Sarah Palin: 20/20 Interview

[suncloud]

how was afghanistan unavoidable?

 

[RobInKuwait]

time will tell if he ever sees combat. the ironic thing is that if mccain wins, then palin's son will be forced stateside according to policy.

Really? Didn't know that. I'm sure McCain could change the policy....being the president and all

 

[RobInKuwait]

how was afghanistan unavoidable?

After the 9/11 attacks? Do you remember 2001? People were out for revenge and blood. The Taliban was housing Al Queda training areas. Can you imagine a president not taking action?

 

[suncloud]

WWI and WWII ended up being better from us being in there and helping end the war. i hardly think those count. and besides, we didn't START those. vietnam i'll give you.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

republicans and their legacies.

ford putting hussein in power- Not sure who thinks thats his legacy

reagan and the cold war- Reagan's legacy was ENDING the cold war.

george sr and iraq- This war was unavoidable for anyone.

current "curious george" and iraq- I'll give you Iraq was avoidable, but Afghanistan certainly was not.

Funny how you forget:

Nixon- Got us out of Vietnam. I should add that Democrats got us there.

WW1 and WW2 were both Dems.

Yes, but Republicans has that awful warmonger Lincoln.

:lol:


I don't think I've ever seen history butchered more than in the last 10 minutes

My degree just burst into flames... :lol:

 

[RobInKuwait]

WWI and WWII ended up being better from us being in there and helping end the war. i hardly think those count. and besides, we didn't START those. vietnam i'll give you.

Bush I didn't start Kuwait, and you could certainly argue that Bush II didn't start Afghanistan.

You forgot to mention Clinton in Somalia, Bosnia, and Haiti.

 

[suncloud]

After the 9/11 attacks? Do you remember 2001? People were out for revenge and blood. The Taliban was housing Al Queda training areas. Can you imagine a president not taking action?

yes, i remember it - one of my best friends died in the towers working as an investment banker, so i'll never forget that day. there's no reason to flush Al Queda out with people with the missile systems that we have.

 

[suncloud]

bosnia i had the "luxury" of being in. that was a sad affair. genocidal wars are no fun.

 

[suncloud]

Yes, but Republicans has that awful warmonger Lincoln.

:lol:


I don't think I've ever seen history butchered more than in the last 10 minutes

My degree just burst into flames... :lol:

eek!!! true you have a degree in history?

 

[RobInKuwait]

yes, i remember it - one of my best friends died in the towers working as an investment banker, so i'll never forget that day. there's no reason to flush Al Queda out with the missile systems that we have.

They were all in caves. You could carpet bomb them for months and it wouldn't kill them all.

 

[RobInKuwait]

eek!!! true you have a degree in history?

I do! :afro:

 

[suncloud]

so here's the question that i vaguely remember from my college days. the republican and democrat parties stood for different things, but they "flip flopped" on their principles quite a few times in history, is this correct, or was my teacher "out to lunch?"

 

[suncloud]

as for the carpet bombs - do them every couple days to make sure they don't come out of the caves, and let them starve to death. might take us a year, but its an answer i'm happy with.

man, mullet won't be happy to see where his thread is heading...

hope i don't get negged. have mercy on me mr mullet.

 

[RobInKuwait]

so here's the question that i vaguely remember from my college days. the republican and democrat parties stood for different things, but they "flip flopped" on their principles quite a few times in history, is this correct, or was my teacher "out to lunch?"

On a basic level, yes. The issues today are not the same as the issues long ago. The parties were also much more regional in the past.

 

[suncloud]

On a basic level, yes. The issues today are not the same as the issues long ago. The parties were also much more regional in the past.

true enough. the sad thing i realize, the older i get, is that Nader and his "crazy" ideas with energy slowly begin to make sense. man, i wish huckabee was still in this race.

 

[RobInKuwait]

as for the carpet bombs - do them every couple days to make sure they don't come out of the caves, and let them starve to death. might take us a year, but its an answer i'm happy with.

Wow, you sound like Clinton. The only problem is that strategy doesn't work. Its costly and ineffective. Troops on the ground is the only way to effectively invade a country.

Also, there would be a lot of collateral damage, aka civilian deaths, which would probably cause the plan to backfire and be a recruiting tool for Al Queda.

 

[RobInKuwait]

true enough. the sad thing i realize, the older i get, is that Nader and his "crazy" ideas with energy slowly begin to make sense. man, i wish huckabee was still in this race.

I like Ron Paul.

 

[suncloud]

Wow, you sound like Clinton. The only problem is that strategy doesn't work. Its costly and ineffective. Troops on the ground is the only way to effectively invade a country.

Also, there would be a lot of collateral damage, aka civilian deaths, which would probably cause the plan to backfire and be a recruiting tool for Al Queda.

whats up with those crazy terrorists anyways? a bunch of virgins? honestly, how about two talented whores?

 

[Dwight Schrute]

so here's the question that i vaguely remember from my college days. the republican and democrat parties stood for different things, but they "flip flopped" on their principles quite a few times in history, is this correct, or was my teacher "out to lunch?"

Its always evolved. A flip flop means they are now or were opposites which isn't accurate. They simply have evolved and adjusted.

Saying Republicans are warmongers when the single biggest destructive force in any war was authorized by a Democrat (Truman dropping 2 atomic bombs) is a bit inaccurate.

You also forgot Truman with the Korean Conflict but that falls into the same line as Bush and the first Gulf War...both were approved and sanctioned by the UN although Truman did launch attacks before Resolution 83 even went into effect...you know..he followed the "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emptive strikes... :lol:

 

[RobInKuwait]

how about two talented whores?

I don't think Obama/Biden is the answer. :toofunny:

 

[suncloud]

Saying Republicans are warmongers when the single biggest destructive force in any war was authorized by a Democrat (Truman dropping 2 atomic bombs) is a bit inaccurate.

yeah, that was really bad - words can't quite describe how terrible that was. i guess what i'm really wondering is why the republicans would even contemplate putting us in another war - our forces would be stretched way too thin. i also wonder why we have so many gun deaths compared to canada or japan. i think, and again, personal opinion here, is that being so aggressive on an international level sets the stage for unsafe streets at home.

what i guess i should be wondering, is if domestic fatalities ever decreased when a democrat or republican is in office, and what caused such a decrease. was it a lack of war with us as the aggressors, or something else.

what are your thoughts on this rob or peterman?

 

[Dwight Schrute]

yeah, that was really bad - words can't quite describe how terrible that was. i guess what i'm really wondering is why the republicans would even contemplate putting us in another war - our forces would be stretched way too thin.

They're not. It was an answer to a hypothetical question based on what NATO represents. The Dems hold the same position.

 

[RobInKuwait]

yeah, that was really bad - words can't quite describe how terrible that was. i guess what i'm really wondering is why the republicans would even contemplate putting us in another war - our forces would be stretched way too thin. i also wonder why we have so many gun deaths compared to canada or japan. i think, and again, personal opinion here, is that being so aggressive on an international level sets the stage for unsafe streets at home.

what i guess i should be wondering, is if domestic fatalities ever decreased when a democrat or republican is in office, and what caused such a decrease. was it a lack of war with us as the aggressors, or something else.

what are your thoughts on this rob or peterman?

I don't think anyone realistically would put us in another war unless we were truly backed into a corner.

As for the gun death thing, that is a total stretch. I'd attribute it to it being warmer here before I would our foreign policy. At least there have been studies that have shown violent crime goes up when its warmer out.

 

[suncloud]

I don't think anyone realistically would put us in another war unless we were truly backed into a corner.

As for the gun death thing, that is a total stretch. I'd attribute it to it being warmer here before I would our foreign policy. At least there have been studies that have shown violent crime goes up when its warmer out.

anythings possible. i wish there was a more concrete answer than that.

 

[maxparin]

man i gotta watch this

 

[strategicmove]

I don't think Obama/Biden is the answer. :toofunny:

To what question?!

 

[Mulletsoldier]

as for the carpet bombs - do them every couple days to make sure they don't come out of the caves, and let them starve to death. might take us a year, but its an answer i'm happy with.

man, mullet won't be happy to see where his thread is heading...

hope i don't get negged. have mercy on me mr mullet.

You are learning about history, that is a good direction. I concern myself much more with people attempting to be accurate, than being Republican, Democratic or otherwise.

 

[manifesto]

How terrible is he, he DOES answer the questions that are asked of him in a distinct and forthright manner. I'm sorry that you have a problem with him thinking before he opens his mouth. You may not like what he says but he is fully in charge of what he wishes you to know not some puppet master behind the curtain that missed a couple of hand signals.

:bruce3:

OBAMA - " um, um......,um , change, hope, change, um, um, um, change, change,hope, and last but not least CHANGE!

 

[manifesto]

If Obama and Biden get elected say goodbye to all your little supplements.:thumbsup:

 

[suncloud]

If Obama and Biden get elected say goodbye to all your little supplements.:thumbsup:

why? clinton and bush both banned some of them. you could make the same argument for mccain/palin.

not that i have anything against prohormones, but i really wish anyone in the government would make steroids more available to the general public, provided that the individuals buying them would be required to see a doctor to get them, be the appropriate age, and also require them to follow up with bloodwork.

putting steroid possession "schedule III" in the same category of offense as LSD and GHB seems a bit overkill.

 

[RobInKuwait]

To what question?!

It was a joke. You must've missed the context:

how about two talented whores?

I don't think Obama/Biden is the answer.

 

[RobInKuwait]

why? clinton and bush both banned some of them. you could make the same argument for mccain/palin.

not that i have anything against prohormones, but i really wish anyone in the government would make steroids more available to the general public, provided that the individuals buying them would be required to see a doctor to get them, be the appropriate age, and also require them to follow up with bloodwork.

putting steroid possession "schedule III" in the same category of offense as LSD and GHB seems a bit overkill.

I agree. I don't think either party is on the side of supplements. Its such a win/win issue what politician wouldn't be anti-steroid? Who's going to defend a guy "cheating" in their beloved sports?

 

[manifesto]

why? clinton and bush both banned some of them. you could make the same argument for mccain/palin.

not that i have anything against prohormones, but i really wish anyone in the government would make steroids more available to the general public, provided that the individuals buying them would be required to see a doctor to get them, be the appropriate age, and also require them to follow up with bloodwork.

putting steroid possession "schedule III" in the same category of offense as LSD and GHB seems a bit overkill.

um...have you heard of the Biden Bill??

 

[neoborn]

You guys are missing the point or the silver lining, she's NOT Bush right? You can't go any further down the "man we gone and f*cked up again" spectrum than him.

 

[RobInKuwait]

um...have you heard of the Biden Bill??

It was a joint effort among the parties that got the bill. Honestly, I think if Biden didn't do it, another congressperson would have. Non-bodybuilders do not understand steroids and every person who doesn't bodybuild I've spoke with about them has had 100% negative ideas about them.

Steroids laws are like anti child molester laws and drunk driving laws. Easy targets that sound good when running for reelection.

 

[RobInKuwait]

You guys are missing the point or the silver lining, she's NOT Bush right? You can't go any further down the "man we gone and f*cked up again" spectrum than him.

Carter?

 

[AE14]

It was a joint effort among the parties that got the bill. Honestly, I think if Biden didn't do it, another congressperson would have. Non-bodybuilders do not understand steroids and every person who doesn't bodybuild I've spoke with about them has had 100% negative ideas about them.

Steroids laws are like anti child molester laws and drunk driving laws. Easy targets that sound good when running for reelection.

well said man, and 100% correct. It is not so much Biden as it is a sign of the times.

 

[AE14]

Carter?

I say Bush was worse, hell he had 8 years to Carter's 4. :aargh:

 

[RobInKuwait]

I say Bush was worse, hell he had 8 years to Carter's 4. :aargh:

I disagree. But I think Lyndon B. Johnson had both beat:

Started Medicaid, Medicare, and Welfare, drastically escalated US involvement in Vietnam...doesn't get much worse than that.

And for those that want to compare Iraq to Vietnam...we were losing 1000 Soldiers a month in Nam, we've lost a little over 4000 Soldiers total in Iraq. Vietnam was 10x the debacle that Iraq was.

 

[AE14]

I will go with LBJ as well, and a few others, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, and of course Rutherford B. Hayes

 

[manifesto]

It was a joint effort among the parties that got the bill. Honestly, I think if Biden didn't do it, another congressperson would have. Non-bodybuilders do not understand steroids and every person who doesn't bodybuild I've spoke with about them has had 100% negative ideas about them.

Steroids laws are like anti child molester laws and drunk driving laws. Easy targets that sound good when running for reelection.

I am not talking about the banning of "designer" steroids and what not. Biden will see to it that ALL supplements are gone... Trust me I have talked extensively with some owners of a few well-known supplement companies. If he gets elected all you will be stacking is flinstone chewables..

 

[manifesto]

I disagree. But I think Lyndon B. Johnson had both beat:

Started Medicaid, Medicare, and Welfare, drastically escalated US involvement in Vietnam...doesn't get much worse than that.

And for those that want to compare Iraq to Vietnam...we were losing 1000 Soldiers a month in Nam, we've lost a little over 4000 Soldiers total in Iraq. Vietnam was 10x the debacle that Iraq was.

I couldn't agree more...

Also, can somebody list another attack on the U.S since 9/11...?

I don't think so...

 

[Jayhawkk]

Yes, one that was stopped at Fort Dix before it hapened but it was going to take place.

 

[ari4216]

fort dix was a complicated issue for her

we need to govern the people better

 

[manifesto]

Yes, one that was stopped at Fort Dix before it hapened but it was going to take place.

You answered your own question.....It was STOPPED bud...as with a lot of other things that none of us probably know about

 

[aristo3369]

Won a war? Doh...

Are you serious!!! Let's not forget the facts, which is we shouldn't have invaded Iraq in the first place. Bush and the CIA lied about the intelligence. So let me get this straight.... we lost over 4,500 troops in a war that was built on a lie, but we won. That is the most ridiculous statement I hear people make anytime they make a statement about the war. .... and according to the White House Mission Accomplished 4 years ago. Cut the bull crap out about we us winning the war. We are not winning, we are limping out Iraq with our tails between our legs for making such a big mess. In case you didn't know------WE INVADED THE WRONG COUNTRY. Let's get real folks!!!!!

 

[RobInKuwait]

Are you serious!!! Let's not forget the facts, which is we shouldn't have invaded Iraq in the first place. Bush and the CIA lied about the intelligence. So let me get this straight.... we lost over 4,500 troops in a war that was built on a lie, but we won.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

We invaded them because they had WMDs. We found a shatload of them. It wasn't built on a lie, you never bothered to check whether they were lying and you just assumed.

That is the most ridiculous statement I hear people make anytime they make a statement about the war. .... and according to the White House Mission Accomplished 4 years ago. Cut the bull crap out about we us winning the war. We are not winning, we are limping out Iraq with our tails between our legs for making such a big mess. In case you didn't know------WE INVADED THE WRONG COUNTRY. Let's get real folks!!!!!

Have you heard anything about the war on your liberal news stations lately? Wonder why that is, they reported the hell out of it when the insurgency was going strong.

Have you spoke to anyone whose been over there in the past year? The Iraqi army is doing 80-90% of the fighting and the insurgency is virtually dead compared to a couple of years ago.

I know it disappoints your soft liberal ass, but we are winning the war in Iraq. These colors don't run beatch!

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Are you serious!!! Let's not forget the facts, which is we shouldn't have invaded Iraq in the first place. Bush and the CIA lied about the intelligence. So let me get this straight.... we lost over 4,500 troops in a war that was built on a lie, but we won. That is the most ridiculous statement I hear people make anytime they make a statement about the war. .... and according to the White House Mission Accomplished 4 years ago. Cut the bull crap out about we us winning the war. We are not winning, we are limping out Iraq with our tails between our legs for making such a big mess. In case you didn't know------WE INVADED THE WRONG COUNTRY. Let's get real folks!!!!!

:toofunny:

 

[Usf97j4x4]

Charlie Gibson's Gaffe
By Charles Krauthammer
Saturday, September 13, 2008; Page A17

"At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' "


-- New York Times, Sept. 12
Informed her? Rubbish.
The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.
There is no single meaning of the Bush Doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.
He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?"
She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"
Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

Wrong.
I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush Doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush Doctrine.
Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush Doctrine.
Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.





Yahoo! Buzz








It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy's pledge in his inaugural address that the United States "shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson's 14 points.
If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume -- unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise -- that he was speaking about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration.
Not the Gibson doctrine of preemption.

Not the "with us or against us" no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.
Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.
Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.
Such is not the case with the Bush Doctrine.

Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Would please mind not posting the facts. It would get in the way