Which means the question was not a fair one. At the very least Palin should not be ridiculed for asking for Gibson's interpretation of the doctrine.Originally Posted by Yarfunkle
|
|
|
|
|
Which means the question was not a fair one. At the very least Palin should not be ridiculed for asking for Gibson's interpretation of the doctrine.
To be honest, I was not sure what he was referring to either when he asked her the question.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
Why do they even let her talk. she is so out of her league.she reminds me of kathleen blanco during the hurricane
Last edited by beaux66; 09-26-2008 at 12:55 PM.
How can there be a definitive statement for something on which there is no consensus definition?
Now, an authoritative statement of the doctrine is this:
This is from President Bush's official spokesperson, so it seems that this would be the most authoritative statement of its meaning.
Another approach would be to consider the opinion of the individual who coined the term, and Charles Krauthammer is credited with its earliest use. He comments on Charlie Gibson's attempt at entrapment here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...57.html?sub=AR
I still don't see how asking for clarification to an ambiguous question, which is what Palin did in that interview, constitutes a "gaffe." I am not a Republican, but I feel like my intelligence is being continually assaulted during this campaign by those relying almost exclusively on fallacies of logic to attempt to discredit the Republican ticket. Both sides put out a lot of crap, but the anti-Republican "rhetoric" during this campaign isn't really even worthy of the term "rhetoric."
Yeah but what about all that Putin rearing his head and flying over Alaska blah blah blah. What the hell is she rambling about? She is in over her head. She sounds like the beauty pageant contestant from South Carolina who rambled about maps." the russia flies over the alaska" WOW
Last edited by beaux66; 09-26-2008 at 02:04 PM.
Exactly. She made a huge ass of herself. She's absolutely clueless, as are her supporters.
I should have put a "generally accepted" instead of definitive. It has been cited much more often as the definition than any other part of it.
If you take out the Bush Doctrine "gaffe" or "pseudo gaffe", she still makes herself look absolutely horrendous in the interview with Couric.
neither did Gibson
kind of like Biden (this eek) going against Obama'ss policies on:
AIG bail out
clean coal
and "MR. Foreign relations guy" blowing re. the comments he made about Iran
I thought the Bush Doctrine was spend, spend, spend...tomorrow may never come.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
and BTW, how do you compare the questions Couric asked Palin vs. the ones she asked Biden?
and I have to throw in the other two stupid things Biden said in the Couric interview:
FDR going on TV after the market crash in 1929
saying that the BHO produced ad about McCain's inability to write emails as "terrible?
Bush doctrine means a lot of things to a lot of different people
spend X3 looks to be one of them
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091202457.html
You'll have to log in to read it but here is the correct answer from the writer that originated the phrase "Bush Doctrine".
Anybody that could vote for either one of these tickets without serious reservations needs to get their heads checked in my opinion.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
