In my search for employment post-graduation, I've had some interviews that I thought went pretty bad.

Now I know what people mean when they say "Well, it could have gone worse."

Even though Palin says some funny (and inaccurate) things, you can't really fault her on not knowing what the "Bush Doctrine" is. It has meant multiple things throughout the years, so no one can really claim that it only means one specific idea.

One can certainly fault her for her answer to the question, but the question assumed that there is only one clear answer to "what is the Bush Doctrine", and that just isn't the case.

>> ^Psychologic:
One can certainly fault her for her answer to the question, but the question assumed that there is only one clear answer to "what is the Bush Doctrine", and that just isn't the case.


Or, in other words, a classic "lose/lose" scenario.

LOL @ "She lied about the bridge again. Another $100 to charity and another 25 fictional cans of Aunt Sarah's Moose Chunks to some lucky viewer."

Indeed, I think she's simply clueless as much as she is lying. Perfect candidate for a Republican party lackey.

Let Olbermann interview Palin. $50 says she runs off camera crying within the first 5 minutes.

Charlie

Oh my god... she really did say nucular. NO MORE OF THAT. It isn't a hard word. I can understand mispronouncing February (seriously, who enunciates that first r?) but nuclear is an easy word.

Has anyone else noticed how much Gibson looks like a ... terrorist?

This is what you get folks, when your society is centered around raising to the top those who have done nothing to succeed in life but be beautiful or play sports well, and consider anyone with half a brain to be socially inadequate, a geek, a nerd, someone too pathetic to even take a seccond glance at "cause they iz smart".

This is a social issue, you reap what you sew, and now, its flowing through to your "elite" politicians.

Build a society where you raise up morons, your gonna get morons for leaders.
Simple.

>> ^Psychologic:
Even though Palin says some funny (and inaccurate) things, you can't really fault her on not knowing what the "Bush Doctrine" is. It has meant multiple things throughout the years, so no one can really claim that it only means one specific idea.

I will politely disagree with this assessment, as the word "doctrine" (or "dogma") has a clear meaning in the realm of politics - specifically foreign policy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine#Foreign_policy_of_Doctrine

As you can see, there have been numerous doctrines throughout the years, i.e. the Monroe Doctrine, the Eisenhower Doctrine, the Nixon Doctrine, and Bush Doctrine. It is fairly obvious that Gibson is referring to this definition of doctrine, and Palin should know what is meant by "Bush Doctrine" as a candidate for 2nd in command of a superpower. She doesn't, just going by her response, "In what respect, Charlie?"

I agree that Bush has all kinds of retarded ideas, beliefs, and policies, but using the word "doctrine" really only specifies foreign policy. And I know of no other foreign policy of Bush other than minimal diplomacy and maximum warmongering.

>> ^charliem:
This is a social issue, you reap what you sew, and now, its flowing through to your "elite" politicians.

You mean, "you reap what you sow," right? Because what you said sounded like some Fundamentalist Christian quilting club's motto...

>> ^moonsammy:
Oh my god... she really did say nucular. NO MORE OF THAT. It isn't a hard word. I can understand mispronouncing February (seriously, who enunciates that first r?) but nuclear is an easy word.

McCain's assistants probably focused on her pronunciation of "Ahmadinejad" and it never occured to them that she might pull a Homer Simpson on Gibson. By the way, didn't McCain's puppet-masters finally acknowledge in May of this year that Khamenei and his groupies were in charge in Iran and not Ahmadinejad? Maybe her instructor didn't get the memo.

And i enunciate the first "r" in February. I think it's quite common if English is your second or third language.

>> ^islaywombats:
>> ^charliem:
This is a social issue, you reap what you sew, and now, its flowing through to your "elite" politicians.
You mean, "you reap what you sow," right? Because what you said sounded like some Fundamentalist Christian quilting club's motto...


Stupid firefox auto-correction.

<>> ^HaricotVert:
I will politely disagree with this assessment, as the word "doctrine" (or "dogma") has a clear meaning in the realm of politics - specifically foreign policy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine#Foreign_policy_of_Doctrine


The word "doctrine" may be specific, but "the Bush Doctrine" is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

It is not clear which "Bush Doctrine" he was referring to... he was ambiguous on purpose.

Oh I so agree with the saying Charlie a ridiculous number of times. That instantly let me know that she is a little weasel. It's all well and good to say their name a couple of times (usually at beginning/end of interview), but the number of times she did has that real 'This is a trick I learned that's supposed to make you appeal to the person you're talking to'. Except when used like that, it feels combative and downright creepy.

WAKE THE F*CK UP AMERICA... you CANNOT seriously be considering voting in a dottering old fool and this dimwitted, bible bashing redneck.

>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^HaricotVert:
I will politely disagree with this assessment, as the word "doctrine" (or "dogma") has a clear meaning in the realm of politics - specifically foreign policy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine#Foreign_policy_of_Doctrine

The word "doctrine" may be specific, but "the Bush Doctrine" is not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine
It is not clear which "Bush Doctrine" he was referring to... he was ambiguous on purpose.



She clearly didn't know what the "Bush Doctrine" was and probably never heard of, it's clear when he asks her what her interpretation of it.

Ask any first year Pol-Sci major who has done a basic course on modern international relations and they'll tell you the Bush Doctrine relates to a speech given in 2002 of which preemptive strike against a perceived threat, immediate or otherwise is a key component. All this rubbish about 'multiple Bush Doctrines' is simply revisionist history. People have to go back and look at when the term was initially used and in what relation, the reason people are claiming there are 'multiple Bush Doctrines' is because the term was high jacked by successive journalists and theorists. It's exactly the same with the crap about "appeasement" of Iran by Obama, they took a term which has a clearly defined meaning and history and tried to turn it into something it's not. The same has happened with the term "Bush Doctrine" however since the term wasn't so widely well known it's been successfully abused.

As the possible VP of the 'most powerful' nation in the world she should have comprehensive knowledge of ALL aspects of the foreign policy her country has subscribed to for the past 8 years regardless of what name it's been given otherwise what the hell is she doing running for VP. She clearly has no idea what she's talking about except to say the same old bs talking points:

"There are evil men/doers/Islamic Extremists/Osama bin Laden/Ahmedinejad/terrorists out there coming to kill you, only we know how to stop them"

In saying that clearly the interviewer was trying to trap her, I would have preferred if he'd just come out and said "do you agree the United States has the right to invade any country which poses a possible threat to the United States and it's interests be that immediate or otherwise?"

Oh and anyone that thinks there is a possibility that McCain won't invade Iran if elected is deluding themselves. Iran is to McCain like Iraq was to Bush jnr. They'll go in and it'll be Iraq II followed by 9/11 part II. McCain is a disgrace, I don't give a toss about his war record, when you come out the way he has running his campaign the way he has you can't say he is a man with honour. Deliberately distorting someone's character with no hesitation or second thought is all I need to know about the man and his character.

Anyone who votes for these two clowns (McCain/Palin) should have to sign on for military service for the duration of their administration if they get elected.

Apologies for the rant but as the last remaining 'super power' citizens of the United States not only have a duty to themselves but a moral responsibility to the rest of the world to elect rational leaders that will think of the consequences before taking such reckless action.

>> ^liverpoolfc:
>>All this rubbish about 'multiple Bush Doctrines' is simply revisionist history. People have to go back and look at when the term was initially used and in what relation

That's the thing. Back before 9-11 when Bush pulled out of the ABM treaty and rejected the Kyoto protocol (somewhat of a change in foreign policy), that was seen as the "Bush Doctrine" of the time. Then after 9-11 it became the "with us or against us" attitude of unilateralism. It wasn't until we invaded Iraq that the "Bush Doctrine" included preemptive war. That's why I said that the term isn't very specific... you can't just look at its first use and claim that is the answer, because it was used well before preemptive war was even mentioned. Personally I thought the current Bush Doctrine was that it is our duty to spread democracy throughout the world.


>>In saying that clearly the interviewer was trying to trap her, I would have preferred if he'd just come out and said "do you agree the United States has the right to invade any country which poses a possible threat to the United States and it's interests be that immediate or otherwise?"

Yea, that's all I was saying. He was trying too hard for a "got ya" moment. Even after he explained what he meant by it she still tried to avoid answering the question. I'm in no way trying to defend her, but when I was watching the interview and saw him ask that question I was admittedly asking myself "which part of the Bush Doctrine". Perhaps that is a lack of experience on my part.

Either way, I'm in no position to question Palin's abilities, especially with her being the USA's most experienced energy expert and all that. =P

>> ^Psychologic:
>>Back before 9-11 when Bush pulled out of the ABM treaty and rejected the Kyoto protocol (somewhat of a change in foreign policy), that was seen as the "Bush Doctrine" of the time. Then after 9-11 it became the "with us or against us" attitude of unilateralism. It wasn't until we invaded Iraq that the "Bush Doctrine" included preemptive war. That's why I said that the term isn't very specific... you can't just look at its first use and claim that is the answer, because it was used well before preemptive war was even mentioned. Personally I thought the current Bush Doctrine was that it is our duty to spread democracy throughout the world.



Yea, that's all I was saying. He was trying too hard for a "got ya" moment. Even after he explained what he meant by it she still tried to avoid answering the question. I'm in no way trying to defend her, but when I was watching the interview and saw him ask that question I was admittedly asking myself "which part of the Bush Doctrine". Perhaps that is a lack of experience on my part.
Either way, I'm in no position to question Palin's abilities, especially with her being the USA's most experienced energy expert and all that. =P



What i'm saying is the first time the actual term "Bush Doctrine" was formally used was in a paper about that speech and it clearly defined what the Bush Doctrine was from that speech. I'll see if I can find it and i'll post a link. From there people have just used it to involve various changes to foreign policy for political expediency.

You've pointed out a perfect example of what i'm saying. You thought the Bush Doctrine included spreading democracy, this just wasn't the case at the time of the speech and the original debate about the Bush Doctrine. The speech was given September 2002, before the US "preemptively" invaded Iraq. Now at this point the reasons for the war were not to spread democracy but to stop Saddam from taking out American cities or giving weapons to terrorists that will. When it turned out there were no weapons suddenly the war wasn't about preemptively taking out someone that was about to kill Americans, it became about liberation and spreading democracy. People thus altered the Bush Doctrine from being focused on preemptive strike to focusing primarily on "spreading democracy." Essentially Bush was bailed out from being called on his bullshit because the media bought this new reasoning for the war and then the doctrine was changed, almost 1984 style except that instead of just erasing "preemptive strike" they added "spread democracy." You're right in that now you could claim spreading democracy is part of the Bush Doctrine but I would call it something different because that's what it is from the original understanding. The original Bush doctrine explained the original justification for the war in Iraq. Following the invasion I would call it the "New Bush Doctrine" or "Post-Invasion Bush Doctrine" or "Bush Doctrine 2.0"


I think we're still arguing the same point, that the Bush Doctrine has been confused. My stance is that it shouldn't have been. And it's no one's fault but the Press and opposition in the US. Bush should have been and should still be getting hammered for the reasons for going into Iraq. Claiming a preemptive strike and then when it turns out they had nothing claiming it was all about spreading democracy and freeing subjugated people. All bullshit and McCain will bring the same when he invades Iran.

lol Bushy pronounces it "nuke-yuh-ler" too.
Also she's got some weird Minnesota "Fargo" sub-accent thing going on.

Aunt Sarah's Nukeyuhler Moose Chunks.

An easy phonetic crutch for correct pronunciation:
just say "new clear".

Seems ridiculous to pin "earmarks" on any one candidate or party.

Whether you admit it or not, "you" vote for the clown who promises to bring home the most (vote-buying) pork. It's a consequence of a federal leviathan, wasting money collecting monies it has no right to, then urinating it away on nonsense.

Drive-by media have already made it obvious they're all shilling for the Obamessiah, so Cardinal Gibson's wooden, clueless jabs mean nothing. He "lost" his adversarial interview and now the olbyloon countdown to no ratings can dig through the scraps.

LMFAHS @ the Alan Greenspan line. So true.

too painful to watch...

I absolutely remember the bush doctrine in my own shortened version: treat countries who harbor terrorists like terrorists.

from wiki:
"...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"

even i remember that one.. but WHY

>> ^Psychologic:
Even though Palin says some funny (and inaccurate) things, you can't really fault her on not knowing what the "Bush Doctrine" is.



But since she's running for the VP, don't ya think she could at least take a stab at it?

Only someone who is completely ignorant of the Bush/Neo-con imperative would have no idea how to explain what on earth could possibly be the "Bush doctrine", and that person is 100% unfit to run for this high office.

It's very simple to answer a question about the Bush Doctrine, even if you don't know exactly what it entails. If it deals with anything spewed from Dubya's mouth, disagree with it. Especially if you're a "reformer."

You don't need to be a nuc-yu-lar scientist to understand that concept.

Really i can't accept that she is justified in not knowning what it is... there is a disturbingly high chance she may end up being president. I was in grade school when Bush really 'defined' the doctrine and I know full well what it means. I can't accept that someone in government during that time, in the same party no less, and now running for VP... is not just unsure of the doctrine, but speaks as though the words are almost foreign to her...

The irony is she clearly supports the doctrine... she is just to oblivious to realize it.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by critical_d.