Bush Doctrine? Uhh uhh uhh....

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:07 pm

Good luck with this fucking albatross Republicans. This dumb bitch didn't even know what the Bush Doctrine is.

rozy · Post by **rozy** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:09 pm

Guess she is not more of the same, then, eh Skippy?

Present

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:11 pm

rozy wrote:Guess she is not more of the same, then, eh Skippy?

You mean like Bush not knowing the name of the President of Pakistan before taking office?

Nope, this dumb bitch who couldn't even be bothered to finish college is definitely of the same intellectual wattage as our current CinC.

rozy · Post by **rozy** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:15 pm

So it is a world-wide civics question rather than policy?

More of the same or not, moron?

Present

rozy · Post by **rozy** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:17 pm

Bush-Harvard
Obama-Harvard

More of the same

Present

rozy · Post by **rozy** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:23 pm

Love that "Why did I have to spend my time on this stupidity" expression as he irreverantly tosses the rose. Where was Michelle?

Present

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:26 pm

BSmack wrote:This dumb bitch didn't even know what the Bush Doctrine is.

Just because Charlie got it wrong doesn't make him a dumb bitch.

You dumb bitch.

rozy · Post by **rozy** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:29 pm

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

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

PALIN: His world view.

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

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

This is what Bri is pumping his C-Cups about?

Stupid question and she shoved it up Gibson's rear.

Present

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 1:13 pm

Charles Gibson Gets It Wrong
John Podhoretz - 09.11.2008 - 6:38 PM

ABC has released excerpts from Charlie Gibson’s interview with Sarah Palin, and in one of them, he attempts to catch her out by asking her to explain something she said:

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

PALIN: You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.

GIBSON: Exact words.

In fact, it was not the exact quote; and the way Gibson quoted her is a complete misrepresentation of what she said. It may, indeed, be close to the opposite of what she said. This is the actual quote, and it’s from an article in a Palin-unfriendly source, The Huffington Post:

“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 [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,” she exhorted the congregants. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

She was asking the congregation to “pray…that our leaders…are sending [soldiers] out on a task that is from God.”

She was precisely not declaring that the task was from God. She specifically said the church’s congregants should pray “that that plan is God’s plan.” There would be no need for such a prayer if it were a fact to her and to them.

Palin quickly followed up with Gibson by saying, “the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said…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.”

This is the Lincoln quote to which she alluded: “Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.”

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 1:23 pm

I know exactly how I'd deal with the VPILF...offshore-drill her doggie style.

I think she's clueless about the Bush Doctrine 'cuz she's had a brazilian wax. Yowsah.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 2:08 pm

rozy wrote:So it is a world-wide civics question rather than policy?

In Palin's case it was a policy question. And she failed miserably.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:20 pm

mvscal wrote:
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?
Show of hands of those who DON'T agree with that? Nor is it a question of "rights." The only "rights" a nation has are those it can defend.

You don't understand it, obviously. Of course that is only one tactical aspect of the Bush Doctrine. Probably the only one poor Charlie knows about.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 4:13 pm

BSmack wrote:
rozy wrote:So it is a world-wide civics question rather than policy?
In Palin's case it was a policy question. And she failed miserably.

She was asked about a specific news item, and she was unfamiliar with the reference.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 4:22 pm

PSUFAN wrote:
BSmack wrote:
rozy wrote:So it is a world-wide civics question rather than policy?
In Palin's case it was a policy question. And she failed miserably.
She was asked about a specific news item, and she was unfamiliar with the reference.

Actually she was asked a vague generalized question, and when he specified the aspect of said doctrine (which he probably thought was the whole thing) she gave a good answer.

Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

KC Scott · Post by **KC Scott** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 4:23 pm

mvscal wrote:
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?
Show of hands of those who DON'T agree with that? Nor is it a question of "rights." The only "rights" a nation has are those it can defend.

International law will never be anything more than theater for the ignorant and dishonest. The simple reason is that no responsible nation will ever willingly act contrary to its interests.

I agree with this completely.

The Problem with Iraq is they weren't planning to attack us

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 4:27 pm

PSUFAN wrote:
BSmack wrote:
rozy wrote:So it is a world-wide civics question rather than policy?
In Palin's case it was a policy question. And she failed miserably.
She was asked about a specific news item, and she was unfamiliar with the reference.

Considering that "news item" was the justification for our invasion and present occupation of Iraq, I'd say she fucked up pretty badly.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 4:33 pm

The question referred to the Bush Doctrine - which has a pretty commonly understood definition, and has been used quite a bit in the past few years.

It is apparent, from Sarah Palin's answer, that she wasn't familiar with the reference. She did a pretty credible job answering more generally, despite that fact.

That's about as neutral a description of what happened that you're going to find.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 4:50 pm

Yes, initially. Preemptive war followed.

The only official declaration of these policies is here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/nss2006.pdf

Either way, I think it's a fair assumption that Sarah Palin was unfamiliar with the term. It seemed that she thought Gibson was referring to the Bush's administration policies as a whole. I don't think that her unfamiliarity in and of itself is damning, as I say I think her response, after further topical prompting, was credible.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 4:52 pm

mvscal wrote:
PSUFAN wrote:The question referred to the Bush Doctrine - which has a pretty commonly understood definition, and has been used quite a bit in the past few years.

It is apparent, from Sarah Palin's answer, that she wasn't familiar with the reference.
Not surprising since Gibson is the one who flubbed the definition. Premptive self-defense is not the Bush Doctrine. The Bush Doctrine is that we will treat nations which harbor and aid terrorists as terrorists.

And if she had said what you just posted, I would have been more impressed with her. But she didn't. In fact, she used Gibson's definition as the entire basis for her halfwitted bumbling reply.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:10 pm

Sure.

rozy · Post by **rozy** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:58 pm

88 wrote:Take it easy on Bri, rozy. He doesn't think for himself, and the comrades that furnish his talking points haven't quite figured out how to deal with the next veep.

And where is Bri's thread about this stuff?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/11/ ... /biden.php

I wonder if she knew about Russia's veto power in the UN Security Council? Bri missed popping up that thread as well.

I love the Obots. Trainwreck comedy at its' best.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 6:05 pm

rozy wrote:

Love that "Why did I have to spend my time on this stupidity" expression as he irreverantly tosses the rose. Where was Michelle?

Present

You're not serious, right? You're really claiming that he "irreverently" tossed the rose?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 6:06 pm

rozy wrote:I wonder if she knew about Russia's veto power in the UN Security Council? Bri missed popping up that thread as well.

I can't be expected to follow EVERY gaffe the Earmark Queen makes. Was this also in the ABC interview?

rozy · Post by **rozy** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 6:08 pm

Zing...

rozy · Post by **rozy** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 6:08 pm

PSUFAN wrote:
rozy wrote:

Love that "Why did I have to spend my time on this stupidity" expression as he irreverantly tosses the rose. Where was Michelle?

Present
You're not serious, right? You're really claiming that he "irreverently" tossed the rose?

Present

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 6:13 pm

That's what I thought.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 6:16 pm

rozy wrote:

Where was Michelle?

Present

She's trying to decide whether she's still proud to be an American now that The One's poll numbers are dropping.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 6:32 pm

BSmack wrote:...Earmark Queen...

BTW...

STATE SENATOR 2007 LIFETIME
Arizona McCain (R) 100% 88%

Illinois Obama (D) 10% 18%

Delaware Biden (D) 0% 22%

JayDuck · Post by **JayDuck** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 6:43 pm

mvscal wrote:
PSUFAN wrote:Either way, I think it's a fair assumption that Sarah Palin was unfamiliar with the term.
I don't.

In what respect, mvscal?

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 6:44 pm

BSmack wrote: ...this dumb bitch who couldn't even be bothered to finish college is definitely of the same intellectual wattage as our current CinC.

At least she was smart enough to not be quoted as saying she wasn't even the best candidate for the job, unlike a certain Dem VP nominee. And judging from the desperate reaction coming from the libs over Sarah, I'm liking the pick more and more.

Sheesh, I haven't seen the left get their panties in such a wad since the SC 'stole' the 2000 election.

This is Great! :D

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 6:52 pm

War Wagon wrote:Sheesh, I haven't seen the left get their panties in such a wad since the SC 'stole' the 2000 election.

That's because not only is their 'change' candidate going down in flames, he's proving to be more of the same.

Basicly Jimmy Carter with a suntan- except with less economic and foriegn relations savvy.

Whereas Palin represents not only actual change for the present, but a generational shift for the future.

Palin/Jindal '16 (or '12 if McCain decides to quit after one term).

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 6:53 pm

War Wagon wrote:
BSmack wrote:...this dumb bitch who couldn't even be bothered to finish college is definitely of the same intellectual wattage as our current CinC.
At least she was smart enough to not be quoted as saying she wasn't even the best candidate for the job, unlike a certain Dem VP nominee.

So what? Since when is humility a bad thing?

The Seer · Post by **The Seer** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 7:32 pm

My ONLY complaint about Palin in the interview is that old Bush bugaboo....

It is NOT pronounced newkewler

They let Bush pronounce it that way for 8 friggin years...can SOMEONE please tell her it's okay to learn how to pronounce that word???

New-klee-er

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 7:42 pm

mvscal wrote:He asked a vague question about the "Bush Doctrine", she asked for specifics and then responded with a sensible answer when she got them.

The Bush Doctrine "enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war" stated that we were going to go after Islamic terrorists with military force and if you harbor them or support them, you are on our shitlist. It did not morph into a "right of anticipatory self-defense" later.

Gibson's understanding is flawed. He was confusing tactics with strategy. Palin nudged him back on course here:

Gibson's understanding meshes perfectly with John McCain's understanding.

You can prevaricate all you wish. But the fact remains that Gibson's question was a simple question for anyone with even a college level understanding of diplomacy and political science. Which apparently Palin does not possess.

Terry in Crapchester · Fri Sep 12, 2008 7:57 pm

rozy wrote:Bush-Harvard
Obama-Harvard

More of the same

If you actually believed the underlined portion of your post, you'd be backing Obama.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 7:58 pm

mvscal wrote:OK. So you aren't even going to pretend to make any sense. I got it.

What is it about having McCain's own words used against him that you don't like?

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 8:18 pm

have another one Bri---no wait--take the whole tub full----no one has done a better job of parroting the daily talking points of the DemocRAT/Obama/Chicago/Daley machine. You earned it !

stuckinia · Post by **stuckinia** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 8:20 pm

I preferred Mr. Schwump's posts.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 8:36 pm

I got to rap with some Lyndon LaRouche volunteer today outside the DMV.

I have to say, I am in total agreement. Palin, WITH the glasses on. Hair down of course, have to have something to pull.

Mr. Schwump · Post by **Mr. Schwump** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:34 pm

Mr. B-Smack's cheerleaders. There ya go Mr. Stuckinia.