Transcript from Palin & Charlie Gibson (ABC interview)...Part 1 inside

[Beth in SW WA]

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/11/raw-data-palins-interview-with-abc-news/

[LisaKinVA]

I watched this last night... although I haven't watched the nightline portion yet (I tivoed it, though).

 

I thought she did pretty well. And, FWIW, I had never heard of the "Bush Doctrine" in those terms -- and my DOD husband hadn't either. But I'm sure it will be used to portray her as ignorant.

 

I also watched the Presidential Forum last night. I don't see why they couldn't have appeared together, though. It may have made the thing a little more interesting and a lot less repetitive.

[TXMomof4]

Again, I'm purposely avoiding campain business right now because my stress and anxiety level can't handle it. So, the only thing I've heard was Charlie complaining about her "blizzard of words."

 

I dare him to say that to Obama or Biden.

[Twinmom]

Here's the videoclips, parts 1 and 2:

 

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=3ALsjhDDdaA

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=LAlxUChYpj4

[lovemyboys]

I thought she did pretty well. And, FWIW, I had never heard of the "Bush Doctrine" in those terms -- and my DOD husband hadn't either. But I'm sure it will be used to portray her as ignorant.

 

I also watched the Presidential Forum last night. I don't see why they couldn't have appeared together, though. It may have made the thing a little more interesting and a lot less repetitive.

 

David Gergen had an interesting comment about that. He said that most people would not know what "the Bush Doctrine" is or what it's referring to -- whether they're journalists, talking heads, people in the political parties or in government. He said that he didn't know specifically what the Gibson question was referring to.

 

It's interesting that people underestimate this woman (any woman?) as much as they seem to be doing with Palin.

[Twinmom]

Here's the Nightline follow up interview in Wasilla...I think they said Wasilla, but at least nearby!

 

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=MvB0lLnh74U&feature=related

[LisaKinVA]

For those that will possibly question Palin's support for admitting Georgia to NATO... here's the link to Obama's statement for the same thing (only because it's getting bloggersphere play). The specific part of the news release is below, the bold emphasis is mine -- which shows his support for the proposition.

 

 

 

"Ukraine and Georgia have also been developing their ties with NATO. Their leaders have declared their readiness to advance a NATO Membership Action Plan, MAP, to prepare for the rights and obligations of membership. They are working to consolidate democratic reforms and to undertake new responsibilities in their relationship with the Alliance.

I welcome the desire and actions of these countries to seek closer ties with NATO and hope that NATO responds favorably to their request, consistent with its criteria for membership.

Whether Ukraine and Georgia ultimately join NATO will be a decision for the members of the alliance and the citizens of those countries, after a period of open and democratic debate. But they should receive our help and encouragement as they continue to develop ties to Atlantic and European institutions.

 

[LisaKinVA]

David Gergen had an interesting comment about that. He said that most people would not know what "the Bush Doctrine" is or what it's referring to -- whether they're journalists, talking heads, people in the political parties or in government. He said that he didn't know specifically what the Gibson question was referring to.

 

 

Well, I'm in good company then :D

[asta]

It is interesting to me that the transcript, the clips from the early news, and the clips from the late news are all so different.

 

Heigh ho editing room!

 

(George Orwell must be rolling...)

 

 

asta

[Spy Car]

After her very confident performance at the GOP convention, I expected better from her in the interview with Charlie Gibson. To me she seemed quite uncomfortable and unimpressive. Her answers seemed "canned" on not on point. And boy can she fracture the English language. Reading the text makes the unclarity of her thoughts all the more apparent.

 

Most disturbing to me was the way she handled the war as "God's will" questions, as her answers didn't jibe with her speech at the Assemblies of God church, and I felt she wasn't being honest about her "worldview".

 

Nothing about this interview reassured me that she was prepared (or qualified) to be vice-president (or president). More exposure like this will soon take the gloss of her selection, me thinks.

 

Bill

[Jenny in Atl]

I know what the Bush Doctrine is... if you watch news shows like the News Hours or Brit Hume's Fox Report you would too. I also saw what David Gergen said, and of course he knows what it is, he was saying most average Americans don't. I think there is a difference between your average American and someone who has agreed to run for VP. And the comment that Russia's invasion was unprovoked! What? :blink: Does this gal not watch the news at all?

 

She was quick to try and cover her ignorance, but it was palpable... that dead silence and her non-stop use of Gibson's first name were telling. It will be very interesting to see how well she does in the debates. She sure has her homework cut out for before then.

[sarahli]

I personally think George Bush is a better speaker than this! She exuded no confidence, and really seemed to just make up answers to the questions she didn't understand.

 

What does she mean by keeping an eye on Russia? Is that supposed to be a threat? And they certainly weren't "unprovoked" in their protection of South Ossetia, at least in their opinion.

 

I'm still waiting to hear her opinion on the Bush Doctrine (besides the answer she gave "blah, blah blah blah" . She knows what it is now at least.

[sarahli]

I know what the Bush Doctrine is... if you watch news shows like the News Hours or Brit Hume's Fox Report you would too. I also saw what David Gergen said, and of course he knows what it is, he was saying most average Americans don't. I think there is a difference between your average American and someone who has agreed to run for VP. And the comment that Russia's invasion was unprovoked! What? :blink: Does this gal not watch the news at all?

 

She was quick to try and cover her ignorance, but it was palpable... that dead silence and her non-stop use of Gibson's first name were telling. It will be very interesting to see how well she does in the debates. She sure has her homework cut out for before then.

:iagree: lol. Same thoughts at the same time. I also knew what the Bush doctrine is...

[nmoira]

:iagree: lol. Same thoughts at the same time. I also knew what the Bush doctrine is...

Me too. I was frankly shocked at her lack of coaching on foreign policy, and McCain's assertion that: (1) she knows more about energy than anyone in America (really?); and (2) this knowledge constitutes foreign policy experience.

[astrid]

After her very confident performance at the GOP convention, I expected better from her in the interview with Charlie Gibson. To me she seemed quite uncomfortable and unimpressive. Her answers seemed "canned" on not on point. And boy can she fracture the English language. Reading the text makes the unclarity of her thoughts all the more apparent.

 

Most disturbing to me was the way she handled the war as "God's will" questions, as her answers didn't jibe with her speech at the Assemblies of God church, and I felt she wasn't being honest about her "worldview".

 

Nothing about this interview reassured me that she was prepared (or qualified) to be vice-president (or president). More exposure like this will soon take the gloss of her selection, me thinks.

 

Bill

 

I completely agree. Her answers did not instill in me the confidence that there is any intricate understanding of the issues behind the rehearsed answers.

 

Astrid

[astrid]

My thoughts exactly, Jenny.

 

astrid

[astrid]

Me too. I was frankly shocked at her lack of coaching on foreign policy, and McCain's assertion that: (1) she knows more about energy than anyone in America (really?); and (2) this knowledge constitutes foreign policy experience.

 

How can she know more about energy than anyone in America? She quit that job, didn't she?

 

astrid

[Karenciavo]

I'm sure you all know that there are 50 states too, but

My point is that in the midst of talking and being interviewed people misspeak, they sometimes hear questions and don't really hear them. I don't know if SP knows what the Bush Doctrine is, I'm pretty sure Obama knows how many states are in the union. I just don't think a misstep from one interview should be pointed to with an "Ah ha!" reaction.

[Phred]

I too, know what the "Bush Doctine" is and was surprised that she did not... and it was obvious that she did not. And, although I'm sure that many people don't know what the Bush Doctrine is that is not an excuse. She does know where Russia is. However being able to see it across the Bering Strait is not valuable foreign policy experience.

 

I really want to see her answer some tough questions from the press. This was hardly a rough interview.

[Mama Lynx]

I'm sure you all know that there are 50 states too, but

My point is that in the midst of talking and being interviewed people misspeak, they sometimes hear questions and don't really hear them. I don't know if SP knows what the Bush Doctrine is, I'm pretty sure Obama knows how many states are in the union. I just don't think a misstep from one interview should be pointed to with an "Ah ha!" reaction.

 

Ah, but Karen, you're trying to deprive us of a national hobby!

 

(In case it doesn't come through, that was sarcasm. I agree with you. But so few people are willing to be sane right now. No, instead we have to fight over misspeaks, sound bites, and willful repetition of half-truths (or untruths).

 

I'd better leave the board for the day. I'm getting bitter :D

[Phred]

I'm sure you all know that there are 50 states too, but

My point is that in the midst of talking and being interviewed people misspeak, they sometimes hear questions and don't really hear them. I don't know if SP knows what the Bush Doctrine is, I'm pretty sure Obama knows how many states are in the union. I just don't think a misstep from one interview should be pointed to with an "Ah ha!" reaction.

These two events are apples and oranges. One is a mistake, the other is simple ignorance. Sarah just didn't know. Make of that what you will.

[Jenny in Atl]

I'm sure you all know that there are 50 states too, but

My point is that in the midst of talking and being interviewed people misspeak, they sometimes hear questions and don't really hear them. I don't know if SP knows what the Bush Doctrine is, I'm pretty sure Obama knows how many states are in the union. I just don't think a misstep from one interview should be pointed to with an "Ah ha!" reaction.

 

What was even more telling, is what she said after Gibson told her what the Doctrine was. The idea that she approves of going into a country without provocation, if she saw an imminent threat to the US. This is the tricky part. Was Iraq an imminent threat to the US?

[Angela in TN]

After her very confident performance at the GOP convention, I expected better from her in the interview with Charlie Gibson. To me she seemed quite uncomfortable and unimpressive. Her answers seemed "canned" on not on point. And boy can she fracture the English language. Reading the text makes the unclarity of her thoughts all the more apparent.

 

Apparently though the interview was "heavily" edited to the point of making her look that way. Geraldo who is far from conservative said if you watch the interview uncut you could see she had more than one answer for the questions he asked. Geraldo felt that Charlie was under a lot of pressure from the liberal leaning to sock it to her. Also what was with his eyeglasses on the edge of his nose? It looked way more like an interrogation and she had done something horribly wrong to end up in front of him.

[Jenny in Atl]

Apparently though the interview was "heavily" edited to the point of making her look that way. Geraldo who is far from conservative said if you watch the interview uncut you could see she had more than one answer for the questions he asked. Geraldo felt that Charlie was under a lot of pressure from the liberal leaning to sock it to her. Also what was with his eyeglasses on the edge of his nose? It looked way more like an interrogation and she had done something horribly wrong to end up in front of him.

 

Then why didn't she give her first interview to Bill O'Rielly? If she is so good at what she does, she should feel comfortable being interviewed by anyone, and do so. Push for live interviews, so they can't edit them. Goodness knows, don't let her go on the View. ;)

[Zelda]

You know what the "Bush Doctrine" is? I'm impressed. There seems to be NO agreement on what is at either wikipedia or anywhere other than left wing propaganda sources.

 

An exchange on local radio this morning between San Francisco Bay Area host, Ronn Owens (voting for Obama) and Bob Scheiffer of "Face the Nation":

 

Owens: The question about the "Bush Doctrine", was it a gotcha question? Was it legit? She obviously didn't know. So, was it designed to trip her up? Was it a fair question?

 

Schieffer: I guess I'd say that is was a fair question. But I have to tell you something(chuckle), I had to stop and think about that. I mean, I know what George Bush's policy is but to hear it called, "The Bush Doctrine", and that is what it is, I had to stop in my own mind and say, "Wait a minute, what's he talking about here?". I came to it. And that is, that we have the right to go after people who are harboring people who are trying to overthrow our government and, you know, to go after these terrorists. I understood what he was talking about. I'm not sure I would really hold that one against her though, for not knowing right off the top of her head what the title of that policy was. I think the important thing, she did get the policy right.

 

I think some people don't know the difference between a policy and "The Doctrine" or even the difference between "a doctrine" and "The Doctrine".

 

Let's talk about the "Carter Doctrine" as its popularly defined.

 

"Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."

 

I think that makes the "Bush Doctrine" (if one defines it as preemptive strike to protect interests abroad which is one of the definitions batted around) look more like the "Bush Corollary to the Carter Doctrine".

[Elaine]

You know what the "Bush Doctrine" is? I'm impressed. There seems to be NO agreement on what is at either wikipedia or anywhere other than left wing propaganda sources.

 

An exchange on local radio this morning between San Francisco Bay Area host, Ronn Owens (voting for Obama) and Bob Scheiffer of "Face the Nation":

 

Owens: The question about the "Bush Doctrine", was it a gotcha question? Was it legit? She obviously didn't know. So, was it designed to trip her up? Was it a fair question?

 

Schieffer: I guess I'd say that is was a fair question. But I have to tell you something(chuckle), I had to stop and think about that. I mean, I know what George Bush's policy is but to hear it called, "The Bush Doctrine", and that is what it is, I had to stop in my own mind and say, "Wait a minute, what's he talking about here?". I came to it. And that is, that we have the right to go after people who are harboring people who are trying to overthrow our government and, you know, to go after these terrorists. I understood what he was talking about. I'm not sure I would really hold that one against her though, for not knowing right off the top of her head what the title of that policy was. I think the important thing, she did get the policy right.

 

I think some people don't know the difference between a policy and "The Doctrine" or even the difference between "a doctrine" and "The Doctrine".

 

Let's talk about the "Carter Doctrine" as its popularly defined.

 

"Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."

 

I think that makes the "Bush Doctrine" (if one defines it as preemptive strike to protect interests abroad which is one of the definitions batted around) look more like the "Bush Corollary to the Carter Doctrine".

 

Good post.

 

I didn't know what the Bush doctrine was either, and I really don't care. I am still voting for McCain. He is going to win and the Dems are shaking in their boots because they know it too. :D

[Zelda]

Actually Gibson gave her, "My understanding of it...". That's not what people say when they know something that has a clear definition. Is it?

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Actually Gibson gave her, "My understanding of it...". That's not what people say when they know something that has a clear definition. Is it?

 

My take? He was being polite when he said "My understanding of it...." Like when I know something that someone else clearly does not, I might say, "Well, the way I've heard it explained is..." so that the person feels less on the spot and I don't look like a know-it-all. It's simply polite.

[Zelda]

Right, because an interviewer wouldn't want to put someone on the spot. Awwwkward!

[Karenciavo]

Ah, but Karen, you're trying to deprive us of a national hobby!

Sorry about that :lol:

 

I'm not saying we should ignore these gaffs, make a note to oneself and keep listening.

[Jenny in Atl]

Actually Gibson gave her, "My understanding of it...". That's not what people say when they know something that has a clear definition. Is it?

 

Do doctrines have clear definitions?

 

http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/2001/03/05/doctrine.html

 

The Bush doctrine

In American foreign policy, a new motto: Don't ask. Tell

 

By Charles Krauthammer

February 26, 2001 (check out the date and the author... not a lib by a long shot)

[Zelda]

Do doctrines have clear definitions?

 

Well, the Monroe Doctrine, over time, developed a clear definition although it didn't necessarily have much to do with the original statement. But when you just slap the word 'doctrine' to any foreign policy statement by a particular president then, no, it does not have a clear definition. Nor an agreed upon definition which makes the question, "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?", even more absurd. Not to mention that the term, Bush Doctrine, is not employed by many, including, the Republican party and, if David Gergen and Bob Schieffer are to be believed, the press.

 

From Wikipedia re: The Bush Doctrine:

 

The first usage of the term to refer to the policies of George W. Bush may have been when conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer used the term in February 2001 to refer to the president's unilateral approach to national missile defense.

 

Which one you wanna go with? The Krauthammer one or the Gibson one? The Krauthammer one precedes 9/11 so it can't be about preemption.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Right, because an interviewer wouldn't want to put someone on the spot. Awwwkward!

 

If you are answering me (and I can't tell because you aren't quoting), then I will say there's a difference between putting someone on the spot as opposed to continuing to badger and push the point when it's clear the other person does not have clue what you're talking about. His first question was putting her on the spot. His followup, more gently put, was all about not being a jerk.

 

There are plenty of interviewers who would have just left her hanging and gone to the next question. There are plenty of interviewers who would have soft-balled her with an "As you know, the Bush Doctrine states blah blah blah. What do you think about..." There are interviewers who would have kept pressing the point "You don't know what the Bush Doctrine is, do you? Why can't you give me a straight answer? Huh, why cantcha? Gotcha, didn't I? Huh? No, don't try to answer, 'cause I GOTHCHA!" And some who strike a balance between, "Well, maybe my understanding is different from your understanding, but how about answering the question using my definition?"

 

Maybe that's too softball for some. Maybe it's not putting her on the spot enough. But I thought it was at least not belligerent, and I appreciated that. "Let's skewer Palin" isn't a very nice game, IMO.

[LizzyBee]

I too, know what the "Bush Doctine" is and was surprised that she did not... and it was obvious that she did not.

 

 

I had to google it, and the sites I read said there is no single definition of the Bush Doctrine, and then they gave several policies and statements that are sometimes referred to as the Bush Doctrine. If someone asked me what I think about something that has multiple definitions, I'd ask for clarification, too.

[sassenach]

After her very confident performance at the GOP convention, I expected better from her in the interview with Charlie Gibson. To me she seemed quite uncomfortable and unimpressive. Her answers seemed "canned" on not on point.

 

ITA. She did not impress me. I'm right leaning, but nothing about her instills confidence in me. The novelty is wearing off and it's really clear to me that she is not ready for that position (at least not to my standards).

[Mom to Aly]

If you are answering me (and I can't tell because you aren't quoting), then I will say there's a difference between putting someone on the spot and continuing to badger and push the point when it's clear the other person does not have cue what you're talking about. His first question was putting her on the spot. His followup, more gently put, was all about not being a jerk.

 

There are plenty of interviewers who would have just left her hanging and gone to the next question. There are plenty of interviewers who would have soft-balled her with an "As you know, the Bush Doctrine states blah blah blah. What do you think about..." There are interviewers who would have kept pressing the point "You don't know what the Bush Doctrine is, do you? Why can't you give me a straight answer? Huh, why cantcha? Gotcha, didn't I? Huh? No, don't try to answer, 'cause I GOTHCHA!" And some who strike a balance between, "Well, maybe my understanding is different from your understanding, but how about answering the question using my definition?"

 

Maybe that's too softball for some. Maybe it's not putting her on the spot enough. But I thought it was at least not belligerent, and I appreciated that. "Let's skewer Palin" isn't a very nice game, IMO.

 

 

Yes, he is not at all the jerk type, and he is the type to get to his point, because, really, he just wanted his question answered. And I did know what the Bush doctrine was--and, as has been pointed out before, wikipedia IS NOT the source to look at--ANYONE can go write WHATEVER they want! The Bush Doctrine has been discussed for quite a while. I was truly shocked she didn't know what it was. And I thought he was NOT obvious in pointing out that she didn't know it.

 

What shocked me even more, or maybe it shouldn't have, was how hard she worked at maneuvering around all of the questions. She hardly ever answered them, and really showed she didn't know what she was talking about! I expected her to be much better prepared after the time they spent prepping her! I can't wait for the debates :D!!

 

The other shocker, which no one here has mentioned, was her saying we should not "second guess" Israel if they felt they should do something to Iran's nuclear weapons stores. Did no one get that??? I found her statement truly frightening!

 

Basically, this interview proved to me she is what I thought--an intelligent women who is totally, absolutely wrong and unprepared for this position.

[Jenny in Atl]

Well, the Monroe Doctrine, over time, developed a clear definition although it didn't necessarily have much to do with the original statement. But when you just slap the word 'doctrine' to any foreign policy statement by a particular president then, no, it does not have a clear definition. Nor an agreed upon definition which makes the question, "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?", even more absurd. Not to mention that the term, Bush Doctrine, is not employed by many, including, the Republican party and, if David Gergen and Bob Schieffer are to be believed, the press.

 

From Wikipedia re: The Bush Doctrine:

 

The first usage of the term to refer to the policies of George W. Bush may have been when conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer used the term in February 2001 to refer to the president's unilateral approach to national missile defense.

 

Which one you wanna go with? The Krauthammer one or the Gibson one? The Krauthammer one precedes 9/11 so it can't be about preemption.

 

That's what I am saying... the term and general understanding has been around for a very long time, and known to anyone who watches foreign affairs. What Gibson said is a "part" of what Krauthammer talked about way back in 2001. From day one the Bush administration had a very different view of preemptive defense. Plans to invade Iraq pre-date 9/11 for example. They had a new world order in mind for a post USSR world.

 

For someone who is running as a VP not to have a vague idea of the Bush administrations views on this matter is scary, at least to me. If she was unsure what Gibson was asking, why not be "woman" enough to ask.

But then again, as long as folks like her and think she's a nice person, that's all that matters... right?

 

I'm just as hard on of Obama and Biden, by the way. You all are missing the point.

[Zelda]

Yes, he is not at all the jerk type, and he is the type to get to his point, because, really, he just wanted his question answered. And I did know what the Bush doctrine was--and, as has been pointed out before, wikipedia IS NOT the source to look at--ANYONE can go write WHATEVER they want! The Bush Doctrine has been discussed for quite a while. I was truly shocked she didn't know what it was. And I thought he was NOT obvious in pointing out that she didn't know it.

 

 

Please, by all means, direct me and Bob Schieffer and David Gergen and almost everyone I know to the definitive unbaised source. I've been asking all day.

[KellyBelly]

Her ignorance was shocking. She was very nervous and it is obvious she is in over her head.

[nmoira]

I didn't know what the Bush doctrine was either, and I really don't care. I am still voting for McCain. He is going to win and the Dems are shaking in their boots because they know it too. :D

I'd just like to clarify. Which is it you don't care about, the definition or the underlying policy?

[RebeccaC]

Well, Mr. Gibson's understanding of the Bush Doctrine has morphed over the years. Mr. Krauthammer has a very interesting article about it in the Washington Post. He says that there are 4 versions of the so called Bush doctrine which I think should be labeled Bush Policy. The title of the Krauthammer article is, Charlie Gibson's Gaffe.

 

I think Sarah did just fine and the way the transcript reads sure is not the way it was presented, a lot was lost like intonation, cadence, body language, ect.... I think she showed herself strong and smart by asking him to clarify his question. When video clips and transcript quotes of him stating his understanding of the Bush doctrine begin to pop up and show his morphing over the years on the subject he will look less informed than she did.

 

Consider what a diversity of views on the meaning of the Bush Doctrine can be found simply within the archives of ABC News itself:

 

September 20, 2001

PETER JENNINGS: . . . Claire, the president said at one point, 'From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.' Should we be taking that as the Bush doctrine? CLAIRE SHIPMAN reporting: I think so, Peter,

 

September 21, 2001

CHARLIE GIBSON: The president in his speech last night, very forceful. Four out of five Americans watched it. Everybody gathered around the television set last night. The president issued a series of demands to the Taliban, already rejected. We'll get to that in a moment. He also outlined what is being called the Bush Doctrine, a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated.

 

September 21, 2001

CHARLIE GIBSON: Senator Daschle, let me start with you. People were looking for a Bush Doctrine. They may have found it when he said the war on terror will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped or defeated. That's pretty broad. Broader than you expected?

 

December 9, 2001

GEORGE WILL: The Bush doctrine holds that anyone who governs a territory is complicit in any terrorism that issues from that territory. That covers the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Second, the war on terrorism is indivisible, it's part of the Bush doctrine.

 

December 11, 2001

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Two years ago, September 1999, Bush gave his first speech when he was running about terrorism. And his first--had the first explanation of the Bush doctrine, that if you harbor a terrorist, you're going to be attacked. The Bush White House is putting this out, saying it shows that Bush was very prescient, but that was only one speech given in the campaign.

 

January 28, 2002

BOB WOODWARD: This is now the Bush Doctrine . . . , namely that if we're attacked by terrorists, we will not just go after those terrorists but the countries or the people who harbor them.

 

January 29, 2002

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: It was striking and significant that the president really expanded the Bush doctrine. If a nation builds a weapon of mass destruction--Iraq, Iran or North Korea--we will reserve the right to take out those weapons even if we're not attacked or even if there's not a threat.

 

March 19, 2004

TERRY MORAN: That was the Bush doctrine we just heard. On this one-year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, President Bush offered a very broad justification of American leadership in the world under him since 9/11. Not just since one year in Iraq. For American voters as an argument that the country is safer, but more as you point out, for the world, which has been divided by his leadership, that Iraq is knit, in his mind, very firmly into that war on terrorism. One omission which I believe will be noted around the world, he made no mention of the role of multilateral institutions, the UN and others, in this fight against terrorism. In his mind, it's clear it's American leadership with others following along.

 

May 7, 2006

GEORGE WILL: Now the argument from the right is the CIA is a rogue agent because it has not subscribed to the Bush doctrine. The Bush doctrine being that American security depends on the spread of democracy and we know how to do that. The trouble is, Negroponte, who is considered by some of these conservatives the villain here and an enemy of the Bush doctrine is the choice of Bush, which makes Bush an insufficient subscriber to the Bush doctrine.

 

 

 

Found these on the Weekly Standard with some others these are quite a bit different from Mr. Gibson's explanation to Governor Palin when she asked him to clarify his question. I wonder how many more morphs on Mr. Gibson's part will surface......

 

This is just my opinion.

[Holly IN]

 

Most disturbing to me was the way she handled the war as "God's will" questions, as her answers didn't jibe with her speech at the Assemblies of God church, and I felt she wasn't being honest about her "worldview".

 

 

 

Bill

 

She doesn't go to the Assemblies of God church anymore. She goes to a Bible church. I can't remember the name of it. It has the name Bible in it.

 

Besides that a person can go to a church and not agree with something that the church stands on. ;)

 

Holly

[Spy Car]

She doesn't go to the Assemblies of God church anymore. She goes to a Bible church. I can't remember the name of it. It has the name Bible in it.

 

Besides that a person can go to a church and not agree with something that the church stands on. ;)

 

Holly

 

Yes, but I was speaking about the substance of the speech she gave at her (former) church, and not about her (former) church's positions. The speech didn't jibe (to my ears) with what I heard in the interview yesterday.

 

Bill

[Holly IN]

Ok...I am reading these postings. I really wished I stayed away from this thread.

 

I didn't know about the Bush Doctrine either. Alot of people I talked to didn't know what it was either. I follow politics very well. Yet, Bush's doctrine is news to me. I guess I am ignorant too.:confused:

 

I just do not understand why you are attacking her just because of her question..."In what respect?"

 

Holly (I am staying away from this thread)

[Holly IN]

Yes, but I was speaking about the substance of the speech she gave at her (former) church, and not about her (former) church's positions. The speech didn't jibe (to my ears) with what I heard in the interview yesterday.

 

Bill

 

Bill that is not what you said in your post. Are you saying she can't change her mind about God? With more reading of the Bible and more things are revealed to you in scripture with better understanding. I believe her whole general speech about this didn't change. I have read the Bible for years and things have popped up in scripture that I just read over it time and time again which caused me to have a much better understanding about God and the Christian walk. Her general belief is basically the same.

 

 

Holly

[Spy Car]

Bill that is not what you said in your post.

 

Holly, here is my original post.

 

After her very confident performance at the GOP convention, I expected better from her in the interview with Charlie Gibson. To me she seemed quite uncomfortable and unimpressive. Her answers seemed "canned" on not on point. And boy can she fracture the English language. Reading the text makes the unclarity of her thoughts all the more apparent.

 

Most disturbing to me was the way she handled the war as "God's will" questions, as her answers didn't jibe with her speech at the Assemblies of God church, and I felt she wasn't being honest about her "worldview".

 

Nothing about this interview reassured me that she was prepared (or qualified) to be vice-president (or president). More exposure like this will soon take the gloss of her selection, me thinks.

 

Bill

 

So I don't see any deviation it what I've said.

 

Are you saying she can't change her mind about God? With more reading of the Bible and more things are revealed to you in scripture with better understanding. I believe her whole general speech about this didn't change. I have read the Bible for years and things have popped up in scripture that I just read over it time and time again which caused me to have a much better understanding about God and the Christian walk. Her general belief is basically the same.

 

 

Holly

 

 

I'm a little confused Holly, because you seem to suggest that a person can change his or her mind (on which point which I'd basically agree) but then you say she didn't change her mind.

 

So do you believe Sarah Palin feels the war in Iraq a fulfillment of "God's plan" or not?

 

Bill

[Sharon in SC]

Mr. Krauthammer has a very interesting article about it in the Washington Post. He says that there are 4 versions of the so called Bush doctrine which I think should be labeled Bush Policy. The title of the Krauthammer article is, Charlie Gibson's Gaffe.

 

I think she showed herself strong and smart by asking him to clarify his question. When video clips and transcript quotes of him stating his understanding of the Bush doctrine begin to pop up and show his morphing over the years on the subject he will look less informed than she did.

 

 

 

 

:iagree:, totally. How foolish it would have been for her to reply with, "I do" or "I don't" (agree to the Bush policy) without first clarifying how *Charlie Gibson* was defining the Bush policy. I can see it now, "S. Palin agrees with xyz (with chagrin)" when, in fact she thought she was agreeing with rst, instead. No, I think she did the only smart thing any intelligent and savvy person could have done in her shoes - clarify the issues, first.

[cin]

And, lest we forget, this was her first national interview, on national policy. Add to that the fact that the liberals butchered it in the editing room.

[sleepy]

:iagree:, totally. How foolish it would have been for her to reply with, "I do" or "I don't" (agree to the Bush policy) without first clarifying how *Charlie Giblson* was defining the Bush policy. I can see it now, "S. Palin agrees with xyz (with chagrin)" when, in fact she thought she was agreeing with rst, instead. No, I think she did the only smart thing any intelligent and savvy person could have done in her shoes - clarify the issues, first.

 

:iagree: Exactly.

[Sammy]

And, lest we forget, this was her first national interview, on national policy.

 

I think that's part of the concern. :)