It's Palin ...

Status
Not open for further replies.
The "Bush Doctrine"....I had no idea what the reference was for :shrug:

In '05 he said he needs to be educated about economics. I bet he's learned sinced then. Yea, he uses teleprompters....it's become a staple. However, when asked stright forward questionsdm, he speaks off the cuff far better than Obama.
 
Gonz said:
The "Bush Doctrine"....I had no idea what the reference was for :shrug:
Click to expand...

That's too bad considering all the support you've given it. Good thing you're not running for VP.

However, when asked stright forward questionsdm, he speaks off the cuff far better than Obama.
Click to expand...

Not even close.Obama is way better off the cuff.

Both are far better than Bush though.
 
Still one more lie to add to the fast growing list of lies about Palin. This is how desperate the Left is to discredit her.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/12/abc-edits-out-palin-objection-to-holy-war-question/

They knew the right answer because she called them on it. The exchange is in the transcript but they still edited it out of the televised interview.

ABC Misrepresents Palin Quote in ‘Holy War’ Question
by FOXNews.com
Friday, September 12, 2008

Millions of TV viewers who watched ABC News’ interview with Sarah Palin Thursday night never saw her take issue with a key question in which she was asked if she believes that the U.S. military effort in Iraq is “a task that is from God.”

The exchange between Palin and ABC’s Charlie Gibson, in which she questioned the accuracy of the quote attributed to her, was edited out of the television broadcast but included in official, unedited transcripts posted on ABC’s Web site, as well as in video posted on the Internet.

But in the version shown on television, a video clip of her original statement was inserted in place of her objection, giving a different impression of how Palin views the Iraq war.

In the interview, Gibson asked Palin: “You said recently in your old church, ‘Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.’ Are we fighting a Holy War?”

Palin’s response, which appears in the transcript but was edited out of the televised version, was:

“You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.”

“It’s exact words,” Gibson said.

But Gibson’s quote left out what Palin said before that:

“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

The edited televised version included a partial clip of that quote, but not the whole thing.

Gibson’s characterization of Palin’s words prompted a sharp rebuke from the McCain campaign on Thursday.

“Governor Palin’s full statement was VERY different” from the way Gibson characterized it,” read a statement circulated by McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds.

“Gibson cut the quote — where she was clearly asking for the church TO PRAY THAT IT IS a task from God, not asserting that it is a task from God.

“Palin’s statement is an incredibly humble statement, a statement that this campaign stands by 100 percent, and a sentiment that any religious American will share,” Bounds wrote.

In the rest of the segment that aired, Palin told Gibson that she was referencing Abraham’s Lincoln’s words on how one should never presume to know God’s will. She said she does not presume to know God’s will and that she was only asking the audience to “pray that we are on God’s side.”

A promo posted on Yahoo! News Friday continued to misrepresent the exchange. It displays Palin’s image next to the words, “Iraq war a ‘holy war?’” implying that Palin — not Gibson — had called the War on Terror a holy war.

ABC News did not respond to requests for comment from FOXNews.com.

ABC’s mischaracterization of Palin’s words was not the only one in the media. The Washington Post also did some last-minute clean-up in one of its articles on Palin — a front-page story Friday with the headline “Palin Links Iraq to Sept. 11 in Talk to Troops in Alaska.”

As pointed out by The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol, the original version posted online used harsher language than the one that hit Beltway newsstands early Friday morning.

The original passage, written by staff writer Anne E. Kornblut, read:

“Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would ‘defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.’

“The idea that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein helped Al Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a view once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself. On any other day, Palin’s statement would almost certainly have drawn a sharp rebuke from Democrats, but both parties had declared a halt to partisan activities to mark Thursday’s anniversary.”

But in the print version, and the version now appearing on the newspaper’s Web site, the article softened its claim a bit by swapping in the last line with this: “But it is widely agreed that militants allied with Al Qaeda have taken root in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion.”
Click to expand...
 
spike said:
That's too bad considering all the support you've given it. Good thing you're not running for VP.



Not even close.Obama is way better off the cuff.

Both are far better than Bush though.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should enlighten all of us on just what the Bush doctrine is.

The fact is that she had never heard the term and once aprised of what they were talking about she elucidated it quite clearly. Even Stephanopolous stated that in the overview after the interview.

I had never heard the term "Bush doctrine" before this. Never had most of the United States.
 
Yeah, yeah. It's an opinon piece.

Yeah, yeah. It's from a Conservative source.

Yeah, yeah. You don't believe it.

Yeah, yeah. Yada, yada.

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/lkudlow/2008/lk_09121.shtml

The Sarah Surge In Black And White
By Lawrence Kudlow
September 12, 2008

It's so much fun reading the newspapers these days. The Sarah surge continues to dominate all the political news, while the Palin-McCain -- er, McCain-Palin -- ticket is forging ahead in the polls.

But let's be fair. Even though Sen. McCain is now riding Gov. Palin's skirt tails, he was the one who made the brilliant decision to put her on the ticket. And the louder the left screams, the better Sarah seems to do. So much better that for the first time the Intrade pay-to-play prediction market -- which long has had Barack Obama winning by 20 to 25 points in November -- now shows a McCain lead. Unbelievable.

And look at all these headlines. The Washington Post has "Palin Energizing Women From All Walks of Life." In particular, white women with children at home give Palin a favorable rating of 80 percent.

Then there's this lead story in the Wall Street Journal: "Palin Lifts McCain's Support." A WSJ-NBC poll now has the presidential race even, and it's the Palin effect that explains the shift.

One in four Hillary Clinton voters now says the Palin pick makes them more likely to vote for McCain. And traditional Republican states like Georgia, Montana, North Carolina and Alaska -- which Obama thought he'd fight for -- are now safely back in the McCain camp.

A Bloomberg news article is titled, "McCain Poll Surge, Fundraising Give Democrats Election Jitters." It talks about how Democrats now worry they'll lose the election. Rep. Arthur Davis, the Alabama Democrat who was Obama's Harvard Law classmate, says the GOP just had its best week in four years.

And Obama & Co. are completely flummoxed as to what to do about the Palin phenomenon. The normally unflappable Sen. Obama actually said, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." Whew. That one will add several points to the McCain-Palin column. "Holy Sow!" reads the New York Post headline, hammering home the mistake.

Even Camille Paglia, a strong Obama supporter, is waxing rhapsodic over Sarah Palin. Paglia calls her "a new style of muscular American feminism"; a "brash ambassador from America's pioneer past"; an "optimistic pragmatist like Ronald Reagan." Following Palin's GOP convention speech, I compared the governor to a Western pioneer version of Margaret Thatcher. I'm glad to see Paglia pick up on that.

A story by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., in The Wall Street Journal is titled, "Yes, Palin Did Stop that Bridge." The senator says Palin may once have supported the infamous Bridge to Nowhere, but she then killed it.

And let's not get into the flip-flop argument. Both Obama and McCain have flip-flopped this year. And anyway, who cares if you flip-flop if you land in the right place? DeMint notes that Palin cut nearly 10 percent of Alaska's budget. And he should have reminded folks that Obama voted for the pork-barrel farm bill -- chock full of earmarks and waste -- and then voted again to overturn President Bush's veto of the bill.

A USA Today headline says "Palin Did Not Ban Books in Wasilla as Mayor." After interviewing a bunch of local folks, the author simply could not confirm the charge made by left-wing bloggers.

In "The Hunt for Sarah October," the Wall Street Journal's John Fund writes about a 30-lawyer S.W.A.T. team of Obama Democrats descending on Alaska in search of dirt related to "Palin's troopergate." They found nothing that hasn't already aired about Palin's alcoholic ex-brother-in-law who Tasered his stepson.

Over in the Journal's Political Diary, Steve Moore says GOP House members back from vacation are actually talking about picking up seats in November, with a recent USA Today poll putting GOP members up four points on the question: Who do you support, the Republican or the Democrat for Congress in your district?

Even the financial pages are looking better. Oil is about to drop under $100 a barrel. Gold is plunging. And the greenback continues to rally in true King Dollar fashion. Is there a Sarah Palin effect here, too?

On the campaign trail, Palin says, "We're going to drill now to make this nation energy independent." And she adds that she's "ready to help John McCain bring tax relief to all Americans." That's the disciplined Sarah on message. She signaled this in St. Paul when she said the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull is lipstick. Obama picked up on the dark side of that metaphor. But Palin's really saying: Don't tread on me. Don't try to intimidate me. I am a strong, tough mom who is determined to succeed in politics. )

That's just what she's doing.

---


COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Click to expand...
 
:sigh: What all this childish bickering is about is this...If you don't like the candidate, none of his decisions...even those you inherently agree with, will be correct. It shows constipated thinking and lack of intelligence. Voting is all about making choices that suit the country, not those that suit you, as an individual. I see all of this 'Palin bashing' as nothing more than foolishness and self-delusion. If you don't agree with the candidate, then say it. Say what it is you do not agree with...this whole thing has nothing to do with her qualifications. It has to do with somebodies emotional attatchment to a political process with no logic involved. Its been that way since Nixon, and it shows no sign of improvement until it gets over the "I don't like you" and onto "I don't like that policy"...

Think of it this way...Elections are nothing more than protracted job interviews. You can hire somebody because

A. you like them, because
B. you agree with them, or because
C. you know they'll do the job you hired them to do.

Which is the best choice out of those three?
 
This answers the question about the Bush doctrine by the man who coined the term; Charles Krauthammer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457_pf.html

Charlie Gibson's Gaffe

By Charles Krauthammer
Saturday, September 13, 2008; A17

"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.

He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.

It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy's pledge in his inaugural address that the United States "shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson's 14 points.

If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume -- unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise -- that he was speaking about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration.

Not the Gibson doctrine of preemption.

Not the "with us or against us" no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.

Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.

Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.

Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.

Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.

[email protected]
Click to expand...
 
Gato_Solo said:
Think of it this way...Elections are nothing more than protracted job interviews. You can hire somebody because

A. you like them, because
B. you agree with them, or because
C. you know they'll do the job you hired them to do.

Which is the best choice out of those three?
Click to expand...

nope, IMO not like other jobs.

B. mostly agree...

C. is a trick. You can never 'Know'

A. unfortunatly too many people go this way.
 
Gibson's fluff piece with la bamba

GIBSON: Senator, I'm curious about your feelings last night. It was an historic moment. Has it sunk in yet?
GIBSON: What did your grandmother say?
GIBSON: Public moments are not your own. There's a million people pulling you in a million different directions, but when everybody clears out, the staff is gone, you're in your hotel room at night and you're alone -- do you say to yourself: "Son of a gun, I've done this?"
GIBSON: (inaudible) when you announced, did you truly, in your gut, think that a black man could win the nomination of a major party to be president of the United States?
GIBSON: You don't get much time to enjoy this before people immediately start talking about the vice presidency.
GIBSON: But there obviously is one name that looms over all. Hillary Clinton has already, to some extent, expressed her willingness. There are supporters putting out petitions. There is a drumbeat of pressure. There are those 18 million votes. Is she a special case that you have to deal with before the others, or is she considered just like everybody else? How long can you let the "Hillary Clinton on the ticket" question linger?
GIBSON: Does there have to be a yes or no on the issue of Hillary Clinton before you get to the others, or can this issue linger on, because it pervades everything? You want to move on to the general election. You want to pivot to a campaign against John McCain. Can you do that while this question hovers over you?
GIBSON: So, you won't do -- you won't deal with her first, get that out of the way, and then either move on or not?
GIBSON: As long as that question lingers, can you get about the business of unifying the party, or does that have to be taken care of first?
GIBSON: Did she squeeze you in any way by making known her interest in the job?
GIBSON: Should you choose her, how do you handle Bill Clinton?
GIBSON: On what three issues will this campaign turn to you?
GIBSON: Do you worry that it could turn on race, age and class?
GIBSON: John McCain has issued an invitation to do a series of town meetings (inaudible). Going to do it?
GIBSON: Will you go to Iraq?
GIBSON: Public financing: Going to take it or going to say no?
GIBSON: But there's a dynamic on your side, as well. You originally said you would take it.
GIBSON: That was before we saw a...
GIBSON: If you already see that money coming in, it seems to me you're saying...
GIBSON: Is the hardest part of all this behind you or ahead of you?
GIBSON: The picture of you in the paper, this morning, with your wife, watching the Clinton speech. What did you think of the Clinton speech? She didn't exactly acknowledge your victory.
GIBSON: And finally your daughters. What did they say to you? Did they take it as a matter of course that Daddy could be nominated to be president? They never knew what older people know in terms of discrimination, although they may still feel some. What did they say about that?
GIBSON: I watched closely your countenance last night, your mien, as you stood in that hall. You didn't smile much. Has the joyfulness of this hit home yet? Do you take joy from it?
GIBSON: Senator, thank you.


Gibson reveals himself as biased partisan hack

GIBSON: Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked John McCain about you, and it is really the central question. Can you look the country in the eye and say "I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?"
GIBSON: And you didn't say to yourself, "Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I -- will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?"
GIBSON: Didn't that take some hubris?
GIBSON: But this is not just reforming a government. This is also running a government on the huge international stage in a very dangerous world. When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?
GIBSON: I know. I'm just saying that national security is a whole lot more than energy.
GIBSON: Did you ever travel outside the country prior to your trip to Kuwait and Germany last year?
GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?
GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations.
GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments.
GIBSON: I'm talking about somebody who's a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?
(PALIN: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote.)
GIBSON: Exact words.
GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln's words, but you went on and said, "There is a plan and it is God's plan."
GIBSON: But then are you sending your son on a task that is from God?
GIBSON: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.
GIBSON: Let's start, because we are near Russia, let's start with Russia and Georgia.
GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.
GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they're doing in Georgia?
GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?
GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.
GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?
GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.
GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel?
GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran? John McCain said the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear Iran. John Abizaid said we may have to live with a nuclear Iran. Who's right?
GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?
GIBSON: But, Governor, we've threatened greater sanctions against Iran for a long time. It hasn't done any good. It hasn't stemmed their nuclear program.
GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?
GIBSON: So if we wouldn't second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.
GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.
GIBSON: We talk on the anniversary of 9/11. Why do you think those hijackers attacked? Why did they want to hurt us?
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
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.
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?
GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?
GIBSON: But, Governor, I'm asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.
GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?

Gibson's questions to Obama on Experience and Foreign Policy: 0

To Palin on Experience and Foreign Policy: 37
 
"Tell a lie often enough, loud enough, and long enough, and people will believe you." ...Adolph Hitler

That goes for both parties, BTW. The choices we have are not that good. McCain is better than Obama, IMO, but not by much. Niether VP choice is my choice, and the person most likely to do the job correctly (Colin Powell) is nowhere to be seen.
 
Got respect for Palin, myself- she's a go-getter. My problem is her voting record. She's a social conservative, but a fiscal Liberal. Me, I'm just the other way around. Not crazy about Obama/Biden, either, but anybody will be better than Cheney!
 
c'mon, you guys gotta get on the sexism bandwagon to make more people vote
McCain/Palin.....out of spite.:evilcool:
 
JTP said:
Palin... She's a social conservative, but a fiscal Liberal.
Click to expand...

a fact, obvious to many of us, that will no doubt remain utterly obscure to her adoring legions, who can't quite get past the lipstick and the moose killings. yep, half the fucking country is going to vote for "chicks with guns."

of course they'll also conveniently miss the fact that she is, effectively, a liarin continually misrepresenting the nature of her role in the "bridge to nowhere" thing.

"i killed the bridge to nowhere." instead of...
"i supported it until it became a doomed redheaded stepchild."

yeah, sarah, way to fight those earmarks as you suck them right up.
 
McCain said:
"I will not take the low road to the highest office in this land."
Click to expand...
Shame he can't live up to his own ideology - instead he hires himself a pitbul with lipstick to sic onto Obama.
 
Another worthless attack. :shrug:

Sarah Palin's abrupt appearance on the national stage sparked an enormous array of questions, one of which is: Has she ever traveled abroad?

I asked her new spokeswoman, Maria Comella, who noted that Palin visited Germany and Kuwait in 2007 to visit Alaska National Guard troops.

Comella said she'd also visited one other country: Ireland. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Palins_travels.html
Click to expand...

When did she say she visited Iraq? She simply said as the head of Alaska's NG she visited troops serving in Iraq as well as Kuwait where her men are stationed. You know the main difference bt. her and nObamma? She visited injured troops while BHO made excuses not to. :shrug:

What next?? An Obama ad that criticizes McCain for not using computers, when a simple 5-second google search would reveal that he can’t type due to war injuries? Oh. Never mind. ;)
 
Late Saturday, a Palin spokeswoman provided yet a third revision to the story, stating that the Alaska governor briefly traveled a quarter of a mile across the border into Iraqi territory at the crossing point.
Click to expand...

Linkage

It's a little confusing because the story keeps changing.

And you don't have to be able to type to use a computer. Lots of people who can't type use one. :shrug: Again though, something to deflect us from the actual issues.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top