Reality:
gibson - bush doctrine: what u think?
palin - what doctrine?
gibson - guess
palin - i dunno
gibson - it ok, i explain


This website:
gibson - bush doctrine: what u think?
palin - which doctrine?
gibson - guess
palin - (response not addressed in article)
gibson - it ok, i explain what i think but is 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.

and this has been a good thing for 8 years. wow.

If Biden had given this response, every "conservative" commentator would know exactly what the "Bush Doctrine" is.

Charles Gibson isn't running for president

Is Charlie Gibson the running mate of a old man?

Also, STFU Krauthammer, etc...She flubbed. She didn't offer a range of possible interpretations and ask for clarification. She was a fkn deer in the headlights.

Quit trying to pass this unqualified person off as "so smart even the elitists don't see how smart she is." If she's so awesome, let her talk to people every day.

Actually the Author is mistaken. The fact that he tried to coin the term earlier doesn't mean much. What matters is which version is most understood to be the real Bush Doctrine. Bush's move towards unilateral action are important but it's not as meaningful in the minds of the commentators as the one Charlie Gibson used.

Its safe to say that Palin didn't know what any Bush doctrine was.

It's like they're defending themselves by screaming "We change our story so many times that saying I don't know is the only possible answer !!"

That's OK. Bush doesn't know what the Bush doctrine is, either. The important thing to note in all is that this interview reflects John McCain's infinite capacity to adapt fluidly to changing realities on the ground, to recognize the evolving nature of truth. The past answer Obama gave when asked about pursuing enemies into Pakistan without local authority was wrong, because it was wrong then. Wrong for the time, wrong for the man, wrong for America. Palin's answer, which was basically Obama's answer delivered in a female voice with a slightly irritating accent clipping the endings of each word, was right. Right for the time, right for the woman, right for America.

McCain. Change you can believe in.

Bush doctrine-

Step 1: Bankrupt America
Step 2: ???
Step 3: profit!

he grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube

That's quite a turn of phrase.

McCain unable - that would be a good slogan, if only he was running against the churchees instead of catering to their whims.

It'll take many more amusing rationalizations to even start rehabbing her reputation after that embarrassing performance.

Turns out it doesn't matter! He's not running for VP.

flaEsq: It'll take many more amusing rationalizations to even start rehabbing her reputation after that embarrassing performance.

Unfortunately not. Its not that she isn't very stupid. But the average American voter is too dumb and too petty to realize it. Not to mention that being intelligent is apparently a weakness in a campaign. Americans don't seem to get the rational behind electing the best and the brightest.

FTA: In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the phenom who presumes to play on their stage.

I can't believe they're calling her a "phenom".

More_Like_A_Stain: FTA: In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the phenom who presumes to play on their stage.

I can't believe they're calling her a "phenom".

Klassic Karl Rove. Find your biggest weakness and redefine it as a strength.

I'm not sure even Bush knows what the Bush Doctrine is.

I think Penthouse developed the Bush Doctrine in the early 70's.

Thankfully, those days are over, baby.

I remember the fine high days of Bush hubris when anyone in the WH would proudly have said "The Bush Doctrine of Preemptive War" because they thought it would be Bush's defining legacy.

Now suddenly they don't remember what it was, want us to believe there are four definitions of it. . .

Pathetic

.

RobsterCraw: flaEsq: It'll take many more amusing rationalizations to even start rehabbing her reputation after that embarrassing performance.

Unfortunately not. Its not that she isn't very stupid. But the average American voter is too dumb and too petty to realize it. Not to mention that being intelligent is apparently a weakness in a campaign. Americans don't seem to get the rational behind electing the best and the brightest.

Looking on the bright side, there's still a long way to go to Nov. I still have a nauseating feeling JEB! is going to wind up there but I can't pin down why.

Nabb1: I'm not sure even Bush knows what the Bush Doctrine is.

There is no "Bush Doctrine." Every time he makes a foreign policy decision, some moron writes an article and calls it his "doctrine." The truth is, there was no right answer to that question.

/Chucky was fishing for some YouTube.
//Bad Chucky.

SpeshilEdjukashin: The truth is, there was no right answer to that question.

BWAAAA -HA-HA-HA-HA

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term.

So Krauthammer wrote a piece to clarify an undefined term that he claims to have first used? WTF?

Dude...stop...you're making us all dizzy

SpeshilEdjukashin:

There is no "Bush Doctrine."

So now the stupid have gone to playing stupid, thinking the rest of us are stupid enough to believe that?

Why, then, were the Repukenicoonts doing backflips over how the Bush Doctrine was justified, it was going to bring peace to the world, and it was going to go down in history as Bush's crowning achievement?

You know what's odd, but I guess not all that surprising, is that apparently very little of the content that the Liberal Bashing Industry spews is retained by its sycophants. I guess the core message--that we can liberal-bash ourselves into utopia, is the only real message you God damned idiots actually remember.

.

BTW, here it is:

Link (new window)

.

Here's a contemporaneous article:

Link (new window)

.

SpeshilEdjukashin: There is no "Bush Doctrine." Every time he makes a foreign policy decision, some moron writes an article and calls it his "doctrine." The truth is, there was no right answer to that question.

Hey, other than the term being used for the policy issues outlined to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and other than parts of the doctrine being codified by the National Security Council in 2002...you're exactly right.

And, Gibson clarified his statement by saying enunciated in September 2002.

The main elements of one Bush Doctrine were delineated in a National Security Council document, National Security Strategy of the United States, published on September 20, 2002.[8] This document is often cited as the definitive statement of the doctrine,[9][10][11] and was updated in 2006.[12]>

(I made this up and edited it in to wiki)

There is only one problem with all three doctrines. Bush doesn't honestly support any of them.

He doesn't treat those who harbor terrorists as terrorists, as is the case with Saudi Arabia.

He doesn't believe that democracy is the solution to extremism in the middle east, as is the case with Egypt and Pakistan.

He doesn't believe in pre-emption as is the case with not backing Israel in attacking Lebanon pre-emptively.

DistendedPendulusFrenulum: So now the stupid have gone to playing stupid, thinking the rest of us are stupid enough to believe that?

The rest of us aren't stupid enough to believe that. Sadly though, the rest of them are.

OK, one more time.

This isn't about what Charlie Gibson knows or thinks. The issue is that Sarah Palin, when given an opportunity to describe in her own words what a well-known political concept was, had no freeking clue what Charlie was talking about.

The actual transcript:

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.

So to make it easier to understand, let's imagine that Palin is not running for Vice president, but instead is being interviewed for a high school science teacher position:

GIBSON: Do you teach the Theory of Relativity?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Theory -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: You mean like heritable traits and stuff?

GIBSON: No, the Theory of Relativity, enunciated by Albert Einstein, in 1905.

See?

/reposted

RobsterCraw: flaEsq: It'll take many more amusing rationalizations to even start rehabbing her reputation after that embarrassing performance.

Unfortunately not. Its not that she isn't very stupid. But the average American voter is too dumb and too petty to realize it. Not to mention that being intelligent is apparently a weakness in a campaign. Americans don't seem to get the rational behind electing the best and the brightest.

Do you really think Palin is stupid? I mean as in dumb?

If so, I found it curious. While I disagree with her on every major point, I don't think she's stupid at all.

Some Bass Playing Guy: I don't think she's stupid at all.

I don't think she tells the truth very often, either.

Some Bass Playing Guy: Do you really think Palin is stupid? I mean as in dumb?
If so, I found it curious. While I disagree with her on every major point, I don't think she's stupid at all.

I think it is safe to say that what McCain's campaign says she knows is not equal to what she actually knows.

And, they've given crap about on the job training for so long that it is quite impressive that they make this VP pick.

1. He's not running for Vice-President
2. It's not his job to explain it to her, she's supposed to know what it is.

KTHANXBAI

soo....basically, the Bush doctrine is to say whatever the hell you want and just make things up as you go along?

I mean, I get why we rejected Kyoto. That was a stupid treaty that would never work. I'm still a bit fuzzy on the whole 'pre-emptive invasion' thingie, mostly because if WE do it then we can't really complain if/when someone ELSE does it. And i'm totally blown away by the idea that we're 'spreading freedom' around the world when we've got local cop shops here in the US purchasing mil-spec weapons and vehicles to catch cannabis grower operations.

Weaver95: I'm still a bit fuzzy on the whole 'pre-emptive invasion' thingie

TERRORISTS!

The End

Some Bass Playing Guy: Do you really think Palin is stupid? I mean as in dumb?

If so, I found it curious. While I disagree with her on every major point, I don't think she's stupid at all.

i think she's ignorant. and while i don't think she's retarded or anything, i also don't see her as particularly bright. she doesn't have an inquisitive mind.

DistendedPendulusFrenulum:
So now the stupid have gone to playing stupid, thinking the rest of us are stupid enough to believe that?

That's strange, because you said this in response to "how would you define the Bush Doctrine?"

DistendedPendulusFrenulum [TotalFark]2006-01-30 05:49:31 PM

Putatively active in opposing dictators. He cherry-picks his dictators and conflicts, often unwisely.
I think he'll be known for limiting civil liberties domestically, and grabbing excessive executive power. He'll also be known for giving lip-service to, and sometimes aiding the fundamentalists' political agenda, but I think history will show he doesn't really believe in it. He's in it for the strength of the party.
I think he'll also be known for fracturing the base of the Republican party. There's no way this coalition can hold together indefinitely. The paleocons hate the neocons who think the fundies stink on ice. He's doing things like "national sanctity of life day" trying to keep the fundies on board, while everyone else is rolling down the windows trying to get the smell out.

Could you point out the part in there where you're talking about pre-emptive war as Charlie, and you evidently, assure us is what everybody knows the phrase means? Most of you on Fark biatching about this are so full of shiat it isn't funny. I doubt even 10% of you would have defined it the night before the way Charlie did.

Wraithbane: I doubt even 10% of you would have defined it the night before the way Charlie did.

OK. Because this is even better than my take on it:

robot monkey:
Reality:
gibson - bush doctrine: what u think?
palin - what doctrine?
gibson - guess
palin - i dunno
gibson - it ok, i explain


This website:
gibson - bush doctrine: what u think?
palin - which doctrine?
gibson - guess
palin - (response not addressed in article)
gibson - it ok, i explain what i think but is wrong

The issue has nothing to do with what Charlie Gibson thinks

Wraithbane: I doubt even 10% of you would have defined it the night before the way Charlie did.

Well, that makes it all better then, doesn't it?

By Grabthar's Krauthammer, you shall be avenged!

Funny, my die-hard Republican uncle (he prefers to be called conservative, buthat's a load of BS) sent me an email dismissing her ignorance with a "nobody knows - it's a meaningless question" rant.

He apparently forgot that he's defended it as defined by Gibson almost verbatim - and called it the Bush Doctrine - the last few Thanksgivings.

Willful ignorance. There can be no other explanation.

To borrow from Bill Maher, the only person in Washington who doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is is Bush.

Wraithbane:

Since I pointed directly to the original document, and to a contemporaneous news article that talked about the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war, then I imagine I've already done what you asked.

.

/Linked via Free Republic so you'll freaking pay attention this time, neocons.

In Praise of the Bush Doctrine
COMMENTARY September 2002 NORMAN PODHORETZ ^

Bush had already pretty clearly indicated on September 20 that he had no intention of waiting around to be attacked again ("we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism"). But in his State of the Union speech in January, he became much more explicit about his intention to go beyond the fundamentally retaliatory operation we had launched in Afghanistan by strongly suggesting that we would also take preemptive action whenever it might be deemed necessary

/did I underline it enough for ya?

That's the definition it has had for 6 years. It certainly hasn't changed back to Krauthammer's "unilateral" coinage nor has it reverted to a sole concern with terrorism.

My Grandpa threw this talking point at me this morning. For some reason, he couldn't tell me what these other three "doctrines" were.

I went home and googled "4 bush doctrines" and couldn't really find squat other than maybe "If you're not with us, you're against us."

IF that is another one of his doctrines, can someone tell me what the other two are? This is really getting absurd.

I mean, come on, I instantly knew what Gibson was talking about. You "conservatives" are really reaching.

Some Bass Playing Guy: If so, I found it curious. While I disagree with her on every major point, I don't think she's stupid at all.

She is definitely cunning and shows the kind of shrewed perception that works well in state politics. What she is lacking is either a practical understanding of how Washington works and/or a quality education. If she was smart she would have said "Thanks but no thanks" to McCain and ran at the top of the ticket in 2012.

quickdraw: Some Bass Playing Guy: If so, I found it curious. While I disagree with her on every major point, I don't think she's stupid at all.

She is definitely cunning and shows the kind of shrewed perception that works well in state politics. What she is lacking is either a practical understanding of how Washington works and/or a quality education. If she was smart she would have said "Thanks but no thanks" to McCain and ran at the top of the ticket in 2012.

Actually - accepting the VP nomination is a win/win sitaution for her. If things go pear shaped this year, she can blame it on McCain. If things go well, she can claim credit for helping McCain win hearts and minds, blah blah. Either way, she isn't losing anything. Plus, she gets her name on the (inter)national stage on someone else's dime.

quickdraw: If she was smart she would have said "Thanks but no thanks" to McCain and ran at the top of the ticket in 2012.

On her own it's extremely unlikely that she'd have become prominent enough to make a serious run in 2012.