Sep 11th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Imminent!
Interestingly, Sarah Palin seems to have outlined a sensible “imminent threat” standard for preemptive military action. It would have been nice for Charlie Gibson to point out that George W. Bush and John McCain agree that this is the wrong standard and we have the right to use military force unilaterally even where there isn’t an imminent threat. I think Palin’s view is sensible, so it would be interesting to learn her opinion of her running mate’s much less sensible view.
90 Responses to “Imminent!”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Budget
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Defense Budget
Demographics
Denmark
Economics
Economy
Energy
EU
Finance
Gender
Health Care
History
Immigration
Inequality
International Law
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Labor Markets
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NBA
Palestine
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Russia
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 11th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Sensible? Better take a look at her comments on Russia.
September 11th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
I liked the part where she clearly had no idea what the Bush Doctrine was.
September 11th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Yes, exactly. This is where Charlie sucked. He lobbed a gotcha question, but couldn’t handle the follow-up.
Still, I think she looked zealous and shallow answering it.
Unfortunately, the Zealous-and-Shallow demographic can easily carry a lot of states.
September 11th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Yeah, not sure that’s going to outweigh her ‘War with Russia is teh AWESOME’ comments on the ol’ sensibility scale.
September 11th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
She was pretty clearly unaware of the Bush doctrine or the Obama/McCain fight over whether to do a surgical strike into Pakistan. All she’s done is show an ability to regurgitate talking points
September 11th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
She also gave a muddled up response regarding oil supplies:
“[Putin’s] mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that’s a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.”
Eh – coming from and through Russia. Hmm, so our policy should be to prevent Russia from controlling energy supplies that are either in Russia or pass through Russia.
I’m guessing Russia’s not going to like that very much.
September 11th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Maybe I’m projecting my skepticism on this interview, but Gibson seems to be speaking in a lower tone, as though he is being careful not to startle or frighten Palin
September 11th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
To be fair, that does sort of seem to be the most common form of political discourse in this country.
September 11th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
I hate to take Palin seriously as a thinker but she may be president so here goes a follow-up: why do your criteria for NATO membership have nothing to do with the national security of any member nation?
September 11th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
why do your criteria for NATO membership have nothing to do with the national security of any member nation?
And nothing to do the criteria that NATO sets out for membership, which normally rules out nations with internal conflicts.
I hate to say this, but there appears to be a large section of the media that likes the idea of Mrs Moose, Reality Show Vice President. What frigging entertainment value.
September 11th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
I’m guessing Russia’s not going to like that very much.
Oh, I dunno. I think Putin’s needing to be helped back onto a chair after his laughing fit. As Josh Marshall said, this is the product of cramming with McCain’s crack foreign policy advisers.
September 11th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
I never thought I’d be praising GWB’s judgement but jeezes, it’s a good thing they kept these loonies out of the WH.
September 11th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Without the video, the transcript makes it sound as though maybe she didn’t do so badly.
But watching it on ABC News tonight, my jaw dropped when the Bush Doctrine question came up. She had a definite deer-in-headlights moment.
Throughout the interview, her extemporaneous delivery was choppy and staccato; that’s probably fine at the Governor level but it really isn’t the stuff you’re used to seeing in Presidential politics. Her nerves were showing, and Gibson was tougher than I expected.
Also, she pronounces it “nuke-you-ler.” Oy.
September 11th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
She doesn’t know what the Bush doctrine is.
She is going to be Vice-President. McCain is 72 years old.
She’s going to have the nuclear codes.
And she doesn’t know what the Bush doctrine is.
This isn’t funny anymore
September 11th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
She answered correctly about war with Russia if they were to invade a NATO member. An attack on one NATO member is an attack on all. It’s been that way for about sixty years, which may be why Russia hasn’t attacked, don’t you think?
September 11th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
anon, there’s only one part of your post I agree with: “She’s going to be Vice-President”.
It’s very important to keep Barack Obama out of the White House. Our enemies would test him immediately.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
If Americans weren’t so thoroughly lied to, there would never be so much support for a serial adulterer who has lost track of how many houses he owns and says that anyone who has less than $5 million isn’t rich.
Let’s send this total asshole packing in November with the most embarassing electoral defeat in modern American memory. It’s up to you to do it, just spread the word about how much this guy lies and how incompetent and greedy he is every day!
September 11th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
It’s been that way for about sixty years, which may be why Russia hasn’t attacked, don’t you think?
Possibly. But more likely it is because they have no particular interests at stake in attacking any current NATO country. This is obviously the whole issue with allowing Georgia into NATO. Russia does have interests in Georgia and in the Ukraine. If they felt it was in their interest to attack either, it is pretty unlikely that the existence of NATO would act as much of a deterrent. Very few members of NATO are going to be willing to start a conceivably world ending war over the question of Georgian independence and of course, Russia knows this. The far more likely result of Georgia joining NATO would not be World War III but rather the end of NATO.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
That was just pathetic. That wasn’t even a gotcha. He was trying to nail her on “will you disagree with Bush” and it was only after he asked the question that he realized she didn’t know it.
And even after he gave her the context any person who was paying attention in 2002 should know (pre-emption VS imminent risk), she blew it. She utterly blew it.
Her body language was like a high school kid who hadn’t done his homework. “How was chapter 2 of the book?” “Chapter 2 was a gripping continuation of the prior chapter, and the characters we had met in Chapter 1, which was the chapter prior and which was a powerful chapter in its own right, really began to come into their own vis-a-vis their further development, as did the plot which began to unfold …”
September 11th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
She doesn’t know what the Bush doctrine is. She is either stupid beyond belief or just doesn’t give a shit about foreign policy. I’m going with both. There are literally thousands and thousands of Americans who know this.
Unfortunately, this lack of knowledge probably makes her more appealing to the average swing voter.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
I follow politics and foreign affairs closely, but I’m not sure what the Bush Doctrine is. Initially, it was the principle that those states that harbor terrorists will be treated like terrorists. Then it evolved into a preemptive war doctrine. After, all these years and our inaction against Iran and the Pakistan tribal areas, where terrorists are harbored and threats to us are mounting, I’m not sure what remains of the Bush Doctrine. Thus, it was a bit of a trick question.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
“I follow politics and foreign affairs closely, but I’m not sure what the Bush Doctrine is. ”
Then you have absolutely no business being vice president.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
I know more about world history and politics than Barack Obama. That’s not a brag, but a lamentation.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
This made me laugh and immediately brought to mind the Speakers’ Corner scene from Life of Brian — He’s making it up as he goes along!
September 11th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
“I know more about world history and politics than Barack Obama. That’s not a brag, but a lamentation.”
Yes, I completely believe what an anonymous person online who just admitted to not knowing what the Bush doctrine was knows more about world history and politics. Yup, I’m sold.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Then it evolved into a preemptive war doctrine. After, all these years and our inaction against Iran and the Pakistan tribal areas, where terrorists are harbored and threats to us are mounting, I’m not sure what remains of the Bush Doctrine. Thus, it was a bit of a trick question.
Not really but that is really not the point. The point is that her answer seemed to indicate that wasn’t really aware of the concept of the Bush Doctrine in any level of nuance. Asked about it, she expressed a concept of foreign policy which wasn’t relevant to any particular definition of the Bush Doctrine. Gibson himself probably tripped her up by giving her the wrong definition. I think its possible that Gibson himself might be confused about what it means but thankfully he has no chance of becoming the VP.
Now, none of that is to suggest that her answer ought to frighten us. Truth is, I doubt McCain would do much better and I feel quite certain that we will be fighting ill-advised wars in a McCain administration in any case. Palin is not the person who should frighten us.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
55, thousands of Americans are more knowledgeable than BHO. Whether I’m one of them is not important. And don’t get me started on Slow Joe Biden, the dumb person’s idea of a smart person.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
I know millions of times more about everything than all Republicans put together times a billion. That’s not bragging, that’s lamentorating. And please, don’t get me started on Jesus S. Maverick McCain III, the pedophile’s idea of a smart politician.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
“It’s very important to keep Barack Obama out of the White House. Our enemies would test him immediately.”
This is a ridiculous argument. I’ve heard it deployed many times in my life. Usually starts like this: The Democrat is WEAK! Weakweakweak! He’s not tough enough to be president. After it’s shown that the Democrat is plenty strong enough, this argument is trotted out: well, he may be strong enough, but why tempt our enemies? Better to just avoid the whole problem.
This has been repeatedly used by more bellicose candidates against less bellicose candidates. It’s a way of insuring that the more bellicose candidate (i.e. the Republican) wins.
It amounts to a kind of convenient cowardice on the part of conservatives–ooh, we don’t want any trouble! So we should let the thugs of the world, in essence, determine the outcomes of our elections.
It’s nonsense. Obama’s judgment has been better than McCain’s…it’s the latter we should worry about, not the former. Better to have a reasonable person who is more likely to be tested than a less reasonable person who is less likely to be.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
She answered correctly about war with Russia if they were to invade a NATO member.
Read up on NATO Membership Action Plans, and get back to us.
It’s been that way for about sixty years, which may be why Russia hasn’t attacked, don’t you think?
Uh, right. For two-thirds of those sixty years, Ukraine and Belarus and Georgia and Armenia and Moldova weren’t actually separate countries. Now go and chop up some oranges for that apple pie.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
pseudo, an attack on one NATO member is by treaty an attack on all. Clinton decided to extend NATO protection to former Soviet satellites and Republics. I agree with this expansion, but it is a real obligation. We can’t just say, “Sorry, Estonia, we didn’t really mean it”.
As to whether, Ukraine or Georgia should be brought under the protection of NATO, that’s a tough call. Georgia, especially is logistically difficult to defend. Ukraine makes more sense, but there are pros and cons. The big problem with NATO is that we’re the only member with a serious military. The “free rider” problem is huge among the Euros, who like to feel morally superior to the country that’s actually protecting them.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Oh, dear god. She never even heard of the Bush doctrine. Somebody’s going to be up late cleaning up pieces of skull and brains in Provincetown tonight because Sully’s head just exploded for real.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Winston Smith, my point was that we need a strong leader to stand up to the thugs. Khrushchev thought he could roll JFK, and Brezhnev did roll the peanut guy. Nobody’s rolling John McCain. The military gives you a better sense of how the world operates than does community organizing. Chicago politics could be a good education, but not when you’re the protege of the crooks and radicals.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
“Nobody’s rolling John McCain.”
Putin doesn’t have to — just sit back and laugh while McCain keeps the U.S. in Iraq forever. By the way, how’d underestimating Barack Obama go for Hillary and Bill Clinton?
September 11th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
McCain is acting a lot like Khrushchev, already, e.o’neal.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Brezhnev rolled Jimmy Carter? Who do you think started the Afghan war that Reagan claimed to win?
September 11th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Matt, could you link to this? Is this part of the “Bush Doctrine” exchange? Nevermind, there it is. Good point.
I just heard David Gergen confirm on CNN: there are no big headlines of her “stepping in it.” Of course Gergen was answering AC’s question: how did she do, and Gergen openly states he hasn’t heard or read it. The solipsism is complete.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
I thought the Bush Doctrine was to turn (Muslim) dictatorships into democracies, regardless of the imminence of any threat. Palin certainly got a blank look on her face when Charlie mentioned the term, but his version of it all surprised me also.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
There are at least two MAJOR gaffes here (Bush Doctrine and Russia, plus Matt’s point on inconsistency with McCain). The media will simply declare that there’s nothing to see here (she did great!), conclude from the absence of headlines that there should be no headlines, or most likely frame any discussion of her unpreparedness as Obama/liberals claiming that is so, fueling the ‘wolves out for Palin’ meme.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
As Becca says, McCain has his shoe in his hand…….
September 11th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
rupert, the term “Bush Doctrine” has meant different things at different times. As I mentioned earlier, with Iran’s open harboring of the terrorists that kill our troops in Iraq, and the safe havens in the Pakistan tribal areas that the Taliban use to attack us in Afghanistan, I defy anyone to tell me what it means today. If you asked ten different senators, you’d get ten different answers.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
I figured that out E.
Just thought I’d offer another version, which I believe Bush has actually tried to put forth at some point.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
David Frum on Palin tonight: “Underinformed and overconfindent.” But on the brightside for David, no macaca moment “so she survives.” Way to set the bar high!
September 11th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Led…. they don’t have macacas in Alaska do they?
September 11th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
I don’t think that is her viewpoint. I think she was just trying to fit the talking points she had memorized in the places she thought were the most appropriate. Based on this interview, I doubt she even understands the distinction between the Bush doctrine and the one she espoused in her answer. You are giving her way too much credit.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
macaca moment — a minor gaffe that the Washington Post runs daily front page stories on for weeks, thus deciding a close election.
No doubt the MSM are eagerly awaiting a Republican macaca moment. There are no Democrat macaca moments.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
New political vocabulary…… macaca…… swift boat… lipstick on a pig (I know it’s not new)…Palin… community organizer…my friends
September 11th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
OK all you fucksticks,
There is no such thing as the “Bush Doctrine”. It is a constantly evolving string of consciousness from the POTUS. If you were to ask 1,000 people in DC what the “Bush Doctrine” was, you would get 1,000 different answers.
You are with us or against us
Mission Complete
Drain the swamp
Islam is a religion of peace
Yada yada
September 11th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
To dances…
Spoken with the eloquence of a true conservative! Thank you for confirming what I’ve long thought about the type of people who support Bush/McCain.
I’m sorry to disillusion you, but there is something called the Bush doctrine. Why don’t you Google “Dick Cheney”, “quote”, “bush doctrine” and see what you come up with? Unless you think Cheney was just making it up?
While you may not be able to understand the nuances associated with discussions of the Bush doctrine, in summary it is the doctrine of preemptive war, meaning we have the right to strike countries militarily that we perceive to pose a threat even when that threat is not imminent.
The other comments on the Bush doctrine are expansions on what it means but do not deviate from the significance of it.
Anyway, I’m not interested in what 1,000 different people in DC have to say, because 1,000 people in DC are not asking for support in becoming vice president to a man in his 70s who has had 4 bouts of cancer.
I will ask Joe Biden the next time I see him. I suspect he’ll have a much better answer than “his world view?”
September 11th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
BTW – I think admitting Georgia into NATO would be a mistake. Of course, it would take a vote of the NATO council to admit them so I don’t see a bunch of balless Western Europeans letting them in any time soon. Russia equals more than Georgia in the big picture.
And too the whiz kid (BFR) that was bashing Palin’s delivery of an answer; have you heard Obama without a teleprompter? It is painful.
BTW – Arkansas draft dodger/commander in chief of the Arkansas National Guard had as much “military” experience as Palin. Having testicles is no qualifier/disqualifier.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
I may be wrong, but I don’t think Gov. Palin ever uttered the word “diplomacy.”
September 11th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
If these are the best lines of attack you have, you should go play somewhere else. Clinton has a bachelor of science in foreign service from Georgetown, he was a Fullbright scholar, and has a law degree from Yale.
Palin has a 4 year journalism degree from the University of Idaho that took her 6 years to achieve.
And yes, I heard Obama without a teleprompter tonight. He could get a lobtomy first and still beat Palin in a debate.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
CatM – Joe may have a better answer but damn! It takes him a long time to spit it out. He is a poseur. Palin is going to eat his lunch in the debate in Saint Louis and you know it!
September 11th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
The only thing Palin will be eating at that debate is crow.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
CatM – I will note that Harry Truman did not have a college degree and I doubt if he had a passport. Seems to have done well 60 years after the fact.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Of course, Obama won’t be debating Palin. She is the Vice Presidential candidate after all. Of course, you can’t name 10 VP’s before 1945 without googling it. VP in the Civil War (600 KIA)? Smart guy if you can answer in the next minute.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
That should be 600K KIA. My Woodford Reserve is kicking in at this point.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
As I expected. No answer. Go to bed.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Truman was far more experienced in life and government than Sarah Palin, having served in the military and as a military officer, as a judge, and 1-1/2 terms in the senate before becoming vice president. He also attended 2 years of law school. Truman also appears to have had at least twice as many brain cells as Palin.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
I am actually a woman, and I can name most of the VPs prior to 1945. As part of my 11th grade US History class, we had to memorize the names of all the Presidents and all the VPs and their terms in office. But let’s not get into a contest over who knows more. It’s rather silly, and I’d hate to do that to you.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Not to derail the thread, but its disingenuous to refer to the macaca gaffe as “minor”. George Allens’ mother is of Tunisian descent; he knew what that word meant. When shopping mall Santa’s get fired for calling little black children monkeys, I don’t see why a politician should be held to the same standard.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
I will grant the military officer although he had a worm’s eye view in WWI. He did stay in the Guard and retired as a colonel in 1940 (?). The judge piece was actually as a county commissioner. Look it up. Different states call it different things but he was not judging cases. Law school? Never heard that and I have read two biographies; I will conceed the point because it is late. So what. I doubt he had twice as many brain cells. He actually had experience as a senator investigating corruption in the letting of contracts for WWII.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Whitey – not to be oppositional here but my Canadian grandfather referred to anyone that annoyed him as a “bugger”. That slipped into my lexicon, “What a dumb bugger”. Later in life, and I am talking late 20’s, I realized that some people refer to “buggers” as homosexuals. I don’t think that was my grandfather’s intent. Should that be held against me? I do think that buggery is kind of gross so maybe that is a subtraction of 20 points.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Whitey – of course the guy he was refering to was obviously not of N. African descent. Kinding of stretching a French slur to include Indians which they have no experience of slurring. I’m just saying….
September 11th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
It was the Kansas City Law School. He was called a judge even if he wasn’t adjudicating. No idea what you mean about “worm’s eye view.” If you mean he was a leader on the ground rather than a strategic commander, so? Anyone who considers Palin qualified is thinking with something other than the part of our brains responsible for logic.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
“worm’s eye view” means he had a very small part of the war. He commanded an artillery battery which was probably less than 200 soldiers. He had one KIA in his battery.
Palin is at least, if not more, qualified than Obama. I don’t think Mac is going to kick the bucket in the first six months and she has proven to be a quick study.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Whitey, would you consider BHO’s campaign calling Hillary the Senator from Punjab a macaca moment? Indian-Americans were offended, but the Washington Post didn’t run dozens of front page stories. http://www.nypost.com/seven/06162007/news/nationalnews/punjab_hits_obama_nationalnews_ian_bishop.htm
September 11th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
So, George Allen is at an event where the audience is pretty much 100% Caucasian, and there’s this one brown guy there who he just happens to call a monkey? I’m sorry, but I really, really doubt it.
September 12th, 2008 at 12:00 am
I know it’s not wise to take the troll bait, but Jesus people, the Bush Doctrine has meant only one thing, and in fact was spelled out in a specific document: the 2002 National Security Strategy.
It argues that the US will take unilateral action to counter any potential threat to US interests or personnel. Even more, it legitimizes preventive war – not preemptive, but preventive – in pursuit of the aforementioned aim.
September 12th, 2008 at 12:07 am
Calling Hillary out for supporting outsourcing by calling her the Democrat from Punjab is not at all the same thing as calling a person of color a monkey. In poor taste, sure, but I fail to see how that’s racist. Moreover, the offensive part of the statement, according to the article you linked, seems to be that it criticized the Clintons’ close ties to the Indian-American community, yet it fails to provide a direct quote on this issue, so it’s hard for me to say one way or another. But, once again, what George Allen said was essentially the same as calling a Chinese person a chink, a Korea or Viet a gook, or an African-American a nigger.
September 12th, 2008 at 12:25 am
Andrew, that’s true, but our personnel are being killed by terrorists operating out of safe havens in Iran and Pakistan. So what does the Bush Doctrine mean today? Is it a dead letter? Not one senator out of ten would give your answer.
Charlie Gibson would never ask that pop quiz type question of Obama. He would instead ask a specific question with a clear meaning. His purpose would not be to make the subject of the interview hesitate to figure out what is being asked, which to the untrained eye resembles confusion.
Gibson’s hostile intentions were also revealed by his persistent, patronizing, insulting questions about her qualifications — which he would never ask of the less experienced Obama. Also, he elided her church quote, the one she said didn’t sound like what she had actually said, changing its sense entirely. But she did great anyway.
I’m sure many women in the audience identified painfully with the type of condescending treatment she received for daring to play with the big boys.
September 12th, 2008 at 12:33 am
Part of the problem is that mainstream journalists don’t understand the difference between “preemptive” and “preventive.” Preemption, by definition, involves an imminent threat of attack from the other side. The Bush doctrine, on the other hand, authorizes preventive war against countries even when the threat is not imminent.
And let’s face it, both the Democratic and Republican wings of the bipartisan foreign policy establishment are full of shit when it comes to “threats.” Most of the great “threats” in the world involve what some other country on the other side of the world does within a few hundred miles of its own borders. The U.S. couldn’t even fight wars with such “threatening” countries if we weren’t accommodating enough to overcome the logistical challange by sending forces over there.
September 12th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Whitey, would you consider BHO’s campaign calling Hillary the Senator from Punjab a macaca moment? Indian-Americans were offended, but the Washington Post didn’t run dozens of front page stories.
Not sure what sort of comparison you are trying to draw here. You do understand that Punjab is a region in India and not a racial slur, right? You do also realize that the “joke” there is intended to highlight the Clinton’s alleged support for outsourcing? I am sure that credit card CEO’s are also offended when people make fun of Joe Biden by listing him as (D-MBNA) but are you really suggesting that that is analogous to what happened in the Allen situation? That is not credible.
Perhaps you haven’t seen the video in awhile. Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r90z0PMnKwI. Allen made a point of singleing out this kid, a college student who was videotaping the proceedings for Jim Webb and using a particular unusual bit of terminology to refer to him. Now set aside whether it can be plausibly argued that it was not a racial slur. He was singling out a kid with the quite discernable intent to make him feel unwelcome. This wasn’t harsh criticism of a political rival’s policies. It was a direct personal attack on a college kid working a video camera.
September 12th, 2008 at 1:05 am
“While you may not be able to understand the nuances associated with discussions of the Bush doctrine, in summary it is the doctrine of preemptive war, meaning we have the right to strike countries militarily that we perceive to pose a threat even when that threat is not imminent.”
I’ve not only heard of this, I’ve even read the 2002 National Security Strategy. I really had no idea until today that it was called the “Bush Doctrine”. I would have flubbed the question too.
I always had assumed it was called the “Cheney Doctrine”.
September 12th, 2008 at 1:40 am
The posts of the self-described, esteemed scholar “E. O’Neal” above ring like those of a former participant of this blog at the old place. That was a person who seemed to be closely related to the AIPAC lobby, or else parroted their positions on every foreign policy issue. If it isn’t him, then it’s his twin. Disregard them all, for they are right-wing Israeli propaganda–unless you are in line with the Israeli right-wing–in which case they are TRUD to you.
***************
We are in a truly frightful condition in America today. Overseas, we are abhored, because the rest of the world thinks we are trying to dominate the world. Multiple public opinion polls show the same thing. (And it isn’t that American’s are bad people, it’s just that the activities of our government give the impression that we are trying to take over the rest of the world.) Most Americans would be quite satisfied with trying to make our part of the world a little more sanguine. I do not believe that a majority of Americans want to rule the rest of the world.
The worst condition we face is a financial one. This stems from a faulty monetary creation system. The US Constitution grants to the US Congress the exclusive right to create the money of the United States.
It doesn’t say a damn thing about some “shadow banking systenm” or anything of the sort. Neither does it state that the banks shall create the money of the United States. Nope, it says nothing of the sort. “Congress shall have power to…coin the money of the United States. …”
When all else fail, read the directions.
September 12th, 2008 at 1:45 am
The MSM hasn’t referred regularly to the Bush Doctrine in tears. A reader of the NYT, WaPo or Time, or a viewer of ABC News (I understand they’re all in nursing homes) would probably wonder what the hell Gibson was talking about, which was his intention. Unfortunately for him, she’s much brighter than he is, and Gibson came across as an insufferable jerk. Especially, when he couldn’t even grasp her prayer, which was standard Christianity with echoes of Lincoln’s second Inaugural Address.
September 12th, 2008 at 1:46 am
Make that “years”.
September 12th, 2008 at 2:45 am
They’re going to ask you a question about blinking, so for God’s sake don’t screw that one up
September 12th, 2008 at 4:07 am
“our personnel are being killed by terrorists operating out of safe havens in Iran and Pakistan.”
If our fucking morons that you refer to as “our personnel” were NOT IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN, they wouldn’t be getting killed by anybody, terrorists or otherwise.
If the US wasn’t supporting the scumbag racist, imperialist, religious fanatic, corrupt nation of Israel and the corrupt monarchies of the Middle East, bin Laden wouldn’t give a rat’s ass about the US.
If the US wasn’t invading countries to get oil (Iraq) or oil pipelines and heroin (Afghanistan), we would not have to care about Al Qaeda or other groups killing our troops.
Anything that happens to the US as a result of terrorist action is DESERVED due to the behavior of the US in the world.
Yes, this means the 3,000 dummies who got killed on 9/11 deserved to die – assuming they weren’t all anarchists who opposed the US state. If you support the US behavior in the world, you deserve to get your ass blown up. It’s that simple.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:02 am
I don’t really care about a candidates resume. Just demonstrate that you’ve paid attention, that you have a genuine interest world affairs, that you appreciate that the world is a complex place, that you have spent time thinking carefully about the issues, and that you have a steady temperament and good judgment. Basically, the opposite of George W. Bush. Tonight Palin demonstrated the opposite of all of the qualifications mentioned above. She’s shallow, uninformed, incurious, overconfident, and blustering. Exactly just like George W. Bush. Well, not exactly — she a more glib, polished speaker than Bush.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:25 am
E. O’Neal,
I was going to cut and past several of your ignorant statements throughout this thread and offer counterpoints, but then I realized something…..
you are an idiot.
March 1st, 2009 at 7:41 pm
cialis
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:58 am
levitraExcellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:11 am
Great site. Good info
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:33 am
tramadol
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:46 am
Incredible site!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:28 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 14th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Excellent site, It was pleasant to me.
viagra