***UPDATE 11PM EASTERN**Â Â SC Dem Chair apologizes, US Rep. Spratt slams his State Party Chair.
South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler, facing criticism for her remark to Politico’s Alex Burns about Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, issues an apology:
“I personally admire and respect the difficult choices that women make everyday, and I apologize to anyone who finds my comment offensive. I clumsily was making a point about people in South Carolina who may vote based on a single issue. Whether it’s the environment, the economy, the war or a woman’s right to choose, there are people who will cast their vote based on a single issue. That was the only point I was attempting to make.”
Also tonight, Rep. John Spratt (D-S.C.) put out a statement to say: “I cannot believe that Carol Fowler made such a statement, and I want to make it clear that she speaks for herself, and not for me or the Democratic Party.”
More Spratt: “Her statement about Governor Palin is outrageous and wrong, because Sarah Palin’s qualifications are quite evident.”
[GP Ed. Note: Could the Obama Democrats’ mental breakdown be more evident to even the most comatose person at this point?]
========
In a continuing pattern on the Democratic side of demeaning women during this Presidential campaign, the Obama surrogates went into full meltdown today with this doozy:
South Carolina Democratic chairwoman Carol Fowler sharply attacked Sarah Palin today, saying John McCain had chosen a running mate “whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.â€
In response to this shameless and vile personal attack, the McCain campaign held a conference call at 4:45PM Eastern today with US Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and US Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). I was one of the bloggers invited to the call and was happy to listen-in.
My notes from the call are in my car while a torrential thunderstorm has struck my neighborhood. So I’ll add specific comments and quotes in a bit.
Quotes from the conference call are below the main post (Click on the “more” link)…
Obama himself has a serious pattern of anti-female comments throughout his campaign.  He called a female reporter “sweetie”; he said Hillary would throw the “kitchen sink” against him; and just yesterday he likened Governor Palin to a pig with lipstick, rather than a pitbull with lipstick (her original joke).
What IS Obama’s problem with strong women? Sarah Palin has clearly gotten under his skin.
This abortion comment by Carol Fowler is one of the most disturbing, personal, demeaning and troubling for the Obama campaign. Women were already moving in McCain’s direction and this could increase the speed at which Obama loses independent American women. I finally agree with Sen. Lindsey Graham on something — Obama should call on Fowler to apologize to Palin and, frankly, to all women around the USA.
For now, let me say that as a gay Republican who has been repeatedly attacked by leftists as “self-loathing” — I would have to humbly observe that any woman who votes for Obama (after his growing track record of anti-women behavior and comments) would have to question her inner self seriously before pulling that lever.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
NOTES FROM PALIN TRUTH SQUAD CONFERENCE CALL AT 4:45PM EASTERN TODAY:
Speakers:Â US Sen. Lindsey Graham & US Rep. Marsha Blackburn
Graham: I know Carol and Don Fowler and I was “shocked and surprised” by the comments Carol made against Gov. Palin.
The Obama campaign has launched “personal and hateful attacks” against Palin and they should stop.
“The Obama campaign is clearly in meltdown mode over Governor Palin’s selection for the ticket.”
Her selection has John McCain’s running mate has “thrown our opponents for a loop and they don’t know how to respond”.
If a Republican had made the same statement as Carol Fowler did about a Democratic woman running for office, there would be a “firestorm” condemnations.
Calls on Senator Obama to reject Carol Fowler’s comments and apologize to Gov. Palin.
Blackburn: This latest comment shows a “pattern of behavior” by Obama and his campaign.  (She cited the “sweetie” comment I mentioned above as well as various other anti-woman references Obama made against Hiillary Clinton).
“Americans and especially women are offended by the lack of respect towards Governor Palin” since her announcement as McCain’s running mate.
The Democrats are engaged in an effort to diminish Gov. Palin’s accomplishments using completely inappropriate language that is offensive to women.
I find it encouraging that the McCain campaign invited to this blog conference call. Kudos to them for that, although to be perfectly honest I’m not very impressed with Senator Graham at all. To whiney for my taste. Still, nice gesture by the McCainites.
Add to the list: Obama said at one point that Hillary is more likely to attack him when she “periodically… feels down”.
(although, no offense intended, Hillary probably doesn’t have periods anymore)
Carol Fowler is the wife of Dan Fowler, he of the “I hope hurricane Gustav kills hundreds of people because it will prove God is on our side, ha-ha” fame.
“he said Hillary would throw the “kitchen sink†against him”
That is a sexist remark only in the mind of someone who desperately needs to attack the person saying it but can’t be bothered to come up with something valid. Throwing the kitchen sink is one of the most common phrases that is used for multiple purposes.
“and just yesterday he likened Governor Palin to a pig with lipstick”
No, he didn’t and you little tiny juvenile “conservatives” need to seriously grow up.
ILC, I do hope your comment was a joke, I hadn’t thought you were that ridiculous.
The truly sad thing about all this is Republican scumbag tactics are successful, a disgraceful reflection of the American people’s willingness to listen and actually think about what is said. And pseudo-conservative attitudes continue to drag our country deeper and deeper into the sewer.
The validity of the Repubs screeching about sexism is about the same as that of Dems screeching about “pork”.
Is Stretch Armstrong the new political adviser to the McCain campaign?
“Lipstick on a pig” is a common phrase and it was directed at his opponants’ ideas of ‘change’ not about Sarah or John – duh. McCain, it should be noted has also used the phrase. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR8IhMMhe8w
“throwing everything and the kitchen sink at…” is also quite common and has no degrading connotations.
If Carol Fowler did say that it is certainly sad but not quite as sad as the hideous “education” ad approved by John McCain. That is a new depth in disgraceful, disgusting, and despicable negative ads. Shame on John McCain.
“It is shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign to use a bill that was written to protect young children from sexual predators as a recycled and discredited political attack against a father of two young girls – a position that his friend Mitt Romney also holds. Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn’t define what honor was. Now we know why,” said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.
Indeed. Indeed.
Hey Dave – just to prove how uninformed you are – Read it and weep:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/is-obama-using.html
ROTFLMAO 🙂 (At you, Dave. At you.)
(Cue Dave reverting to “I hex you!” or “You have cooties!” or some such in 4, 3, 2…)
OK, what I came to say: Treacher has a roundup of Obama’s jerky behavior. It’s not complete, of course. Omits several examples from above. But still worth perusing.
There is a tape of Obama saying the Illinois bill was for K kids sex education, he was criticised for it by his opponent Alan Keys and BHO said his vote was the right thing to do! Where’s the lie?
This attack on Sarah, by the SC state chair, Matt Damon claiming it’ll be a Disney movie if she and Mac are elected, calling a Governor a pig? Calling a veteran hero an old rotting fish?…ENOUGH! ENOUGH OF THE SMEAR TACTICS FROM the righteous Obama campaign. ENOUGH! If Barack needs a week off to get rested and reign in his out of control surrogates, do it! ENOUGH!
Once again, the Obamunists are asking to believe the implausible… Obama was not insulting Palin… over the obvious… he was insulting Palin. For reasons that have been exhaustively covered:
1. Obama has a history of pulling this crap (Giving the finger to Hillary, than pretending it was an innocuous gesture).
2. The crowd cheered the remark with laughter uncharacteristically enthusiastic for such a lame overused metaphor, and Obama basked in it.
3. There were other metaphors he could have used “old wine in new bottles,” “meet the new boss, same as the old boss,” that would not have been obvious insults to a woman whose line about wearing lipstick was one of her most memorable.
4. It’s in line with the pattern of smears and attacks Obama supporters have been making non-stop since Palin was nominated.
Like I said, to buy Obama’s explanation, you have to choose the implausible over the obvious. Either that, or Obama is simply too dumb to be president by the virtue of making a remark so easily misconstrued.
Gene, by now you know, the left has redefined lie to include “things that are true about Obama, but which would hurt his candidacy.”
well she has at least one other quality, the ability to publically lie in a commerical.
Keep it up, lefties… The left is bordering on derangement (and some, like Sully, have already gone off the rails).
If the GOP is smart, it won’t respond to this tripe – just let it hang out there and rot. By Election Day, the smell will be overwhelming.
Ah yes, the Obama excuse; “If you don’t support schools telling kindergartners about sex in graphic detail, you’re enabling pedophiles”.
Again, what is the obsession that liberals and Obama have with “educating” underage children in sex?
You republican kids are really nuts.
Really.
If you so hyper sensitive in defense of Mrs. Palin that you make this lipstick crap up – there is no hope for you – you have no sense. Zip. You parrot neocon talking point fed to you by the fools like Brother Boy Lindsey Graham and the raging homophobe Tim Grahm who are fed their lines by punkin’ head rove and that overweight OxyContin user.
What’s up with the neocon’s unapologetic use of ‘uppity’ (notably Westmoreland & Goddard) as of late? Where is the corporate media outrage? Hmmmm…
Sad story.
You are not participating in your own recovery!
Why is John McCain opposed to stopping pedophiles?
If teaching kindergartners about sex will stop pedophiles, maybe giving them whiskey instead of milk will stop alcoholics.
Lucky for them, carve jobs are for the po’folks and not the Obamas. BTW, shouldn’t Obama be at home raising his girls instead of cavorting around the 57 states?
Spit out his dick and ask him.
P.S. in MY post (#16) I provided actual examples of poking fun or using a physical (rove’s very odd head)/character (lesbian hating grahm) trait to make a more colorful point.
Obama did not do that.
“is our children learning?”
GWB
Middle-aged leftist man who looks like an old lesbian Roger Ebert lets Sarah Palin melt his brain. Seems he disapproves for her for not spending enough of her life in Europe.
But the left isn’t elitist, or anything. How could anyone infer that he’s an elitist just because he thinks unless one spends several years among our European betters, one is simply an unwashed backwoods peasant with corncob pipe, missing teeth, and a jug of moonshine.
“I mean it’s like these guys take pride in ignorance!”
It sure seems that way Senator Obama. It sure does.
Have fun and keep applying your lipstick boys, maybe you’ll change…
Can I ask a question? Did Barack Obama think to ask the PARENTS to educate their kids about pedophiles as opposed to schools? The big government lefties think the government is responsible for everything starting at age 5 or earlier.
Liberal Gay Parody, you and Dave are the ignorant (as in uninformed) ones in this thread. Keep pretending you aren’t 😉 I know it’s a constant struggle.
According to liberals, most parents are unqualified to raise their children.
#23
When it comes to liberal parents, I tend to agree.
I think the bigger issues for the Obama campaign is that Obama’s best weapon has been his words. If he starts having these gaffes, whether real or “pounced on”, its going to be be problem for them to get on message. Whether its fair or not, Republicans have been able to take control of the dialogue and will take control of the election if it continues. Its not the McCain or Palin who is making this an issue, which keeps them out of the fray and allows them to stay on message while Obama gets tied up in this.
Republicans have won because they know how to go on the offense and know how to take control. Aslong as Obama is playing defense, he will lose this in the end.
The Dark Lord
VoldemortKarl Rove must be casting spells on various lefties all over the world to make them vomit their bile. And who on earth really thinks that telling we knuckle-dragging Americans that 80% of Europeans (busily not breeding themselves to extinction) support Obama won’t cause us to vote for McCain just to tweak their noses?Comments like Fowler’s certainly offend far more people than are converted to Obamism (Onanism??).
If I were Obama, I’d be trying to find a way to muzzle my supporters. After all, we’re known by the company we keep. Instead of staying on message, The Messiah is left to put out fires started by his allies (plus his own gaffes).
McCain and Palin (and their campaign) really need to ignore this stuff and stay on message. Or, at least, make light of it. As many have suggested, Palin could lead off her next appearance by refreshing her lipstick.
Not being taken seriously will further unhinge the left so that the rest of us can see the true soul of the angry left.
Fowler said “(blah blah)…I apologize to anyone who finds my comment offensive.(blah blah)”
Typical (from left and right) weasel apology. I’m not apologizing for saying something asinine, I’m apologizing that someone was offended. In other words, I stand by the sentiment and I’m “sorry” that you’re offended.
Gee… I’m sorry if you were offended that I walked across the street and left a big ol’ bag of dog poop on your doorstep.
We’ve got a little over seven weeks until the election – it’s going to get nasty.
It’s amazing how the Democrat Party actually looks down on women who don’t have abortions and considers them second-class citizens.
Best comment on the claws “It’s an apt and completely non-sexist metaphor… if he had he been running against Wolverine from the X-Men.”
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDMyY2RkMGUxYWUxZmIyMWI2ZDM4NTZmMjQzODE0Y2Q=
He’s a mysogonist, I know you’re shocked.
(LGP, that means he’s inarticulate, as Sen. Biden might say.)
Feminists wanted us to disallow Justice Thomas from the courts, based on one (fabricated) incident. Yet they support serial mysogonists and adulterers in their quest for power. Go fig.
Karma can be a bitch, eh LW?
The Obama people are stressed. In this morning’s Wall Street Journal:
That is a hoot! For those not in the know: The “Us” cover was, in fact, an evil slam on Palin, implying that she was a liar drowning in scandal; nothing like the multiple adulatory, indeed beatific, “Us” covers that the Obamas have received. And Obama continues to refuse to meet McCain for unscripted townhalls with ordinary Americans.
I think the news media is in a snit about Palin because, despite their best efforts, Americans still seem to like her. This must be driving the “deciders” of the American media nuts.
Liberal Gay Patriot is just like the kid who starts crying in the game of tag and announces he is going home, but stands at the edge of the playground and screams senseless insults.
Well, everyone has got to be somewhere. Now we know what Liberal Gay Patriot does to keep his mind active. Very Useful, that one.
Good thing the Obamas have launched their fellow liberal “educators” into public commentary.
In retrospect, given that it employs her, the Obamas, and William Ayers, not going to the University of Chicago was probably the best decision I ever made.
Charlie, What’s the Bush Doctrine, Charlie? Charlie, what do you mean by that, Charlie? OHHHH. Don’t blink. Don’t blink. Don’t blink.
Not strong at all. Pretty damn weak.
LOL….or so say the silly ones like jimmy who a week ago were screaming that Trig Palin wasn’t Sarah Palin’s baby.
Grip on reality? None.
The Bush doctrine is fairly broad topic area. Explicitly, it refers only to treating states that support terrorism as terrorists themselves. But, ideas like nation-building, democratization, and preemption have been attached to the Bush Doctrine, rightly or wrongly. So, it was completely appropriate for Palin to ask Gibson to clarify what he meant.
jimmy is just showing what an ignorant tool he is. He doesn’t deserve a capital.
ABC
Defining the Bush Doctrine [Greg Pollowitz]
The left is going bananas over Governor Palin’s answer to Gibson’s “Bush Doctrine†question. Andy McCarthy has a good post on it over in the Corner, but I thought I’d add a little history of the “Bush Doctrine†using the search function at NYTimes.com. The term “Bush Doctrine†looks to have been used for the first time, post 9/11, in mid-November:
A senior administration official said Mr. Bush’s speech would be a fleshing out of what the White House calls the Bush Doctrine — the assertion that nations that harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves.
In January 2002, the editors of the Times wrote:
Mr. Bush appears to be developing an assertive new military doctrine that includes the threat of armed intervention against nations that are developing weapons that may put the United States in peril. The evolving Bush Doctrine implies a preemptive use of conventional force to take out missile launchers, industrial enterprises and facilities that appear to be involved in the fabrication of unconventional weapons. This is a radical departure from what went before. Traditionally, the United States has employed its military forces in retaliation for an attack rather than striking first itself. That should not preclude other options when there is a clear and present danger of attack, but firing first is not a step to be taken lightly.
By March, the “Bush Doctrine†had expanded yet again to include regime change:
In the tug of war between the go-get-’em, nuke-brandishing civilians of the Pentagon and the coalition-minded pragmatists of the State Department, conservatives are now convinced Mr. Bush’s sympathies are gung-ho. The Weekly Standard, which has overcome personal strains with Mr. Bush to become something like the president’s conservative superego, has taken to calling this â€The Bush Doctrine.â€
â€On tactics, he may be listening to Colin Powell,†said Norman Podhoretz, the influential conservative editor and author. â€But he’s very clear as to his strategic objectives — not just to clean up Al Qaeda cells but to effect regime changes in six or seven countries and to create conditions which would lead to internal reform and modernization in the Islamic world.â€
In September, the Times had an editorial titled, “Bush Doctrine,†based on the National Security Strategy paper submitted to Congress. An excerpt:
The tension between idealism and realism in foreign policy runs through America history, and the fault lines are evident in Mr. Bush’s policy statement. The paper — a policy summation that every president is required to submit to Congress — seems in some sections to be animated by the most enlightened and constructive impulses of the land of Jefferson, Lincoln and the Marshall Plan. It dedicates the nation to extending the benefits of freedom, democracy, prosperity and the rule of law to struggling countries around the globe. Mr. Bush speaks eloquently in an introductory letter about working with other nations to combat disease and alleviate poverty, and he reaffirms his determination to increase American foreign aid.
At other points, the paper sounds more like a pronouncement that the Roman Empire or Napoleon might have produced. Given Mr. Bush’s lone-wolf record on matters like global warming, and the nature of the issues he now faces, including a looming confrontation with Iraq, it is clear these combative attitudes will be driving Washington policy in the months ahead. The boys in Lubbock may want to pause before signing on for the overly aggressive stance Mr. Bush has outlined.
This, I believe, is the September 2002 that Charlie Gibson refers to in his interview. Gibson only referred to the preemption aspect of it, but the human rights and regime changes aspects are as important. Gibson never mentioned this in his little snarky lecture to Gov. Palin.
By April, 2003, we have President Bush admitting he’s not quite sure what the “Bush Doctrine†actually is:
Mr. Bush’s overt use of diplomatic pressure against Syria and Iran, two countries that Mr. Bush has identified as sponsors of terrorism, is in stark contrast to the use of preemptive force against Iraq.
Yet at one point in his interview, Mr. Bush acknowledged that he had yet to fully form the â€Bush doctrine,†or to think through how the American victory in Iraq would affect his vow to deal with weapons of mass destruction on a global basis.
In December, we have yet another version of the “Bush Doctrine†as described in the book America Unbound:
Buttressed by extensive research, the authors demonstrate convincingly that Mr. Bush is not the puppet of the vice president or the Defense Department hawks. He has fundamental beliefs that have reversed America’s six-decade commitment to internationalism. His foreign policy for the 21st century marks a decided preference for unilateralism.
As the authors describe it, his policy rests on two beliefs: â€The first was that in a dangerous world the best — if not the only — way to ensure America’s security was to shed the constraints imposed by friends, allies, and international institutions.†The second belief was that â€an America unbound should use its strength to change the status quo in the world.â€
This does not mean that America need always act alone. When unilateral actions seem impossible or unwise, Mr. Bush will seek allies, but not to make decisions that would require their approval. His preferred approach is to seek ad hoc â€coalitions of the willing,†what Richard Haas, a former adviser to Secretary of State Colin Powell, has called â€Ã la carte multilateralism.â€
After John Kerry’s defeat in 2005, the “Bush Doctrine†became defined by the left with the buzzwords “preemptive†and “unilateral.†Paul Krugman for example:
On the foreign policy front, the “Bush doctrine†of pre-emption and unilateralism sounded very impressive at first. But Mr. Bush’s tough-guy attitude wasn’t matched by his willingness to commit resources. His administration sought global dominance on the cheap, with an undermanned, underplanned invasion of Iraq that has, indeed, transformed the balance of power in the Middle East – in favor of Iran.
In December 2006, Gary Hart wrote this in defense of Barack Obama:
His inherent internationalism causes him to ponder why, five years after 9/11 and 15 years after the end of the cold war, the United States “still lacks a coherent national security policy,†rightly finding the Bush doctrine of pre-emption and defeat of evil in the world wanting.
In January 2007, there’s this description:
In a sense, it was an extraordinary retreat by Bush – and not just because Fatah and Hamas killing each other daily makes a plan for new talks surreal. More, it winds the United States deeper into the whorls of process, and goes against the Bush doctrine that democratization of the Middle East starts with the defeat of terrorism.
September 2007:
None of the leading Republican candidates has been willing to articulate anything like a new direction for how to confront terrorism or what to do in Iraq, despite the fact that the Bush doctrine of forcibly spreading democracy has been widely deemed a failure, even by a sizable chunk of Republicans.
From the Times review of Norman Podhoretz’s World War IV:
Mr. Podhoretz, however, remains an ardent supporter of the Bush doctrine of unilateral action, pre-emptive war and the exportation of democracy to the Middle East.
So, it’s easy to see why there might be a little confusion on what exactly Charlie Gibson was getting at when he asked about the “Bush Doctrine.†Except for the Times, of course. It’s crystal clear for them. Here’s how they wrote up the Palin interview:
In the interview Thursday, Palin:
— Appeared unsure of the Bush doctrine — essentially that the United States must help spread democracy to stop terrorism and that the nation will act pre-emptively to stop potential foes.
Asked whether she agreed with that, Palin said: â€In what respect, Charlie?†Gibson pressed her for an interpretation of it. She said: â€His world view.†That prompted Gibson to say â€no, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war†and describe it to her.
Here’s what Gibson actually said, however:
The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self defense. That we have the right to a premptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us.
Not only was Charlie Gibson wrong about what was enunciated in September 2002, Gov. Palin was 100% correct in asking what the heck he was babbling about as well as 100% correct in what she said.
09/11 10:28 PM
ABC
Defining the Bush Doctrine [Greg Pollowitz]
The left is going bananas over Governor Palin’s answer to Gibson’s “Bush Doctrine†question. Andy McCarthy has a good post on it over in the Corner, but I thought I’d add a little history of the “Bush Doctrine†using the search function at NYTimes.com. The term “Bush Doctrine†looks to have been used for the first time, post 9/11, in mid-November:
A senior administration official said Mr. Bush’s speech would be a fleshing out of what the White House calls the Bush Doctrine — the assertion that nations that harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves.
In January 2002, the editors of the Times wrote:
Mr. Bush appears to be developing an assertive new military doctrine that includes the threat of armed intervention against nations that are developing weapons that may put the United States in peril. The evolving Bush Doctrine implies a preemptive use of conventional force to take out missile launchers, industrial enterprises and facilities that appear to be involved in the fabrication of unconventional weapons. This is a radical departure from what went before. Traditionally, the United States has employed its military forces in retaliation for an attack rather than striking first itself. That should not preclude other options when there is a clear and present danger of attack, but firing first is not a step to be taken lightly.
By March, the “Bush Doctrine†had expanded yet again to include regime change:
In the tug of war between the go-get-’em, nuke-brandishing civilians of the Pentagon and the coalition-minded pragmatists of the State Department, conservatives are now convinced Mr. Bush’s sympathies are gung-ho. The Weekly Standard, which has overcome personal strains with Mr. Bush to become something like the president’s conservative superego, has taken to calling this â€The Bush Doctrine.â€
â€On tactics, he may be listening to Colin Powell,†said Norman Podhoretz, the influential conservative editor and author. â€But he’s very clear as to his strategic objectives — not just to clean up Al Qaeda cells but to effect regime changes in six or seven countries and to create conditions which would lead to internal reform and modernization in the Islamic world.â€
In September, the Times had an editorial titled, “Bush Doctrine,†based on the National Security Strategy paper submitted to Congress. An excerpt:
The tension between idealism and realism in foreign policy runs through America history, and the fault lines are evident in Mr. Bush’s policy statement. The paper — a policy summation that every president is required to submit to Congress — seems in some sections to be animated by the most enlightened and constructive impulses of the land of Jefferson, Lincoln and the Marshall Plan. It dedicates the nation to extending the benefits of freedom, democracy, prosperity and the rule of law to struggling countries around the globe. Mr. Bush speaks eloquently in an introductory letter about working with other nations to combat disease and alleviate poverty, and he reaffirms his determination to increase American foreign aid.
At other points, the paper sounds more like a pronouncement that the Roman Empire or Napoleon might have produced. Given Mr. Bush’s lone-wolf record on matters like global warming, and the nature of the issues he now faces, including a looming confrontation with Iraq, it is clear these combative attitudes will be driving Washington policy in the months ahead. The boys in Lubbock may want to pause before signing on for the overly aggressive stance Mr. Bush has outlined.
This, I believe, is the September 2002 that Charlie Gibson refers to in his interview. Gibson only referred to the preemption aspect of it, but the human rights and regime changes aspects are as important. Gibson never mentioned this in his little snarky lecture to Gov. Palin.
By April, 2003, we have President Bush admitting he’s not quite sure what the “Bush Doctrine†actually is:
Mr. Bush’s overt use of diplomatic pressure against Syria and Iran, two countries that Mr. Bush has identified as sponsors of terrorism, is in stark contrast to the use of preemptive force against Iraq.
Yet at one point in his interview, Mr. Bush acknowledged that he had yet to fully form the â€Bush doctrine,†or to think through how the American victory in Iraq would affect his vow to deal with weapons of mass destruction on a global basis.
In December, we have yet another version of the “Bush Doctrine†as described in the book America Unbound:
Buttressed by extensive research, the authors demonstrate convincingly that Mr. Bush is not the puppet of the vice president or the Defense Department hawks. He has fundamental beliefs that have reversed America’s six-decade commitment to internationalism. His foreign policy for the 21st century marks a decided preference for unilateralism.
Palin right on Bush Doctrine, ABC NEWS doesn’t even know what it means
Weekly Standard ^ | 9-12-08 | Richard Starr
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/09/what_exactly_is_the_bush_doctr.asp#more
What Exactly Is the ‘Bush Doctrine’? It’s being taken in some quarters as revelatory of inexperience that Sarah Palin sought clarification when ABC’s Charlie Gibson asked her about the Bush Doctrine. To review, here is the passage from the transcript.
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine? PALIN: In what respect, Charlie? GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be? PALIN: His world view. GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war. PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better. GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
Gibson should of course have said in the first place what he understood the Bush Doctrine to be–and specified that he was asking a question about preemption. Palin was well within bounds to have asked him to be more specific. Because, as it happens, the doctrine has no universally acknowledged single meaning. Gibson himself in the past has defined the Bush Doctrine to mean “a promise that all terrorist organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeatedâ€â€“which is remarkably close to Palin’s own answer.
Consider what a diversity of views on the meaning of the Bush Doctrine can be found simply within the archives of ABC News itself:
September 20, 2001 PETER JENNINGS: . . . Claire, the president said at one point, ‘From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.’ Should we be taking that as the Bush doctrine? CLAIRE SHIPMAN reporting: I think so, Peter,
September 21, 2001 CHARLIE GIBSON: The president in his speech last night, very forceful. Four out of five Americans watched it. Everybody gathered around the television set last night. The president issued a series of demands to the Taliban, already rejected. We’ll get to that in a moment. He also outlined what is being called the Bush Doctrine, a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated.
September 21, 2001 CHARLIE GIBSON: Senator Daschle, let me start with you. People were looking for a Bush Doctrine. They may have found it when he said the war on terror will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped or defeated. That’s pretty broad. Broader than you expected?
December 9, 2001 GEORGE WILL: The Bush doctrine holds that anyone who governs a territory is complicit in any terrorism that issues from that territory. That covers the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Second, the war on terrorism is indivisible, it’s part of the Bush doctrine.
December 11, 2001 GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Two years ago, September 1999, Bush gave his first speech when he was running about terrorism. And his first–had the first explanation of the Bush doctrine, that if you harbor a terrorist, you’re going to be attacked. The Bush White House is putting this out, saying it shows that Bush was very prescient, but that was only one speech given in the campaign.
January 28, 2002 BOB WOODWARD: This is now the Bush Doctrine . . . , namely that if we’re attacked by terrorists, we will not just go after those terrorists but the countries or the people who harbor them.
January 29, 2002 GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: It was striking and significant that the president really expanded the Bush doctrine. If a nation builds a weapon of mass destruction–Iraq, Iran or North Korea–we will reserve the right to take out those weapons even if we’re not attacked or even if there’s not a threat.
March 19, 2004 TERRY MORAN: That was the Bush doctrine we just heard. On this one-year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, President Bush offered a very broad justification of American leadership in the world under him since 9/11. Not just since one year in Iraq. For American voters as an argument that the country is safer, but more as you point out, for the world, which has been divided by his leadership, that Iraq is knit, in his mind, very firmly into that war on terrorism. One omission which I believe will be noted around the world, he made no mention of the role of multilateral institutions, the UN and others, in this fight against terrorism. In his mind, it’s clear it’s American leadership with others following along.
May 7, 2006 GEORGE WILL: Now the argument from the right is the CIA is a rogue agent because it has not subscribed to the Bush doctrine. The Bush doctrine being that American security depends on the spread of democracy and we know how to do that. The trouble is, Negroponte, who is considered by some of these conservatives the villain here and an enemy of the Bush doctrine is the choice of Bush, which makes Bush an insufficient subscriber to the Bush doctrine.
I’ll stop there, although anyone with a Nexis account can find far more where that came from. Preemptive war; American unilateralism; the overthrow of regimes that harbor and abet terrorists–all of these things and more have been described as the “Bush Doctrine.†It was a bit of a sham on Gibson’s part to have pretended that there’s such a thing as ‘the’ Bush Doctrine, much less that it was enunciated in September 2002
“…just yesterday he likened Governor Palin to a pig with lipstick, rather than a pitbull with lipstick (her original joke).”
That isn’t true.
I’m surprised to find such a blatant lie in your post… I haven’t even had to look it up! If you spent the time to actually look into his speech, he was comparing a pig in lipstick to McCain’s confounding new “change” campaign… Basically, saying that you can dress up your stance, but it is still just an opinion.
That’s one thing you don’t mention… how McCain’s happy new tagline on change is so blatantly hypocritical. 10% change, and stealing Obama’s catchline to boot? What a hero. But, I forgot! He’s a POW! Hush me up, that’s horrible!
Um, Thea, change is more than a tagline for John McCain. You guy calls him consistent on reform.
Oh, and, can you identify any real change Obama has actually accomplished since elected to office.
You and Obama are just upset because John McCain has exposed the emptiness of your man’s mantra.