Sarah Palin talks foreign policy ROFL

[sofia]

i had seen the infamous Katie Couric fiasco, but hednt seen this one with Charles Gibson...

YouTube - Sarah Palin Holds Forth on Bush Doctrine, Pakistan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75QSExE0jU)

[purplechoe]

This moron makes Bush look like a genius. :eek:

http://sleepingdonkey.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/cheney_bush_mccain_palin.jpg

http://www.thesmokingnug.com/BushPalinMorph.jpg

[Epic]

Yeah its awkward.

In fairness, nobody knows wtf the bush doctrine is... it's something gibson just made up.

[sofia]

Yeah its awkward.

In fairness, nobody knows wtf the bush doctrine is... it's something gibson just made up.

yeah...

that smug creep acts like he was talking about the Monroe Doctrine.

[Reason]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy) principles of former United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) president George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush). The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to secure itself from countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups, which was used to justify the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-NYT_Weisman_20020413-0)
Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventive_war), which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventionism) that represented a potential or perceived threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate; a policy of spreading democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East), as a strategy for combating terrorism; and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unilateral) way.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-Time_Allen_20070502-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-NationalReview_Levin_20060816-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-USAtoday_Page_20030317-3) Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Security_Council) text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-NSS_September2002-4)

[RJT]

The fact that the likes of Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee enjoy significant support shows that this is simply not a serious country.

[sofia]

The fact that the likes of Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee enjoy significant support shows that this is simply not a serious country.

if Jefferson or Washington could come back, the "conservatives" would reject them.

and if Jesus came back, the war mongering evangelicals would ignore him

[roho76]

Who fucking takes this shit seriously anymore? I mean come on. Why can't the people who support this crazy lady see that she is full of it. She still doesn't know the answers to any questions. She has that "deer in the headlights" look on her face every time someone asks her a question. And ya know someones crazy when they say your name in a condescending manner while telling you an outright political fairy tale.

[sofia]

Who fucking takes this shit seriously anymore? I mean come on. Why can't the people who support this crazy lady see that she is full of it. She still doesn't know the answers to any questions. She has that "deer in the headlights" look on her face every time someone asks her a question. And ya know someones crazy when they say your name in a condescending manner while telling you an outright political fairy tale.

well Charlie...Charlie...Charlie.....terrorists...islam ic..hell bent on destroying America...charlie...jihadists...hell bent

It's like hearing fingernails on a chalk board.

As to your question, people take her seriously because phonies like Rush, Beck, and Hannity keep building her up.....while ignoring Ron Paul.

[Oyate]

Couldn't take it, got half way through. This woman's voice is an act of war.

[lynnf]

same script for the proverbial 3am phone call in the White House:


General at the NORAD early warning center:

M'am the missiles are coming over the horizon and are headed for major cities in the missile sites in the US. What are your orders?

Palin: In what respect, General?

Well, M'am, we need to decide whether to launch or take the hit.

Palin: Well, we should follow the policies of the last 30 years and take into account what the Russians think about.....

20 minutes later....

ffffft! line goes dead


lynn

[Brian4Liberty]

Yeah its awkward.

In fairness, nobody knows wtf the bush doctrine is... it's something gibson just made up.

Not completely made-up, but so obscure that hardly anyone could have answered that "trick" question. He went out of his way to try to make her look foolish on that. She just isn't quick enough on her feet to come up with a good response. Some politicians could have handled it. Blagojevick isn't particularly smart, but he would have been quick with an answer...

[lester1/2jr]

the crazy thing about sarah palins supporters is they won't watch these interviews.

I posted the katie couric interview at least a thousand times and said you know, what about this. it goes in one ear and out the other. like you are messing with their reality.

try it, it's amazing

[Cowlesy]

I couldn't believe how many people vehemently defended Sarah Palin to me while I was on vacation. She is a rockstar for so many.

Sad.

[BlackTerrel]

I couldn't believe how many people vehemently defended Sarah Palin to me while I was on vacation. She is a rockstar for so many.

Sad.

Well to be fair she's pretty good looking. Especially when compared to other politicians.

[paulpwns]

I knew what the Bush doctrine was from taking basic intro to foreign policy courses at my government educated school. It's no excuse for her.

[purplechoe]

Well to be fair she's pretty good looking. Especially when compared to other politicians.

Figures you would be distracted by the superficial.

[purplechoe]

I knew what the Bush doctrine was from taking basic intro to foreign policy courses at my government educated school. It's no excuse for her.

Yup, same for the members here. Don't excuse her stupidity just because you're stupid yourself.

[Brian4Liberty]

Yup, same for the members here. Don't excuse her stupidity just because you're stupid yourself.

Most Americans, even very politically aware ones, would not have known the specifics of something titled "The Bush Doctrine". Most Americans wouldn't know what PNAC was either. That would have been a good question for Palin, considering she is an honorary member. Her problem was she didn't handle the question well.

And good for you for being so well informed.

(We'll assume you intended to use the word "ignorant" instead of "stupid").

[BlackTerrel]

Figures you would be distracted by the superficial.

Easily.

The reality is she's not very good looking. There are better looking hostesses at my local Chili's. But compared to other politicians she is good looking, hence the attention and hence why she has a national stage. If she looked like Janet Reno no one would have ever heard of her.

[Naraku]

The infamous "Russia" moment was manufactured in that Gibson interview. After finding out how that came about I understood the media was trying to make Palin look like an idiot. It was also clear the Republican establishment was trying to smear her so I really do not care what is portrayed in the media.

[RJT]

The infamous "Russia" moment was manufactured in that Gibson interview. After finding out how that came about I understood the media was trying to make Palin look like an idiot. It was also clear the Republican establishment was trying to smear her so I really do not care what is portrayed in the media.

Right. It was the evil media that made her look like a moron. Same with W, too. It certainly couldn't have been that they were genuine lightweights who only got to where they were because of an imbecilic population. Nope, it's Katie Couric's fault.

I have no regard for the media, but sorry, asking about the Bush Doctrine is not a "gotcha" question to someone who would sit in meetings of the National Security Council. There's a reason she was hidden for two weeks after she was nominated: it wasn't because of the media's questions, it was her inability to have anything thoughtful to say.

I find it quite humorous how the GOP has been driven into the wilderness mainly by electing a clown like George W. Bush - a man clearly unintelligent and easily manipulated by those smarter than him. So the great hope of many asinine Republicans? Sarah Palin! If that isn't comedy, then I don't know what is.

There is no better illustration to show why this country is finished than to see Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee considered leaders in their party, while Ron Paul is not.

[AuH20]

I find it quite humorous how the GOP has been driven into the wilderness mainly by electing a clown like George W. Bush - a man clearly unintelligent and easily manipulated by those smarter than him. So the great hope of many asinine Republicans? Sarah Palin! If that isn't comedy, then I don't know what is.


Bush knew exactly what he was doing. Don't fall for the "he was stupid" meme. He held little regard for the Constitution and remade the GOP in his image.

[akforme]

The infamous "Russia" moment was manufactured in that Gibson interview. After finding out how that came about I understood the media was trying to make Palin look like an idiot. It was also clear the Republican establishment was trying to smear her so I really do not care what is portrayed in the media.

She was used by the elites as a way to throw the election to O.

[RJT]

Bush knew exactly what he was doing. Don't fall for the "he was stupid" meme. He held little regard for the Constitution and remade the GOP in his image.

I disagree.

Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove knew what they were doing. Bush was, and is, an idiot. If given enough time, they could get him to invade Canada.

[purplechoe]

I disagree.

Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove knew what they were doing. Bush was, and is, an idiot. If given enough time, they could get him to invade Canada.

I don't believe that Bush Jr was a genius by any stretch of the imagination, but I also believe he plays into it (being dumb) to reflect a lot criticizm.

"Bush is not evil, he's just an idiot." I say: "He's not as stupid as he plays on TV."

[Brian4Liberty]

This is not a defense of Sarah Palin. It's about the corrupt media and their blatant attempts to defame candidates and determine the outcome of elections.

The Bush Doctrine defined:


Gov. Sarah Palin’s response to Charlie Gibson’s question last week about what she thought of the Bush Doctrine–”In what respect, Charlie?”–prompted an initial collective eye roll, but the exchange and Gibson’s assertion that the doctrine allows for “anticipatory self-defense” has prompted a fight of its own on Wikipedia of just what, exactly, the Bush Doctrine means.

In September 2007, the Wikipedia entry on the Bush Doctrine was edited 13 times. In August 2008, there was only one edit made.

This month? The entry was edited 365 times, with most changes offered after the September 8 ABC interview with Palin.

The pre-Sept. 8 version contains four definitions of the Bush Doctrine. Since then, hundreds of users have argued for and against asserting the phrase’s ambiguous use in the media and for and against what one user calls “the absurdity of ’several doctrines’ theory.” In a meta-twist, whether or not to include Palin’s interview itself has also been the subject of debate.

In the aftermath of Palin’s perceived gaffe, Wikipedia users sandwiched a meaty “Development” section in between the introduction and an overview.

The section credited conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer with coining the phrase. Krauthammer in turn used Wikipedia to bolster his authority in a recent column defending Palin. Lambasting Gibson, Krauthammer argued that there are four definitions of the Bush Doctrine, which evolved over the course of President Bush’s time in office.

Actually, there are currently at least six elements of the Bush Doctrine listed on Wikipedia, which includes: “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” and a “controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate” and “a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East” and “a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way” and “the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor terrorist groups as terrorist states themselves” and “the export version of compassionate conservatism.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/15/defining-the-bush-doctrine-not-as-simple-as-it-sounds/



The Bush Doctrine

In her début interview with the national media late last week, Sarah Palin seemed to not understand what the Bush Doctrine meant; since then, there has been a great deal of writing and commentary about whether her confusion was justified, on the grounds that it is not a phrase that is instantly recognizable, or that is defined in the same way by all foreign-policy specialists. It is true that the phrase is not as well established as, say, the Monroe Doctrine. At the same time, my own reading of her colloquy with Charles Gibson, her interviewer, was that even after he referred specifically to President Bush’s 2002 review of national-security strategy, which asserted a right to preemptive war, an important step on the road to the invasion of Iraq...

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/stevecoll/2008/09/the-bush-doctri.html


What Bush Doctrine?
Sarah Palin was right to be confused. There isn't one.
By Timothy NoahPosted Friday, Sept. 12, 2008, at 6:19 PM ET

Read John Dickerson, Fred Kaplan, and Jack Shafer for more of Slate's take on Sarah Palin's interview with Charles Gibson.

Sarah Palin says lots of dumb and untruthful things in her interviews with ABC News' Charlie Gibson. But on one point, she is being mocked unfairly. I refer to the purported howler of her not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is. As many commentators (including Slate's Jack Shafer) have pointed out, when Gibson asked Palin's opinion of the Bush Doctrine, the vice-presidential candidate flailed around like a C student nailed by a sadistic schoolmarm.

...

This was painful to watch, in large part because I searched my memory in vain to remember which of the various rigid nostrums articulated by President Bush over the past eight years had become enshrined as the defining principle of his foreign policy. When Gibson identified the Bush Doctrine as the doctrine of preventive war ("the right of anticipatory self-defense" is not quite right) as laid out in the Bush White House's famous National Security Strategy document of 2002, I felt humiliated. I'd always thought of that as … the doctrine of preventive war. That was what the New York Times had called it in an editorial published Sept. 12, 2004. And what Benjamin Barber had called it in a Los Angeles Times column published Dec. 3, 2003. And what Peter Baker, then White House correspondent for the Washington Post, had called it as recently as March 16, 2006. When did it become not just "a" Bush doctrine but "the" Bush Doctrine?

I Googled the phrase "Bush Doctrine" and looked down the list. Surely Jeff Jacoby, the conservative Boston Globe columnist, would know. But in a piece published Jan. 16, 2008, under the headline "Death of the Bush Doctrine," I saw nary a word about preventive war. Instead, Jacoby seemed to think the Bush Doctrine was Bush's warning after 9/11 that the United States would target nations that harbored terrorists ("You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists"), which articulated the logic of the subsequent U.S. war in Afghanistan. I turned next to Charles Krauthammer, who way back in 1985 was the first journalist to establish that "the Reagan Doctrine" was a policy to support proxy wars against Communist regimes around the globe (even, it turned out, when doing so violated U.S. law). Krauthammer and I seldom agree, but he is one of the smartest people I know, and he's pretty decently plugged into the Bush White House's foreign-policy apparatus. Yet in a May 2005 column headlined "Three Cheers for the Bush Doctrine," Krauthammer seemed to think that the Bush Doctrine was the notion that establishing democracy in Iraq would spread democracy like Cheez Whiz to other Middle Eastern regimes. Which was odd, because four years earlier Krauthammer had written that the Bush Doctrine was the idea that we should locate our missile defense wherever we god-damn well pleased, the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty be damned. Good thing Charlie Gibson didn't interview him!

In fact, there is no Bush Doctrine. Or rather, there have been a succession of them, each one quietly tossed aside after it flunked the field test. In his book The Bush Tragedy, my Slate colleague Jacob Weisberg identifies and dates five separate Bush Doctrines: Unipolar Realism (March 7, 1999-Sept. 10, 2001), With Us or Against Us (Sept. 11, 2001-May 31, 2002), Pre-emption (June 1, 2002-Nov. 5, 2003), Democracy in the Middle East (Nov. 6, 2003-Jan. 19, 2005), and Freedom Everywhere (Jan. 20, 2005-Nov. 7, 2006). This last—a theme Bush raised in his second inaugural address—was judged a pipe dream even by Dick Cheney, and after its swift demise, Weisberg writes, the Bush White House gave up on defining its foreign policy at all.

Of course, Palin couldn't very well say that. So maybe her ignorance on the point was a lucky break.

http://www.slate.com/id/2200090/



Gibson should of course have said in the first place what he understood the Bush Doctrine to be--and specified that he was asking a question about preemption. Palin was well within bounds to have asked him to be more specific. Because, as it happens, the doctrine has no universally acknowledged single meaning. Gibson himself in the past has defined the Bush Doctrine to mean "a promise that all terrorist organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated"--which is remarkably close to Palin's own answer.

Consider what a diversity of views on the meaning of the Bush Doctrine can be found simply within the archives of ABC News itself:

September 20, 2001
PETER JENNINGS: . . . Claire, the president said at one point, 'From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.' Should we be taking that as the Bush doctrine? CLAIRE SHIPMAN reporting: I think so, Peter,

September 21, 2001
CHARLIE GIBSON: The president in his speech last night, very forceful. Four out of five Americans watched it. Everybody gathered around the television set last night. The president issued a series of demands to the Taliban, already rejected. We'll get to that in a moment. He also outlined what is being called the Bush Doctrine, a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated.

September 21, 2001
CHARLIE GIBSON: Senator Daschle, let me start with you. People were looking for a Bush Doctrine. They may have found it when he said the war on terror will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped or defeated. That's pretty broad. Broader than you expected?

December 9, 2001
GEORGE WILL: The Bush doctrine holds that anyone who governs a territory is complicit in any terrorism that issues from that territory. That covers the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Second, the war on terrorism is indivisible, it's part of the Bush doctrine.

December 11, 2001
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Two years ago, September 1999, Bush gave his first speech when he was running about terrorism. And his first--had the first explanation of the Bush doctrine, that if you harbor a terrorist, you're going to be attacked. The Bush White House is putting this out, saying it shows that Bush was very prescient, but that was only one speech given in the campaign.

January 28, 2002
BOB WOODWARD: This is now the Bush Doctrine . . . , namely that if we're attacked by terrorists, we will not just go after those terrorists but the countries or the people who harbor them.

January 29, 2002
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: It was striking and significant that the president really expanded the Bush doctrine. If a nation builds a weapon of mass destruction--Iraq, Iran or North Korea--we will reserve the right to take out those weapons even if we're not attacked or even if there's not a threat.

March 19, 2004
TERRY MORAN: That was the Bush doctrine we just heard. On this one-year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, President Bush offered a very broad justification of American leadership in the world under him since 9/11. Not just since one year in Iraq. For American voters as an argument that the country is safer, but more as you point out, for the world, which has been divided by his leadership, that Iraq is knit, in his mind, very firmly into that war on terrorism. One omission which I believe will be noted around the world, he made no mention of the role of multilateral institutions, the UN and others, in this fight against terrorism. In his mind, it's clear it's American leadership with others following along.

May 7, 2006
GEORGE WILL: Now the argument from the right is the CIA is a rogue agent because it has not subscribed to the Bush doctrine. The Bush doctrine being that American security depends on the spread of democracy and we know how to do that. The trouble is, Negroponte, who is considered by some of these conservatives the villain here and an enemy of the Bush doctrine is the choice of Bush, which makes Bush an insufficient subscriber to the Bush doctrine.

I'll stop there, although anyone with a Nexis account can find far more where that came from. Preemptive war; American unilateralism; the overthrow of regimes that harbor and abet terrorists--all of these things and more have been described as the "Bush Doctrine." It was a bit of a sham on Gibson's part to have pretended that there's such a thing as 'the' Bush Doctrine, much less that it was enunciated in September 2002.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/09/what_exactly_is_the_bush_doctr.asp

[libertarian4321]

Well to be fair she's pretty good looking. Especially when compared to other politicians.

Big tits and an empty head are great for a porn starlet, but I expect something more in a President or VP.

[The Deacon]

She's basically a blank slate for the GOP Establishment just like GW Bush was. "Conservatives" who don't see that are fooling themselves.

[Naraku]

Right. It was the evil media that made her look like a moron.

You should read the full transcript of the Gibson interview and compare it to the version they aired. Also look at how the Russia moment came about in that interview.

[paulitics]

Bush knew exactly what he was doing. Don't fall for the "he was stupid" meme. He held little regard for the Constitution and remade the GOP in his image.

Bush was no idiot, you are right. The right always puts up folksy type people for a reason. The conservative (koolaid drinkers) do not like uppitiness, they like someone who is on par with themselves, not too bright. Anyone familair with the Art of War, or Machivelian techniques, should know that playing dumb is a powerful tool to get away with literal murder. Bill Kristol literally seeks out the Bush, Palin, Hoffman types for a reason.

The left have a massive ego, thinking they are soooo smart. They love to read New York times, or journals that don't make any money to feed their ego, so they think they are better than everyone else. Little do they know they are the biggest fools of all, and are getting played by elite billionaires that know they are the easiest fools to manipulate.

[BlackTerrel]

I don't believe that Bush Jr was a genius by any stretch of the imagination, but I also believe he plays into it (being dumb) to reflect a lot criticizm.

"Bush is not evil, he's just an idiot." I say: "He's not as stupid as he plays on TV."

He is not the most eloquent, but he is certainly much smarter than the average American or the average person calling him dumb.

A lot of people mistake eloquence for intelligence. I have known some incredibly smart people who did not sound do bright and vice versa.

[lester1/2jr]

she's the female george bush