Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: CptTrips on September 15, 2008, 08:20:45 PM
-
I just had to laugh reading the news tonight.
According to CBS' Jon Friedman:
"Specifically, Palin seemed to have little idea about the Bush Doctrine, in which the U.S must spread democracy around the world to halt terrorist acts."
(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/15/business/marketwatch/main4448337.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/15/business/marketwatch/main4448337.shtml))
But according to Gibson himself:
“The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a pre-emptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us.”
(http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/12/palins-definition-of-bush-doctrine-hits-the-gibson-mark/ (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/12/palins-definition-of-bush-doctrine-hits-the-gibson-mark/))
It seems the elite media can not agree on a common definition of the "Bush Doctrine" themselves.
:rolleyes:,
Wab
-
“Charlie Gibson got it wrong. There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration—and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different. He asked Palin, ‘Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?’ She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, ‘In what respect, Charlie?’ Sensing his ‘gotcha’ moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine ‘is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.’ Wrong. I know something about the subject because... I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, ‘The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,’ I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine. Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: ‘Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.’ This ‘with us or against us’ policy regarding terror... became the essence of the Bush doctrine. Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine. It’s not. It’s the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world... Yes, Sarah Palin didn’t know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn’t pretend to know—while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and ‘sounding like an impatient teacher,’ as the [New York] Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes’ reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.”
from an article by Charles Krauthammer
-
does obama know what the "bush doctrine" is?
-
I just had to laugh reading the news tonight.
According to CBS' Jon Friedman:
"Specifically, Palin seemed to have little idea about the Bush Doctrine, in which the U.S must spread democracy around the world to halt terrorist acts."
(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/15/business/marketwatch/main4448337.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/15/business/marketwatch/main4448337.shtml))
But according to Gibson himself:
“The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a pre-emptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us.”
(http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/12/palins-definition-of-bush-doctrine-hits-the-gibson-mark/ (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/12/palins-definition-of-bush-doctrine-hits-the-gibson-mark/))
It seems the elite media can not agree on a common definition of the "Bush Doctrine" themselves.
:rolleyes:,
Wab
both links are a part of it. :aok
-
Interesting reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine
For me, if I know the guy walking towards me intends to produce a handgun and murder me, then I am fully within my rights to defend myself BEFORE being shot to death.
Thing is though, I had better be damned certain of it. In any event, it is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six. Life is no guarantee of fairness.
-
both links are a part of it. :aok
Not according to the man who coined the term. Or do you know more about it than he does?
This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine. It’s not.
(See Virgil's post above..)
:rolleyes:,
Wab
-
Ya all that's true, but Gov Palin had no idea what he was talking about. Her mistake was trying to answer a bad question. If she had responded "explain the doctrine as you understand it" or something similar. Instead she tried to bluff her way through it.
Keep it short, simple and get to the point quickly. (good idea in police interrogations too)
-
Ya all that's true, but Gov Palin had no idea what he was talking about. Her mistake was trying to answer a bad question. If she had responded "explain the doctrine as you understand it" or something similar. Instead she tried to bluff her way through it.
Keep it short, simple and get to the point quickly. (good idea in police interrogations too)
The point is, HE didn't know what he was talking about. As clearly stated above, that is no longer the "Bush Doctrine". Further, she asked only "In what respect?", and HE refused to answer. What the Hell else was she supposed to say?
-
She should have pushed him to explain. Or went offensive; When you can explain it, I can answer it.
Of course when you on the hot seat swinging at a foul ball happens. This is not even a speed bump. I found her answer on Soviet Georgia more a concern than this.
-
A local radio host was talking about this today; he said that Gibson asked the same question of Obama but gave his definition of the Bush Doctrine in the question. He also said that if your read the entire transcript from the interview; what they aired was highly edited and cut Palin off mid-answer on some questions. I have not verified this.
I'm loosing what little respect I've had for the media; they are so anti-right, especially Palin. Next thing you know they'll be digging up her old spelling tests from the first grade to prove that she cheated...
-
A local radio host was talking about this today; he said that Gibson asked the same question of Obama but gave his definition of the Bush Doctrine in the question. He also said that if your read the entire transcript from the interview; what they aired was highly edited and cut Palin off mid-answer on some questions. I have not verified this.
I'm loosing what little respect I've had for the media; they are so anti-right, especially Palin. Next thing you know they'll be digging up her old spelling tests from the first grade to prove that she cheated...
Are you saying she did? :O !
-
I'm loosing what little respect I've had for the media; they are so anti-right, especially Palin.
Better to judge everything your informed of with a highly skeptical eye. Anytime someone is providing you with information they have a high opportunity to misinform you to suit their interest.
-
Better to judge everything your informed of with a highly skeptical eye. Anytime someone is providing you with information they have a high opportunity to misinform you to suit their interest.
yeager, you are catching on! :aok
-
A local radio host was talking about this today; he said that Gibson asked the same question of Obama but gave his definition of the Bush Doctrine in the question. He also said that if your read the entire transcript from the interview; what they aired was highly edited and cut Palin off mid-answer on some questions. I have not verified this.
I'm loosing what little respect I've had for the media; they are so anti-right, especially Palin. Next thing you know they'll be digging up her old spelling tests from the first grade to prove that she cheated...
..or maybe truth doesn't match the persona pushed down your throat? Maybe someone who pats themselves on the back for something that wasn't the way she said it was is not as attractive as she is? No one is picking on her, they are simply exposing the realism of Paline and you just might not like it? Kinda kills me how people buy into what someone says about themselves, not that they would be sharply biased or anything, but then the people who expose the facts are chumps just starting trouble.
-
..or maybe truth doesn't match the persona pushed down your throat? Maybe someone who pats themselves on the back for something that wasn't the way she said it was is not as attractive as she is? No one is picking on her, they are simply exposing the realism of Paline and you just might not like it? Kinda kills me how people buy into what someone says about themselves, not that they would be sharply biased or anything, but then the people who expose the facts are chumps just starting trouble.
I'm just saying that the media is digging into Palin's past at 5X the rate of the other three. The media should be objective and fair.
One more example of leaning left:
My local paper ran two editorials on Sunday, side by side. One was basically down with McCain the other was down with Obama. The McCain article was 4 columns wide, had a huge title and a cartoon. The Obama one was one column wide, with a little title. It went the full height of the paper and was about the same length. One jumps out at you, the other looks less worthy.
-
atleast they took the time to write it. If it were NBC, they'd spend an hour on Obama, and about 20 seconds on McCain POSITIVELY.