And King…

"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."

There's no mention of pre-emptive war in her answer. None. Yet you say….

"But her response indicates she does have an understanding of what the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war was all about, because that's what she was addressing with her response."

How would we know that from her answer? You're simply making stuff up here.

America is watching and paying attention. Let them sling all the mud they want. Let them spout all the hateful crap they can think of. It's helping McCain.

Defeat Obama in November and you also defeat the media elites — a nice twoforer

The essential part of the Gibson-Palin exchange came here (and I already posted the exchange myself):

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, annunciated 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.

So, what part of her response to the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war did Palin get wrong ? The only thing I can say is, she didn't really answer the question Gibson asked, about whether she agreed with the Doctrine or not (as I've also stated before). But her response indicates she does have an understanding of what the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war was all about, because that's what she was addressing with her response.

Somehow I find that one piece of that rather long interview (interrogation) as about the only thing you people can find wrong and if you look at Gibson's hesitation at the first response by Palin maybe you might find Gibson being taken aback at not getting his "Gotcha" answer. I think she answered very well whether she knew what he meant or not. As King keeps telling you there are more Bush policies referred to as his "Doctrine" than just that one item outside Democrat talking points.

You guys are grasping at straws and you know it.

"I'm wondering how you reach that conclusion. First of all, Gibson didn't ask her what the 'Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war' was at first. I wish he had. Then we might have gotten a more responsive answer from Palin. But no, Gibson asked her what the 'Bush Doctrine' was."

Flase. He did not ask her what the Bush doctrine was. You are attempting to make it look like he was quizzing her. He was asking her if she agreed with the doctrine, only to discovers she had no idea what he was talking about. Then she tried to BS her way out of it:

King, below is transcript of the interview from Fox News:

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view?

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, annunciated 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.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/11/raw-data-palins-interview-with-abc-news/

Speaking of embarassing, ridiculous, and serious VP picks, you voted for Kerry/Edwards in 2004 didn't you ?

What experience did Edwards bring to the table, other than hardly any ? And for that matter, weren't you an early supporter of Edwards for president in 2008, prior to jumping on the inexperienced Obama bandwagon after Edwards fell out of the race ?

With every word, you condemn yourself.

"Other foreign policy experts have taken the term to mean Bush's doctrine of preventive war, first articulated in 2002, which holds that the United States government should depose foreign regimes that represent a threat to the security of the United States, even if such threats are not immediate and no attack is imminent. This policy was used to justify the invasion of Iraq in March 2003."

….until Sarah Palin had to be interviewed and didn't know what it was.

Then, suddenly, the Bush Doctrine lost it's definition because Palin didn't know what it was.

This whole Palin thing is embarassing and ridiculous. It makes us look like a nation who doesn't take anything seriously anymore. Certainly not GOP vice presidential picks.

But Maher has a point about those Republicans being elitists – like Sarah Palin from the elitist town of Wasilla, Alaska, who graduated from the elitist University of Idaho. What a snob. Poor Barry had to scrape by at Harvard.

And when did Palin say "There is more than one point to that piece of legislation" about the Bush Doctrine during the Gibson interview ? I had to go back and look at the transcript again, and I couldn't find that.

But let me take another crack at informing you. Here is the first paragraph from Wikipedia that describes the Bush Doctrine:

"The Bush Doctrine is a term used to describe the foreign policy doctrine of United States president George W. Bush, enunciated in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. It may be viewed as a set of several related foreign policy principles, including stress on ending terrorism, spreading democracy, increased unilateralism in foreign policy and an expanded view of American national security interests. Foreign policy experts argue over the meaning of the term "Bush Doctrine," and some scholars have suggested that there is no one unified theory underlying Bush's foreign policy. Jacob Weisberg identifies six successive "Bush Doctrines" in his book The Bush Tragedy,[1] while former Bush staffer Peter D. Feaver has counted seven.[2] Other foreign policy experts have taken the term to mean Bush's doctrine of preventive war, first articulated in 2002, which holds that the United States government should depose foreign regimes that represent a threat to the security of the United States, even if such threats are not immediate and no attack is imminent. This policy was used to justify the invasion of Iraq in March 2003."

Perhaps you'll note the part that says even foreign policy experts disagree on the meaning of the Bush Doctrine. Rev, maybe you should call them all up and enlighten them, since you have it figured out and the experts don't. Perhaps, you'll also note there are a minimum of six different Bush Doctrines, and that it refers to a number of foreign policy issues, not merely 'hey, let's throw a dart at a map and then invade that country.'

In addition to McCain's reasons for picking Palin, "looks and perceived star quality", insightfully pointed out by Annie…..I would include the fact that Palin is simply adored as a darling by the religious far-right.

McCain once considered leaders of the religious far-right to be agents of intolerance. Now he wants to place one of the true believers of far-right religiosity a heartbeat away from the most powerful position in the world.

Why do you call it attacks. Jeez shes running for Vice President, In a time like this, with all of this global hatred towards the USA, asking for clarity on the Bush Doctorine is like asking someone to be more specific on the what happened on 9/11. It would be odd I asked someone who is old enough to remember " What happened on 9/11" , what would you think about the person if they responded "what year. uhhh can you please be specific. Come on lay off the Rev he got a good point

Not one soul among the 4 libs on that show felt Palin did a good job and the token barely right leaner, John Fund, disagreed with them. It could almost make a sane person cry just to listen to that bunch attack anyone who isn't liberal enough to suit them. Actually they usually complete the circle and get around to tearing into themselves about so many things. Maher actually talked about elitism of the Republicans and ended up comparing the Founding Fathers to McCain and Palin as east coast people and westerners of the old West days. Somehow he didn't really see any elitism in what he was saying. I doubt that he even knew that nearly every one of those Fathers lived in states that border on the Atlantic Ocean. Easterners, my butt, they were from the United States of America and all the states were "east". He even alluded to elitism among Republicans naming names and Garofalo got around to saying things that make Scary Barry sound as elitist as we think he is.

I think we should recommend Rev for one of Maher's exhibitions. Huh?

McCain picked on looks and perceived "star quality," not on verifiable talent and ability. Prove me wrong.

Example: "There is more than one pont to that piece of legislation."

This is in response to the Bush Doctrine issue. The Bush Doctrine is not a piece of legislation. The Bush Doctrine, as all close observers understand, is the NEW foreign/military policy (as of 2002) of America stating that the U.S. has the right to start wars, even if we are not threatened or attacked. That Doctrine was the windowdressing given to the Bush-Cheney illegal war of choice in Iraq.

No one disagrees about what the "aim" of Bush's recklessness has been. Sure, we have to get those Islamofascists.

Just analyze Palin's inclusion of the words in response to Gibson…."There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made."

That response IS like pulling a string on a Chatty Cathy doll. The "mistakes made" phrase is GOP boilerplate for the illegal Iraq invasion and occupation.

She crammed for a few days with Lieberman and Steve Schmidt and she remembered to throw that "mistakes made" phrase in when she could….even though it was completely out of context.

Totally unqualified and unprepared.

I'm wondering how you reach that conclusion. First of all, Gibson didn't ask her what the 'Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war' was at first. I wish he had. Then we might have gotten a more responsive answer from Palin. But no, Gibson asked her what the 'Bush Doctrine' was. That could mean many things, and the so-called Bush Doctrine of 2002 was reformed in 2006 (and Gibson didn't even state it correctly. It's not simply "pre-emptive war"), so Palin rightly asked for clarification. Gibson referred to the Bush Doctrine as that enunciated in september 2002. Then Palin responded with this:

"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."

The aim of the real Bush Doctrine (not the Doctrine as the left would have us believe, that is nothing but invading any country we want pre-emptively) is to deal with the new threat of terrorism, where our enemies may not be only nation states, but also unaffiliated groups like Al Qaeda as well. The changes brought by the Bush Doctrine ARE about dealing with terrorism, just as Palin stated.

If there are criticisms of Palin's response, they shouldn't be that she didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was, her response indicated that she does. The criticism should be that she didn't really answer the question. She didn't say if she supports the Bush view. She was too vague. She pointed out the intent of the Bush Doctrine accurately, then said mistakes were made, but she didn't say what those mistakes were. I wish Gibson had asked her what those mistakes were, but he didn't.

If you really care what the Bush Doctrine of 2002 was (more appropriately called the National Security Strategy), you can find it here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2002/index.html

If you really care what the current Bush Doctrine is, as stated in 2006, you can find it here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/

That was a hit below the waste.. That was uncalled for. Bush is caucasion and had very lucrative positions. However he failed at everyone of them including President of the United States. So if Obama makes a good fry Bush and the rest of the rebublicpukes make better fries. tell me when and where has bush had success? Since when has the media, tip toed around issues concerning any black person? Even BET dismantles Black legends. So dont give me that. I cant believe you said this man hasnt answered a qualified question. Hes answering millions. I think the republicans is just shock because Obama doesnt fit the mold as other politicians. All of his dirt was out in the open since day one.

Hey, guys, he is supposed to be a member of the Obama cult from his age but he sure isn't and works with an Obama lover. I think listening to that fool has done a lot to swing him, also.

This is different but on the View today they asked McCain about her asking for earmarks. As a governor her job is to ask for earmark projects for her state. Her job is to get as much of the pie as she can for the citizens of her state. If anyone should be chastized it should be McCain, Obama and Biden for approving her earmarks.

They hate her because she is a strong woman that doesn't fit the typical feminist model. She is qualified to lead our country. However she is not Hillary and many people thought she deserved the first woman Pres/VP role.

Also Barrack hasn't really answered the qualifications questions. They adore him because he is African/American. The media knows they have to tip toe around him to avoid the race issue, so to appease him they will elect him president of the US?
His experience equates to the McDonalds business model where he now has the experience to make fries pretty good so we will promote him to company president next week in the name of affirmative action and so the company looks good and not racist. I can hear it now. "Should we order more ketchup for the company?"……(Not wanting to take responsibility barrack says) "Present"