Yeah....

A lot of people are piling on Palin for seeming not clear on what the Bush Doctrine was.

The thing is, it's not clear:

A common misconception is that the Bush Doctrine states that America has the right to preventively attack any country that it believes in the future will be a threat to America, as Charlie Gibson seems to believe. This is simply not true. Rather it is part of the Bush Doctrine. The Bush Doctrine, which was laid out largely in the National Security Strategy of the United States in 2002 ( http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/national/nss-020920.htm) has many less controversial aspects to it including that any nation harboring terrorists should be treated as a terrorist state, and that the United States should remain the sole superpower in the world. So, therefore, when Palin said that the Bush doctrine was Bush's world view, one can argue she was techincally correct, in that the Bush doctrine is a collection of Bush's policies. Gibson, however, is undoubtably wrong. Even the top of the wikipedia article has got it right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine.

If Charlie Gibson wants to turn an interview into a quiz, he should at least have a correct answer key.

"[The Doctrine] has many less controversial aspects to it including that any nation harboring terrorists should be treated as a terrorist state, and that the United States should remain the sole superpower in the world" -- actually these seem more controversial to me than the idea you'd attack someone preemptively you knew was preparing to attack you.

To be honest, I forgot what it was, exactly. I knew it wasn't about keeping the Spanish out of our hemisphere. When I saw the transcript, I immediately "remembered" (you know, how you remember once you're told the thing directly).

But when Allah mentioned to me she had seemed to have forgotten the Bush Doctrine, I kinda did what she did: I extemporized. "Really?" I said, trying to remember what exactly it was. Then I changed the subject.

Thanks to Frances.

The doctrine that the US will attack a foreign country preemptively if it is preparing to attack us, by the way, is not the or even a "Bush Doctrine." It's an American doctrine. Every president would do that, unless he's Jimmy Carter or Barack Uhhhbama, and it hardy needs to be stated formally as a "doctrine."

It's just common sense. It's self-defense.

It has been so stated formally, as part of the Bush Doctrine, but it was true before ever being so formulated.

Treacher parodizes tomorrow's interview.

Correction: Frances tells me what makes Bush's idea of preemption controversial is that he applies it to "growing" threats.

Preemptive attacks are uncontroversial, as they're defined, I'm told, as responses to immediate or near-immediate threats.

Preventative attacks are more controversial as they seek to head off not-yet-ripe threats.

Posted by: Ace at 10:57 PM

Comments

1 Fix the HTML tags, the whole page is italics.

Posted by: Jim62sch at September 11, 2008 11:00 PM (ubHgw)

2 Crap, is this what we're going to be hearing from the MSM cocksuckers for the next 60 days?

Oh, macaca.

Posted by: the unwashed masses at September 11, 2008 11:01 PM (ez7V0)

3 Talk Left agrees with you, and thinks people like Allah are being pretty foolish. If talk left agrees with you on this. You're right. http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/9/11/20922/5391

Posted by: The Obvious at September 11, 2008 11:01 PM (1g+FW)

4 Jim Treacher also has a pretty good take on it.
http://jimtreacher.com/archives/001573.html
It's funny to watch a talking point go from Kos to the MSM to the right leaning blogs that should know better. Funny in sort of a disappointing way.

Posted by: The Obvious at September 11, 2008 11:05 PM (1g+FW)

5 The Bush Doctrine.....kill the bitches before they kill us!....SIMPLE!

Posted by: Jaded at September 11, 2008 11:06 PM (yyZu2)

6 She asked Gibson to explain the loaded term "Bush Doctrine," which is a pejorative media construct.

When Gibson refused, she gave him some nice, noncommittal boilerplate. She wasn't about to fall into his trap.

When he finally explained what he meant, she got specific.

She did fine.

You know what this is like?

We're being shown an SR-71 Blackbird, a miracle of American ingenuity, skill, brainpower, and goodness, and some of us are complaining that the paint on the wing looks like it might be peeling.

Palin is an SR-71. She aced this thing.

Posted by: Tom W. at September 11, 2008 11:06 PM (jR+wW)

Well Charlie G did a misservce to his profession by defining it so narrowly and expecting a direct answer in accordance with (his) unstated precepts.

Posted by: USCitizen at September 11, 2008 11:06 PM (5pDev)

8 Allah needs to change his diaper.

Sheesh.

Charles Gibson needs some lipstick, as he is a sexist pig.

I would have punched his poncy glasses off his smug face.

Posted by: Stormy70 at September 11, 2008 11:07 PM (Y+o71)

9 Somebody should ask Gibson to explain it. Ask him in the serious, deep voice!

Posted by: LORD HUMONGOUS at September 11, 2008 11:07 PM (GNCy6)

10 She did fine. End of story.

Posted by: Amused Observer at September 11, 2008 11:07 PM (Y2UKK)

11 I had the same reaction you did. And I've been obsessing about this crap forever.

Posted by: Greg Q at September 11, 2008 11:07 PM (87k2j)

Hmmmm, I thought the correct answer to the question would have been:

"Who gives a fuck about the Bush Doctrine? John McCain will make his own foreign policy decisions as outlined in his platform."

The GOP needs to start telling the MSM to get fucked in no uncertain terms.

Posted by: Hermit Dave at September 11, 2008 11:10 PM (WhFvm)

She gets the whole "if an attack is imminent then punch first if you can" and "don't surrender in the middle of a fight" thing.

I'll take that over knowing exactly what Charlie Gibson means by the Bush Doctrine.

Posted by: Natalie at September 11, 2008 11:11 PM (74LYN)

14 I wish Drudge would feature this - Palin right; Gibson whacko.

Posted by: Boobenfloppinschtoppin at September 11, 2008 11:12 PM (EnHNG)

15 Not only TalkLeft, but amazingly enough many of the commenters say she handled the question well. Amazing -- they recognize the existence of PDS!

How fucking cool is it that she has TL defending her from CG!

Posted by: JB at September 11, 2008 11:13 PM (qxc7J)

I think the interveiw would have gone better if she wore a little bo peep outfit and attacked Gibson with a spork.

Hmmmmm, gotta love politics.

Posted by: navycopjoe at September 11, 2008 11:17 PM (xz/YV)

17 Norman Podhoretz wrote a really good and detailed explanation of the Bush Doctrine and the case for the war against Islam, which can be found here.

Posted by: Eric at September 11, 2008 11:20 PM (h0rYZ)

18 When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.

Posted by: Charlie Dumpty at September 11, 2008 11:22 PM (iIvIk)

19 I'd prefer my President know there are only 50 states. I know it's silly of me.

Posted by: Topsecretk9 at September 11, 2008 11:22 PM (VIVw7)

Bush Doctrine? Doesn't he mean the Cheney Doctrine? Charlie Gibson doesn't know who's pulling the puppet's strings?

And the Cheney Doctrine is "Go fuck yourself!"

Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at September 11, 2008 11:22 PM (4ZOxD)

21 It is not even October yet! Imagine the ads from the $40 million pot the NRA has got to spend against Obama. Plus, Wright will come out again.

What an election!

I love the Cheney doctrine.

Charles Gibson is still a sexist piggy prig.

Posted by: Stormy70 at September 11, 2008 11:29 PM (Y+o71)

22 So Palin is Bush III with the added bonus that now she doesn't even know what Bush stands for. Got to love this.

I don't think this will have legs. Not really going to hurt her unless she somehow get creamed by Biden. This is the first of many segments so its forgotten by Friday.

Posted by: David at September 11, 2008 11:30 PM (HAdov)

23 Charlie Gibson, meet thy doom.

The World Doctrine
by
Charlie Gibson

Gibson: Gov. Palin, what do you think of the World.

Palin: Could you be more specific?

Gibson: The world as I know it, as the media shows it, AS IT IS.

Posted by: maverick muse at September 11, 2008 11:33 PM (F1b/5)

24 Oh and by the way, my wife was so pissed about the religion question that if the MSM comes swinging with this, she will get more pissed. This interview did not help Obama with women at all and will not drive away men voters either. All it does is give Andrew something to beat off to tonight.

Posted by: David at September 11, 2008 11:33 PM (HAdov)

25 And the appearance of the "Bush Doctrine" troll makes it even ore obvious. This is a Kos talking point adopted by Kos's servants in the MSM and swallowed uncritically by a right leaning blogger who is normally smarter than that.

Posted by: The Obvious at September 11, 2008 11:35 PM (1g+FW)

26 Democratic jitters about the US presidential race have spread to Capitol Hill, where some members of Congress are worried that Barack Obama�s faltering campaign could hurt their chances of re-election.

Posted by: Boobenfloppinschtoppin at September 11, 2008 11:35 PM (EnHNG)

27 Thanks Ace for the 102 min Video.
It is blocked at work, so I did not see it till now.

Once again thanks.

Posted by: Vmaximus at September 11, 2008 11:37 PM (8r2OW)

28 I'm surprised at the reaction. Palin did a very effective job responding to an ambush by making Gibson spell out what he meant, and exposing his trap.

In a debate or interview, you should never, ever accept the opponent's definition of a politically hot issue. An affirmative answer to "Are you for freedom?" is a dead giveaway that you're being set up, e.g. the freedom to what? Have abortions? Blow up government buildings ala Bill Ayers? Have a cult with minor children? Ignore the IRS?

The more interesting thing to me is that Palin recognized the trap. I actually didn't expect her to be at that level, and instead just have well prepared responses. She's thinking rather strategically on her toes, which isn't something you just teach. She dragged Gibson out by making him elaborate. Hell, I'd even play dumb if I had to so that the opposition would be exposed there and I wasn't walking into the debate ambush.

Anyone that thinks her failure to answer the question on his terms simply doesn't understand this kind of debate strategy (not that I'd expect most to).

Posted by: redherkey at September 11, 2008 11:38 PM (kjqFg)

29 http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/09/021486.php

Holy Shit! Powerline liked it!

Posted by: eddiebear at September 11, 2008 11:39 PM (ESbXC)

30 That should be "more obvious" and "trolls." Look, reporterss spouting DNC talking points is just how politics works. We should all know that by now and when they start with this Bush Doctrine stuff we should realize they are every bit as believable and sincere about this stuff as they were about Maliki in Basra and Sadr being King of Iraq and Jenin and Al Dura. You don't have to hate them. Just stop letting them take you for a ride.

Posted by: The Obvious at September 11, 2008 11:40 PM (1g+FW)

31 Showing a confidence in prepared answers.

A flip title but it betrays the leftard fear.

Posted by: Boobenfloppinschtoppin at September 11, 2008 11:40 PM (EnHNG)

32 Eh, Gibson was pissed because he couldn't figure out why his wiener only got hard when Todd Palin walked through the room.

Fuck off Chuck, you just added 4% more women to the McCain tally.

Posted by: Gary at September 11, 2008 11:40 PM (9v34C)

I also blanked on what the Bush Doctrine means.

What irritated me was Gibson's insistence on asking if she would invade Pakistan. What can any public official say to that question? You can't rule it out and you can't endorse it, either. All you can say is, "Nothing is off the table," which is essentially what she said. That's not an evasive answer - that is the answer.

Posted by: sauropod at September 11, 2008 11:42 PM (J9J4M)

34 She should have known about the preemption bit (though I don't think it's that big a deal) - The bigger problem is: I have trouble criticizing her for what she said in an interview that was obviously so heavily edited and sliced up. For all I know, she said something that would mitigate any problems I had, but was left on the cutting-room floor.

While Gibson gave a puffball interview with Obama earlier, I will say in his favor that this is the same guy that pretty nailed both him and Hillary in the ABC debate a few months ago. Now, if only someone could get him to briefly pull the stick out of his . . .

Posted by: AD at September 11, 2008 11:43 PM (PeYVg)

35
Holy Shit! Powerline liked it!

Miracle of frookin' miracles, those guys usually take such a dry, non-denominational line on everything, it makes you want to head over to their office and check for a pulse.

Posted by: Horowitz at September 11, 2008 11:43 PM (9v34C)

36 Why does Gibson look like a frumpy, bored old fart? And can't he push those stupid glasses up...or take them off or something?
Palin did great. People make a big deal that she ACTUALLY TRIED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION and not blab out talking points, no matter what was asked. She is GENUINE and AUTHENTIC.

http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=3101

Posted by: evenmoreimpressed at September 11, 2008 11:44 PM (aiY9n)

37 can someone tell me who did Allahpundit want to for McCain's Vice President??

Posted by: mike at September 11, 2008 11:45 PM (AkbLb)

38 Gibson the Gibbon is going for that distinguished look with the glasses low down on his nose, it makes him feel as though he actually is the famous author he always dreamed of being, not the media jackboy he ended up being.

It's a dumb affectation and makes him look like a pompous asshat, which he is.

Posted by: Horowitz at September 11, 2008 11:48 PM (9v34C)

39 AP wanted Lieberman, though he is also a closet Hillary fan.

Posted by: Horowitz at September 11, 2008 11:49 PM (9v34C)

40 There is a bushdoctrine.org website

Typical leftist claptrap that was created when the campaign season got going two years ago. Poorly done, but it's climbing the google ladder.

As one of the other commenters asked: <i>2 Crap, is this what we're going to be hearing from the MSM cocksuckers for the next 60 days? </i>

Probably!

Posted by: Nyctalus Lasiopterus at September 11, 2008 11:50 PM (C8SNE)

41 I just read wikipedias version of the "Bush Doctrine" and I'm still not clear on what it is.

Posted by: A Bouts at September 11, 2008 11:50 PM (InvyT)

42 Which is why it was so silly that Allah, who normally acts like he has a brain in his head, to fall for such an obvious talking point. Silliness.

Posted by: The Obvious at September 11, 2008 11:52 PM (1g+FW)

43 That's true. Still, she had no clue what the Bush doctrine was.

Mind you, I read up on militarty/security matters more than most people, and I was vague on it. I remembered the parts about striking pre-emptively in self-defense and treating terrorist harbouring states as culpible as the terrorists themselves, but not the part about remaining the sole superpower, or anything else from that matter.

I also thought about returning 1 in 4 dollars to the American federal taxpayer and went, "Yeah, baby! That's what I'm talking about!"

Which isn't what they meant by Bush doctrine in this case, but it was still pretty sweet and helped the U.S. economy mightily. Now if only Bush had used his veto pen as McCain/Palin promise.

I guess McCain/Palin are different than Bush after all. Time for change!

P.S. Ace et al., even Jimmy Carter had the doctrine of pre-emptive attack if necessary. It's been nuclear doctrine of the U.S. for ages that it doesn't talk about what it's first strike policy is, in other words in plain English, the option is retained. Carter never changed that.

Posted by: Christoph at September 11, 2008 11:53 PM (hawOV)

44 But obviously she did, Christoph. That's why she asked Gibson to explai what the hell he was asking. I'm sorry. But you're being as fuzzy headed as Allah on this one. Playing the Devil's advocate doesn't mean being intentionally wrong. I don't think you understand that.

Posted by: The Obvious at September 11, 2008 11:55 PM (1g+FW)

45 One of the problems with this type of interview is that the reporter--here, Charlie Gibson--thinks he is "vetting" the candidate on behalf of the people. But if you read the interview, you can see that the candidate's IQ is 30 or 40 points higher than the reporter's, and Gibson doesn't do a particularly good job of keeping up. It's safe to conclude, though, that just about anyone who watched the interview will think that Governor Palin acquitted herself admirably.

Ouch! (John Hinderaker)

Posted by: JB at September 11, 2008 11:57 PM (qxc7J)

46 Is it me or did the original interview get edited with respect to the God question? If it did that is very telling the effect the right is having on coverage.

1) Coverage is at least getting slightly changed from complete and total bias to just almost total bias.
2) The right is buying the BS
3) The right is fighting like mad this election which bodes well for turnout.

Can someone verify this?

Posted by: David at September 11, 2008 11:57 PM (HAdov)

47 David,
Yep it was edited. Ace just put a post up on it.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjU5YWRkYzYwZjAyZGExZmI2NmJjMmVjZTM0ZDM2NDA=

Posted by: The Obvious at September 12, 2008 12:00 AM (1g+FW)

That's true. Still, she had no clue what the Bush doctrine was.

Well I imagine that if Gibson had asked Bush himself, he still wouldn't have got a clear answer. There really isn't a definitive Bush doctrine - more like a series of clearly asserted policies that are themselves extensions of previously existing policies. And it's not like these have even been followed consistently by the Bush administration.

You can't know what hasn't been well defined.

Posted by: Maetenloch at September 12, 2008 12:08 AM (hn7Rm)

49 And here I thought the Bush Doctrine was sending 100's of millions of taxpayer dollars to Africa to help with AIDS/HIV. And something else about free drugs, even though I'm still vague on that one. Hmmm maybe the Bush doctrine was "Spend money like you won it!"

K

Posted by: Kestrel♠ at September 12, 2008 12:12 AM (EoiC7)

50 And American leader who is serious about leading ( Democrat or Republican) is going to make a big show of themselves by babbling that they will be happy to invade other countries if they seem to pose a threat to the US that's the type of thing serious people want understood, not repeated aloud over and over again. Only Kos ninnines and doofi ( plural for doofus) like Charlie are into that.

Posted by: The Obvious at September 12, 2008 12:15 AM (1g+FW)

51 That should be "And no America leader" sorry.

Posted by: The Obvious at September 12, 2008 12:15 AM (1g+FW)

52 "But obviously she did, Christoph. That's why she asked Gibson to explai what the hell he was asking. I'm sorry. But you're being as fuzzy headed as Allah on this one."

She might have known it, but I don't think so. I'm guessing she knew there was a Bush doctrine, but not the details.

Which I can easily forgive her for considering that I read more about military doctrine more than the vast majority of civillians (and probably over half the military) and had huge huge gaps in my knowledge.

She'll learn it. She'll change it if necessary. She was focussed on governing Alaska, did that exceptionally well, and she will be a good vice president and will be more conscientious than most about doing her homework, plus applying her common sense and morally sound, tough principles.

I mean Joe Biden qho allegedly has decades of experience doesn't even know the goddamn difference between a battalion and a brigade, for God sakes, and misused those terms 3 times in a week. He failed his ROTC course too.

Obama's got no military experience and can't be bothered to visit the troops if there aren't cameras handy, his sensitive military advisor present, nor at least a gym so he can work on his biceps with a female reporter present. Palin, on the other hand, visited Landstuhl in addition to Kuwait where her Guard troops were stationed.

I'd have preferred she'd have answered the question better making it obvious she had a clue, for example, "The Bush doctrine is comprehensive and off the top of my head, some of the core points of it are X, Y, and Z. What specifically about the Bush doctrine do you want me to talk about?"

Posted by: Christoph at September 12, 2008 12:22 AM (hawOV)

53 I remembered the Bush doctrine, if only because calling it that annoys me so. Attributing the idea to Bush implies that GW invented the concept of self-defense, which is silly.

Pre-emption is the primary goal of self-defense, to take out one's opponent before being taken out by that opponent. Whether we're talking about a pistol duel or a nuclear exchange, pre-emption is the goal if one doesn't want to be dead.

The anti-war left needs to realize that the Westphalian model has been compromised and we have to adapt. In 2008, to hold that we have to wait until struck before we can strike is to accept the loss of one or more of our cities before we allow ourselves to act. Certainly no right-thinking person can accept this as a rational alternative.

Posted by: peter jackson at September 12, 2008 12:31 AM (2dz7F)

54 Yeah, that's the point Chirstoph you're guessing and guessing poorly at that. Then after all the guessing you decide to treat us all to your genuis by telling us how you would have answered the qustion, since of course you dictated the Bush Doctine to GWB himself in between spliting atoms with your mind and prepapring your docotoral diseration on the beauty of you. It's not all about you brother, stop pretending it is, and stop guessing what other people ae saying and listen.

Posted by: The Obvious at September 12, 2008 12:32 AM (1g+FW)

55 Just a few weeks ago, I was looking for information on the Bush Doctrine. And if someone had asked me about it today I would have said "freedom and democracy" and that's about all. Actually, "freedom and democracy" is a much larger part of the report than preemptive strikes. Glancing it over, I did not notice that possible preemptive action was in there. Searching the report it does say, however, "The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security." Bush never gave a speech called the Bush Doctrine and that's not the name of the report as far as I can tell. I've been trying to figure out where or when it got that name.

Posted by: pitythefool at September 12, 2008 12:33 AM (jxNGt)

The Bush Doctrine is not a dissertation that Bush composed and stamped with that title.

In popular context, the so-called Bush Doctrine means whatever the Liberal says that Bush said, true or not. Projections.

Even the Wikipedia �definition� is a composite evolution of factional premises.

Like Ace said, the right to defend America from eminent attack is The American Way and every other country�s way of surviving. That Bush never digressed from tradition hardly makes national defense a GWB invention aka The Bush Doctrine.

There must be a neutralizing response that sets aside questions about military plans to catch al Qaeda and Taliban, terrorist leaders and enablers. �I support McCain�s policy. But it would not be appropriate to discuss on television any military plans prior to operations. Of course, as with other Americans, I hold [whoever] in high regards.� AND THEN STOP ADDRESSING ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THAT TOPIC. And hold your ground as you lead Charlie away from his bone.

Posted by: maverick muse at September 12, 2008 12:36 AM (F1b/5)

57 The Obvious, what I said is I only remembered 2 parts of the Bush doctrine and knew there were others I didn't remember, that I was hazy on it, Ace remembered 1 part, and neither 2 nor 1 would have been a sufficient way to understand the doctrine.

I also agree Gibson grossly oversimplified it and left out huge parts. I never said I'd answer it in a genius way.

If Palin understood the Bush doctrine and was just asking Gibson to clarify the question, fantastic. Looking at her body language, I'm doubtful. If you disagree and think she had a comprehensive understanding of it, that's fine, I can live with it.

Am I guessing? Sure I'm guessing, but it's a reasonable guess. We all follow politics, etc., here more than the general population and I'll bet you not 10% of the commenters here could honestly say they had a great understanding of it as of earlier this morning.

If you weren't so insistent on being a jackass and letting our past disagreements color your emotions, you'd see I've been quite complementary of Palin and am hardly her biggest critic.

Posted by: Christoph at September 12, 2008 12:38 AM (hawOV)

58 Maverick Muse pretty much hits the nail on the head.

Posted by: The Obvious at September 12, 2008 12:39 AM (1g+FW)

59 No Chirstoph it's not a reasonable guess at all. From looking at the body language of your key-strikes as evidenced by your comments here on this blog I could imagine you a serial killer. I'd be just as full of crap as you are about Palin.

Posted by: The Obvious at September 12, 2008 12:42 AM (1g+FW)

60 Worst case scenario, Allahpundit, I, and others who saw it that way are wrong. And I'd prefer to be wrong since I'm a Palin supporter. Wrong or right, she's vastly better than either Obama or Biden.

Is my opinion on whether she is one of the few people on the planet who had a really comprehensive understanding of the Bush doctrine really that important to you?

Posted by: Christoph at September 12, 2008 12:44 AM (hawOV)

61 As I said, she'll learn. I guarantee you she'll be well and intelligently prepared to answer (or not answer at her discretion) that question in the future.

Posted by: Christoph at September 12, 2008 12:45 AM (hawOV)

62 No, but you not substituting belief for fact is. Especially when substituting belief for fact furthers a bogus Kos talking point.

Posted by: The Obvious at September 12, 2008 12:46 AM (1g+FW)

63 "No, but you not substituting belief for fact is."

Of course I'm substituting belief for fact. That's why I use words like "opinion". I don't know for a fact Palin didn't have a comprehensive understanding of the Bush doctrine (few people do) nor do you know for a fact she did.

However, I bet you by this time tomorrow she will.

Posted by: Christoph at September 12, 2008 12:53 AM (hawOV)

64 Whereas, if I may add, I doubt Biden would even though he study from now until then.

Posted by: Christoph at September 12, 2008 12:54 AM (hawOV)

65 While admittedly a dumbass, when I heard the term, "Bush Doctrine," I had no recollection of any formalized document being referred to as such.

It's easy to speculate what some of the major items might be, since Bush has been in office for 7 years, but to me, the acceptance of a compilation of policies referred to as "the Bush Doctrine" is akin to acknowledging the existence of a "vast right-wing conspiracy."

/lefty tripe

Posted by: Fritz at September 12, 2008 01:03 AM (zAvxs)

This article seems to imply that Obama doesn't really know what the Bush Doctrine is either, although it doesn't make it very clear what he actually said:

"In a conference call with reporters, Obama said Clinton would continue the 'Bush doctrine' of only speaking to leaders of rogue nations if they first meet conditions laid out by the United States."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/obama-clinton-w.html

Posted by: shizbiz at September 12, 2008 01:38 AM (uZtGY)

Bush doctrine =

kicking arse and taking names.

Posted by: Senator Clay Pavers at September 12, 2008 01:51 AM (nEjKj)

68 Bush Doctrine is just code for neocon which we all know what that is code for.

Posted by: long island at September 12, 2008 01:54 AM (XHzEP)

69 What?

Posted by: Mr._Chumpo at September 12, 2008 04:40 AM (i73Rf)

70 Wouldn't the Bush Doctrine, if it were something the Bush Administration came up with, be published somewhere at whitehouse.gov or similar?

Posted by: Patrick Chester at September 12, 2008 07:21 AM (zl17B)

71 When the interview closed they shook hands, but Palin squeezed till Charlie went to his knees ...

they edited that out too ...

Posted by: bill at September 12, 2008 09:27 AM (OE5iy)

72 I wonder if Gibson would have been able to answer that question before this week. Not that it's his job to know, but it kind of is.

Posted by: BaxterJ at September 12, 2008 10:18 AM (NuONE)

73 Where Palin fumbled the question is not in whether she knew what the Bush Doctrine is. I don't give a rat's ass about whether she's familiar with an MSM distortion of her running mate's predecessor's National Security Strategy.

Where she went wrong was in dignifying the question with an answer. When Gibson refused to clarify his question after Palin asked him to do so, she should have simply answered that she didn't come on his show to play Gotcha.

Posted by: WisdomLover at September 12, 2008 10:32 AM (eSqUJ)

I love how all the liberals I know suddenly are very familiar with all the details of the Bush Doctrine.

Here's an email I got from one of them, when she was explaining why she was "so surprised" that Palin didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was:

The Bush Doctrine was a total turnaround in American foreign policy; stating that we are free to strike another country that we perceive to be a threat to our safety and/or national interests. It was the platform on invading Iraq...and is a warning to any country in the world that we as a nation have a basis to attack it if it is acting against American interests. It's a major doctrine, and will probably be one of the main things George W. Bush is remembered for in the history books; what students will study in the future, like the Marshall Plan; the Monroe Doctrine etc...political philosophy that changes the world.

A major doctrine! Total turnaround in American foreign policy! Studied in history book! Oh, THAT Bush Doctrine! Well why didn't you say so?

Posted by: Average Jen at September 12, 2008 11:13 AM (OINAg)

75 'll come right out and start by saying that I'm an Obama supporter (I know, I know, hissss, boooooo, etc.). To those of you who think that it's OK for Palin to have botched the Bush Doctrine question: I have no problem with a random hockey mom from Alaska not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is. But I do think it's completely reasonable to expect someone that could potentially be leading the country as early as January 22nd, 2009 to have a solid handle on the policies, doctrines, and standards that have contributed to US foreign policy for the last eight years, and the terms that refer to them. I would have been equally appalled if Biden had come up similarly short in an answer...and Obama isn't 72, nor does he have a history of melanoma.

Posted by: LCE at September 12, 2008 11:35 AM (Un20k)

Well LCE, the problem we have is that it was a 'gotcha' question. What Gibson was calling the Bush Doctrine is just one element of the broad concept of "Bush Doctrine." There is no real definition for "Bush Doctrine," not the way we think of, say, the Monroe Doctrine.

When Gibson asked Palin that question, he could have been referring to any number of Bush's foreign policies. No matter what she answers, he can come back with "well the Bush Doctrine as I understand it"...

Posted by: Average Jen at September 12, 2008 12:18 PM (OINAg)

77 The Bush Doctrine question is actually a very smart trap question. Had Palin demonstrated that she's familiar with it, the Left would make it like she's the same old Bush. And of course, if she couldn't answer it clearly, then she's a dumb, backward Rep. woman.

Either way, they would have their attack point.

Posted by: LegalImmigrant at September 12, 2008 01:57 PM (rkJR8)

78 HEY People....ABC did some editing here as well. In the first previews of this segment shown on late night TV', Palin asked 'charlie' to define what HE meant by the Bush Doctrine.

Give it a break...are we supposed to go along blindly with a statement and presuppose that the definition of the arrogant chauvinist misogynist professor asking the question might be the same as the person who is asked to respond?
Was this a trick question? WHo knows what the liberal media democratic anti american take on 'the Bush Doctrine' is supposed to be?
She is one smart woman!!!!
She asked for his definition.
Don't belittle our next Vice President young men.

Posted by: Mary RN at September 13, 2008 11:31 AM (vt8OU)

79 The organization, CCAGW (council for citizens against Government waste) has issued a statement on it's website regarding the Bridge to Now Where providing the facts and defending the position Gov Palin has taken.
link:
http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11594

Posted by: Mary RN at September 14, 2008 11:47 AM (vt8OU)

80 Nice, http://www.extratasty.com/profile/17635/guaranteedonlinepersonalloans Best guaranteed online personal loans, =-]]], http://www.extratasty.com/profile/17638/gaspoweredscooters extremely cheap gas powered scooters, 8O, http://www.extratasty.com/profile/17637/gropingtrain train groping, tmk, http://www.extratasty.com/profile/17634/ray_j_sex_tape free ray j sex tape, 901194, http://www.extratasty.com/profile/17636/supercheapairplanetickets buy super cheap airplane tickets, 791,

Posted by: super cheap last minute airplane tickets at June 04, 2009 05:10 PM (QCzlH)

81 So where it to find, http://www.faithbase.com/high_risk_personal/ high risk unsecured personal loans, kchnx, http://www.faithbase.com/short_skirt_gallery/ Short skirt gallery online, >:OO, http://www.faithbase.com/mortgage_rates_predi/ canadian mortgage rates predictions, 479677, http://www.faithbase.com/lindsay_lohan_sex_ta/ lindsay lohan nude, tqlx, http://www.faithbase.com/fake_designer_purses/ how to spot fake designer purses, 696997,

Posted by: lindsay lohan nude at June 05, 2009 01:25 AM (HRB8N)

82 Very interesting sites., http://www.youtube.com/user/nocreditcheckstuden1 Personal no credit check student loan, crnoh, http://www.youtube.com/user/veryshortskirts1 Very short skirts on girls, ononlt, http://www.youtube.com/user/TheShortskirtgallery short skirt gallery online, 6646, http://www.youtube.com/user/transparentbikinable sexy transparent bikini, xjgi, http://www.youtube.com/user/gropingtrainify Groping train video, 17718,

Posted by: Micro transparent bikini at June 08, 2009 03:38 PM (BCrYx)

83 Perfect work, http://www.giantbomb.com/profile/jenni_rivera_sex_tape/about-me/ Download jenni rivera sex tape, 4372, http://www.giantbomb.com/profile/knock_off_coach_purses/about-me/ Cheap knock off coach purses, mscwz, http://www.giantbomb.com/profile/no_credit_check_loans/about-me/ No credit check loans online, 322897, http://www.giantbomb.com/profile/katie_price_sex_tape/about-me/ katie price sex tape clips, 4190, http://www.giantbomb.com/profile/fake_coach_purses/about-me/ fake coach purses, usig,

Posted by: knock off coach purses at June 14, 2009 12:22 AM (nbclR)

84 :-(, http://airlinediscount.linkarena.com Buy airline discount student ticket, =-OOO, http://nocreditcheck.linkarena.com Personal no credit check loans, 12269, http://pamelaandersons.linkarena.com pamela anderson sex tape, :-PPP, http://highriskpersona.linkarena.com christian high risk personal loans, bue, http://kristindavissex.linkarena.com kristin davis sex tape, 8-[[,

Posted by: no credit check loans unsecured at June 14, 2009 01:39 AM (Ae6mK)

85 I like your work!, http://www.worldusabilityday.org/en/users/fakecoachpurses Real fake coach purses, 290085, http://www.worldusabilityday.org/en/users/xanaxonlineovernightshipping xanax online overnight shipping, czscdb, http://www.worldusabilityday.org/en/users/cheapcigarettes Dirt cheap cigarettes, gczg, http://www.worldusabilityday.org/en/users/coachpurses coach purses, 092, http://www.worldusabilityday.org/en/users/replicadesignerhandbags replica designer handbags, >

DD,

Posted by: Discount coach purses at July 10, 2009 02:06 AM (kdqzI)

86 Cell Phone lookup reviews, Cell Phone Number Lookup, Reverse Phone Lookup, Reverse Phone Unlimited, People Search By Phone, Reverse Phone # Lookup, Lookup Cell Phone Number - Search Now, Free Reverse Cell Phone # Lookup, Reverse Cell Phone Save! Unlimited, Cell Phone Lookup - Search Free

Posted by: cellphonelookup at August 21, 2009 08:13 PM (IoJT6)

87 discounthair straighteners
ghd hair
chi hair straightener
ghd straighteners
chi straighteners
chi hair
chi hair iron
hair straighteners ghd
ghd hair straighteners
free shipping!

Posted by: hair straighteners at October 24, 2009 11:11 PM (MtGwJ)

88 Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots

Posted by: fdsfds at October 27, 2009 05:54 PM (8kvkz)

89 buy Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
air force 1 shoes
nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force onefrom usa

Posted by: mbtshoesbuy at November 03, 2009 12:24 PM (LHCCE)

90 Come to our website for shopping with high quality and best service! There have new products,MBT M. Walk
and MBT Lami,Welcome everybody to buy it.

Posted by: mbt shoes at November 08, 2009 01:52 PM (QhfLM)

Posted by: ugg boots at November 12, 2009 08:32 AM (IeIJx)

92 buy [url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-coquette-casual-shoes-c-22]ugg rainier[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]buy ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg usa[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-short-c-1]ugg 5825[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-sundance-c-5]ugg sundance[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-tall-c-3]ugg 5815[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg uk[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-knightsbridge-c-27]ugg knightsbridge[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]womens ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg australia[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-cardy-c-2]ugg 5819[/url]from usa

Posted by: cheap at November 14, 2009 09:52 AM (s7MB5)

Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 03:57 AM (xpuiO)

Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 09:00 AM (xpuiO)

Posted by: replica watches at November 18, 2009 06:55 AM (C/zDM)

96 mbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
buy mbt shoes
shoes mbt sale

Posted by: mbtshoesbuy at November 23, 2009 12:11 PM (bNNim)

97 The proper function of man is to live, but not to exist.ugg classic cardyConquer fear of death and you are put into possession of your life. ugg classic tallThere is a time to speak and a time to be silent. ugg knightsbridgefree shippingmbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
MBT M.Walk

Posted by: reviewups at November 27, 2009 10:34 AM (xUZwC)

98 hot news for brand shoes online store ,do you want to win more discount ?and popular for younger,and nike air maxwith top quality A ,come on all air max shoes with lowest price for highest quality !

Posted by: nike air max at December 01, 2009 11:35 PM (OKj2x)

Posted by: replica watches at December 04, 2009 10:38 AM (bsW/x)

Posted by: Lacoste shoes at December 13, 2009 11:59 AM (/3s/N)

Posted by: wholesale jewelry at December 15, 2009 07:09 AM (x7rNt)

Posted by: replica watches at December 19, 2009 06:37 AM (wd3Wb)

Posted by: wholesale jewelry at December 20, 2009 07:06 AM (1dySH)

104 Un total de once comunidades autnomas estn este jueves en alerta naranja Christmas gift ugg tall boots (riesgo importante) por nevadas y bajan las temperaturas en toda Espa09a, segn la Agencia Estatal de Meteorologa (AEMET). En concreto, se Christmas gift ugg napoule sandal trata de Aragn, Cantabria, Castilla-La Mancha, Catalu09a, Christmas gift timberland classic boots Madrid, Navarra, Comunidad Valenciana, Galicia, Pas Vasco, Asturias y Murcia. La cota de nieve bajar a menos de 200 metros en el CantbricoLa Pennsula Ibrica est bajo dos borrascas y un anticicln que crearn un pasillo que permitir el paso de una corriente de aire muy fro, como la que est provocando un temporal de fro glaciar en Europa, aunque es esperan que el fro que suframos no sea tan intenso como en otros pases. An as, se espera que las bajas temperaturas se mantengan hasta el domingo. La cota de nieve baja en el Cantbrico a menos de 200 metros

Posted by: El temporal de fr��o y nieve pone en alerta a once comunidades aut��nomas ugg boots|ugg uk|timberlan at January 10, 2010 03:24 AM (tWrEP)

105

Swiss replica watches Now while replica watches you can buy a good digital replica watches and pocket watch you might need to see what features are present on your new purchase. This is important as you should know and understand the quickest way to set any of the watch brands. You will also need to familiarize yourself with how to know when you will need to change the batteries on your digital watch.The key to finding your perfect watch is mainly replica watches keeping your options open. There are flea markets where you should be able to find replica watch stalls. You can see if you will come across any great antique watch brands in auction houses. These places will sometimes have fantastic looking antique pocket watches that will grace the hand of any owner.These facts may seem to be quite daunting but if you have ever owned a watch of any kind then you will replica watches know that you just how replica watches easy wristwatch these devices can make your life. The many different styles and features that you can find on an average watch will make choosing the right watch brands an exciting experience.

Posted by: replica watches at January 29, 2010 04:46 AM (2/7bE)

Posted by: airmax at February 04, 2010 10:39 PM (Eu9Vs)

107 Certainly watches are Replica Watches used to help people record rolex Watches time, but rolex watches nowadays its functions have enlarged. Replica watches are now tag heuer Watches not only objects that tag heuer watches can tell you what time it is, they are also a status symbol. You should not feel strange when you find someone wearing a watch on his wrist, but use the cell phone to tell time. In that situation, the watch is just showing its luxurious function cartier watches. It is normal and cartier watches perhaps also happens to you. .If asked that among the watches of various brands, which one can suit your taste? There is no doubt that most people will choose Rolex. Whichever social class you are in, it is naturally Rolex was known breitling Watches and cherished breitling watches for a long time. However, the elements do not usually enter the market alone, always come with the price tag up to the hand. For this reason, many people, especially men, their dreams of luxury Rolex watches are buried in omega Watches his heart omega watches. What should I do? Rolex watches are simply stunning worn by the rich and famous, right? No, this world is not the world's richest men, is the world of each. All are equal before the search of luxury and be men's watches respected. Within men's watches, the law, when consumers are in the market, women's watches they should women's watches receive the same treatment. This is the real reason why replica Rolex watches are ladies watches ladies watches more welcome than Rolex. Because in this world are not difficult to understand that the rich are much less than people with low income, you agree with me? You are forced to nod and say with certainty that is the reality. These low-income people do not have enough money to save every month. They can not afford such luxury Rolex watches

Posted by: replica watches at February 04, 2010 11:09 PM (TUJDt)

108 Factors Replica Watches About The Rolex replica watches Oyster The Oyster is so closely get in touch with Rolex, and it is inevitably that some people think these are the only Replica watches Rolex manufacture. Others suppose that there is a single Oyster watch. But as a matter of fact, the name Oyster does not actually meant for a rolex Watches particular watch you can buy rolex watches or even to a series but to a type of case that available in some of the Rolex ranges. History The Oyster case was first released in 1926. The objective was to protect the workings of the watch from dust and moisture. Early watches were far from waterproof. The Oyster tag heuer Watchescase was an tag heuer watches innovative design to eliminate these problems. It had a new double locking crown that screwed into place. It has been compared to the hatch on a submarine. Like a submarine, the Oyster case was waterproof. In 1927 Mercedes Gleitze swam the English breitling Watches Channel breitling watches . Before she set off she was presented with a Rolex Oyster. When she arrived, the watch was still working perfectly. The resulting publicity gave the new case a massive boost. Why is it called Oyster? Legend has it that Hans cartier Watches Wilsdorf cartier watches, who invented the Oyster, chose the name because the new case reminded him of the difficulty he had experienced prising open oysters at dinner. Since then the Oyster has further, particularly advanced. Many Oyster watches today are omega Watches perpetual-self-winding, in other omega watches words, it does not require to expose the mechanism to the outside world in order to wind it. The Osyter Perpetual is one of the toughest, most durable, most reliable watches (under truly adverse conditions). It is probably the best mechanical watch money can buy.

Posted by: replica watches at February 08, 2010 12:53 AM (TUJDt)

Processing 0.04, elapsed 0.0486 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0101 seconds, 117 records returned.
Page size 112 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.