PDA

View Full Version : Elections The Bush Doctrine


***SPRAYER
09-13-2008, 10:16 AM
What is it? I heard Charlie Gibson ask Sarah Palin "what parts of it do you agree with" as if he was some kind of authority on it. It tweaked my curiosity and so I yahoo'd it---

And came up with some amorphous, ambiguous, and arbitrary links.

I figured for sure there would be a tangible document defined as THE BUSH DOCTRINE in a library or a book store, but there isn't.

So I'm curious, can anybody tell me what it is?

ChiefaRoo
09-13-2008, 10:36 AM
The whole Bush Doctrine thing is a creation of a Journalist named Charles Krauthammer. He used it to describe Bush's stated intent after 9/11 to attack terrorists before they attack us. When he asks the question it's nothing but a vague and gray area. He doesn't even frame the question properly which of course he did on purpose.

chiefforlife
09-13-2008, 10:47 AM
An easy response might have been, "You mean regarding preemptive war?"

ChiefaRoo
09-13-2008, 10:51 AM
An easy response might have been, "You mean regarding preemptive war?"


She could of said a lot of things. Bottom line, it wasn't a bad response on her part and it doesn't prove anything about her knowledge or lack therof.

Jenson71
09-13-2008, 11:15 AM
Whatever it's original meanings, the Bush Doctrine has come to refer to the National Security Strategy of 2002, and in particular, Art. 5, Sec. B in which is stated:

To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense.

Donald Kagan, The Western Heritage:

"Following the Afghan campaign, the Bush adminstration set forth a policy of preemptive strikes and intervention against potential enemies of the United States. The administration argued that the danger of weapons of mass destruction developed by governments such as that of Iraq falling into the hands of international terrorist organizations posed so severe a danger to the security of the United States that the nation could not wait to respond to an attack, but must take preeptive action."

ChiefaRoo
09-13-2008, 11:18 AM
Whatever it's original meanings, the Bush Doctrine has come to refer to the National Security Strategy of 2002, and in particular, Art. 5, Sec. B in which is stated:

To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense.

Donald Kagan, The Western Heritage:

"Following the Afghan campaign, the Bush adminstration set forth a policy of preemptive strikes and intervention against potential enemies of the United States. The administration argued that the danger of weapons of mass destruction developed by governments such as that of Iraq falling into the hands of international terrorist organizations posed so severe a danger to the security of the United States that the nation could not wait to respond to an attack, but must take preeptive action."

Yep.

Taco John
09-13-2008, 11:36 AM
I just have no respect for any defense that I'm hearing on this subject. She clearly has very shallowly formed foriegn policiy ideas. That makes her dangerous. The current Krauthammer's tact on this issue tells me that he's embarassed for her and is trying to save as much face as possible for the ticket. But I don't care who you are - if you're being honest when you watched that, you were uncomfortable in the way that ANY human feels when they see a fellow human being put on the spot without any idea.

Charlie Gibson was not out of line, whatsoever in this interview. The fact that the Bush Doctrine has a wide interpretation is no excuse. If a guy named Taco John on a backwater political discussion forum can rattle off an interpretation of the current foriegn policy of our nation without having to even stop to wonder which Bush we're talking about, then I see no reason why a presidential candidate (even vice, as it is) should not be able to.

God help us if the people on this forum have better formed ideas on foriegn policy than a potential presidential candidate.

ChiefaRoo
09-13-2008, 12:17 PM
You're discounting the pressure she was under. It's easy to hit a nice drive off the tee box when it's just you and your buddy but when you have the media and 1000 people watching you it suddenly becomes a lot harder. She obviously had her guard set very high for her first worldwide interview and she was just being very Anal about how he asked the question to keep from getting caught in a 'gotcha' moment.

It's a non issue and won't effect the race one way or the other but feel free to make a big deal out of it in your mind. You're voting for Obama anyway.

HolmeZz
09-13-2008, 12:32 PM
SHE HAD NO F*CKING CLUE WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT

End. Of story.

penchief
09-13-2008, 04:17 PM
I love all of this spin by the right trying to make it sound like nobody knew what the hell the Bush Doctrine was. Incredible. It was the basis for attacking Iraq. It was the creation of the Bush Administration so that they could justify invading Iraq. It was hotly debated prior to and shortly after the invasion of Iraq. It was the Bush policy of pre-emptive war.

I just can't believe the lengths righties will go to in order to rewrite history for whatever reason.

ROYC75
09-13-2008, 07:18 PM
I just have no respect for any defense that I'm hearing on this subject. She clearly has very shallowly formed foriegn policiy ideas. That makes her dangerous. The current Krauthammer's tact on this issue tells me that he's embarassed for her and is trying to save as much face as possible for the ticket. But I don't care who you are - if you're being honest when you watched that, you were uncomfortable in the way that ANY human feels when they see a fellow human being put on the spot without any idea.

Charlie Gibson was not out of line, whatsoever in this interview. The fact that the Bush Doctrine has a wide interpretation is no excuse. If a guy named Taco John on a backwater political discussion forum can rattle off an interpretation of the current foriegn policy of our nation without having to even stop to wonder which Bush we're talking about, then I see no reason why a presidential candidate (even vice, as it is) should not be able to.

God help us if the people on this forum have better formed ideas on foriegn policy than a potential presidential candidate.

Come on, it does have a wide interpretation, so she was wanting to know in which way , what terms, asking what part of it, since it was a wide interpretation.

I see no reason to discredit her for asking, I have sen Obama ask to redefine a question before..... He wasn't grilled by it.

I would bet 95% of the people on this BB had no clue what that doctrine consisted of until the question was asked and then had to google it to find out the answers.

She asked, she didn't stumble, mumble with it, when it was asked again, she answered it.

You liberals and independents are going to have to come up with something good to discredit her, but this isn't it.

ROYC75
09-13-2008, 07:20 PM
SHE HAD NO F*CKING CLUE WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT

End. Of story.

Do you ?

Did you, before you looked it up ?

Again, I would bet that 95% of this BB didn't know all / any of it before the question came up.

Gibson asked, he had the answer written down, I would bet he didn't know it , before somebody handed it to him to ask.

ROYC75
09-13-2008, 07:21 PM
I love all of this spin by the right trying to make it sound like nobody knew what the hell the Bush Doctrine was. Incredible. It was the basis for attacking Iraq. It was the creation of the Bush Administration so that they could justify invading Iraq. It was hotly debated prior to and shortly after the invasion of Iraq. It was the Bush policy of pre-emptive war.

I just can't believe the lengths righties will go to in order to rewrite history for whatever reason.


Same thing applies .......

Do you ?

Did you, before you looked it up ?

Again, I would bet that 95% of this BB didn't know all / any of it before the question came up.

Gibson asked, he had the answer written down, I would bet he didn't know it , before somebody handed it to him to ask.

irishjayhawk
09-13-2008, 07:23 PM
I knew it, Roy.

BucEyedPea
09-13-2008, 07:23 PM
Well, at least the Rs are being gentlemen and coming to aid of a damsel in distress. :D

Anyhow, I agree with taco on this. Even I know what the Bush Doctrine entails.

She admitted earlier, she hadn't been paying attention to FP being wrapped up in local politics. She's being brought up to speed and taking on the NC line. DC's already begun to corrupt her. Then again, Obama is the same on Georgia. Heaven help us!

irishjayhawk
09-13-2008, 07:26 PM
Also, Roy, your defense is eclipsed when wikipedia can be accessed. If the VP candidate can't be bothered to briefly familiarize herself with something like the Bush Doctrine, even on wikipedia of all places, she isn't ready.

Programmer
09-13-2008, 07:29 PM
Also, Roy, your defense is eclipsed when wikipedia can be accessed. If the VP candidate can't be bothered to briefly familiarize herself with something like the Bush Doctrine, even on wikipedia of all places, she isn't ready.

Another X generation affiliate that believes everything on Wikipedia is absolute fact.

I'm sure she has accurate resources that would boggle your mind.

I wonder if Obama had a list of questions before he went on the show? My guess is that he did and she didn't. Even and fair!

irishjayhawk
09-13-2008, 07:30 PM
Another X generation affiliate that believes everything on Wikipedia is absolute fact.

I'm sure she has accurate resources that would boggle your mind.

I wonder if Obama had a list of questions before he went on the show? My guess is that he did and she didn't. Even and fair!

Did I say that?

No.

You even confirm my point with the next sentence. She has all these resources. And didn't use any of them.

ROYC75
09-13-2008, 07:32 PM
I knew it, Roy.

Good, you are within that 5%, providing you are telling the truth, only you know this, I don't. This is not any knock on your knowledge, I'm just saying there is alot of people who doesn't know it.

But since it was a wide range of topic with in the doctrine, she had a right to ask , which one he was asking on .

BucEyedPea
09-13-2008, 07:32 PM
Another X generation affiliate that believes everything on Wikipedia is absolute fact.
Well, it's not a good source, but it is a start. I don't believe it's wrong on this one though. I don't know that there's a lot of controversial disagreement on what the Bush Doctrine actually is, to even be in that category of thing for wiki to be completely unreliable on it.

HolmeZz
09-13-2008, 07:34 PM
Do you ?

Yes.

Did you, before you looked it up ?

I didn't have to look up anything. This is simple stuff. It's basic and incredibly relevant to the job she's applying for. And she was absolutely clueless.

Again, I would bet that 95% of this BB didn't know all / any of it before the question came up.

95% of the posters on this board are retarded and aren't qualified to manage a Dairy Queen. She wants to be Vice President.

Gibson asked, he had the answer written down, I would bet he didn't know it , before somebody handed it to him to ask.

You're a f*cking idiot.

I'm at a loss for words when it comes to how low some of you will go to excuse her ignorance. You're trying to rationalize her, a Vice Presidential Candidate, not knowing the f*cking Bush Doctrine because some idiots on an internet messageboard had never heard of it either. Do you realize she's not supposed to be as stupid as you? Do you know that's a bad thing?

irishjayhawk
09-13-2008, 07:34 PM
Good, you are within that 5%, providing you are telling the truth, only you know this, I don't. This is not any knock on your knowledge, I'm just saying there is alot of people who doesn't know it.

But since it was a wide range of topic with in the doctrine, she had a right to ask , which one he was asking on .

So, then, am I qualified to be VP?

Or do we not hold a VP candidate up above average joe?

bango
09-13-2008, 07:34 PM
I knew it, Roy.

I knew it too.

bango
09-13-2008, 07:36 PM
Another X generation affiliate that believes everything on Wikipedia is absolute fact.

I'm sure she has accurate resources that would boggle your mind.

I wonder if Obama had a list of questions before he went on the show? My guess is that he did and she didn't. Even and fair!

Why do you even talk to anyone on here? I should aks why you even try to. Is there not a mirror or wall in your house that you can go and argue with instead?

HolmeZz
09-13-2008, 07:39 PM
So, then, am I qualified to be VP?

Or do we not hold a VP candidate up above average joe?

Roy believes it's a good thing if she appears as stupid as he is.

This is what the Republicans did to their party when they started throwing the elitist label around. You're not supposed to want a candidate more intelligent than you, you want a candidate who's just like you!

Logical
09-13-2008, 07:39 PM
95% of the posters on this board are retarded and aren't qualified to manage a Dairy Queen. She wants to be Vice President.

You might want to think about your hyperbole before you use it. You insulted a lot of fine people with this one. I understand your point but you might want to tone it down just a smidge. 70% would have worked just as well and insulted a lot less.

irishjayhawk
09-13-2008, 07:40 PM
Roy believes it's a good thing if she appears as stupid as he is.

This is what the Republicans did to their party when they started throwing the elitist label around. You're not supposed to want a candidate more intelligent than you, you want a candidate who's just like you!

Sad, but true, I fear.

HolmeZz
09-13-2008, 07:42 PM
You might want to think about your hyperbole before you use it. You insulted a lot of fine people with this one. I understand your point but you might want to tone it down just a smidge. 70% would have worked just as well and insulted a lot less.

It was in response to Roy's hyperbole that 95% on this board didn't know or had never heard of the Bush Doctrine. If he had said 85%, I would've said 85%. The percentage wasn't really the point. The point was that he was justifying a VP candidate not knowing the Bush Doctrine because some random people on an internet message board didn't. That's the definition of idiocy.

ROYC75
09-13-2008, 08:12 PM
It was in response to Roy's hyperbole that 95% on this board didn't know or had never heard of the Bush Doctrine. If he had said 85%, I would've said 85%. The percentage wasn't really the point. The point was that he was justifying a VP candidate not knowing the Bush Doctrine because some random people on an internet message board didn't. That's the definition of idiocy.

OK, whatever..... The doctrine contain so many topics, she asked , it what way, Charlie. Asking to define, which part of the doctrine.

It speaks of ..........Ending terrorism
Spreading democracy
Increased unilateralism in foreign policy
American national security interests
Ideological goals
Economic prosperity

Do we use Preventive war or Preventative war ? Do we have the needed info to use this ? This brings forth the cry of being justified.

Again, Which part did he want to know ? She answered some of these, just not all of them.

irishjayhawk
09-13-2008, 09:09 PM
OK, whatever..... The doctrine contain so many topics, she asked , it what way, Charlie. Asking to define, which part of the doctrine.

It speaks of ..........Ending terrorism
Spreading democracy
Increased unilateralism in foreign policy
American national security interests
Ideological goals
Economic prosperity

Do we use Preventive war or Preventative war ? Do we have the needed info to use this ? This brings forth the cry of being justified.

Again, Which part did he want to know ? She answered some of these, just not all of them.

Unfortunately, I think her "in what way" was more akin to the "like Iraq" or "such as" of Miss South Carolina. And not, like you say, actually sifting through the various aspects of it.

My evidence? "His world view?!?!?!?"

Cannibal
09-13-2008, 09:12 PM
She could of said a lot of things. Bottom line, it wasn't a bad response on her part and it doesn't prove anything about her knowledge or lack therof.

This post is akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling... "nananananananana... i can't hear you"

ROYC75
09-13-2008, 09:36 PM
Unfortunately, I think her "in what way" was more akin to the "like Iraq" or "such as" of Miss South Carolina. And not, like you say, actually sifting through the various aspects of it.

My evidence? "His world view?!?!?!?"

World view contains a lot of things with in the 7 topics I posted.... each one has form of contributing factors and interest within the world's view.

Again, how was she to know. I also read it some where that the question he asked was a previous doctrine that has been updated several times since.

Confusing ? Yeah, it was .......

penchief
09-13-2008, 10:07 PM
Same thing applies .......

Do you ?

Did you, before you looked it up ?

Again, I would bet that 95% of this BB didn't know all / any of it before the question came up.

Gibson asked, he had the answer written down, I would bet he didn't know it , before somebody handed it to him to ask.

Hell yes I did. I was one of the unpatriotic traitors that was saying it was anti-American and went against everything this country stood for before he invaded. I was arguing against the Bush Doctrine in real time. Which is why I can't understand the selective loss of memory by all those who were arguing for it and calling me unpatriotic because I argued that Bush was overreaching.

There isn't a person here who argued for that war that wasn't arguing for the doctrine of pre-emption which was also called the Bush Doctrine because he was the first president to ever try to justify such an aggressive policy.

HolyHandgernade
09-13-2008, 10:09 PM
I thought it was a completely relevant question, and it obviously took her by surprise, she was searching for a response. In my opinion, Gibson actually bailed her out, after his followup question was drawing an uncomfortable pause. He asked her if she agreed with it, she replied (I'm paraphrasing) "what part", he asked her what she interpreted it to be, she stammered in her response, Gibson gave her a more precise framework.

I'm sorry, but you have to be more prepared than that. Sure, she's on the spot, but she has to handle that better. Gibson did the RNC a favor by highlighting how ill prepared she was and what type of shape they have to whip her into before her debate. She simply did not radiate confidence, she appeared like someone deathly affraid of messing up, so that when she did, she had trouble recovering.

I have no doubt she'll do better by the time the debate rolls around, but an experienced debator will make her appear as a party slogan regurgitator rather than someone qualified for the second highest office in the land.

My beef with Bush when he first ran for President wasn't that he was unintelligent. My beef was that he appeared to lack a depth of wisdom, which I believe is the real reason behind his awful Presidency. He didn't have the wisdom to assert his own voice and relied on his advisors more than he should of. Palin, IMO, is even worse, and her only possible saving point is that she isn't the Presidential candidate.

-HH

Taco John
09-13-2008, 10:22 PM
I can't believe the weak defenses that I've read on this thing. As far as I'm concerned you have to intentionally set aside a healthy amount of credibility to try and defend this thing (not to mention practice self delusion).

The people who I can respect in this argument, are the people who don't try to defend her clear lack of knowledge, and instead shrug and say "well what am I going to do, vote for Obama?"

There's absolutely no respecting anyone who lacks the sense to recognize a woman who was clueless when asked a rather 101 foriegn policy question. These people either have no integrity, or lack the ability to correctly read a person when they're in a pressure situation (which is the absolute easiest time to read a person).

ROYC75
09-13-2008, 10:37 PM
I can't believe the weak defenses that I've read on this thing. As far as I'm concerned you have to intentionally set aside a healthy amount of credibility to try and defend this thing (not to mention practice self delusion).

The people who I can respect in this argument, are the people who don't try to defend her clear lack of knowledge, and instead shrug and say "well what am I going to do, vote for Obama?"

There's absolutely no respecting anyone who lacks the sense to recognize a woman who was clueless when asked a rather 101 foriegn policy question. These people either have no integrity, or lack the ability to correctly read a person when they're in a pressure situation (which is the absolute easiest time to read a person).

And you know this well, the Bush doctrine ? Even after the changes in it, over the 8 years ?

With all the experts we have in this political forum,I wonder why we have the 2 candidates we have for POTUS. With all due respect , We clearly have some on here that are much smarter and can do a better job.........at least by reading their comments and post .

FTR, you can exclude me from this, I am not smarter than either of the 4 candidates that are being mentioned in this forum as POTUS and VPOTUS.

Comic relief is just a thread / post away in this forum. For anyone to post in this forum that they know more and can continue to ridicule what the candidates know or don't know is beyond my ....... uh pay scale .

We all have our views and comments ....... but to come off as being superior in a field that we do not practice as a career, that person is just down right stupid and commenting on his / her's personal satisfaction.

HolmeZz
09-13-2008, 10:39 PM
Do you think Barack Obama is smarter than you, Roy?

ROYC75
09-13-2008, 10:42 PM
Do you think Barack Obama is smarter than you, Roy?

No question about it, he is,so is McCain, Biden and Palin.

Are each of them smarter than you ?

ROYC75
09-13-2008, 10:43 PM
But it still does not mean that I feel everything that he feels on the issues .

HolmeZz
09-13-2008, 10:48 PM
Obama, McCain, and Biden are definitely more intelligent and informed than I when it comes foreign affairs and the goings on in the world.

I have no reason to think much of or respect Palin's intelligence. She hasn't displayed anything in that regard. In fact, she's only come off negatively in most of the instances I've seen where she's been asked to display her intellect.

Taco John
09-13-2008, 10:48 PM
And you know this well, the Bush doctrine ? Even after the changes in it, over the 8 years ?

Oh, absolutely. The so-called changes in it aren't ground breaking changes. It's just a gradual evolution. But the answer is yes. Feel free to do a search on my posts surrounding the Bush Doctrine (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/search.php?searchid=223633).



With all the experts we have in this political forum,I wonder why we have the 2 candidates we have for POTUS. With all due respect , We clearly have some on here that are much smarter and can do a better job.........at least by reading their comments and post .

Clearly. I am unhesitant when I say that my views on foriegn policy are much better formed than Sarah Palin's are. This is probably because I have put much more thought into this area than she apparently has.

She is unqualified as far as I'm concerned.




FTR, you can exclude me from this, I am not smarter than either of the 4 candidates that are being mentioned in this forum as POTUS and VPOTUS.

I already had done this.


We all have our views and comments ....... but to come off as being superior in a field that we do not practice as a career, that person is just down right stupid and commenting on his / her's personal satisfaction.

As I said, I'm without hesitation when I say that my own foriegn policy viewpoints are superior in their formation and depth than Sarah Palin's. Of this, I have little doubt. I'm not using hyperbole. I'm not exaggerating. I'm telling you what I believe to be the truth.

It should scare anyone when a joker on a backwater political forum named Taco John has better formed foriegn policy views than a person who has the potential to be a heartbeat away from the presidency - especially in this day and age.

Anyone defending Sarah Palin, in my view, is admitting openly that they don't think that the threats that the US faces are real. And perhaps you're right. But it's inconsistent given the drumbeat against Barack Obama.

Logical
09-14-2008, 12:41 AM
Obama, McCain, and Biden are definitely more intelligent and informed than I when it comes foreign affairs and the goings on in the world.

I have no reason to think much of or respect Palin's intelligence. She hasn't displayed anything in that regard. In fact, she's only come off negatively in most of the instances I've seen where she's been asked to display her intellect. But when it comes to shooting Moose, I give her the advantage.

irishjayhawk
09-14-2008, 12:44 AM
But when it comes to shooting Moose, I give her the advantage.

As long as she doesn't mistake it for a human, she'll have edged out another VP.

patteeu
09-14-2008, 06:27 AM
I just have no respect for any defense that I'm hearing on this subject. She clearly has very shallowly formed foriegn policiy ideas. That makes her dangerous. The current Krauthammer's tact on this issue tells me that he's embarassed for her and is trying to save as much face as possible for the ticket. But I don't care who you are - if you're being honest when you watched that, you were uncomfortable in the way that ANY human feels when they see a fellow human being put on the spot without any idea.

Charlie Gibson was not out of line, whatsoever in this interview. The fact that the Bush Doctrine has a wide interpretation is no excuse. If a guy named Taco John on a backwater political discussion forum can rattle off an interpretation of the current foriegn policy of our nation without having to even stop to wonder which Bush we're talking about, then I see no reason why a presidential candidate (even vice, as it is) should not be able to.

God help us if the people on this forum have better formed ideas on foriegn policy than a potential presidential candidate.

Ron Paul was dangerous. This just makes her new to the scene.

J Diddy
09-14-2008, 06:31 AM
Ron Paul was dangerous. This just makes her new to the scene.


She's new to being American?

patteeu
09-14-2008, 06:31 AM
Also, Roy, your defense is eclipsed when wikipedia can be accessed. If the VP candidate can't be bothered to briefly familiarize herself with something like the Bush Doctrine, even on wikipedia of all places, she isn't ready.

Obama's not ready to lead our 57 states either. You guys are getting excited over nothing here.

patteeu
09-14-2008, 06:33 AM
So, then, am I qualified to be VP?

You're too young to be VP, so no.

patteeu
09-14-2008, 06:38 AM
She's new to being American?

Newer than McCain.

J Diddy
09-14-2008, 06:52 AM
Newer than McCain.

My 16 year old daughter understands to a concept the Bush Doctrine. If Charlie Gibson asked her she would at the very minimum know what he's talking about.

penguinz
09-14-2008, 07:05 AM
Come on people. You have to look at more than just what words she spoke. Listen to her voice and look at her facial expression. She did not know what he was referring to and was unsure of her answer.

patteeu
09-14-2008, 07:53 AM
My 16 year old daughter understands to a concept the Bush Doctrine.

In what respect?

penchief
09-14-2008, 09:38 AM
In what respect?

My guess would be the fundamental basis of it; pre-emptive war.

irishjayhawk
09-14-2008, 10:28 AM
Obama's not ready to lead our 57 states either. You guys are getting excited over nothing here.

Are you really going to compare a slip of the tongue compared to not knowing the policy of your own Party's member and current President?

You're too young to be VP, so no.

:p

ROYC75
09-14-2008, 10:43 AM
Are you really going to compare a slip of the tongue compared to not knowing the policy of your own Party's member and current President?



:p


What is good for the goose is good for the gander ........

Can I say monkey see, monkey do ...... ( not in a racist way )

Both sides do it ....... why complain.

J Diddy
09-14-2008, 10:53 AM
In what respect?


In that I could ask her that question and she would be able to at least give a broad definition of our foreign policy under Bush.

***SPRAYER
09-14-2008, 11:36 AM
Maybe she was just tired...

You know, like B.O. was when he said he's been to all 57 states. Anyway, I'm sure the Bush Doctrine will come up again in the debates.

banyon
09-14-2008, 11:59 AM
Maybe she was just tired...

You know, like B.O. was when he said he's been to all 57 states. Anyway, I'm sure the Bush Doctrine will come up again in the debates.

You're comparing her during a scheduled and prepped TV interview to a campaign rally where Obama made a joke?

J Diddy
09-14-2008, 12:26 PM
Maybe she was just tired...

You know, like B.O. was when he said he's been to all 57 states. Anyway, I'm sure the Bush Doctrine will come up again in the debates.


She probably was, ya know, from all those interviews she's been giving.

irishjayhawk
09-14-2008, 12:28 PM
What is good for the goose is good for the gander ........

Can I say monkey see, monkey do ...... ( not in a racist way )

Both sides do it ....... why complain.

NON-PARTISAN ROY STRIKES AGAIN!

patteeu
09-14-2008, 02:39 PM
Are you really going to compare a slip of the tongue compared to not knowing the policy of your own Party's member and current President?

She does know the policy. What she didn't know was precisely what Gibson meant by "the Bush Doctrine". So yeah, I'm going to compare them because neither of the incidents is very important.

patteeu
09-14-2008, 02:42 PM
In that I could ask her that question and she would be able to at least give a broad definition of our foreign policy under Bush.

Good for her. That doesn't seem to be what Gibson was after though.

L.A. Chieffan
09-14-2008, 02:44 PM
Rebuilding. Get over it.

memyselfI
09-14-2008, 02:46 PM
At first I understood it to be the right and responsibility to preemptive strike. Then I understood it to be not only the previous factor but to bring democracy to the downtrodden.

In the end I understood it to be breaking laws and defying the constitution in the name of 'national security' so who knows what it truly means.

banyon
09-14-2008, 03:28 PM
She does know the policy. What she didn't know was precisely what Gibson meant by "the Bush Doctrine". So yeah, I'm going to compare them because neither of the incidents is very important.

She clearly didn't. She took at stab at it and gave some kind of blather about terrorism in general.

***SPRAYER
09-14-2008, 03:47 PM
You're comparing her during a scheduled and prepped TV interview to a campaign rally where Obama made a joke?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RRNTQvXSsfA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RRNTQvXSsfA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>