I was wondering what the spin would be.

Oh, for crying in a bucket. This is the spin? I'm going to bed now. See you tomorrow.

submitter: Charlie Gibson, 2001: Bush Doctrine says terrorist organizations will be attacked and defeated. Gibson, 2008: Bush Doctrine says US will preemptively attack any countries we believe are going to attack us. No need for clarificaiton, really

Wow, instagreen. Freaking born green.

I mean, greenlit when it was the very, very top item in the queue.

Go Fark!

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. Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war

Wooo! "Controversy"!

Someone needs spell check.

Sarah Palin 2008: In what respect, Charlie? His world view? Wharrgarbl wharrgarbl wharrgarbl wharrgarbl.

Spin it however you want, it doesn't change anything.

It certainly doesn't change the fact that after Palin opens her mouth a few more times in public that her celebrity will fade and she'll end up a flash in the pan.

By the time the VP debate is over she'll look like a Pet Rock with lipstick and a pant suit.

/too tired to photoshop a Pet Rock with lipstick and a pant suit.

Psychotropic: Sarah Palin 2008: In what respect, Charlie? His world view? Wharrgarbl wharrgarbl wharrgarbl wharrgarbl.

How about

Sarah Palin 2008: There's nothing conclusive to show that mankind caused global climate change.
Sarah Palin, TWO WHOLE WEEKS LATER: Mankind is causing global climate change.

I totally agree. Charlie should not be allowed to be VP.

This is ridiculous.

It is completely amazing to me that people are sacrificing all credibility to try and save this women.

Nothing against her but they should send her back to Alaska. she is really, really, really, not ready for this.

Uh, the official Bush Doctrine wasn't written until 2002. CG in 2001 was speaking in general terms about Bush's philosophy. Gibson in 2008 was asking about THE OFFICIAL FRIKKEN BUSH DOCTRINE that was codified and used as part of the rationalization for war with Iraq.

And yeah this is spin because she obviously had no clue what the Bush Doctrine was. (or more importantly anything international) Whether Charlie Gibson knows what it is is irrelevant since he's not running for VP.

Atillathepun: Uh, the official Bush Doctrine wasn't written until 2002. CG in 2001 was speaking in general terms about Bush's philosophy. Gibson in 2008 was asking about THE OFFICIAL FRIKKEN BUSH DOCTRINE that was codified and used as part of the rationalization for war with Iraq.

This, this, eleventy times this. Weekly Standard and the rest of the apologists can spin it all they want, but Gibson was CLEARLY speaking in general terms in 2001 and in 2008 was asking for the specifics which make up the philosophy. Two VASTLY different things.

lexshine: It is completely amazing to me that people are sacrificing all credibility to try and save this women.

I keep trying to wrap my head around why the GOP seems to have come completely unglued as far as the current campaign. The only wildly improbable scenario I can come up with is that McCain, with the help of a few others, is playing Sampson and pulling the temple down around himself. He's such a maverick that he's going to burn the diseased corpse of the Republican Party while he has the chance, in hopes that a new GOP built around fiscal conservatism and Christian compassion can rise phoenix-like from the ashes.

It's either that, or they're a pack of complete idiots.

So this is the thread where JQPublic, Convincing Savant and the other Palin footlickers will make their heroic stand?

The phrase "The Bush Doctrine" was coined in 2001 by Charles Krauthammer in February of 2001^. It originally meant that the US should and would act unilaterally in world affairs.

After 9/11 the term had been extended with reference to unilateral action against states who "harbor terrorists" (early in 2002^) and then to mean unilateral preemptive war in general. It was used in that last context by neoconservatives like Norman Podhoretz since at least as early as September of 2002^.

The phrase has had the meaning that it currently has for 6 years. So no, Subby, you cannot has your talking point.

The hardcore republicans will smear and discredit every single credible individual, drag the American intellect down to sub-human levels, and dropkick our country back to the 1800s in order to preserve the _{some old guy}/PALIN ticket. When do you say, "Enough's enough. Reality's not made for the neocon dream"?

/Or is there something I'm missing that really makes her the Next Great Leader of (Wo)men?

Practical_Draconian: So this is the thread where JQPublic, Convincing Savant and the other Palin footlickers will make their heroic stand?

Don't worry, someone will be along shortly with some of this:

Ha! The Weekly Standard itself was using "the Bush Doctrine" in a context outside of the "war on terror" in March of 2002^:

THE FULL SWEEP of the new Bush Doctrine was on display this past week, as President Bush traveled through North Asia delivering a consistent and powerful message: American security and global security require a determined assault not just on terrorists but on the three-headed hydra of tyranny, terror, and weapons of mass destruction. The imperative of regime change was the core message of Bush's State of the Union address. This week Bush made plain that the implications of his doctrine go beyond North Korea, Iran, and Iraq, the "axis of evil."

PWNT!

HansensDisease: Ha! The Weekly Standard itself was using "the Bush Doctrine" in a context outside of the "war on terror" in March of 2002^:

That was brutal.

/thread

They'll stop at nothing to try and spin this, huh?

Suckers born every minute, I guess. Some retards will lap this up like gospel.

Just how incompetent do you have to be for Charlie Gibson to destroy you with softball questions?

Occam's Chainsaw: That was brutal.

And the best part is that they can't send the pwnage to a memory hole because it's not on their site.

/thread

If only. There'll be at least 12 more hours of wharrgarble after this hits the Politics tab.

HansensDisease: If only. There'll be at least 12 more hours of wharrgarble after this hits the Politics tab.

No doubt. Speaking of, I've not seen Canis around for a bit. Did he throw up his hands and find an echo chamber more to his liking?

And really, no matter what your interpretation of the Bush doctrine, Palin screwed up the answer. First she punted, then she gave some BS about Bush's worldview, and finally after Gibson explained what it meant she re-stated the meaning in a way that was wrong

She talked about attacking a country if it posed an imminent threat, but that's always been the position of the US. The whole point of the Bush doctrine in the context of outright war was that we're willing to start a war not just to preempt an imminent attack, but to prevent a hypothetical future attack

This was a huge subject of foreign policy debate that filtered down well into the public sphere back in 2002/2003. The fact Palin wasn't aware of it at all shows she's paid less attention to foreign policy than probably a good 10-20% of the country

Yes, 10-20% of the country almost certainly understands foreign policy better than the Vice Presidential candidate of a major party whose running mate is a 72-year old multiple cancer survivor

It is time to farking panic

Occam's Chainsaw: I've not seen Canis around for a bit. Did he throw up his hands and find an echo chamber more to his liking?

He must sleep sometime. He was in some thread I was reading earlier yesterday.

HansensDisease: He must sleep sometime. He was in some thread I was reading earlier yesterday.

Enh, must be his day off.

So, to sum up - The Weekly Standard: not just zero credibility, but somehow invents negative credibility. Repub apologists: still spinning just as hard as they can. Palin: foreign policy knowledge of a fruit bat with half the travel range. Media: Tits on a boar hog useless, as usual. That about it?

He specified in the interview 'The Bush doctrine as laid out by President Bush in 2002' so uh... Yeah. Next.

For what it's worth though, I've always heard it referred to as the "Bush doctrine of preemptive warfare'. It might have been a more fair question if Gibson had phrased it like that.

Defiance_: For what it's worth though, I've always heard it referred to as the "Bush doctrine of preemptive warfare'. It might have been a more fair question if Gibson had phrased it like that.

Again though, even after he explained in detail what it was, she fumbled and didn't describe it correctly. What a joke

crayz: Again though, even after he explained in detail what it was, she fumbled and didn't describe it correctly. What a joke

No question, she had absolutely no idea WTF it was.

HansensDisease: Occam's Chainsaw: I've not seen Canis around for a bit. Did he throw up his hands and find an echo chamber more to his liking?

He must sleep sometime. He was in some thread I was reading earlier yesterday.

Na, had to leave work to take me elderly mum to the Emergency room. I don't blame her for asking for a clarification; would have liked a more solid answer from her, but all in all, meh, not a disqualifier and certianly not the "OMG WE NEED TO PANICK" that many Obama Supporters are making this out to be.

The problem is, with 81% of the Population believing the Media is activly trying to get Obama elected, they've squandered thier credability and this won't hurt her a bit. In fact, Gibson is taking lots of heat for apparently being a "douche" -

The battlegrounds are up in the air and Barry is losing his grip on it; here's hoping Billy C gave him some advice to keep this a race. (Though not hoping too hard)

HansensDisease: Occam's Chainsaw: That was brutal.

And the best part is that they can't send the pwnage to a memory hole because it's not on their site.

/thread

If only. There'll be at least 12 more hours of wharrgarble after this hits the Politics tab.

That's not really pwnage, just demonstrating that "The Bush Doctrine" has been used in many forms over the years and give her more of a reason to ask for clarification :P

CanisNoir: That's not really pwnage, just demonstrating that "The Bush Doctrine" has been used in many forms over the years and give her more of a reason to ask for clarification :P

The clarification angle that you are spewing in all of the threads doesn't hold water. Her Weeners and her first answer were both off base and made it obvious that she didn't know what it was.

You only seem foolish for ignoring that fact.

dameron: I mean, greenlit when it was the very, very top item in the queue.

That conservative spin isn't going to suck itself, you know. Sometimes admins have to go out and find it.

lexshine: You only seem foolish for ignoring that fact.

Meh, that's a matter of opinion; personally I don't blame her for asking for clarification given the context of the situation. (Hostile media)

I'm not considerably happy with her answer, but meh, she's not running for President, she's running for Veep and as I've also said in other threads - if she travels, she'll be an ambasador of McCains policy, not her own, there's a nice handoff period and she'll have advisors. (Remember Obama has 300 Foreign Policy Advisors coaching him and he's running for Prez)

So, think what you want, but I personally believe I've been far more factual and honest in my interpretation than the vast majority of Farkers.

She learned the Bush Doctrine in 2001 but she never got the update when we invaded Iraq.

She was too bush defending us from the Ruskies.

CanisNoir: "The Bush Doctrine" has been used in many forms over the years and give her more of a reason to ask for clarification :P

Feel free to find a usage since 2003 in which the term refers solely to terrorism. Provide links to the same for the full context of your citation. Cherry picking a brief sound-bite from a more substantive source will be sneered at.

The reason you won't find one is because Bush conflated weapons proliferation, rogue states, and non-state terrorist organizations in order to leverage Americans' justifiable outrage against 9/11 into supporting his more dubious nation-building effort in Iraq.

Furthermore to justify the application of the outmoded definition of the term to the Iraq war (as you seem to believe Palin tried to do in the interview) you need to show that Saddam's regime was not only "Islamic Extremism" (it wasn't) but also that "terrorists" were present in Iraq prior to the war (please provide evidence).

CanisNoir: (Hostile media)

She has not seen hostile media yet. These were softballs from an interviewer handpicked by the McCain camp.

I seriously do not see her being able to handle a non-partisan interview.

lexshine: I seriously do not see her being able to handle a non-partisan interview.

Put her in a steel cage with Putin.

This, along with a few speeches around the time of release, most notably the speech at West Point form the "Bush Doctrine"

Her evasion on the Pakistan question was fun too. She had talking points and she was hell bent on sticking with them and only with them.

CanisNoir: lexshine: You only seem foolish for ignoring that fact.

Meh, that's a matter of opinion...

No, it's not. Read the transcript. She was asked a question. She didn't ask for a goddamned thing, she bunted, and poorly. She was given a clarification. She still didn't answer the question posed.

You can't opine away facts. The above (with the exception of the "bunting" comment) is fact.

CanisNoir: Na, had to leave work to take me elderly mum to the Emergency room.

Best of luck to her.

Charlie Gibson is a terrorist sympathiser.

HansensDisease: lexshine: I seriously do not see her being able to handle a non-partisan interview.

Put her in a steel cage with Putin.

At this point, it would probably be an improvement if we chose our leaders via the processes of Thunderdome.

CanisNoir: That's not really pwnage, just demonstrating that "The Bush Doctrine" has been used in many forms over the years and give her more of a reason to ask for clarification :P

You must be very dizzy - with all the spinning you're doing this morning.

Wow, her responses in that interview were entirely content-free. Good to see she's bringin' the straight talk to Washington.

HansensDisease: The phrase "The Bush Doctrine" was coined in 2001 by Charles Krauthammer in February of 2001^. It originally meant that the US should and would act unilaterally in world affairs.

After 9/11 the term had been extended with reference to unilateral action against states who "harbor terrorists" (early in 2002^) and then to mean unilateral preemptive war in general. It was used in that last context by neoconservatives like Norman Podhoretz since at least as early as September of 2002^.

The phrase has had the meaning that it currently has for 6 years. So no, Subby, you cannot has your talking point.

Mmm, yeah, I'm going to go have to go ahead and this.

It's also important to note that the problem is not Charlie Gibson's precision in describing the most important trend in foreign policy of the past decade, but that Sarah Palin was completely unaware of it.

dameron: I mean, greenlit when it was the very, very top item in the queue.

Go Fark!

So basically the person who submitted it was someone with the power to greenlight things (mod) and this is just some self-gratification.

2001? didn't the 'bush doctrine', like, crystallize around 2002 or sumthin?

/ lame either way