again, I doubt that she knows that she does). She supports Georgia and the Ukraine becoming NATO members and muses about how "perhaps" we'd have to go to war with Russia over Georgia.

It's a trainwreck. She sounds like a student the didn't do their homework trying to bullshit her way through questioning by the teacher.
Click to expand...

Funny, because her answer on the Bush doctrine is what many others have said in the past.... INCLUDING Gibson....

"PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better. "

"GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?"

The above is from the ABC interview....

The below are examples of others defining the Bush Doctrine....

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.
."
 
Superfreak said:
Funny, because her answer on the Bush doctrine is what many others have said in the past.... INCLUDING Gibson....

"PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better. "

"GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?"

The above is from the ABC interview....

The below are examples of others defining the Bush Doctrine....

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.
."
Click to expand...


I don't get your point here. It's clear that she had no idea what the term "Bush Doctrine" referred to.
 
Dungheap said:
I don't get your point here. It's clear that she had no idea what the term "Bush Doctrine" referred to.
Click to expand...
The point is there are myriad different versions of the Doctrine. She asked him to clarify what he was speaking of, then when he didn't she gave the answer that he originally clarified above in his quote.

This quote: (Charlie Gibson, September 21, 2001)

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.

And this one:

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?
Click to expand...

Then when he decided to outline what he was speaking of she gave the same answer every President except Bush would give.

She did well on that one. First by using the definition he had given in the past himself, then being able to answer directly when it was clarified what he was really asking.
 
If someone is so in the dark about foreign affairs that they don't know what the Bush Doctrine is, can they REALLLY be president? Honestly now.
 
Damocles said:
The point is there are myriad different versions of the Doctrine. She asked him to clarify what he was speaking of, then when he didn't she gave the answer that he originally clarified above in his quote.



Then when he decided to outline what he was speaking of she gave the same answer every President except Bush would give.

She did well on that one. First by using the definition he had given in the past himself, then being able to answer directly when it was clarified what he was really asking.
Click to expand...


"When he decided to outline what he was speaking of?" She should know what he was speaking of. She should know what the Bush Doctrine is. Anyone paying any attention to United States foreign policy since 2002 knows what it is.

What she mentioned was a specific application of the policy of the Bush Doctrine (albeit boilerplate), which she could only provide upon prompting from Gibson.

When asked what she thinks the Bush Doctrine is she responded "his world view."

She's clueless.
 
Dungheap said:
"When he decided to outline what he was speaking of?" She should know what he was speaking of. She should know what the Bush Doctrine is. Anyone paying any attention to United States foreign policy since 2002 knows what it is.

What she mentioned was a specific application of the policy of the Bush Doctrine (albeit boilerplate), which she could only provide upon prompting from Gibson.

When asked what she thinks the Bush Doctrine is she responded "his world view."

She's clueless.
Click to expand...
Again, analysts give many different definitions. Asking "in what context" isn't that huge of a question. Especially considering his (Charlie's) past definitions, which is what she used to answer him.

He played gotcha, she was able to answer. I believe that she did well at this part of the interview.

Another part she did surprisingly well was the "mission from God" portion. I had not heard the full quote, paraphrasing Lincoln... basically saying, "Praying we are on God's side.."
 
Let's be clear about something here, there is no written version of the "Bush Doctrine." IT doesn't exist. The phrase was coined by Charles Krauthammer, to explain Bush's policy of preemptive strike on terrorist state enemies of the US. Palin knows what it means, and agrees in principle, as does McCain, but it is a 'descriptor' for a policy initiative of Bush, not a legitimate and tangible defined document. You guys want to act like it is some piece of literature or a document, in which she should have memorized in order to run for VP. The individual meaning of "the Bush Doctrine" is purely subjective, depending on who you ask.

I agree with Damo, the entire interview was "gotcha" questioning. It was condescending, and clearly designed to solicit ammo for the Obama campaign. I think she nailed every question, and handled it very well.... better than Bush or McCain, or even the beloved Savior Barak Obama. Speaking of which... why doesn't Obama give more interviews?
 
i do not think that the 'bush doctrine' matters per se - i do not like her politics or mcsames so i would not vote for them period

as for the interview, i think she did ok considering her lack of knowledge of national and international politics

if it were not for mcsames potential ill health or death due to melanoma i would not care just as i do not care about biden

what i really want to hear is what bo and mcsame have to say about what they WILL do if elected
 
Why do you need to hear anything? Your mind is made up, you're voting Obama/Biden.

Neither candidate is going to give you a point-by-point definition of a bill or act, those all have to be worked out by Congress, and the President doesn't have much authority on that. He merely sets the course, leads in the direction, of various agenda items. Both candidates are laying out those agenda items now, did you not hear the conventions? More will be added for the debates, but you are not going to hear a lot of 'specifics' because too many other factors are in play.

From what I have heard of Obama's plans, it's essentially the same plan of Walter Mondale in 1980. I don't know why you want to support a revisit to a dinosaur from the rust pile of political failure, but you do.
 
Dixie said:
Why do you need to hear anything? Your mind is made up, you're voting Obama/Biden.

Neither candidate is going to give you a point-by-point definition of a bill or act, those all have to be worked out by Congress, and the President doesn't have much authority on that. He merely sets the course, leads in the direction, of various agenda items. Both candidates are laying out those agenda items now, did you not hear the conventions? More will be added for the debates, but you are not going to hear a lot of 'specifics' because too many other factors are in play.

From what I have heard of Obama's plans, it's essentially the same plan of Walter Mondale in 1980. I don't know why you want to support a revisit to a dinosaur from the rust pile of political failure, but you do.
Click to expand...

perhaps they will get more specific during the debates, but i do not think so

the convention speeches sounded nice but lacked content to my way of thinking - oth, you are correct in that i have not heard anything that would make me want to vote for mcsame - i am going back to watching todays disasters

i do not like the pre-election season - i wish it were thanksgiving
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top