This. I had an immediate, negative gut reaction to her answer, and not because I’m shocked she didn’t know what the Bush Doctrine is. It sounded exactly like the sort of crap my (high school and college age) students tried to pull with me. God, I hated that.
How about “We don’t have the authority or the moral high ground to tell a sovereign nation what to do”?
Honestly, it’s a “have you stopped beating your wife” type question. Any answer besides an equivocating “we hope it won’t come to that” is going to be highly contentious. So it may not have been the answer you wanted to hear, but it was as good an answer as could be given.
This interview is just further confirmation of what I thought of Gov. Palin: she’s a female George W. Bush. They both seem to a little dim and in over their heads; they both just recite talking points without seeming to actually understand what they’re talking about; they both have phony reputations (Bush as a “compassionate conservative” in 2000, Palin as a “reformer” now); both are willing to tell an utter lie, no matter how obvious it is or how many times it’s been debunked; they both seem to be abusers of executive power; they both try to get by on some “ordinary guy/gal” type of charm; they both excite the hell out of movement conservatives.
I sure over the next few days, we’ll hear from the Limbaugh’s and the Hannity’s and the Kristol’s about why the interview didn’t matter, or how she’s being attacked by the “liberal media,” or how Americans like having a VP as dumb as the rest of us. Having lived through 7 years of Bush, I’m pretty confident that I know how a Palin presidency (a heartbeat away) would turn out, and I want no part of it.
And like Bush, she thinks Iraq is linked to 9/11. Oh wait, even Bush has “discarded” that idiocy.
Since when?
We pay $3 billion+ in military aid (between 15% to 20% of their defense budget). That should at least* rent* us a moment or two of authority and moral high ground.
You must have a mouse in your pocket then because every President in my lifetime has supported Israel and would not issue a blanket no.
I don’t have much of a problem with the Russia/Georgia answer but that interview as a whole was pretty weak stuff from Palin. It was exactly what you would expect from someone who knows very little about national security but is repeating the talking points her handlers gave her. Her flailing around about the Bush doctrine was painful to watch.
I’m not saying issue a blanket no, I’m just saying don’t say we’ll never say no. We have some very compelling self-interest in not wanting Iran attacked when we’ve still got thousands of troops right next door, and a Shiite Iraqi government.
What should be said is that while the US will always hold Israel’s safety as being of paramount importance, and that we will interfere as little as possible with her self-defense, we still need to work with Israel to make sure that threats to Israel are handled in a manner which does not threaten the interests of the US.
Hell, I’d demand that she should know about it, especially on an interview that millions are going to see. I don’t know every command SOP in this joint, but if I were to be nominated for Sergeant Major of this unit I’d damn well better know them when asked.
You know, something I realized after reading the interview transcript again was the her answers are pagent answers. Like this:
There’s a lot of cheerleading and rah rah flag waving, but there’s really almost no substantive content to any of her answers, and no indication that she has any detailed knowledge of anything. She’s bluffing her way through like it’s a Miss USA competition. The formula is the same for every question. She gives as generic a substantive response as she can get away with and then moves right on to bubbly, content free declarations about how we have to stand strong against terrorism and how wonderful America is.
I think Biden is going to eat her lunch. The more you really look at her answers, the more fluffy they really look.
That would be the correct political 2-step (checks to see if hell froze over for agreeing with DIO).
Given the recent war game scenario practiced in the Mediteranian with Turkey and the supposed sale of the Russian S-300 anti-aircraft system to Iran there is a window of opportunity that is rapidly closing. I’m sure I’m not the first to suggest that they will strike after the Nov elections. Lots of interesting stuff on the net but that would be for another thread.
Her answers were exactly what she was supposed to say. A candidate for President has to be very careful about making absolute statements of any sort on matters of war - they’re not in a position to set policy, and their words can cause the country problems. Obama kicked off a small storm when he said that he would invade Pakistan - he chose the wrong words. He was supposed to be more ambiguous, and say something like, “We will get Bin Laden wherever he is, and we’ll take the steps necessary to do it.” And leave it at that.
The question regarding Israel could not be answered in any way other than what she did, without kicking off headlines and causing an incident. If she says, “No, we would not support Israel”, then Israel has a conniption fit. If she says, “Yes, we’ll support Israel”, then Iran has a conniption fit.
The same goes for asking a candidate if they would use nuclear weapons in a certain conflict. The correct answer is always, “We will leave every option on the table.” Which is a non-answer. But there’s no other answer you can give.
The Bush Doctrine, for those who forget: Countries that harbor terrorists will be treated as terrorists. But that turned out to be a not-very-practical doctrine over the years, so it’s mutated and added on to. So I’m not surprised that she wasn’t quite sure what Gibson wanted to hear. Promotion of Democracy? Attacking other countries before the threat is imminent? Who knows? The official doctrine is a lot fuzzier now than it was six years ago. But she probably should have known it. Not a big deal, though.
As for the pray for God’s plan stuff - you know, that almost sounds anti-war to me. It sounds like she was saying, “Let’s pray for our soldiers, and let’s pray that they’re getting sent to Iraq to carry out a plan that makes a lick of sense.” She’s also on record as saying, a few months ago, that she wanted to hear an exit strategy for Iraq. Which puts her to the left of both Bush and McCain on Iraq.
I haven’t seen the whole interview yet (I’m on the road), but the excerpts I saw cover what’s being discussed here, and she sounded exactly like a candidate for Vice President should sound. There were no deer-in-the-headlights moments, and when caught on something she didn’t know (the Bush Doctrine), she seemed pretty fast on her feet in deflecting it. So far, I don’t think she did any damage to herself.
She was supposed to disagree with McCain (he opposes going into Pakistan, she wasn’t doing a very good job of being ambiguous in support of it)?
And come on Sam, it’s quite obvious she’s never heard the term “Bush Doctrine” in her life. If that wasn’t deer-in-headlights I can’t imagine what is. I was embarrassed for her even. I know the “Bush Doctrine has a murky definition, she just didn’t know which version he meant!” is the favorite talking point among Republicans for that gaffe, but it’s pretty obvious bullshit, best to not even try.
She really is Bush in a dress. Same incurious nature, pig-headedness (the whole never blink thing, she definitely doesn’t seem the sort to admit being wrong), and a trail of corruption and abuse of power scandals in her wake. Even Bush wasn’t quite so clueless though…
Since we set up a prison in Cuba so as to not be constrained by our own laws. Since we invaded a sovereign country on false pretenses. Since we can’t admit that our own actions for the past 50 years inspired the hijackers to attack us on 9/11. Since we toppled a democracy in 1953. Since we back Israel on everything they do.
I lived in Georgia. There is no way they should be part of NATO. They have so many internal and external problems that we would be committing to war immediately.
I have spent a great deal of time around here over the last four or five years, and I’ve heard a lot more anti-Bush talk around here than any person not an internet junkie is ever likely to hear, and if I’ve ever heard the term “Bush Docrine” at all, I don’t recall it.
Now, I would think that someone like her, with a large family and a very busy career and most likely nowhere near the time to spend listening to people bitch about George Bush that I’ve had, would very likely not have heard the term herself and there’s nothing at all wrong with that.
I think it’s pretty clear that Gibson was trying to force her to make problematic statements and get herself in trouble. Has he or anyone else in the MSM challenged Obama in the same way? They certainly didn’t during the Democratic primaries. I never heard a straight answer to a tricky question from either Obama or Clinton througout the entire process, and I certainly never heard either of them being pressed time and again to answer particularly problematic questions. I remember because I was annoyed that they weren’t.
Gibson was booed for his pathetic “debate” on lapel pins and other important issues in the Democrat’s primary. He asked all sorts of stupid shit, especially to Obama. If you mean he didn’t grill them on issues then yeah, he should’ve.
There’s nothing wrong with not knowing the foreign policy of the current administration, which resulted in two wars? The hell? This isn’t fucking American Idol, it’s the candidates job to know this shit.
Gibson, surprisingly, was just doing his job. All the candidates should be grilled, and Americans should stop electing the failures.
There’s quite a difference in my mind between knowing Bush’s foreign policy and knowing some obscure name for it.
The Bush doctrine.
Sure, it’s fine for her not to know what the Executive Branch’s guiding principles have been for the last 6 years. Lots of people don’t know. Just like lots of people probably don’t know what Russia’s beef with Georgia is. It’s not okay for someone not to know this, and run for vice president. Why is it okay for people who are pig-ignorant to run for VP?