Originally posted by The17sss
For christ's sake, why are people taking this so out of context? You guys are getting desperate. Palin says that she supports putting Georgia and the Ukraine in NATO... Once they're in NATO and if they're attacked, we might — stress might — have to defend them. But obviously a major part of the reasoning in letting them join NATO is that it might make Russia less likely to attack, no?
Guess who else favors putting the Ukraine and Georgia in NATO? Obama and Biden. Here is Biden in December: "The time has come for the trans-Atlantic community to show unity and commitment. The administration should seek and our NATO allies should provide commitments to offer MAPs [Membership Action Plans] to Georgia and Ukraine at the next NATO meeting in December."
Dude you will ing say ANYTHING to defend these two horrible candidates who are so ing blind and ignorant.
So you're really going to take on the Russian Federation over Georgia joining NATO?? (the Georgians are also at fault in this mess)
How do you propose to do that exactly? Their armed forces are still quite formidable and they have THOUSANDS of nuclear weapons probably still pointed at your country. Is provoking the Russians with inflammatory statements like this really something a prospective VP should be saying when your military is currently over taxed in Iraq and Afghanistan? Don't pull any of that "the army is fine" either, because Judy Woodruff confirmed what I"ve said a few times on here that the Army is in trouble, enlistments are down, officers are leaving, etc, etc in front of BOTH candidates at the Presidential Forum on Thursday night.
This is not the 1990s anymore. America is not the super power that it once was. This aggressive cowboy foreign policy is not going to work anymore. People around the world absolutely detest your country for this very reason! Wake the up.
Dj Smitty20
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
Yeah, I do think extremism exists in Islam, don't you? You don't see christians flying planes into buildings or suicide bombing hundreds of innocent people in the name of jesus. Each religion may have its dark side, but I don't think you can use Palin as a good example of christians with a dark side... i don't see her bombing abortion clinics, speaking in tongues, or hosting a jesus camp like some of the other religious freaks do. There are so many other people and places to take the religious zealot argument in regards to christians. If she is a horrifying example of extremism, than you can say the majority of americans fit that mold too.
actually the church she USED to be a part of before 2002 was Pentecostal where they DO speak in tongues. She has also recently said that God is on the side of the United States in the war in Iraq.
Dude, if that isn't extremism, then I don't know what else is. There is no way you can spin this. She is a religious extremist and if you don't think extremism exists in Christianity, then you shouldn't even be posting in this forum.
There is a reason that I despise organised religion in all forms. It's too bad the United States doesn't seem to want to be a secular nation anymore. God is talked about way too much in your politics. It really turns people off.
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by Spacey Orange
preemptive strikes. everyone knows that. lol.
you can "lol" it or dumb it down all you want. the fact is that the Bush Doctrine, as far as policy and policy makers are concerned, is a loose set of deliberative actions that have never been fully articulated by the Bush administration and only in Iraq and Afghanistan fully implemented.
5 years down the road what and where is the Bush Doctrine today, not just the "general concensus"? did we "pre-emptive" strike the Norks?
have we "pre-emptive" struck Iran? Sudan?
waht about the spreading of democracy aspect of the Bush Doctrine? Spacey Orange and Charles Gibson never mentioned that aspect of it. do they fail the test?
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
no one really knows what the Bush Doctrine is. it's a multi-faceted foriegn policy approach that was dubbed by pundits not policy makers.
most of the time the administration only adheres to certain aspects of what people understand the Bush Doctrine to be.
It was born out of the 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States and touted by Condoleezza Rice.
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
you can "lol" it or dumb it down all you want. the fact is that the Bush Doctrine, as far as policy and policy makers are concerned, is a loose set of deliberative actions that have never been fully articulated by the Bush administration and only in Iraq and Afghanistan fully implemented.
5 years down the road what and where is the Bush Doctrine today, not just the "general concensus"? did we "pre-emptive" strike the Norks?
have we "pre-emptive" struck Iran? Sudan?
waht about the spreading of democracy aspect of the Bush Doctrine? Spacey Orange and Charles Gibson never mentioned that aspect of it. do they fail the test?
Spreading democracy isn't part of the Doctrine. And the Doctrine doesn't say that we are compelled to act whenever - it says that in the case of a real or perceived threat to the national security of the United States in the future, the US can and will act preemptively.
Obviously there is a pretty big debate going on in policy circles about whether Iran meets those criteria. As for Sudan, there's no credible threat, so there's no preemption.
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
What issue do you want me to talk about? If you have a specific quesiton about one I'll be glad to answer as best as I can.
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
I'm still struggling to figure out what this [the choice of putting Palin on the ticket] is about.
If it's about national security, I'd still love to hear how you justify the Palin pick as anything more than identity politics. If it's about taxes, Smitty raises a good point. If it's about foreign policy, how do you reconcile the fact that President Bush is now coming around to the same stances on Iraq and Pakistan that Obama advocated last July? If it's about the national deficit, you can't be a fan of continued war and aggression abroad - those costs, as we've seen, go straight to the deficit. Is it about education? McCain wants to abolish the Department of Education, and his education plan consists of allowing those that can afford it to take their children out of public schools and pay for private ones. Perhaps that is something you advocate, but I'd love to hear what you suggest we do about the people who can't afford it. Is it about energy independence? Neither plan is actually feasible in that sense, but at least Obama is willing to look past "drill baby drill". Is it about science? Palin doesn't really believe in any of that. Is it about the economy? Obama and the Bush Administration see fairly eye to eye on the Fanny and Freddie takeover. Is it about government reform? Obama co-wrote and passed an ethics reform bill and Palin lies about her record. McCain has switched positions on most of his mavericky past - against his own immigration bill, against his own campaign finance reform bill, etc. - and he's certainly not running a campaign any different from that Bush ran in 2000.
The "executive experience" card is so shallow - you've yet to indicate a single thing that Palin achieved as Governor as she accumulated this helpful experience, and by playing the executive card you more or less say that McCain, who has been in Congress his whole professional life as well, has no experience either!
I don't care about Obama for now. We're in the McCain-Palin thread after all. But is there a single reason worth supporting this ticket that doesn't have to do with Obama or Biden? Why put Palin on this ticket if it isn't just a cynical ploy at firing up the ol' cultural wars of the eighties and early nineties? Is she capable of being President?
Or is this really a "trust" thing?
Maybe Rick Davis was right. Maybe conservatives really don't vote on issues - they vote on the narratives that the campaigns are successful at creating.
Shakka
Regarding the Bush Doctrine--I think most people pretty much know it involves pre-emptive action where an imminent threat is perceived, but I did hear something that made me chuckle this morning. One guy on the news said that given all of the knocks on Bush from so many angles, one might reasonably say that the Bush Doctrine is about helping the rich get richer and that would be an acceptable answer. I laughed.
On another note, for what it's worth, I also got this today, which I found moderately interesting:
Who Am I.
I am under 45 years old
I love the outdoors
I hunt
I am a Republican reformer
I have taken on the Republican Party establishment
I have many children
I have a spot on the national ticket as vice president with less than two years in the governor's office
Have you ever heard of me before now?
I am Teddy Roosevelt.
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
Who Am I.
I am under 45 years old
I love the outdoors
I hunt
I am a Republican reformer
I have taken on the Republican Party establishment
I have many children
I have a spot on the national ticket as vice president with less than two years in the governor's office
Have you ever heard of me before now?
I am Teddy Roosevelt.
Well it's getting harder to argue that Palin is a Republican reformer, so Teddy is likely the only answer to that riddle. :D
LazFX
quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
Regarding the Bush Doctrine--I think most people pretty much know it involves pre-emptive action where an imminent threat is perceived, but I did hear something that made me chuckle this morning. One guy on the news said that given all of the knocks on Bush from so many angles, one might reasonably say that the Bush Doctrine is about helping the rich get richer and that would be an acceptable answer. I laughed.
On another note, for what it's worth, I also got this today, which I found moderately interesting:
Who Am I.
I am under 45 years old
I love the outdoors
I hunt
I am a Republican reformer
I have taken on the Republican Party establishment
I have many children
I have a spot on the national ticket as vice president with less than two years in the governor's office
Have you ever heard of me before now?
I am Teddy Roosevelt.
Failed Shakka ;) In 1901 the above is true, Roosevelt was VP at the age of 42 I believe and true his "executive" experience was less than spectacular by the standards that many here are giving Palin grief for.
HOWEVER; and this is where your lil quiz fails by a millions...
TR was a respected Historian before his VP days....
I think his book "The Naval War of 1812", published in 1882 or 1883, can't remember but it was highly used during the times. He was the assistant to the secretary of the Navy back in 96 or 97...
and I could go on and on about him, if you want...
but,
What was Sarah Palin doing before her short political life??
A beauty queen and a sports reporter. all good,
but is that what I really want to be a VP and god forbid a POTUS??
Lebezniatnikov
Excellent analysis by Fallows already this morning. Really hits the nail on the head.
quote:
The Palin interview
12 Sep 2008 09:01 am
It is embarrassing to have to spell this out, but for the record let me explain why Gov. Palin's answer to the "Bush Doctrine" question -- the only part of the recent interview I have yet seen over here in China -- implies a disqualifying lack of preparation for the job.
Not the mundane job of vice president, of course, which many people could handle. Rather the job of potential Commander in Chief and most powerful individual on earth.
The spelling-out is lengthy, but I've hidden most of it below the jump.
Each of us has areas we care about, and areas we don't. If we are interested in a topic, we follow its development over the years. And because we have followed its development, we're able to talk and think about it in a "rounded" way. We can say: Most people think X, but I really think Y. Or: most people used to think P, but now they think Q. Or: the point most people miss is Z. Or: the question I'd really like to hear answered is A.
Here's the most obvious example in daily life: Sports Talk radio.
Mention a name or theme -- Brett Favre, the Patriots under Belichick, Lance Armstrong's comeback, Venus and Serena -- and anyone who cares about sports can have a very sophisticated discussion about the ins and outs and myth and realities and arguments and rebuttals.
People who don't like sports can't do that. It's not so much that they can't identify the names -- they've heard of Armstrong -- but they've never bothered to follow the flow of debate. I like sports -- and politics and tech and other topics -- so I like joining these debates. On a wide range of other topics -- fashion, antique furniture, (gasp) the world of restaurants and fine dining, or (gasp^2) opera -- I have not been interested enough to learn anything I can add to the discussion. So I embarrass myself if I have to express a view.
What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues. Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the "Bush Doctrine" exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years.
Two details in Charles Gibson's posing of the question were particularly telling. One was the potentially confusing way in which he first asked it. On the page, "the Bush Doctrine" looks different from "the Bush doctrine." But when hearing the question Palin might not have known whether Gibson was referring to the general sweep of Administration policy -- doctrine with small d -- or the rationale that connected 9/11 with the need to invade Iraq, the capital-D Doctrine. So initial confusion would be understandable -- as if a sports host asked about Favre's chances and you weren't sure if he meant previously with the Packers or with the Jets. Once Gibson clarified the question, a person familiar with the issue would have said, "Oh, if we're talking about the strategy that the President and Condoleezza Rice began laying out in 2002...." There was no such flash of recognition.
The other was Gibson's own minor mis-statement. American foreign policy has long recognized the concept of preemptive action: if you know somebody is just about to attack you, there's no debate about the legitimacy of acting first. (This is like "shooting in self-defense.") The more controversial part of The Bush Doctrine was the idea of preventive war: acting before a threat had fully emerged, on the theory that waiting until it was fully evident would mean acting too late.
Gibson used the word "preemptively" -- but if a knowledgeable person had pushed back on that point ("Well, preemption has was what John F. Kennedy had in mind in acting against the imminent threat of Soviet missiles in Cuba"), Gibson would certainly have come back to explain the novelty of the "preventive war" point. Because he knows the issue, a minor mis-choice of words wouldn't get in the way of his real intent.
Sarah Palin did not know this issue, or any part of it. The view she actually expressed -- an endorsement of "preemptive" action -- was fine on its own merits. But it is not the stated doctrine of the Bush Administration, it is not the policy her running mate has endorsed, and it is not the concept under which her own son is going off to Iraq.
How could she not know this? For the same reason I don't know anything about European football/soccer standings, trades, or intrigue. I am not interested enough. And she evidently has not been interested enough even to follow the news of foreign affairs during the Bush era.
A further point. The truly toxic combination of traits GW Bush brought to decision making was:
1) Ignorance
2) Lack of curiosity
3) "Decisiveness"
That is, he was not broadly informed to begin with (point 1). He did not seek out new information (#2); but he nonetheless prided himself on making broad, bold decisions quickly, and then sticking to them to show resoluteness.
We don't know about #2 for Palin yet -- she could be a sponge-like absorber of information. But we know about #1 and we can guess, from her demeanor about #3. Most of all we know something about the person who put her in this untenable role.
Mccain on the Bush doctrine (Palin should watch this)
Shakka
quote:
Originally posted by LazFX
Failed Shakka ;) In 1901 the above is true, Roosevelt was VP at the age of 42 I believe and true his "executive" experience was less than spectacular by the standards that many here are giving Palin grief for.
HOWEVER; and this is where your lil quiz fails by a millions...
TR was a respected Historian before his VP days....
I think his book "The Naval War of 1812", published in 1882 or 1883, can't remember but it was highly used during the times. He was the assistant to the secretary of the Navy back in 96 or 97...
and I could go on and on about him, if you want...
but,
What was Sarah Palin doing before her short political life??
A beauty queen and a sports reporter. all good,
but is that what I really want to be a VP and god forbid a POTUS??
If it failed it failed. I just passed it on as I said it was moderately interesting. I'd give it more of a C- based on your additions.;)
