quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

I know there is already a thread discussing her interview but I wanted to get specific reaction to Governor Palin seeming not to understand what the Bush Doctrine entails. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife


That was an AP summary of the interview.  I couldn't find anything that quoted the exact text of the interview any better at the time I posted.

You start this post out with a falsehood as you have already read and seen the other thread (as you have stated in your OP), which has a link directly to the interview and excerpts.

However, to clear the issue up let us look at what was asked and answered.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5782924&page=4

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
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?
PALIN: I agree that a president's job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.
I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.
GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?
PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife


No, not a falsehood.  I skipped reading your original link on the other thread because I wrongly assumed it was a summary that I had already read, which contained less information than the one I posted.

No reason for me to try and mislead, if I had realized it was a more complete transcript I would have used that.  It doesn't shed her in any better light.  She basically danced her way around the question until Gibson came out and specifically explained to her the concept of preemptive action. 

quote:

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

quote:

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?

quote:

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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

My point is ask 100 people what the Bush Doctrine is and you'll get a range of answers that include many different things.
That is where I am assuming the confussion on her part came from Which definition of the Bush Doctrine are you asking me to respond to?

Was this part of the transcript or your editorial commentary.
"essentially that the United States must help spread democracy to stop terrorism and that the nation will act pre-emptively to stop potential foes."

That is your (or the writter's) definition of the Bush Doctrine, I included the doctrine aspect of including states that harbor terrorists as did others. still others would include or disinclude different aspects.

The point I'm making is that unless and until I or anyone else has specified what they believe the Bush Doctrin includes, to answer if you agree or not with it is silly. What am I specificly agreeing to in your mind. The two part doctrine you mentioned or the three part I mentioned? or a 4 or 5 part that the interviewer has set in their mind.

quote:

At the very least, assuming your explanation is true, why wouldn't she simply ask the questions you asked?

Instead, it appeared she was totally lost until he specifically summarized the doctrine for her.

quote:

Commenting on Maimonides, id. Korban Ha'Edah (In his addendum, Shiurei Korban, to the Palestinian Talmud, 8:10) has a slightly narrower definition, which is very similar to diBoton. An authorized war may be undertaken "against neighbors in the fear that with the passage of time they will wage war. Thus, Israel may attack them in order to destroy them". Thus, an authorized war is permitted as a preemptive attack against militaristic neighbors. However, war cannot occur without evidence of bellicose activity. Source: http://jlaw.com/Articles/war_notes.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

A new low.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

I know there is already a thread discussing her interview but I wanted to get specific reaction to Governor Palin seeming not to understand what the Bush Doctrine entails. 


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080912/ap_on_el_pr/palin_interview
In the interview Thursday, Palin:
_Appeared unsure of the Bush doctrine — essentially that the United States must help spread democracy to stop terrorism and that the nation will act pre-emptively to stop potential foes.
Asked whether she agreed with that, Palin said: "In what respect, Charlie?" Gibson pressed her for an interpretation of it. She said: "His world view." That prompted Gibson to say "no, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war" and describe it to her.
"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," Palin said, though added "there have been mistakes made."

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Because comparing Bush's policy of unprovoked belligerence to Israel's need to protect its political integrity is factual. Riiiiiight.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

~ Fast Reply ~

 
The most amazing thing to me in this thread is that the very same people who would identify President Bush as "ignorant" (most kind reference) now say he has a 'Doctrine' equal to that of the Marshall Plan or Monroe.

Truth is the reference made by the interviewer; "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."; is a few thousand years older than the US. It is one of the three 'acceptable' reasons for Israel to go to war stated in the Talmud.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtee

~FR

"No one really knows exactly what the Bush Doctrine is, because it’s gone through so many iterations and versions."

--Talking point, all over the Web. Just sayin. 

quote:

 
The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, enunciated 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.[1] 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 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.[2][3][4] 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.[5] This represented a dramatic shift from the United States's Cold War policies of deterrence and containment, under the Truman Doctrine, and a departure from post-Cold War philosophies such as the Powell Doctrine and the Clinton Doctrine.
The first usage of the term to refer to the policies of George W. Bush may have been when conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer used the term in February 2001 to refer to the president's unilateral approach to national missile defense.[6]
The main elements of the Bush Doctrine were delineated in a National Security Council document, National Security Strategy of the United States, published on September 20, 2002,[5] and this document is often cited as the definitive statement of the doctrine.[7][8][9] The National Security Strategy was updated in 2006.[10]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius


Not to be one to rely on wikipedia... however just reading the first paragraph there makes one wonder..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

Just sayin.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

~ Fast Reply ~

 
The most amazing thing to me in this thread is that the very same people who would identify President Bush as "ignorant" (most kind reference) now say he has a 'Doctrine' equal to that of the Marshall Plan or Monroe.

Truth is the reference made by the interviewer; "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."; is a few thousand years older than the US. It is one of the three 'acceptable' reasons for Israel to go to war stated in the Talmud.

Saying the policy he put forth is important, on a par with the Marshall Plan or Monroe Doctrine,  is not saying it is
a good policy.

Personally, I believe it is a poorly thought out, knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 that is  going to come back to haunt us for years.

We had the moral and ethical high ground until Bush used his doctrine of preemptive action to invade Iraq.

How do we credibly challenge others doing the same, such as Russia's invasion of Georgia.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius


Not to be one to rely on wikipedia... however just reading the first paragraph there makes one wonder..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

Just sayin.

Makes one wonder what? It doesn't change the fact that this is a talking point.