McCain's VP:

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

The most moronic anti Palin piece yet...

This whole article is disgusting, stupid, and so full of garbage that I dont think the woman that wrote it even believes it.

Dude. Judging from those excerpts that's exactly right. Jeez.

Those opening paras alone deserve tarring & feathering. Cintra Wilson, eh?

(googles)

This is her bio, on her own site, and in her list of things she wrote it says stuff like,

Quote:

Gia (I wrote chunks of it, but due to the black arts of Hollywood skullduggery got no credit)

Right.. (puts Cintra Wilson on mental dont-bother-to-read list)

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Obama went a step further, he said we should go into Pakistan, he advocated doing it. Palin was taking a wiser tact. She said all options should be on the table, but she did not advocate an invasion.

Isnt that exactly what Obama said? That as President, he would keep that option on the table, he would reserve the right to go into Pakistan even without its permission, if high-level terrorists were there planning attacks? And the Republicans went apeshit about it.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

I'll bear that in mind the next time I listen to an Obama spokesman.

Good! I hope you do! There's no reason to take a spokesman's word for anything relating at all to facts about the candidates! And I wonder, why would you have ever felt any different?

The facts remain: Palin's town, Wassalia, was a pro-rapist town. Seriously. They did everything possible to discourage women from getting tested to identify the rapist who assaulted them. Is that something to be proud of? I don't think so. Alaska has the highest rate of rape in the nation. Wonder why?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Yes, and as I said, his description of the Bush doctrine was just plain wrong.

Actually, it wasn't wrong. But I'm sure you haven't researched it at all, so I'm not surprised that you think it was wrong.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Keep repeating those lies Cyclotroll, and they may just become truth in your pea brain.

0 Replies

How will the GOP twist this story into Palin's favor? I'm gonna wait and see.

0 Replies

Palin said that she could contemplate going to war with Russia were it to invade a NATO country, even if it were Georgia. A war with Russia must be out of the question. It would be mutual destruction, if not destruction of the world. How can this woman be a VP?

0 Replies

Quote:

Palin Links Iraq to Sept. 11 In Talk to Troops in Alaska

FORT WAINWRIGHT, Alaska, Sept. 11 -- Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091103789.html?hpid=topnews

What a f*cking moron. It has been disproven long ago that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. No politician other then Bush has made mistakes like this, for years. She's an idiot.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

We knew that when we heard that she had to play musical universities in order to get a degree. The university that she took the degree from is a third tier collage, not a place anyone would brag about.

0 Replies

@nimh,

nimh wrote:

okie wrote:

Obama went a step further, he said we should go into Pakistan, he advocated doing it. Palin was taking a wiser tact. She said all options should be on the table, but she did not advocate an invasion.

Isnt that exactly what Obama said? That as President, he would keep that option on the table, he would reserve the right to go into Pakistan even without its permission, if high-level terrorists were there planning attacks? And the Republicans went apeshit about it.

Again, calm down. Obama did not say it would be an option on the table, he flatly stated: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." In contrast, Palin did not say, yes if they fail to do anything, the Pakistanis themselves, I would invade Pakistan. Thats not what she said, she said it should be an option. Now, you can twist ti to be the same, but it isn't the same.

Anybody talking about foreign policy must be very careful not to say something out of order, that cannot be backed up. Palin stuck to her guns and maintained that various actions should be on the table. nimh, with any of those specific actions, it is not wise to make a statement unless you are prepared to do it, and it is also not wise to say you won't do it. You have a hand to play, and you don't tell everyone what card you will play, unless the crunch time is at hand, but you instead let them know what cards could be considered to play and what options are on the table. This is common sense, and so I think you are wrong on this, what Obama said is not the same as how Palin answered the question.

I am not claiming Palin is a pro at foreign policy, she isn't, but Obama is also a big greenhorn.

Now, as I understand it, we have already crossed the border slightly on occasion, but only quick and sporadic, very targeted, so as not to announce to the world we are invading Pakistan.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I am not talking about how other people have described the Bush doctrine, but how Bush has described it himself. In my opinion, the problem centers around the issue of pre-emption. All the intellectuals have expanded upon that issue and have written it into what is known as the Bush Doctrine, but that is not the Bush Doctrine I have heard Bush speak about. And that is the problem I have with what Charlie Gibson said.

What Bush has said is that any regime or government that harbors or supports terrorists have already declared war upon us, and have essentially attacked us. Example, the Taliban. When we took out the Taliban, it was not pre-emptive, it was in response to their hostile actions toward us.

The only other example of our action is the Iraq War. Whether this fits the Bush Doctrine very well is an open debate between those against and those for the war. We know Hussein fostered terrorists and harbored them, but many argue that he did not support Al Qaeda, while others do. Conflicting arguments. In my opinion, Iraq does not change the original Bush Doctrine, only whether Iraq fit the doctrine well or not. In my opinion, Bush does not advocate pre-emptive strikes against anybody that has not declared war on us or is not supporting terrorists that have already declared war on us. Striking someone that has already declared war on us is not pre-emption in my opinion.

Now if you can come up with Bush quotes that can prove me wrong, then try it and I will reconsider. And simply giving me a link from some group that claims to know what the Bush Doctrine is, to include pre-emption, doesn't work for me. You will have to go to the original source, Bush. You must do your own thinking on this, not spout some leftist opinion that is twisting what the Bush Doctrine actually is, as described by George Bush himself.

2 Replies

@okie,

I couldn't seem to find the speech that best embodied the Bush Doctrine when it first came about, but I think this is the one I remembered from its first and most accurate description by Bush himself: Transcript of President Bush's address to a joint session of Congress on Thursday night, September 20, 2001. :

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript/

"From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. Our nation has been put on notice, we're not immune from attack. We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans."

The principal point here is that Bush is making a very important distinction. Our action is defensive not offensive. Pre-emption implies offensive. I think it is wrong to inject the term "pre-emptive" after the first hostile action has been taken by the other regime, and that is exactly what has happened in the war on terror, and that is the central point of the Bush Doctrine. Bush characterized it as defensive, not pre-emptive. and I think that is accurate. And I don't like it when self proclaimed experts like Gibson condescendingly describes the Bush Doctrine as pre-emptive to Mrs. Palin. Not correct in my opinion. And it is disturbing that now with a search, all the other garbage comes up, with Bush's opponents and leftists pretending to describe the Bush Doctrine, and its wrong.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

I couldn't seem to find the speech that best embodied the Bush Doctrine when it first came about, but I think this is the one I remembered from its first and most accurate description by Bush himself: Transcript of President Bush's address to a joint session of Congress on Thursday night, September 20, 2001. :

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript/

"From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. Our nation has been put on notice, we're not immune from attack. We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans."

The principal point here is that Bush is making a very important distinction. Our action is defensive not offensive. Pre-emption implies offensive. I think it is wrong to inject the term "pre-emptive" after the first hostile action has been taken by the other regime, and that is exactly what has happened in the war on terror, and that is the central point of the Bush Doctrine. Bush characterized it as defensive, not pre-emptive. and I think that is accurate. And I don't like it when self proclaimed experts like Gibson condescendingly describes the Bush Doctrine as pre-emptive to Mrs. Palin. Not correct in my opinion. And it is disturbing that now with a search, all the other garbage comes up, with Bush's opponents and leftists pretending to describe the Bush Doctrine, and its wrong.

There is no such thing as a defensive attack. None. There is a decision to go on offense. That's it. Don't pretend that we are somehow acting honorably when attacking other countries pre-emptively, because we are not. We're deciding that there is profit in attacking another country.

Bush himself doesn't know what his own doctrine is, neither do you, neither does anyone else. He did what he felt would bring the US the most power in the plan laid out by the PNAC. That's it.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclops, when we attacked Japan, was it defensive or pre-emptive?

Its getting late. I will check this tomorrow. Take all night to figure it out if you need to, cyclops.

1 Reply

@okie,

It was offensive, and not pre-emptive, for they had already engaged us in war, Okie. So the answer is that it was neither pre-emptive nor defensive.

An attack is by definition offensive. You don't attack on defense. You meet the other guy's attack with a defensive action. Nothing we have done in the Middle East has been defensive in the slightest.

This is the problem with you right-wingers. You think you can just redefine words to mean whatever you want, and nobody will call you out on it. C'mon.

Attack:

* (military) an offensive against an enemy (using weapons); "the attack began at dawn"
* an offensive move in a sport or game; "they won the game with a 10-hit attack in the 9th inning"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=w9L&defl=en&q=define:attack&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I see you came up with an answer, so one more stab at it.

I think your answer is ridiculous, cyclops.

If a bear attacks you and instead of simply rolling up into a ball to try to keep it from mauling you, you instead manage to get a gun and shoot it in the head while it has you down. I think that is self defense.

Another example, if a robber points a gun at you and is about to pull the trigger, and you pull one from under your shirt and shoot him first, does the court say that is self defense? I think so, cyclops.

I have just described to you the Bush policy in rough terms. I think pre-emptive implies more than what I described, I think it may be more like a man going to another guys house and shooting him while he is asleep, with not much reason to do it except the idea that the guy might decide to shoot him later. I think pre-emption implies a very vague threat, not an immediate threat and hostile action already undertaken by the enemy, for example the bear trying to kill you.

I would remind you the Taliban supported their surrogates, Al Qaeda, that killed about 3,000 people. War was already declared. Afghanistan was definitely not pre-emptive, and that is the best example of the Bush Doctrine.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

I see you came up with an answer, so one more stab at it.

I think your answer is ridiculous, cyclops.

That's because you don't know what you are talking about.

Quote:

If a bear attacks you and instead of simply rolling up into a ball to try to keep it from mauling you, you instead manage to get a gun and shoot it in the head while it has you down. I think that is self defense.

I agree. This has nothing to do with offensive attacks, which would be akin to hunting the bears down before they could hurt you.

Quote:

Another example, if a robber points a gun at you and is about to pull the trigger, and you pull one from under your shirt and shoot him first, does the court say that is self defense? I think so, cyclops.

Yes, and why wouldn't it be? This has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Quote:

I have just described to you the Bush policy in rough terms.

No, you have not. Not one bit. Neither of those examples has anything to do with the Bush doctrine, which calls for offensively hunting down potential enemies before they can strike.

Quote:

I would remind you the Taliban supported their surrogates, Al Qaeda, that killed about 3,000 people. War was already declared. Afghanistan was definitely not pre-emptive, and that is the best example of the Bush Doctrine.

No, it was not an example of the Bush doctrine. It was the typical and traditional military response to such an attack. It is what anyone would have done. Why give that a special name? Obviously, the Bush doctrine is summed up best by a different country: Iraq. A pre-emptive offensive strike on a potential threat, not someone who had attacked us in the past, not someone who we were in imminent danger of.

Okie, you cannot just make terms mean whatever you want in order to justify your arguments!!!! Offense is not the same thing as defense!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Now, as I understand it, we have already crossed the border slightly on occasion, but only quick and sporadic, very targeted,

You are making distinctions without difference, Okie -- little short of dissembling. What does crossing the border "slightly" even mean? You cross it or you dont. And yes, the times the US crossed the border were "very targeted"; which is exactly what Obama was proposing as well - targeted attacks against high-value terrorists whom Pakistan itself refused to tackle.

And yes, the US is doing already exactly what Obama proposed, right now. Bush had the troops do it this last week, even. The very same thing.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know