I bet President Bush doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is either

"You people...your party"?

I will laugh once...HA!

And the laugh again...HA HA!

And thrice for good measure...HA HA HA!!!

Obviously for some reality is an alien concept. Facts are never in evidence and their tribal leaders can do no wrong.

There is the video, she doesn't know what she is talking about. You can rewind and watch again, that may hard for some, but I think you can manage. I rest my case.

And stop spamming my clips if you got nothing to offer photo, ok.

9-12-2008 4:48 PM

If we stay on the issues, and not religion, here is what I heard her say. Please tell me what you heard.

Her knowledge of oil and gas markets in Alaska make her qualified to handle foreign affairs.

For god's sake she can SEE Russia. And yes, if Georgia joins NATO, we might have to engage in a war to defend them from Russia one day.

She thought Charlie was asking what Bush's main objective was when he asked about the Bush Doctrine. Initially she said we do need to root out islamic extremists. She didn't understand he was really asking about the notion of pre-emptive strikes on any country we view as threats. She seemed to go on record agreeing with this doctrine, but she left room for us to misinterpret her.

9-12-2008 7:25 PM

Seems Charles Gibson doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is either.

9-12-2008 7:46 PM

I think he explained pretty well. The fact that he had to explain it to Palin is a bit of a problem.

9-12-2008 10:20 PM

cptenaud

@sparlingphoto

Weak...just pathetically weak arguments. You people, and your party, are grasping at straws.

YOU PEOPLE!

What do you mean you people.

9-12-2008 10:39 PM

YOU PEOPLE!

What do you mean you people.

I think he means everybody outside the bunker.

9-13-2008 1:45 AM

I think he explained pretty well. The fact that he had to explain it to Palin is a bit of a problem.

Notice that he actually contradicted himself when he told her the meaning. He had previously defined the Bush doctrine the exact same way she did, but that just wouldn't do for his big gotcha moment.

You will also notice that Gibson said "The Bush doctrine as I understand it is...." Why couldn't he clarify that when she asked for clarification? How is she supposed to know what the Bush doctrine as Charles Gibson understands it is?

The problem with this whole question is that there is NO official Bush doctrine. Nowhere is there a paper written up by Bush or the Bush administr...

9-13-2008 7:31 AM

I think it is well written, if you have heard and read all of Bush's speeches for the last 7 years or so. Rarely does these "doctrines" get spelled out in a position paper (unless you count all the White Papers by the AEI). She should have had some idea of what he was talking about,and then of course when told she actually agreed with it, which makes it worse.

9-13-2008 8:22 AM

"Preemption, rather than reaction" summarizes the Bush doctrine which congealed in the wake of a conservative and national backlash against the weakening of the United State's power and security in the world. More accurately attributed as the "Wolfowitz doctrine", and detailed in the National Security Strategy Document (National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction) promulgated by the junior Bush's administration, it promotes use of unilateral preemptive force and persuasion rather than honest multi-lateral cooperation.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_doctrine
Who among you have never heard about this?

— Comment removed by clipper —

9-13-2008 2:01 PM

sparlingphoto

Before I get blocked...let me add again...grasping at straws !

9-13-2008 2:08 PM

She should have had some idea of what he was talking about,

She did have some idea. What she didn't have was the power to read Gibson's mind. He expected her to know what the Bush doctrine meant to him, but he didn't want to tell her what that was until after she attempted to answer the question. But even though he said she was wrong, her answer was strikingly similar to how Gibson once described it when he said it was, “a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated.”

Who among you have never heard about this?

Sorry, but I didn't get the memo that Source Watch was the official keeper of the definition of the...

9-13-2008 4:05 PM

Ok sparling, now you crossed the line into professional troll. nations need leaders that know what they are talking about. Palin does not. If you see someone asking a question about that as weak, that is your problem, not mine.

So here is where we part ways. I don't have to put up with your bullshit so beat it.

N2. In fact the Bush doctrine (should be called the Cheney doctrine but hey) is not even his, it is Wolfowitz and there was no question what it was and is. Palin missed that one because she wasn't prep for it. Why not be adult about it and admit it?

And no surprise that Krauthammer said he was wrong, neocons protect each other.

Gibson definition was right, Palin didn't know,...

9-13-2008 4:31 PM

n2sooners, I may have caused you to misunderstand me regarding sourcewatch. I had never heard of this and I did a search and posted what I found. I suspect many don't really know the facts, and I agree, Charlie was condescending on this point. I do understand President Bush to believe in pre-emptive ware are a right of our nation, but I might be wrong. I do understand some are concerned about such a strategy not melding with our history or our ability to be a good example to the world. You might say screw them. I suspect many McCain voters feel the way Bush does, and many Obama voters don't. Others haven't a clue about the policy and I attempted to find some real basis ...

9-13-2008 4:45 PM

Gibson definition was right

Which Gibson definition? Even Gibson's definitions of the Bush doctrine aren't the same. Palin wasn't wrong. Gibson asked a gotcha question and refused to clarify it when asked. The only loser here was Gibson's journalistic integrity.

9-17-2008 6:17 AM

Hmmm. Seems in 2005 McCain could explain the Bush doctrine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1lf1I4eFTw&sdig=1
That's exactly how Charlie defined it.

9-17-2008 9:41 AM

Hmmm. Seems in 2005 McCain could explain the Bush doctrine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1lf1I4eFTw&sdig=1
That's exactly how Charlie defined it.

Yes, that is one way. The way Palin described it (and Gibson has also described it) is another. There are also other ways it has been described. The term was first used three months before 9/11, so it has been around nearly Bush's entire term. If Gibson specifically wanted her to discuss preemption then he should have told her that when she tried to get him to clarify his question. He left it open to her interpretation then tried to make it look as if she was wrong.

9-17-2008 10:54 AM