Sarah Palin Interview Tonight!

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Lots of kool-aid flowing on this thread. lol

Folks, she struck out last night.

I like her, I will vote McCain/Palin, but her integrity took a hit last night.

And, dear people, she is not Jesus so it is okay to criticize.

Seriously.

You would think we had blasphemed or something.

She's a politician. Politicians will get criticized.
No-one objects to that.

People do object if you slander her name by calling her out as being a blatant liar, and question her "integrity", when she in fact did not lie.

Some of us find that objectionable.

It's just a question of basic fairness.

[U376977]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

The whole "Bush doctrine" question was a setup on Gibson's part.

The Bush doctrine on what? Terrorism? Military expansion ? Dealing with Iran? Military Preemption?Palestinian -Israeli Relations?

The term "Bush doctrine" is not a widely and commonly used term in the sense that people instantly know what it means. So she was right to ask him "In what respect...?". It was a fair response to a vague question... a question I feel was set up as a "gotcha" question to make her look bad.

His clarification was condescending, as was his tone throughout much of the interview. If he was trying to be more fair-minded, he could have simply asked something like: "Do you believe in the Bush doctrine as it relates to anticipatory self defense?"

In my view, he was clearly looking to trip her up.

I am a McCain and Palin supporter. K,....but I have to disagree with you here. Gibson did not ask about the Bush philosophy. That would have been vague. The Bush Doctine is something that has been clearly defined for almost 7 years now...right after 9/11 he announced in a speech that we would go after terrorists in any country they resided, friend or enemy. That was new American policy and is necessary for the times. Prior to that, our country waged war against another country. Bush created the doctrine to say that any country giving terrorists refuge would be attacked, regardless if they tried to be Americas friend outwardly----Absolutely necessary to provide security to the American people. If Palin did not know it--it was a flub...I don't think it hurts the ticket. She is not the foreign policy expert, but McCain is an expert.

[rgcraig]

I don't think that it hurt her at all not knowing the Bush doctrine - - - Bill O'Rilley just said that he wouldn't have known which one he was asking about because there have been about three of them.

She should have just answered - - Bush's doctrine is his - - McCain and I have our own.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by U376977

I am a McCain and Palin supporter. K,....but I have to disagree with you here. Gibson did not ask about the Bush philosophy. That would have been vague. The Bush Doctine is something that has been clearly defined for almost 7 years now...right after 9/11 he announced in a speech that we would go after terrorists in any country they resided, friend or enemy. That was new American policy and is necessary for the times. Prior to that, our country waged war against another country. Bush created the doctrine to say that any country giving terrorists refuge would be attacked, regardless if they tried to be Americas friend outwardly----Absolutely necessary to provide security to the American people. If Palin did not know it--it was a flub...I don't think it hurts the ticket. She is not the foreign policy expert, but McCain is an expert.

Respectfully, I must tell you you're mistaken on this. There have been multiple versions of the "Bush Doctrine"... who says? Charles Krauthhammer, the person who first coined the term Bush Doctrine!! (Article here)

From the Krauthhammer's article "Charlie Gibson's Gaffe":

There is no single meaning of the Bush Doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

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

........................

Also Dan Froomkin writes in his Washington Post article "What is the Bush Doctrine Anwyay?" : "...to be completely accurate, there have been several Bush Doctrines over the years." (Article here)

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Respectfully, I must tell you you're mistaken on this. There have been multiple versions of the "Bush Doctrine"... who says? Charles Krauthhammer, the person who first coined the term Bush Doctrine!! (Article here)

From the Krauthhammer's article "Charlie Gibson's Gaffe":

There is no single meaning of the Bush Doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

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

........................

Also Dan Froomkin writes in his Washington Post article "What is the Bush Doctrine Anwyay?" : "...to be completely accurate, there have been several Bush Doctrines over the years." (Article here)

Thanks for pulling out the info on this TRFrance. Newt Gingrich said that Palin gave a more technical answer for the Bush Doctrine and that, yes, there are several meanings.

[Blubayou]

I will go on record again and say she did a good job for a first interveiw. I think her comment about Hillary Clinton was a hoot! She stated that she thinks Obama now wishes HC was his VP and that she admired HC grit and grace during the election process.

[Sandra]

Originally Posted by Blubayou

I will go on record again and say she did a good job for a first interveiw. I think her comment about Hillary Clinton was a hoot! She stated that she thinks Obama now wishes HC was his VP and that she admired HC grit and grace during the election process.

I liked that comment too, He tried to intimidate her I felt. She held her own and I was so proud to be a supporter.

[MikeinAR]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

The whole "Bush doctrine" question was a setup on Gibson's part.

The Bush doctrine on what? Terrorism? Military expansion ? Dealing with Iran? Military Preemption?Palestinian -Israeli Relations?

The term "Bush doctrine" is not a widely and commonly used term in the sense that people instantly know what it means. So she was right to ask him "In what respect...?". It was a fair response to a vague question... a question I feel was set up as a "gotcha" question to make her look bad.

His clarification was condescending, as was his tone throughout much of the interview. If he was trying to be more fair-minded, he could have simply asked something like: "Do you believe in the Bush doctrine as it relates to anticipatory self defense?"

In my view, he was clearly looking to trip her up.

------------

Charles Krauthhammer has a good article on the whole Bush Doctrine thing here:

"At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' "
-- New York Times, Sept. 12

Informed her? Rubbish.
The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.
There is no single meaning of the Bush Doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

As respectfully as I know to put it, that's pure baloney. The Bush Doctrine is clear. It's the precedent reversing belief that the United States of America has the right to pre-emptively strike other sovereign nations that we believe may attack us.

Post all the links you want and talk around it all you want TR, but your losing crediblity if your really asking us to believe that most foreign policy minded people don't clearly identify the Bush doctrine as dealing with pre-emptive strikes of other countries. It's the most debated, enduring aspect of Bush's foreing policy of the last 8 years.

Your position isn't surprising in defending Palin, but as you would say that's hogwash.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Light

Be careful who you call ignorant bud.

She said she would go to war with Russia period. MCcan't remember does not agree with her. He said war would be the last resort to protect a NATO country. It was the first thing out of her mouth. She and Bush are two peas in a pod. Probably another Gods war.
By the way she said she would cooperate and have her staff cooperate in the trooper incident. Again she is like Bush, they are having to serve subpoenas in order to get cooperation from her and her staff.

Typical Democrat approach to stop their opponents, can't beat them in elections so just create gridlock with every kind of investigation imaginable. Distract from their own lack of a plan, what a joke.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by CC1

Exactly. I believe the long view of history will be much kinder to GWB than the leftist mass media and GWB hating left wing Democrats.

The American people have always had short memories though and GWB is paying the price for that. The American people don't give you any credit for keeping things from happening.

I wish they would go public with all of the foiled terrorist plots that GWB's actions have brought about. I know there have been quite a few that our increased surveilance and tactics have foiled once GWB undid the "wall" that the Clinton appointments had put up between the different Government agencies (FBI, CIA, NSA, etc) when it came to tracking terrorists.

They can't go public, because the Democrats would start an investigation on each of them. They can't govern so they stall and create gridlock.