Sarah Palin did OK in the first part of her first major interview — with Charlie Gibson of ABC News — although she spent a lot of time repeating talking points instead of exhibiting nuance or a firm grasp of topics. In the interview segments that aired Thursday, John McCain’s running mate came off as well-rehearsed but at times out of her depth. She obviously didn’t know what the Bush doctrine was and tried to bluff her way through. Gibson helped her out by defining it as pre-emptive war. She declared herself ready to be president, if need be, but her C-student answers and deer-in-the-headlights look on some questions weren’t reassuring. More of the interview airs today.
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
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- CapnAmerica on Health care reform would save state money
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Monkeyhawk on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/22
339 Comments
Would it be “sexist” to note that she fails even on the standard of a “Gentleman’s C?”
Although it is true that “C” isn’t a failing grade, it is ALSO true that with the rampant grade inflation these days, Sarah Palin is looking like something closer to a “D” in real terms.
I’ve only seen clips, alas, so please do share, people. Did she really endorse Bush’s doctrine of pre-emptive war, once it was explained to her?
Randy, you posted the Link to Nowhere (ironically appropriate). You might fix that.
Bush Doctrine already discussed Scholfield, but please do try again.
he doctrine essentially holds that the U.S. must help spread democracy to stop terrorism and will act pre-emptively to stop potential foes.
“I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation,” Palin said, though she added “there have been mistakes made.”
In other words, yes, I support pre-emptive war.
“We’re on a mission from God.” /elwoodOFF
Has anyone but left wing radicals ever used the term “Bush Doctrine”?
I brought this up in another thread and think it bears repeating here.
How does US action in Europe in WWII defer from what is called the “Bush Doctrine”?
differ not defer*
thank you.
How does US action in Europe in WWII defer from what is called the “Bush Doctrine”?
The US declared war on Japan. Germany, in turn, declared war on the US.
If the Bush Doctrine were followed, we would have attacked Germany in 1933, and we wouldn’t need no stinkin’ declaration of war!
Did Charlie Gibson just invent the term “Bush Doctrine: during the Palin interview?
I can understand why she was confused because the “Bush Doctrine” has not been widely coined.
It was a “Gotcha” question.
This from a liberal leaning columnist:
“But as it happens, I’m not sure anyone is entirely clear on what the Bush Doctrine is at this particular moment.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/09/12/BL2008091201471.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Exactly my point.
Latest talking point: since most people don’t know the Bush Doctrine, use Palin’s obvious ignorance of it to prove she’s “one of us” and ignore the greater issues.
1. The average person need not know about the Bush Doctrine. Someone running for vice president should.
2. Supporting pre-emptive war is not a policy we need extended for another 4 years.
Could you imagine the outrage if a “reporter” spoke in the condescending tone Gibson is taking with Palin to the Messiah?
Mr_Kia,
Regarding the stupid spin you’ve taken from outlander and heckler (which I imagine THEY got from Powerline or some other such Nazi propaganda wing), do you, Mr_Kia, regard, oh, the American Enterprise Institute as place where “left wing radicals” congregate? Because they used the term “Bush Doctrine.”
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.15845/pub_detail.asp
As for your hardly more substantive analogy, Mr_Kia, is there ANY sense in which the United States in the European Theater of W.W. II acted “unilaterally” or “pre-emptively?” Moreover, there’s the small matter of Hitler having occupied most of continental Europe, versus Saddam Hussein remaining within his own borders, and not having been involved in the 9/11 attacks.
So, Mr_Kia, let’s review
-Your attempt at an ad hominem attack on Charles Gibson and those who criticize Sarah Palin has failed miserably
-Your historical attempt to justify the “Bush Doctrine” has failed utterly
#
Mr_Kia
Posted September 12, 2008 at 1:35 pm | Permalink
Exactly my point.
________________________________________
Let the record show that Mr. Kia would have supported an unprovoked invasion of Germany in 1933.
Here again, Wingnuts lie. Or they’re ignorant.
We’ve been hearing about the Bush Doctrine, oh, for about SIX YEARS. And now you want to re-invent history to pretend we haven’t. Color me surprised.
Leave it to the Wingnuts to attempt the Big Lie; not the only way they’re connected to their fascist forebearers, I daresay.
So, it would’ve been reasonable, for a reasonable person, to say “What is your definition of The Bush Doctrine”? No. Did she. No.
Charlie Gibson, one of the great intellectuals of the broadcast media. ROFLMAO!
It’s easy being the questioner with prepared questions and knowing all the answers.
It’s like the guy who plays ‘Scrabble’ with a dictionary, worthless and wastes every one’s time.
The bush doctrine would’ve said, that if we thought Germany was going to declare a war on us, or might, we could’ve pre-emptively attacked without any provocation.
Rage
Posted September 12, 2008 at 1:40 pm | Permalink
#
Mr_Kia
Posted September 12, 2008 at 1:35 pm | Permalink
Exactly my point.
________________________________________
Let the record show that Mr. Kia would have supported an unprovoked invasion of Germany in 1933.
————————————————–
Hindsight being 20/20 you don’t think that would have been a good idea?
It also says that if Russia feels threatened by a neighbor, they would have the right of pre-emption. Unless, of course it is a God given right only to America.
Not if it’d been as mistaken as it was with Iraq.
#
Rage
Posted September 12, 2008 at 1:40 pm | Permalink
#
Mr_Kia
Posted September 12, 2008 at 1:35 pm | Permalink
Exactly my point.
________________________________________
Let the record show that Mr. Kia would have supported an unprovoked invasion of Germany in 1933.
====================
No worries. Franklin “run away from a fight” Roosevelt was in charge.
There is no way that Palin could have survived this interview by a liberal biased journalist. She rates an A for putting up with this self served idiot who was trying for a train wreck. If I could be so good myself it would be a wonder. I also knew the Eagle would come out on the blog about this so called interview, how could they resist. Just you wait the majority of women in the country will vote for McCain & Palin.
Actually, Mr. Kia, even with 20-20 hindsight, preemptively striking against Germany in 1933 would not have been a good idea, if one accepts the state of the U.S. military in 1933 as the same, as well as the state of the German military at that time being the same. Admittedly, the armament build-up in Germany was just beginning, but given the sorry state of the U.S. military and lack of armaments at the time, I’d opine that Germany might have won that one.
Does being in close proximity to Russia make every alaskan a foreign policy expert? How does that work?
Mr_Kia,
Boy, there’s a sustainable and workable foreign policy: invade all countries we don’t like because of what might happen if we don’t!
Forgive me, Mr_Kia, if I call you stupid. It’s just that you are saying stupid things.
She was lucky she didn’t have a liberal biased interviewer. I could’ve ate her lunch without even trying. If anything he needs to toughen up in his next interview, try and regain some credibility after the disasterous clinton/obama debate where he was supposed to be a moderator.
This, once again, is why Fundos and Wingnuts will defend Sarah Palin to the death: her stupidity validates theirs.
#
Phantom
Posted September 12, 2008 at 1:48 pm | Permalink
Does being in close proximity to Russia make every alaskan a foreign policy expert? How does that work?
=====================
Ask the Japanese who love Alaska fish and wood products.
There would’ve been a different reaction among allies had America been the initiator/aggressor.
So, she’s also a Jananese expert! Who knew?
Hindsight being 20/20 you don’t think that would have been a good idea?
Of course not! We were the worst brunt of the Great Depression, we would have little support from our allies (particularly those Europeans not exactly eager to relive the horrors of World War I, and we would have not had either the economic or military strength to pull it up.
If you one can argue that it would have stopped Hitler before he could have advanced his plans, strategically it would have been, at best, flying blind. If Hitler sucessfully fought off a US invasion (remember, we weren’t the superpower we are now), that it would have, if anything, strengthened his hand.
It would have also been seen by the rest of the world as unproked aggression–even by those who might publicly hold their tongues out of well-considered dislike and distrust of the Nazis. They might cheer the invasion, but wonder who’s next.
I guess I see now why some people thought the Iraq invasion was a good idea. Don’t think about it: kill it!
“You’re stupid.”
The last refuge of a liberal.
She should’ve been pressed on her man caused GW flip/flop. Then when she tried to deny it, they could’ve ran that tape too.
The last refuge (for RW whackos) is in Alaska, ask Palin.
“Mr_Kia” asks –
“Could you imagine the outrage if a “reporter” spoke in the condescending tone Gibson is taking with Palin to the Messiah?”
So get the Moose-Dresser into Olbermann’s studio. And Rachel Maddow’s.
Gibson’s “condescending tone” was indicative that he desperately wanted to avoid the “He’s beating up on a girl!” diatribes from the Right Wing Noise Machine.
He saw her looking like a
deermoose in the headlights and was astounded that she was so clueless. It was so obvious the SnowBilly was reciting talking points and had forgotten to study the Bush Doctrine index card.If you’re really offended by Gibson’s “condescending tone,” let the “pit bull in lipstick” face some real questioners.
As my Daddy used to say: “If you’re gonna run with the big dogs you gotta potty in the tall grass.”
“Has anyone but left wing radicals ever used the term “Bush Doctrine”?” — the wefu
“Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer used the term “Bush Doctrine” in February 2001” — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine.
This is amazing. I’d taken this quotation from the Wikipedia, and by the time I returned it had been scrubbed. When I returned again, Mr. Krauthammer was given credit for the “first usage,” but not definitively. The credit was qualified with the word “may” as in he may have been the first to use it.
#
avtolle
Posted September 12, 2008 at 1:47 pm | Permalink
Actually, Mr. Kia, even with 20-20 hindsight, preemptively striking against Germany in 1933 would not have been a good idea, if one accepts the state of the U.S. military in 1933 as the same, as well as the state of the German military at that time being the same. Admittedly, the armament build-up in Germany was just beginning, but given the sorry state of the U.S. military and lack of armaments at the time, I’d opine that Germany might have won that one.
————————–
Straw man arguments on this subject matter.
Did Roosevelt do anything when Germany invaded the Czechs?
Did Roosevelt do anything when Germany invaded Poland?
Did Roosevelt do anything when Germany invaded France?
Did Roosevelt do anything when Germany bombed England?
Did Roosevelt do anything when Germany invaded Russia?
All this occurred BEFORE the U.S. committed to war against Germany.
Just how long was Roosevelt willing to wait before Germany completely dominated Europe?
Let a few million more die under the Hitler cruel boots and in triumph for the motherland of Germany?
That spineless separatist policy during and surrounding WWI costs millions their lives and livelihood.
Rage
Posted September 12, 2008 at 1:53 pm | Permalink
Hindsight being 20/20 you don’t think that would have been a good idea?
Of course not! We were the worst brunt of the Great Depression, we would have little support from our allies (particularly those Europeans not exactly eager to relive the horrors of World War I, and we would have not had either the economic or military strength to pull it up.
If you one can argue that it would have stopped Hitler before he could have advanced his plans, strategically it would have been, at best, flying blind. If Hitler sucessfully fought off a US invasion (remember, we weren’t the superpower we are now), that it would have, if anything, strengthened his hand.
It would have also been seen by the rest of the world as unproked aggression–even by those who might publicly hold their tongues out of well-considered dislike and distrust of the Nazis. They might cheer the invasion, but wonder who’s next.
I guess I see now why some people thought the Iraq invasion was a good idea. Don’t think about it: kill it!
————————————————–
Let the record show that Rage supports the holocaust.
Should have been the fatherland of Germany, to be ideologically correct. :D
Or, if you’re going to run with the big dogs, put on some lipstick!
Oh, no, the holocaust card has been played.
————————————————–
Let the record show that Rage supports the holocaust.
This is out of line despite your attacks and I apologize in advance.
Regarding WWII in Europe, in my opinion 1933-1939. 1942 was too late.
Gibson was condescending, because he was trying to keep it simple for her, but still went over her head, I was surprised he didn’t get frustrated at some of her non-answer answers.
I would give Charlie Gibson a big fat F for asking such a stupid loaded condescending question ie: is the Iraq war a holy war ? no Charlie, we didn’t go to Iraq to “make” them all Christians you stupid Dewitt, our war is against such ideology (Jihad) against infidels – worldwide
http://www.memritv.org/content/en/all_clips.htm
Well, go figure. The EDITORS still showing their bias in only going after the Republicans this election.
It is not that I don’t mind a good critique when needed, but really, could it be any more obvious that the EDITORS are not simply commentating on the news or giving us some threads to discuss, but rather are pushing their own biased agenda here?
Cowards.
Regular, seems to my memory that there was quite an isolationist policy in GOP members of the Senate back in those days, i.e., the time around the invasion of Poland going forward until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The “Lend Lease” policy was one attempt to get around the blocking actions in the Senate.
My money is on more people in this country relating to Sarah Palin’s background, interests and personal life than Barack Obamas.
I do have to agree, that not even I would have understood what was meant my the “Bush Doctrine”
When I was reading the thread and such a big deal was made of her not knowing it, I was thinking to myself that I didn’t even know for sure what he was talking about.
This is one of those cases of where the liberals are all pissed off about something that most of us don’t even care about and then when we do not understand exactly what it is they get even more pissed off.
This is like trying to talk to an angry emotional woman.
No offense women.
The holy war was from her own statements, widely distributed.
Obama gets an F, so far
It also occurs to me from memory that the period in question saw the contracting for new aircraft, fighter and bomber; the enactment of a more extensive draft; and other actions in preparation for involvement in what became known as World War II, particularly in the European theater of operations.
The American people have proven they’ll vote for someone with little more or the same intelligence as their next door neighbor. Good point. Just need to keep away from the issues.
Gibson: “Are we fighting a holy war in Iraq.”
Fact: No but they are.
Regarding WWII in Europe, in my opinion 1933-1939. 1942 was too late.
I agree with this Wikipedic assertion:
The starting date of the war is generally held to be September 1939 with the German invasion of Poland and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by the United Kingdom, France and the British Dominions.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II
It’s generally acknowledged that Roosevelt wanted to fight the Axis long before December 1941. He was just unwilling to make up mulitiple lies (like Bush) or manufacture an incident (like Johnson).
So, from what I’m heard, he stopped selling oil to Japan and increased sales to their enemies. It sent the message. Whether he antipicated an attack, I honestly don’t know.
But there’s a difference between isolationism and imperialism. Like, ya know, a middle ground?
I think Randy was too kind with his grade, I only gave her a C last night and felt like I’d been generous.
Wrong,Randy!
There is NO clear definition of what the “Bush Doctrine” is.
This was the liberal media, again, trying to play “gotcha” and it did not work.
Do you realize that Obama has been quoted as saying that the “Bush Doctrine” is the “refusal to meet, face to face, with our enemies”??
Do your job, Randy.
You ALSO get an F today, for your work!
#
avtolle
Posted September 12, 2008 at 2:04 pm | Permalink
Regular, seems to my memory that there was quite an isolationist policy in GOP members of the Senate back in those days, i.e., the time around the invasion of Poland going forward until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The “Lend Lease” policy was one attempt to get around the blocking actions in the Senate.
#
avtolle
Posted September 12, 2008 at 2:08 pm | Permalink
It also occurs to me from memory that the period in question saw the contracting for new aircraft, fighter and bomber; the enactment of a more extensive draft; and other actions in preparation for involvement in what became known as World War II, particularly in the European theater of operations.
=====================
True about Republicans, but Roosevelt was the Command in Chief.
The inaction by the United States back then is still considered unforgivable by many older Europeans who lived during that time and saw entire families disappear.
The preemptive policies of President Bush was and still is the right decision. The attitude of “just let those dirty Arabs kill each other” is beyond bigotry, it’s monstrous.
Mr_Kia, I agree that there are more people in the U.S. who might relate to some or all the things you set forth in Gov. Palin’s life as opposed to the same things in Sen. Obama’s life. That would not include me, but then again, I wasn’t admitted to Harvard Law School, but I also did not attend community colleges prior to earning my undergraduate degree. :-)
That said, I would remind everyone who might read this that the presidential candidates are Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama, not Gov. Palin and Sen. Obama. It continues to amaze me that so much attention from both sides centers around Gov. Palin, even keeping in mind Sen. McCain’s age and past health problems.
I have been away from the blog for about a week. Hasn’t Obama been giving interviews on Oriely’s show?
Why have we not had a thread on those interviews from the Eagle? Or did I miss it?
CF
Earlier today on the open thread was the first time I had ever written the words. “The Bush Doctrine”. I have NEVER used it in a verbal discussion with anyone.
The fact that the Left media and blogs use it on a nearly daily basis does not mean that the rest of the world does.
Had Charlie Gibson asked me that question I would have had to ask him to clarify exactly what he meant as well.
If bush had been president, we might well have lost WW2.
Regular, preemption seems to me to have been a part of many nation’s doctrines, including the U.S. before the current president. However, I submit that the attempt to take preemptive action in 1936, to pick a year, by FDR would have not been seen as an appropriate action by not only the Congress but also the great majority of the American populace.
That said, I would remind everyone who might read this that the presidential candidates are Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama, not Gov. Palin and Sen. Obama. It continues to amaze me that so much attention from both sides centers around Gov. Palin, even keeping in mind Sen. McCain’s age and past health problems.
Since this a Palin thread, I have no issue with talking about Palin, but point well-taken. The importance of the vice-presidency should not be diminished, but it’s nonetheless not the top job.
And as I have repeatedly noted, Governor Palin’s chief value to the ticket is one of a “bright shiny object” to distract attention away from John McCain.
Heckler,
Exactly. My point exactly.
From that we get:
1. They think she did bad because she didn’t know what it was.
2. They think she did bad because she “agreed” with it by saying that the President has a duty to protect us from a threat and didn’t just disagree with it.
Given Senator Obama’s definition vs. Charles Gibson’s I don’t think it was unwise of Governor Palin to get a more concise answer to the meaning of the question.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/obama-clinton-w.html
Phantom,
If we used the same arguments that you liberals use in this war against WWII we would have quit the war during some of the first training exercises.
Regular, preemption seems to me to have been a part of many nation’s doctrines, including the U.S. before the current president.
Definitely some truth to that. Who was that ‘Polk’ guy again?
Rage
Tucson, Mexico
Palin is still the unknown quantity, and this was her first nationally broadcast interview, of course it’ll be a topic for discussion, as will tonight’s and the third one.
Rage
Posted September 12, 2008 at 2:11 pm | Permalink
But there’s a difference between isolationism and imperialism. Like, ya know, a middle ground?
—————————————————-
I am trying to understand where you are coming from and don’t disagree with the concept of middle ground.
I don’t however see where a middle ground is with leaders who commit genocide.
Gee, a C+! Didn’t Kathleen Sebelius receive a C- for her speech at the Democratic National Convention by a national news magazine? Out of the major female speakers at the convention she received the lowest grade for delivery and content! And Gov. Sebelius was considered to have been on Obama’s short list for VP.
Gov. Palin will continue to connect with in or out of the home working women across the Country because they know she gets them and they get that she gets them!
By the way working class blue collar men get that she understands them too!
History-challenged “Regular” asks –
“Just how long was Roosevelt willing to wait before Germany completely dominated Europe?”
Wow.
Anyone who knows anything (and I thought, perhaps, maybe you, “Regular,” knew something… but I’m having doubts) knows that Roosevelt was pressured by right-wing Republicans (including George WMD Bush’s
war-profiteergrand-daddy) who were insistent about America not getting involved in another “European” war.But, jeez, “Regular.” It’s not worth the effort for me to write 10,000 words on how ignorant your post was. Not stupid, necessarily, but ignorant; you simply ignore the facts to try to distract participants on this thread from the topic at hand.
So use what McCoot calls “The Google” and read up about Churchill and FDR and Lend/Lease and Charles Lindbergh (after the kidnapping) and Wendell Wilke and World War II and the Merchant Marine and Hitler and Mussolini and Japan and the Axis and… and… and MAYBE you wouldn’t come off as the wing-nut fool you tend to be in this forum.
I mean, really.
You’d much rather hijack this thread to the issues of 1940 because you’re backing a bunch of losers in 2008.
“In a conference call with reporters, Obama said Clinton would continue the “Bush doctrine” of only speaking to leaders of rogue nations if they first meet conditions laid out by the United States. He went on to suggest that being “trapped by a lot of received wisdom” led members of Congress — including Clinton — to authorize the war in Iraq.
“The Bush administration’s policy is to say that he will not talk with these countries unless they meet various preconditions — that’s their explicit policy, and that was the question that was posed at the debate,” Obama said. “This is the assertion that she made during the debate and subsequently, was that she would not meet with various leaders unless certain preconditions were met. Now, if that’s not what she means, then she should say so, but that was the question that was posed at the debate.”
Obama added that he believes the U.S. needs the fresh perspective that he would bring to the Oval Office, one that would welcome conversations with all foreign leaders “to talk about our ideals, our values, and our interests.”
“What’s been interesting about this debate over diplomacy,” he added, “is I really think it’s the debate over the same conventional thinking that led people to authorize the war in Iraq without asking questions, versus an approach to foreign policy that asks questions, is informed by a knowledge, a perspective on cultures like those in Iraq, and is not trapped by a lot of received wisdom.”
From link posted by others, above.
Phantom
Posted September 12, 2008 at 2:18 pm | Permalink
If bush had been president, we might well have lost WW2.
—————————————————-
If today’s liberal mind-set and media were in place in 1944-45 we lose WWII no question.
I don’t however see where a middle ground is with leaders who commit genocide.
A defensible point, but I’m not sure military invasion is always the answer. We’re getting pretty far afield of the Bush Doctrine, which has nothing to do with preventing genocide.
Would you have sent troops to prevent the slaugther in Rwanda? I sure as hell think Clinton should have done something.
Hey MonkeyHock,
I suggest you go study the history of Europe prior to 1942, during the times of 1933-1942.
You will find I’m absolutely correct on my evaluation of Germany’s invasion scenarios. In fact, I did not list all of the atrocities conduct by Hitler during that time.
I didn’t bring it up, but responded to it.
The only intellectual prowess you have MonkeyHock is your ability to string together words of inconsequential meaning that have relevance only to the “chewing gum stuck in the hair” crowd.
Gov. Palin is an interesting person and probably had a bight future in politics. At this point in time , she does not have the experience nor skill set to be VP., and certainly not the President.I say that with gender and political affiliation aside. At this point in time, I do not want her confronting Russia’s Putin; he’s eat her for lunch!
#
Rage
Posted September 12, 2008 at 2:28 pm | Permalink
I don’t however see where a middle ground is with leaders who commit genocide.
A defensible point, but I’m not sure military invasion is always the answer. We’re getting pretty far afield of the Bush Doctrine, which has nothing to do with preventing genocide.
Would you have sent troops to prevent the slaugther in Rwanda? I sure as hell think Clinton should have done something.
—————
Personally, I would have, but it would have been a nightmare.
In Rwanda, no one was really sure who were the good guys or the bad guys. It would be like interfering in a pit bull fight that was pre-arranged.
Also, fom many, she’s the bigger draw to the ticket, than is mccain.
I swear, the media is like it’s own world.
How many times was Gibson going to pressue Palin on her experience? Leaving the country? Meeting a foriegn head of state?
It is like they are pushing their own script.
-Palin has no experience, we are going to prove it.
Even when Palin was answering his questions, it was like he didn’t “get her” so he kept pushing, almost mocking the fact that she felt ready to be VP or felt experienced enough.
What grade does he get for the interview?
Should have taken out idi amin, instead he got refuge with our buddies the Sauds.
She does have a lot of hubris.
He gets a d with me, too soft and easy.
Actually, the WW2 issue is difficult.
Both sides, on this thread, have some degree of merit.
The truth is, there was a SECRET treaty, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty, between Hitler and Stalin, prior to Hitler invading Poland.
IF the United States had struck at Hitler, prior to Hitler taking ALL of Poland, (Instead of just half of Poland, as he and Stalin had agreed) then we might well have not had the advantage of Stalin going to war with Hitler.
The truth is, the Soviet Union was never a true ally of the United States, in WW2.
Merchant Marines died, by the tens of thousands, running weapons, food and supplies to the Soviets.
However, the Soviet Union would not allow the United States to use ANY Soviet territory, to attack Japan, Hitler’s ally.
Then, after Truman used nuclear weapons, against Japan, the USSR attacked some islands, and took some territory away from Japan.
Anyway, the people of the USSR suffered greatly.
The LEADERS of the USSR? They helped CAUSE WW2.
And, if the United States had jumped in too soon?
We might have had to fight the Russians, as well as the Germany and Japan!
gster
You are wrong.
Palin is FAR more qualified that Obama.
Besides, it is Palin’s loyalties that are more important, and here too, she puts Obama to shame.
Does Palin have any supporters, friends, or former employers who have bombed the Pentagon?
William Ayers is closely associated with Obama. Ayers bombed the Pentagon.
Obama goes to foreign countries and then tries to hide that fact.
Obama was allowed into Pakistan, when Pakistan was going through bloody civil unrest, way back when Obama was in college.
Obama’s Pastor took a trip to Libya, to meet with Kadaffi.
Kadaffi helped finance the Nation of Islam, in America.
Obama is friends with Farrakhan.
Obama not only meets with our enemies, Obama AGREES with our enemies!
“Nathaniel” admits –
“…not even I would have understood what was meant my the “Bush Doctrine”
Well knock me down and call me “Shorty,” boy!
Not even YOU?!
I’m really stunned.
Anything you don’t know isn’t important for the Vice-President of the United States to know.
Thanks for clearing that up.
It really explains a lot.
I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t know that when you’re 8-and-a-half months pregnant and your water breaks it might not be a good idea to take a 12-hour series of flights from Texas to Alaska before showing up in a hospital.
Obstetric Nurses I know, on the other hand, say such behavior might indicate a conscious effort (especially on the part of a woman who’d carried four previous pregnancies) to starve Trig of oxygen in the womb and bring about a still birth.
But, like you, boy, the Moose-Dresser simply didn’t know better.
Not even YOU would have understood…
And if YOU don’t understand, it’s not important.
It’s very disingenus to pull a wild card, and say ha ha, we’ve blindsided you with someone no one knows anything about, but she attractive and will draw great attention to our faltering campaign. Then, turn around and say the media and the public’s giving her too much attention and asking too many questions.
Will only play for the loyalist.
Rage
Posted September 12, 2008 at 2:28 pm | Permalink
A defensible point, but I’m not sure military invasion is always the answer. We’re getting pretty far afield of the Bush Doctrine, which has nothing to do with preventing genocide.
————————————————-
I think the US has the responsibility to take action in such situations as genocide/ethnic cleansing being perpetuated by Governments.
Action and invasion are two different things as well.
“Regular” counters with –
“The only intellectual prowess you have MonkeyHock is your ability to string together words of inconsequential meaning that have relevance only to the “chewing gum stuck in the hair” crowd.
Wow.
Name-calling and gibberish.
You’re in fine form, “Regular.”
Look at the bright side, there were probably millions of women out there that were thinking, “She’s doing alot better than I would”.
92 posts in 48 minutes. Randy’ doing his job. LOL.
This is the Bush National Security Strategy, otherwise known as the “Bush Doctrine”:
http://www.tribalmessenger.org/security.htm
It is several pages long, but it should be reprinted in its entirety, on this thread, to make the point: “What part of the Bush Doctrine” Gibson was asking about?
—–
Full Text:
Bush’s National Security Strategy
aka the Bush Doctrine
Following is the full text of President Bush’s new national security strategy. The document, entitled “The National Security Strategy of the United States” was transmitted to Congress as a declaration of the Administration’s foreign policy.
Following is the strategy and excerpts from Bush’s speeches supporting the strategy of pre-emptive strikes upon other nations to support the peace and safety of the world’s supreme super power – the US.
First I must submit this ruling from the judges at the Nuremberg trial of the Nazi leadership.
“To initiate a war of aggression, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
In stating this guiding principle of international law, the judges specifically rejected German arguments of the “necessity” for pre-emptive attacks against other countries. This is why the peace movement rejected any pleas to attack Iraq; and we continue to trumpet the Nuremberg ruling to make our case against the evil of an aggressive state. Waging pre-emptive strikes upon suspicious countries is against international law, period! We were a law abiding nation, until BUSH. It is time for a Preemptive Impeachment.
This document is sprinkled with official excuses for waging a pre-emptive strike. I have hi-lited some of them and put them together at the end of this page.
Look for salient points in RED.
There is a list of the hi-lited points at the end of this page. Click here to go there now.
Click here for the White House pdf version.
The Bush Doctrine
THE great struggles of the twentieth century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom — and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise. In the twenty-first century, only nations that share a commitment to protecting basic human rights and guaranteeing political and economic freedom will be able to unleash the potential of their people and assure their future prosperity. People everywhere want to say what they think; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children — male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society — and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages.
Today, the United States enjoys a position of unparalleled military strength and great economic and political influence. In keeping with our heritage and principles, we do not use our strength to press for unilateral advantage. We seek instead to create a balance of power that favors human freedom: conditions in which all nations and all societies can choose for themselves the rewards and challenges of political and economic liberty. By making the world safer, we allow the people of the world to make their own lives better. We will defend this just peace against threats from terrorists and tyrants. We will preserve the peace by building good relations among the great powers. We will extend the peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent.
Defending our Nation against its enemies is the first and fundamental commitment of the Federal Government. Today, that task has changed dramatically. Enemies in the past needed great armies and great industrial capabilities to endanger America. Now, shadowy networks of individuals can bring great chaos and suffering to our shores for less than it costs to purchase a single tank. Terrorists are organized to penetrate open societies and to turn the power of modern technologies against us.
To defeat this threat we must make use of every tool in our arsenal — from better homeland defenses and law enforcement to intelligence and cutting off terrorist financing. The war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise of uncertain duration. America will help nations that need our assistance in combating terror. And America will hold to account nations that are compromised by terror — because the allies of terror are the enemies of civilization. The United States and countries cooperating with us must not allow the terrorists to develop new home bases. Together, we will seek to deny them sanctuary at every turn.
The gravest danger our Nation faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology. Our enemies have openly declared that they are seeking weapons of mass destruction, and evidence indicates that they are doing so with determination. The United States will not allow these efforts to succeed. We will build defenses against ballistic missiles and other means of delivery. We will cooperate with other nations to deny, contain, and curtail our enemies’ efforts to acquire dangerous technologies. And, as a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed. We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. So we must be prepared to defeat our enemies’ plans, using the best intelligence and proceeding with deliberation. History will judge harshly those who saw this coming danger but failed to act. In the new world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action.
As we defend the peace, we will also take advantage of an historic opportunity to preserve the peace. Today, the international community has the best chance since the rise of the nation-state in the seventeenth century to build a world where great powers compete in peace instead of continually prepare for war. Today, the world’s great powers find ourselves on the same side — united by common dangers of terrorist violence and chaos. The United States will build on these common interests to promote global security. We are also increasingly united by common values. Russia is in the midst of a hopeful transition, reaching for its democratic future and a partner in the war on terror. Chinese leaders are discovering that economic freedom is the only source of national wealth. In time, they will find that social and political freedom is the only source of national greatness. America will encourage the advancement of democracy and economic openness in both nations, because these are the best foundations for domestic stability and international order. We will strongly resist aggression from other great powers — even as we welcome their peaceful pursuit of prosperity, trade, and cultural advancement.
Finally, the United States will use this moment of opportunity to extend the benefits of freedom across the globe. We will actively work to bring the hope of democracy, development, free markets, and free trade to every corner of the world. The events of September 11, 2001, taught us that weak states, like Afghanistan, can pose as great a danger to our national interests as strong states. Poverty does not make poor people into terrorists and murderers. Yet poverty, weak institutions, and corruption can make weak states vulnerable to terrorist networks and drug cartels within their borders.
The United States will stand beside any nation determined to build a better future by seeking the rewards of liberty for its people. Free trade and free markets have proven their ability to lift whole societies out of poverty — so the United States will work with individual nations, entire regions, and the entire global trading community to build a world that trades in freedom and therefore grows in prosperity. The United States will deliver greater development assistance through the New Millennium Challenge Account to nations that govern justly, invest in their people, and encourage economic freedom. We will also continue to lead the world in efforts to reduce the terrible toll of AIDS and other infectious diseases.
In building a balance of power that favors freedom, the United States is guided by the conviction that all nations have important responsibilities. Nations that enjoy freedom must actively fight terror. Nations that depend on international stability must help prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Nations that seek international aid must govern themselves wisely, so that aid is well spent. For freedom to thrive, accountability must be expected and required.
We are also guided by the conviction that no nation can build a safer, better world alone. Alliances and multilateral institutions can multiply the strength of freedom-loving nations. The United States is committed to lasting institutions like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the Organization of American States, and NATO as well as other long-standing alliances. Coalitions of the willing can augment these permanent institutions. In all cases, international obligations are to be taken seriously. They are not to be undertaken symbolically to rally support for an ideal without furthering its attainment.
Freedom is the non-negotiable demand of human dignity; the birthright of every person — in every civilization. Throughout history, freedom has been threatened by war and terror; it has been challenged by the clashing wills of powerful states and the evil designs of tyrants; and it has been tested by widespread poverty and disease. Today, humanity holds in its hands the opportunity to further freedom’s triumph over all these foes. The United States welcomes our responsibility to lead in this great mission.
I. Overview of America’s International Strategy
“Our Nation’s cause has always been larger than our Nation’s defense. We fight, as we always fight, for a just peace — a peace that favors liberty. We will defend the peace against the threats from terrorists and tyrants. We will preserve the peace by building good relations among the great powers. And we will extend the peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent.”
President Bush
West Point, New York
June 1, 2002
The United States possesses unprecedented — and unequaled — strength and influence in the world. Sustained by faith in the principles of liberty, and the value of a free society, this position comes with unparalleled responsibilities, obligations, and opportunity. The great strength of this nation must be used to promote a balance of power that favors freedom.
For most of the twentieth century, the world was divided by a great struggle over ideas: destructive totalitarian visions versus freedom and equality.
That great struggle is over. The militant visions of class, nation, and race which promised utopia and delivered misery have been defeated and discredited. America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones. We are menaced less by fleets and armies than by catastrophic technologies in the hands of the embittered few. We must defeat these threats to our Nation, allies, and friends.
This is also a time of opportunity for America. We will work to translate this moment of influence into decades of peace, prosperity, and liberty. The U.S. national security strategy will be based on a distinctly American internationalism that reflects the union of our values and our national interests. The aim of this strategy is to help make the world not just safer but better. Our goals on the path to progress are clear: political and economic freedom, peaceful relations with other states, and respect for human dignity.
And this path is not America’s alone. It is open to all.
To achieve these goals, the United States will:
champion aspirations for human dignity;
strengthen alliances to defeat global terrorism and work to prevent attacks against us and our friends;
work with others to defuse regional conflicts;
prevent our enemies from threatening us, our allies, and our friends, with weapons of mass destruction;
ignite a new era of global economic growth through free markets and free trade;
expand the circle of development by opening societies and building the infrastructure of democracy;
develop agendas for cooperative action with other main centers of global power; and
transform America’s national security institutions to meet the challenges and opportunities of the twenty-first century.
II. Champion Aspirations for Human Dignity
“Some worry that it is somehow undiplomatic or impolite to speak the language of right and wrong. I disagree. Different circumstances require different methods, but not different moralities.”
President Bush
West Point, New York
June 1, 2002
In pursuit of our goals, our first imperative is to clarify what we stand for: the United States must defend liberty and justice because these principles are right and true for all people everywhere. No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. Fathers and mothers in all societies want their children to be educated and to live free from poverty and violence. No people on earth yearn to be oppressed, aspire to servitude, or eagerly await the midnight knock of the secret police.
America must stand firmly for the nonnegotiable demands of human dignity: the rule of law; limits on the absolute power of the state; free speech; freedom of worship; equal justice; respect for women; religious and ethnic tolerance; and respect for private property.
These demands can be met in many ways. America’s constitution has served us well. Many other nations, with different histories and cultures, facing different circumstances, have successfully incorporated these core principles into their own systems of governance. History has not been kind to those nations which ignored or flouted the rights and aspirations of their people.
Our own history is a long struggle to live up to our ideals. But even in our worst moments, the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence were there to guide us. As a result, America is not just a stronger, but is a freer and more just society.
Today, these ideals are a lifeline to lonely defenders of liberty. And when openings arrive, we can encourage change — as we did in central and eastern Europe between 1989 and 1991, or in Belgrade in 2000. When we see democratic processes take hold among our friends in Taiwan or in the Republic of Korea, and see elected leaders replace generals in Latin America and Africa, we see examples of how authoritarian systems can evolve, marrying local history and traditions with the principles we all cherish.
Embodying lessons from our past and using the opportunity we have today, the national security strategy of the United States must start from these core beliefs and look outward for possibilities to expand liberty.
Our principles will guide our government’s decisions about international cooperation, the character of our foreign assistance, and the allocation of resources. They will guide our actions and our words in international bodies.
We will:
speak out honestly about violations of the nonnegotiable demands of human dignity using our voice and vote in international institutions to advance freedom;
use our foreign aid to promote freedom and support those who struggle non-violently for it, ensuring that nations moving toward democracy are rewarded for the steps they take;
make freedom and the development of democratic institutions key themes in our bilateral relations, seeking solidarity and cooperation from other democracies while we press governments that deny human rights to move toward a better future; and
take special efforts to promote freedom of religion and conscience and defend it from encroachment by repressive governments.
We will champion the cause of human dignity and oppose those who resist it.
III. Strengthen Alliances to Defeat Global Terrorism and Work to Prevent Attacks Against Us and Our Friends
“Just three days removed from these events, Americans do not yet have the distance of history. But our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil. War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. The conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others. It will end in a way, and at an hour, of our choosing.”
President Bush
Washington, D.C. (The National Cathedral)
September 14, 2001
The United States of America is fighting a war against terrorists of global reach. The enemy is not a single political regime or person or religion or ideology. The enemy is terrorism — premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against innocents.
In many regions, legitimate grievances prevent the emergence of a lasting peace. Such grievances deserve to be, and must be, addressed within a political process. But no cause justifies terror. The United States will make no concessions to terrorist demands and strike no deals with them. We make no distinction between terrorists and those who knowingly harbor or provide aid to them.
The struggle against global terrorism is different from any other war in our history. It will be fought on many fronts against a particularly elusive enemy over an extended period of time. Progress will come through the persistent accumulation of successes — some seen, some unseen.
Today our enemies have seen the results of what civilized nations can, and will, do against regimes that harbor, support, and use terrorism to achieve their political goals. Afghanistan has been liberated; coalition forces continue to hunt down the Taliban and al-Qaida. But it is not only this battlefield on which we will engage terrorists. Thousands of trained terrorists remain at large with cells in North America, South America, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and across Asia.
Our priority will be first to disrupt and destroy terrorist organizations of global reach and attack their leadership; command, control, and communications; material support; and finances. This will have a disabling effect upon the terrorists’ ability to plan and operate.
We will continue to encourage our regional partners to take up a coordinated effort that isolates the terrorists. Once the regional campaign localizes the threat to a particular state, we will help ensure the state has the military, law enforcement, political, and financial tools necessary to finish the task.
The United States will continue to work with our allies to disrupt the financing of terrorism. We will identify and block the sources of funding for terrorism, freeze the assets of terrorists and those who support them, deny terrorists access to the international financial system, protect legitimate charities from being abused by terrorists, and prevent the movement of terrorists’ assets through alternative financial networks.
However, this campaign need not be sequential to be effective, the cumulative effect across all regions will help achieve the results we seek.
We will disrupt and destroy terrorist organizations by:
direct and continuous action using all the elements of national and international power. Our immediate focus will be those terrorist organizations of global reach and any terrorist or state sponsor of terrorism which attempts to gain or use weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or their precursors;
defending the United States, the American people, and our interests at home and abroad by identifying and destroying the threat before it reaches our borders. While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country; and
denying further sponsorship, support, and sanctuary to terrorists by convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities.
We will also wage a war of ideas to win the battle against international terrorism. This includes:
using the full influence of the United States, and working closely with allies and friends, to make clear that all acts of terrorism are illegitimate so that terrorism will be viewed in the same light as slavery, piracy, or genocide: behavior that no respectable government can condone or support and all must oppose;
supporting moderate and modern government, especially in the Muslim world, to ensure that the conditions and ideologies that promote terrorism do not find fertile ground in any nation;
diminishing the underlying conditions that spawn terrorism by enlisting the international community to focus its efforts and resources on areas most at risk; and
using effective public diplomacy to promote the free flow of information and ideas to kindle the hopes and aspirations of freedom of those in societies ruled by the sponsors of global terrorism.
While we recognize that our best defense is a good offense we are also strengthening America’s homeland security to protect against and deter attack.
This Administration has proposed the largest government reorganization since the Truman Administration created the National Security Council and the Department of Defense. Centered on a new Department of Homeland Security and including a new unified military command and a fundamental reordering of the FBI, our comprehensive plan to secure the homeland encompasses every level of government and the cooperation of the public and the private sector.
This strategy will turn adversity into opportunity. For example, emergency management systems will be better able to cope not just with terrorism but with all hazards. Our medical system will be strengthened to manage not just bioterror, but all infectious diseases and mass-casualty dangers. Our border controls will not just stop terrorists, but improve the efficient movement of legitimate traffic.
While our focus is protecting America, we know that to defeat terrorism in today’s globalized world we need support from our allies and friends. Wherever possible, the United States will rely on regional organizations and state powers to meet their obligations to fight terrorism. Where governments find the fight against terrorism beyond their capacities, we will match their willpower and their resources with whatever help we and our allies can provide.
As we pursue the terrorists in Afghanistan, we will continue to work with international organizations such as the United Nations, as well as non-governmental organizations, and other countries to provide the humanitarian, political, economic, and security assistance necessary to rebuild Afghanistan so that it will never again abuse its people, threaten its neighbors, and provide a haven for terrorists
In the war against global terrorism, we will never forget that we are ultimately fighting for our democratic values and way of life. Freedom and fear are at war, and there will be no quick or easy end to this conflict. In leading the campaign against terrorism, we are forging new, productive international relationships and redefining existing ones in ways that meet the challenges of the twenty-first century.
IV. Work with Others To Defuse Regional Conflicts
“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.”
President Bush
Berlin, Germany
May 23, 2002
Concerned nations must remain actively engaged in critical regional disputes to avoid explosive escalation and minimize human suffering. In an increasingly interconnected world, regional crisis can strain our alliances, rekindle rivalries among the major powers, and create horrifying affronts to human dignity. When violence erupts and states falter, the United States will work with friends and partners to alleviate suffering and restore stability.
No doctrine can anticipate every circumstance in which U.S. action — direct or indirect — is warranted. We have finite political, economic, and military resources to meet our global priorities. The United States will approach each case with these strategic principles in mind:
The United States should invest time and resources into building international relationships and institutions that can help manage local crises when they emerge.
The United States should be realistic about its ability to help those who are unwilling or unready to help themselves. Where and when people are ready to do their part, we will be willing to move decisively.
Policies in several key regions offer some illustrations of how we will apply these principles:
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is critical because of the toll of human suffering, because of America’s close relationship with the state of Israel and key Arab states, and because of that region’s importance to other global priorities of the United States. There can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides. America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living beside Israel in peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their interests, and listens to their voices, and counts their votes. The United States will continue to encourage all parties to step up to their responsibilities as we seek a just and comprehensive settlement to the conflict.
The United States, the international donor community, and the World Bank stand ready to work with a reformed Palestinian government on economic development, increased humanitarian assistance and a program to establish, finance, and monitor a truly independent judiciary. If Palestinians embrace democracy, and the rule of law, confront corruption, and firmly reject terror, they can count on American support for the creation of a Palestinian state.
Israel also has a large stake in the success of a democratic Palestine. Permanent occupation threatens Israel’s identity and democracy. So the United States continues to challenge Israeli leaders to take concrete steps to support the emergence of a viable, credible Palestinian state. As there is progress towards security, Israel forces need to withdraw fully to positions they held prior to September 28, 2000. And consistent with the recommendations of the Mitchell Committee, Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories must stop. As violence subsides, freedom of movement should be restored, permitting innocent Palestinians to resume work and normal life. The United States can play a crucial role but, ultimately, lasting peace can only come when Israelis and Palestinians resolve the issues and end the conflict between them.
In South Asia, the United States has also emphasized the need for India and Pakistan to resolve their disputes. This administration invested time and resources building strong bilateral relations with India and Pakistan. These strong relations then gave us leverage to play a constructive role when tensions in the region became acute. With Pakistan, our bilateral relations have been bolstered by Pakistan’s choice to join the war against terror and move toward building a more open and tolerant society. The Administration sees India’s potential to become one of the great democratic powers of the twenty-first century and has worked hard to transform our relationship accordingly. Our involvement in this regional dispute, building on earlier investments in bilateral relations, looks first to concrete steps by India and Pakistan that can help defuse military confrontation.
Indonesia took courageous steps to create a working democracy and respect for the rule of law. By tolerating ethnic minorities, respecting the rule of law, and accepting open markets, Indonesia may be able to employ the engine of opportunity that has helped lift some of its neighbors out of poverty and desperation. It is the initiative by Indonesia that allows U.S. assistance to make a difference.
In the Western Hemisphere we have formed flexible coalitions with countries that share our priorities, particularly Mexico, Brazil, Canada, Chile, and Colombia. Together we will promote a truly democratic hemisphere where our integration advances security, prosperity, opportunity, and hope. We will work with regional institutions, such as the Summit of the Americas process, the Organization of American States (OAS), and the Defense Ministerial of the Americas for the benefit of the entire hemisphere.
Parts of Latin America confront regional conflict, especially arising from the violence of drug cartels and their accomplices. This conflict and unrestrained narcotics trafficking could imperil the health and security of the United States. Therefore we have developed an active strategy to help the Andean nations adjust their economies, enforce their laws, defeat terrorist organizations, and cut off the supply of drugs, while — as important — we work to reduce the demand for drugs in our own country.
In Colombia, we recognize the link between terrorist and extremist groups that challenge the security of the state and drug trafficking activities that help finance the operations of such groups. We are working to help Colombia defend its democratic institutions and defeat illegal armed groups of both the left and right by extending effective sovereignty over the entire national territory and provide basic security to the Colombian people.
In Africa, promise and opportunity sit side by side with disease, war, and desperate poverty. This threatens both a core value of the United States — preserving human dignity — and our strategic priority — combating global terror. American interests and American principles, therefore, lead in the same direction: we will work with others for an African continent that lives in liberty, peace, and growing prosperity. Together with our European allies, we must help strengthen Africa’s fragile states, help build indigenous capability to secure porous borders, and help build up the law enforcement and intelligence infrastructure to deny havens for terrorists.
An ever more lethal environment exists in Africa as local civil wars spread beyond borders to create regional war zones. Forming coalitions of the willing and cooperative security arrangements are key to confronting these emerging transnational threats.
Africa’s great size and diversity requires a security strategy that focuses bilateral engagement, and builds coalitions of the willing. This administration will focus on three interlocking strategies for the region:
countries with major impact on their neighborhood such as South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, and Ethiopia are anchors for regional engagement and require focused attention;
coordination with European allies and international institutions is essential for constructive conflict mediation and successful peace operations; and
Africa’s capable reforming states and sub-regional organizations must be strengthened as the primary means to address transnational threats on a sustained basis.
Ultimately the path of political and economic freedom presents the surest route to progress in sub-Saharan Africa, where most wars are conflicts over material resources and political access often tragically waged on the basis of ethnic and religious difference. The transition to the African Union with its stated commitment to good governance and a common responsibility for democratic political systems offers opportunities to strengthen democracy on the continent.
V. Prevent Our Enemies from Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends with Weapons of Mass Destruction
“The gravest danger to freedom lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology. When the spread of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons, along with ballistic missile technology — when that occurs, even weak states and small groups could attain a catastrophic power to strike great nations. Our enemies have declared this very intention, and have been caught seeking these terrible weapons. They want the capability to blackmail us, or to harm us, or to harm our friends — and we will oppose them with all our power.”
President Bush
West Point, New York
June 1, 2002
The nature of the Cold War threat required the United States — with our allies and friends — to emphasize deterrence of the enemy’s use of force, producing a grim strategy of mutual assured destruction. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, our security environment has undergone profound transformation.
Having moved from confrontation to cooperation as the hallmark of our relationship with Russia, the dividends are evident: an end to the balance of terror that divided us; an historic reduction in the nuclear arsenals on both sides; and cooperation in areas such as counterterrorism and missile defense that until recently were inconceivable.
But new deadly challenges have emerged from rogue states and terrorists. None of these contemporary threats rival the sheer destructive power that was arrayed against us by the Soviet Union. However, the nature and motivations of these new adversaries, their determination to obtain destructive powers hitherto available only to the world’s strongest states, and the greater likelihood that they will use weapons of mass destruction against us, make today’s security environment more complex and dangerous.
In the 1990s we witnessed the emergence of a small number of rogue states that, while different in important ways, share a number of attributes. These states:
brutalize their own people and squander their national resources for the personal gain of the rulers;
display no regard for international law, threaten their neighbors, and callously violate international treaties to which they are party;
are determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction, along with other advanced military technology, to be used as threats or offensively to achieve the aggressive designs of these regimes;
sponsor terrorism around the globe; and
reject basic human values and hate the United States and everything for which it stands.
At the time of the Gulf War, we acquired irrefutable proof that Iraq’s designs were not limited to the chemical weapons it had used against Iran and its own people, but also extended to the acquisition of nuclear weapons and biological agents. In the past decade North Korea has become the world’s principal purveyor of ballistic missiles, and has tested increasingly capable missiles while developing its own WMD arsenal. Other rogue regimes seek nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons as well. These states’ pursuit of, and global trade in, such weapons has become a looming threat to all nations.
We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends. Our response must take full advantage of strengthened alliances, the establishment of new partnerships with former adversaries, innovation in the use of military forces, modern technologies, including the development of an effective missile defense system, and increased emphasis on intelligence collection and analysis.
Our comprehensive strategy to combat WMD includes:
Proactive counterproliferation efforts. We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed. We must ensure that key capabilities — detection, active and passive defenses, and counterforce capabilities — are integrated into our defense transformation and our homeland security systems. Counterproliferation must also be integrated into the doctrine, training, and equipping of our forces and those of our allies to ensure that we can prevail in any conflict with WMD-armed adversaries.
Strengthened nonproliferation efforts to prevent rogue states and terrorists from acquiring the materials, technologies and expertise necessary for weapons of mass destruction. We will enhance diplomacy, arms control, multilateral export controls, and threat reduction assistance that impede states and terrorists seeking WMD, and when necessary, interdict enabling technologies and materials. We will continue to build coalitions to support these efforts, encouraging their increased political and financial support for nonproliferation and threat reduction programs. The recent G-8 agreement to commit up to $20 billion to a global partnership against proliferation marks a major step forward.
Effective consequence management to respond to the effects of WMD use, whether by terrorists or hostile states. Minimizing the effects of WMD use against our people will help deter those who possess such weapons and dissuade those who seek to acquire them by persuading enemies that they cannot attain their desired ends. The United States must also be prepared to respond to the effects of WMD use against our forces abroad, and to help friends and allies if they are attacked.
It has taken almost a decade for us to comprehend the true nature of this new threat. Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of today’s threats, and the magnitude of potential harm that could be caused by our adversaries’ choice of weapons, do not permit that option. We cannot let our enemies strike first.
In the Cold War, especially following the Cuban missile crisis, we faced a generally status quo, risk-averse adversary. Deterrence was an effective defense. But deterrence based only upon the threat of retaliation is far less likely to work against leaders of rogue states more willing to take risks, gambling with the lives of their people, and the wealth of their nations.
In the Cold War, weapons of mass destruction were considered weapons of last resort whose use risked the destruction of those who used them. Today, our enemies see weapons of mass destruction as weapons of choice. For rogue states these weapons are tools of intimidation and military aggression against their neighbors. These weapons may also allow these states to attempt to blackmail the United States and our allies to prevent us from deterring or repelling the aggressive behavior of rogue states. Such states also see these weapons as their best means of overcoming the conventional superiority of the United States.
Traditional concepts of deterrence will not work against a terrorist enemy whose avowed tactics are wanton destruction and the targeting of innocents; whose so-called soldiers seek martyrdom in death and whose most potent protection is statelessness. The overlap between states that sponsor terror and those that pursue WMD compels us to action.
For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat — most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.
We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terrorism and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction — weapons that can be easily concealed and delivered covertly and without warning.
The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian population, in direct violation of one of the principal norms of the law of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on September 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass destruction.
The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction — and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.
The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression. Yet in an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world’s most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather.
We will always proceed deliberately, weighing the consequences of our actions. To support preemptive options, we will:
build better, more integrated intelligence capabilities to provide timely, accurate information on threats, wherever they may emerge;
coordinate closely with allies to form a common assessment of the most dangerous threats; and
continue to transform our military forces to ensure our ability to conduct rapid and precise operations to achieve decisive results.
The purpose of our actions will always be to eliminate a specific threat to the United States or our allies and friends. The reasons for our actions will be clear, the force measured, and the cause just.
VI. Ignite a New Era of Global Economic Growth through Free Markets and Free Trade.
“When nations close their markets and opportunity is hoarded by a privileged few, no amount — no amount — of development aid is ever enough. When nations respect their people, open markets, invest in better health and education, every dollar of aid, every dollar of trade revenue and domestic capital is used more effectively.”
President Bush
Monterrey, Mexico
March 22, 2002
A strong world economy enhances our national security by advancing prosperity and freedom in the rest of the world. Economic growth supported by free trade and free markets creates new jobs and higher incomes. It allows people to lift their lives out of poverty, spurs economic and legal reform, and the fight against corruption, and it reinforces the habits of liberty.
We will promote economic growth and economic freedom beyond America’s shores. All governments are responsible for creating their own economic policies and responding to their own economic challenge. We will use our economic engagement with other countries to underscore the benefits of policies that generate higher productivity and sustained economic growth, including:
pro-growth legal and regulatory policies to encourage business investment, innovation, and entrepreneurial activity;
tax policies — particularly lower marginal tax rates — that improve incentives for work and investment;
rule of law and intolerance of corruption so that people are confident that they will be able to enjoy the fruits of their economic endeavors;
strong financial systems that allow capital to be put to its most efficient use;
sound fiscal policies to support business activity;
investments in health and education that improve the well-being and skills of the labor force and population as a whole; and
free trade that provides new avenues for growth and fosters the diffusion of technologies and ideas that increase productivity and opportunity.
The lessons of history are clear: market economies, not command-and-control economies with the heavy hand of government, are the best way to promote prosperity and reduce poverty. Policies that further strengthen market incentives and market institutions are relevant for all economies — industrialized countries, emerging markets, and the developing world.
A return to strong economic growth in Europe and Japan is vital to U.S. national security interests. We want our allies to have strong economies for their own sake, for the sake of the global economy, and for the sake of global security. European efforts to remove structural barriers in their economies are particularly important in this regard, as are Japan’s efforts to end deflation and address the problems of non-performing loans in the Japanese banking system. We will continue to use our regular consultations with Japan and our European partners — including through the Group of Seven (G-7) — to discuss policies they are adopting to promote growth in their economies and support higher global economic growth.
Improving stability in emerging markets is also key to global economic growth. International flows of investment capital are needed to expand the productive potential of these economies. These flows allow emerging markets and developing countries to make the investments that raise living standards and reduce poverty. Our long-term objective should be a world in which all countries have investment-grade credit ratings that allow them access to international capital markets and to invest in their future.
We are committed to policies that will help emerging markets achieve access to larger capital flows at lower cost. To this end, we will continue to pursue reforms aimed at reducing uncertainty in financial markets. We will work actively with other countries, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the private sector to implement the G-7 Action Plan negotiated earlier this year for preventing financial crises and more effectively resolving them when they occur.
The best way to deal with financial crises is to prevent them from occurring, and we have encouraged the IMF to improve its efforts doing so. We will continue to work with the IMF to streamline the policy conditions for its lending and to focus its lending strategy on achieving economic growth through sound fiscal and monetary policy, exchange rate policy, and financial sector policy.
The concept of “free trade” arose as a moral principle even before it became a pillar of economics. If you can make something that others value, you should be able to sell it to them. If others make something that you value, you should be able to buy it. This is real freedom, the freedom for a person — or a nation — to make a living. To promote free trade, the Unites States has developed a comprehensive strategy:
Seize the global initiative. The new global trade negotiations we helped launch at Doha in November 2001 will have an ambitious agenda, especially in agriculture, manufacturing, and services, targeted for completion in 2005. The United States has led the way in completing the accession of China and a democratic Taiwan to the World Trade Organization. We will assist Russia’s preparations to join the WTO.
Press regional initiatives. The United States and other democracies in the Western Hemisphere have agreed to create the Free Trade Area of the Americas, targeted for completion in 2005. This year the United States will advocate market-access negotiations with its partners, targeted on agriculture, industrial goods, services, investment, and government procurement. We will also offer more opportunity to the poorest continent, Africa, starting with full use of the preferences allowed in the African Growth and Opportunity Act, and leading to free trade.
Move ahead with bilateral free trade agreements. Building on the free trade agreement with Jordan enacted in 2001, the Administration will work this year to complete free trade agreements with Chile and Singapore. Our aim is to achieve free trade agreements with a mix of developed and developing countries in all regions of the world. Initially, Central America, Southern Africa, Morocco, and Australia will be our principal focal points.
Renew the executive-congressional partnership. Every administration’s trade strategy depends on a productive partnership with Congress. After a gap of 8 years, the Administration reestablished majority support in the Congress for trade liberalization by passing Trade Promotion Authority and the other market opening measures for developing countries in the Trade Act of 2002. This Administration will work with Congress to enact new bilateral, regional, and global trade agreements that will be concluded under the recently passed Trade Promotion Authority.
Promote the connection between trade and development. Trade policies can help developing countries strengthen property rights, competition, the rule of law, investment, the spread of knowledge, open societies, the efficient allocation of resources, and regional integration — all leading to growth, opportunity, and confidence in developing countries. The United States is implementing The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act to provide market-access for nearly all goods produced in the 35 countries of sub-Saharan Africa. We will make more use of this act and its equivalent for the Caribbean Basin and continue to work with multilateral and regional institutions to help poorer countries take advantage of these opportunities. Beyond market access, the most important area where trade intersects with poverty is in public health. We will ensure that the WTO intellectual property rules are flexible enough to allow developing nations to gain access to critical medicines for extraordinary dangers like HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria.
Enforce trade agreements and laws against unfair practices. Commerce depends on the rule of law; international trade depends on enforceable agreements. Our top priorities are to resolve ongoing disputes with the European Union, Canada, and Mexico and to make a global effort to address new technology, science, and health regulations that needlessly impede farm exports and improved agriculture. Laws against unfair trade practices are often abused, but the international community must be able to address genuine concerns about government subsidies and dumping. International industrial espionage which undermines fair competition must be detected and deterred.
Help domestic industries and workers adjust. There is a sound statutory framework for these transitional safeguards which we have used in the agricultural sector and which we are using this year to help the American steel industry. The benefits of free trade depend upon the enforcement of fair trading practices. These safeguards help ensure that the benefits of free trade do not come at the expense of American workers. Trade adjustment assistance will help workers adapt to the change and dynamism of open markets.
Protect the environment and workers. The United States must foster economic growth in ways that will provide a better life along with widening prosperity. We will incorporate labor and environmental concerns into U.S. trade negotiations, creating a healthy “network” between multilateral environmental agreements with the WTO, and use the International Labor Organization, trade preference programs, and trade talks to improve working conditions in conjunction with freer trade.
Enhance energy security. We will strengthen our own energy security and the shared prosperity of the global economy by working with our allies, trading partners, and energy producers to expand the sources and types of global energy supplied, especially in the Western Hemisphere, Africa, Central Asia, and the Caspian region. We will also continue to work with our partners to develop cleaner and more energy efficient technologies.
Economic growth should be accompanied by global efforts to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations associated with this growth, containing them at a level that prevents dangerous human interference with the global climate. Our overall objective is to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions relative to the size of our economy, cutting such emissions per unit of economic activity by 18 percent over the next 10 years, by the year 2012. Our strategies for attaining this goal will be to:
remain committed to the basic U.N. Framework Convention for international cooperation;
obtain agreements with key industries to cut emissions of some of the most potent greenhouse gases and give transferable credits to companies that can show real cuts;
develop improved standards for measuring and registering emission reductions;
promote renewable energy production and clean coal technology, as well as nuclear power — which produces no greenhouse gas emissions, while also improving fuel economy for U.S. cars and trucks;
increase spending on research and new conservation technologies, to a total of $4.5 billion — the largest sum being spent on climate change by any country in the world and a $700 million increase over last year’s budget; and
assist developing countries, especially the major greenhouse gas emitters such as China and India, so that they will have the tools and resources to join this effort and be able to grow along a cleaner and better path.
VII. Expand the Circle of Development by Opening Societies and Building the Infrastructure of Democracy
“In World War II we fought to make the world safer, then worked to rebuild it. As we wage war today to keep the world safe from terror, we must also work to make the world a better place for all its citizens.”
President Bush
Washington, D.C. (Inter-American
Development Bank)
March 14, 2002
A world where some live in comfort and plenty, while half of the human race lives on less than $2 a day, is neither just nor stable. Including all of the world’s poor in an expanding circle of development — and opportunity — is a moral imperative and one of the top priorities of U.S. international policy.
Decades of massive development assistance have failed to spur economic growth in the poorest countries. Worse, development aid has often served to prop up failed policies, relieving the pressure for reform and perpetuating misery. Results of aid are typically measured in dollars spent by donors, not in the rates of growth and poverty reduction achieved by recipients. These are the indicators of a failed strategy.
Working with other nations, the United States is confronting this failure. We forged a new consensus at the U.N. Conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey that the objectives of assistance — and the strategies to achieve those objectives — must change.
This Administration’s goal is to help unleash the productive potential of individuals in all nations. Sustained growth and poverty reduction is impossible without the right national policies. Where governments have implemented real policy changes we will provide significant new levels of assistance. The United States and other developed countries should set an ambitious and specific target: to double the size of the world’s poorest economies within a decade.
The United States Government will pursue these major strategies to achieve this goal:
Provide resources to aid countries that have met the challenge of national reform. We propose a 50 percent increase in the core development assistance given by the United States. While continuing our present programs, including humanitarian assistance based on need alone, these billions of new dollars will form a new Millennium Challenge Account for projects in countries whose governments rule justly, invest in their people, and encourage economic freedom. Governments must fight corruption, respect basic human rights, embrace the rule of law, invest in health care and education, follow responsible economic policies, and enable entrepreneurship. The Millennium Challenge Account will reward countries that have demonstrated real policy change and challenge those that have not to implement reforms.
Improve the effectiveness of the World Bank and other development banks in raising living standards. The United States is committed to a comprehensive reform agenda for making the World Bank and the other multilateral development banks more effective in improving the lives of the world’s poor. We have reversed the downward trend in U.S. contributions and proposed an 18 percent increase in the U.S. contributions to the International Development Association (IDA) — the World Bank’s fund for the poorest countries — and the African Development Fund. The key to raising living standards and reducing poverty around the world is increasing productivity growth, especially in the poorest countries. We will continue to press the multilateral development banks to focus on activities that increase economic productivity, such as improvements in education, health, rule of law, and private sector development. Every project, every loan, every grant must be judged by how much it will increase productivity growth in developing countries.
Insist upon measurable results to ensure that development assistance is actually making a difference in the lives of the world’s poor. When it comes to economic development, what really matters is that more children are getting a better education, more people have access to health care and clean water, or more workers can find jobs to make a better future for their families. We have a moral obligation to measure the success of our development assistance by whether it is delivering results. For this reason, we will continue to demand that our own development assistance as well as assistance from the multilateral development banks has measurable goals and concrete benchmarks for achieving those goals. Thanks to U.S. leadership, the recent IDA replenishment agreement will establish a monitoring and evaluation system that measures recipient countries’ progress. For the first time, donors can link a portion of their contributions to IDA to the achievement of actual development results, and part of the U.S. contribution is linked in this way. We will strive to make sure that the World Bank and other multilateral development banks build on this progress so that a focus on results is an integral part of everything that these institutions do.
Increase the amount of development assistance that is provided in the form of grants instead of loans. Greater use of results-based grants is the best way to help poor countries make productive investments, particularly in the social sectors, without saddling them with ever-larger debt burdens. As a result of U.S. leadership, the recent IDA agreement provided for significant increases in grant funding for the poorest countries for education, HIV/AIDS, health, nutrition, water, sanitation, and other human needs. Our goal is to build on that progress by increasing the use of grants at the other multilateral development banks. We will also challenge universities, nonprofits, and the private sector to match government efforts by using grants to support development projects that show results.
Open societies to commerce and investment. Trade and investment are the real engines of economic growth. Even if government aid increases, most money for development must come from trade, domestic capital, and foreign investment. An effective strategy must try to expand these flows as well. Free markets and free trade are key priorities of our national security strategy.
Secure public health. The scale of the public health crisis in poor countries is enormous. In countries afflicted by epidemics and pandemics like HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis, growth and development will be threatened until these scourges can be contained. Resources from the developed world are necessary but will be effective only with honest governance, which supports prevention programs and provides effective local infrastructure. The United States has strongly backed the new global fund for HIV/AIDS organized by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and its focus on combining prevention with a broad strategy for treatment and care. The United States already contributes more than twice as much money to such efforts as the next largest donor. If the global fund demonstrates its promise, we will be ready to give even more.
Emphasize education. Literacy and learning are the foundation of democracy and development. Only about 7 percent of World Bank resources are devoted to education. This proportion should grow. The United States will increase its own funding for education assistance by at least 20 percent with an emphasis on improving basic education and teacher training in Africa. The United States can also bring information technology to these societies, many of whose education systems have been devastated by AIDS.
Continue to aid agricultural development. New technologies, including biotechnology, have enormous potential to improve crop yields in developing countries while using fewer pesticides and less water. Using sound science, the United States should help bring these benefits to the 800 million people, including 300 million children, who still suffer from hunger and malnutrition.
VIII. Develop Agendas for Cooperative Action with the Other Main Centers of Global Power
“We have our best chance since the rise of the nation-state in the 17th century to build a world where the great powers compete in peace instead of preparing for war.”
President Bush
West Point, New York
June 1, 2002
America will implement its strategies by organizing coalitions — as broad as practicable — of states able and willing to promote a balance of power that favors freedom. Effective coalition leadership requires clear priorities, an appreciation of others’ interests, and consistent consultations among partners with a spirit of humility.
There is little of lasting consequence that the United States can accomplish in the world without the sustained cooperation of its allies and friends in Canada and Europe. Europe is also the seat of two of the strongest and most able international institutions in the world: the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which has, since its inception, been the fulcrum of transatlantic and inter-European security, and the European Union (EU), our partner in opening world trade.
The attacks of September 11 were also an attack on NATO, as NATO itself recognized when it invoked its Article V self-defense clause for the first time. NATO’s core mission — collective defense of the transatlantic alliance of democracies — remains, but NATO must develop new structures and capabilities to carry out that mission under new circumstances. NATO must build a capability to field, at short notice, highly mobile, specially trained forces whenever they are needed to respond to a threat against any member of the alliance.
The alliance must be able to act wherever our interests are threatened, creating coalitions under NATO’s own mandate, as well as contributing to mission-based coalitions. To achieve this, we must:
expand NATO’s membership to those democratic nations willing and able to share the burden of defending and advancing our common interests;
ensure that the military forces of NATO nations have appropriate combat contributions to make in coalition warfare;
develop planning processes to enable those contributions to become effective multinational fighting forces;
take advantage of the technological opportunities and economies of scale in our defense spending to transform NATO military forces so that they dominate potential aggressors and diminish our vulnerabilities;
streamline and increase the flexibility of command structures to meet new operational demands and the associated requirements of training, integrating, and experimenting with new force configurations; and
maintain the ability to work and fight together as allies even as we take the necessary steps to transform and modernize our forces.
If NATO succeeds in enacting these changes, the rewards will be a partnership as central to the security and interests of its member states as was the case during the Cold War. We will sustain a common perspective on the threats to our societies and improve our ability to take common action in defense of our nations and their interests. At the same time, we welcome our European allies’ efforts to forge a greater foreign policy and defense identity with the EU, and commit ourselves to close consultations to ensure that these developments work with NATO. We cannot afford to lose this opportunity to better prepare the family of transatlantic democracies for the challenges to come.
The attacks of September 11 energized America’s Asian alliances. Australia invoked the ANZUS Treaty to declare the September 11 was an atta
Bush Doctrine, continued:
“VIII. Develop Agendas for Cooperative Action with the Other Main Centers of Global Power
“We have our best chance since the rise of the nation-state in the 17th century to build a world where the great powers compete in peace instead of preparing for war.”
President Bush
West Point, New York
June 1, 2002
America will implement its strategies by organizing coalitions — as broad as practicable — of states able and willing to promote a balance of power that favors freedom. Effective coalition leadership requires clear priorities, an appreciation of others’ interests, and consistent consultations among partners with a spirit of humility.
There is little of lasting consequence that the United States can accomplish in the world without the sustained cooperation of its allies and friends in Canada and Europe. Europe is also the seat of two of the strongest and most able international institutions in the world: the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which has, since its inception, been the fulcrum of transatlantic and inter-European security, and the European Union (EU), our partner in opening world trade.
The attacks of September 11 were also an attack on NATO, as NATO itself recognized when it invoked its Article V self-defense clause for the first time. NATO’s core mission — collective defense of the transatlantic alliance of democracies — remains, but NATO must develop new structures and capabilities to carry out that mission under new circumstances. NATO must build a capability to field, at short notice, highly mobile, specially trained forces whenever they are needed to respond to a threat against any member of the alliance.
The alliance must be able to act wherever our interests are threatened, creating coalitions under NATO’s own mandate, as well as contributing to mission-based coalitions. To achieve this, we must:
expand NATO’s membership to those democratic nations willing and able to share the burden of defending and advancing our common interests;
ensure that the military forces of NATO nations have appropriate combat contributions to make in coalition warfare;
develop planning processes to enable those contributions to become effective multinational fighting forces;
take advantage of the technological opportunities and economies of scale in our defense spending to transform NATO military forces so that they dominate potential aggressors and diminish our vulnerabilities;
streamline and increase the flexibility of command structures to meet new operational demands and the associated requirements of training, integrating, and experimenting with new force configurations; and
maintain the ability to work and fight together as allies even as we take the necessary steps to transform and modernize our forces.
If NATO succeeds in enacting these changes, the rewards will be a partnership as central to the security and interests of its member states as was the case during the Cold War. We will sustain a common perspective on the threats to our societies and improve our ability to take common action in defense of our nations and their interests. At the same time, we welcome our European allies’ efforts to forge a greater foreign policy and defense identity with the EU, and commit ourselves to close consultations to ensure that these developments work with NATO. We cannot afford to lose this opportunity to better prepare the family of transatlantic democracies for the challenges to come.
The attacks of September 11 energized America’s Asian alliances. Australia invoked the ANZUS Treaty to declare the September 11 was an attack on Australia itself, following that historic decision with the dispatch of some of the world’s finest combat forces for Operation Enduring Freedom. Japan and the Republic of Korea provided unprecedented levels of military logistical support within weeks of the terrorist attack. We have deepened cooperation on counter-terrorism with our alliance partners in Thailand and the Philippines and received invaluable assistance from close friends like Singapore and New Zealand.
The war against terrorism has proven that America’s alliances in Asia not only underpin regional peace and stability, but are flexible and ready to deal with new challenges. To enhance our Asian alliances and friendships, we will:
look to Japan to continue forging a leading role in regional and global affairs based on our common interests, our common values, and our close defense and diplomatic cooperation;
work with South Korea to maintain vigilance towards the North while preparing our alliance to make contributions to the broader stability of the region over the longer-term;
build on 50 years of U.S.-Australian alliance cooperation as we continue working together to resolve regional and global problems — as we have so many times from the Battle of Leyte Gulf to Tora Bora;
maintain forces in the region that reflect our commitments to our allies, our requirements, our technological advances, and the strategic environment; and
build on stability provided by these alliances, as well as with institutions such as ASEAN and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, to develop a mix of regional and bilateral strategies to manage change in this dynamic region.
We are attentive to the possible renewal of old patterns of great power competition. Several potential great powers are now in the midst of internal transition — most importantly Russia, India, and China. In all three cases, recent developments have encouraged our hope that a truly global consensus about basic principles is slowly taking shape.
With Russia, we are already building a new strategic relationship based on a central reality of the twenty-first century: the United States and Russia are no longer strategic adversaries. The Moscow Treaty on Strategic Reductions is emblematic of this new reality and reflects a critical change in Russian thinking that promises to lead to productive, long-term relations with the Euro-Atlantic community and the United States. Russia’s top leaders have a realistic assessment of their country’s current weakness and the policies — internal and external — needed to reverse those weaknesses. They understand, increasingly, that Cold War approaches do not serve their national interests and that Russian and American strategic interests overlap in many areas.
United States policy seeks to use this turn in Russian thinking to refocus our relationship on emerging and potential common interests and challenges. We are broadening our already extensive cooperation in the global war on terrorism. We are facilitating Russia’s entry into the World Trade Organization, without lowering standards for accession, to promote beneficial bilateral trade and investment relations. We have created the NATO-Russia Council with the goal of deepening security cooperation among Russia, our European allies, and ourselves. We will continue to bolster the independence and stability of the states of the former Soviet Union in the belief that a prosperous and stable neighborhood will reinforce Russia’s growing commitment to integration into the Euro-Atlantic community.
At the same time, we are realistic about the differences that still divide us from Russia and about the time and effort it will take to build an enduring strategic partnership. Lingering distrust of our motives and policies by key Russian elites slows improvement in our relations. Russia’s uneven commitment to the basic values of free-market democracy and dubious record in combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction remain matters of great concern. Russia’s very weakness limits the opportunities for cooperation. Nevertheless, those opportunities are vastly greater now than in recent years — or even decades.
The United States has undertaken a transformation in its bilateral relationship with India based on a conviction that U.S. interests require a strong relationship with India. We are the two largest democracies, committed to political freedom protected by representative government. India is moving toward greater economic freedom as well. We have a common interest in the free flow of commerce, including through the vital sea lanes of the Indian Ocean. Finally, we share an interest in fighting terrorism and in creating a strategically stable Asia.
Differences remain, including over the development of India’s nuclear and missile programs, and the pace of India’s economic reforms. But while in the past these concerns may have dominated our thinking about India, today we start with a view of India as a growing world power with which we have common strategic interests. Through a strong partnership with India, we can best address any differences and shape a dynamic future.
The United States relationship with China is an important part of our strategy to promote a stable, peaceful, and prosperous Asia-Pacific region. We welcome the emergence of a strong, peaceful, and prosperous China. The democratic development of China is crucial to that future. Yet, a quarter century after beginning the process of shedding the worst features of the Communist legacy, China’s leaders have not yet made the next series of fundamental choices about the character of their state. In pursuing advanced military capabilities that can threaten its neighbors in the Asia-Pacific region, China is following an outdated path that, in the end, will hamper its own pursuit of national greatness. In time, China will find that social and political freedom is the only source of that greatness.
The United States seeks a constructive relationship with a changing China. We already cooperate well where our interests overlap, including the current war on terrorism and in promoting stability on the Korean peninsula. Likewise, we have coordinated on the future of Afghanistan and have initiated a comprehensive dialogue on counter-terrorism and similar transitional concerns. Shared health and environmental threats, such as the spread of HIV/AIDS, challenge us to promote jointly the welfare of our citizens.
Addressing these transnational threats will challenge China to become more open with information, promote the development of civil society, and enhance individual human rights. China has begun to take the road to political openness, permitting many personal freedoms and conducting village-level elections, yet remains strongly committed to national one-party rule by the Communist Party. To make that nation truly accountable to its citizen’s needs and aspirations, however, much work remains to be done. Only by allowing the Chinese people to think, assemble, and worship freely can China reach its full potential.
Our important trade relationship will benefit from China’s entry into the World Trade Organization, which will create more export opportunities and ultimately more jobs for American farmers, workers, and companies. China is our fourth largest trading partner, with over $100 billion in annual two-way trade. The power of market principles and the WTO’s requirements for transparency and accountability will advance openness and the rule of law in China to help establish basic protections for commerce and for citizens. There are, however, other areas in which we have profound disagreements. Our commitment to the self-defense of Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act is one. Human rights is another. We expect China to adhere to its nonproliferation commitments. We will work to narrow differences where they exist, but not allow them to preclude cooperation where we agree.
The events of September 11, 2001, fundamentally changed the context for relations between the United States and other main centers of global power, and opened vast, new opportunities. With our long-standing allies in Europe and Asia, and with leaders in Russia, India, and China, we must develop active agendas of cooperation lest these relationships become routine and unproductive.
Every agency of the United States Government shares the challenge. We can build fruitful habits of consultation, quiet argument, sober analysis, and common action. In the long-term, these are the practices that will sustain the supremacy of our common principles and keep open the path of progress.
IX. Transform America’s National Security Institutions to Meet the Challenges and Opportunities of the Twenty-First Century
“Terrorists attacked a symbol of American prosperity. They did not touch its source. America is successful because of the hard work, creativity, and enterprise of our people.”
President Bush
Washington, D.C. (Joint Session of Congress)
September 20, 2001
The major institutions of American national security were designed in a different era to meet different requirements. All of them must be transformed.
It is time to reaffirm the essential role of American military strength. We must build and maintain our defenses beyond challenge. Our military’s highest priority is to defend the United States. To do so effectively, our military must:
assure our allies and friends;
dissuade future military competition;
deter threats against U.S. interests, allies, and friends; and
decisively defeat any adversary if deterrence fails.
The unparalleled strength of the United States armed forces, and their forward presence, have maintained the peace in some of the world’s most strategically vital regions. However, the threats and enemies we must confront have changed, and so must our forces. A military structured to deter massive Cold War-era armies must be transformed to focus more on how an adversary might fight rather than where and when a war might occur. We will channel our energies to overcome a host of operational challenges.
The presence of American forces overseas is one of the most profound symbols of the U.S. commitments to allies and friends. Through our willingness to use force in our own defense and in defense of others, the United States demonstrates its resolve to maintain a balance of power that favors freedom. To contend with uncertainty and to meet the many security challenges we face, the United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia, as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. forces.
Before the war in Afghanistan, that area was low on the list of major planning contingencies. Yet, in a very short time, we had to operate across the length and breadth of that remote nation, using every branch of the armed forces. We must prepare for more such deployments by developing assets such as advanced remote sensing, long-range precision strike capabilities, and transformed maneuver and expeditionary forces. This broad portfolio of military capabilities must also include the ability to defend the homeland, conduct information operations, ensure U.S. access to distant theaters, and protect critical U.S. infrastructure and assets in outer space.
Innovation within the armed forces will rest on experimentation with new approaches to warfare, strengthening joint operations, exploiting U.S. intelligence advantages, and taking full advantage of science and technology. We must also transform the way the Department of Defense is run, especially in financial management and recruitment and retention. Finally, while maintaining near-term readiness and the ability to fight the war on terrorism, the goal must be to provide the President with a wider range of military options to discourage aggression or any form of coercion against the United States, our allies, and our friends.
We know from history that deterrence can fail; and we know from experience that some enemies cannot be deterred. The United States must and will maintain the capability to defeat any attempt by an enemy — whether a state or non-state actor — to impose its will on the United States, our allies, or our friends. We will maintain the forces sufficient to support our obligations, and to defend freedom. Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States.
Intelligence — and how we use it — is our first line of defense against terrorists and the threat posed by hostile states. Designed around the priority of gathering enormous information about a massive, fixed object — the Soviet bloc — the intelligence community is coping with the challenge of following a far more complex and elusive set of targets.
We must transform our intelligence capabilities and build new ones to keep pace with the nature of these threats. Intelligence must be appropriately integrated with our defense and law enforcement systems and coordinated with our allies and friends. We need to protect the capabilities we have so that we do not arm our enemies with the knowledge of how best to surprise us. Those who would harm us also seek the benefit of surprise to limit our prevention and response options and to maximize injury.
We must strengthen intelligence warning and analysis to provide integrated threat assessments for national and homeland security. Since the threats inspired by foreign governments and groups may be conducted inside the United States, we must also ensure the proper fusion of information between intelligence and law enforcement.
Initiatives in this area will include:
strengthening the authority of the Director of Central Intelligence to lead the development and actions of the Nation’s foreign intelligence capabilities;
establishing a new framework for intelligence warning that provides seamless and integrated warning across the spectrum of threats facing the nation and our allies;
continuing to develop new methods of collecting information to sustain our intelligence advantage;
investing in future capabilities while working to protect them through a more vigorous effort to prevent the compromise of intelligence capabilities; and
collecting intelligence against the terrorist danger across the government with all-source analysis.
As the United States Government relies on the armed forces to defend America’s interests, it must rely on diplomacy to interact with other nations. We will ensure that the Department of State receives funding sufficient to ensure the success of American diplomacy. The State Department takes the lead in managing our bilateral relationships with other governments. And in this new era, its people and institutions must be able to interact equally adroitly with non-governmental organizations and international institutions. Officials trained mainly in international politics must also extend their reach to understand complex issues of domestic governance around the world, including public health, education, law enforcement, the judiciary, and public diplomacy.
Our diplomats serve at the front line of complex negotiations, civil wars, and other humanitarian catastrophes. As humanitarian relief requirements are better understood, we must also be able to help build police forces, court systems, and legal codes, local and provincial government institutions, and electoral systems. Effective international cooperation is needed to accomplish these goals, backed by American readiness to play our part.
Just as our diplomatic institutions must adapt so that we can reach out to others, we also need a different and more comprehensive approach to public information efforts that can help people around the world learn about and understand America. The war on terrorism is not a clash of civilizations. It does, however, reveal the clash inside a civilization, a battle for the future of the Muslim world. This is a struggle of ideas and this is an area where America must excel.
We will take the actions necessary to ensure that our efforts to meet our global security commitments and protect Americans are not impaired by the potential for investigations, inquiry, or prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans and which we do not accept. We will work together with other nations to avoid complications in our military operations and cooperation, through such mechanisms as multilateral and bilateral agreements that will protect U.S. nationals from the ICC. We will implement fully the American Servicemembers Protection Act, whose provisions are intended to ensure and enhance the protection of U.S. personnel and officials.
We will make hard choices in the coming year and beyond to ensure the right level and allocation of government spending on national security. The United States Government must strengthen its defenses to win this war. At home, our most important priority is to protect the homeland for the American people.
Today, the distinction between domestic and foreign affairs is diminishing. In a globalized world, events beyond America’s borders have a greater impact inside them. Our society must be open to people, ideas, and goods from across the globe. The characteristics we most cherish — our freedom, our cities, our systems of movement, and modern life — are vulnerable to terrorism. This vulnerability will persist long after we bring to justice those responsible for the September eleventh attacks. As time passes, individuals may gain access to means of destruction that until now could be wielded only by armies, fleets, and squadrons. This is a new condition of life. We will adjust to it and thrive, in spite of it.
In exercising our leadership, we will respect the values, judgment, and interests of our friends and partners. Still, we will be prepared to act apart when our interests and unique responsibilities require. When we disagree on particulars, we will explain forthrightly the grounds for our concerns and strive to forge viable alternatives. We will not allow such disagreements to obscure our determination to secure together, with our allies and our friends, our shared fundamental interests and values.
Ultimately, the foundation of American strength is at home. It is in the skills of our people, the dynamism of our economy, and the resilience of our institutions. A diverse, modern society has inherent, ambitious, entrepreneurial energy. Our strength comes from what we do with that energy. That is where our national security begins.
THE END
Outlined points:
Defending our Nation against its enemies is the first and fundamental commitment of the Federal Government.
The war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise of uncertain duration.
Nations that enjoy freedom must actively fight terror. Nations that depend on international stability must help prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Nations that seek international aid must govern themselves wisely, so that aid is well spent. For freedom to thrive, accountability must be expected and required.
The U.S. national security strategy will be based on a distinctly American internationalism that reflects the union of our values and our national interests.
While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country;
“The gravest danger to freedom lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology. When the spread of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons, along with ballistic missile technology — when that occurs, even weak states and small groups could attain a catastrophic power to strike great nations. Our enemies have declared this very intention, and have been caught seeking these terrible weapons. They want the capability to blackmail us, or to harm us, or to harm our friends — and we will oppose them with all our power.”
Proactive counterproliferation efforts. We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed. We must ensure that key capabilities — detection, active and passive defenses, and counterforce capabilities — are integrated into our defense transformation and our homeland security systems. Counterproliferation must also be integrated into the doctrine, training, and equipping of our forces and those of our allies to ensure that we can prevail in any conflict with WMD-armed adversaries.
For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat — most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.
The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction — and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.
In pursuing advanced military capabilities that can threaten its neighbors in the Asia-Pacific region, China is following an outdated path that, in the end, will hamper its own pursuit of national greatness. In time, China will find that social and political freedom is the only source of that greatness.
We know from history that deterrence can fail; and we know from experience that some enemies cannot be deterred. The United States must and will maintain the capability to defeat any attempt by an enemy — whether a state or non-state actor — to impose its will on the United States, our allies, or our friends. We will maintain the forces sufficient to support our obligations, and to defend freedom. Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States.
We will take the actions necessary to ensure that our efforts to meet our global security commitments and protect Americans are not impaired by the potential for investigations, inquiry, or prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans and which we do not accept.
I repeat — We will ensure…that our actions to…protect Americans are not impaired by investigations, inquiry, or prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC)…
IN other words, Americans are OUTLAWS!
The characteristics we most cherish — our freedom, our cities, our systems of movement, and modern life — are vulnerable to terrorism. This vulnerability will persist long after we bring to justice those responsible for the September eleventh attacks. As time passes, individuals may gain access to means of destruction that until now could be wielded only by armies, fleets, and squadrons. This is a new condition of life.
###
I think Palin is a rising star in The Republican Party with a bright future. I don’t think she is ready to be VP and definitely not ready to be POTUS. Not just in experience and knowledge, but in temperament.
I have more respect for someone who says, “I don’t know, but I can learn,” then the person who bluffs. I saw her not only attempt to bluff, but do it in a combative way.
If she becomes VP that means she will need to take a back seat for four years (barring a tragedy) and I don’t see her as the kind of person willing to take that back seat. Neither do I see McCain as the type person willing to share his presidency. I think McCain is using her in hopes she will be the ticket to the presidency he wants badly and if elected it will be his, not hers.
She could take those four years and gain so much experience and knowledge she might be ready to run for POTUS. But can she, will she? I don’t see that kind of patience in her.
I know it overlapped a little, but — I make my point.
This ENTIRE document, reprinted and delivered to Congress, is considered the “Bush Doctrine”
How many of you can now quote it all, verbatim?
What did you see as combative?
gster
You are wrong.
Palin is FAR more qualified that Obama.
Besides, it is Palin’s loyalties that are more important, and here too, she puts Obama to shame.
Does Palin have any supporters, friends, or former employers who have bombed the Pentagon?
William Ayers is closely associated with Obama. Ayers bombed the ….”
Franklin- You are a self admitted PAID SHILL- how could you say anything else? Your opinion therefore, means nothing.
dadman
Posted September 12, 2008 at 2:04 pm | Permalink
I would give Charlie Gibson a big fat F for asking such a stupid loaded condescending question ie: is the Iraq war a holy war ? no Charlie, we didn’t go to Iraq to “make” them all Christians you stupid Dewitt, our war is against such ideology (Jihad) against infidels – worldwide
___
This was a valid question because there is a video tape of Palin in her church telling people to pray the Iraq War is God’s will. How can you get around that? The woman herself labeled it ‘God’s war’ by the very request for prayers to her God.
Whether the Iraq War was started as a Holy War or not, personally I think it was started over oil, but the minute Palin labeled her Christian God has having the will for the war – that made it questionable if she sees the Iraq War as a Holy War.
I heard it in tone of voice and saw it in her body language when asked a question she hadn’t been prepped on answering. The comeback following the pause and the sitting up erectly and rearranging her hands.
Oh, and Franklin, I said nothing about Obama or anyone other the Gov. Palin. Hpersensitive are we; haven’t met our shill quota for the day perhaps?
Linda,
I suppose you have also seen Obama when he is not in front of a teleprompter?
And of course you are just as “fair” in your opinion of him?
LOL…
Franklin
Posted September 12, 2008 at 3:00 pm | Permalink
I know it overlapped a little, but — I make my point.
This ENTIRE document, reprinted and delivered to Congress, is considered the “Bush Doctrine”
How many of you can now quote it all, verbatim?
__-
I do hope you will be sure and get your 30 pieces of silver for being the paid Republican shill on this blog for printing all those big words in the Bush Doctrine – okay?
BTW – can you quote anything verbatim?
And, bush said that God told him to go into Iraq.
Franklin,
None of us has to quote it verbatim: we know that it means “pre-emption” and “unilateralism.”
The fact that these words are too big for Sarah Palin to remember is not MY problem. It’s yours.
Maybe Charlie Gibson will stop rolling soft balls and ask Sarah Palin about this?
“(AP) The investigator looking into whether Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin abused her power in trying to get her former brother-in-law fired is asking state lawmakers for the power to subpoena Palin’s husband, Todd.
The probe has taken on new significance since Republican presidential candidate John McCain picked Palin as his running mate.
Retired prosecutor Stephen Branchflower asked the state House and Senate judiciary committees for power to subpoena 13 witnesses, including Todd Palin.
“He’s such a central figure. … I think one should be issued for him,” Branchflower said.
The committees were expected to grant the request.
Branchflower said he wants to interview Palin herself, but did not ask for a subpoena for her.
The Legislature hired Branchflower to examine whether Palin ousted her public safety commissioner in July because he had refused to fire state trooper Mike Wooten. Wooten went through a messy divorce from Palin’s sister, and the investigation essentially is looking at whether Palin used her power to try to settle a personal score.
mom
There is a difference between stupidity and ignorance.
Ignorance is better.
You can fix ignorance.
Therefore, allow me to inform you of the fact that EVERY single war time President of the United States has publicly prayed for our troops, in time of war.
Also, Palin was paraphrasing Lincoln, in saying that we should “pray that we are on God’s side, not that God is on our side!”
You are way, way off base.
There is nothing unusual at all in what Palin said.
Historically, her position is well accepted.
Historically, Palin’s position is the NORM!
I don’t expect any questions about the ongoing investigation. Wouldn’t everyone have been warned not to talk of that? Seems routine in such matters.
CF2K,
Who is this “we” you talk about? Perhaps you and your liberal circle of friends “know” that it means unilateralism, but that is not what is said nor intended.
If we need to act alone in our self defense, sure.
Re the Iraq war as a mission from God, Palin gives her little dodge and then pleads…”That’s what it was about Charlie! (PLEAAAASE believe me)
CF
YOU LOST
And you lost badly!
The point is that the term “Bush Doctrine” can and does mean many things.
Obama stated that the Bush Doctrine means that Presidents should not meet face to face with our enemies, without preconditions.
Obama did not make clear, when he said that, that there were any other meanings to the term.
Goose.
Gander.
You lost!
Obama,
When he is not in front of a teleprompter or on a script how many times does he stutter and go “um”?
Compared to Palin, Obama looks like a College freshman trying to give his first speech in Public Speaking 101.
She has more elegance in public speaking than Obama has for sure.
Since “looks” are so important to you liberals in speaking, why are you voting for Obama?
“I see the storm comming, and HIS hand is in it”
JFK, speaking of GOD!
lindainks55
Posted September 12, 2008 at 3:03 pm | Permalink
I heard it in tone of voice and saw it in her body language when asked a question she hadn’t been prepped on answering. The comeback following the pause and the sitting up erectly and rearranging her hands.
__
I agree Linda – I think Palin has a very shrill voice and when pressed for answers, she will usually resort to one-liners of putdowns. In the interview, I only saw her really say a few talking points which shows that she was obviously coached prior to the interview.
What I find interesting is that the McCain campaign specifically chose Charles Gibson for this interview and now that he must have hit some vulnerable spots in their candidate, they act like Charles is some sort of blood-sucking liberal with a condescending tone. In other words, Charles Gibson showed Palin is inexperienced and he did not fall for her beautiful ‘babe’ line.
Nathan,
I see you have no answer to the facts I’ve pointed out. You and your whole line of argument is simply–wrong.
CF2K
Posted September 12, 2008 at 3:07 pm | Permalink
Franklin,
None of us has to quote it verbatim: we know that it means “pre-emption” and “unilateralism.”
The fact that these words are too big for Sarah Palin to remember is not MY problem. It’s yours.
————————————————–
Senator Obama has been quoted as saying the Bush Doctrine includes not talking to our enemies until certain conditions are met.
I don’t think it is a stretch to say there is some ambiguity in the use of the term.
If she had answered in regards to Senator Obama’s statements she’d have been torched for not knowing what it meant by every definition we’ve seen here today.
She got clarification on an unclear question.
That’s a good sign as I imagine there are a number of communications issues in dealing with foreign dignitaries.
mom and linda,
Agreed. Palin’s character–or lack of it–was nakedly on display for everyone to see. And it is beyond hilarious that the McCain camp has turned on Charlie Gibson, the very guy they hand-picked to go easy on Sarah Palin.
Something tells me those attack on Charles Gibson aren’t going to play well with the McCain-loving, GOP-lapdog media.
CF2K,
What “facts” are you looking for?
Please provide a source for your claim and then I will have something to refute.
Show me where Bush Doctrine = “unilateralism”
Do the insurgents/taliban/al-qaeda/terrorists consider it a Holy War?
Mr_Kia,
For Sarah Palin to have gotten “clarification” she would have had to go on to accurately characterize some aspect of the Bush Doctrine. She did not: instead, she ranted for awhile about Islamic extremists.
Upshot: your continued making of excuses on her behalf leaves us with the necessity of having to decide whether you’re ignorant or a liar. Happily, either way, you’re not worth listening to.
She is being coached, prepped and packaged by exactly the same people currently running things.
I get angry and embarrassed for the many highly intelligent, extremely capable women in our world when this person who is (should be!) interviewing for the job of vice president of the United States of America can’t be treated as any other applicant. If she needs to be handled with kid gloves she obviously isn’t the most qualified applicant.
Would any person apply for a job and expect not to be interviewed? Would any person apply for a job and not expect to prove they were capable of performing the duties and accepting the responsibilities of the job?
Equality. That’s what the strong, capable, intelligent women I know want. Not to be treated “special.”
Like I said, if “looks” while giving an interview are so important to you liberals, why are you voting for Obama?
Have you seen him giving his interviews to Bill?
I suppose we could have talked about them if the EDITORS were not so biased to have not provided a thread on them.
Linda,
I am sure Palin was treated “special” as she worked her way up in Alaskan Republican Party politics from Mayor to Governor.
You people act like she was doing nothing until the day she was asked to be VP.
Congressional races are now within the margin of error! Dems are worried!
Generic Ballot shows only a 3% advantage for Dems!
http://www.gallup.com/poll/110263/Battle-Congress-Suddenly-Looks-Competitive.aspx
Dems in Congress worried that Obama is hurting their chances:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6c2f69ce-8031-11dd-99a9-000077b07658.html
Obama has been treated with kid gloves since he first announced his run for President.
For Heaven’s sake, even Saturday Night Live thought the Media was kissing up to Obama too much, in the Democrat Debates!
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.
Therefore, allow me to inform you of the fact that EVERY single war time President of the United States has publicly prayed for our troops, in time of war.
Also, Palin was paraphrasing Lincoln, in saying that we should “pray that we are on God’s side, not that God is on our side
__
Praying for our troops in time of war is one thing but everybody who views that video tape knows what Palin means – HER God’s will is the Iraq War.
It was stated before, with Islamic terrorists their religion guides them and now Palin has labeled the Iraq War as HER God’s will. To the terrorists, that makes it a Holy War.
And pray tell were you there when Palin made this statement and how do you know she was paraphrasing Lincoln? Are you also a mind reader?
One poster claimed that only “liberals” know or care about the Bush Doctrine. I would say that people interested in how the U.S. interacts with the rest of the world should know about it. It was quite a change! I was rather shocked that there was not an outcry when President Bush made those “bush doctrine” statements in 2002. As a journalism graduate, Palin should have natural curiosity. She should have a yearning to keep abreast of current events. She should have heard about this. As a journalist and as a person who wishes to be VP, It’s outrageous that she didn’t know of it, and didn’t know it was an essential piece of Bush’s run-up to the invasion.
“Have you seen him giving his interviews to Bill?”
Well yes I did.
And much as I predicted, O’Reilly melted into his usual “but you’re taking my money!” line.
The interview was otherwise average. Certainly Obama didn’t use a tone of voice and gestures that implored “I’m HONEST! PLEEEEEASE believe me!” as Palin did.
mom
You fell into my trap.
The “tape” you saw was edited badly.
Palin clearly says, in the beginning, prior to the part you heard, that we should pray that we are doing God’s will.
Without question, more attention does need to be given to McCain and the sleazy, mendacious campaign that he is running.
For now, though, much of the focus is on Palin, largely because she is the protagonist in the new narrative that the McCain camp conjured when it was clear that Obama had commanded the heights on establishing this year’s theme: change.
The Rovian, neocon high rollers behind-the-scenes in the McCain campaign obviously saw that they would lose unless they offset Obama’s advantage.
So without fully weighing the consequences (sound familiar from this bunch?) of what it would mean for the country to put such a foreign policy novice one step away from the top job, they bellied up to the gaming table, said, “Screw it,” and rolled the dice, anyway.
The other candidates have been in the national, public domain for a significant period of time. McCain and Biden are old Washington hands. Obama slugged it out in about twenty debates with the contenders in his party, and he has been up against the right wing attack machine, non-stop, since last February, when it was clear that he had the lead in the primary.
Palin is new to the stage. She has to demonstrate to the public that she possesses an in-depth understanding of the world and America’s place in it. Last night’s rather tame session with the deferential Gibson nevertheless brought it home that she frankly has not been too interested in foreign policy until about, oh, two weeks ago, when the neocon schemers decided to game her into the election.
You want to talk about McCain? Ask yourself about the decision making prowess of a presidential contender who, at the age of 72, would put this beginner on the ticket. I give him an “F.”
As such, McCain is unfit for high office.
Mom,
Do you even see the irony in your own statements?
In one sentence you proclaim that everyone knows what Palin means and then procede to mock someone for how they know she was paraphrasing Lincoln and if they are a mind reader.
So, please tell me, how do you know that what she meant was that it was “HER God’s will for the Iraq War?”
Randy would prefer that ball o fire Governor from Kansas discussing national policy with Gibson and informing us that ,,, that,,,,zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Franklin,
Thank you. It always is helpful to be reminded of precisely how stupid you and Nathan both are.
-Here is the clause regarding pre-emption:
“And, as a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed. We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. So we must be prepared to defeat our enemies’ plans, using the best intelligence and proceeding with deliberation.”
And here is the clause regarding unilateralism:
“While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country; and denying further sponsorship, support, and sanctuary to terrorists by convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities.”
Your charges against Barack Obama, Franklin, miss the point completely: his characterization of the Bush Doctrine was accurate, though not comprehensive. Sarah Palin’s was both inaccurate AND incomplete.
Game, set, match. You Wingnuts worship Sarah Palin because, as I’ve said elsewhere, she validates your stupidity by being stupid on a grander scale.
BlueJay
Posted September 12, 2008 at 3:25 pm | Permalink
“Have you seen him giving his interviews to Bill?”
Well yes I did.
And much as I predicted, O’Reilly melted into his usual “but you’re taking my money!” line.
The interview was otherwise average. Certainly Obama didn’t use a tone of voice and gestures that implored “I’m HONEST! PLEEEEEASE believe me!” as Palin did.
————————————————–
However he did use the, gesture towards the knee “how dare you question me little man” language of President Clinton.
Royal
Every single ad that McCain has run, so far, has been absolutely true.
Deal with it!
She just thought if she can’t blind them with her beauty, then she’ll dazzle them with her b.s.
CF
you failed, again.
To find a few sentences, in the long thesis, I just posted, about the “Bush Doctrine” that supports YOUR definition of the term — does not in any way favor your absurd position that Sarah Palin, or anyone else, should instantly jump to the definition that YOU wish us to use.
CF2K,
It is amazing that the very thing you quote is also proof for what I said as well, that unilateralism is not a requirement, but we will act alone if needed.
“While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone,”
Imagine that. Yet you call me stupid?
Royall
Posted September 12, 2008 at 3:30 pm | Permalink
Without question, more attention does need to be given to McCain and the sleazy, mendacious campaign that he is running.
—————————————————-
Translation:
How DARE he put a younger, better looking, more experienced, WOMAN on his ticket……………
At least Obama did not give O’Reily the finger, like he flipped off Hillary!
Franklin
Posted September 12, 2008 at 3:24 pm | Permalink
Obama has been treated with kid gloves since he first announced his run for President.
For Heaven’s sake, even Saturday Night Live thought the Media was kissing up to Obama too much, in the Democrat Debates!
___
I remember alot of negative coverage of Obama during the primaries. At that time, the news was about the Democrat primary and the race between Obama and Hillary Clinton. John McCain had the GOP nomination sewed up in early March so where was the news about him?
Saturday Night Live does alot of stuff on their shows – I also remember the countless skits they have done on how clueless George W. Bush is and that hunting accident of Dick Cheney. So now you’re saying if it is on Saturday Night Live, it is true.
So you’re admitting George W. Bush is clueless and Dick Cheney is a reckless hunter with a gun?
You really do have low standards, don’t you Paul?
Since it was a radical liberal who interviewed her obama the muslim should be held to the same standard let –
Savage interview him.
C+ is alot better than obama would ever get with the deck stacked against him.
Franklin
Posted September 12, 2008 at 3:33 pm | Permalink
Royal
Every single ad that McCain has run, so far, has been absolutely true.
Deal with it!
___
Again, Paul, let me inform you. Absolutely true are not the words that Factcheck.org uses when describing John McCain’s ads.
You really should get out of that little GOP box and do some research on your own.
Isn’t it time to go get those 30 pieces of silver?
Gibson Asked Palin About Prayer. Will Anyone Ask Obama or Biden?
September 12, 2008 02:01 PM ET | Michael Barone | Permanent Link
Here’s a link that should get you to my Creators Syndicate column when it comes online some time Saturday. It’s on how John McCain got inside Barack Obama’s OODA Loop. For clarification, see the column or http://www.google.com.
For the record, I thought Sarah Palin did fine in the first parts of her ABC interview. Charlie Gibson, surprisingly, misquoted the prayer he asked her about, and she corrected him. I wonder if anyone in mainstream media will ask Barack Obama or Joe Biden about the wording of a prayer or about the sermons they listened to for 20 years? Just asking.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/9/12/gibson-asked-palin-about-prayer-will-anyone-ask-obama-or-biden.html
Seems as if other more credibile reporters think she did just fine. I have to admit I didn’t see it because I was traveling but have seen snippets. My first thought is ‘when will he get to the hard questions’ you know the ones he asked Obama. “How did you internalize the fact that you didn’t see your father until you were ten?” You know the really hard questions.
Not those questions about why you have for years been friends with an admitted terrorists who said he only regreted that he didn’t do more. A man who advised college students to go home and kill their parents. A man that you entertained in your home and supped with him in his home. Of course these aren’t important in the grand scheme of things if you are aspiring to be our prez.
This is the most biased editorial staff in existence. The irony is that the majority of people know this and aren’t fooled.
HEH!
Let Michael Wiener Savage interview PALIN!
Just the other day Savage referred to Palin as unqualified to be President!
Obama will get trounced in the debates.
Also, the commercials that are comming will, absolutely, BURY Obama.
Obama worked for the terrorist Bill Ayers.
Obama took campaign contributions, and got help with his own home financing, and was legal representative to convicted felon Tony Rezco!
Obama endorsed Odinga, in Kenya. Odinga lost, and soon afterwards Christian Churches were burned to the ground, gang rapes of Odinga opponents occured all over the country, and at least 1,500 Odinga political opponents were murdered!
Franklin
Posted September 12, 2008 at 3:42 pm | Permalink
Obama will get trounced in the debates.
Also, the commercials that are comming will, absolutely, BURY Obama.
Obama worked for the terrorist Bill Ayers.
Obama took campaign contributions, and got help with his own home financing, and was legal representative to convicted felon Tony Rezco!
Obama endorsed Odinga, in Kenya. Odinga lost, and soon afterwards Christian Churches were burned to the ground, gang rapes of Odinga opponents occured all over the country, and at least 1,500 Odinga political opponents were murdered!
————————————————–
Good points and spots we will not see in Kansas as our state is already RED locked. LOL.
mom
Fact Check is full of crap.
Obama DID vote to reduce the age for “Comprehensive Sex Ed” from the 6th grade down to KINDERGARTEN!
It is documented.
Palin gets an ‘F‘ for her LIES (again) about the Arctic Refuge.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/print?id=5781460
PALIN: … ANWR, of course, is a 2,000-acre swath of land in the middle of about a 20 million-acre swath of land. Two-thousand acres that we’re asking the feds to unlock so that there can be exploration and development.
——–
Area 1002, the environmentally critical coastal plain, has 1.5 million acres.
The “feds” would “unlock” almost all of the 1.5 million acres in Area 1002.
The “2,000-acres” is not a “swath” — it’s a limit on the total (non-contiguous) amount of ground covered by oil production facilities.
Roads, elevated pipelines, and gravel pits are not included.
A great ad to show that Palin is a liar:
Run a clip of her making her bogus “2,000-acre swath” claim, and then explain the facts, using this map.
http://www.inforain.org/Northslope/anwr_3.html
Kandisue
Posted September 12, 2008 at 3:38 pm | Permalink
Since it was a radical liberal who interviewed her obama the muslim should be held to the same standard let –
Savage interview him.
C+ is alot better than obama would ever get with the deck stacked against him.
__
The McCain campaign hand-picked Charles Gibson to be the interviewer for Palin. Now they don’t like him because their candidate flubbed her interview?
The Republicans are in a tight spot – now they know that their candidate puts on a good show for their own crowd but is starting to show her true colors when put on the national stage for everyone to see.
KIA
I will post links to all of them that I know about, when they come out.
Gotta be rough for the Palin family.
Lil’ Sarah having to face the big ol mean reporter.
Meanwhile, Toddly is gettin his self subpoenaed.
This may be the first candidate in history to get indicted BEFORE the election.
I’d like to see Gibson REALLY go after Palin. If she can’t stand up to him better than she has?
She has NO place in national politics.
Maybe tonight he’ll ask her about bush’s Axis of Evil. Or is that another technical terminology? Or, why she told her son’s unit they were going to fight the people that attacked us, and laughed at 9/11.
BJ
You have no place in polite company.
But?
You hurt the Democrat cause so much, we put up with you!
Why is ANWR such as issue anyway?
Drill the entire 1,500,000 acres for all I care.
It’s the top of the world and virtually uninhabitable by man as I see it.
Displace who? Santa Claus, some elves and 8 tiny reindeer?
I can’t imagine you serve much function to your masters anymore Franklin.
They have to be aware that this entire forum is on to you and your purpose here. As several poster earlier demonstrated.
BJ when someone tases your son I am very sure you will say ‘oh thats ok as long as you are a democrat’. Well this is why this trooper was canned. He admitted it. What part of that can’t the sheeple on the left understand. She has a lot of enemies that will try to bring her down. She busted up their little government sponsored playground. But I trust the worker bees of Alaska who say nothing could be further from the truth. She is the real thing and on course to be our next VP.
Franklin
Posted September 12, 2008 at 3:44 pm | Permalink
mom
Fact Check is full of crap.
Obama DID vote to reduce the age for “Comprehensive Sex Ed” from the 6th grade down to KINDERGARTEN!
It is documented
___
But he voted for AGE APPROPRIATE programs and he explained that he wanted these programs to point out what is inappropriate touching and what to do if they are approached by someone in that situation. What is wrong with that? And Obama did vote for any child to be excused from the program without questions if they did not want to participate.
Every child in this country is a target for child molesters and you want to keep that information away from helpless kids?
Republicans like to tell half of the story and leave out the important words like AGE APPROPRIATE.
That would be like me stating that since you do not want age-appropriate programs taught to young children about inappropriate touching that you are now an advocate for child molesters. Now wouldn’t that be silly?
Factcheck.org is not conservative nor is it a liberal website – it is unbiased (you may need to look that big word up since you are obviously a paid Republican shill)
The investigation into Sarah Palin’s possible abuse of her office began BEFORE McCain tapped her okie. So no points blaming it on “sheeple of the left.
That investigation is incomplete. Sarah Palin’s husband is about to be subpoenaed.
I don’t think you are qualified to hand out justice in an incomplete investigation there okie.
Like Barack Obama, Palin has little experience with foreign policy.
However, unlike Barack Obama, she is running for the VICE-President.
Mr_Kia posted September 12, 2008 at 3:53 pm
“Why is ANWR such as issue anyway?
Drill the entire 1,500,000 acres for all I care.
It’s the top of the world and virtually uninhabitable by man as I see it.
Displace who? Santa Claus, some elves and 8 tiny reindeer?”
————
Are you “slow”? They would be allowed to drill anywhere in the “entire 1,500,000 acres”.
WHY does Palin LIE about 2,000-acres “swath” being “unlocked”?
http://arctic.fws.gov/issues1.htm#section3
“The 1002 Area is critically important to the ecological integrity of the whole Arctic Refuge, providing essential habitats for numerous internationally important species such as the Porcupine Caribou herd and polar bears.”
—————
A photo of a few of the herd of 100,000+ “tiny reindeer”(sic) that calve in the coastal plain
http://www.oilonice.org/gallery/gallery.php?slide=90-91CaribouFog.htm
Also okie? You demonstrate a decided lack of knowledge of fact in a case you are so eager to rule on.
” Well this is why this trooper was canned. ”
The trooper in question was not fired.
Oops!
“Every child in this country is a target for child molesters and you want to keep that information away from helpless kids? ” — mom
If there ever was an example of overblown hysteria it is the statement above.
okobserver
Posted September 12, 2008 at 3:57 pm | Permalink
BJ when someone tases your son I am very sure you will say ‘oh thats ok as long as you are a democrat’. Well this is why this trooper was canned
__
The trooper said the boy asked him to demonstrate the taser and he put it on the lowest setting. The entire family was there and laughed afterwards. If this is true, then that puts a whole different light on this issue – doesn’t it?
Last I heard this trooper was not canned – he was reprimanded. This trooper’s supervisor was fired by Gov Palin for NOT firing the trooper. That is why there is an investigation going on and let’s let the investigators get all the facts, okay?
Good heavens! Franklin is trying to spam us into unconsciousness with those encyclopedic posts.
Look, the Bush Doctrine doesn’t mean what he says it does, it means how he’s used it–”pre-emptive attack” on Iraq based on a pack of lies.
End of discussion.
“Well this is why this trooper was canned.” — the wefu
The trooper wasn’t fired. Get your facts straight. Why is it that the wefu doesn’t mind tasering handcuffed, wheelchair-bound paraplegics to death, but goes nuts when a cop uses bad judgement on his own son.
GAWD: it’s like trying to teach geese math.
BlueJay
Posted September 12, 2008 at 4:04 pm | Permalink
The investigation into Sarah Palin’s possible abuse of her office began BEFORE McCain tapped her okie. So no points blaming it on “sheeple of the left.
That investigation is incomplete. Sarah Palin’s husband is about to be subpoenaed.
I don’t think you are qualified to hand out justice in an incomplete investigation there okie.
————————————————–
She’s made enough of enemies on both sides of the aisle in her home state to warrant politically motivated investigations.
Palin isn’t too impressive in an interview, her resume is sketchy, but she’s succeeding spectacularly in what she’s supposed to do . . . divert attention away from McSame.
He had a new idea once, about thirty years ago.
mom
Franklin
Every single ad that McCain has run, so far, has been absolutely true.
Deal with it!
___
Again, Paul, let me inform you. Absolutely true are not the words that Factcheck.org uses when describing John McCain’s ads.
You really should get out of that little GOP box and do some research on your own.
___________________________________________
Since liberals like fact check it must have a liberal slant.
Hence of no value.
cosmos_originally
Posted September 12, 2008 at 4:06 pm | Permalink
WHY does Palin LIE about 2,000-acres “swath” being “unlocked”?
—————————————————-
My guess is Governor Palin knows a heck of alot more about various production and drilling aspects than a bleeding heart environmentalist wack-job.
I am only assuming you are that however and not just a politcally motivated hack drawing on any criticism you can find.
“The trooper said the boy asked him to demonstrate the taser and he put it on the lowest setting. The entire family was there and laughed afterwards.”
—————–
And, he used alligator clips on the boys shirt instead of the more usual way of using the taser, and onandon…
That was a very irresponsible thing to do! Children ask for lots of things, adults should know when to say, “no.”
Still doesn’t mean an elected official should be able to use the power of their office for personal reasons. The investigation is ongoing for good reasons. It should not be stopped.
How much you wanna bet we don’t see hide nor hair of Kandisue after the election.
She gets paid by the lie . . .
Ran across this – thought it was interesting.
And the angry left will be up in arms again – that alone is worth the posting! ;-)
A sample:
Feminist author Cintra Wilson writes in Salon (a house organ of the angry left) that the notion of Palin as vice president is “akin to ideological brain rape.” Presumably just before the nurse upped the dosage on her medication, Wilson continued, “Sarah Palin and her virtual burqa have me and my friends retching into our handbags. She’s such a power-mad, backwater beauty-pageant casualty, it’s easy to write her off and make fun of her. But in reality I feel as horrified as a ghetto Jew watching the rise of National Socialism.”
And that’s one of the nicer things she had to say. Really.
On Tuesday, Salon ran one article calling Palin a dominatrix (“a whip-wielding mistress”) and another labeling her a sexually repressed fundamentalist no different from the Muslim fanatics and terrorists of Hamas. Make up your minds, folks. Is she a seductress or a sex-a-phobe?
But this any-weapon-near-to-hand approach is an obvious sign of how scared the Palin-o-phobes are.
Gloria Steinem, the grand mufti of feminism, issued a fatwa anathematizing Palin. A National Organization for Women spokeswoman proclaimed Palin more of a man than a woman. Wendy Doniger, a feminist academic at the University of Chicago, writes of Palin in Newsweek: “Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman.”
It’s funny. The left has been whining about having their patriotism questioned for so long it feels like they started griping in the Mesozoic era. Feminists have argued for decades that womanhood is an existential and metaphysical state of enlightenment. But they have no problem questioning whether women they hate are really women at all.
Since we know from basic science that Palin is a woman — she’s had five kids, for starters — it’s clear that these ideological thugs aren’t talking about actual, you know, facts. They’re doing what people of totalitarian mind-sets always do: bully heretics, demonize enemies, whip the troops into line.
The academic feminist left has scared the dickens out of mainstream men and women for so long, the liberal establishment is terrified to contradict feminists’ nigh-upon-theological conviction that female authenticity is measured by one’s blind loyalty to left-wing talking points. This is a version of the Marxist doctrine of “false consciousness,” which holds that you aren’t an authentic member of the proletariat unless you agree with Marxism.[Gosh, we haven't seen any of that here, have we?!]
It works like this: If you don’t agree with feminist scolds, you’re not a real woman, even if you’re a very feminine working mom. But even if you’re an actual man — never mind a childless feminist who looks like a Bulgarian weightlifter in drag — you’re a “real woman” solely because you nod your head like a windup clapping monkey every time you read the latest editorial in Ms. Recall how they christened Bill Clinton the “first female president,” too.
But here’s the fun part. Feminists are hooked on their own Kool-Aid; they actually believe the stuff they say. The shrill, angry women you see on MSNBC claiming to speak for all women actually think they do. But they don’t. They speak for a few left-leaning women in faculty lounges, editorial boardrooms and that’s about it.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjE4ZTcxZjQ5YjBiYzFlMGJlMzk5YjNjOTkyZWQyMTg=&w=MA==
—
Enjoy.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/157986/page/1
I like fact check.
Folks, by all means, do what you can to make sure America understands what Sarah Palin really is.
But, please, keep this in mind: bright shiny object. And a way of keeping John McCain’s “experience” mantra alive, and avoiding the other issues–it doesn’t defuse it because most people don’t give two hoots about the VP.
The public seems ready to accept an extremist #2 (keep in mind that roughly half the people voted for an extremist #1 not that long ago!
For the first time in months, electoralvote.com shows McCain leading:
http://electoral-vote.com/
While the polls can and do swing wildly (they are, after all, only opinion polls), it’s something to keep in mind. IF the cons succeed and forcing the phony “debate” of whether Obama is worse than Palin (thus leaving McCain’s mostly indefensible record untouched), then we, the people, will lose.
beber
Posted September 12, 2008 at 4:07 pm | Permalink
“Every child in this country is a target for child molesters and you want to keep that information away from helpless kids? ” — mom
If there ever was an example of overblown hysteria it is the statement above
___
Why is this hysteria? I was only giving the whole story as to why Obama stated he voted for this. And what is wrong with teaching young kids about inappropriate touching and what to do about it? And no child is forced to listen to this program. But for that one child in the classroom that is being molested, it might just save his/her life.
Obviously you don’t have kids or you live in a bubble or you just don’t care?
If Salon.com is “the angry left,” the National Review is the “fascist right.”
Another day that the national media doesn’t look at how McCain has got nothing.
Well done, Palin!
CapnAmerica
Posted September 12, 2008 at 4:16 pm | Permalink
How much you wanna bet we don’t see hide nor hair of Kandisue after the election.
She gets paid by the lie
___
Paul, Franklin, Kandiesue – if you threw them all in a bag you wouldn’t know which one popped out first
mom
Posted September 12, 2008 at 4:09 pm | Permalink
okobserver
Posted September 12, 2008 at 3:57 pm | Permalink
BJ when someone tases your son I am very sure you will say ‘oh thats ok as long as you are a democrat’. Well this is why this trooper was canned
__
The trooper said the boy asked him to demonstrate the taser and he put it on the lowest setting. The entire family was there and laughed afterwards. If this is true, then that puts a whole different light on this issue – doesn’t it?
______________________________________________
One could use the same response to a molested child the child ask to see what was in my pants. We laughed about it later.
Or I tried to get her out of the lake but then I got thirsty – Ted Kennedy
Only a liberal would believe any of the above.
CapnAmerica
How much you wanna bet we don’t see hide nor hair of Kandisue after the election.
She gets paid by the lie . . .
______________________________________
Where is your home base Capn?
Iran? Syria? Saudi?
Mom it is idiots like you that make victims out of our children. I have heard what is taught is this program in Oregon. Totally and completely inappropriate for 5 year old children. The information they are given in no way prevents them from being molested.
It does make them aware of their sex organs. It does tell them if they masturbate it should be in a private place. And on and on and on. My son moved his family from that state because of this and other very liberal teaching methods. Social engineering when public schools are turning out kids that can’t read. But by gosh they know how to masturbate, how to identy all of the sexual organs and that Heather can have two moms and Daddy can have a roommate. Save all of the homophobic rants. I am simply stating facts.
Obama voted to bring this cirriculum to Illinois dropping the age to start from 8th grade to kindergarten.
Truth. His vote. He lied when he said he didn’t vote this way. It is on the record.
Mr_Kia posted September 12, 2008 at 4:16 pm
cosmos_originally
Posted September 12, 2008 at 4:06 pm
WHY does Palin LIE about 2,000-acres “swath” being “unlocked”?
—————————————————-
My guess is Governor Palin knows a heck of alot more about various production and drilling aspects than a bleeding heart environmentalist wack-job.
I am only assuming you are that however and not just a politcally motivated hack drawing on any criticism you can find.
————–
Mr_Kia, do you also believe that oil seismologists are “bleeding heart environmentalist wack-job[s]“?
http://arctic.fws.gov/seismic.htm
They did seismic trails over the entire 1,500,000 acres — not a “2,000-acre swath” that Palin LIED about.
And if Congress opens the coastal plain, they will do 3-D seismic over the entire 1,500,000 acres — not a “2,000-acre swath” that Palin LIED about.
I wonder how the Republicans are going to react if McCain wins the popular vote but Obama wins the Electoral College votes?
It could happen – karma does happen.
If Salon.com is “the angry left,” the National Review is the “fascist right.”
Ah – which demonstrates, once again, that the left wouldn’t recognize actual fascism if it was stomping on their chests. That’s always the danger of using the overblown hyperbole of accusing your opponents of being the most evil thing you can imagine – you start to believe your own propaganda.
BTW – the more this kind of breathless hysterical attack is trotted out against Palin, the more it will hurt Obama. Obama understands that, I suspect, but he is either unwilling, or unable, to reign in his surrogates at Salon, DailyKos, DU, etc.
Keep it up, moonbats. You’ll end up doing what Democrats have shown a penchant for doing: losing presidential elections.
“Mom it is idiots like you that make victims out of our children. I have heard what is taught is this program in Oregon. Totally and completely inappropriate for 5 year old children. The information they are given in no way prevents them from being molested.” — the wefu
Uh, Obama was a state sen from Illinois. It’s like teaching geese math.
Mom are you really that dumb? A Derby police officer was fired because he was showing his taser to a teacher and it went off ‘accidently’. These are weapons issued by a law enforcement agency to use to disarm or incapacitate a criminal or out of control person.
No it makes absolutely no difference if this is the ‘real’ story. His stupidity alone is reason to can his behind.
Seimic tests to determine where oil lies does not have anything to do with where drilling has to occur to get the oil out of those areas.
It’s not like digging a hole in your backyard.
http://whyfiles.org/100oil/4.html
“Paul, Franklin, Kandiesue – if you threw them all in a bag you wouldn’t know which one popped out first” — mom
the wefu, they’re all the same person, or at least, they come from the same hive.
It does make them aware of their sex organs. It does tell them if they masturbate it should be in a private place. And on and on and on. My son moved his family from that state because of this and other very liberal teaching methods. Social engineering when public schools are turning out kids that can’t read. But by gosh they know how to masturbate, how to identy all of the sexual organs and that Heather can have two moms and Daddy can have a roommate. Save all of the homophobic rants. I am simply stating facts.
This, of course, is just a checklist of rightwing cant against sex education, and has nothing to do with SB99.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=99&GAID=3&LegID=734&SpecSess=&Session=
Again, read the bill. Okobserver, the amendment to the bill changing the “grade” level was from grade 6 tp K, not grade 8.
Thanks, VT, I was getting to that, but you beat me to it. :)
Beber not sure what your point was about geese and math but the left has said McCain lied in his ad about Obama voting to teach 5 year olds about sex ed. Obama did exactly that. It is his record. No matter how many times he says he didn’t the record says he did.
OKobserver – you let your bias be shown when you brought out the fact that your son moved away from the state because of this social engineering and your homophobic statements.
Again, I was only responding to Franklin and he was not telling the whole story as to why Obama voted the way he did and what he was voting for.
If you want to go on and believe in your fantasy land that everything is okay and nobody is going to hurt you or your children if you simply run away, then so be it.
But we have many parents today who are not protecting their children and who might benefit from this program. Again, if it is age appropriate then I what is the harm?
By the way, what were you doing in the 5-yr-old classroom listening to this- repeating the grade?
“Obviously you don’t have kids or you live in a bubble or you just don’t care?” — mom.
Yes, Mom, when I had children, I had the same unreasonable fears, but if you take actual numbers, your very young children are much more likely to drown in a mop bucket than they are to be molested by a true pedophile. True pedophilia, especially the kind involving very young children, is very rare. The cases are so sensational, they are blown way out of proportion.
Rage I will be the first to say that sex ed is appropriate when children are capable of digesting what they are taught. Since I saw the literature that came home with the children and you didn’t then you really are talking about something you know nothing about.
BTW we have been teaching sex ed for many years in our schools. Have the instances of child molestation gone down? The left talks a good game but the facts just don’t bear the results you espouse.
You know what is scary about this country, Grm?
That you could actually believe that Obama wanted to teach five years how to have intercourse . . .
Do you ever consider that Obama is just a normal decent human being who isn’t going to do something as patently horrible as that?
correction–five year olds
P.S., Regarding “Heather has two mommies”, that particular brouhaha was in New York, not Oregon.
OkDistorter has a peculiar grasp of reality.
My guess is that the CONs don’t really believe that Obama wanted to do what they say he wanted to do, they’ll just grab any straw to gain an advantage.
And that’s really bad for our country:
Cf., George W. Bush.
Mom I wasn’t in the classroom but did read the literature sent home with my granddaughter. My son and I talk frequently and discuss the important things in our lives.
We don’t run away from anything but do act proactively to protect our children and grandchildren from the left ‘education’ system.
Don’t even try to call me bias or hint at my real ‘motive’ in posting what I did.
Your candidate voted to lower the age to 5. Your candidate called McCain a liar for pointing this out in an ad. Your candidate is a liar and by extension I guess you felt you needed to attack and label me. Didn’t work.
Mr_Kia posted September 12, 2008 at 4:33 pm
“Seimic tests to determine where oil lies does not have anything to do with where drilling has to occur to get the oil out of those areas.
It’s not like digging a hole in your backyard.”
———–
And seismic tests done in the coastal plain prove that Palin is a LIAR.
It’s impossible to get the oil from the 100-mile wide plain from a single “2,000-acre swath”
http://arctic.fws.gov/issues1.htm
“According to the U.S. Geological Survey, possible oil reserves may be located in many small accumulations in complex geological formations, rather than in one giant field as was discovered at Prudhoe Bay.
Consequently, development in the 1002 Area could likely require a large number of small production sites spread across the Refuge landscape, connected by an infrastructure of roads, pipelines, power plants, processing facilities, loading docks, dormitories, airstrips, gravel pits, utility lines and landfills.”
okobserver
Posted September 12, 2008 at 4:32 pm | Permalink
Mom are you really that dumb? A Derby police officer was fired because he was showing his taser to a teacher and it went off ‘accidently’. These are weapons issued by a law enforcement agency to use to disarm or incapacitate a criminal or out of control person.
No it makes absolutely no difference if this is the ‘real’ story. His stupidity alone is reason to can his behind.
__
Maybe this trooper’s supervisor did not think he deserved to be fired. That is between the trooper and his supervisor – you have no say in the matter.
Okie – why so defensive?
“fascist right”
Is an Oxymoron.
There is nothing right (in the political or social sense) about fascism.
fas·cism
1: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
Which is not that different from:
so·cial·ism : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
Fascism and Socialism both embrace strong centralized governments which control and therefore own the social and economic activity of its people.
A Tangled Story of Addiction
Consequences of Cindy McCain’s Drug Abuse Were More Complex Than She Has Portrayed
Her misuse of painkillers prompted an investigation by the Drug Enforcement Administration and local prosecutors that put her in legal jeopardy. A doctor with McCain’s medical charity who supplied her with prescriptions for the drugs lost his license and never practiced again. The charity, the American Voluntary Medical Team, eventually had to be closed in the wake of the controversy. Her husband was forced to admit publicly that he was absent much of the time she was having problems and was not aware of them.
McCain’s addiction also embroiled her with one of her charity’s former employees, Tom Gosinski, who reported her drug use to the DEA and provided prosecutors with a contemporaneous journal that detailed the effects of her drug problems. He was later accused by a lawyer for McCain of trying to extort money from the McCain family.
“It’s not just about her addiction, it’s what she did to cover up her addiction and the lives of other people that she ruined, or put at jeopardy at least,” Gosinski said in an interview this week.
Her charity, AVMT, kept a ready supply of antibiotics and over-the-counter pain medications needed to fulfill its medical mission. It also secured prescriptions for the narcotic painkillers Vicodin, Percocet and Tylenol 3 in quantities of 100 to 400 pills, the county report shows.
. . . .
McCain started taking narcotics for herself, the report shows. To get them, she asked the charity’s medical director, John Max Johnson, to make out prescriptions for the charity in the names of three AVMT employees.
The employees did not know their names were being used. And under DEA regulations, Johnson was supposed to use a form to notify federal officials that he was ordering the narcotics for the charity. It is illegal for an organization to use personal prescriptions to fill its drug needs.
IOKIYAR.
Okie – why so defensive?
Because she’s lying, and she knows that several us know it.
Cap you and Rage are a laugh a minute. Do you think your canditate is worth all of the defense you have to do?
There is no LIAR in the ANWR debate.
2,000 acres of DRILLING. Yes, infrastructure needs to be put in for support of the project.
The real question should be is it more important to protect some wild animals in a uninhabitable area vs. getting at the 11-13 billion barrels of oil that lie beneath ANWR?
11-13 billion barrells of oil not purchased from nations that mean us harm while realistic alternative solutions are found.
Cap you and Rage are a laugh a minute. Do you think your canditate is worth all of the defense you have to do?
I’m just defending reality, ma’am!
Question I have for you Cosmos is the life of a caribou (reindeer) more important to you than that of your American bretheren?
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Defenders_of_Wildlife_vs_Palin_Brutal.html#comments
Here you can see what happens to a wolf when a POS “hunter” flies down on it in an airplane and shoots it in the back, just the way Sarah Palin likes it done.
As an avid hunter, this sickens me. No sport whatsoever and cruel to boot.
“Okie – why so defensive?”
Cause she stuck her ample rump up in the wind and got it kicked good?
Divorce/custody cases can be very complicated and nasty okie.
Been there. Done that. Have you?
SURELY you are interested in the best interests of the children?
Perhaps Sarah Palin’s sister is an unfit mother.
In other words? Don’t qualify yourself to judge in matters you know nothing about.
Grm–
It’s not “defense” to point out how labored your hypothesis is . . .
“that exalts nation and often race above the individual”
Our American soldiers have to die to protect us from tons and tons of weapons of mass destruction that pose a growing and gathering threat.
that stands for a centralized autocratic government, headed by a dictatorial leader this would be a lot easier in a dictorship, just so long as I was the dictator (GW Bush), severe economic and social regimentation corporate control of government, just like we have now, and forcible suppression of opposition secret prisons, suspension of habeus corpus, domestic spying without warrants, “free speech” zones, riot police beating peaceful protestors mercilessly.
Mr Kia
Why do you want to hold your country back?
Oil technology is more than a century old. Do you not believe we can innovate out of it?
Or…
Could it be that you are personally invested in it and this is the base of your views?
“How much you wanna bet we don’t see hide nor hair of Kandisue after the election.”
That depends Capn.
IF by some beknighted disaster for this country Palin/McCain is elected?
We will be hearing A LOT from whackaloons like Kandisue.
They started crawling out of the baseboards as soon as she is announced. They cannot wait their chance to tell us all how to live, what to read, etc etc.
See Kandisue and see America’s future if Palin is elected.
Rage you are just a laugh a minute. Look at your candidates record. There is a recorded vote.
As for the book Heather has Two Mommies. It was on the list of books that would be read to the kindergartners in Oregon nine years ago.
I have no need to justify myself to you or cap. Nice try to discredit though.
CapnAmerica
Posted September 12, 2008 at 5:03 pm | Permalink
Grm–
It’s not “defense” to point out how labored your hypothesis is . . .
———–
Cap you use more words to say nothing than anyone I know unless it would me Mom, BJ, Rage oh that list is just too long.
Yes, okobserver, Sen. Obama voted for the subject bill in committee; the bill itself, according to each media report I’ve read on the subject, never made it to the floor for a full vote of the Illinois Senate.
Agreed, BlueJay.
If the GodSquad gets four more years, we don’t have a prayer.
Think about it, Grm.
Obama has a little girl seven years old.
You think he wants her to get “comprehensive sex ed” like how to perform a sex act?
It doesn’t make good nonsense, but you use the ambiguity in the legalese of the bill to make exactly that case.
How can you expect anyone to have any respect for you?
VT it seems as if he might have been saved by the bell or so he thinks. If he voted for it in committee then its a good bet he would have voted for the bill if it had made it to the senate floor.
But even you had to admit that he did vote for it in committee so it is a little disengenuous to say he didn’t and that McCain lied.
CapnAmerica,
When you use names like “Godsquad” how do you expect anyone to have any respect for what you say either?
Cap I can’t say what Obama would or wouldn’t want for his daughters. What I can look at is what he voted for. If you are honest you couldn’t predict what he would or wouldn’t want. This is why politicans have public records so we can see who they are and what they stand for.
And Cap if I have to stop telling it like it is and lie like Obama did to have your respect then I guess it is safe to say I won’t be getting it.
How funny, now mccain’s getting his lunc eaten! Where’s the love?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080912/pl_nm/usa_politics_mccain_women_dc_1
okobserver, I’ve never posted/said/written that he didn’t vote for it. The issue raised involves the interpretation of the bill’s language by various posters.
As for the book Heather has Two Mommies. It was on the list of books that would be read to the kindergartners in Oregon nine years ago.
Actually it was on a list of books compiled by Oregon bigots 16 years ago, in service of a proposal that would “classify homosexuality as ‘abnormal, wrong, unnatural and perverse’ and allow discrimination against homosexuals in Oregon, ”
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CEFD91E3CF935A2575BC0A964958260
It’s been a lightning-rod and talking point for these kooks for nearly 20 years.
You’re simply a liar, germie.
A history of the book’s controversy, from the author:
In 1990 Alyson Publications started Alyson Wonderland, a line of books for children with gay and lesbian parents. Alyson bought out the rights to Heather and also published Daddy’s Roommate. The books got a little more publicity at that time, but all remained quiet until 1992, when three major conflicts arose surrounding Heather and Daddy’s Roommate.
The first conflict occurred in Portland, Ore., where Lon Mabon had launched an antigay campaign, trying to amend the state constitution to allow discrimination against lesbians and gay men. During meetings of his organization, the Oregon Citizens Alliance, copies of Heather and Daddy’s Roommate were passed around as evidence of “the militant homosexual agenda” Mabon felt was sweeping the nation. On November 3, 1992, citizens of Oregon voted, and the OCA measure was defeated.
The second controversy surrounding Heather Has Two Mommies and Daddy’s Roommate took place in school and public libraries around the country. As if there were a concerted effort, the books began disappearing from library shelves from coast to coast. When Alyson Publications learned of this, the company offered to send replacement copies to the first 500 libraries that called. Almost as soon as word went out, 500 calls came in. Librarians for the most part rallied around the books and defended freedom of expression as a vital principle upon which this country is based. Some libraries moved the books to the adult section, and some libraries put the books in a special request section. However, by and large, Heather and Daddy’s Roommate remained on the shelves.
I was and continue to be amazed by all this fuss. It seems to me that a disproportionate number of parents live in fear of their child’s reading just one book with a gay character in it, for such exposure will, in these parents’ minds, cause their child to grow up to be lesbian or gay. It is usually useless to point out that the vast majority of lesbians and gay men have been brought up by heterosexual parents and spent countless hours of their childhood reading hundreds of books about heterosexual characters. Fear is an irrational thing.
The third controversy took place in New York City, around the Rainbow Curriculum, a 443-page bibliography that was designed to teach respect for all types of families. In these 443 pages, three paragraphs mention books with gay characters and themes. These books were not required to be taught or read in the classroom. They, along with hundreds of other books, were merely suggestions.
School Chancellor Joseph Fernandez was a staunch supporter of the Rainbow Curriculum. In a New York Daily News interview dated September 6, 1992, he said, “If we’re ever going to get this country together, we have to deal with these issues of hate. Kids learn biases from us, from adults. We have to teach them tolerance through education.”
Unfortunately, many people did not agree with Chancellor Fernandez, including Mary Cummins, president of School District 24 in Queens. In an interview with New York Newsday dated April 23, 1992, she said the Rainbow Curriculum “says teachers must tell children that all families are not heterosexual. We can’t do that in the first grade.” And why not, I wonder? Why not teach children in the first grade, or any other grade, the truth?
After a long and bitter battle, the Rainbow Curriculum was amended, and Heather Has Two Mommies and Daddy’s Roommate were removed from its pages.
http://www.creativevisionsbooks.com/it1555835430.html?mode=ext
I WANT Kandisue posting here.
She? is a fine representative of the sort of folk who have been energized by the Palin pick.
I want folks to ask themselves, just how much do you WANT someone like that energized?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_National_Wildlife_Refuge
Good background of the Artic National Wildlife Refuge. Of course, most people would rather read blogs. I guess, it its way, the Wiki is a blog.
Sarah Palin Thinks Barack Obama Will Regret Not Picking Hillary Clinton
Gov. Sarah Palin says Sen. Barack Obama just might regret not picking Sen. Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential running mate.
“I think he’s regretting not picking her now, I do. What, what determination, and grit, and even grace through some tough shots that were fired her way — she handled those well,” the Alaska governor told Charles Gibson in her third and final exclusive interview with ABC News.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5791068&page=1
BlueJay
Posted September 12, 2008 at 5:09 pm | Permalink
Mr Kia
Why do you want to hold your country back?
Oil technology is more than a century old. Do you not believe we can innovate out of it?
Or…
Could it be that you are personally invested in it and this is the base of your views?
————————————————–
I do believe we can should and will innovate out of our dependence on oil.
Even by Senator Obama’s agressive plan of 10 years, it’s 10 years.
I’m saying “gets ours”.
Less money to OPEC ASAP is good for America.
I do not have one red cent invested in oil with the exception of the 1/4 tank of dillon’s unleaded in my work car and approximately the same amount in my wife’s mini van.
Rage you can call me a liar all you want. That won’t change facts on the table 9 years ago. My son lived in Salem. It was very reported and hushed quickly because the liberal californians had moved north and taken over the school boards. Does that sound familliar?
VT sorry if I misinterpreted what you said. I would be no better than Capn and rage if I didn’t admit to my mistake.
Linda common sense should have told Obama she had 18 millions voters behind her. She threatened him because she was the most qualified
Just listening to Palin and Gibson. What an impressive woman.
Yeesh does anyone wanna listen to that voice for 4 years? Or four minutes?
Her reaction on the right of women to choose was predictably blurred. “Here is what I believe”
Uh huh. She’d very quickly work to change the law to what she believes.
And she seemed honestly repulsed to even be ASKED about homosexuality. She is NOT good at covering up her bigotry.
. It was very reported and hushed quickly because the liberal californians had moved north and taken over the school boards.
Produce some evidence of it being “reported” by any news source, at any time, within the state of Oregon.
Naturally, the WE (especially Scholfield) are unapologetically liberal. Someone like Gov. Palin makes their collective skins crawl because she’s female and doesn’t subscribe to the typical feminine tenets.
She’s bright, articulate, of high morals and principles… and maybe a little unpolished. All good. Being unpolished helps identify with the folks – and she does.
I thought her interview with Gibson was solid. He kept trying to go back to her statement in her church about “God’s plan,” and her reflections of Abraham Lincoln “I pray not that God is on our side, but that we are on God’s side.” HOME RUN!
The more these loony libs try to pound her, the more McCain’s polls go up.
Go Libs GO!
Heh
C+
“PS You’ll shoot your eye out!”
She shot her foot off!
“I pray not that God is on our side, but that we are on God’s side.” HOME RUN!
Too bad it didn’t answer the question, and that Barack Obama had used the same line previously. :)
From a friend
She don’t know much about history
She don’t believe in biology
She wants to change the science books
She wants to fire the White House cooks
But she does know how to speak on cue
And she knows if she makes fools of you
What a wonderful veep she would be
She don’t know much about geography
She don’t know much foreign policy
Don’t know much about George Bush’s war
Don’t know what a VP is for
But she knows that one and one is two
And if McCain just tells her what to do
What a wonderful veep she would be
Now she don’t claim to want any bridges
But she can sell you one
‘Cuz maybe by pretending she never liked bridges
She can win your vote for John
She don’t know much about history
She don’t believe in biology
She wants to change the science books
She wants to fire the White House cooks
But she knows if she can hide the truth
Until we make it to the voting booth
What a wonderful veep she would be
… not!
Dennis
She says the idea that she would ban books is
“an old wive’s tale”.
Well I don’t know how old the librarian in Wasilla and leader of the Alaska library foundation is.
I THINK she IS married.
And she says Sarah Palin asked her about removing books from the library.
Mr_Kia posted September 12, 2008 at 4:57 pm
“There is no LIAR in the ANWR debate.
2,000 acres of DRILLING. Yes, infrastructure needs to be put in for support of the project.”
—————-
Mr_Kia, do you believe that a “2,000-acre swath of land” accurately describes 100’s of small non-contiguous areas scattered across 1,500,000 acres? And also a network of roads and pipelines to connect those sites?
PALIN: “… ANWR, of course, is a 2,000-acre swath of land in the middle of about a 20 million-acre swath of land.”
———–
Mr_Kia: “The real question should be is it more important to protect some wild animals in a uninhabitable area vs. getting at the 11-13 billion barrels of oil that lie beneath ANWR?”
———–
NO, the real question is how can the U.S. best solve the current energy crisis.
Higher energy efficiency is guaranteed to produce many times more than what the Refuge might produce.
Arctic Refuge geology is unknown, and may be similar to Badami.
‘BP and Savant looking at Badami restart’
http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/610780426.shtml
“Major and independent would drill two wells over the next two years to avoid losing lands at the unit, hopefully restart field.”
———–
Higher energy efficiency is cheaper, faster, and cleaner than more drilling. It wont run dry, like Prudhoe Bay is.
okobserver posted September 12, 2008 at 5:42 pm
“Just listening to Palin and Gibson. What an impressive woman.”
————-
Rational people would not label someone like Palin, who lies about the Arctic Refuge issue, “impressive”.
CapnAmerica
Posted September 12, 2008 at 5:02 pm | Permalink
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Defenders_of_Wildlife_vs_Palin_Brutal.html#comments
Here you can see what happens to a wolf when a POS “hunter” flies down on it in an airplane and shoots it in the back, just the way Sarah Palin likes it done.
As an avid hunter, this sickens me. No sport whatsoever and cruel to boot.
————————————————–
It sounds alot like this to me.
http://www.kfb.org/commodities/commoditiesimages/CI%20-%20Jun08FeralPigsinKansas.pdf
NO, the real question is how can the U.S. best solve the current energy crisis.
Higher energy efficiency is guaranteed to produce many times more than what the Refuge might produce.
Arctic Refuge geology is unknown, and may be similar to Badami.
‘BP and Savant looking at Badami restart’
http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/610780426.shtml
“Major and independent would drill two wells over the next two years to avoid losing lands at the unit, hopefully restart field.”
———–
Higher energy efficiency is cheaper, faster, and cleaner than more drilling. It wont run dry, like Prudhoe Bay is.
————————————————–
Getting off oil is not the argument.
It’s what to do in the meantime to get off mid east oil.
Rage
Posted September 12, 2008 at 5:59 pm | Permalink
“I pray not that God is on our side, but that we are on God’s side.” HOME RUN!
Too bad it didn’t answer the question, and that Barack Obama had used the same line previously. :)
________________________________________
Did obama of the muslim faith say God or allah?
I was listening to O’reilly tonight and he brought up the same exact point that several of us have here as well.
Where is the “Bush Doctrine” defined?
There are so many ways of interpreting what that is or could be.
Yet, somehow, you liberals are all upset because Palin didn’t know what it was?
Absurd.
Cosmos,
When you have been arguing against drilling somewher by saying how long it will take to start, for longer than it would have taken to actually start drilling to begin with, your argument starts to become rather self defeating.
Mr_Kia posted September 12, 2008 at 6:23 pm
“Getting off oil is not the argument.
It’s what to do in the meantime to get off mid east oil.”
————–
Oil is basically fungible, and traded worldwide. The U.S. can’t “get off” oil from a particular country or region.
If we don’t buy from one country, someone else will — and possibly then sell it to us.
And again, higher energy efficiency is guaranteed to reduce demand much faster, and by a much greater amount, than more drilling might.
“Cap, I can’t say what Obama would or wouldn’t want for his daughters. If you are honest you couldn’t predict what he would or wouldn’t want.”
BULLCRAP!
I’m sure that McCain wouldn’t want comprehensive sex ed for kindergartners, neither would Bush or Barney Frank or Larry Craig or David Vitter.
NO ONE would be in favor of that, and you know it.
You just pretend not to know it so you can attack a decent man with a hot button issue.
You people make me sick. I’m ashamed that I have to call people like you “American.”
Nathaniel,
The decade required to possibly get the first small amount of oil from the Arctic Refuge is only one of the many arguments against it.
When your side uses lies, like a “2,000-acre swath of land”, to make your argument, you’re already defeated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJUCU1UH2w&feature=PlayList&p=BB35EDF9B9402031&index=20&playnext=21&playnext_from=PL
Here, watch that.
If you can still vote for McCain after that, you freaking deserve him.
The following information comes from a 63-page report prepared by Alaska Democratic Party in 2006. You can include your obligatory grain of salt, but much of what’s listed is workaday stuff (including very dry citations of budget numbers). It includes specific cites for everything and, where it can be verified on the Internet, appears to be quite accurate
http://mudflats.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/palin-2006-vetting.pdf
A few of my favorites:
The Frontiersman wrote in an editorial, “Wasilla found out it has a new mayor with either little
understanding or little regard for the city’s own laws. Hopefully she will enhance her understanding of the city statutes.” [Frontiersman, 10/23/96]
In 1996, the Frontiersman reported that Wasilla’s “Liquor Task Force was dissolved by Mayor Sarah Palin on Oct. 17—three days after she took office.” When asked, Palin said she was not aware the group was not still meeting, but, according to the Frontiersman, the outreach coordinator said that “on Thursday, Oct. 17, Mug-Shot Saloon owner Ted Anderson informed the group the task force would not be meeting again…Wasilla Police Chief Irl Stambaugh said Wednesday he specifically recalled Palin telling him in a conversation in her office on Oct. 17 that the task force would not be meeting anymore.” The Frontiersman added, “Confronted with these conflicting stories Wednesday afternoon, Palin dropped the denials she had made earlier in the day. ‘When the (Wasilla City) council, the borough and the City of Palmer voted on the bar closure issue, the question was answered on bar closures,’ Palin stated. ‘What came to mind then was whether there was a need for continuation of the task force.’” [Frontiersman, 12/13/96]
In 1997, Frontiersman columnist Paul Stuart wrote, “A couple of weeks ago, Palin sent a memo to her department heads informing them she wanted weekly reports of the good (that’s positive, of course) things going on in their respective departments—and only the good things. Nothing else but the good things.” [Frontiersman, 1/22/97]
In 1997, Palin fired Police Chief Irl Stambaugh and Library Director Mary Ellen Emmons. The Frontiersman wrote, “After news of the of the dismissals broke Thursday night, Palin said she never meant to fire Stambaugh and Emmons. ‘It was an intent to terminate letter to discuss my intent to terminate them or for them to submit resignations.’” Palin wrote in her letter,
“I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern the city of Wasilla.” [Frontiersman, 2/5/97]
The Frontiersman reported, “Wasilla voters may get the chance to transform the city to the city manager form of government under a proposal by Wasilla councilman Nick Carney…He said he thinks Palin does not have the management skills to run the City of Wasilla.” [Frontiersman, 2/21/97]
“Wasilla got a new police chief Thursday, one
who said he will bring to the job a philosophy of personal freedo that doesn’t include his predecessor’s support of limiting bar hours. ‘I have a philosophy that every time there’s a new law or new ordinance we lose a little more of our freedom,’ Duwayne ‘Charlie’ Fannon told City Council members shortly before they voted unanimously to confirm his nomination. ‘I don’t think the answer to crime is restricting people’s freedom more and more.’ Fannon, 45, currently heads the Haines Police Department. He will take over a department more than twice the size of the one he currently manages, in a town nearly three times the size. The Wasilla department has 11 officers and a budget of $ 1.3 million.” [Anchorage Daily News, 3/28/97]
“Fannon is replacing Irl Stambaugh, whom the mayor fired in January. Palin said she did not think Stambaugh supported her administration. Stambaugh has sued the city, alleging Palin fired him because local bar owners and the National Rifle Association asked the mayor to do so.
Wasilla Replaced City Attorney of 13 Years With Attorney for Alaska Republican Party. “The
Wasilla City Council replaced Richard Deuser, Wasilla’s attorney for 13 years, with an Anchorage attorney last week. The council voted 5-1 Sept. 8 to award the city’s legal services contract to Ken Jacobus, an attorney specializing in municipal law who also serves as general counsel for the Alaska Republican Party.” [Frontiersman, 9/17/97]
Frontiersman columnist Paul Stuart wrote, “Some local political observers in Wasilla are complaining Mayor Sarah Palin’s recent appointment of Cindy Roberts to the $55,000-a-year post of public works director was nothing but a political reward. They maintain Roberts has no engineering training and no work experience to make up for the deficit. Admitting Roberts has no engineering expertise, Palin said the city will contract out engineering services. But the Wasilla mayor says Roberts’ management experience in the public and private sector made her rise above other candidates.” [Frontiersman, 9/24/97]
“She denies Stein’s charge that she has filled city positions with people well-known in the Republican Party. She said the decision to hire City Attorney Ken Jacobus, who is counsel for the state Republican Party, was made by the City Council, not by her.” [Anchorage Daily News
(Alaska), 9/20/99]
Congressional lobbyist Steve Silver was hired under Palin’s administration and is in his sixth year as a Wasilla lobbyist. He also
lobbies on behalf of several other Alaska governmental bodies. Wasilla pays $40,500 for Silver’s 12month contract, plus $2,000 each year for travel, meals and expenses. Giddings and Palin characterized Silver’s job as promoting the projects and keeping track of them while city leaders do business back home.” [Anchorage Daily News (Alaska), 2/1/06]
In her 2002 Lt. Governor bid, Mayor Palin used city employees, telephones, computers, fax machines for campaign fundraising and literature. On her candidate registration form, she used her City Hall fax number, and her mayoral e-mail ddress. Records show that Wasilla city property was used to contact supporters, donors, media contacts, and media purchasing. [Anchorage Daily News, 7/21/06]
“Binkley followed with a commercial quoting a
scathing editorial about Palin — accusing her of being a lousy mayor — published nine years ago in her hometown newspaper, the Frontiersman. Palin dismissed the attack and quoted the paper’s current publisher saying she was a “great mayor.”“ [Anchorage Daily News (Alaska), 8/18/06]
Asked what her top three priorities if elected governor, in relation to families,
were, Palin responded, “1. Creating an atmosphere where parents feel welcome to choose the venues of education for their children. 2. Preserving the definition of “marriage” as defined in our constitution. 3. Cracking down on the things that harm family life: gangs, drug use, and infringement of our liberties including attacks on our 2nd Amendment rights.” [Eagle Forum questionnaire]
AND NOW: ****THE PUNCHLINE***:
A Frontiersman editorial wrote, “Palin continues to lose public faith sticking by her philosophy that either we are with her or against her.” [Frontiersman editorial, 3/7/97]
mom
I wonder how the Republicans are going to react if McCain wins the popular vote but Obama wins the Electoral College votes?
It could happen – karma does happen.
_______________________________________________
Karma?
What will the karma be for the demon crats killing 40,000,000 innocent babies with out even so much as a pain killer.
Karma?
I would not want to be in your shoes 75 years from now.
Hugs and kisses
Palin for President
Wow, great come back, Kandi.
Because as everyone knows, not a single fetus was aborted before Roe v Wade was passed.
Actually, Roe v Wade only allowed poor women to get abortions. Wealthy and middle class women were quietly getting abortions provided by their private doctors.
In the 20’s and 30’s, abortion was a common medical procedure, only criminalized in mid-century.
The immediate effect of re-criminalizing abortion would be that well-off women would simply go to another country where abortion is permitted.
As always, poor women would be left with the option of the coat hanger . . .
BlueJay
Yeesh does anyone wanna listen to that voice for 4 years? Or four minutes?
___________________________________________
Sounds like the voice of good to me
“Her reaction on the right of women to choose was predictably blurred. “Here is what I believe””
Choose? you mean choose to stab a baby with a pair of pliers seconds before it is born?
Choose? You mean evil.
__________________________________________
“And she seemed honestly repulsed to even be ASKED about homosexuality. She is NOT good at covering up her bigotry.”
____________________________________________
How could any decent person not be repulsed by those who prefer anal intercourse?
You make like it bj but keep it in your closet please.
The more I hear of her the better I like her.
Palin for President
CapnAmerica
Posted September 12, 2008 at 7:16 pm | Permalink
The immediate effect of re-criminalizing abortion would be that well-off women would simply go to another country where abortion is permitted.
As always, poor women would be left with the option of the coat hanger . . .
______________________________________________
Or they would do what 99% of the women have done for 1,000’s of years – have the baby
and not be comsumed with guilt for having commited murder.
Yup, the Repubes are getting their money’s worth out of this one . . .
For thousands of years, Kandi, women (and men) have tried to figure out how to terminate unwanted pregnancies.
There’s a whole pharmacopia of “abortifacients” that were used to induce miscarriage, Syrian rue and pennyroyal are two that come to mind.
Passing a law making it illegal again won’t do a thing, except to drive it underground again.
Did obama of the muslim faith say God or allah?
Chuckle. . .Barack Obama of the Christian faith said “God.” I don’t know who this other Obama is, but that person ain’t running for president. . .
#
Franklin
Posted September 12, 2008 at 3:44 pm | Permalink
mom
Fact Check is full of crap.
Obama DID vote to reduce the age for “Comprehensive Sex Ed” from the 6th grade down to KINDERGARTEN!
It is documented.
=====================================================
Didn’t we go over this yesterday? I never did get an answer to my post: Would you rather our kids learn about both the good and bad of sex, starting in K, where kids learn what sex is to 12th, where kids have learned the dangers of early sex, such as HIV, pregnancy, rape, etc..
Or are you so afraid of the word sex that you would rather have them hide in a closet, learning about sex from porn mags, as you yourself do?
The so-called American Puritanical ethic is the reason we have way too many teens engaging in sex, having babies and sky-rocketing the venereal disease stats among teens. Teaching kids from an early age about sex and its consequences works in many other countries in reducing teen pregnancies. But the “Christian” right would rather supply batteries for those closet flashlights.
Or how about this: Teach your own kids about the joy AND dangers of sex . . . no? Too embarrassing? Figures.
It is, though, nice to see the members of the band, “Pubes for Christ”, here tonight. Everyone meet the swinette player, “kandibrain”, and her fellow member, playing the skinflute, “Wango’tard.”
Lets all give it up for “Pubes for Christ”!!!!!!
They’ll be appearing at local KKK picnics, should the rain stop. Show times can be found written on any bathroom wall.
This is so predictable. Time Magazine rated Sebelius a C+ on her speech to the Democrat Convention. WE understands that, even here, he/she would never get away with saying Palin did more poorly than Sebelius.
JM Walker,
Thank you for providing with the classic strawman lgocial fallacy, false dilemma logical fallacy, and just plain ouright mean ad hominem logical fallacy.
Very nice.
Oh, c’mon, Walker, everyone knows that the evil PTA was trying to turn our children into perverts! :)
#
JMWalker
Posted September 12, 2008 at 7:35 pm | Permalink
It is, though, nice to see the members of the band, “Pubes for Christ”, here tonight. Everyone meet the swinette player, “kandibrain”, and her fellow member, playing the skinflute, “Wango’tard.”
Lets all give it up for “Pubes for Christ”!!!!!!
They’ll be appearing at local KKK picnics, should the rain stop. Show times can be found written on any bathroom wall.
==============================
Hi,
My name is J M Walker.
Check out my posts and see what a nasty piece or work I am.
JM Walker,
That is also probably why no one bothered to answer your retarded question.
Krauthammer is right, it was Gibson who made the gaffe:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
#
Nathaniel
Posted September 12, 2008 at 7:42 pm | Permalink
JM Walker,
Thank you for providing with the classic strawman lgocial fallacy, false dilemma logical fallacy, and just plain ouright mean ad hominem logical fallacy.
Very nice.
=====================================================
Glad you like it. Emulating neo-cons always leaves a bad taste.
But seriously, just what did you find illogical about it, and exactly what post were you writing about, and where did you learn to spell? Inquiring minds want to know.
JM Walker,
If you were even close to wanting a real discussion about the complete lack of logic in your posts you shouldn’t have wrapped the question in more crap.
Why don’t you go listen to some music and relax. Come back when you are ready to play nice.
#
Franklin
Posted September 12, 2008 at 7:45 pm | Permalink
Krauthammer is right, it was Gibson who made the gaffe:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
———————-
Ya, I read that Franklin.
But you know, duh Libs will never admit they are wrong.
They’re still hanging on to that the youngest child born to Sarah Palin is that of her daughter’s.
But you know, the American people know what is true and what isn’t.
They see through all of this and all this arm flailing by the Democraps will end up being all in vain.
So I provided a (1) Classic strawman illogical fallacy; (2) False dilemma logical fallacy; (3) PLAIN (as opposed to fancy, I presume)outright mean ad hominem logical fallacy. Wow, I guess I’m going to hell, or maybe San Diego. Can I get egg rolls with that?
mom
WRONG
The bill in question says COMPREHENSIVE — there is nothing in the bill that says what can NOT be taught to kids, even in kindergarten.
You do not know what you are talking about.
Obama wants to give graphic sex education to kindergartners, period.
JM Walker,
Well, they say the first step is admitting you are wrong.
Good job.
#
Nathaniel
Posted September 12, 2008 at 7:53 pm | Permalink
JM Walker,
If you were even close to wanting a real discussion about the complete lack of logic in your posts you shouldn’t have wrapped the question in more crap.
Why don’t you go listen to some music and relax. Come back when you are ready to play nice.
======================================================
Which post? You want to play? Bring it on. Which post?
JM Walker,
Use a little bit of common sense. How many posts have you made on this topic today?
#
Regular
Posted September 12, 2008 at 7:45 pm | Permalink
#
JMWalker
Posted September 12, 2008 at 7:35 pm | Permalink
It is, though, nice to see the members of the band, “Pubes for Christ”, here tonight. Everyone meet the swinette player, “kandibrain”, and her fellow member, playing the skinflute, “Wango’tard.”
Lets all give it up for “Pubes for Christ”!!!!!!
They’ll be appearing at local KKK picnics, should the rain stop. Show times can be found written on any bathroom wall.
==============================
Hi,
My name is J M Walker.
Check out my posts and see what a nasty piece or work I am.
=====================================================
Ya, really! Check em out. Kinda reminds people of, oh, say, regular, maybe? Hell, I’m in a doppelganger mood tonight. Antithesis, meet antithesis.
#
Nathaniel
Posted September 12, 2008 at 7:59 pm | Permalink
JM Walker,
Use a little bit of common sense. How many posts have you made on this topic today?
========================================================
Didn’t the Marines teach you to be specific? Which post?
Obama wants to give graphic sex education to kindergartners, period.
Parents, take a look at this: this is a pathetic idiot.
Don’t let your kids grow up to be this way!
JM Walker,
You had made 3 posts in a row just prior to my comment to you. (That is where the common sense part comes in or for you never did)
2 of those 3 were longer than one sentence.
Those 2 posts contained all the stupidity.
#
JMWalker
Posted September 12, 2008 at 8:00 pm | Permalink
#
Nathaniel
Posted September 12, 2008 at 7:59 pm | Permalink
JM Walker,
Use a little bit of common sense. How many posts have you made on this topic today?
========================================================
Didn’t the Marines teach you to be specific? Which post?
—————————-
Go drink some more Walker, you’re not nasty enough yet.
a) No pupil shall be required to take or participate in
9 any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the
10 pupil’s his parent or guardian submits written objection
11 thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or
12 program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of
13 such pupil. Each class or course in comprehensive sex
14 education offered in any of grades K 6 through 12 shall
15 include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted
16 infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
17 of HIV AIDS. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in
18 sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology.”
—-
VT
It used to say “Grades 6 through 12″ and Obama pushed for a change, to “Grades K through 12″ —
I do not see how this helps Obama’s case?
Capn,
Obama is either sick, wanting to give comprehensive sex ed to 5 year olds —
OR-
Obama is an incompetent idiot, not knowing what his vote meant.
Obama DID vote to teach comprehensive, graphic sex education to 5 year olds.
That is a proven fact!
Okay, Nathan, since you refuse to be more specific, let me help: The band post was sarcasm, and nothing more. Put whatever spin you want on it, but after reading Franklin and Kandisue’s crap, I respond in kind.
If you’re referring to my post on sex ed, what do you find illogical about it? Feel free to be specific.
#
Franklin
Posted September 12, 2008 at 8:36 pm | Permalink
Capn,
Obama is either sick, wanting to give comprehensive sex ed to 5 year olds —
OR-
Obama is an incompetent idiot, not knowing what his vote meant.
Obama DID vote to teach comprehensive, graphic sex education to 5 year olds.
That is a proven fact!
====================================================
No Franklin, it is NOT a proven fact. He, numerous times, has said NO comprehensive graphic sex would be taught to lower classes, which includes grade K. There is also a clause built in allowing any parent to keep their children out of any sex ed classes, including grade K.
You are a spiteful POS, spreading internet email crap, perpetrated by idiots with no more time on their hands than making up pure Bu**sh** about a presidential candidate they don’t like, such as, he’s not natural born citizen; he’s a Muslim; he screwed up Chicago, etc.. You have no morals whatsoever, you lie at the drop of an email. You have no proof of any of it, other than the crap you get from like idiots.
Still waiting, Nathan.
With the exception that all the political parties have chosen one candidate from the field of wannabes, we are where we started.
The candidates of the two major parties, one of whom will be the next POTUS, are tied, the race tight and probably will be decided in the same very few battleground states as last time and time before… Most of us don’t live in any of those places. (Salute to Sol in Michigan!)
The posters at WEBlog haven’t changed their opinions, preferences, prejudices, hopes, dreams and none of us is likely to.
The Republican Party is energized by their candidates choice for running mate, the Democratic Party has been energized all along.
We’re back where we started.
I hope we’re able to come out of this with a clear winner — one most Americans accept won fairly in an election that was for the most part above board.
All our cussin’ and discussin’ has gotten us right back to where we started. Maybe we should talk about the weather — we won’t change that either.
JM
BULL
You are an idiot, JM Walker, there is NOTHING in the Bill that says what you say.
Hey Kandisue?
If you are gonna shoot at me?
Let me give you some ammo.
I’m a single dad. The boy’s mother and I were never married.
Have at me? Or do ya need some more to make me one of Satan’s minions?
And of course it’s time to remind our readers again that “Franklin” is a washed up Republican party hack on party agenda here.
It’ll be interesting to see Palin TRY and dismiss the question about banning books.
Just what they showed, she looked real defensive.
Loon.
Also, the “pull kid out of class” option is just not enough.
Some things should not be taught to kindergarten students, period.
The liberals know that most people will not pull their kids out of class.
Also, who wants their 5, 6, 7 and 8 year olds going to school with kids who talk about this stuff, after the class gets out, even if they do pull their kids of of that class?
Obama got CAUGHT!
Obama is a radical social engineer, and Obama can not defend his position.
Obama wants to give comprehensive, graphic, specific, detailed sex eduction to 5 year olds.
It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt!
a) No pupil shall be required to take or participate in
9 any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the
10 pupil’s his parent or guardian submits written objection
11 thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or
12 program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of
13 such pupil. Each class or course in comprehensive sex
14 education offered in any of grades K 6 through 12 shall
15 include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted
16 infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
17 of HIV AIDS. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in
18 sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology.
—–
“Each class or course in comprehensive sex education — SHALL include, HIV, “
shall
15 include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted
16 infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
17 of HIV AIDS.
Franklinpaulie?
You’re no blogger. Not a good one anyway.
You deal in Republican party agit prop.
(Agitation propaganda, for our readers)
REAL bloggers get around the stories the media misses. You just shill talking points.
Me? I’m not so much a blogger as I am a brawler. Originally a Republican, I came to despise the party. I no longer find anything redeeming in it.
But I’ve been endeavoring to be a better blogger lately.
There’s a hint of a story out there. Palin’s son, he didn’t go to Iraq yesterday on the anniversary of 911. And word is rumbling that his send off was staged. Still looking on that one.
But while I was looking?
I found something else.
Mine is the pursuit of truth and the destruction of the neo con agenda.
So I won’t post when I am not sure.
But I DO invite readers to google “Palin”+”son”+”school bus”.
Oh come on Randy, the “Bush Doctrine”?
That can have several meaning unless of course you are fixated on one aspect, as a mindless partisan person like yourself is.
Palin’s “deer in the headlights’ look was because she couldn’t understand the stupidity, and lack of clarity, of the question from Charlie Gibson.
Similar stupidity as your insinuating threat.
BlueJay
“I’m a single dad. The boy’s mother and I were never married.”
____________________________________________
This is a surprise to who?
“Have at me? Or do ya need some more to make me one of Satan’s minions?”
Satan’s minions? supporting killing babies does that.
_______________________________________________
“It’ll be interesting to see Palin TRY and dismiss the question about banning books.”
Banning books is bad? Heather has two mommies? Or pornography?
So far what she does that offends you – makes me want to give her a standing ovation.
_____________________________________________
“Just what they showed, she looked real defensive.”
“what they showed” – do you think the demon crats would show anything positive?
demon crats – would make anybody defensive. Being around evil has to make “good” a little nervous.
_____________________________________________
Right, don’t teach em anything about sex. That way, the religious right can feel good about themselves, and their kids can get pregnant. Kind of reminds of a certain politician, doesn’t it. Damn good thing she didn’t get HIV, huh? Or we’ll find out in about five years.
Sixteen, seventeen years old and pregnant? For most kids, their life is over. Too bad it could have been avoided if you people weren’t so afraid of sex.
What every 5 year needs to know – how to prevent sexually transmitted diseases. That so if he/she is raped she can tell his/her attacker how to protect her against VD.
Yep an very important part of public school cirriculum.
Linda I agree with every word of your last post and on that note I am going to bed.
JMWalker
“Put whatever spin you want on it, but after reading Franklin and Kandisue’s crap, I respond in kind.”
Kandisue’s crap?
I take offense.
Point out an error – sissy.
Please be specific.
Now I was kidding when I alluded that BJ was a homosexual for some reason I kinda doubt he is. -
but you on the other hand -
and if you kept it in the closet I could care less
you need to go to church
go set in the back
who knows what might happen
Well Kandisue.
Just as I was once a Republican, I was also once “pro life”.
I have asked you before about how pro life you are.
We know that MOST women choose to end a pregnancy for economic reasons.
New poster that you are, will I see you in future supporting universal health care, government paid child care and other TRULY pro life causes?
Or, are you part of the reason I left the Republican party and the pro life movement?
Namely that they are populated with self important, sanctimonious blowhards.
BJ even the National Enquirer gave up on that one. But knock yourself out you ole investigative reporter you.
When are you leaving for Alaska. Something this important needs you on the ground.
Never did tell me how you would feel if you son was tased. How about it?
CapnAmerica
For thousands of years, Kandi, women (and men) have tried to figure out how to terminate unwanted pregnancies.
There’s a whole pharmacopia of “abortifacients” that were used to induce miscarriage, Syrian rue and pennyroyal are two that come to mind.
Passing a law making it illegal again won’t do a thing, except to drive it underground again.
______________________________________________
You are right
but even underground when the dust settles 95% of babies that are killed today will be alive once it is illegal.
Never did tell me how you would feel if you son was tased. How about it?
In other words, you support illegal and immoral actions by a state governor to screw with someone like that. End justifies the means.
Got it.
BJ
give it up.
You were NEVER a Republican.
You claim that you voted for Reagan, against Mondale.
Then, you voted for Dukakis.
Then, you were “prolife” and protested against abortion, in the “Summer of Mercy”
Then, you went “dem” again?
Right Left Right Left Right
the strange march of BJ!
You are right
but even underground when the dust settles 95% of babies that are killed today will be alive once it is illegal.
Assumiong that figure you pulled out of your ass is true, how many women will die?
You were NEVER a Republican.
Then why would he bother to say such a thing for 3 years straight, starting in the depths of 2005 liberal-hatin’? And long before you showed up?
P.S. In fact, whatever else you might say about Jay, he’s been remarkably consistent in this long, strange trip.
Unlike Karl Rove and numerous other Republican pundits.
Okie?
You got the trooper matter wrong from go and got your butt handed to you for it.
I’m surprised you want to bring it up.
Franklinpaulie? It doesn’t matter to me if you believe me or not. You are a many times busted liar among other things.
My posts here are honest.
And that is why I understand Kandisue.
Kandisue is an honestly hurting person who wants others to hurt for no more than her? personal satisfaction.
okobserver posted September 12, 2008 at 9:44 pm
“What every 5 year needs to know – how to prevent sexually transmitted diseases. That so if he/she is raped she can tell his/her attacker how to protect her against VD.
Yep an very important part of public school cirriculum.”
——–
okobserver,
So you are personally recommending that the Illinois public school system consider STD’s and rape “age appropriate” for 5-year olds?
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=99&GAID=3&LegID=734&SpecSess=&Session=
12 (2) All (1) course material and instruction shall
13 be age and developmentally appropriate.
14 appropriate to the various grade levels; …
16 through 12, then such courses also shall include age
17 appropriate instruction
7 (2) All course material and instruction in classes
8 that teach sex education and discuss sexual activity or
9 behavior shall be age and developmentally appropriate.
31 prevention and control of disease, including age appropriate
32 instruction in grades K 6 through 12 on the prevention of
14 (2) All course material and instruction in classes
15 that teach sex education and discuss sexual activity or
16 behavior shall be age and developmentally appropriate.”
Thanks Rage.
SOME of my conservative beginnings linger still.
I don’t believe that bitter people like Kandisue should be allowed to use the force of government to legislate over the basic rights of a woman.
I DON’T believe that people like Kandisue should be allowed to use the force of government to legislate against lifestyles that she? finds …icky or sinful.
Kandisue is an honestly hurting person who wants others to hurt for no more than her? personal satisfaction.
Possibly so, Jay. But until we get anything more from her than virtual protest signs, it’s hard to tell.
Well I am trying Rage.
Kandisue?
“but even underground when the dust settles 95% of babies that are killed today will be alive once it is illegal.”
Thank you for that. I have been asking and asking. I know now, though indirectly, that you want the right of a woman to choose completely done away with.
This makes you a somewhat more interesting version of a poster who goes by “parkay”. But at least you try and engage in discussion.
You are very much in favor of these not chosen getting born.
I ask you again. Where is your advocacy to favor that? Beyond using the force of law I mean?
95% of the time anyone says anything involves “95%” of anything, that number is made up.
Nathaniel posted September 12, 2008 at 7:53 pm
“Why don’t you go listen to some music and relax.”
——
Nathaniel, a U.S. Marine, and a true Christian, stole lots of music, and video.
Nathaniel posted September 11, 2008 at 3:39 pm
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/09/open-thread-911-2/#comment-422805
“I know it is “stealing” but I have about 100 GB of Music that I have from Iraq with another 500GB of movies and TV shows.”
————
Nathaniel, how much would that music and video cost you, if you had actually bought the CDs and DVD’s?
I am very disappointed with ABC and Charlie Gibson.
I was given to understand that Nightline would deal with Palin answering as to banning books. This did not happen.
Indeed, it was a padded rehash of what was aired earlier.
All in all? A non exploration of a woman who would stand a failing heart beat away from the Presidency.
I understand Sarah Palin’s next interview is with con flack Sean Hannity.
Just as I said it would be.
“I know it is “stealing” but I have about 100 GB of Music that I have from Iraq with another 500GB of movies and TV shows.”
600 GB? Wow. I missed that!
Are you showing up for their shows? Advocating their music? Teling your family, your neighbors, your friends, about them? Taking an active interest in advancing the careers of these artists?
Ya see, I’m pretty ambivalent about the whole “sharing” thing. It’s as old as recorded music, but modern economics (people are broke) have found common ground with conservative thinking (people are cheap, and greedy). Obscure artists who aren’t promoted by the increasingly monolithic corporate “music” machine actually welcome the free exposure via venues like P2P and last.fm.
So, tell me, Nathan: how many struggling artists have you talked up lately? My “stolen” collection–at broadband speeds–is less than a hundredth of yours. . .
BlueJay,
You should NOT expect our dysfunctional, corporate-owned, profit-focused MSM to provide facts to U.S. voters.
For example, Sarah Palin just flat-out LIED, on a national network, about the amount of land that would be opened in the Arctic Refuge.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/print?id=5781460
PALIN: … ANWR, of course, is a 2,000-acre swath of land in the middle of about a 20 million-acre swath of land. Two-thousand acres that we’re asking the feds to unlock so that there can be exploration and development.
—————-
When actually, the U.S. Congress would open:
1,549,000 – 45,000 = 1,504,000 acres to “exploration”.
And the 2,000-acre “development” limit(sic) would allow this,
http://www.inforain.org/Northslope/anwr_3.html
Charlie Gibson’s response to Palin’s very false claim was. . . silence!
Trooper admits he Tasered Palin nephewFrom correspondents in Anchorage
September 11, 2008 12:01am
Article from: Font size: + -
Send this article: Print Email
Mike Wooten used a Taser on Sarak Palin’s nephew
But claims he was no danger to her family
Troopergate not the only cloud on Palin’s horizon
ALASKAN State Trooper Mike Wooten admitted yesterday he had used a Taser stun gun on Sarah Palin’s nephew, his stepson, but claimed he was no danger to her family.
Mr Wooten – who is Mrs Palin’s former brother-in-law – is at the heart of a legislative investigation into whether the Republican vice-presidential nominee abused her power as Alaska Governor.
————–
BJ blowhard which hat did you hand to me. I ask again would it be ok if someone tased your son? A few weeks ago you were blowing and going because the police chief said that if an officer told you to get down and you didn’t you should expect to get tased. Huffing and puffing about what you would do if it was your son. Well this big bad policeman tased a 10 year old. You can have your own opinions. You don’t get your version of the truth.
Rage,
Nathaniel may not be “advocating” the “struggling artists”. . . ?
Nathaniel posted September 11, 2008 at 3:39 pm
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/09/open-thread-911-2/#comment-422805
“I actually got out my ipod and was listening to some of my favorites on the way to feed the animals for my parents.
I see that someone brought up Jimi Hendrix. I just listened to “All Along The Watchtower.”
…
I know it is “stealing” but I have about 100 GB of Music that I have from Iraq with another 500GB of movies and TV shows.”
———–
It seems you have trouble with reading comprehension okie.
Upthread, it is proved that the boy tasered ASKED to be.
Apparently, cons find this sort of thing some sort of weird sport.
I’m gonna watch the hurricane and hope it delivers us from the reporting of Geraldo Rivera.
What numbskull would tase a 10 year old because he ‘asked’ to be tased. Is this your brother?
If your fairy tale is true or not he should be fired for stupidity. What is your problem. Does only the left side of your brain work?
blowhard you and mom should use something besides DEmounderground as your source. You truly are an idiot.
It was proved uplink! Yep I also saw proof up there that the world is square. Did you see that one?
I’m thinking kandisue is parkay reincarnated.
“What numbskull would tase a 10 year old because he ‘asked’ to be tased. Is this your brother?”
Uh, no.
It is the man Sarah Palin’s sister married.
Accounts of the incident are being explored. APPARENTLY the mother of the child tased had no problem with it until after the fact.
When involved in a bitter divorce and custody fight?
And WITH the weight of Big sister Sarah.
The Palin family appears to be a font of dysfunction.
okobserver,
So. . . have you figured out the HUGE difference between Sarah Palin’s LIE about the “2,000-acre swath(sic) of land”, and 1,504,000 acres that could be opened to oil “exploration”?
No . . .? Why not. . . okobserver?
Maybe okobserver should post some ad hominems at me again, since she seems to very, very clueless about the Arctic Refuge issue?
I leave you to call me names through the night okobserver alias ksgrm.
Nathaniel may not be “advocating” the “struggling artists”. . . ?
Cosmos,
Sorry to interrupt your political argument. I don’t for a minute believe that Nathan gives a tinker’s damn about the entertainers who make his life more bearable.
I might dare to claim to be, briefly, one of those:
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/06/would_you_pay_3/#comment-55871
Thank you, again, my dear friend, KFG,and I apologize to everyone else for the shameless self-promotion. And, thank you, Nathan, for watching this one-time band, performing a sarcastic anti-war John Prine song, and smiling anyway.
My points are pretty simple:
1. File-copying = theft is, by itself, an indefensible concept.
2, What matters, ultimately, is compensation.
cosmos, I’m really not sure this is the proper place to discuss this issue. If you are completely unaware of the corporate stranglehold over music distribution via conventional means, and the utter dreck that dominates the public airwaves, TV, etc., well, we all miss some things. It’s pretty much impossible for one person to see the whole mosaic.
I’d like to think you know better, and are just disconcerted because I seem to be defending Nathan.
Would you like to hear more?
The full palin interview:
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=5793131
Pretty much a soft soap throughout, gibson did raise a few issues, but it seemed it was more to let her put her spin on it than anything else. Also, impression I got was she’s something of a flirt. Couple scenes looks like a couple of teenagers together. Was gibson moonstruck?
He also almost always relented when he couldn’t get a direct answer and moved on to the next question. I hope he was marking ‘unresponsive’.
Did the Moose-Dresser sell out the Illegal Abortion advocates?
She seemed to blithely dismiss her “principled” personal beliefs in favor of the (sorta) more liberal approach to stem-cell research, etc., of John S (for Senile) McCain the Third (for Shrub’s 3rd term.
Don’t you realize that the wefu thinks grade K6 means Kindergarten through sixth grade? They’ll believe anything that supports thier position. Here you go guys, for claification. It’s Kindergarten, K1, K2, K3, K4, K5, K6, junior high, high school, college. See. Now is everything clear?
beber- the pdisob
damn it’s PAINFUL to read some of your ignorant posts.
BTW- If palin gets a c, what grade are they giving biden?
(please include comments like, the One isn’t qualified, McCain is a great man and would be a great president, Hillary would be a better pick than him???
Huh libbys?
“That so if he/she is raped she can tell his/her attacker how to protect her against VD.”
Uhh… excuse me mr rapist sir, could you stop beating me long enough to put on a rubber please? I’m pretty sure I’ll be able to find all of my teeth when you’re done…….but I don’t want VD….
Kandipoo,
It might interest you to know about the abortion clinic achaeologists are excavating, dating from around the time of Christ, in Jerusalem. Funny He never mentioned it!
As much as you might want to believe it, abortion is nothing new. It has been available for all of recorded history, and overturning Roe will have no perceptable effect on the rate (but banning birth control certainly will). The only difference will be that once again women will die in the process. But I suppose that doesn’t matter to you.
Phant,
“I’m thinking kandisue is parkay reincarnated.”
As someone who has has some face to face conversations with Troyboy/parkay, I really doubt he’d assume a female persona even for propaganda purposes. It would seriously conflict his macho self-image and his egotistical version of christianity. More likely it’s one of his female submissives.
Kandipoo,
“but even underground when the dust settles 95% of babies that are killed today will be alive once it is illegal.”
Do you really believe that?
From the figures I’ve managed to glean, the abortion rate in Wichita (and I assume most everyplace else in the country) was 4-5 times higher in actual numbers between 1950 and the mid 1960’s (when it was strictly illegal) than it currently is under Roe. Of course the advent of reasonably sure and simple birth control was already making a considerable dent in the industry in the years before Roe v. Wade, but then you people want that banned too, so the rate will soar again. You’re a real heartless bitch, Kandipoo! You’ll no doubt enjoy the blood of your fellow women all over your hands, as you condemn them as harlots and whores to ease what little is left of your conscience.