[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

If Trump Cared About Israel, He would Stop the Genocide Why do you think Henry Ford was such a hardcore Antisemite? In Case you miss Bad Journalism Bobby K Jr was Exiled For Saying This: Quantum Meets AI: Morgan Stanley Maps Out Next Tech Frontier 670,000+ Swept Away as Dams Burst in Canton China, Triggering Deadly Flood! Senate Version Of Trump Tax Bill Adds $3.3 Trillion To Deficit, $500BN More Than The House; Debt Ceiling Raised By $5 Trillion Iran Disables GPS, Joins China’s Beidou — The End of U.S. Satellite Dominance? Ukraine's Withdrawal From Anti-Personnel Landmine Treaty Could Haunt Generations 71 killed in Israeli attack on Iran's Evin Prison Practice Small, Daily Acts Of Sabotage Against The Imperial Machine "EVERYONE'S BEEN SHOT UP HERE": Arsonists Set Wildfire In Northern Idaho, Open Fire On Firefighters, Police In Ambush Trump has Putin trapped, and the Kremlin knows it Kamala's comeback bid sparks Democrat donor meltdown amid fears she'll sink party in California Russia's New Grom-A1 100 KM Range Guided Bomb- 600 Kilo UKRAINIAN CONSULATE IN ITALY CAUGHT TRAFFICKING WEAPONS, ORGANS & CHILDREN WITH THE MAFIA Andrew Cuomo to stay on ballot for NYC mayor in November general election The life of the half-immortal who advised CCP (End of CCP in 2026?) Millions Flee China’s Top Cities Violence begets violence: IDF troops beaten, choked, rammed by Jewish settlers in West Bank Netanyahu Says It's Antisemitic For Israeli Soldiers To Describe Their Own Atrocities China's Economy Spirals With No End In Sight, Says Kyle Bass American Bread Cannot Be Sold in Most Countries Woman Spent Her Life To Prove 796 Babies were buried under Catholic Home Japan Got Rich Without Getting Fat US Spent $495.3 million to fire 39 THAAD Missiles Private Mail Back Online Senior Israeli officials tell Israeli media that they intend to attack Iran after ceasefire. Palestinian Woman Nails Israeli Tucker Carlson: Marjorie Taylor Greene:

Editorial
See other Editorial Articles

Title: Sarah Palin, The Bush Doctrine, and Why It's Smart To Be Dumb
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20 ... t=As7as_Gk76wFcbYECldLuZGs0NUE
Published: Sep 12, 2008
Author: Tony Sachs
Post Date: 2008-09-14 19:21:10 by angle
Keywords: None
Views: 206
Comments: 15

It's one of the most cringe-worthy moments in recent American political history:

"Do you believe in the Bush Doctrine?"

The awkward pause, then the smug, patronizing comeback.

"In what respect, Charlie?"

Charlie Gibson, taken aback, perhaps realizing that this is The Moment for which he'll be known for the rest of his career.

"The Bush -- w-w-well, what do you interpret it to be?"

And then the painful, filibustering non-answer that I can hardly bear to watch without feeling embarrassed for Sarah Palin, John McCain, and this great nation of ours.

I'm not saying that every American besides Governor Palin knows what the Bush Doctrine is. Hell, I wasn't sure I knew what it was until Charlie Gibson confirmed it for me. But then again, I'm not a Republican governor who's running for national office.

Now, if Joe Biden had said this on national TV, the election would be over. Obama would either be calling Hillary Clinton and begging her to take over the #2 slot or he'd be busy getting to work on his concession speech.

But these are the Republicans, they of vaunted attack machines and vast right-wing conspiracies. Masters of spin, purveyors of semi-libelous commercials, wizards of righteous indignation and instigators of class warfare. If Sarah Palin doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is, well, my goodness, neither do a lot of hardworking, God-fearing hockey moms out there in the heartland. They don't have time to read those fancy city newspapers with lots of big words explaining the Bush Doctrine. They're not eggheads like Barack Obama and Joe Biden, those elitist intellectuals who sit around studying doctrines while raising taxes on hardworking Americans like you and me.

You think Governor Palin is going to waste her time reading books about the Bush Doctrine? No, she's busy with the responsibilities that come with being governor of the great state of Alaska. She's got moose to field-dress, bridges to nowhere to say "No" to, jets to sell on eBay. Maybe community organizers have the time to talk about the Bush Doctrine. But Sarah Palin's too busy trying to reform Washington. By way of Alaska.

Before long, Obama and Biden will have to defend themselves against accusations that they're smart. They'll start claiming that they not only didn't know what the Bush Doctrine is but that they were unaware that Bush was even president. "We thought we were running against his father," they'll say. "We were too busy going to church and shooting animals and saying 'No' to lobbyists to pay attention to any of that Washington election nonsense. Hell, we don't even know how to read."

And the election will become about who's dumber and more ignorant.

And you know which party's going to win that one.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

#1. To: angle (#0)

Worth watching...

www.ustream.tv/recorded/705336

bush_is_a_moonie  posted on  2008-09-14   20:22:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Palin may not have been able to articulate the Bush Doctrine, but she certainly espoused it nonetheless.

Do You Know What Freedom Really Means? Freedom4um.com

christine  posted on  2008-09-14   20:23:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

And now, for a touch of reality as to this 'non screw up' screwup:

From the Washington Post:

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.

rowdee  posted on  2008-09-14   21:01:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I like it when Sarah says 'NUKILAR'. It's so... sexist. And it's so much better than W's 'NUKULAR'.

Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'

a vast rightwing conspirator  posted on  2008-09-14   21:19:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Are you polluting this site with the words of Dr. Kaka?

Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'

a vast rightwing conspirator  posted on  2008-09-14   21:20:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Why don't you set your cocktail glass down now, AVRC......and go rest for a while.

rowdee  posted on  2008-09-14   21:23:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Thanks for reading this situation clearly, Dee. It doesn't make me like Palin any more, but you've made a fair assessment.

buckeye  posted on  2008-09-14   21:23:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I'm having a cup of white tea.

WHITE tea. Off a Japanese set.

Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'

a vast rightwing conspirator  posted on  2008-09-14   21:34:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Hey, friend, it doesn't make her any more acceptable to me, either. She isn't at the top of the ticket, and I AM NOT VOTING for the POW hater.

As I see it, if she is so horrid, why isn't the lefties just sitting back, in their easy chair, popcorn and beer in hand, watching as she takes the gopers down, down, down.......they can even laugh aloud if they're just with their own family so that no one else would know just how happy they are at the self-destructing duo!

But that doesn't seem to be in the playbook----one can only wonder why--like maybe they're crapping in their diapers or something.

As to the rest of the people out in la la land, whichever one they reside in, there's only been one perfect one that walked this earth, and he's been gone a long time.

And when you do find one you think might fit the bill, you wind up scourging him/her, and crucifying them with verbal crosses, etc.

I cal recall sitting here smiling to myself at all the gnashing of teeth that was going on here--- someone was a truther, another is a money guru, another financial crises management, others antiwar, others foreign policy nuts, still others is immigration, others campaign finance, others third party hopefuls, etc. I couldn't begin to imagine where they were going to find someone that fit the pattern for every one of these, and more criteria, that would work for everyone.

Still don't see it; still ain't gonna happen----but they sure love to tear people down.

rowdee  posted on  2008-09-14   23:26:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

tear people down

It's only fair that she be scrutinized. She on the con ticket as VP for gawdsakes. You're defense of her in light of all the facts of her behavior while mayor/gov and questions about her ethics and other questionable connections with the corrupted Stevens of Alaska makes me think that your bias that she's a self-proclaimed warrior for god is somehow skewing your objectivity.

angle  posted on  2008-09-15   6:02:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

makes me think that your bias that she's a self-proclaimed warrior for god is somehow skewing your objectivity.

OH puleeze...........get a grip on yourself. I've already said there is no way in hell I'm voting for that ticket. I'm such sick of all the innuendo, mis- statements, and distortions, and frankly lies, as well as contradictions within the same posts.

By way of example and because I am not posting to another person, on one hand there's the need to say that 'one nurse' says SP can clear it all up by releasing her doctor to release all her info, and yet in the same paragraph the poster writes that her doctor says he didn't talk to her-=-- hello.......isn't there a bit of a problem with this? The doctor can talk about 'some' specific things with her, but needs permission for others? Really? Hmmmm....... And furthermore, its possible she spoke with doctors wherever the hell she was supposed to be--Texas maybe? Is there no question about this apparent discrepancy?

Scrutenize? Yes. Of course.......but to nit pick with the chickens is a bit much.

BTW, did you read the story about the ABC transcript of the edited out portion of her interview with gibson? My, my........seems like there was a lot more said than just seeing Russia from some island in Alaska....but it was so much better to make her look like a bimbo!

rowdee  posted on  2008-09-15   11:58:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Here's a link for you:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story? id=5795641&page=1

The first small 4 pages deal with foreign policy/Russia type stuff most; page 5 was the environment, I think; and 6 thru 9 covers all sorts of areas, with page 8 dealing with the trooper and the chief.

rowdee  posted on  2008-09-15   12:44:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I have to see the words coming out of her mouth before I believe one word of what the complicit media and their spawn are trying to sell.

angle  posted on  2008-09-15   14:05:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

there may be video at the link........I didn't look, nor was I particularly concerned. Take or leave it...........others may be interested. Good luck.

rowdee  posted on  2008-09-15   14:09:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The dumber the candidate, the more people identify with him or her. Sarah Palin is a lightweight, but that's a net plus for her. If she were smart, she'd intimidate a lot of soccer (oh, sorry, hockey) moms. By keeping things at an elementary school level ("I know all about foreign policy because I can see the Russian coast from Alaska"), a lot of voters look at her, they say "hey, that could be me!" and they like her.

It's sad, but that's how people vote.

Rupert_Pupkin  posted on  2008-09-15   14:11:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]