Columnists George Will, Charles Krauthammer and others have suggested that the problem with Sarah Palin’s answer to ABC News anchor Charles Gibson’s question about whether she agrees with the Bush doctrine was that there are multiple Bush doctrines. Weekly Standard blogger Richard Starr proved that point just by mining the ABC News archives, finding not only Gibson’s definition to Palin — “that we have the right to a pre-emptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us” — but at least two other definitions, including one offered by Gibson in 2001: “a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated.” Still, in the interview, Palin seemed to be grasping for any meaning of the phrase, not trying to choose from among multiple meanings.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phinatic on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- Phantom on Goldman Sachs ‘apology’ hollow
- gster on Goldman Sachs ‘apology’ hollow
- Phantom on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- Phantom on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- GMC70 on Open thread 11/24
- Phantom on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- Phantom on It’s the stupidity about the economy
172 Comments
The REAL Bush doctrine: I am God. Let all others pale before me, except Dick Cheney, who runs the show.
Unfortunately, the Bush doctrine was a moving target.
To me the Bush doctrine is anything corrupt, shady, or swindling.
Pretty much his entire time in office.
The Bush doctrine, “War brings in votes to the Republicans.” That’s why McCain wants to go to war with Iran and Russia.
I bet if one wanted to pin this unofficial doctrine down, they could look at the State of the Union speeches and various speeches that Bush has made.
Duh Libs on this blog appear to have a problem with a President that actually has policies that defend the United States.
The most chilling aspect of the Bush Doctrine I always remembered with the right of “pre-emption,” i.e. the principle of making war first without provocation (what used to be called “aggression” in international circles). That was–and remains–the basic organizing principle and most striking aspect of the Bush Doctrine.
And then there is McCain, probably the best chance for believers in the 2002 National Security Strategy to keep their vision alive. Ironically, despite his past clashes with the Bush court, McCain is probably the truest heir to Bush’s foreign policy doctrine. Unlike Rice, McCain does not blend realism and transformationalism; his democratizing instincts run deep. In the 2000 Republican presidential primaries, it was McCain who talked of democratization and preemption, focusing on the idea of “rogue-state rollback.” In a recent speech at AEI, it was McCain who not only refused the idea of an exit strategy for Iraq, but also called for at least 10,000 more troops on the ground. “The promotion of democracy has been central to McCain, going back a decade. I’d be surprised if he downplayed it in any way,” says one Republican strategist.
From Joshua Kurlantzick, the foreign editor at the New Republic, in 2006 (not exactly a liberal publication, except to the right-wing fringe):
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=17983&prog=zgp&proj=zusr
“Duh Libs on this blog appear to have a problem with a President that actually has policies that defend the United States.”
Yet thousands died on 9/11 and in Iraq under his watch. Good thing we don’t have more of his policies or we might lose an entire city.
Yet thousands died on 9/11 and in Iraq under his watch. Good thing we don’t have more of his policies or we might lose an entire city.
We did. Grover Norquist drowned it in a bathtub.
#
Maggotpunk
Posted September 16, 2008 at 6:37 am | Permalink
“Duh Libs on this blog appear to have a problem with a President that actually has policies that defend the United States.”
Yet thousands died on 9/11 and in Iraq under his watch. Good thing we don’t have more of his policies or we might lose an entire city.
—————————-
That’s because the Clinton administration had established a response to terrorists as a law enforcement function.
In other words, let terrorists kill our citizens first before the U.S. does anything.
Bush’s plan is proactive and is part of his sworn duty to protect and defend the United States.
Clinton failed with his policies in protecting the United Stated and Bush has succeeded since 9/11 by changing fundamental policies to protect the U.S.
Evidence in the fact, there have been no more terrorist attacks on the U.S. since that time.
Regular,
Take a look at how JFK handled the Cuban Missle Crisis. I daresay he protected and defended this country quite well wiothout invading another country
Oh,and one one more thing. Wouldn’t you agree that those ICBMs 90 miles from pour country were more of a threat than Iraq ever was?
#
Freebird1971
Posted September 16, 2008 at 6:54 am | Permalink
Regular,
Take a look at how JFK handled the Cuban Missle Crisis. I daresay he protected and defended this country quite well wiothout invading another country
——————————-
Different times and different situation Freebird – That was the time of nuclear weapons, cold war and Communist ideology being spread throughout the world. Kennedy knew exactly who the enemy was and where it lived.
With terrorists, identifying, locating and dealing with terrorists is a mind boggling task. They do not have to have a particular country to belong to, nor have one particular agenda to be involved in terrorism against the United States.
The Al Qaeda networks opened up the eyes of the world and the U.S. The mindset and the policies of the Clinton administration was a dismal failure as evidence to what happened on 9/11. Weak policies by the Clinton administration made it easy for terrorists to infiltrate and perform their deadly activities in the U.S.
#
Freebird1971
Posted September 16, 2008 at 6:57 am | Permalink
Oh,and one one more thing. Wouldn’t you agree that those ICBMs 90 miles from pour country were more of a threat than Iraq ever was?
—————————-
Read my post above.
Again, the identity of the Soviets left no doubt who the enemy was and where they lived.
There has never in the U.S. history been an activity such as the Al Qaeda network attacks on the U.S.
It was unique and new, Bush responded courageously and effectively.
That’s because the Clinton administration had established a response to terrorists as a law enforcement function.
A convenient myth, debunked many times over. The evidence that Bush could have prevented–or at least effectively responded to–the attacks is compelling. And there’s not one shred of evidence that some concern for following the law in any way contributed to the administration’s feckless approach to national security.
The August 6,2001 Presidential Daily Briefing (”Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States”) hasn’t gotten less damning.
Evidence in the fact, there have been no more terrorist attacks on the U.S. since that time.
Actually, there have been numerous abroad, not even counting those from the Al-Qaeda cell we created in Iraq. But I guess so long as we keep sacrificing our youth, like virgins to the volcano, it keeps Bin-laden happy. Why should he bother to attack within the US, when we serve his agenda every day in Iraq and Afghanistan?
In the meantime, more American soldiers have died over there than the entire death toll of 9-11. You can convince yourself that this is the best way to protect America (by leaving it woefully unprotected).
I’m not that deluded.
P.S. Clinton actually warned Bush about Bin-Laden. That warning was not heeded.
Rage
Posted September 16, 2008 at 7:07 am
Actually, there have been numerous abroad, not even counting those from the Al-Qaeda cell we created in Iraq.
I’m not that deluded.
————————–
More weasel words from one of the WE Blog’s cheese eating surrender monkeys that wave the white flag of spineless appeasement.
Numerous attacks abroad? – Hey get a clue, they ain’t happening on U.S. soil.
You’re not that deluded, but just a scared little bunny cowering in his liberal womb of me-ness.
You’re not that deluded, but just a scared little bunny cowering in his liberal womb of me-ness.
I’m not the one wetting my pants in fear of a terrorist attack, nor am I the one willing to blindly follow a monarchist regime in waging unnecesessary wars, creating Stalinist gulags, and putting our Constitution through a paper shredder–all for a pathetic illusion of temporary security.
#
Rage
Posted September 16, 2008 at 7:19 am | Permalink
You’re not that deluded, but just a scared little bunny cowering in his liberal womb of me-ness.
I’m not the one wetting my pants in fear of a terrorist attack, nor am I the one willing to blindly follow a monarchist regime in waging unnecesessary wars, creating Stalinist gulags, and putting our Constitution through a paper shredder–all for a pathetic illusion of temporary security.
————————————–
Oh, the pantie-wearing Rage is whining about his Constitutional rights. Which constitutional rights of yours have been violated Rage. Have you been thrown in jail? Where are your taser burn marks? Do you have some rope burns on your wrists from being held in some CIA torture chamber? Do you have to sweep your home for listening devices?
It’s okay Rage, we all understand your sentiment. It was just a bunch of damn New Yorkers and various other nobodies that died on 9/11. No body you knew eh?
Keep wearing your Kommie tinfoil hat and matching pantie set, it suits you well.
Now walk on down the street and be sure to do the secular liberal salute.
You know, where you walk on your knees, both hands extended in the air while waving a pinkish-white flag of surrender.
Rhonda,
Thank you for the article as the Dems seem to be grasping for anything to attack Sarah Palin’s when she questioned what aspect of the Doctrine Charley meant.
Maybe she didn’t know, but she ask a fine and very appropriate question when she ask for clarification of what aspect he meant.
Some on this blog seem to disagree with the basic right of self-defense. Which is basically what preemptive action is when one knows, or has very strong reason to anticipate an attack against us is coming.
I wonder how they would view not preemptively taking action if they lost a family member or friend as a result of allowing an attack on us.
You are damned if you do and you are damned if you don’t with the DimLibs.
Oh, the pantie-wearing Rage is whining about his Constitutional rights. Which constitutional rights of yours have been violated Rage.
Obviously, this hysterical troll-post isn’t worth a response, but have you noticed, folks, how these types always frame things in terms of “me”? Of course, it has to be my bridge repair, mydisability check, my constitutional rights. Why on Earth would I give a damn if it was someone else?
And even a hint of caring about others is compromised: “no body you knew eh?” If I didn’t know anyone in the towers, this is considered sufficient reason to conclude I didn’t care.
That poignantly sums up the conservative mentality.
Rags- The August 6,2001 Presidential Daily Briefing (”Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States”) hasn’t gotten less damning.
————————————————
http://www.realdemocracy.com/onarail.htm
get a clue.
biased1,
Excellent link, thanks for it.
For those that won’t take the time to look, probably because they don’t want to be faced with the facts of Clinton’s gross negligence of his office here is a small excerpt.
“The offers to hand over bin Laden came in May and July from the Sudan, through the United Arab Emirates and from Saudi Arabia, but they were spurned by Clinton, obviously, because he didn’t want to be distracted from his 1996 re-election campaign. He simply chose his personal ambitions over the security of America.
Clinton admitted that not getting bin Laden was the “biggest mistake” of his presidency. However, it’s more than a mistake and it’s highly disturbing that America’s news media has given so little attention to Clinton’s biggest malfeasance.”
I can see why poor Sarah p. is confused
http://www.preemptivekarma.com/archives/2007/02/gaffney_takes_o_1.html
February 21, 2007
Gaffney Takes on Norquist’s Terrorist Ties Again
Frank Gaffney is going after Grover Norquist again. Back in 2003, Gaffney wrote “A Troubling Influence,” in which he documented Grover Norquist’s activities in behalf of the Islamist Fifth Column. His new post looks at Norquist’s role in the candidacy of Suhail Khan for a position on the Board of Directors of the American Conservative Union.
The casual observer might think nothing of the candidacy of a fellow named Suhail Khan for election to one of two open seats on the Board of Directors of the American Conservative Union — the political Right’s largest and most influential grassroots umbrella organization. Certainly, for most Americans, the man’s faith would be of no interest. If the fact that Khan is an adherent to Islam were even known, it probably would be seen as an asset — another Muslim-American seeking to become more involved in the political process just like, for example, Rep. Keith Ellison, the Muslim convert who recently won a Minnesota seat in the House of Representatives.
Something else appears to be at work here, however. The tip-off is the fact that anti-tax activist Grover Norquist, who sits on the ACU Board, is promoting Khan’s candidacy. Even that association, however, could be construed as nothing more than a calculated effort by a skillful conservative operative to insinuate a reliable ally into a useful post as the former struggles to overcome the damage done to his reputation and influence — and that of the Republican Party — by his scandalous collaboration with convicted felon Jack Abramoff.
Unfortunately, there seems to be another and more insidious motivation for the Khan candidacy — one of a piece with a longstanding, if largely hidden, Norquist agenda that I first documented in these pages over three years ago.
Gaffney then goes on to examine Suhail Khan’s ties to Islamic terrorism:
- Kahn’s “father, as head of a Wahabbi mosque in California, had hosted Osama bin Laden’s number two man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and raised money for him.”
- “[A]s a member of the White House staff — a position Norquist engineered for him — [Kahn] authorized radical Islamists to meet with President Bush.”
- Kahn’s parents and oldest brother, Suhail “played prominent roles in several organizations associated with the Wahhabi strain of Islamism.”
- Kahn’s father helped establish the pro-Hamas, pro-terrorism Muslim Student Association, which recruits and indoctrinates college students on American college and university campuses, and served on the governing council of MSA’s Islamic Society of North America, which “promotes the Islamist agenda.”
- An arm of MSA, the North American Islamic Trust, helped finance a mosque founded by Khan’s father in Orange County. “Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman — better known as the Blind Sheikh, who was later convicted in connection with the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993,” visited this mosque in December of 2002 to raise funds for the “jihad” against the enemies who had “united themselves against Muslims.”
- Khan’s father established the Masjid An-Noor Mosque which, according to the FBI, “was the site of two fund-raising trips on behalf of the radical Islamist terror group known as Islamic Jihad. The solicitation was made by the man who is now Osama bin Laden’s Number 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri.”
- Khan’s mother was a Board member of the California chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. CAIR was created by a “‘high-ranking Hamas operative Mousa Mohammed Abu Marzook,’ who is wanted on federal terrorism charges. … [F]our of CAIR’s executives have been successfully prosecuted on terrorism-related charges.” Senator Charles Schumer has said of CAIR, “we know [it] has ties to terrorism.”
- Khan has “repeatedly been a featured speaker at … CAIR events, as well as those of other problematic groups, including … the Islamic Institute. … The Islamic Institute was established by Grover Norquist in 1998 with $20,000 in seed money from Abdurahman Alamoudi (who is currently serving a 23-year federal sentence for terrorism-related activities). II is the principal vehicle for the Islamists’ influence operation aimed at the Bush Administration and Republican and conservative circles. Norquist was its founding president; Alamoudi’s long-time deputy, Khalid Saffuri, was its first executive director; and II’s offices continue to be housed in the downtown Washington office suite rented by Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform. … People now serving hard time like Abdurahman Alamoudi and Sami al-Arian were at various points among those Khan, Norquist and Saffuri considered appropriate for courting by the Bush team. Others were individuals, like Jamal Barzinji, a board member of several Islamist-sympathizing organizations that were raided and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of fundraising for terrorists.”
It is hard fully to calculate the magnitude of the damage done by the pro-Islamist influence operation run by Grover Norquist and his friends. Law enforcement agencies have been forced to receive “sensitivity training” from the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Norquist has lent conservative political cover to those who would weaken our counter-terrorism authorities and techniques. He has helped place into positions of trust and official responsibility people whose often-undisclosed past associations at least raise questions about their reliability.
In short, thanks in part to the Norquist operation, America’s enemies have been emboldened. And the United States is at considerably greater risk.
It is time, once and for all, for conservatives to take a hard look at what Norquist and his associates have been doing in the guise of Muslim “outreach.”
Well, I don’t know whether there is anything to these terrorist connections, though since Gaffney first exposed them over three years ago, Norquist and Khan have utterly failed to address his concerns. It may be that Gaffney is a racist and it may be that he just holds a grudge against Norquist for some reason. Personally, I think there is a little of that and a lot of reason to be concerned, as well. But if Gaffney’s concerns about terrorism get conservatives to finally reconsider their relationship with Norquist, then his calls for scrutiny of Khan’s suspicious ties to terrorism are fine by me.
Oh, and speaking of Republican ties to terrorists …
#
Rage
Posted September 16, 2008 at 7:39 am | Permalink
Oh, the pantie-wearing Rage is whining about his Constitutional rights. Which constitutional rights of yours have been violated Rage.
Obviously, this hysterical troll-post isn’t worth a response, but have you noticed, folks, how these types always frame things in terms of “me”? Of course, it has to be my bridge repair, mydisability check, my constitutional rights. Why on Earth would I give a damn if it was someone else?
And even a hint of caring about others is compromised: “no body you knew eh?” If I didn’t know anyone in the towers, this is considered sufficient reason to conclude I didn’t care.
That poignantly sums up the conservative mentality.
—————————-
I didn’t see any caring.
All I saw was a bunch of whining about Constitutional rights that were never lost and how you’d rather raise both hands in surrender while kissing the backsides of Islamic Jihadists so you can score some sort of secret Lib points.
I think it’s time to change your urine-soaked panties.
Do you ever think for yourself Annie Moose or do you need Websites to develop your opinion?
Your posts are increasingly scroll over material, just post the link, you’re wasting valuable blog space for those who have the courage to post their own opinions.
February 21, 2007
Gaffney Takes on Norquist’s Terrorist Ties Again
It’s always fun to watch when one archconservative nutcase turns on another!
. . but is it true? We already know of Bush’s ties to the house of Saud.
Regular
Posted September 16, 2008 at 7:53 am | Permalink
Yawwwn. . . .
My, aren’t the “Let someone else fight for my country while I criticize them” peace cowards are out early today!!
Bush Doctrine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
President Bush makes remarks in 2006 during a press conference in the Rose Garden about Iran’s nuclear ambitions and discusses North Korea’s nuclear test.The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe “”various”" related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks.
The bush doctrine?
Ruin America by selling it out to business?
Another day on the WeBlog, another day of Palin Derangement Syndrome and the pant schitting hysteria that it brings.
What, no thread about Obama trying to delay negotiations over troop withdrawal from Iraq?
No surprises here. What a waste.
hmmmmm
http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/media_center/leaders/TNR_110101.htm
Grover Norquist’s Strange Alliance with Radical Islam;
Fevered Pitch
The New Republic
By Franklin Foer, November 1, 2001
On the afternoon of September 26, George W. Bush gathered 15 prominent Muslim- and Arab-Americans at the White House. With cameras rolling, the president proclaimed that “the teachings of Islam are teachings of peace and good.” It was a critically important moment, a statement to the world that America’s Muslim leaders unambiguously reject the terror committed in Islam’s name.
Unfortunately, many of the leaders present hadn’t unambiguously rejected it. To the president’s left sat Dr. Yahya Basha, president of the American Muslim Council, an organization whose leaders have repeatedly called Hamas “freedom fighters.” Also in attendance was Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, who on the afternoon of September 11 told a Los Angeles public radio audience that “we should put the State of Israel on the suspect list.” And sitting right next to President Bush was Muzammil Siddiqi, president of the Islamic Society of North America, who last fall told a Washington crowd chanting pro-Hezbollah slogans, “America has to learn if you remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of God will come.” Days later, after a conservative activist
confronted Karl Rove with dossiers about some of Bush’s new friends, Rove replied, according to the activist, “I wish I had known before the event took place.”
IMHO McCain chose Mrs. Palin for two simple reasons.. to woo the religious voters, and to take the focus off of John McCain and Barack Obama. After an incredible and spectacular DNC, I was expecting a BIG bounce in the polls and media spotlight for weeks. McCains pick not only stole the media spotlight of the day, but it has also taken focus off of the real issues of the today! Those who keep railing against Palin instead of looking at the issues, are giving John McCain exactly what he was hoping for, and you are taking the microphone, his greatest asset, away from Barack Obama.
more scroll over stuff from your auntie annie
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/articles/Read.aspx?GUID=46BC6CCD-9481-4C2D-A2C5-C4D156BC0EA2
A week or so ago Ed Morrissey put up a post at Hot Air lauding Grover Norquist for his work for tax reform. I added this comment:
Grover Norquist has been responsible, more than any other individual, for the infiltration of Islamic supremacists into the highest levels of the U.S. government. See here the seminal expose by Frank Gaffney of the immense damage Norquist has done.
The continuing general ignorance among conservatives of the political aspects of Islam, and of the efforts by Islamic jihadists to impose political Islam, piece by piece, over the West, can largely be attributed to the baneful influence of Norquist. He has energetically aided and abetted the branding by CAIR and others of critics of Islamic supremacism and of those who tell the truth about this Islamic political and societal agenda as “bigots” — such that frank discussion of the full nature and magnitude of this issue has been generally unwelcome even in conservative gatherings and on conservative media outlets.
David Horowitz, in an introduction to the Gaffney piece to which I linked, says: “On the basis of the evidence assembled here, it seems beyond dispute that Grover Norquist has formed alliances with prominent Islamic radicals who have ties to the Saudis and to Libya and to Palestine Islamic Jihad, and who are now under indictment by U.S. authorities. Equally troubling is that the arrests of these individuals and their exposure as agents of terrorism have not resulted in noticeable second thoughts on Grover’s part or any meaningful effort to dissociate himself from his unsavory friends.”
do I sense a trend here
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/17/america/17char-web.php
WASHINGTON : A former Republican congressman from Michigan was indicted Wednesday on federal charges of money laundering and obstruction of justice. The charges involve his work as a lobbyist for an Islamic charity accused of illegally funneling about $130,000 to an Afghan warlord labeled a terrorist by the United States government.
The former congressman, Mark Siljander, who was defeated for re-election in 1986 after three terms in the House, was accused by a federal grand jury in Kansas City of accepting $50,000 in stolen government aid money as his lobbying fee from the now-defunct charity group, the Islamic American Relief Agency.
The charity — based in Columbia, Missouri, and closed in 2004 — and several of its former leaders were already under indictment on charges of illegally transferring money to Iraq and stealing government money.
The broader indictment issued Wednesday also accused the charity and its former officers of transferring about $130,000 to Pakistan for the benefit of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a former prime minister of Afghanistan. Hekmatyar is a warlord who has been formally designated a terrorist by the United States because of his links to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Siljander, a conservative who runs a Washington consulting firm, was not accused of involvement in money transfers to Hekmatyar.
“…and you are taking the microphone, his greatest asset, away from Barack Obama.”
GOOD!!! Having a microphone and knowing how to use it doesn’t mean what is being said is true or of value. And Obama proves that point.
I wonder how Sarah will look in a burka…
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=57678
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain has enjoyed strong support from a lobbyist group that backs the Kosovo Liberation Army despite allegations the KLA is a Muslim terrorist group with ties to criminal drug networks and al-Qaida.
The Albanian American Civic League, or AACL, regards the KLA as “freedom fighters,” said the AACL’s president, former Republican congressman Joe DioGuardi of New York.
They’re “not terrorist, like the Serbs and Greeks say,” DioGuardi insisted in an interview with WND.
But Islam expert Robert Spencer, editor of the popular website Jihad Watch, contends radical Islam is the driving force behind the Kosovo independence movement.
“There is no excusing the excesses of the Serbs under (former President Slobodan) Milosevic, but there is no denying also that jihadists have been pouring into Bosnia and Kosovo, preparing to use them as a base for jihad activity in Europe – and we have been helping them,” Spencer told WND.
Heckler posts:
“What, no thread about Obama trying to delay negotiations over troop withdrawal from Iraq?”
Interesting isn’t it that there isn’t a thread on something as major as that.
‘You’d a thought’ Randy Scholfield would be all over that question, calling Obama out on it, now wouldn’t you?
Say, does anybody have any real information on the post yesterday and today about Randy leaving the Eagle? I’d like to restart my subscription to the Eagle print version but NOT until he leaves.
And, there’s the doctrine that the biggest tax breaks should go to the the wealthy, and the doctrine that all citizens should be spied on, and the doctrine that high oil prices are a good thing for the country. No wonder she was confused, as there are other doctrines, I can’t even remember off hand.
Phantom
Posted September 16, 2008 at 8:37 am | Permalink
And, there’s the doctrine that the biggest tax breaks should go to the the wealthy, and the doctrine that all citizens should be spied on, and the doctrine that high oil prices are a good thing for the country. No wonder she was confused, as there are other doctrines, I can’t even remember off hand.
————————————————–
drivel on sheep.
wealthy PAY more taxes….DUH!
How is listening to phone calls from terrorist nations “spying on all citizens?”
High oil prices good for the nation?….That was YOUR boy, the One…..
That sould end some of YOUR confusion.
Go and read some more huffington…..
BAHHHHHHH, bahhhhhhh, baahhhhhh…
Bush will soon be thrown in the garbage along with the other trash.
Who cares?
He’s like an eight year catastrophe that simply needs to cleaned up and disposed of.
Supposedly last week there were to be 10 to 15 people layed off from the Eagle. Crowson was one that was rupored to be on the list. They pretty much ended the Wichi-talk section.
If they had to let an editor go, Randy would be my choice. Affirmative action (for girls) would save Rhonda. They can’t let Phillip go, no one is really sure of what he does.
rupored=rumored
sigh
Then there’s the doctrine that a CIA agent, really isn’t a covert agent, it her husband opposes your first strike initiative. And the doctine that the media is an instrument of the govt.
And, don’t forget the doctine of Executive Privelege means that you can protect anyone that breaks the law if they are on your side, and even extends down through the office of the v.p.
Poor Palin, it was clearly a gotcha question!
Preemption is a good doctrine in the case of established countries/governments. If there is a real threat from a country, I agree with preemption.
Terrorism is a whole different issue. Terrorism is a tactic, used by people who hate the United States and other countries who meddle in other countries. Terrorism will never be defeated, it is impossible to defeat as long as there are people willing to use the tactic. Let’s face it, how else can these people fight the military power of the United States? Preemption against Terror means we will be in a perpetual state of war, and will cause the U.S. to be involved in many more foreign wars/hostilities that we shouldn’t be in, and can’t afford.
A large percentage of the U.S. population is questioning our “global” economy and whether that is good for our people. These foreign Terrorists simply want the U.S. and other countries to stop interferring in other countries affairs, but they have adopted a deadly means of fighting our government’s interference. As long as the world continues to engage in “global” economics, there will always be Terrorists, and preemption will create more, not fewer, numbers of Terrorists.
Look at Bush in that picture.
Have you ever seen someone whose stupidity is so apparent in their face?
Worst.
President.
Ever.
Of course, McCain may change that if he’s elected.
Thanks HLP.
Crowson and Scholfield would be mine as well.
We shall see.
Then there’s the Biggie; If you’re not with us, you’re agin us.
I watched the interview and it was obvious that he was 1. Trying to make her look stupid and 2. Trying to put words in her mouth. She did not allow him to get away with it. She did not say, WHAT bush doctrine, she demanded that he be specific in WHICH PART of the Bush doctrine.
From a lot of these blogs, it sounds as though you dems had no idea what Charles Gibson was talking about and still do not. And if you have finally figured it out, you can’t accept it then you just resort to arguing the past 8 years of Bush as usual.
You cannot argue the preemptive strike because you know that it makes perfect sense to have the President of the U.S. protect our country and stopping an enemy before they kill thousands or millions is a lot better than trying to stop the enemy after they have killed thousands or millions.
I ,for one, am glad that she agreed with it because allowing preemptive strike allows us to protect ourselves from the terrorists, the last 7 years has been proof of that. It is nice to know that someone in the White House will put the protection of the U.S. citizens as a top priority.
Peace activists and whiny little men cannot bring themselves to understand it or support it. So they resort to the same old arguments that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, “Bush lied, “millions died”. They simply repeat the words they have heard from the mainstream media as think that simply repeating it over and over again make it the truth. We Americans can see the truth for ourselves
Remember how shocked the MSM was when Gore lost in 2000 and then again when Kerry lost in 2004. It had nothing to do with voter fraud and it most definitely had nothing to do with the media thinking that if they told us who was going to win that we would go along with it and vote for that guy. Well, we didn’t and we won’t again. We vote for the one we think will be the best, not what someone else says will be the best.
btw- If you are a Star Trek fan check out Preemptive Strike. It was in Season Seven of The Next Generation. It is totally awesome. I most definitely can relate to Ensign Ro.
Worst.
President.
Ever.
elected
twice
Bahhh, bahhhh….
She didn’t have a clue as her ‘answers’ attested to.
I believe her stating what her areas would be yesterday is to ry and keep questions in an area she might be able to partially answer.
From the rumblings I have heard Randy acted instead of waiting to possibly react and secured for himself and his family a much better future. I’m pleased for him and his family and I will miss him. It is Wichita’s loss.
Rage,
Got room for another”cheese eating surrender monkey” in your tent? I originally was in favor of the war then it began looking more and more like Viet Nam part 2 and we all know how that turned out 158,000 dead and many others still unaccounted for. And for what? Anyone with any sense knows what is going to happen when we leave Iraq
He was/is one of the extremely few voices of reason in a mindless Republican state.
Hey Box,
I have a friend that works at the Eagle and just before he went to Winfield for the Bluegrass Festival he was informed that he might not have a job when he got back.
Randy I wouldn’t miss, Crowson. . . well, we need someone locally to inject a little humor into our desparate daily existence.
Why would the eagle eliminate the one voice of progressiveness?
#
Phantom
Posted September 16, 2008 at 10:01 am | Permalink
Why would the eagle eliminate the one voice of progressiveness?
————————-
Might be more than that.
The Blog and Editorials are not really necessary to keep a newspaper in the black ink.
Posted this before
“We don’t know how to mind our own buisness,’cause the whole world’s got to be just like us…….America where are you now? Don’t you care about your sons and daughters? Don’t you know we need you now? We can’t fight alone against the monster.”—Steppenwolf circa 1969
As true today as it was then
#
Phantom
Posted September 16, 2008 at 10:01 am | Permalink
Why would the eagle eliminate the one voice of progressiveness?
_________________________________________________
The parent company is going broke. When the plane is going down you jettison unnecessary baggage.
#
HLP
Posted September 16, 2008 at 10:23 am | Permalink
#
Phantom
Posted September 16, 2008 at 10:01 am | Permalink
Why would the eagle eliminate the one voice of progressiveness?
_________________________________________________
The parent company is going broke. When the plane is going down you jettison unnecessary baggage.
————————————————-
McClatchy – a fine example of a progressive Liberal business plan.
Sell fictionalized and editorialized news that most Americans do not want to read or pay for.
Printed news is going the way of the dinosaur. People as getting smarter and realize that truth matters so they are being more selective about where they get their news.
Fox news is a prime example of this. Their news is head and shoulders above the competition with the exception of Rivera. That is why they draw more than CNN and MSNBC together.
I’m not talking about their talk shows which are opinions. I’m talking about the news you get there that you don’t get elsewhere. Libs should give it a shot. Educate yourselves.
By the way has anyone seen Geraldo since Ike hit Texas. I have to admit I was cheering for Ike to take him out.
“Freebird1971″ remembers –
America where are you now?
Don’t you care about your sons and daughters?
Don’t you know we need you now?
We can’t fight alone against the monster.”
-—Steppenwolf circa 1969
Good call, “Freebird1971″
The band took its name from the Hermann Hesse autobiographical/fantasy novel which took its name from “the lonesome wolf of the steppes.” It imparts Hesse’s perception of the profound spiritual crisis he saw in Germany during the 1920s, that led to the rise of Hitler.
Pretty heady stuff for a band on Top 40 radio, huh?
I read that their last concert was at the Hermann Hesse festival in Germany last fall. John Kay sang all their songs — “Born to be Wild,” “Magic Carpet Ride,” “Snowblind Friend,” “The Pusher,” “Monster,” … all of ‘em — in PERFECT German!
Turns out he was an army brat and spent much of his childhood in post-war Germany.
Thanks,
Seen them several times from the late 60’s up to when they were here at the river festival
“People as getting smarter ”
The ratings for Fox “news” would tend to disprove that.
But I can see where an exploiter would want her slaves getting the news from Fox.
I’m gonna cut-and-post the lyrics to “Monster” –
Your “typical” Top 40 radio song.
;^)
Once the religious, the hunted and weary
Chasing the promise of freedom and hope
Came to this country to build a new vision
Far from the reaches of kingdom and pope
Like good Christians, some would burn the witches
Later some got slaves to gather riches
But still from near and far to seek America
They came by thousands to court the wild
And she just patiently smiled and bore a child
To be their spirit and guiding light
And once the ties with the crown had been broken
Westward in saddle and wagon it went
And ’til the railroad linked ocean to ocean
Many the lives which had come to an end
While we bullied, stole and bought our a homeland
We began the slaughter of the red man
But still from near and far to seek America
They came by thousands to court the wild
And she just patiently smiled and bore a child
To be their spirit and guiding light
The blue and grey they stomped it
They kicked it just like a dog
And when the war over
They stuffed it just like a hog
And though the past has it’s share of injustice
Kind was the spirit in many a way
But it’s protectors and friends have been sleeping
Now it’s a monster and will not obey
(Suicide)
The spirit was freedom and justice
And it’s keepers seem generous and kind
It’s leaders were supposed to serve the country
But now they won’t pay it no mind
‘Cause the people grew fat and got lazy
And now their vote is a meaningless joke
They babble about law and order
But it’s all just an echo of what they’ve been told
Yeah, there’s a monster on the loose
It’s got our heads into a noose
And it just sits there watchin’
Our cities have turned into jungles
And corruption is stranglin’ the land
The police force is watching the people
And the people just can’t understand
We don’t know how to mind our own business
‘Cause the whole worlds got to be just like us
Now we are fighting a war over there
No matter who’s the winner
We can’t pay the cost
‘Cause there’s a monster on the loose
It’s got our heads into a noose
And it just sits there watching
(America)
America where are you now?
Don’t you care about your sons and daughters?
Don’t you know we need you now
We can’t fight alone against the monster
MH,
Amazing isn’t it that after almost 40 yrs that song is as meaningful today as it was then. Guess people just won’t learn from their mistakes
Who else has been asked if they agree or disagree with the “Bush Doctrine”?
Growing up in the 60’s I remember the hope that even as 10 yr old I could feel for the future of this country.
My question is WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO US? Now people with differing opinions find it difficult to carry on a civil discussion, as is evidfenced daily on this blog. Unless things change and by that I don’t mean who is in the White House,rather I mean if people don’t wake up and begin working together I see a dim future for us.
“Who else has been asked if they agree or disagree with the “Bush Doctrine”?”
———
The question didn’t need to be asked of anyone else since they have all told Americans whether they do or don’t agree. The rest of them have been campaigning and explaining their positions for months.
There is only one of the many people (from many political parties) vying to be president or vice president that American voters haven’t heard from.
Franklin posts
We build a world of justice, or we will live in a world of coercion. The magnitude of our shared responsibilities makes our disagreements look so small.”
I respond
We don’t know how to mind our own business
‘Cause the whole worlds got to be just like us-Steppenwolf circa 1969
lindainks55
Posted September 16, 2008 at 11:50 am | Permalink
The question didn’t need to be asked of anyone else since they have all told Americans whether they do or don’t agree. The rest of them have been campaigning and explaining their positions for months.
There is only one of the many people (from many political parties) vying to be president or vice president that American voters haven’t heard from.
————————————————–
Can you find me a reference of a specific mention of the term “Bush Doctrine” with a specific definition of the term?
I don’t recall it.
Franklin,
Where is the document that recognizes America as the World’s police force?
My question is WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO US?
-Freebird
Who has changed?
Anyone from the Democratic side of the aisle feel free to answer this question.
Do you personally believe a Democratic world is the key to peace and prosperity world wide?
You don’t remember the optimism of the early 60’s and the divison and violence of the late 60’s? Something sure as hell happened to put the citizens of this country at such bitter and hateful odds with each other
MH,(I know off topic}
If you like Steppenwolf check out their DVD Live in Louisville from Sept 07
The Bush Doctrine is the ENTIRE idea of the last three LONG posts, above.
Palin’s interview was badly edited, butchered in fact. However, Palin was right to ask for some clarification.
The truth is, there is not a single person in the entire world that could quote the entire “Bush Doctrine” without notes.
Bush knows what Bush believes, and Bush put those beliefs in writing, and he spoke those words.
ALL of those words, reposted above, constitute the entire “Bush Doctrine” and it is dishonest to claim that only one small sentence, of these explanations, constitutes the ENTIRE “Bush Doctrine”.
Franklin,
Thanks for explaining why we have over 4,000 grieving families,bet it’s a real comfort to them.
“Can you find me a reference of a specific mention of the term “Bush Doctrine” with a specific definition of the term?
I don’t recall it.”
—–
Mr. Kia, if you want that info go look for it. I don’t need it.
Every candidate, EXCEPT one, is anxious to give their opinions, their answers, their positions on anything and everything. Doesn’t matter whether they’re honest or agreeable to any particular ideology, they yearn for a national stage to talk on. They all, EXCEPT ONE, are applying for a job and hope to get their message out to the voters who are doing the hiring.
Wonder what Barr or Nader would give for an opportunity to have a free national stage? Bet they wouldn’t quibble about the questions, or who asked them.
The other candidates seem to understand that questions are asked and it’s their chance to get their message to the voters. They have more than a few pat phrases given in an identical way in speech after speech after speech. And in front of reporters, on questions they may not have practiced for, the voters get a better chance of hearing something we need to hear.
Freebird, I’ve been contemplating your question since posted by you. It appears you and I are chronological contemporaries, as I recall the optimism of the early 1960s, and the division and violence of the late 1960s as well. The facile explanation is the Viet Nam war, combined with the social upheaval resulting from the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the rise of the Womens Movement, and other social changes resulted in a hardening of positions by both sides, which brings us to the situation we find today.
It seems to me, however, it is more complex than that. Truly, the aforementioned issues contributed, but I believe the happenings of the early to middle 1970s, including the Watergate matter, the subsequent congressional investigations, resignation of President Nixon, aided the hardening. Then, the 1980s with what I think was a major change in political discourse with those denominated social conservatives being included within the ranks of the GOP in positions of power, and the political changes which resulted therefrom, added to the mix. When all of this is taken together, combined with the aging and retirements from the Congress of those who understood the art of compromise as necessary to not only furthering their political goals but also for effective governance of the country, their replacements (on both sides) being of the “my way or the highway” mentality, the divisions which first arose in the late 1960s continued to harden rather than ease.
Which brings us to where we are today, IMHO. RFL, as to who has changed; I believe we all have, regardless of party affiliation. I also believe there needs to be a change “back” for the Republic to continue to survive and prosper. The pendulum may be starting its return, but it is a slow one, and until it does, we will continue with the divisions that are apparent today.
Freebird
The topic, of this thread, is “What is the Bush Doctrine” is it not?
I have answered that question better than anyone.
Palin was CORRECT to ask for clarification, since there are MANY points to the “Bush Doctrine” —
Nobody on this Blog seems able to argue that point.
BTW, every life is precious, but war is often a necessary evil.
We lost more troops in a single DAY several times in our history.
Tarrawa, Guadel Canal, Iwo Jima, D-Day and many other wars saw single battles which cost us more casualties than what we have sufferend, in the entire Presidential term of George W. Bush.
Just commenting on the “doctrine”. As for those other wars as someone else said Different time different circumstances. How many of your family has been in harm’s way because of Bush?
Re: “Steppenwolf” –
Ya gotta admit the band name involved a little more thoughtfulness than, say, “Fred Waring and the Pennsylvanians.”
;^)
For those who saw the interview, was the question about the “Bush Doctrine” in general or as had been pronounced at a certain point in time (as I have been led to believe from reading about it)?
Av,
Very thoughtful and well written. The 1971 after my nic is the year I graduated from high school. I don’t know sometimes I just feel like yelling that phrase. I am so disheartned by the path this country has been going down for the last several years I wonder if it’s not too late for us.
“You Got That Right”
#
Freebird1971
Posted September 16, 2008 at 12:04 pm | Permalink
You don’t remember the optimism of the early 60’s and the divison and violence of the late 60’s? Something sure as hell happened to put the citizens of this country at such bitter and hateful odds with each other
————————————
Back in the 60s, everyone was young, at least the baby boomers. The same people that loved to gossip, whine and complain, however, are the same people who still do that to this very day.
I learned a lot of wisdom from my grandfathers. When I was a kid, I didn’t like tilling in the garden or weeding or mulching or much of anything else. One day, my grandfather sat me down to an empty table with chairs and told me “Let’s have something to eat.” I said “Okay, like what?” My grandfather said, “Well, it’s not here, we didn’t work for it because we were too busy complaining about it to work for it.” We sat at the table for about an hour, he sharpening his pocket knife and me brooding about my careless attitude.
It was a valuable lesson on not having an attitude of pessimism and that actions with a purpose do matter.
Some appear to me, have never learned that lesson I did when I was very young.
What happened?
People like William Ayers and his wife, Berenadine Dohrn, who both received rings and awards from Communist Vietnam, made out of the metal of shot down United States airplanes, began bombing 30 different buildings. (Ayers, later in life, hired Obama)
Franklin
Posted September 16, 2008 at 12:22 pm | Permalink
Freebird
The topic, of this thread, is “What is the Bush Doctrine” is it not?
Excuse me. Didn’t realize commenting on something that was posted was verboten.
Odd though there was no comment about my post to MH about music.
“Franklin” tries –
“Palin was CORRECT to ask for clarification, since there are MANY points to the Bush Doctrine”
No.
Anyone who’d heard of the term “the Bush Doctrine” and could speak to the “MANY points” involved would have started addressing those points.
“Yes, I believe in developing a ‘coalition of the willing,” no, I don’t agree with unilateral preemptive attacks against countries that pose no direct threat to America….” Or something else.
You know and everyone knows that the Moose-Dresser was pissing her panties when Gibson asked that question.
“His world-view?!” she said, because maybe she’d read the flash card for the sound bite that was labeled “world-view.”
She coulda said something like, “Y’know, Charlie, there are so many aspects of the Bush Doctrine I’m frankly not conversant about. And, as Governor of Alaska, the Bush Doctrine hasn’t been at the top of my agenda. Where shall we start?”
But she didn’t even know the topic. Gibson could have been speaking Swedish on that question and the Moose-Dresser would’ve tried to bluff people into thinking she were fluent in Swedish.”
She had no idea.
And she didn’t have the common honesty to say, “What are you talking about, Charlie? What is this ‘Bush Doctrine’ you refer to?”
It was a bluff and a bad one at that.
Those 2 people caused all this? Damn they sure have some power .
So according to you these 2 were responsible for the RFK and MLK killings,Kent State,and the fall of Saigon just to mention a few
Would we have all the fuss if she wasn’t kicking your respective arses in the polls?
#
Freebird1971
Posted September 16, 2008 at 1:01 pm | Permalink
So according to you these 2 were responsible for the RFK and MLK killings,Kent State,and the fall of Saigon just to mention a few
—————————
Those events were caused by Separatists. The fall of Saigon being a bit more complicated of course.
Instead of working within a system, they tried to bring it down, belittlement and ideological enforcement by harm.
The Kent State affair was a lack of discipline with fire arms by a National Guard unit that was improperly trained and supervised. Some Libs look to it as a symbol of oppression and wear it around their heart like a belt. It was just a stupid action by some inept troops, nothing more, nothing less. To form a whole movement around it was even more stupid and inept.
Oh come on Monkey,
“In what respect?”, is a perfectly good response to a nebulous question like Gibson’s.
Gibson’s response, “Well, what do you interpret it to be?”, was an obvious attempt to trap, and she knew it as well, not an honest question.
Her response following that was equally appropriate, “I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell-bent in destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made, and with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.”
Stopping terrorism against the people of the U.S. and world is very much apart of “The Bush Doctrine”
Monkeymind, go put some bait on your hook, you’re fishing with nothing.
according to Franklin it was just 2 people responsible I’ll let him explain it,but then again he just did.
“The Kent State affair was a lack of discipline with fire arms by a National Guard unit that was improperly trained and supervised’ Wrongo!
I happen to know a guardsman that was there and it wasn’t anything like that. I suggest you read the book ” Kent State: What Happened and why by James Michner
Hey Franklin,
And these DimLibs think Sarah Palin should have been able to answer just as you did in those “three long post”.
What a bunch of dishonest ignoramuses they are.
#
Freebird1971
Posted September 16, 2008 at 1:17 pm | Permalink
according to Franklin it was just 2 people responsible I’ll let him explain it,but then again he just did.
“The Kent State affair was a lack of discipline with fire arms by a National Guard unit that was improperly trained and supervised’ Wrongo!
I happen to know a guardsman that was there and it wasn’t anything like that. I suggest you read the book ” Kent State: What Happened and why by James Michner
——————
Nope. You don’t carry bullets into a crowd you are just trying to control.
You have the people with the loaded guns back at a control point away from the crowds and tension.
I suggest you get your heart away from your sleeve and put it back in its proper place.
I suggest you don’t presume to tell me anything. S you don’t deny you are Franklin?
Good afternoon bloggers. Mr Kia. You have a good point. I don’t see why Sarah Palin didn’t just respond to the question by essentially saying” I agree with some points.” Charlie Gibson would have been obliged to ask what points. Then she could have given the same song and dance that Regular and Franklin have been posting today.
But I don’t see why the GOP is upset. They are back on top.
P.S. Thank God Sep 15th finally came and went.
#
Freebird1971
Posted September 16, 2008 at 1:22 pm | Permalink
I suggest you don’t presume to tell me anything. S you don’t deny you are Franklin?
———————
I’m not Franklin, we’ve never met.
Appears to me you are having problems, perhaps stepping back and going over some steps will help.
Good afternoon LLTVET
Good afternoon Anti. Sorry about my long absence. But I gotta pay the bills.
LLTVET
Posted September 16, 2008 at 1:28 pm | Permalink
Good afternoon Anti. Sorry about my long absence. But I gotta pay the bills.
==========
I hear that.
Ok, now you are my sponsor? No where in the Steps does it say don’t get pissed off.
#
Freebird1971
Posted September 16, 2008 at 1:34 pm | Permalink
Ok, now you are my sponsor? No where in the Steps does it say don’t get pissed off.
——————
Just an observation. I helped a relative with her problem by attending meetings with her. It was educational for me as well.
Getting pissed off is okay, using irrational defense mechanisms with it, isn’t.
For the record I wasn’t being defensive just expressing my feelings. No offense intended there are just some issues that have and probably always will push my buttons
BTW I think its great you helped your relative. I see a lot of people in the program whose families have turned their backs on them, fotunately I’m not one of those. But this would be a better discussion on the open thread.
Regular- I learned a lot of wisdom from my grandfathers.
————————
My grandfather once told me “boy, marry a girl with small hands.
It’ll make your johnson look bigger.
.
.
.
.
whats a johnson? i asked…..
and?????????????????
Freebird1971
Posted September 16, 2008 at 1:49 pm | Permalink
and?????????????????
———————–
He said, go ask your Mom.
I did.
.
.
.
.
she blew bong water out her nose….
I wonder how Sarah will look in a burka…
I wonder if her Tina Fey glasses will be the best choice of fashion accessory for that burka…
“What, no thread about Obama trying to delay negotiations over troop withdrawal from Iraq?”
I googled this for some time yesterday and found only a few links to the link posted here. I would have expected something so “big” in the right-wing’s eyes would have been all over the place.
Do you personally believe a Democratic world is the key to peace and prosperity world wide?
Question: Are you talking Democratic as in party or do you mean a democracy?
A Democracy.
Predestined,
I put this up yesterday but couldn’t get a bit from anyone (?), I’d have thought it would be all over the news with all the video of Obama saying he would bring home troops as fast as he can.
Boxlock
Posted September 15, 2008 at 7:51 am | Permalink
OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS’ IRAQ WITHDRAWAL
” WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.
According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.
“He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington,” Zebari said in an interview. ”
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm
That two-faced liar!!! Seems the Dims boy is nothing but a two faced lying politician, all the while campaigning that he is something he’s not.
“Change”….yeah right.
Predestined
Posted September 16, 2008 at 1:58 pm | Permalink
I wonder how Sarah will look in a burka…
I wonder if her Tina Fey glasses will be the best choice of fashion accessory for that burka…
———————————————-
spoken like a true libtard.
now we know first hand what is important to a democrap voter….
biased1,
You’ve been all over Obama today with your “the One” b.s. What’s wrong? No sense of humor?
Thanks for reposting, Boxlock. My statement still stands. 3 or 4 links to the NY Post one, and that was it, and a couple of those were blogs. I would have thought a few more right-wing papers would have picked it up, but as of yesterday, that was, to say the least, limited. The NY Post isn’t the ONLY right leaning news source out there.
BTW, I even checked info on GIS Iraq Withdrawal, and basically all I found was that the U.N. mandate, allowing us to remain in Iraq, expires on Dec. 31 of this year, and there is or was a lot of discussion in the Senate about that. About signing new accords, I found this:
The Iraqi official, who said he could speak candidly only with anonymity, said there was virtually no chance that the July deadline, set by Bush and Maliki last fall, would be met. He said an Iraqi request to extend the U.N. mandate might come as early as next week, when Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari is to brief the U.N. Security Council.
For U.S. troops to remain in Iraq, a senior U.S. official said, “they either have to have U.N. authority or bilateral authority. You’ve got to have one or the other to have a basis for [a military] presence.”
The “other” Post…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/06/ST2008060601395.html
BTW, your link was to a New York Post Opinion Columnist. Could that be why it hasn’t been picked up by anyone else?
As someone posted on the Google Answers board about this…
“I’ve seen this already today, but only from Taheri. I would want more confirmation before believing this.
“Edit… I checked your Google search. They all seem to refer back to Taheri’s column.”
So I’m not the only one who hasn’t found anything.
You’ve been all over Obama today with your “the One” b.s. What’s wrong?
—————————–
doin’ my part to keep it even w/anti palin 24/7
I don’t give a crap about a dairy she tried to save (should have just gave the town a few $mil), or a cop she tried to have fired (they should have tazed him bro’), or the librarian she fired (but didn’t fire) or her pregnant daughter (libs would cheer if she had forced an abortion?) or that she isn’t sure what the “Bush doctorine” is (you didn’t know what is was, charlie didn’t know what is was, you know how I KNOW? Because BUSH doesn’t know what the bush doctorine is.)
I’m pretty sure it’s a race with the One against mccain. Why do the libs want it to be the One against Palin?
and the One is a real piece of work.
I’d Charlie to ask the One about….
Ties to terrorist
Ties to terrorists fronts.
Ties to Anti-American church.
Ties to shady deals with a Slum lord.
Ties to shady deals with bidens lobbyist son.
His OWN VP says he’s not qualified.
His OWN VP says he was the wrong pick.
thats all.
I don’t really care about what is evedently important to a liberal voter…..
Palins glasses?
A Democracy.
Do you think we should force democracy on other countries that have not shown interest in it?
Predestined
Posted September 16, 2008 at 3:33 pm | Permalink
Do you think we should force democracy on other countries that have not shown interest in it?
—————————————————-
That’s not an answer to my question.
But I’ll give you my opinion on yours.
No. We should promote Democracy world wide.
In the case of the “Bush Doctrine” if we have to enter a pre-emptive war of course Democracy is the political system that needs to be put in place.
I also think to state that a nation has not shown interest in Democracy is to not believe in our declaration of indpendence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Perhaps you have dictators, rulers and tyrants that have not shown an interest in Democracy because they are just that. But if you don’t believe a nation of people do, you don’t believe in the above.
Just my opinion.
#
Predestined
Posted September 16, 2008 at 3:33 pm | Permalink
A Democracy.
Do you think we should force democracy on other countries that have not shown interest in it?
——————–
There is good historical evidence supporting it. Germany, Japan, South Korea and etc.
Sorry, Kia, I’ve been in and out all day so my answer was too brief on not on point.
Yes, we should promote democracy worldwide. That can best be done by example.
I wasn’t thinking of dictators, rulers, or tyrants with my statement. I was thinking of the people. That’s where democracy should start, as it did with us. “We the People” I honestly don’t believe our Founding Fathers meant we should go into other countries and force democracy on them.
Germany, Japan, South Korea and etc.
Did we (U.S.) set up their governments for them?
Why do the libs want it to be the One against Palin?
Because that’s the way John McCain wants it.
Problem is that the Bush Doctrine subtext is rooted firmly in Proudhon’s Anarchist Manifesto that has been discredited for almost a century- that all that is necessary is to destroy the existing corrupt establishment, and pure democracy will immediately rise like a phoenix from its ashes. This was the theory on which he went to war with Iraq, and the basis for his “Mission Accomplished” speech. He truly (and utterly naievely) expected the Iraqi people to welcome an American occupation with flowers and candy, and has yet to understand why they didn’t.
Boxlicker — How is it that you are constantly posting BS LIES and BS links to stuff, and then when it gets debunked, you dont own up to it, but, instead keep right on going, like your phony BS never happened??
Talk about two-faced liars!!!
And you have the friggin nerve to call ME dense??? ROFLMAO!!!
Oh, yea, how is your lipstick wearing today, PIG??? LOL!!!
Chas
You have never “debunked” anything that conservatives have posted.
Just because you don’t like it, does not mean that it is not true.
Regular
Posted September 16, 2008 at 4:24 pm | Permalink
#
Predestined
Posted September 16, 2008 at 3:33 pm | Permalink
“We don’t know how to mind our own buisness,’cause the whole world’s got to be just like us…….America where are you now? Don’t you care about your sons and daughters? Don’t you know we need you now? We can’t fight alone against the monster.”—Steppenwolf circa 1969
As true today as it was then
Try that again
Regular
Posted September 16, 2008 at 4:24 pm | Permalink
#
Predestined
Posted September 16, 2008 at 3:33 pm | Permalink
A Democracy.
Do you think we should force democracy on other countries that have not shown interest in it?
——————–
There is good historical evidence supporting it. Germany, Japan, South Korea and etc.
“We don’t know how to mind our own buisness,’cause the whole world’s got to be just like us…….America where are you now? Don’t you care about your sons and daughters? Don’t you know we need you now? We can’t fight alone against the monster.”—Steppenwolf circa 1969
As true today as it was then
#
Freebird1971
Posted September 16, 2008 at 7:40 pm | Permalink
Regular
Posted September 16, 2008 at 4:24 pm | Permalink
#
Predestined
Posted September 16, 2008 at 3:33 pm | Permalink
“We don’t know how to mind our own buisness,’cause the whole world’s got to be just like us…….America where are you now? Don’t you care about your sons and daughters? Don’t you know we need you now? We can’t fight alone against the monster.”—Steppenwolf circa 1969
As true today as it was then
—————–
Yeah, Steppenwolf, I had their albums in the 60s.
But they are just songs and John Kay is just a singer.
I try not to model my thinking patterns after songs or singers.
Try comprehending the words.
#
Freebird1971
Posted September 16, 2008 at 7:43 pm | Permalink
Try comprehending the words.
———————
No thanks.
It’s just a song. Perhaps a lesson or two to be learned, but it’s not very deep philosophically or logically.
It’s just a song.
Deny the words aren’t true today.
BTW to my way of thinking Democracy and the end of a rifle barrel is not democracy.Did we give Iraq the choice of government they wanted?
and=at
No thanks.
It’s just a song. Perhaps a lesson or two to be learned
And we haven’t learned them
Regular
Posted September 16, 2008 at 7:45 pm | Permalink
#
Freebird1971
Posted September 16, 2008 at 7:43 pm | Permalink
Try comprehending the words.
———————
No thanks.
I’ll help you understand them if you would like.
You’re losing it bro, you need to steady yourself.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm
“That two-faced liar!!! Seems the Dims boy is nothing but a two faced lying politician, all the while campaigning that he is something he’s not.
“Change”….yeah right.” [Boxlicker]
The Debunk (Franklin, I didnt say I debunked it, you freakin illiterate jayyneeus)
The “other” Post…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/06/ST2008060601395.html
BTW, your link was to a New York Post Opinion Columnist. Could that be why it hasn’t been picked up by anyone else?
As someone posted on the Google Answers board about this…
“I’ve seen this already today, but only from Taheri. I would want more confirmation before believing this.”
[Predestined]
Franklin
Posted September 16, 2008 at 7:17 pm | Permalink
Chas
You have never “debunked” anything that conservatives have posted.
Just because you don’t like it, does not mean that it is not true.
=========================================
Oh Really??? Then WHY is it true because YOU believe it to be true??? Even when it isnt??? YOU, idiot, have posted that more times than anybody wants to count!! LOL
Get some brains, SHILL!!!
Is the “Bush Doctrine” real or just a media hype creation? Lets look at a couple of other “Doctrines” from America’s past. The “Monroe Doctrine” was a direct warning to the European Powers of that day. America would not interfere in Europe’s business and Europe would not interfere in the Western Hemisphere. It worked pretty good for about a hundred years or so until World War I shattered forever our “splendid isolationism”. The Truman Doctrine” which followed closely on the heels of Winston Churchill’s famous “Iron Curtain” speech at Westminister College in Fulton, MO spelled out the United States determination to oppose Soviet expansionism in Europe and communist aggression anywhere in the world. It became the guiding philosophy for every President for the next forty years.
Now we find ourselves in a very dangerous world where “weapons of mass destruction” are a real threat to this nation. The “Bush Doctrine” as I understand it simply means that this nation will not hesitate to strike first, if their is compelling evidence that another nation or terrorist group is about to use WMD’s against us. It is a sane and rational policy that says, we no longer have the luxury of waiting to be attacked first, before responding. Who could possibly find fault with that?
Is the Powell Doctrine real or just hype?
Oh, by the way. I love Steppenwolf, and the song “Monster” brings back a lot of memories of my mis-spent youth. However, I would remind you that John Kay and the boys are Canadian. Oh, and “don’t step on the grass sam”.
Rage’s first post above reminded me.
You know how Bush expanded the Presidential powers to things like spying on whoever he wants without “a stinking” search warrant and refusing to answer Congressional subpeonas?
Yeah.
President Obama is going to enjoy those too . . .
Nitwits.
Refusing to turn over documents despite the Presidential Records Act and having secret illegal meetings.
Yeah, President Obama will enjoy those too . . .
Chas, the pseudo preacher, ha!
You failed to show or link to where I am lying.
I presume you mean about Obamanation wanting to delay troop withdrawals until after he takes office.
Presumably to make the weak person he actually is seem effective or competent. Uh?
Did I get that right? As well as my comment about you?
“Chrisfrommactown” –
Maybe it’s an example of just how topsy-turvy George WMD Bush has turned this nation. But it’s almost as if that Cold War philosophy of “MAD” (Mutually Assured Destruction) somehow is beginning to make sense. At least compared to the Bush Doctrine.
MAD led to an arms war based on the concept that no one would drop the first bomb because it was a slam-dunk guarantee that the second bomb would fall on them.
The Republic Party has become advocates of Worst-Case-Scenario fantasies. The What-Ifs? No matter how absurd.
If it’s all about Islamic hegemony, non of the Muslim states will nuke Jerusalem because Jerusalem is a sacred city to them, just as it is to Jews and Christians. Ain’t gonna happen.
But “what if?!”
A red herring.
A distraction.
“What if?!”
Any of us can make up scenarios that might attempt to justify unilateral unprovoked nuclear attacks or torture or shredding Constitutional rights.
But reality ought to enter into the decision-making process somewhere along the line.
Kind of silly really that a lame duck soon to be out of office should be making troop committments for after he’s gone?
Can’t say I recall anyone else doing that, is that part of the bush doctoring, I mean doctrine.
“I presume you mean about Obamanation wanting to delay troop withdrawals until after he takes office.”
Obama doesn’t want to delay anything. He just wants the government to recognize that we’ll have a new administration in four months and that they shouldn’t do anything rash that someone else will have to undo.
BTW, if you want a really hideous example of someone playing politics with the lives of Americans, you need look no further than St. Ronald of Reagan. He got the Iranians to agree not to release the hostages in 1980 so that he could more easily be elected.
Too bad about the hostages.
Didn’t papa bush play a part in that too?
“Ronald of Reagan. He got the Iranians to agree not to release the hostages in 1980 so that he could more easily be elected.”
Oh come on, Carter was afraid to wipe his own ass. As soon as Reagan took office the Iranians new their number was up and Reagan would squash them ‘big time’. End of hostage situation.
‘knew’ not ‘new’
Unnecessary I know, but then there are DimLibs on the blog that would’t be able to figure that out or that would make something of it.
Capn and Phantom need to tighten the tinfoil!
You idiot leftists, you say “liar liar pants on fire” constantly to conservative posts —
Yet you moonbats think that Reagan actually had the hostages held longer, so that Reagan, not Carter, could get credit for their release?
That is crap.
You can not prove ANY of it, yet you repeat it.
Chrisfrommactown posts:
“The “Bush Doctrine” as I understand it simply means that this nation will not hesitate to strike first, if their is compelling evidence that another nation or terrorist group is about to use WMD’s against us. It is a sane and rational policy that says, we no longer have the luxury of waiting to be attacked first, before responding. Who could possibly find fault with that?”
Chris, you ask, “Who could possibly find fault with that?”, the dim, very dim DimLibs, that’s who!
They seem to have no idea what they are supporting. To let an enemy nation or terrorist group kill large numbers of our nations citizens before taking any preemptive military action to stop it is utterly incompetent and a failure of our leaders fiduciary responsibility to us. It is asinine, and would immediately go away if that were allowed to happen. That’s much like allowing Pearl Harbor to occur even knowing the Japanese were planning it.
I personally think those that disagree with the ‘Bush Doctrine’, at least with respect to preemptive action when faced with the near absolute accurate knowledge of a strike against us, is criminal.
That’s why terrorist were afraid to bomb the marines in Beirut (or was it lebanon) they knew Ronnie meant business and sudden death!
Franklin, your reading comprehension is failing terribly today…. I said NOTHING about the Reagan October Surprise… How DARE you put words in my keyboard!!
LIAR!!
And yep, Boxlock, you couldnt find any links to support your latest Obama Rant/Lie, because he never SAID THAT!!! What flavor kool aide you got there, A$$Hole???
OK, all you upity reich wingers…. Check out this from the AMA >>>>
http://voicefortheuninsured.org
That isnt McCain, OR Obama…. That is from your friendly family physician….
Damn, when did Bush think we were going to be attacked??? By Iraq?? or by Kuwait?? or by Saudi??
AND, furthermore, you might want to do some research into the Japanese analysis of Pearl Harbor… THEY did a pre-emptive strike on US, because agents of their intelligence departments in DC believed Roosevelt was setting up an attack on JAPAN, in order to further US presence in the South Pacific….
THAT is most interesting reading….
Google — Japan + Pearl Harbor + Intelligence
Should turn up a few hundred articles….
If you all stop bringing up WW II, and Bush and the Iraq war, I will stop pulling up my research…. OK???
Judging by his posts today, Franklin is off of his meds. Any of the big Pharma people want to help him? He desperately needs help…
They all seem to get called back to their padded cells about the same time every nite, Steven… Well, all except a few…
Boxic,
“Oh come on, Carter was afraid to wipe his own ass. As soon as Reagan took office the Iranians new their number was up and Reagan would squash them ‘big time’. End of hostage situation.”
Please don’t get started rewriting history while the people who lived it are still around to embarass you. Reagan’s first act as president was to authorize a shipment of parts for Iran’s American-supplied military aircraft. Reagan’s claim of no quid pro quo was more than a bit lame. He also sold arms to both sides of the Iran-Iraq war, including chemical weapons. “We have the reciepts!” He then used the money from those sales, and from cocaine shipments to finance a disastrous and horribly bloody attempt to impose a right-wing dictatorship on the people of Nicaragua, and claimed Alzheimers when called on the carpet for illegal gun-running.
Now look who is rewriting history, ha!
I suspect buhs hisself(sic) wouldn’t be able to say what the bush doctrine is.
The Reaganites usuallly shut up after you throw the marine barracks bombing back at them. You know when Ronnie stuck his tail between his legs and scampered off.
Phant,
You have to understand that the Reagan Rout was caused by a serious misunderstanding. Reagan believed our Marines were attacked by angry lesbians!