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.

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.

quote:

Bush doctrine

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.

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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

subtee - THANKS for bringing a smile to my face! Although a 'Merc Doctrine' is best experienced and not read!

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?

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.

quote:

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

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.

quote:

It desribes it in the section I highlighted in the paragraph you seem to have somehow left out in your response.

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."

quote:


Whatever she may be, two things she is clearly not:

1. Knowledgeable
2. Qualified to be President

Make of that what you will.

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.

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?   

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Krauthammer speaks...

The Bush Doctrine