Palin Stumped On “Bush Doctrine” - Page 2

jhffmn · #11 (**permalink**) 09-11-2008, 09:10 PM

Now of course in mentioning the Bush doctrine Gibson was referring to preemption vs. prevention. However, her answer addressed the purpose of the Bush doctrine.

The beginning of the Bush doctrine.

Quote:

THE great struggles of the twentieth century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom -- and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise. In the twenty-first century, only nations that share a commitment to protecting basic human rights and guaranteeing political and economic freedom will be able to unleash the potential of their people and assure their future prosperity. People everywhere want to say what they think; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children -- male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society -- and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages.

Today, the United States enjoys a position of unparalleled military strength and great economic and political influence. In keeping with our heritage and principles, we do not use our strength to press for unilateral advantage. We seek instead to create a balance of power that favors human freedom: conditions in which all nations and all societies can choose for themselves the rewards and challenges of political and economic liberty. By making the world safer, we allow the people of the world to make their own lives better. We will defend this just peace against threats from terrorists and tyrants. We will preserve the peace by building good relations among the great powers. We will extend the peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent.

Defending our Nation against its enemies is the first and fundamental commitment of the Federal Government. Today, that task has changed dramatically. Enemies in the past needed great armies and great industrial capabilities to endanger America. Now, shadowy networks of individuals can bring great chaos and suffering to our shores for less than it costs to purchase a single tank. Terrorists are organized to penetrate open societies and to turn the power of modern technologies against us.

To defeat this threat we must make use of every tool in our arsenal -- from better homeland defenses and law enforcement to intelligence and cutting off terrorist financing. The war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise of uncertain duration. America will help nations that need our assistance in combating terror. And America will hold to account nations that are compromised by terror -- because the allies of terror are the enemies of civilization. The United States and countries cooperating with us must not allow the terrorists to develop new home bases. Together, we will seek to deny them sanctuary at every turn.

J.Anderson · #12 (**permalink**) 09-11-2008, 09:23 PM

So let us look over the spin on the board so far:

Palin didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was because:

a) The Bush Doctrine is a left-wing fantasy and only fanatical liberals know what it means

b) She actually DID know what it means, and Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

c) The Bush Doctrine is a hopelessly amorphous philosophy that could mean any number of things to many different people, thus her seeming confusion was actually a nuanced attempt at clarity.

Calminian · #13 (**permalink**) 09-11-2008, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.Anderson

So let us look over the spin on the board so far:

Palin didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was because:

a) The Bush Doctrine is a left-wing fantasy and only fanatical liberals know what it means

b) She actually DID know what it means, and Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

c) The Bush Doctrine is a hopelessly amorphous philosophy that could mean any number of things to many different people, thus her seeming confusion was actually a nuanced attempt at clarity.

You are avoiding the obvious. Are you saying you agree with Gibson's definition? The truth is, it's not a technical term and you'll get a range of opinions of what it actually means.

lawhite · #14 (**permalink**) 09-11-2008, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by f100supersabr

asked about Russia she responded " you know Charlie you can see Russia from here" ..

Yes, she was in Alaska at the time, and yes, you can see Russia from there, and yes, it does give a different world view when Russia is 3 miles away.

Professor Peabody · #15 (**permalink**) 09-11-2008, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by f100supersabr

It was repoprted that during an interview by Charlie Gibson an interviewer hand picked by the Rove gang interview on ABC, Gov. Sarah Palin seemed unprepared for a question about Bush’s foreign policy doctrine of preemptive war.

This is good !! How ready is the Igloo Princess !!!! Not very I woiuld say.

Gibson: Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?

Palin: In what respect, Charlie?

Gibson: What do you interpret it to be?

Palin: His world view?

Gibson: No, the Bush Doctrine enunciated in September 2002 before the Iraq war.

Then The Igloo Princess gets on a role ::

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.

Quote:

The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, enunciated in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan.[1] Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq), a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism, and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.[2][3][4] Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002.[5]

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

That's a complicated Doctrine, her question in what respect was a very valid one and pinned Gibson to a definitive answer. Gibson was trying to lead her down the primrose path right into a block wall. She dodged his every attempt to steer her into a corner....nice work!

Pro Deus Et Patria · #16 (**permalink**) 09-11-2008, 11:18 PM

This was pretty unbelievable to me. Anyone who was in America since 9/11 knows the answer to this question, the media made it famous for only a year and a half straight because it was so controversial. Sure, sure, I'm certian Jay Leno could find a few people on the street who don't know what it is, but these are people who can't find Iraq on a map. Anyone who is up on current affairs knows this one, it's still discussed today in the context of Georgia and Iran. I heard David Gergen discuss it three weeks ago, and I read an article by Fareed Zakaria this year that referred to it.

WHAT IS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL IN CHARGE OF A STATE AND ASKED TO BE VP DOING NOT KNOWING THIS??????????????????

Pro Deus Et Patria · #17 (**permalink**) 09-11-2008, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MidwestMax

What is interesting is that The Bush Doctrine is a fantasy of the left. No one can answer the question unles you are a Bush hater equipped with all of the DNC talking points.

You don't even know what you're talking about. The doctrine was laid out by the Bush administration themselves.

Pro Deus Et Patria · #18 (**permalink**) 09-12-2008, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.Anderson

So let us look over the spin on the board so far:

Palin didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was because:

a) The Bush Doctrine is a left-wing fantasy and only fanatical liberals know what it means

b) She actually DID know what it means, and Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

c) The Bush Doctrine is a hopelessly amorphous philosophy that could mean any number of things to many different people, thus her seeming confusion was actually a nuanced attempt at clarity.

Just because YOU don't know what it is does NOT mean that it's left-wing fantasy, that Gibson got it wrong and that the doctrine is hopelessly amorphous.

It's not a left-wing fantasy. It emerged and became rapidly famous because it represented a dramatic departure from prevailing doctrine that defined the previous 50 or so years. That America would assert a stance of pre-emptive action rather than deterrence is what has defined the Bush presidency in the world and what we essentially argue about to this very day. It is the doctrine that justifies attacking Iraq, if for no other reason, because it keeps them from attacking us in the future. This doctrine was a big deal internationally because it basically meant if Bush points his finger at you, you're a legitimate target in the eyes of America. This immediately dismantled complex international relationships and had a polarizing effect for the United States vis a vis the world.

You can find more than one thread in the last 24 hours in this forum arguing over what is the Bush doctrine.

It's too bad someone who is "ready to lead" and has "executive experience" and is "more qualified than the other ticket's president" and has "foreign policy experience" and has "national security experience" doesn't know the singular policy of the Bush administration that wound up destabilizing our international reputation and had a more polarizing effect on the American public than what we've seen since the Red Scare and persists TODAY.

Glinda · #19 (**permalink**) 09-12-2008, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calminian

Well, the thing is, it's vague. It depends on who's defining it. It's not a technical term and people define it differently. I wonder how Bush or McCain would describe it.

So... what you're saying is, it depends on what your definition of "is" is.

DuH2 · #20 (**permalink**) 09-12-2008, 12:30 AM

The "Bush Doctrine" can be in regards to foreign, domestic, economic, social, energy, you name it.

Quote:

The truth is, it's not a technical term and you'll get a range of opinions of what it actually means.

Exactly right.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Whatever..when she got Gibson to tell her what he meant she answered. This is just a lame ass attempt by a crowd who has once again been smacked a Governor who will become Vice President.

Now they will harp about the debate with Biden and how much she will suck bla bla...when she doesn't they will pull more of this crap.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
McCain Aide Stumped On Palin's National Security Experience	Decisions_Are_Mine	Elections & Campaigns	13	09-28-2008 09:13 AM
What is the Obama Doctrine ? anyone....?	McCain or Obama ?	Elections & Campaigns	20	09-12-2008 02:51 AM
The Other McCain Doctrine	SeminalBlog	Political Blogs	0	05-20-2008 07:40 AM
... Ok the Limeys' stumped me here.	Yishai	Political Opinions & Beliefs	2	04-17-2008 11:54 PM
"Fairness Doctrine"-Bush Primises to Veto if it comes up.	DuH2	Media & Commentators	140	04-01-2008 02:15 PM