I see Submittard is a lot like Palin, and doesn't know what Bush's Doctrine is.

Dinki: I see Submittard is a lot like Palin, and doesn't know what Bush's Doctrine is.

No YOU'RE stupid!

/submitter

Stoj: Dinki: I see Submittard is a lot like Palin, and doesn't know what Bush's Doctrine is.

No YOU'RE stupid!

/submitter


You're headline doesn't make sense. Media Matters didn't say Gibson should have clarified, and they were speaking of a specific policy in regards to a particular country, rather than a broad-based strategy.

i love the spin that the question was confusing.

"do you agree with the bush doctrine?"

and when she couldn't answer.

"what do you interpret it to be?"

neither of those are difficult or confusing questions. she just didn't know what it was.

kmmontandon: You're headline doesn't make sense. Media Matters didn't say Gibson should have clarified, and they were speaking of a specific policy in regards to a particular country, rather than a broad-based strategy.

I was referring to this FTA:

Gibson was claiming that there is in fact a clear Bush doctrine on the question of whether the U.S. would strike Al Qaeda in Pakistan regardless of the sovereignty of Pakistan. Bush and administration officials have in fact made inconsistent statements on this issue.

The idea for the submission came from.... TalkLeft.

You guys take me too seriously though...

Stoj: You guys take me too seriously though...

if it makes you feel better, i wasn't really talking about you. i've just read that spin all morning and it amuses me.

Stoj: kmmontandon: You're headline doesn't make sense. Media Matters didn't say Gibson should have clarified, and they were speaking of a specific policy in regards to a particular country, rather than a broad-based strategy.

I was referring to this FTA:

Gibson was claiming that there is in fact a clear Bush doctrine on the question of whether the U.S. would strike Al Qaeda in Pakistan regardless of the sovereignty of Pakistan. Bush and administration officials have in fact made inconsistent statements on this issue.

The idea for the submission came from.... TalkLeft.

You guys take me too seriously though...

A clear bush doctrine vis a vis Pakistan is different from the actual Bush Doctrine of preemption.

I can admit that it made her look bad... she's no Henry Kissinger.

Stoj: I can admit that it made her look bad... she's no Henry Kissinger.

No, me not remembering what an integral was in high school because I was farked up the night before made me look bad. That made her look farking retarded.

It isn't even that she didn't know WTF the hard ass Good Morning America guy was talking about. It's the way she handled pressure that's scary.

All of you terrified right wingers, constantly bleating on about the terrorists, would you trust this woman in a one on one with a foreign leader, especially one with a lot more knowledge than her and may have a basic disrespect for women in the first place.

From the other thread on this particular apologism:

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.

Charlie was letting her define what the doctrine was herself.

She clearly didn't even know what he meant by "Bush Doctrine" [Or, apparently, that there were international policy thingies called "doctines", for that matter.]

This issue of what Charlie thought it was is a complete red herring. The issue isn't that their definitions differed, it is that SHE DIDN'T HAVE A FREAKING CLUE WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT.

At least Obama has a farking cogent position on foreign policy vis a vis Pakistan.

Also, this:

Skleenar: Charlie was letting her define what the doctrine was herself.

She clearly didn't even know what he meant by "Bush Doctrine" [Or, apparently, that there were international policy thingies called "doctines", for that matter.]

This issue of what Charlie thought it was is a complete red herring. The issue isn't that their definitions differed, it is that SHE DIDN'T HAVE A FREAKING CLUE WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT.

The "Bush Doctrine" is a made up media buzz word (Charles Krauthammer) & not an official Bush administration policy.

Skleenar: This issue of what Charlie thought it was is a complete red herring. The issue isn't that their definitions differed, it is that SHE DIDN'T HAVE A FREAKING CLUE WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT.

and if it was confusing, maybe she thought he meant "Bush doctrine" as in little "d", he then clarified, no, the "Bush Doctrine" as enunciated in 2002. he was clearly speaking about a specific thing. she did not really come close to defining it, even after she had no excuse to be confused.

borg: The "Bush Doctrine" is a made up media buzz word (Charles Krauthammer) & not an official Bush administration policy.

Even if it were, it does not excuse the person who may soon be sitting in the Oval office from knowing what it is.

How about the MONROE Doctrine, little lady? And do you feel the Roosevelt Corollary was an improvement or an impedance?

She should have answered "Oh, you mean the Pax Americana"

/srsly, i have never heard of the bush doctrine before

NikolaiFarkoff: How about the MONROE Doctrine, little lady? And do you feel the Roosevelt Corollary was an improvement or an impedance?

i believe it was a mustache.

The Washington Post asks. "What is the Bush Doctrine?"

Awww haw, what'd I say last night, biatches

NikolaiFarkoff: How about the MONROE Doctrine, little lady? And do you feel the Roosevelt Corollary was an improvement or an impedance?

Psssh, "facts" like those are for eggheads and elitists. We want a President who doesn't care about history, but who just does what comes from her heart.

I thought the Bush doctrine was "Liqour before beer, never fear" ?

/and of course its corrolary, "Beer before liqour, never sicker"

Dinki: Submittard

Seconded.

Seriously get a life.

Drop your pretenses for supporting this busted old man and the power-hungry religious whacko he's got in tow with him.

Gah. Wake the fark up. What is this McCain/Obama "dead heat" crap?

The McCain strategy is drilling for more oil, they don't believe in socialist programs like healthcare or pumping billions into green technology, and they keep wanting to pick fights with the boogeymen in the Middle East.

NikolaiFarkoff: She should have answered "Oh, you mean the Pax Americana"

/srsly, i have never heard of the bush doctrine before

That's okay. You aren't running for Vice President.

vernonFL: I thought the Bush doctrine was "Liqour before beer, never fear" ?

/and of course its corrolary, "Beer before liqour, never sicker"

It's "Liquor before beer, you're in the clear".

MORAN!!!!

/got nothin

Stoj: I can admit that it made her look bad... she's no Henry Kissinger.

Yeah but she was commander in chief of the alaska national guard.

borg: The "Bush Doctrine" is a made up media buzz word (Charles Krauthammer) & not an official Bush administration policy.

Three Cheers for the Bush Doctrine
Monday, Mar. 07, 2005 By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/krauthammer/article/0,9565,1035052,00.html

LocalCynic: NikolaiFarkoff: How about the MONROE Doctrine, little lady? And do you feel the Roosevelt Corollary was an improvement or an impedance?

Psssh, "facts" like those are for eggheads and elitists. We want a President who doesn't care about history, but who just does what comes from her heart.

'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'
George Santayana
"Life of Reason, Reason in Common Sense"

vernonFL I thought the Bush doctrine was "Liqour before beer, never fear" ?

Thats the Bush twins doctrine.

NikolaiFarkoff: Roosevelt Corollary

Wham!!!!!

I'm not available to be VP. Didn't know what the Bush Doctrine nor Roosevelt Corollary were.

Ben Stein for President!!!!

Anyone... Anyone know?

borg: The "Bush Doctrine" is a made up media buzz word (Charles Krauthammer) & not an official Bush administration policy.

Nobody refers to their own policy as a "doctrine".

The thing is, she clearly didn't know anything about it, even with a prompt. If it were you or I (I did know what it was, and I'm not even running for president), that might be acceptable, but since she's claiming she's ready to be President if called upon, I think ignorance of the main foreign policy decisions of the last 8 years is a serious problem.

And you can be damn sure Obama would have known the answer. As a matter of fact, if ANY Dem even hesitated to answer the question, the Right would have ripped them a new one.

Remember when nevertheless Obama showed that he understood what the Bush Doctrine was, and provided a cogent response?

Look, I'm not concerned that Palin didn't know every nuance of the Bush Doctrine. Nobody does, not even Bush, because it's a clusterfark of a foreign policy paradigm.

I'm concerned that she didn't even know what Gibson was talking about.

NikolaiFarkoff: She should have answered "Oh, you mean the Pax Americana"

/srsly, i have never heard of the bush doctrine before

It has been used only a handful of times from 2002 to 2008

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/145jmmdg.asp
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?STORY_ID=10873479
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/11/AR2008071102391. html
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/16/dea th_of_the_bush_doctrine/
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2006/12diplomacy_gordon.aspx
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2Q2MTU5ZWY2ZGJmMDJlYWYwNWQ0ZjkyYzZmZThkMWY =
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2003/01/ma_205_01.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/cron.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2080455/
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/may/3.38.html
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2966
http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=5251
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/1202/ijpe/pj7-4lieber.htm

Mugato: Stoj: I can admit that it made her look bad... she's no Henry Kissinger.

No, me not remembering what an integral was in high school because I was farked up the night before made me look bad. That made her look farking retarded.

It isn't even that she didn't know WTF the hard ass Good Morning America guy was talking about. It's the way she handled pressure that's scary.

All of you terrified right wingers, constantly bleating on about the terrorists, would you trust this woman in a one on one with a foreign leader, especially one with a lot more knowledge than her and may have a basic disrespect for women in the first place.

If that results in more threats against the US and we have to be afraid day after day of something that might happen, then the GOP is all for it.

Clonod: I'm concerned that she didn't even know what Gibson was talking about.

They hadn't covered that chapter yet in class though.

ilambiquated: Yeah but she was commander in chief of the alaska national guard.

And she did sleep in a Holiday Inn Express once.

Argh2 The thing is, she clearly didn't know anything about it, even with a prompt.

Worse, in my book, is she played it off as if she did know and came up with a terrible answer (blizzard of words). We cant have another leader that doesnt do their homework and thinks they can get by just going off the cuff.

Actually, I thought her whole answer on Russia was worse then the Bush doctrine. She thinks she knows about Georgia and Russia because you can see Russia from an island in Alaska. Really? Really?

Stoj: Clonod: I'm concerned that she didn't even know what Gibson was talking about.

They hadn't covered that chapter yet in class though.

Exactly.

I'm in need of some neurosurgery. My doctor doesn't know what the difference between blue and red blood is, but it'll probably be OK.

As Media Matters pointed out, the term "Bush Doctrine" is vague and ambiguous. If Mr. Gibson wanted a meaningful answer, he should have defined his terms. Instead, he was just playing games.

Skleenar
From the other thread on this particular apologism:

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.

Charlie was letting her define what the doctrine was herself.

She clearly didn't even know what he meant by "Bush Doctrine" [Or, apparently, that there were international policy thingies called "doctines", for that matter.]

This issue of what Charlie thought it was is a complete red herring. The issue isn't that their definitions differed, it is that SHE DIDN'T HAVE A FREAKING CLUE WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT

Bears repeating

SkinnyHead: As Media Matters pointed out, the term "Bush Doctrine" is vague and ambiguous. If Mr. Gibson wanted a meaningful answer, he should have defined his terms. Instead, he was just playing games.

they probably lost their copy of the memo

The Bush Doctrine: What the President Said and What It Means
by Norman Podhoretz, The Honorable Peter Whener, John Sullivan, Larry M. Wortzel, Ph.D., and Helle C. Dale (June 2, 2005)
http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/hl881.cfm

moothemagiccow: The Washington Post asks. "What is the Bush Doctrine?"

Awww haw, what'd I say last night, biatches

Pretty much this. When I hear "bush doctrine" I think of the "any nation willingly harboring terrorists will itself be regarded as hostile", not the pre-emptive strike stuff. If we're going to attribute preemptive/unilateral invasion to a specific president, we should probably call it the Kennedy doctrine.

That clip clearly illustrates the similarity between Obama's and Palin's foreign policy expertise.

Wait, no, did I say similarity? Because I meant F*CKING POLAR OPPOSITE.

/we don't need no stinking polar bears anyway

I can't wait for the Biden/Palin debate. This woman is in over her head. Besides not knowing what the Bush doctrine is, her knowledge of the Russian situation is malnourished to say the least.

What Obama and Biden favor is for NATO to offer these two countries accession to the "Membership Action Plan" (or MAP), a process set up in the late 1990s to help aspirant countries prepare for possible membership in the Alliance. MAP isn't a promise of membership, and the last members to join NATO were in MAP for nearly a decade. It would take at least as long for Ukraine and Georgia to become members of NATO, not least since one of the criterion for membership is that there are no territorial disputes involving the country that is requesting membership... A lot of mumbo jumbo on NATO accession procedures, this. But here's the kicker: What Palin said is that Ukraine and Georgia should become NATO members now. Not even Bush is arguing that. (He, too, favors MAP.) McCain was with Bush on this until recently and, I assume, if asked still is. Palin didn't know the distinction, and is suggesting that these countries get into NATO tomorrow. She may not realize that this is a decision that NATO members need to make collectively, all 27 of them, which won't happen, given that MAP was denied the countries just a few months ago

Link (Window! Brand New One!)

Bucky Katt The Bush Doctrine: What the President Said and What It Means http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/hl881.cfm

Of course you can find some obscure liberal propoganda site with a bunch of leftist pundits to claim what the Bush doctrine is.

vernonFL: I thought the Bush doctrine was "Liqour before beer, never fear" ?

/and of course its corrolary, "Beer before liqour, never sicker"

I have made extensive scientific studies combining beer and vodka in various ways and order and have never noticed any difference in the aftermath. However, if you drink the vodka first, you tend to drink less beer because you pass out faster.

/just trying to be helpful

Jim_Callahan: moothemagiccow: The Washington Post asks. "What is the Bush Doctrine?"

Awww haw, what'd I say last night, biatches

Pretty much this. When I hear "bush doctrine" I think of the "any nation willingly harboring terrorists will itself be regarded as hostile", not the pre-emptive strike stuff. If we're going to attribute preemptive/unilateral invasion to a specific president, we should probably call it the Kennedy doctrine.

Why did she not just use McCain's definition? (new window)

SkinnyHead: As Media Matters pointed out, the term "Bush Doctrine" is vague and ambiguous. If Mr. Gibson wanted a meaningful answer, he should have defined his terms. Instead, he was just playing games.

If you watched the same interview as everyone else you would have seen Mr. Gibson define his terms.

"AS I UNDERSTAND IT TO BE....."

The term Bush Doctrine is vague and ambiguous, and these are not the droids you are looking for.

NikolaiFarkoff: She should have answered "Oh, you mean the Pax Americana"

/srsly, i have never heard of the bush doctrine before

And that's okay, because you're not running for Vice President, unless you're secretly Palin or Biden.

moose in the headlights