Sorry shoe, I’ll be nice to ya(but ya did get enlightened)

For the record I like Stiletto although we may disagree at times, it’s all good.

Although her and I, and others may disagree, the other readers may be enlightend along the way. This is the beauty of blogging!

Blaming Gibson and questioning the widely held views of the Bush Doctrine (as varied as it arguably is) as well as many other Presidential Doctrines can be a topic of questions posed.

I still strongly believe that it was an open ended question and Sarah Palin frankly did not know what the Bush Doctrine was.

I think many are blaming Gibson’s question frankly as a cop out excuse to give Sarah Palin a free pass on not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is.

I give the Vice Presidential position (a number two spot of the Country) more seriousness then this. Someone should at least ask her the same question again and see if she was schooled by her campaign on what the Bush Dotrine is.

She has been avoiding the Press not answering any questions on her campaign trail, that in itself is disturbing.

With a limited time till elections the media should have more access to her an ask questions especially since she’s a relatively unknown in politics.

If you click on the links embedded in the post and read all the articles you will see that the Bush Doctrine is not any one thing - and it’s certainly not what Charlie Gibson said it was. Or, at least, it was what he said for about a year or so before it morphed into something else. There is no Bush Doctrine per se. It is an evolving work in progress and Charlie Gibson’s question made no sense.

One of the people bringing Palin up to speed on Bush’s foreign policy and McCain’s plans on what to keep and what to toss was involved in formulating one of the Bush Doctrines. You don’t think he gave Palin the full monty and explained all the permutations of the Bush Doctrine? Of course he did.

Bush and McCain have the same ol lobbyist buddies at the cocktail parties. In fact they are riding in the back of McCains campaign bus as advisors.

McCains nut sack has been bought and sold more times over then a 65 year old prostitute.

Oh and don’t think I forgot that it was Clinton admin. 1992 that started the weak regulations on housing loans to Freddie and Fannie. His heart was in the right place to make sure anyone could get a loan, but sadly bad people started the “liar loans” 1998 and the rest is history.

yes Bush should have pushed congress to tighten these laws after Enron. I don’t know why he didn’t have the balls to.

McCain has the nut sack to just rip the band aid right off America’s bad economy and then dress the wound properly.

Equating the Bush Doctrine to a Rube Goldberg invention leads me to believe that you do not take this type of foreign policy doctrine seriously.

Your arguements further justify my previous post Charlie Gibson’s question was not specific leaving Palin to answer anyway she wanted, for, against, not answer directly.
Her initial response showed that she was clueless, probing Gibson to describe what the Bush Doctrine was.

Maybe if She was honest and stated she did not know what the Doctine was it would justify her as not being a Bush clone like McCain.

The main elements of the Bush Doctrine were delineated in a National Security Council document, the National Security Strategy of the United States, published on September 20, 2002.[17] This document is often cited as the definitive statement of the doctrine.[18][19][20] It was updated in 2006 and is stated as follows: [21]

“ It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense.

17.^ National Security Strategy of the United States, 2006
18.^ Editorial (2003-04-13). “Aftermath; The Bush Doctrine”, New York Times.
19.^ Editorial (2002-09-22). “The Bush Doctrine”, New York Times.
20.^ Gitlin, Todd (January/February 2003). “America’s Age of Empire: The Bush Doctrine”, Mother Jones. Retrieved on 2008-09-12
21.^ U.S. National Security Strategy 2006

“Foreign policy of Doctrine

In matters of foreign policy, a doctrine, also known as dogma, is a body of axioms fundamental to the exercise of a nation’s foreign policy. Hence, doctrine, in this sense, has come to suggest a broad consistency that holds true across a spectrum of acts and actions. Doctrines of this sort are almost always presented as the personal creations of one particular political leader, whom they are named after. Examples include the Monroe Doctrine, the Stimson Doctrine, the Truman Doctrine, the Eisenhower Doctrine, the Nixon Doctrine, the Brezhnev Doctrine, the Kirkpatrick doctrine, the Bush Doctrine.

Mirriam Webster - a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief, a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations e: a military principle or set of strategies

So without being specific, Charlie’s question was pretty lame if he expected a specific answer. It was truly a baited question targeted at confusing and confounding Palin to create news.

I woudld disagree with the point of your article. This was a textbook softball question.

Palin could have done anything to answer it anyway way She wanted.

She seemed to get a free pass on this question from the so-called liberal media.

If Biden had the same lame answer as Palin, you know he’d be fried at the steak.

And I doubt you would be defending him.

Or is it Mr Hans Christian Andersen?

In a video shown extensively on the net. John McCain on the other hand has been entirely clear what the Bush doctrine was all about and didn’t find it at all difficult or inscrutable.

What does that make him?