RE: Palin and the Bush Doctrine

RE: Palin and the Bush Doctrine (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

subtee -> RE: Palin and the Bush Doctrine (9/12/2008 11:29:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth As I stated, I was amazed that a man called 'monkey boy' and worse is now referenced as this deep thinker by the same opposition who would not give him the respect for the office he holds. Now he has a 'Doctrine' when it serves the agenda of an interviewer? PLEASE! My post was to point out that if anyone's name should be attached it should be 'Abraham's Doctrine'. Used fairly often in history by not just Israel or the US, but just about every power ever in a position, and with the will, to do so. The 'Merc Doctrine' is much simpler. LEAVE now (will all our money and foreign aid) and let the locals get on with killing themselves as they have for the past 5000 years. If one happens to stumble across a nuke or two and starts lobbing them at each other - so be it. Meanwhile back in the good old USA -have the returning troops man the border. Put up as many nuclear power plants per capita as France. Drill anyplace Jed Clampet hunts, and have our smartest minds construct the best defense umbrella that can be made. It's not written in crayon, so I don't think he actually wrote it. I would definitely like to read a Merc Doctrine. [;)]

Mercnbeth -> RE: Palin and the Bush Doctrine (9/12/2008 11:34:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subtee quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth As I stated, I was amazed that a man called 'monkey boy' and worse is now referenced as this deep thinker by the same opposition who would not give him the respect for the office he holds. Now he has a 'Doctrine' when it serves the agenda of an interviewer? PLEASE! My post was to point out that if anyone's name should be attached it should be 'Abraham's Doctrine'. Used fairly often in history by not just Israel or the US, but just about every power ever in a position, and with the will, to do so. The 'Merc Doctrine' is much simpler. LEAVE now (will all our money and foreign aid) and let the locals get on with killing themselves as they have for the past 5000 years. If one happens to stumble across a nuke or two and starts lobbing them at each other - so be it. Meanwhile back in the good old USA -have the returning troops man the border. Put up as many nuclear power plants per capita as France. Drill anyplace Jed Clampet hunts, and have our smartest minds construct the best defense umbrella that can be made. It's not written in crayon, so I don't think he actually wrote it. I would definitely like to read a Merc Doctrine. [;)] subtee - THANKS for bringing a smile to my face! Although a 'Merc Doctrine' is best experienced and not read![8D]

cloudboy -> RE: Palin and the Bush Doctrine (9/12/2008 11:35:49 AM)
quote: Bush doctrine I would have been impressed had Palin simply replied, "O, you mean war-mongering & cutting taxes? Well, my thought on that policy is...." She might have also replied, "I'm a firm believer in, Do as we say, not as we do! I don't want other nations waging preemptive wars or torturing foreign nationals, and I certainly don't want the US dragged into the International Court."

Thadius -> RE: Palin and the Bush Doctrine (9/12/2008 11:35:55 AM)
Want a bit of spin on it... how about how Mr Gibson has described the Bush Doctrine in the past... quote: 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. There is my contribution to the spin machine... Edited to add one I missed... quote: 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?

subtee -> RE: Palin and the Bush Doctrine (9/12/2008 11:46:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth subtee - THANKS for bringing a smile to my face! Although a 'Merc Doctrine' is best experienced and not read![8D] Mmmmmmm...even better!

rulemylife -> RE: Palin and the Bush Doctrine (9/12/2008 12:24:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadi How should she respond to the original question? quote: GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine? I think her response was spot on. There are numerous definitions of what the "Bush doctrine" is. As can clearly be seen by the follow up question by Gibson, when he is taken back and starts searching for a meaning in his own head. quote: PALIN: In what respect, Charlie? GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be? Even Gibson states a different version or at least a very skewed version of what some consider the "Bush Doctrine" to be, as he leaves out the all important word "imminent" before attack. 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? I don't think Gibson was "taken aback and ... searching for a meaning in his own head". My interpretation of what I saw was he was shocked that he had to explain this to a Vice-Presidential candidate. I also don't understand what the confusion seems to be about the Bush Doctrine. My understanding of it has been in-line with what he said. The central theme was the idea the U.S. is justified in taking preemptive action against other countries it believes pose a threat. The word "imminent" was used in his arguments for invading Iraq but was never used in the original policy paper that was referred to as the Bush Doctrine, linked below, with the most pertinent section quoted. http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nssall.html To defeat this threat we must make use of every tool in our arsenal—military power, better homeland defenses, law enforcement, intelligence, and vigorous efforts to cut off terrorist financing. The war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise of uncertain duration. America will help nations that need our assistance in combating terror. And America will hold to account nations that are compromised by terror, including those who harbor terrorists— because the allies of terror are the enemies of civilization. The United States and countries cooperating with us must not allow the terrorists to develop new home bases. Together, we will seek to deny them sanctuary at every turn. The gravest danger our Nation faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology. Our enemies have openly declared that they are seeking weapons of mass destruction, and evidence indicates that they are doing so with determination. The United States will not allow these efforts to succeed.We will build defenses against ballistic missiles and other means of delivery. We will cooperate with other nations to deny, contain, and curtail our enemies’ efforts to acquire dangerous technologies. And, as a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed.We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. So we must be prepared to defeat our enemies’ plans, using the best intelligence and proceeding with deliberation. History will judge harshly those who saw this coming danger but failed to act. In the new world we have entered, the only path to peace and security is the path of action. (bold type added to highlight most relevant portion)

bipolarber -> RE: Palin and the Bush Doctrine (9/12/2008 12:31:11 PM)
Okay, here's the paradox: as someone who doesn't like Bush... should I be GLAD that Sarah Palin has no clue as to what the "Bush Doctrine" is? (Since the doctrine (syn. "agenda") is a total failure and has harmed the US's position in the world community? I mean, is this a good thing that she hasn't been programmed by this nasty bit of "G.I. Joe" jingoisim? Because, and I hate saying this, since I am deeply suspicious of this woman, this could be the first positive thing to come out about her.

Thadius -> RE: Palin and the Bush Doctrine (9/12/2008 12:39:03 PM)
Where in your description does it describe "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?" Even the description you provide talks of From the link you provided: quote: To defeat this threat we must make use of every tool in our arsenal—military power, better homeland defenses, law enforcement, intelligence, and vigorous efforts to cut off terrorist financing. The war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise of uncertain duration. America will help nations that need our assistance in combating terror. And America will hold to account nations that are compromised by terror, including those who harbor terrorists— because the allies of terror are the enemies of civilization. The United States and countries cooperating with us must not allow the terrorists to develop new home bases. Together, we will seek to deny them sanctuary at every turn. We are also guided by the conviction that no nation can build a safer, better world alone. Alliances and multilateral institutions can multiply the strength of freedom-loving nations. The United States is committed to lasting institutions like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the Organization of American States, and NATO as well as other long-standing alliances. Coalitions of the willing can augment these permanent institutions. In all cases, international obligations are to be taken seriously. They are not to be undertaken symbolically to rally support for an ideal without furthering its attainment. So the clear cut description that Gibson was putting forth, is still not a full accounting of what the "Bush Doctrine" is defined as. It is one aspect of it, and thus the question of: quote: PALIN: In what respect, Charlie? Simply an observation and my opinion.

rulemylife -> RE: Palin and the Bush Doctrine (9/12/2008 12:55:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius Where in your description does it describe "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?" Even the description you provide talks of From the link you provided: quote: To defeat this threat we must make use of every tool in our arsenal—military power, better homeland defenses, law enforcement, intelligence, and vigorous efforts to cut off terrorist financing. The war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise of uncertain duration. America will help nations that need our assistance in combating terror. And America will hold to account nations that are compromised by terror, including those who harbor terrorists— because the allies of terror are the enemies of civilization. The United States and countries cooperating with us must not allow the terrorists to develop new home bases. Together, we will seek to deny them sanctuary at every turn. We are also guided by the conviction that no nation can build a safer, better world alone. Alliances and multilateral institutions can multiply the strength of freedom-loving nations. The United States is committed to lasting institutions like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the Organization of American States, and NATO as well as other long-standing alliances. Coalitions of the willing can augment these permanent institutions. In all cases, international obligations are to be taken seriously. They are not to be undertaken symbolically to rally support for an ideal without furthering its attainment. So the clear cut description that Gibson was putting forth, is still not a full accounting of what the "Bush Doctrine" is defined as. It is one aspect of it, and thus the question of: quote: PALIN: In what respect, Charlie? Simply an observation and my opinion. It desribes it in the section I highlighted in the paragraph you seem to have somehow left out in your response.

Thadius -> RE: Palin and the Bush Doctrine (9/12/2008 1:14:18 PM)
quote: It desribes it in the section I highlighted in the paragraph you seem to have somehow left out in your response. Simply put, there was no need to requote the passage that you posted. If you are pointing at just that one section as the Bush doctrine, then you have defined it much narrower than others have, or even as suggested by the document that you provide as that doctrine. The fact of the matter is there is plenty of room to disagree on which particular "part" of Bush policy is to be considered "THE" Bush Doctrine. So I simply suggest that the question asking for clarification seems perfectly normal for somebody that is going to be held to whatever answer they give to a yes or no question. Nothing more, and nothing less.

popeye1250 -> RE: Palin and the Bush Doctrine (9/12/2008 2:49:02 PM)
If we "knew" a country or terrorist organisations were going to attack us why would we need a "doctrine" to go after them first? Too many lawyers!

Blaakmaan -> RE: Palin and the Bush Doctrine (9/12/2008 4:17:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 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. To ask those questions directly would be, in the context of that interview, seemingly adversarial and confrontational. Governor Palin did not wish to appear as either, and that is also something for which I commend her--that little thing called maturity (not every discussion or debate has to be rancorous). Instead she asked Charlie Gibson to clarify what he was asking, to get a precise question so that she could give a precise answer--which she did. Gibson was a little miffed that she would not give him the simplistic "yes" or "no" answer that he was fishing for, but oh well....not every piece of bait gets nibbled on. After seeing those two interview clips, I can understand why the Democrats are so eager to demonize and demean her: She is a forceful, intelligent, articulate, competent, Republican woman. She is a living refutation of all the shibboleths to which the Democrats pay homage. If she continues with performances such as that throughout the campaign, the Obama-Biden ticket will be, to borrow from popeye, for the "bus to Palookaville." Whatever she may be, two things she is clearly not: 1. Knowledgeable 2. Qualified to be President Make of that what you will.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Palin and the Bush Doctrine (9/12/2008 5:16:16 PM)
quote: Whatever she may be, two things she is clearly not: 1. Knowledgeable 2. Qualified to be President Make of that what you will. I make of it only one question: On what basis do you reach this conclusion?

rulemylife -> RE: Palin and the Bush Doctrine (9/13/2008 7:58:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius quote: It desribes it in the section I highlighted in the paragraph you seem to have somehow left out in your response. Simply put, there was no need to requote the passage that you posted. If you are pointing at just that one section as the Bush doctrine, then you have defined it much narrower than others have, or even as suggested by the document that you provide as that doctrine. The fact of the matter is there is plenty of room to disagree on which particular "part" of Bush policy is to be considered "THE" Bush Doctrine. So I simply suggest that the question asking for clarification seems perfectly normal for somebody that is going to be held to whatever answer they give to a yes or no question. Nothing more, and nothing less. The document is the policy paper Gibson referred to in the interview when he talks about the doctrine being enunciated in September 2002. When this was originally issued there was a large controversy over it if you recall, because the preemptive action concept was a radical departure from long-standing U.S. policy. The policy paper was referred to as the Bush Doctrine but the most critical part of it, that we can invade based on a presumption of threat, is what most people think of when the term is used. I realize that Wikipedia and some other sources have broadened that definition over the years, but I still think that concept is considered the core. Regardless of how you want to define it, my thoughts when I was watching her answers was she didn't have a clue what he was referring to. Which is why I wanted to get other people's perceptions of it. My thoughts then, and now after seeing it replayed numerous times, was that she was trying to bluff her way through it. The thing that comes to my mind is, if she really did understand the reference but wanted clarification, why the huh?, what?, "deer-in-the-headlights" stalling tactics? Would she not have come across better by asking a pointed question, referencing specific parts of the policy, for clarification?

Sanity -> RE: Palin and the Bush Doctrine (9/13/2008 8:19:27 AM)
Why all the "gotcha" bullshit, what's wrong with someone from outside of politics as usual. She's not supposed to be a Washington insider, that's the beauty of the pick... Besides, as has already been explained as nauseum, there is no actual 'Bush Doctrine' per se.

Thadius -> RE: Palin and the Bush Doctrine (9/13/2008 9:22:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife The document is the policy paper Gibson referred to in the interview when he talks about the doctrine being enunciated in September 2002. When this was originally issued there was a large controversy over it if you recall, because the preemptive action concept was a radical departure from long-standing U.S. policy. The policy paper was referred to as the Bush Doctrine but the most critical part of it, that we can invade based on a presumption of threat, is what most people think of when the term is used. I realize that Wikipedia and some other sources have broadened that definition over the years, but I still think that concept is considered the core. Regardless of how you want to define it, my thoughts when I was watching her answers was she didn't have a clue what he was referring to. Which is why I wanted to get other people's perceptions of it. My thoughts then, and now after seeing it replayed numerous times, was that she was trying to bluff her way through it. The thing that comes to my mind is, if she really did understand the reference but wanted clarification, why the huh?, what?, "deer-in-the-headlights" stalling tactics? Would she not have come across better by asking a pointed question, referencing specific parts of the policy, for clarification? PALIN: In what respect, Charlie? I know some folks only see the Bush doctrine as his declaration of what was it called again... oh yeah "The Doctrine of PreEmption", says more about the knowledge of those that think that way than it does about hers. You want to keep ignoring that even the document you claim he was referring to also speaks about using all of the tools of the country, diplomatic, financial, and political in concert with the nations of the world. I have no problem with you forming your opinions however you wish, but if you are going to present this as an error or confusion, at least present it in full context of what it is that you are claiming documents the "Bush Doctrine". To answer your other suggested questions, if she asked a "pointed" question she would have been accused of being combative or trying to steer the interview. She gently nudged him, allowed for him to clarify his specific question, and answered it. Since we are discussing such nuances, I think it would be a good chance for me to start a new thread, I don't want to hijack this one, thanks for the inspiration.

Kirata -> RE: Palin and the Bush Doctrine (9/13/2008 9:32:40 AM)
Krauthammer speaks... The Bush Doctrine

TheHeretic -> RE: Palin and the Bush Doctrine (9/13/2008 11:00:31 AM)
FR Palin was the perfect choice. Everything the Dems, and their useful idiots in the press, try against her blows up in their faces. So much for the whole McSame line of attack... Ok. Ok. [8\|] Seriously then. Now we will get to see what Sarah Palin is made of. She got flummoxed by an interviewer who makes a good living doing that to people. She looked like an idiot on national TV for a few minutes. Whether it was a trick question doesn't mattter. I've only seen excerpts, but that she seemed to be doing pretty well (if nervous) at other times doesn't matter either. She sounded dumb on national security. Her test is going to be how that experience affects her. If she is the woman her record in Alaska suggests, it's going to motivate her to do a lot better next time. I don't think she earned the Sarah Barracuda nickname by giving up when things get rough. In less than three weeks, she gets on a stage and debates Joe Biden. I'm pretty sure the subject will come up again. She can't match his knowledge, but how much improvement can she show? How quick is her learning curve? More importantly (because you have to win, before you can lead), can she come out with the genuine confidence to make Biden look like just as much a fool in her strong topics? And I don't care which side you think is the better choice, her answer on a stumper foreign policy question was a lot better than George W. Bush's back in '00, and he still got the job.

TieNTeas -> RE: Palin and the Bush Doctrine (9/13/2008 6:26:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Krauthammer speaks... The Bush Doctrine Great link to the original source of the 'Bush Doctrine'. Thanks for the post.

farglebargle -> RE: Palin and the Bush Doctrine (9/13/2008 8:23:13 PM)
And the crowd cheers "CHOKE! CHOKE! CHOKE!" She's not qualified for a School Board in the Lower 48....

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875