Moderators: Bill_Abner, ScoopBrady
Folks, that's bad.Well, let's use the standard test for this:RobVarak wrote:So now people are accusing Palin of claiming that the war in Iraq is a crusade because of these remarks made at her church:
Somebody sent this to me during the convention and it seemed clear to me that she was saying pray that our national leaders are sending them on a task worthy of their sacrifice, not that God is commanding our national leaders to wage war on the infidels"Pray for our military. He is going to be deployed in September to Iraq. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God, that is what we have to make sure that we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."
Context, b-diddy...context! In context, there's nothing as ridiculous as is being claimed...kinda like a certain farm animal wearing a certain female makeup...Palin actually wrote:Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God, that is what we have to make sure that we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."
s***-get ready for a new talking point amongst the damned talking heads now...can we get this one sent to PMSNBC? Like, quick? I wanna hear Olberm...er, I mean Matthe...well, whomever is the anchor this week-I want to hear them use this alot!B-Diddy wrote:...Paliban...
Jared wrote:no link (why no cut and paste on the iPhone)
But palin was asked what her position on the bush doctrine was, and she didn't even know what it was. Eeeek.
Jared wrote:no link (why no cut and paste on the iPhone)
But palin was asked what her position on the bush doctrine was, and she didn't even know what it was. Eeeek.
JRod wrote:This is my only response to you, Teal.
Putting a quote like that doesn't continue in the spirit of DSP. Someone else had a Madden quote of mine and while it was at my height of well-proofread posts, it was in jest.
I'm not going to b*tch to Jared or ask Scoop to take it down. I ask you respectfully to do it. If you can't you have shown your real colors.
First of all, I don't believe that there is a coherent Bush doctrine and wouldn't excoriate her or anyone else for not knowing it. It's a snipe hunt.Jared wrote:no link (why no cut and paste on the iPhone)
But palin was asked what her position on the bush doctrine was, and she didn't even know what it was. Eeeek.
That's not a doctrine, that's a laundry list. I am a regular reader of Foreign Policy and Foreign Affairs, and it's a nudge-and-wink joke anytime anybody refers to a "Bush" doctrine. The administration has used those journals and other publications to try clarify things, but that's clearly a lost cause. It's not the term to use if you want to discuss policy on a serious level.The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, enunciated in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan.[1] Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq), a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism, and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.[2][3][4] Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002.[5]
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view?
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, annunciated 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 country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with us?
PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligent and legitimate evidence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country.
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: 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 and military strike a last option.
GIBSON: But governor, I am asking you, do 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.
Teal wrote:JRod wrote:This is my only response to you, Teal.
Putting a quote like that doesn't continue in the spirit of DSP. Someone else had a Madden quote of mine and while it was at my height of well-proofread posts, it was in jest.
I'm not going to b*tch to Jared or ask Scoop to take it down. I ask you respectfully to do it. If you can't you have shown your real colors.
I thought you already KNEW my true colors, Rod. You've been more than willing to tell me what they are before. But now you 'ask respectfully'...why didn't you think of that before?
BTW, how angry do you think I ever really get over this stuff? I'd really love to know what you think, so I can adjust my position accordingly. Seriously, you need to ask some people who actually know me in here how much of the character assessment you seem to like to do of me is accurate in the least. That is, if you're not afraid of being wrong.
How's about you stop armchair quarterbacking me and my motives, intentions, and what not, so this stuff doesn't have to continue?
Your olfactory nerves seem to be curiously malfunctioning when it comes to sniffing your own s***, but you have the talent of a bloodhound when it comes to me, somehow. I won't now, nor ever, let things like that go. Bear it in mind. Now I'll take it down.
Yeah, right. I bet that 99% of viewers thought, "What's the Bush Doctrine?" when they heard the question being asked. If she'd been honest, the real answer would be, "we'll infringe on other countries' sovereignty if necessary, but we'll try not to piss them off and stir up controversy unnecessarily by announcing that in network interviews." But of course, saying that would be self-defeating. Instead, she was hoping that the interviewer would get the point, which was clearly over his head.JRod wrote:If you watched the interview, here's how it will play.
Gibson was going after Palin.
Or.
Palin didn't know what she was talking about.
I think its pretty clear that Bush Doctrine meant it was okay for America to launch preemptive attacks on countries that post an immediate threat. It was the reason why we went into war with Iraq or atleast the one they sold us on.
She missed it. She also didn't knock the interview out of the park. It might not matter though because Gibson came off really bad.
That's a very general answer. It's essentially a summary of the Iraq war. Based upon that answer it seems that she doesn't get the meaning that Gibson implied. She may have understood but it really doesn't seem like it. Like you said Rob, the Bush doctrine can be interpreted in more than one way, so after Gibson said, "well, what do you interpret it to be?" she could have gone into her answer, but instead she asked "his world view?" as if she didn't know what he was referring to at all.GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view?
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, annunciated 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.
Brando70 wrote:
Well, let's use the standard test for this:
Palin:
"Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God."
The Blues Brothers:
"We're on a mission from God."
Now, I'm pretty sure Jake and Elwood were not saying that they were on a task worthy of their sacrifice, but that God told them to go on their mission.
Also, she may have been thinkin' Lincoln, but Lincoln's didn't have the implication of being under orders from God. Palin's could definitely be interpreted that way. I think she didn't mean it, but she should be careful not to sound like the Paliban.
The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe - the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.
FDR's public prayer after D-Day.Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.
Jesse JacksonAfter two weeks in which he has been beset by accusations of sexual scandal, President Clinton went before a religious audience today to ask for prayers in helping ''take our country to higher ground,'' and, in an apparent reference to tensions between the United States and Iraq, to quote some words from King Solomon, a biblical ruler famed for his wisdom.
Mr. Clinton, who has long demonstrated an ease with religious language and a comfort in spiritual settings, struck a reflective tone at the annual National Prayer Breakfast at the Washington Hilton and Towers, expressing gratitude for the involvement of religious and political groups in social tasks like helping former welfare recipients find work.
He did not mention accusations that he had an affair with a White House intern, Monica S. Lewinsky, which he has publicly denied. But he offered a general thanks ''for the prayers, the letters and the scriptural instruction that I have gotten from so many of you and many others around the country in recent weeks, and indeed in the last five years.''
Although Mr. Clinton did not refer to Iraq by name, he spoke briefly of a ''difficult decision'' facing his Administration ''because of the concern all Americans have that we not expose our children, if we can help it, to the dangers of chemical and biological warfare.'' The Administration has been weighing a bombing strike over Iraq's refusal to permit weapons inspections by the United Nations.
Mr. Clinton then asked his audience to consider I Kings 3:7-9, an appeal to God by King Solomon that Mr. Clinton quoted as follows: ''I am only a little child, and I do not know how to carry out my duties. Your servant is here among people you have chosen -- a great people -- too numerous to count or number. So give your servant a discerning heart to govern your people and to distinguish between right and wrong, for who is able to govern this great people of yours.''
Last but not least Obama.In a sermon delivered by Rev. Jesse Jackson on Nov. 22, 1992, he hailed Clinton's election as "the dawn of a new day." "God has raised up a leader from amongst the common people," Jackson said of Clinton. "It's appropriate to look for a new leader, a new savior, but with that must go new behavior," Jackson said. God gave Moses a "10-point urban policy plan," Jackson said referring to the Ten Commandments; such ethical principles should guide ordinary Americans as they seek to fulfill their part of the New Covenant.
Dems talk to God too."Lord - Protect my family and me," reads the note published in the Maariv daily. "Forgive me my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair. Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will."
John,you go after everyone and everything in a pretty condescending way. I'll be honest. You come offf as an asshole in 90 percent of your posts. You use words like "Ignorant" and "Idioctic" when you respond to people. How do you expect them to respond to that? You went directly after Teal and Myself in this thread. You called our posts "Blogs".That's the pot calling the kettle black. Look,Teal did what you asked and your still trying to provoke him. Why? Practice what your trying to preach. Otherwise,if your going to dish it out be ready to take whatever comes back. It is what it is.JRod wrote:
I don't know your agenda, nor do I think you have one. If someone thinks I'm wrong than poke holes in my logic, or with the use of facts. Rob and Jared in this forum, if they disagree with me, will post enough links and evidence to bury someone.
You last statement is quite telling. On one hand you say you didn't get angry about it, then make statement that you won't let things go. I do think crosses a line here at DSP. It's not a threat but it's over the line in this little virtual community.
I did not read that word anywhere else before posting it, but sadly, a little Googling showed it's been used elsewhere. Too bad, I was hoping to start a new trend and get my 5 minute slanted excerpt on The Situation Room, maybe with the hot English lass that runs her fingers all over the touch screen interviewing me.Teal wrote:s***-get ready for a new talking point amongst the damned talking heads now...can we get this one sent to PMSNBC? Like, quick? I wanna hear Olberm...er, I mean Matthe...well, whomever is the anchor this week-I want to hear them use this alot!B-Diddy wrote:...Paliban...
Paliban! I love it! It goes great with Pontius Pilate-hey! Paliban Pilate! I like it!
That's exactly how I took it as well. She tried to get him to be more specific. My wife got pissed when Palin told Charlie that she was "ready to lead" and Gibson came back with ”doesn’t that take hubris?” What did he expect her to say? I am the wrong person for the job? aka Joe Biden. No. She feels confident she's ready to lead from day one. My wife bet Gibson wouldn't find Obama saying he is “ready to lead” to hubristic. She said Gibson came across as a man giving a woman crap for declaring that she was capable. My wife is pretty laid back,so if this pissed her off,I am suer it pissed off other women as well.TheHiddenTrack wrote:I don't think it was necessary for Gibson to phrase the question the way he did but I don't think it should be considered going after Palin considering I (and I don't consider myself a foreign policy expert) knew what he meant when he said it. He probably should have just said what do you think about preemptive strikes but he chose to use another phrase instead.
"Secondly, she understood the question perfectly well."That's a very general answer. It's essentially a summary of the Iraq war. Based upon that answer it seems that she doesn't get the meaning that Gibson implied. She may have understood but it really doesn't seem like it. Like you said Rob, the Bush doctrine can be interpreted in more than one way, so after Gibson said, "well, what do you interpret it to be?" she could have gone into her answer, but instead she asked "his world view?" as if she didn't know what he was referring to at all.GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view?
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, annunciated 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.
Brando70 wrote:
I did not read that word anywhere else before posting it, but sadly, a little Googling showed it's been used elsewhere. Too bad, I was hoping to start a new trend and get my 5 minute slanted excerpt on The Situation Room, maybe with the hot English lass that runs her fingers all over the touch screen interviewing me.
Brando70 wrote:Anyhoo, I have no problem with pols discussing God, being religious, and what not. No one annoys me more than the atheist that goes out of his or her way to see the evils of religion everywhere. I am having my daughter baptized next month and even plan to start carting my blasphemous ass back to church on a regular basis.
Congrats!! That's a very cool moment. Post pics to piss off the atheist.I know man. I was just f***in with you. Unless you want to go into a full tilt throwdown like Jrod and Teal. I'll rep the "Nortwest side" and you got the "Northeast" locked down. Bring it B-diddy!!Brando70 wrote:The only point I was bringing up is, Palin's original phrasing made it sound a bit Crusade-like, as if God was ordering us to do this. I believe she probably didn't mean it that way, and was probably just in front of the faithful and got a little carried away or misspoke. However, the way she phrased was really quite different than the quote from Lincoln that she referenced, and Rob's explanation as such invoked the spirit of the Chewbacca defense. Which is why I invoked the theological expertise of The Blues Brothers.
Please let's not start another throwdown.JackDog wrote:I know man. I was just f***in with you. Unless you want to go into a full tilt throwdown like Jrod and Teal. I'll rep the "Nortwest side" and you got the "Northeast" locked down. Bring it B-diddy!!
The only thing I didn't like about Gibson was the way he looked. He seemed pissed and annoyed. He sighed at some of her answers. Other than that he did his job I guess. My wife on the other hand wants to kick Gibsons ass.Naples39 wrote:After reading the transcript, am I the only one who thought Gibson gave a perfectly appropriate interview, and that Palin gave perfectly appropriate answers? I just don't get it. Gibson should push, and Palin made her stance perfectly clear even if he she didn't "yes (period)." All politicians are going to carefully frame their answer to a question filled with so many landmines.
Oh, and if someone asked me about the "Bush doctrine", I would said "what?" too. It's a real reach though IMO to say she didn't understand the explanation because her first answer was too general. Again, that's just politics.
