[PhatHead]

The reference passages in this post are all linked in the original - follow the link.

[manc]

I have spoken to many people this morning and everyone said they had no idea what Gibson was trying to get at.
One woman said he would have never spoken to a man like that and all the women agreed.

Plus they never liked how he did the interview and now it seems that ABC have edited a lot of it and is not showing her better answers

another hit job by a Obama journo

They just don’t get it the more they try to put her down the more they look stupid and the more the polls go west for Obama

[Kackikat]

So Palin was 100% correct in stating it was Bush’s “world view”...SO shouldn’t 1 million Freepers let Charlie Gibson know that he is wrong?

[TexasGreg]

Unfortunately, this is so long and detailed that the media won’t understand the point an the sheeple will become board and will loose attention before line 3. The Dems will be successful in spinng this to make Palin look bad. Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.

[Matt Hatter]

Thanks for the info. I thought the question on the “Bush Doctrine” was one of the most “bush league” gotcha questions I have ever heard. Even Joe Scrarborough said, despite being a Congressman and reading several dailys each morning, said just what I said...”What the hell is the Bush Doctrine, Charlie??”

I like the Governor’s style. Let your yes be yes and your no be no. Kind of refreshing to hear a Reagan Republican again.

[steelyourfaith]

Watching Sarah being interviewed by Chuckles the Clown reminded me of the tale of "Beauty & the Obese Toad".

I haven't watched Gibson or any of the other left-wing news propagandists for many years now. Based on this I won't be watching any time soon, either.

[DonnDe]

This reminds me when in 2000 Gore kept saying “Dingell Norwood” expecting everyone to know the details.

[BARLF]

The Bush Doctrine continues a tradition that can be traced to the Monroe and Truman doctrines. It is an attempt, in a new century and under new strategic circumstances, to “foster a world environment where the American system can survive and flourish,” as Paul Nitze put it in 1950, in the famous “NSC 68” memorandum.

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.15845/pub_detail.asp

[silverleaf]

Sorry but in this post I got lost in a blizzard of words. sarc

But this was pretty striking:
" In January 2002, the editors of the Times wrote: Mr. Bush appears to be developing an assertive new military doctrine that includes the threat of armed intervention against nations that are developing weapons that may put the United States in peril. The evolving Bush Doctrine implies a preemptive use of conventional force to take out missile launchers, industrial enterprises and facilities that appear to be involved in the fabrication of unconventional weapons. This is a radical departure from what went before. Traditionally, the United States has employed its military forces in retaliation for an attack rather than striking first itself. That should not preclude other options when there is a clear and present danger of attack, but firing first is not a step to be taken lightly."

Where the heck do these people fit in Clinton's ineffectual missile strikes against Sudan and Afghanistan? I don't recall them attacking us during Clinton's regime. I'm sure there are too many other examples of us taking preemptive action to cite here.

[PerConPat]

bttt

[jonno]

bookmark

[tophat9000]

Charlie Gibson “The Bush Doctrine” as you understand it ... is just a left wing blog buzz term