T Nation

The Lip-Stick Pitbull Goes to War

http://www.therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=2313

“Alaska governor Sarah Palin was able to display her foreign policy knowledge - which does not include understanding the meaning of the Bush doctrine of preemptive war.”

Charles Krauthammer: “There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration – and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.”

For the rest of Krauthammer’s commentary: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457_pf.html

Hey, genius - if we want to go read “The Real News” website in its entirety, we’ll go there.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
http://www.therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=2313 [/quote]

Thanks zep , I am going to post this on another thread

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
http://www.therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=2313

Thanks zep , I am going to post this on another thread[/quote]

Didn’t even bother to read the rebuttal gypsy posted? Nothing to say on that matter?

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
http://www.therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=2313

Thanks zep , I am going to post this on another thread

Didn’t even bother to read the rebuttal gypsy posted? Nothing to say on that matter?[/quote]

Which happens to be the case. Even Karl Rove, (who I’m certain is lying though right?), said when Gibson asked that question he wasn’t sure exactly what he was asking either. There is no common definition of the “Bush Doctrine” that somebody would be woefully deficient in not knowing. The “Bush Doctrine” is not even a commonly used term. It has probably gotten more attention since that interview than it did in the previous year. In fact I bet a good portion of the populous heard it for the first time the other night.

What if she assumed he was talking about one version and then he pulled one the other definitions out of his hat? She did the right thing asking what he meant. BTW, the various versions are not a result of Bush changing his mind, they’re a result of the media calling the various things he’s said over time “the Bush Doctrine”.

I have not been one to protect her since this all began, not even on the deal with her daughter, but can we at least come up with something valid?

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
There is no common definition of the “Bush Doctrine” that somebody would be woefully deficient in not knowing. The “Bush Doctrine” is not even a commonly used term. [/quote]

That’s quibbling over the details, really.

The Bush Doctrine is nothing particularly earth-shattering. It’s just an unapologetic continuation and stepping up of the unilateralism in American foreign policy that goes back to…well, a long time.

The Bush Doctrine, as directly derived from the president’s post-9/11 speech and PNAC-crazed entourage, is understood to mean that the US reserves the right to attack preemptively any country that has the potential (in strict terms, both the knowledge and infrastructure) to make WMDs. Whether it represents a real threat to the security of the US is not as important as whether it could potentially be in a position to threaten your security.

It was first laid out in 2002, and updated two years ago.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/

I urge you to read it.

Is it helping the case for pitbulls that we’re using this as a figure of speech? Obvious over-aggressiveness? Heh.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
There is no common definition of the “Bush Doctrine” that somebody would be woefully deficient in not knowing. The “Bush Doctrine” is not even a commonly used term.

That’s quibbling over the details, really.

The Bush Doctrine is nothing particularly earth-shattering. It’s just an unapologetic continuation and stepping up of the unilateralism in American foreign policy that goes back to…well, a long time.

The Bush Doctrine, as directly derived from the president’s post-9/11 speech and PNAC-crazed entourage, is understood to mean that the US reserves the right to attack preemptively any country that has the potential (in strict terms, both the knowledge and infrastructure) to make WMDs. Whether it represents a real threat to the security of the US is not as important as whether it could potentially be in a position to threaten your security.

It was first laid out in 2002, and updated two years ago.

I urge you to read it.[/quote]

It’s not quibbling over details. It goes to the heart of the legitimacy of the question as asked.

And nowhere in that document is there one syllable that codifies into anything that could be commonly termed the “Bush Doctrine” and hence somebody asked in those words could be excused for not immediately grasping the question. The word doctrine does not occur even once.

You can say what you want about some other people maybe, but I would be saying this if it were Obama. There is no common vernacular associated with the term “Bush Doctrine” and Gibson clearly attempted to make her look ignorant by asking a question that would probably have had anybody in the defense department asking for clarification.

BTW, it turns out you know what unilateral means after all huh?

We reserve that right because we say so and if you don’t like it tough shit. For the record I would have no respect for any other country, even our enemies, if they did not hold the same view.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
It’s not quibbling over details. It goes to the heart of the legitimacy of the question as asked.

And nowhere in that document is there one syllable that codifies into anything that could be commonly termed the “Bush Doctrine” and hence somebody asked in those words could be excused for not immediately grasping the question. The word doctrine does not occur even once.

You can say what you want about some other people maybe, but I would be saying this if it were Obama. There is no common vernacular associated with the term “Bush Doctrine” and Gibson clearly attempted to make her look ignorant by asking a question that would probably have had anybody in the defense department asking for clarification. [/quote]

I get your point. But if you watch the interview closely, you can see that she doesn’t claim to ignore what it means. She asks the interviewer back “in what respects?”. As in, what part of the Bush Doctrine.

The real deal here is that she tried to avoid the question because she didn’t want people to associate her with Bush and at the same time, couldn’t denounce the Bush Doctrine whose supporters make up the GOP base. She really ended up looking surprised and sounding pretty dumb.

People accusing her of ignorance, and people trying to make the case that the Bush Doctrine is not a commonly used term, have probably not watched her interview.

Eh?

Not following.

I perfectly understand that. And there’s nothing anyone can do about it (at least, for now).

What gets on my nerves really is the bunch of people parroting the “spreading freedom” and “democracy” crap. If they’d just open their eyes and realize that the US attacks countries because 1) it can, 2) the attacked can’t do shit about it, 3) the government thinks it is in their best interests, we’d be better off. But no, they have to justify bombings, invasions and assorted crimes by saying that the US is acting in that fashion for the benefit of the world, that it’s protecting the poor and disenfranchised, etc.

I don’t really know how smart it is to say “tough shit” to the world’s population, but I suppose you’ll find out eventually. Personally, I believe in reciprocity and that violence should only be used in clear-cut cases of immediate self-defense. And I reserve the right to burn your flag, slam your elected officials and egg your embassies as long as you don’t learn the imperialistic lessons Europe learned long ago.

And by any account, time isn’t on your side.

[quote]lixy wrote:
What gets on my nerves really is the bunch of people parroting the “spreading freedom” and “democracy” crap. If they’d just open their eyes and realize that the US attacks countries because 1) it can, 2) the attacked can’t do shit about it, 3) the government thinks it is in their best interests, we’d be better off. But no, they have to justify bombings, invasions and assorted crimes by saying that the US is acting in that fashion for the benefit of the world, that it’s protecting the poor and disenfranchised, etc.
[/quote]

We attacked countries to stop the spread of Nazism, and Communism, to free Kuwait, because we were attacked on 9-11 and to take down a genocidal dictator.

Which other invasions were you talking about?

edit- It’s not like we are leading an Islamic Revolution and conducting Jihad in 50 countries now.

[quote]lixy wrote:
<<< I get your point. But if you watch the interview closely, you can see that she doesn’t claim to ignore what it means. She asks the interviewer back “in what respects?”. As in, what part of the Bush Doctrine.[/quote]

The word doctrine can refer to anything unless it were commonly accepted nomenclature for something specific which it is not. When she asked “in what respect Charlie?.. his world view?” that was a perfectly legitimate request for clarification in view of the fact that he could have been referring to almost any component of Bush foreign policy.

She would really have looked dumb had she proceeded with out being sure of the thrust of an intentionally murky question.

Nevermind, it was a follow up to a joke in another thread.

You continue to misrepresent our actions. We do spread freedom though you are correct in so far as that is a side effect and not the primary motivation which is indeed our self interests and defense. What are crimes to you are simply living in reality to me.

You are also right that if we do not quit putting these pacifistic dreaming peaceniks into the house and senate and especially if we entrust our security to “citizens of the world” like Obama, time is not on our side.

I am actually genuinely curious. What form of government would you prefer it you had the power to spontaneously enact it globally?

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The word doctrine can refer to anything unless it were commonly accepted nomenclature for something specific which it is not. When she asked “in what respect Charlie?.. his world view?” that was a perfectly legitimate request for clarification in view of the fact that he could have been referring to almost any component of Bush foreign policy.

She would really have looked dumb had she proceeded with out being sure of the thrust of an intentionally murky question.[/quote]

I have no doubts that she knew exactly what the interviewer was asking of her. But you see, she couldn’t start her answer with a “yes” or “no” because of what I explained above.

Watch it again and tell me that she wasn’t both surprised and evasive.

http://brokencontrollers.com/forums/sarah-palin-and-the-bush-doctrine-video-interview-included-t24567.php

[quote]And by any account, time isn’t on your side.

You continue to misrepresent our actions. [/quote]

Actually, that’s more speculation on my part than anything else.

Sometimes. Other times, you spread dictatorships, overthrow democratically elected regimes, etc.

This is some sentence. I can’t quite make any sense out of it.

No, no. Time isn’t on your side, period. It’s got nothing to do with who’s in the White House or anywhere else. This is simply the fate of every other imperialistic power.

There’s only so much crap you can get past the population before they rise up and kick your butt. And with the advent of global communications, ubiquitous phones and cameras, you’re practically screwed from the get-go.

Let’s just hope that it goes down in a whimper rather than thousands of nukes.

I’m a libertarian socialist.

Power to the people, first and foremost. No hierarchies. No coercive or violent institutions. No borders. Everything else is democratically decided on a local level.

[quote]lixy wrote:
I’m a libertarian socialist.

Power to the people, first and foremost. No hierarchies. No coercive or violent institutions. No borders. Everything else is democratically decided on a local level.[/quote]

If everything is democratically decided on a local level, someone, somehwhere, would say “Fuck this”, and try to take over their neighbor. Hence, others would decide to defend themselves, and “violent institutions” would develop.

I understand the idealistic view, but am not sure of the realism behind it. Maybe I’m just jaded.

What is a “local level” if there are no borders to define “local?”

LS1: I argue that I’m not within your local level, therefore, I refuse to recognize the democratic decisions made in your locality.

LS2: Of course you’re local as you’re obviously within a local geographical area.

L1: So now we have borders again?

L2: Weeeeelll, we don’t like to refer to them as such…

[quote]lixy wrote:
I’m a libertarian socialist.
[/quote]

And I suppose you regularly divide by zero as well?

[quote]lixy wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
The word doctrine can refer to anything unless it were commonly accepted nomenclature for something specific which it is not.

When she asked “in what respect Charlie?.. his world view?” that was a perfectly legitimate request for clarification in view of the fact that he could have been referring to almost any component of Bush foreign policy.

She would really have looked dumb had she proceeded with out being sure of the thrust of an intentionally murky question.

I have no doubts that she knew exactly what the interviewer was asking of her. But you see, she couldn’t start her answer with a “yes” or “no” because of what I explained above.

Watch it again and tell me that she wasn’t both surprised and evasive.

http://brokencontrollers.com/forums/sarah-palin-and-the-bush-doctrine-video-interview-included-t24567.php

And by any account, time isn’t on your side.

You continue to misrepresent our actions.

Actually, that’s more speculation on my part than anything else.

We do spread freedom though you are correct in so far as that is a side effect and not the primary motivation which is indeed our self interests and defense.

Sometimes. Other times, you spread dictatorships, overthrow democratically elected regimes, etc.

What are crimes to you are simply living in reality to me.

This is some sentence. I can’t quite make any sense out of it.

You are also right that if we do not quit putting these pacifistic dreaming peaceniks into the house and senate and especially if we entrust our security to “citizens of the world” like Obama, time is not on our side.

No, no. Time isn’t on your side, period. It’s got nothing to do with who’s in the White House or anywhere else. This is simply the fate of every other imperialistic power.

There’s only so much crap you can get past the population before they rise up and kick your butt. And with the advent of global communications, ubiquitous phones and cameras, you’re practically screwed from the get-go.

Let’s just hope that it goes down in a whimper rather than thousands of nukes.

I am actually genuinely curious. What form of government would you prefer it you had the power to spontaneously enact it globally?

I’m a libertarian socialist.

Power to the people, first and foremost. No hierarchies. No coercive or violent institutions. No borders. Everything else is democratically decided on a local level.[/quote]

A libertarian socialist?? Go start that party and see how far it gets.

No borders? Just one big free for all. I assume no military either.

You really are clueless.

[quote]lixy wrote:
here’s only so much crap you can get past the population before they rise up and kick your butt. [/quote]

Hey Lixy, just curious…what “population” are you talking about here?

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:
here’s only so much crap you can get past the population before they rise up and kick your butt.

Hey Lixy, just curious…what “population” are you talking about here?[/quote]

Religious minorities, women, apostates, atheists, and homosexuals in Islamic nations.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:
here’s only so much crap you can get past the population before they rise up and kick your butt.

Hey Lixy, just curious…what “population” are you talking about here?[/quote]

How would she even know? She gets mad and leaves when her country doesn’t give her exactly what she wants.