Via Talkingpointsmemo. Take a listen to how she tries to answer a simple question about the "Bush Doctrine." It's pay-ay-ainfully obvious she has no idea what it is.
Didn't we send tens of thousands of American troops into harms way based on that doctrine? Didn't thousands DIE for that doctrine? Weren't tens of thousands more injured and maimed for that doctrine?
Why doesn't Sarah Palin know what it is?
The transcript (from MSNBC):
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
PALIN: 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. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
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.
GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?
PALIN: Now, as for our right to invade, we're going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be, a military strike, a last option.
GIBSON: But, Governor, I'm asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.
PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.
GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?
PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.
Why is it that Charlie Gibson has to educate the REPUBLICAN candidate for the Vice President of the United States on the definition of THE FRICKIN BUSH DOCTRINE?
Deplorable.
What sort of stupid question was that. Why didn't he ask her some important questions such as; what are the ingredients in moose stew? what type of defense did you employ when you played basketall man to man or zone? Did you have Barracuda imprinted on the back of your uniform? Now these are pertinent questions for a Republican VP nominee.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI like to say that using the word pedantic also defines you as ... pedantic.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, 90% (well, maybe 70%) of ABC News' audience probably doesn't remember what the Bush doctrine is either. Only arugula eating, pointy headed professor types picked up on the gaffe.
Still, William Kristol in a NYTimes column was all excited that Sarah Palin is a "Wasilla Wal-mart mom". He thought ordinary voters could relate to one of their own, in fact, he thinks voters will say "it's about time".
Now, let's forget about the daily scandals coming out about her, or how she turns out to be a naked ambitious politician, or how she guts the government structure for protecting the environment in Alaska by installing lobbyists to guard the chicken coops (so to speak).
The fact is that ordinary people don't care about foreign policy until they think a plane is going to fly into a downtown office building. And Sarah Palin is that kind of ordinary. She doesn't care enough to learn about foreign policy. As Vice President she will probably do little more than give vicious speeches about welfare queens. And if John McCain does become disabled or dies, Sarah Palin will take over and possibly sweep us into war with Iran and maybe Russia, as she blunders around in a world she doesn't actually care about. Because it is about time a Walmart mom took over.
It reminded me of job interviews I have given where you can tell the candidate read something about the topic, but has no clue how to apply it. She failed every hypothetical situation he posed.
ReplyDeleteShe isn't even romotely qualified for the job.
Compare what you saw in these interviews with interviews you saw with just about any of the Presidential candidates in both parties over the last couple years. Even the fringe candidates knew more than her.
John K: And has clearly been shown, the Bush doctrine works far better than the Clinton doctrine. The Clinton doctrine is to bomb aspirin factories in the middle of the night when no one is around and hope for the best. Op Desert Fox anyone. The Bush doctrine has worked for 7 years. Thank God we have a person in the White House and a VP candidate who understands this.
ReplyDeleteJohn K: The Hussein Obama doctrine is so what if a few American civilians get killed. That is the price we pay to live in the world. And besides, we will sue them.
ReplyDeleteJohn K: And finally, those Marines kicked butt this week in Pakistan. Crossed that border and killed some al queda and caused the muslim extremists to pull back and pause. We win!
ReplyDeleteut... did you notice the growing red blotch on the side of her neck?? i mean really, let's talk about the imporatant stuff! with each difficult question, and i think it started somewhere around the "travel outside of the U.S." question, he blotch grew.
ReplyDeletecharlie was not very nice to her! how dare he as her real questions? he'll now be accused of playing the "gotcha" game with sarah plain and tall.
bad charlie. no more interviews for you.
Why couldn't she just say, "I don't know?" or "I am not completely familiar with this?"
ReplyDeleteIt reflects poorly on our country's politics in general and on her knowledge and character that she felt she had to try to fake it.
John K: Who on the right said the interview was not fair? Name please. Or, as usual, is the left wing kooks sitting in their hovels and devining the thoughts of others? The short version, the Bush doctrine has kept you safe for 7 years. More than the Kerry doctrine ever would have.
ReplyDeleteI'm cautiously optimistic about this Charlie Gibson interview so far, but if he fails to ask her about her support for the Bridge to Nowhere and trying to ban Harry Potter, it's useless.
ReplyDeleteJohn K: Sing it with me lefties. "I was cool before Govt was cool..." LOL LOL LOL Make govt cool again. With cool clothes and cool friends to hang out with and cool things to do. LMAO
ReplyDeleteShe didn't try to get Harry Potter banned. News outlets are saying the book most likely was "Pastor I Am Gay" by Rev. Howard Bess, who lives in nearby Palmer, AK.
ReplyDeleteBram... Please pay attention to this. Harry Potter books hadn't even been published at the time of the supposed "banning list". In fact, the list was bogus. The librarian, IIRC, apparently has de-bunked the claim.
ReplyDeleteThanks for playing.
I had heard the "Pastor am I Gay" title as well. FWIW
ReplyDelete