Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Bush Doctrine; Anyone Know it?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Bush Doctrine; Anyone Know it?

    I'm very concerned about this interview with Sarah Palin, which shows her ignorance of the Bush Doctrine. I wonder how many of us know what is the Bush Doctrine? But then, we aren't running for the 2nd highest office in America, are we? Comments?

    Charlie - The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory defense. We have the right to pre-emptively strike any other country that we believe is going to attack us.(From the interview)


    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...615/473/595499


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ****My apologies to LeanG for dupicating his original post on this interview. It is such an important one.****
    Last edited by Stormy; 09-12-2008, 11:09 AM.

  • #2
    Do unto others before they do unto you, and if they get in the first shot retaliate with overwhelming force.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Mitchell_in_CT View Post
      Do unto others before they do unto you, and if they get in the first shot retaliate with overwhelming force.
      Your answer should've came from the lips of Sarah palin, your next VP, a heart-beat away from the presidency office, when asked by Charlie Gibson; it didn't.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Stormy View Post
        Your answer should've came from the lips of Sarah palin, your next VP, a heart-beat away from the presidency office, when asked by Charlie Gibson; it didn't.

        I'd have made a better candidate than McCain would have, except for the fact my foreign policy would have been more along the lines of Attilla the Hun crossed with General Sherman.

        Comment


        • #5
          Stormy, I think you need to realize that a lot of people here on the forum who don't oppose the war and who like the fact that bush stands up for our freedom, among other things, we don't actually like him on a lot of other things, but I will say he's done a pretty good job with protecting us, at least what he can do. Which I don't think Jawn Kerry would've done very well.

          Comment


          • #6
            OOooo! I think I know this one...

            If someone threatens America in any way, Me and 10,000 of my closest friends get to go and smash them into dust,...
            Then work for years while the rest of America sips lattes, watches the news, and talks on the internet about how much better the world would be if They/Their Party/Sean Pen Were in charge.

            What do I win?

            M-11
            “All men dream...... But not equally..
            Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find it is vanity;
            but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men,
            for they act their dreams with open eyes to make it possible.....”

            TE Lawrence

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Mitchell_in_CT View Post
              Do unto others before they do unto you, and if they get in the first shot retaliate with overwhelming force.
              Well, look who'se back! Whadaya say, counselor? Great to see ya! I see your liberal bent remains.
              The All New
              2013
              BBQ and Goldfish Pond Club
              Sully - IAM Rand - JasperST - L1 - The Tick - EmmaPeel - Columbus - LA Dep - SgtSlaughter - OneAdam12 - Retired96 - Iowa #1603
              - M1Garand

              (any BBQ and Goldfish Pond member may nominate another user for membership but just remember ..... this ain't no weenie roast!)



              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Stormy View Post
                I'm very concerned about this interview with Sarah Palin, which shows her ignorance of the Bush Doctrine. I wonder how many of us know what is the Bush Doctrine? But then, we aren't running for the 2nd highest office in America, are we? Comments?
                YEah I got a comment, Stormy. Is this all you can come up with to slam the girl? I know you like to stir it up, but at least do it with something meaningful.

                Oooo. Know what? I'll bet she didn't know the capitol of North Dakota, either. Maybe the next interviewer (Sean Hannity, BTW) will be able to show her incomptence by asking that doozy.

                No. Wait. Sean takes his work seriously. He won't ask it.
                The All New
                2013
                BBQ and Goldfish Pond Club
                Sully - IAM Rand - JasperST - L1 - The Tick - EmmaPeel - Columbus - LA Dep - SgtSlaughter - OneAdam12 - Retired96 - Iowa #1603
                - M1Garand

                (any BBQ and Goldfish Pond member may nominate another user for membership but just remember ..... this ain't no weenie roast!)



                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally Posted by Stormy View Post
                  I'm very concerned about this interview with Sarah Palin, which shows her ignorance of the Bush Doctrine. I wonder how many of us know what is the Bush Doctrine? But then, we aren't running for the 2nd highest office in America, are we? Comments?
                  Originally posted by 1042 Trooper View Post
                  YEah I got a comment, Stormy. Is this all you can come up with to slam the girl? I know you like to stir it up, but at least do it with something meaningful.

                  Oooo. Know what? I'll bet she didn't know the capitol of North Dakota, either. Maybe the next interviewer (Sean Hannity, BTW) will be able to show her incomptence by asking that doozy.

                  No. Wait. Sean takes his work seriously. He won't ask it.
                  I know you mean well, Trooper, but women don't like to be called 'girls'. It's the 'politically correct' society we now live in. Ask any woman.

                  I don't intentionally stir up the pot. It's one of the reasons I majored in Journalism in college; it's my knack for asking poignant questions.

                  I now have read that Charlie Gibsons' interview with Palin was a manipulated video. Well, maybe it was. What's this world coming to when you can't trust either the printed word, or the video-taped one? Where are we to draw any solid conclusions on making a decision come election day? We've defined who is the 'Liberal' press, and who is the 'Conservative' press. Now, who are we to make that definition? Yes, we are the manipulated ones.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    For my pal Trooper. I can consider you my pal, right??

                    To show you I don't favor one side, or the other, of a two-headed goat (dems and repubs) I found this interesting article on Charlie Gibson's attempted slam of Palin.

                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Charlie Gibson's Gaffe

                    By Charles Krauthammer
                    Saturday, September 13, 2008; A17

                    "At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' "

                    -- New York Times, Sept. 12

                    Informed her? Rubbish.

                    The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

                    There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

                    He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

                    She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"

                    Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

                    Wrong.

                    I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

                    Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush doctrine.

                    Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.

                    It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

                    This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy's pledge in his inaugural address that the United States "shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson's 14 points.

                    If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume -- unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise -- that he was speaking about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration.

                    Not the Gibson doctrine of preemption.

                    Not the "with us or against us" no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.

                    Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.

                    Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.

                    Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.

                    Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.

                    [email protected]

                    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...202457_pf.html

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Charlie Gibson Interview With Sarah Palin

                      The following is a transcript of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s interview with ABC News’ Charles Gibson:

                      GIBSON: Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked John McCain about you. And it is really the central question. Can you look the country in the eye and say, I have the experience, and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?

                      PALIN: I do, Charlie, and on January 20th, when John McCain and I are sworn in, if we are so privileged to be elected to serve this country, we’ll be ready. I’m ready.

                      GIBSON: When McCain asked you to take the spot on the ticket, for a moment, did you think no?

                      PALIN: I did not. I thought yes, right off the bat. When he offered me the position, as his running mate, the first thing I said to him was, if you really think that I can help the ticket, if you really think that I can help this country, absolutely, I want to do this with you.

                      GIBSON: And you didn’t say to yourself, am I experienced enough? Am I ready?

                      PALIN: I didn’t hesitate, no.

                      GIBSON: Doesn’t that take some hubris?

                      PALIN: I answered him yes because I have the confidence in that readiness. And knowing that you can’t blink. You have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we’re on, reform of this country, and victory in the war. You can’t blink. So, I didn’t blink then, when asked to run as his running mate.

                      GIBSON: But this is not just reforming a government. This is also running a government on the huge international stage, in a very dangerous world. When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact you have command of the Alaskan National Guard and Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?

                      PALIN: But it is about reform of government. And it’s about putting government back on the side of the people. And that has much to do with foreign policy and national security issues.

                      Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie. And that’s with the energy independence that I’ve been working on for these years, as the governor of this state, that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy. That I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conversation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas developments in our state, to produce more for the United States.

                      GIBSON: National security is a whole lot more than energy.

                      PALIN: It is. But - but I want you to not lose sight of the fact that energy is a foundation of national security. It’s that important. It’s that significant.

                      GIBSON: Did you ever travel outside the country prior to your trip to Kuwait and Germany last year?

                      PALIN: Canada. Mexico. And then, that trip that was a trip of a lifetime, to visit troops in Kuwait and stop and visit injured soldiers in Germany. That was a trip of a lifetime. And it changed my life.

                      GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?

                      PALIN: I have not. And I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But Charlie, again, we got to remember what the desire is in this nation, at this time. It is for no more politics as usual. And somebody’s big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yeah, they’ve had opportunity to meet heads of state.

                      GIBSON: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.

                      PALIN: Sure.

                      GIBSON: Let’s start, because we are near Russia. Let’s start with Russia and Georgia. The administration has said, we’ve got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

                      PALIN: First off, we’re going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak the other day and giving my commitment, as John McCain’s running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we have to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have asserted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable. And we have to keep …

                      GIBSON: You believe unprovoked?

                      PALIN: I do believe unprovoked. And we have to keep our eyes on Russia. Under the leadership there.

                      GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions particularly in the last couple weeks does the proximity of the state give you?

                      PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska.

                      GIBSON: You favor putting Georgia and Ukraine into NATO?

                      PALIN: Ukraine definitely yes. Yes. And Georgia. Putin thinks otherwise, obviously he thinks otherwise.

                      GIBSON: Under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

                      PALIN: Perhaps so. That is the agreement. When you are a NATO ally, is, if another country is attacked, you are going to be expected to be called upon and help.

                      GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel?

                      PALIN: I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes.

                      GIBSON: So, what should we do about a nuclear Iran?

                      PALIN: We have got to make sure these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran.

                      GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and need to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?

                      PALIN: Well, first, we are friends of Israel, and I don’t think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves, and for their security.

                      GIBSON: So if we didn’t second guess it and if they decided they needed to do it, because Iran was an existential threat, we would be cooperative or agree with that?

                      PALIN: I don’t think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.

                      GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right?

                      PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.

                      GIBSON: We talk on the anniversary of 9/11. Why do you think those hijackers attacked? Why did they want to hurt us?

                      PALIN: You know, there is a very small percentage of Islamic believers who are extreme, and they are violent, and they do not believe in American ideals. And they attacked us. And now we are at a point, here, seven years later, on the anniversary, in this post- 9/11 world, where we are able to commit to never again. The only option for them is to become a suicide bomber, to get caught up in this evil, in this terror. They need to be provided the hope that all Americans have, instilled in us, because we’re a democratic and we are a free, we’re a free-thinking society.

                      GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

                      PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

                      GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you interpret it to be?

                      PALIN: His world view?

                      GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, annunciated 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 country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with us?

                      PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligent and legitimate evidence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country.

                      GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan, from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?

                      PALIN: As for our right to invade, we’re going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world, where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be and military strike a last option.

                      GIBSON: But governor, I am asking you, do we have the right, in your mind, to go across the border, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?

                      PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America, and our allies, we must do whatever it takes, and we must not blink, Charlie. In making those tough decisions of where we go, and even who we target.

                      GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes, that you think we have the right to go across the border, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government? To go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?

                      PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying America, and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.

                      (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

                      GIBSON: You said recently in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.”

                      (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

                      PALIN: Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right, also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God.

                      (END VIDEO CLIP)

                      GIBSON: Are we fighting a Holy War?

                      PALIN: That’s a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words, when he said, first he suggested, never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak god’s words, but what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was, let us not pray that God is on our side, in a war, or any other time. But let us pray that we are on God’s side. That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie.

                      Today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son, oversees with his Stryker brigade. Four thousand other wonderful American men and women to fight for our country, to fight for our freedoms.

                      GIBSON: But you went on and said, “There is a plan, and it is God’s plan.”

                      PALIN: I believe that there is a plan for this world, and that plan, for this world, is for good. I believe that there is great hope and great potential for every country, to be able to live and be protected within inalienable rights, that I believe are God-given, Charlie. And I believe those are the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

                      That in my worldview is the grand plan.

                      GIBSON: Then, are you sending your son on a task from God?

                      PALIN: I don’t know if the task is from God, Charlie. What I know is that my son has made a decision. I am so proud of his independent and strong decision. What he decided to do, in serving for the right reasons in serving something greater than self, and not choosing a real easy path, where he could be more comfortable and certainly safer.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        In that short interview segment there were a few different times Gibson either tried to use "gotcha" questions, like the one on the Bush Doctrine, or tried to repeatedly fish for short sound bites that the media could take and run with. I shake my head when I still hear people say she she just faced softball questions from Gibson.

                        And was it just an optical illusion, the camera angle, or was her chair actually shorter than his?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by M-11 View Post
                          OOooo! I think I know this one...

                          If someone threatens America in any way, Me and 10,000 of my closest friends get to go and smash them into dust,...
                          Then work for years while the rest of America sips lattes, watches the news, and talks on the internet about how much better the world would be if They/Their Party/Sean Pen Were in charge.

                          What do I win?

                          M-11
                          Don't forget to include Democrats supporting an anti war/military organization using government funds and support to protest a Marine Recruiting station and calling Marine Recruiters invaders all the while claiming they "support the troops."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Stormy View Post
                            I know you mean well, Trooper, but women don't like to be called 'girls'. It's the 'politically correct' society we now live in. Ask any woman.
                            That's only with a condensending intent. Just as a term of indearment is fine. I checked with my femanist wiff and her radically feminist, liberal sister who already hates my guts.

                            They both say, using "Girl" as a term of comraderie or friendship, is fine. Using it to obviously reduce their input, validity or standing, is the stuff chauvanistic pigs are made of.

                            And liberals. Just read the dailykos.com or moveon.org. That's how THEY use it - the so called advocates for womes rights.
                            The All New
                            2013
                            BBQ and Goldfish Pond Club
                            Sully - IAM Rand - JasperST - L1 - The Tick - EmmaPeel - Columbus - LA Dep - SgtSlaughter - OneAdam12 - Retired96 - Iowa #1603
                            - M1Garand

                            (any BBQ and Goldfish Pond member may nominate another user for membership but just remember ..... this ain't no weenie roast!)



                            Comment

                            MR300x250 Tablet

                            Collapse

                            What's Going On

                            Collapse

                            There are currently 3637 users online. 139 members and 3498 guests.

                            Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                            Welcome Ad

                            Collapse
                            Working...
                            X