Sarah Palin has no idea what the "Bush Doctrine" is!

[IDBillzFan]

I think she sounds more more like Rosanne.

Did they just text you with that response, too?

[DC Tom]

Does that mean i'm one in a million?!!

Thanks for the compliment GG!

 

Two. I thought it was common knowledge that "Bush Doctrine" = "preemptive strike against current or future national security threats".

 

 

And the phrasing of the initial question was annoying. "Do you agree or disagree with..." Well, it's a little more complex than "yes" or "no". "What are your thoughts on..." would elicit a better answer.

[blzrul]

Two. I thought it was common knowledge that "Bush Doctrine" = "preemptive strike against current or future national security threats".

 

 

And the phrasing of the initial question was annoying. "Do you agree or disagree with..." Well, it's a little more complex than "yes" or "no". "What are your thoughts on..." would elicit a better answer.

That assumes there are thoughts.

[PastaJoe]

Did they just text you with that response, too?

 

Sorry, I don't have a Crackberry, and I said the same thing when I heard her convention speech.

[Kelly the Dog]

I guess you haven't been following these pages recently. Do you then believe the flip side that the global warming is 100% man made?

My only issue was her actual answer. Defending the fact that she may have indeed changed her position on climate change by saying "show me where I have ever said that there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any affect, or no affect, on climate change."

 

That's like saying, "I don't believe one bit that climate change is man-made, and I'd bet a million dollars on it" followed by "show me one quote where I said there is absolute proof nothing man ever did could possibly under any circumstances have any effect on climate change."

 

It just made her look ridiculous. Had nothing to do with how much climate change is man-made, God made, or natural progression.

[PastaJoe]

The Sarah Palin talking action figure:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opini...id=opinionsbox1

[John Adams]

Sorry, I don't have a Crackberry, and I said the same thing when I heard her convention speech.

 

You're about as technologically savvy as John McCain.

[bills_fan_in_raleigh]

I can't jump on her for not knowing what the Bush doctrine , I think George isn't sure what it is either. I was surprised she didnt ask senior or junior

[finknottle]

Why aren't we asking what the Obama doctrine is?

 

Oh, that's right - there isn't one. He will bring security and heal the earth's woes through dialog and the transcendence of politics. Details TBA.

[GG]

My only issue was her actual answer. Defending the fact that she may have indeed changed her position on climate change by saying "show me where I have ever said that there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any affect, or no affect, on climate change."

 

That's like saying, "I don't believe one bit that climate change is man-made, and I'd bet a million dollars on it" followed by "show me one quote where I said there is absolute proof nothing man ever did could possibly under any circumstances have any effect on climate change."

 

It just made her look ridiculous. Had nothing to do with how much climate change is man-made, God made, or natural progression.

 

To be honest, I thought she was channeling GWB with the second statement, because even after reading it 10 times, I don't understand what she said. That's why I focused on the first part.

[finknottle]

No, not at all. "Bush Doctrine" is a very specific reference to Bush's policies of preemptive war and not differentiating between terrorists and the nations that harbor them. I'd agree if Gibson had said the "Bush philosophy" or the "Bush worldview" but he specifically asked about the "Bush Doctrine".

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

 

Should we accept the wiki interpretation of the term used in the ABC interview as self-evident to anybody paying attention, or the ten different interpretations given by ABC commentators in the past?

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSF..._bush_doctr.asp

[GG]

Should we accept the wiki interpretation of the term used in the ABC interview as self-evident to anybody paying attention, or the ten different interpretations given by ABC commentators in the past?

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSF..._bush_doctr.asp

 

Yup, that's pretty much what I was getting at before.

[Kelly the Dog]

To be honest, I thought she was channeling GWB with the second statement, because even after reading it 10 times, I don't understand what she said. That's why I focused on the first part.

I think it's absolutely clear what she said and what she meant. She meant, "Unless I have actually said with my hand on the Bible that there is 100% proof that everything to do with climate change in the history of the world was a direct result of the hand of God Almighty and nothing whatsoever that man has done or could ever do would have one iota of effect on it, you cannot challenge me on any other stupid, ill-informed or completely contradictory thing I have said or may ever say."

[Kelly the Dog]

Yup, that's pretty much what I was getting at before.

We should accept the fact that she had no idea what he was talking about when he mentioned the words "Bush" and "doctrine" right next to each other in the same sentence, regardless of what it specifically means to whom.

[jjamie12]

We should accept the fact that she had no idea what he was talking about when he mentioned the words "Bush" and "doctrine" right next to each other in the same sentence, regardless of what it specifically means to whom.

That is certainly one reasonable way to interpret what happened.

 

Another very reasonable way to interpret this is her being unsure of what Gibson was getting at, isn't it? The words 'Bush Doctrine,' it seems to me, have been used to describe several different things at different times, no?

[Kelly the Dog]

That is certainly one reasonable way to interpret what happened.

 

Another very reasonable way to interpret this is her being unsure of what Gibson was getting at, isn't it? The words 'Bush Doctrine,' it seems to me, have been used to describe several different things at different times, no?

Then that is what she should have asked. To me, clearly, she was just frozen and didn't know what to say. She actually did well I thought of delaying her response by the "in what respect, Charlie?", hoping he would fill in the blanks for her. He started to, but then stopped. I think he did it because he realized she just didn't know. Then he forced her. Her second answer was the key to me she had no idea. If she knew what it was, it would have been simple to deflect the question with, "Well, the Bush Doctrine means many things to many people" or any other way to say that. But she just went on with a general interpretation of Bush's philosophies as she saw them with a generic idea of what "doctrine" meant. That, to me, was almost an inarguable clue that she had no idea what he was talking about with the phrase "Bush Doctrine".

[GG]

I think it's absolutely clear what she said and what she meant. She meant, "Unless I have actually said with my hand on the Bible that there is 100% proof that everything to do with climate change in the history of the world was a direct result of the hand of God Almighty and nothing whatsoever that man has done or could ever do would have one iota of effect on it, you cannot challenge me on any other stupid, ill-informed or completely contradictory thing I have said or may ever say."

 

I think it would have been helpful if Gibson had done a Russert and accompanied by the offending quote, which she apparently contradicts. I'm guessing it's this one:

 

A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made.

 

Since we're on a topic of dissecting minutae with respect to a MILF VP candidate who threatens the upstanding world order, seems like the argument is over an omission of the word "largely" from the earlier quotes.

 

As to the Bush Doctrine, I would also have asked Gibson what he was driving at if someone asked me point blank on what I thought of the Bush Doctrine two days ago.

[Kelly the Dog]

As to the Bush Doctrine, I would also have asked Gibson what he was driving at if someone asked me point blank on what I thought of the Bush Doctrine two days ago.

She did when he first asked it. He asked her what she thought it meant. She first said, "His worldview?" as if it was a question. He then explained when it came from and in what context, the Iraq war. Her answer had zero to do with anyone's definition of The Bush Doctrine. Her answer was what she thought of Bush's general policies. "I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is to rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hellbent 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 and democracy--with new leadership comes the opportunity to do things better." No reference whatsoever to pre-emptive attack, no reference to treating countries that coddle terrorists as being terrorists themselves, nothing about unilateralism, nothing about the spread of democracy.

 

I think it's entirely laughable that people are trying to defend her on this. So what, she didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was. It's something she should have SOME reference for. It has and will become a bigger issue IMO, not because she didn't know what it was, but because her detractors can use this, and they should, as being emblematic about her having little idea about what is really going on in the world with respect to foreign policy. She really comes off as being inexcusably naive.

 

But, hopefully, all of that will be tempered when people do realize that Russia is close to Alaska.

[The Big Cat]

The only people who call it the Bush Doctrine are lefty wonks and lefty media. I couldn't tell you what it was called either. But I remember Bush stating that in his speech to Congress.

It is also common sense. We need to kill those sub human vermin wherever they are.

 

Doesn't they way Clinton speaks remind you of the Beverly Hillbillies? (they're from the same area).

Doesn't the way Hillary speaks remind you of a Martian from "Mars Attacks!" ? She sure sounds like one to me.

 

Don't you sound like someone from Buffalo?

 

Are you including militant Christians in this category? Or just the people in funny clothes you see on TV?

[GG]

It has and will become a bigger issue IMO, not because she didn't know what it was, but because her detractors can use this, and they should, as being emblematic about her having little idea about what is really going on in the world with respect to foreign policy. She really comes off as being inexcusably naive.

 

I guess we can square one VP candidate's naivete, with the other's flawed policy positions.

 

But, hopefully, all of that will be tempered when people do realize that Russia is close to Alaska.

 

Considering Alaska's strategic position vis a vis Russia, I wouldn't discount that item. I'm guessing that as governor she's been exposed to more military/intel in her home state than a few Senators.