PDA

View Full Version : So.. she doesn't know what the Bush doctrine is..



tony
09-11-2008, 09:43 PM
And energy policy translates to foreign experience. How can you guys defend her?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/11/sarah-palins-charlie-gibs_n_125772.html

Alan®
09-11-2008, 10:13 PM
Yea I have to agree this is not looking good for her or mccain.

Vteckidd
09-11-2008, 10:33 PM
I disagree, i still think your missing the big picture.

Energy is a foreign policy problem. How can it NOT be? On one hand you want to say that oil prices are a global problem, then on the other its only a domestic issue?

How can it be both ways?

As far as the BUSH Doctrine, i think she knows what it is and knows what it means, i think Gibson was baiting her into a broad generalized question that there was no real answer too.

She answered the question at the end of it all.

These were pretty tough questions for a VP candidate, and i think she answered them all correctly.

Can we expect the LEFT to be this hard on Biden or Obama, prob not.

She got GRILLED by Gibson on the premise to me that shes gonna be the next president, npot VP

Im glad she got the hard questions and i think she handled it well. She did no worse nor any better than Obama did on Oreilly.

Alan®
09-11-2008, 10:51 PM
I only got to see the part where she fumbled the bush doctrine and i kept screaming answer the question when Gibson grilled her about going into Pakistan while she danced around it. I think the answer she gave was ok simply because it was safe.

Vteckidd
09-11-2008, 11:00 PM
Well, what people dont know, and im a military brat, is YES we will go into a country if we think we should without permission.

Sorry , welcome to the world we live in. Now Gibson doesnt want to hear that answer, but thats the hard truth.

Hell CLINTON sent people on covert operations without permission.

Again welcome to the year 2008

Alan®
09-11-2008, 11:34 PM
Well, what people dont know, and im a military brat, is YES we will go into a country if we think we should without permission.

Sorry , welcome to the world we live in. Now Gibson doesnt want to hear that answer, but thats the hard truth.

Hell CLINTON sent people on covert operations without permission.

Again welcome to the year 2008
X2 Like I said its a safe answer because it can be interpreted in a few different ways. BTW I'll be sending you a PM in a second. ;)

Vteckidd
09-12-2008, 02:07 AM
She did good. Definitely good enough that her support will not erode from this interview anyway. Keywords are poise, quick-thinking, smart, and absolutely fearless. Unafraid to offer her opinion. Bottom line: Not a lightweight, not at all. In fact, she's probably going to freak out the left even further when they realize she's not just a pretty face. if anything the fault would be in too much earnestness and forthrightness.


Interesting lead off question from Gibson about whether she thought she was really ready to be vice president. Tough question, because she either acknowledges her own alleged inadequacy, or she appears to be an egomaniac. She definitely leaned toward the ego side, but then gave the "right" answer that it was all about serving the country and if McCain thought she could help, that was good enough for her to answer the call.


Biden, by the way muffed this question yesterday by admitting that Hillary might have been a better pick.


The second part is basically exploring what evangelical Christians think of the war on Islamic terrorism and whether this is of God. This part was frankly uninteresting to me, because as a Christian myself, her answer was boilerplate Christian theology, although doubtless there are some freakout issues undetectable by the likes of me.


A style note on Gibson, I don't know whether there was sexism involved at all, but as he was looking down over his glasses at her, the image he was giving off was condescending and patronizing. Again, I don't know whether he would have done the same with any other VP, he certainly might have, but I can definitely see independent persuadable woman being very put off by Charlie Gibson's demeanor.


There will be more on Nightline tonight, GMA tomorrow, ABC world news and 20/20 tomorrow evening.


Not her usual "she is just too good to be true" performance, but competent and confident. Her back-and-forth on the Bush Doctrine question was good, as it was clearly a trap question - either agree with Bush or come off seeming like you don't know enough.

Definitely not a softball interview. He kept coming back for the kind of specifics that no world leader would provide "exactly what would you do" or "is it our right" type things. She answered fine, but would be better off being a bit more aggressive in the reply, including pointing out that being overly specific on a hypothetical can be interpreted as a sort of threat and that's the kind of thing we need to avoid.


I'm sure when they interview Obama they will ask him if he believes in socialism for our country with this EXACT quote:

This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many"


I figured it would be a tough interview but I was totally taken back by Charlie Gibson's smug, snotty, attitude. It was like she had interrupted something important he was doing and he was being forced to interview her.

Like it was sooo below him.

I actually thought he was a pretty good anchor before, but I just think he's a jerk now.


I thought she did well. I wonder what the etiquette is for telling an interviewer that his question is insipid. Seriously. When Mr. Gobson asked whether she would approve incursions into Waziristan, what could any candidate say other than "what are the facts supporting such an incursion?"

Waziristan is essentially a locally governed, autonomous region with no real ties to the Pakistani government. What is she supposed to say? "I'll approve such incursions in any situation"? "I'll never approve such incursions no matter what." Both would sound stupid but Gibson didn't provide any detail in his question that would allow a serious yes or no answer.

Anyone here who's an attorney knows how this game is played in depositions. The attorney conducting the deposition asks some broad question that could go any of a hundred ways depending upon unstated hypothetical facts and then laments that he's not receiving direct, detailed answers. Kinda sad. O'Reilly actually does a much better job because he allows a flow to develop between him and the interviewee.


I'm listening to bits and pieces of it on the radio. It's obnoxious with Gibson asks her a question and she answers it and he asks the same question again and she gives the same answer and he slightly rephrases it and asks it a third time and she gives the same answer.This was the question about whether she thought she was prepared fo the job.

Also brought out is the fact that no one from the meda or left is attakcing Cohen for his stupid remarks and another congresscritter for a similar God is on our side reference.

I don't know why people including some of you morons,call Obama a great orator.I don't know why anyone calls his brillant. He can't think straight nor consistently or articualte what the hell his position is most of the time.


This Bush Doctrine crap is inside baseball- only partisan dorks are gonna get their panties in a twist if she didn't nail it.

Thought Govenor Palin did fine, not great but good enough. Some of the questions were fair but that one, "Have you ever met any foreign leaders?" was crap. He just wanted to point out that she hadn't met any of the high-minded, sophistocrats that rightly run the world.

Wish she had said, "No, thank god I haven't had to endure that yet!"

EVEN THE LEFT LIBERALS are saying Charlie ****ed up


This is seriously nuts. Palin asked Gibson to define what HE meant by it. (NOTE: Stellaa points out that Gibson tried the same game with Obama and Media Matters ripped Gibson for it then. Guess Sargent is ok with it when it is done to a Republican.) Indeed, her eventual answer to the question is extremely sensible (unlike Bush and McCain's actual policies) and smart politics. She did not accept the premise of Gibson's question and then gave a sensible answer to the question. This type of stuff is what is killing the Left blogs right now. They look like fools when they act this way. The video is on the flip.





Look how EASY gibson was on Obama 2 months ago! Totally biased and ABC news will just come off as biased and Gibson as a condescending asshat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAEnu89dxCY

I love how all the Left is goingto be tearing apart the BUSH DOCTRINE quote, like anyone knows what that is anyway. Plus, she asked him to claify it considering

1) It was a baited question
2) It was a baited BROAD question
3) She either agrees with the Bush Doctrine and gets condemned or she says she doesnt like it and shes unpatriotic.

The editing sucked too btw an they cut her off in midsentence a few times.



This was GOOD for palin, expect another jump in the polls on Mccains side.

Vteckidd
09-12-2008, 02:12 AM
A sneak peek at Pt. 2 of the Gibson/Palin interrogation

Gibson: What do you think of the Constitution?
Palin: ...Could you be more specific?
Gibson: [stares over glasses]
Kos: OMG SHE DOESN’T KNOW WHAT THE CONSTITUTION IS!!!!

Vteckidd
09-12-2008, 02:15 AM
Dems SPINNING

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzhkZTI4ZGJmYTdmY2M5OTMyYzE1MjFiY2VmNDllMzQ

Vteckidd
09-12-2008, 02:21 AM
Which "Bush Doctrine"? Are you asking about the doctrine first offered by Bush in his address to Congress after 9/11 ("with us or against us"), the one he put forward in his second inaugural ("democracies don't invade one another"), the one he's actually followed (sometimes I lose track and just fallback on #1 and #2), or the moral inversion peddled by the Left ("the REAL reason he's doing all this is blood for oil and dividing the country to win elections!" blah blah yadda yadda)?

Btw, how's that last one working for us, eh?

Alan®
09-12-2008, 02:23 AM
damn mike get some sleep lol.

stephen
09-12-2008, 04:34 AM
how can anyone cry about the questions being "broad?" i mean, let's be serious for a minute...how much do we know about this woman? the biggest complaint conservatives have about obama interviews (and even biden), is the fact that he ellaborates on topics. prior to the DNC, obama never got into hardcore specifics on his policies, he let the people know that he knows what's going on in the world...and what did we always hear? "sure, he can talk about a topic, but doesn't tell what he's going to do about it." well, how can you make choices on something if you don't know what it's about, and can't articulate on it? by the time the time of the DNC, he was doing nothing but explaining his plans and policies, and has been doing so on EVERY SPEECH EVER SINCE.

how can there even be a such thing as "asking too hard of a question for a VP?" that's the most ridiculous complaint i've ever heard. OH NO! HE'S BEING TOO HARD ON HER! BOO HOO! like i said man, there's nothing we know about this woman who's running for a position, that could ultimately leave our country in her hands. that job never has a definitive answer, it's more about what you know and making APPROPRIATE decisions based off of that.

she backs her foreign policy deal with oil??? are you serious? the dude even gave her a hint by mentioning her role in the national guard, and her need to elaborate on that. NO...she carries on about how alaska is responsible for 20% of our domestic oil...yeah, ok...fine and good. ok palin...so tell us what ahcievements you've made in our domestic oil market, with positive rewards on foreign policy issues? anyone can be a chairman/overseer...but WHAT SORT OF PLANS/ACTIONS DID SHE IMPLEMENT IN HER LESS THAN 2 YRS ON THE JOB? that dude gave her endless opportunities to tell the american people about herself, and she failed. they should've given her a teleprompter and flash cards.

tony
09-12-2008, 06:23 AM
Truth hurts.. thats all I'll say. And the hit dog is going to cry.

And media bias? Charlie Gibson was apart of that ambush of a debate where they went light on Clinton but extremely harsh on Obama and he took it.

4dmin
09-12-2008, 07:50 AM
Energy is a domestic issue... if it was global then everyone would be feeling the issue as we are and they aren't.

Trying to establish her leader of the world she fell very short.... when McCain was asked about her "foreign policy credentials" he said "she is close to RUSSIA?" WTF kind of answer is that.

I have been to more countries then Palin has and your expecting her to run the greatest world power?

The answers to the questions to me sounded very rehearsed as she tried to name drop where possible and she fell very very short when asked about Bush Doctrine. There is not response you can make to make up for her lack of knowledge. Furthermore Gibson interview is far easier then Orielly interview.

Vteckidd
09-12-2008, 10:09 AM
Energy is a domestic issue... if it was global then everyone would be feeling the issue as we are and they aren't.


but the other day when i said the world was in an econmic down turn over rising energy costs, you said you agreed with that statement.

why the different opinion now?

Tony, i was merely posting responses for all the different websites, the overwhelming reaction is that she handled it well, and the Left will look for stuff to pick apart.

The overwhelming response was that she didnt hurt anything, and if you were the independant voter, you dont care about the BUSH DOCTRINE question anyway.

95% of American doesnt know what it is, and as i posted, all she did was ask for clarification then answered the question fine.

DevilK9
09-12-2008, 10:14 AM
Im glad she got the hard questions and i think she handled it well. She did no worse nor any better than Obama did on Oreilly.

I still find it absolutely hilarious that you guys [the right] keep comparing her with Obama instead of Biden.

Just in case you forgot....she's running for VP, so quite putting her against Obama more than you do your POTUS candidate.

This shows that the Repubs have absolutely no faith in McCain. Or at least that's what it' communicating.

4dmin
09-12-2008, 10:14 AM
but the other day when i said the world was in an econmic down turn over rising energy costs, you said you agreed with that statement.

why the different opinion now?

Tony, i was merely posting responses for all the different websites, the overwhelming reaction is that she handled it well, and the Left will look for stuff to pick apart.

The overwhelming response was that she didnt hurt anything, and if you were the independant voter, you dont care about the BUSH DOCTRINE question anyway.

95% of American doesnt know what it is, and as i posted, all she did was ask for clarification then answered the question fine.

of course the world has seen a down turn b/c WE have seen downturn... many global markets depend on us CHINA for one. energy is a domestic issue that has global effects. it is domestic due to all of the regulations/policies we have in place.

and you are dead wrong anyone w/ a mind knows her interview was horrible. it was about as bad as her stating "can someone tell me what the VP does"... trust me that will probably come in the debates.

dude its fine if you want someone who doesn't have a clue to run your nation but don't make it sound like she is a good canidate. mccain had tons of excellent choices for VP and republicans went w/ strategy over experience. now you guys have no leg to stand on against obama.

Vteckidd
09-12-2008, 10:20 AM
I still find it absolutely hilarious that you guys [the right] keep comparing her with Obama instead of Biden.

Just in case you forgot....she's running for VP, so quite putting her against Obama more than you do your POTUS candidate.

This shows that the Repubs have absolutely no faith in McCain. Or at least that's what it' communicating.
you do realize its the MEDIA that is portraying her as the next president because they are saying Mccain is going to die right?

They are attacking hre more than any other VP Candidate in history, why, cause they are scared she just cost them the election.

Its not the right comparing her to Obama, its the MEDIA

Vteckidd
09-12-2008, 10:21 AM
PLEASE PAUL PLESE TELL ME WHY OBAMA IS SO MUCH MORE QUALIFIED

HE HASNT RUN A BUSINESS

HE HASNT ANY EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE

HE HASNT PROPOSED OR WRITTEN ANY LAWS

Fu.ck man on paper hes worse than her.

Oh but hes met a few heads of state, so that qualifies him.

The Bias is amazing

DevilK9
09-12-2008, 10:24 AM
Its not the right comparing her to Obama, its the MEDIA

No...it's you [the right]


Im glad she got the hard questions and i think she handled it well. She did no worse nor any better than Obama did on Oreilly.

DevilK9
09-12-2008, 10:24 AM
Again...it's not just the media....it's you [the right].


PLEASE PAUL PLESE TELL ME WHY OBAMA IS SO MUCH MORE QUALIFIED

HE HASNT RUN A BUSINESS

HE HASNT ANY EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE

HE HASNT PROPOSED OR WRITTEN ANY LAWS

Fu.ck man on paper hes worse than her.

Oh but hes met a few heads of state, so that qualifies him.

The Bias is amazing

Vteckidd
09-12-2008, 10:30 AM
WOW i LOL at ANYONE that thinks its the RIGHT (which i am not) that is propagting these rumors and attacks.

I bet you think she is getting fair treatment too dont you

4dmin
09-12-2008, 10:30 AM
PLEASE PAUL PLESE TELL ME WHY OBAMA IS SO MUCH MORE QUALIFIED

HE HASNT RUN A BUSINESS

HE HASNT ANY EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE

HE HASNT PROPOSED OR WRITTEN ANY LAWS

Fu.ck man on paper hes worse than her.

Oh but hes met a few heads of state, so that qualifies him.

The Bias is amazing

you can't justify her by pointing fingers else where... this has been discussed many many times. obama is more then qualified to be commander and chief. if you want to support why she is qualified go right ahead. if she was so qualified she would of been on the ticket as president. i will make a thread on what the president does and i will post my response there.

did you even watch the interview? there is no way you can say it went well.

DevilK9
09-12-2008, 10:31 AM
no...just inciting dissent.

I do think she's inviting it by breaking every PR rule in the book.

Full disclosure my ass.

Vteckidd
09-12-2008, 10:34 AM
you can't justify her by pointing fingers else where... this has been discussed many many times. obama is more then qualified to be commander and chief. if you want to support why she is qualified go right ahead. if she was so qualified she would of been on the ticket as president. i will make a thread on what the president does and i will post my response there.

did you even watch the interview? there is no way you can say it went well.
Oh come on dont skirt the question.

By your logic Biden has more experience than OBama.

DevilK9
09-12-2008, 10:35 AM
Biden DOES have more experience than Obama.

Except in one area - winning primaries.

Unfortunately for him....that's the "experience" that matters.

AirMax95
09-12-2008, 10:45 AM
On the topic of interview bias, screw it. Hard question or easy question, that is when you should shine. People act as if the questions are not expected. McCains camp ran the risk of pulling her, no one knows her, so of course she is going to get the treatment. As I said last week, if she is such a qualified hard ass she will be fine.

She choked, Obama didn't, there is your comparison! So what IF he dodged a DIRECT answer to the question. He gave enough of an intelligent answer to the topics. Now he is spilling out his plans, now those interview are getting the answers they REALLY wanted.

They are digging their own hole, worrying too much about how to out wit the Obama camp. They need to school her on the issues before the next camera gets in her face. They haven't even asked the controversial questions yet!

4dmin
09-12-2008, 10:56 AM
Biden DOES have more experience than Obama.

Except in one area - winning primaries.

Unfortunately for him....that's the "experience" that matters.

exactly. I've said all along i think Biden is the best one on the ticket - you see you haven't heard sh!t about him; no hype no bad press... ;) wait till debates.

AirMax95
09-12-2008, 11:01 AM
exactly. I've said all along i think Biden is the best one on the ticket - you see you haven't heard sh!t about him; no hype no bad press... ;) wait till debates.

Werd.....see the presidential post for my breakdown, lol.

Vteckidd
09-12-2008, 11:06 AM
On the topic of interview bias, screw it. Hard question or easy question, that is when you should shine. People act as if the questions are not expected. McCains camp ran the risk of pulling her, no one knows her, so of course she is going to get the treatment. As I said last week, if she is such a qualified hard ass she will be fine.

She choked, Obama didn't, there is your comparison! So what IF he dodged a DIRECT answer to the question. He gave enough of an intelligent answer to the topics. Now he is spilling out his plans, now those interview are getting the answers they REALLY wanted.

They are digging their own hole, worrying too much about how to out wit the Obama camp. They need to school her on the issues before the next camera gets in her face. They haven't even asked the controversial questions yet!
When the media REFUSES to ask tough questions to Obama, then its pretty easy to post as you said.

Look, go WATCH the video that i posted of Obama being interviewed but Gibson. Gibson didnt press him AT ALL. No way in the same manner as he did to Palin.

Look at Oreillys interview with Obama, the only one by far that has PRESSED Obama the way Palin was pressed.

AN who is the presidential candidate?

At least Oreilly was fair, Gibson just sat there repeating the questions in a condescending tone to make it APPEAR she was an idiot and he was smarter.

Im sorry folks look pass the partisan stuff, she did well

Im calling a bump in the polls for her an mccain

4dmin
09-12-2008, 11:14 AM
When the media REFUSES to ask tough questions to Obama, then its pretty easy to post as you said.

Look, go WATCH the video that i posted of Obama being interviewed but Gibson. Gibson didnt press him AT ALL. No way in the same manner as he did to Palin.

Look at Oreillys interview with Obama, the only one by far that has PRESSED Obama the way Palin was pressed.

AN who is the presidential candidate?

At least Oreilly was fair, Gibson just sat there repeating the questions in a condescending tone to make it APPEAR she was an idiot and he was smarter.

Im sorry folks look pass the partisan stuff, she did well

Im calling a bump in the polls for her an mccain

Oreilly fair? :thinking: he talks sh!t about people until they come on his show and then he trys ripping them apart. Palin was asked simple questions and Gibson wanted simple answers. Palin went off on a tangent a few times. You can see her distress in her manorisms.

AirMax95
09-12-2008, 11:16 AM
When the media REFUSES to ask tough questions to Obama, then its pretty easy to post as you said.

Look, go WATCH the video that i posted of Obama being interviewed but Gibson. Gibson didnt press him AT ALL. No way in the same manner as he did to Palin.

Look at Oreillys interview with Obama, the only one by far that has PRESSED Obama the way Palin was pressed.

AN who is the presidential candidate?

At least Oreilly was fair, Gibson just sat there repeating the questions in a condescending tone to make it APPEAR she was an idiot and he was smarter.

Im sorry folks look pass the partisan stuff, she did well

Im calling a bump in the polls for her an mccain

Don't get me wrong, I dig what you are saying. I left out an important part though. Obama's speeches are very broad and elaborate. He discloses MUCH more information. There is not much that can be asked that he has not said. If anything he is long winded, lol.

Palin ran into this election with a full head of steam and set herself up. She bragged, talked trash, and hopped on the scene in the wrong manner. If the recent articles and speeches were not her words, then her communications director hung her out to dry. She slung mud before substance; trying to discredit Obama before she established herself.

The McCain camp is taking their time picking and chosing what she can/cannot say, but the people want to know who she is. Their strategies are constantly backfiring since they picked her. McCain was better off being the Pres and Veep.

Vteckidd
09-12-2008, 11:18 AM
you cannot be serious.

Obama discloses MORE INFORMATION?

He hasnt answered a question with a direct plan EVER.

Vteckidd
09-12-2008, 11:19 AM
Oreilly fair? :thinking: he talks sh!t about people until they come on his show and then he trys ripping them apart. Palin was asked simple questions and Gibson wanted simple answers. Palin went off on a tangent a few times. You can see her distress in her manorisms.
did yiou not see the interview? Obama fumbled many topics, the radical relationship segment was funny

AirMax95
09-12-2008, 11:35 AM
you cannot be serious.

Obama discloses MORE INFORMATION?

He hasnt answered a question with a direct plan EVER.

When he gives a spech, he gives alot. It minimizes many questions. Direct answers defeats the purpose of the election tactics. No Presidential candidate has spewed thier complete plan up front, they always lead up to it. McCain has not either!

As for O'Reily, I am pretty sure that if Obama had the chance to SPEAK he would have given more answers, lol. I watched the interview......O'Reily fair my patooty. If the answer was not given the way O'Reily wanted he was interrupted. At least Gibson gave Palin a decade to formulate some type of BS answer; by not,she made herself appear like an idiot.

When Obama did get the chance to answer he answered intelligently and with a firm grip on specific issues.

tony
09-12-2008, 11:35 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6la5eSYtdI

Charlie Gibson actually took it to Obama during that debate, matter of fact he asked one of the best questions I've heard asked of Obama..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8

and I didn't like his response. Nonetheless this whole "Obama gets a pass" idea is BS, just admit that even if he does sidestep an issue he doesn't look like a deer in headlights while doing it.

AirMax95
09-12-2008, 11:38 AM
^^^^yep.....Palin looked like Gibson was speaking Hebrew.

4dmin
09-12-2008, 11:44 AM
did yiou not see the interview? Obama fumbled many topics, the radical relationship segment was funny

ya i watched it he did fumble on some answers but all politicians do; issue with palin is she looked like deer in headlights. i don't think there would of been so much buzz about it but she has been made out to be the savior of the ticket - she gets more press then mccain and he is on top of the ticket.

Oreilly was down his throw alot of the interview - honestly i was waiting for Obama to stand up and give him the pimp hand :lmfao:

AirMax95
09-12-2008, 11:47 AM
Link to O'Reily's thougts after the interview. He earned Bill's respect :goodjob:

http://www.billoreilly.com/newslettercolumn;jsessionid=8616BAF133B323D975D7FD 683F92D49D?pid=24183

With that said, Obama did not back down or fall prey to the typical O'Reily way: Catch em off guard and keep pouring it on.

Obama would stop, think, then answer. Bill is know for getting people amped up to spew BS and screw themselves. He handled himself very well IMO.

metalman
09-12-2008, 12:14 PM
In my view Obama is much like many black preachers....he talks alot, gestures, says lots of words, the people clap, wave their hands and say 'amen'...but at the end of the day doesnt say much at all. The term 'fluffer' comes to mind.

Not saying Palin is good either, just sayin. Her wacky religious views should be a concern and are to me.

Biden is likely the best debater but winning a debate doesnt mean youre good or have the right ideas for the country...it just means youre good at debate.

Jaimecbr900
09-12-2008, 12:23 PM
In an interview with ABC news, who we all know are super duper right wing:rolleyes: , last July (right after a debate with CLINTON....;) ), Obama 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."


Ummmm, it sounds to me like OBAMA doesn't "know" what the "Bush doctrine" is either......;)



Charles Gibson had an agenda before he asked the very first question last night. I admit that I didn't really like that Palin seemed unprepared for some of the answers, but Gibson's entire line of trick questions, condescending looks down his "glasses", and vagueness had an agenda for sure.

Unfortunately for the Dems.....even their side is seeing it the same way. Just now there was a report on a radio news station that stated "...the overwhelming majority of callers felt like Palin didn't get a fair line of questions and Gibson came off as condescending and egotistical...." The ironic thing is that just a few of the people I've actually heard calling in to that radio station have proclaimed to be either "undecided" or "for Obama". Go figure.

BTW, the so called "Bush doctrine" is the idea that we, the U.S., need to be able to strike out against others in a pre-emptive manner when the reliable and proper intelligence is there that THEY ARE GOING TO ATTACK US.

I've said it a million times: Why do people expect the U.S. to sit on it's hands and have embassies bombed, citizens murdered, and openly THREATENED by both terrorists and countries? What do you want to wait on? Diplomacy? The same diplomacy that made them hate you in the first place? The same diplomacy that says, "give ME help when I need it, but when YOU need help.....:2up: "??? That diplomacy? :rolleyes: The diplomacy that says "turn your other cheek....again....and again....and again.....turn over and take it in the butt.....again....and again....and again......oh, and if YOU decide to complain about getting hit in the face and screwed in the a$$ then you are a bad country......that diplomacy??? :rolleyes:

Whatever. Yall vote for a pacifist all you want. Me? I'll vote for someone that's going to defend me, my family, and even LET me defend myself if the need arises. I'd rather vote for someone that is willing to fight when it's time to fight instead of play patty cake with someone that is openly professing wants to KILL YOU. Makes no sense to me, but if it does to you.....vote Obama. :goodjob:


OHHHH, one final thing to think about that is totally unrelated, but something to think about none-the-less:

IF Obama wasn't a Presidential nominee.......do yall think he would have ANY security clearance? Let's look at that just a half step further.....because of his ties......do you think he would NOT be on someone's "watch list" in some concrete building in Washington?????? Think about that for a minute before you answer.;)

AirMax95
09-12-2008, 12:39 PM
In an interview with ABC news, who we all know are super duper right wing:rolleyes: , last July (right after a debate with CLINTON....;) ), Obama 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."


Ummmm, it sounds to me like OBAMA doesn't "know" what the "Bush doctrine" is either......;)



Charles Gibson had an agenda before he asked the very first question last night. I admit that I didn't really like that Palin seemed unprepared for some of the answers, but Gibson's entire line of trick questions, condescending looks down his "glasses", and vagueness had an agenda for sure.

Unfortunately for the Dems.....even their side is seeing it the same way. Just now there was a report on a radio news station that stated "...the overwhelming majority of callers felt like Palin didn't get a fair line of questions and Gibson came off as condescending and egotistical...." The ironic thing is that just a few of the people I've actually heard calling in to that radio station have proclaimed to be either "undecided" or "for Obama". Go figure.

BTW, the so called "Bush doctrine" is the idea that we, the U.S., need to be able to strike out against others in a pre-emptive manner when the reliable and proper intelligence is there that THEY ARE GOING TO ATTACK US.

I've said it a million times: Why do people expect the U.S. to sit on it's hands and have embassies bombed, citizens murdered, and openly THREATENED by both terrorists and countries? What do you want to wait on? Diplomacy? The same diplomacy that made them hate you in the first place? The same diplomacy that says, "give ME help when I need it, but when YOU need help.....:2up: "??? That diplomacy? :rolleyes: The diplomacy that says "turn your other cheek....again....and again....and again.....turn over and take it in the butt.....again....and again....and again......oh, and if YOU decide to complain about getting hit in the face and screwed in the a$$ then you are a bad country......that diplomacy??? :rolleyes:

Whatever. Yall vote for a pacifist all you want. Me? I'll vote for someone that's going to defend me, my family, and even LET me defend myself if the need arises. I'd rather vote for someone that is willing to fight when it's time to fight instead of play patty cake with someone that is openly professing wants to KILL YOU. Makes no sense to me, but if it does to you.....vote Obama. :goodjob:


OHHHH, one final thing to think about that is totally unrelated, but something to think about none-the-less:

IF Obama wasn't a Presidential nominee.......do yall think he would have ANY security clearance? Let's look at that just a half step further.....because of his ties......do you think he would NOT be on someone's "watch list" in some concrete building in Washington?????? Think about that for a minute before you answer.;)

Good response, no sacasm. Your response is definitaly something to take into consideration. We should not sit back and wait, but I have always questioned our tactics and motives in the past. The "cause and effect" theory needs to be taken into account. I will get flamed for saying this, but talking with some sense to people makes a big difference. Being cocky and arrogant can get you into trouble. That goes for the US and every other nation.

The Bush Doctrine is a bully tactic......"hey i think you are harbouring terrorist, gotta attack ya"! I don't think Clinton herself would have continued it, but rather she would be easily influenced.

The "IF" statement is null and void, beacuse IF said ties were an issue he would not be where he is right now. Ties to Bin Laden and Sadam didn't stop the other two now did it?

Jaimecbr900
09-12-2008, 02:32 PM
Good response, no sacasm. Your response is definitaly something to take into consideration.

Thank you. :goodjob:


We should not sit back and wait, but I have always questioned our tactics and motives in the past. The "cause and effect" theory needs to be taken into account. I will get flamed for saying this, but talking with some sense to people makes a big difference. Being cocky and arrogant can get you into trouble. That goes for the US and every other nation.

While I understand what you're saying, rationale has never been a terrorist/dictator/enemy attribute. Know what I mean?

World History shows us that sitting back and doing nothing nets you nothing. Look at Poland. Its invasion sparked our involvement in WWII. I bet if they had the capabilities they would NOT have waited for Hitler to march on in. Look at Israel. The size of a postage stamp, yet because of it's military capabilities it has been able to defend itself against much larger countries because it doesn't sit on it's hands when it gets bombed. Look at Vietnam. Even WITH the U.S. help they still got invaded by N.Vietnam. Look at France.....well, France is just France and we all know what that means....:lmfao: Seriously, sitting back and waiting on "sanctions" and "diplomacy" often times only prolongs the inevitable. Nothing more.


The Bush Doctrine is a bully tactic......"hey i think you are harbouring terrorist, gotta attack ya"! I don't think Clinton herself would have continued it, but rather she would be easily influenced.

See, this is where you and I probably disagree.

The "Bush doctrine" is active rather than passive. I'm all for that. Follow my logic here for a minute:

IF YOU KNEW by a vast majority of the evidence that 9/11 was being planned, would YOU wait to act? I'm willing to bet that if you ask any one of the families of the more than 3000 people that died that day would say "absolutely not". ;)

This is the premise of the so called "Bush doctrine". No more being sitting ducks and REACTING to terrorist threats. The warm and fuzzy world would have everyone believe that is a much more "peaceful" solution. The reality is that neither logic nor words are going to persuade someone who deep down in their core of beliefs thinks that he/she is acting upon their GOD'S command. As has been shown in this forum a million times before during Religious debates, Religion is based on FAITH and NOT necessarily LOGIC. So it's like fighting a fire with gasoline. Eventhough gasoline is cool and wet like water, it's not. Well, "talking" and "bargaining" with terrorists will NEVER work. They truly believe, right or wrong, that they are on a mandate from their GOD himself to KILL ALL OF US for a ton of reasons. Being passive only gets you DEAD with these people. Is that what you want?


The "IF" statement is null and void, beacuse IF said ties were an issue he would not be where he is right now. Ties to Bin Laden and Sadam didn't stop the other two now did it?

Its not null and void at all. Follow my point:

4 short yrs ago, Obama was a relative unknown. If today he were to still be a relative unknown, do you think that he....as an individual citizen....would NOT be on someone's, somewhere "watch list"????

I just read about a guy that is RETIRED MILITARY full blown home-grown U.S. citizen. Mr. Joe poster boy for Americana as there could be, right? Well, because he married a woman, that LATER converted to Islam, he is NOW.....years AFTER he's already honarably served his country....not being allowed by the U.S. gov't to obtain a passport due to the Patriot Act. A simple passport that you or I could probably get without any difficulty. Why? Because somewhere behind some concrete bunkered walled place, someone found some kind of tie between the wife's Islamic church and terrorism. Who knows how those dots got connected, but they did.

So do you honestly think that due to Obama's ties he would be any different? I seriously doubt it. Wouldn't surprise me if he was already on someone's list somewhere until probably recently.

BTW, there is a big difference in having ties in your background and making ties once you get into office. If the President of the most powerful country in the world is asked to be a diplomat and deal with other leaders who LATER turn out to be our very own enemy, it's not the same as when you VOLUNTARILY make friends in low places on your way to becoming a man. One is voluntary and the other is in the course of doing business. That's very different in every regard.

4dmin
09-12-2008, 02:42 PM
In my view Obama is much like many black preachers....he talks alot, gestures, says lots of words, the people clap, wave their hands and say 'amen'...but at the end of the day doesnt say much at all. The term 'fluffer' comes to mind.

Not saying Palin is good either, just sayin. Her wacky religious views should be a concern and are to me.

Biden is likely the best debater but winning a debate doesnt mean youre good or have the right ideas for the country...it just means youre good at debate.

you didn't mention mccain any reason?

metalman
09-12-2008, 02:55 PM
The "Bush doctrine" is active rather than passive.
.

The problem I have is with what some of that 'action' is.

Bush has implemented measures to allow marshall law and suspension of other freedoms I cherish in certain rather vague circumstances...all in the name of "security". I find that whole concept very troubling. FWIW, I find the concept of Obama being president troubling as well.

I have no problem with action...when its warranted against other countries/enemies...I just dont buy the 'sacrifice personal liberty for security doctrine' that seems to be part of the Bush doctrine...or accompanies it.

I favor a "mind your own business and carry a big stick" policy, if you go to war with an enemy you should seek to uttery destroy them more like Hiroshima, not waste lives and money as in the examples of Viet Nam and Iraq.

metalman
09-12-2008, 02:55 PM
you didn't mention mccain any reason?
Nope, no reason.

4dmin
09-12-2008, 02:58 PM
Jaime you are starting to sound like a conspiracy theory loon... "dont' think... what if"

Bush Doctrine has got us into enough trouble as it is... WMD? wasn't that the cause for war? Links to Obama Bin Ladin? any of that ring a bell? None of which have been proved w/o a doubt and even Palin/McCain have said their were no WMD.

The problem with this country is we are 2 faced. The Bush Doctrine just allows us to further this. We need to cut ties w/ countries that are bleeding us dry and attack those who seek to destroy us. You see i didn't say countries - reason being you have to have ful proof not a gut feeling. We have star wars projects all over the globe why do you think terrorist brought war to our soil? It is far easier to get into our country and create war then it is to wage war on america abroad. We shouldn't be meddling in foreign war affairs like Iraq, Iran, Russia, etc

Palin is a perfect example of what is wrong with certain people making decisions... she like bush can not act before consulting GOD or thinking they are doing his work.

4dmin
09-12-2008, 02:59 PM
The problem I have is with what some of that 'action' is.

Bush has implemented measures to allow marshall law and suspension of other freedoms I cherish in certain rather vague circumstances...all in the name of "security". I find that whole concept very troubling. FWIW, I find the concept of Obama being president troubling as well.

I have no problem with action...when its warranted against other countries/enemies...I just dont buy the 'sacrifice personal liberty for security doctrine' that seems to be part of the Bush doctrine...or accompanies it.

I favor a "mind your own business and carry a big stick" policy, if you go to war with an enemy you should seek to uttery destroy them more like Hiroshima, not waste lives and money as in the examples of Viet Nam and Iraq.too bad mccain didn't know you wanted to run for VP - you'd have my vote.

AirMax95
09-12-2008, 03:11 PM
While I understand what you're saying, rationale has never been a terrorist/dictator/enemy attribute. Know what I mean?

World History shows us that sitting back and doing nothing nets you nothing. Look at Poland. Its invasion sparked our involvement in WWII. I bet if they had the capabilities they would NOT have waited for Hitler to march on in. Look at Israel. The size of a postage stamp, yet because of it's military capabilities it has been able to defend itself against much larger countries because it doesn't sit on it's hands when it gets bombed. Look at Vietnam. Even WITH the U.S. help they still got invaded by N.Vietnam. Look at France.....well, France is just France and we all know what that means....:lmfao: Seriously, sitting back and waiting on "sanctions" and "diplomacy" often times only prolongs the inevitable. Nothing more.

Here again I agree completely. If there is a known threat we should definately defend ourselves to the fullest extent possible. My concern is the basis of much of our past "fights" were big lacks of commuinication all over. I like the notion of Obama talking to the world leaders, building a positive rapport. Sure it is the "nice" way to do things, but it could work. Now when people dont want to reason or are just set on violence..... :fire:




See, this is where you and I probably disagree.

The "Bush doctrine" is active rather than passive. I'm all for that. Follow my logic here for a minute:

IF YOU KNEW by a vast majority of the evidence that 9/11 was being planned, would YOU wait to act? I'm willing to bet that if you ask any one of the families of the more than 3000 people that died that day would say "absolutely not". ;)

This is the premise of the so called "Bush doctrine". No more being sitting ducks and REACTING to terrorist threats. The warm and fuzzy world would have everyone believe that is a much more "peaceful" solution. The reality is that neither logic nor words are going to persuade someone who deep down in their core of beliefs thinks that he/she is acting upon their GOD'S command. As has been shown in this forum a million times before during Religious debates, Religion is based on FAITH and NOT necessarily LOGIC. So it's like fighting a fire with gasoline. Eventhough gasoline is cool and wet like water, it's not. Well, "talking" and "bargaining" with terrorists will NEVER work. They truly believe, right or wrong, that they are on a mandate from their GOD himself to KILL ALL OF US for a ton of reasons. Being passive only gets you DEAD with these people. Is that what you want?


I agree again! If we KNOW for SURE, then we take care of business :cheers:

I was referring to the Doctrine as a whole. One of the biggest points in the doctrine is that "replacing dictatorships with democratic governments is both morally justified, since it leads to greater freedom for the citizens of such countries, and strategically wise, since democratic countries are more peaceful, and breed less terrorism, than dictatorial ones". While I agree with the notion, Iraq has proven that it is not that simple. The country still can't stand on it own two feet. Some people don't want our theories and beliefs.

Also, the notion that we the United States has the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves is completely understandable, if you have the correct intel and SOLID proof. If the US keeps walking around pulling the "accusation" trigger, you can only wonder when a country/nation is going to call it quits. Many military analyst felt that our approach would cause nations to create weapons of mass destruction to defend themselves of a random invasion by the US. *cough cough N.Korea is not playing, lol.*

As long as we are doing theses proactive invasions, with good intel for the RIGHT reasons, then the doctrine is fine. GW scares me, as does McCain, with their personal intentions. I see GW's goal on the surface, but its whats beneath that scares me.



Its not null and void at all. Follow my point:

4 short yrs ago, Obama was a relative unknown. If today he were to still be a relative unknown, do you think that he....as an individual citizen....would NOT be on someone's, somewhere "watch list"????

I just read about a guy that is RETIRED MILITARY full blown home-grown U.S. citizen. Mr. Joe poster boy for Americana as there could be, right? Well, because he married a woman, that LATER converted to Islam, he is NOW.....years AFTER he's already honarably served his country....not being allowed by the U.S. gov't to obtain a passport due to the Patriot Act. A simple passport that you or I could probably get without any difficulty. Why? Because somewhere behind some concrete bunkered walled place, someone found some kind of tie between the wife's Islamic church and terrorism. Who knows how those dots got connected, but they did.

So do you honestly think that due to Obama's ties he would be any different? I seriously doubt it. Wouldn't surprise me if he was already on someone's list somewhere until probably recently.

BTW, there is a big difference in having ties in your background and making ties once you get into office. If the President of the most powerful country in the world is asked to be a diplomat and deal with other leaders who LATER turn out to be our very own enemy, it's not the same as when you VOLUNTARILY make friends in low places on your way to becoming a man. One is voluntary and the other is in the course of doing business. That's very different in every regard.

I follow you, but this is America. If they wanted to pull Obamas card they would. Now if he DOES get in office and screws us, then I say mail him to N. Korea.

metalman
09-12-2008, 03:15 PM
too bad mccain didn't know you wanted to run for VP - you'd have my vote.

haha...you'd be the only one! :D

I should add that I much prefer diplomacy to war. Every effort should be made to prevent war. But once someone has demonstrated that they are my enemy I am willing to kill them down to the last woman and child...or until they agree to MY reasonable and humane terms, much like WW2 Japan. The notion that the brainwashed children of your extremist enemy are not a "threat" is a false one. American politicians should stop asking its faithful servicemen to fight these namby pamby halfassed 'wars'. If you dont want to utterly KILL ALL the enemy you should stay at the negotiating table.

4dmin
09-12-2008, 03:19 PM
haha...you'd be the only one! :D

I should add that I much prefer diplomacy to war. Every effort should be made to prevent war. But once someone has demonstrated that they are my enemy I am willing to kill them down to the last woman and child...or until they agree to MY reasonable and humane terms, much like WW2 Japan. The notion that the brainwashed children of your extremist enemy are not a "threat" is a false one. American politicians should stop asking its faithful servicemen to fight these namby pamby halfassed 'wars'. If you dont want to utterly KILL ALL the enemy you should stay at the negotiating table.

i agree 101% i can't stand the "dimplomatic war" - we don't live in civil war times where everyone walks onto a field and fires face 2 face

Jaimecbr900
09-12-2008, 03:59 PM
#1. I'm not a conspiracy loon. YOU know me better than that Paul. BTW, thanks for the drugs and the ride home last night. Tell Kate she's awesome.:goodjob:

#2. We have to look at the big picture. This Political correctness crap is what has got us to where we are now. I totally agree with Metalman in the respect that war should be all or nothing. Tip toeing through and trying to be all "green" about it is only going to net further wars because the job doesn't get done once and for all, i.e. Iraq.

#3. Diplomacy only gets you so far when you're dealing with real loons. At some point you will have to start shooting. Everyone recognizes this, except the pacifists. They want to "talk" about it. At some point, you have to feel confident that the job will get done if the chips are down. Especially when you are talking about national security.

#4. There will never be 100% proof when it comes to conspiracy. You can only prove so much. Terrorists are never going to show their full hand. So therefore, at some point, leaders have to make a decision BASED UPON the intel and information they are given.

blaknoize
09-12-2008, 06:02 PM
but the other day when i said the world was in an econmic down turn over rising energy costs, you said you agreed with that statement.

why the different opinion now?

Tony, i was merely posting responses for all the different websites, the overwhelming reaction is that she handled it well, and the Left will look for stuff to pick apart.

The overwhelming response was that she didnt hurt anything, and if you were the independant voter, you dont care about the BUSH DOCTRINE question anyway.

95% of American doesnt know what it is, and as i posted, all she did was ask for clarification then answered the question fine.

If u wasnt so one-sided this wouldnt be so hard for u to pick up and stop blaming. Us who root for Obama all admit we do not like certain things about him and/or his policy. U praise McCain for everything he has done, just as u have with the rich vs poor. Open ur head up, ur a business man, u shouldnt be stuck in a box

blaknoize
09-12-2008, 06:13 PM
IDK why Kidd is blocking so much. We who root for Obama and his VP are more open minded. We do not deny somethings that arent very well with us, we all dont praise him for the man he is. We all dont like all of the policies he has put together, we even see some good things in McCain from time to time. All this crap going around about Obama and his experience is like hot garbage.

As u and all of the world knows Palin is now Hillary and she is no Biden or Obama or even an echo of McCain. She is a VP who was picked strickly for strategic reasons (the hope of pulling Hillary voters) which isnt and did not work and is very rude to many women. Dude did all this on an assumption and u know it. She'll fail as a VP.