Browse By

Sarah Palin Asked About Bush Doctrine. Answer: Blink Blink Blink.

“You can’t blink.” — Sarah Palin, September 11 2008

A transcript won’t do it. You have to watch Sarah Palin blink, blink again, stammer, blink yet again, fudge, insert boilerplate and finally just make stuff up when asked a simple question: “Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?”

Someone who is truly ready to be President should a man in his seventies unsurprisingly become incapacitated or die would have an answer to this. The Bush Doctrine has been discussed by name for years. Apparently, Sarah Palin has not been paying attention.

Even if Sarah Palin could not describe the “Bush Doctrine” before today, she should have been able to do it today, today of all days, the day when the newspapers have broken the story that George W. Bush has made use of the Bush Doctrine to order cross-border raids on Pakistan. But no, Sarah Palin was not apparently following the news today, because she still didn’t know what the Bush doctrine was.

Heck, as the video shows, she couldn’t even answer “yes” or “no” when asked the substantive and very presidential question about whether cross-border raids into Pakistan would be permissible in her view.

A deer in the headlights is not a president.

16 thoughts on “Sarah Palin Asked About Bush Doctrine. Answer: Blink Blink Blink.”

  1. Gunner Sykes says:

    Doctrine has other meanings. The Bush Doctrine is not simply the idea of preemptive war, either.

    Try again.

    Don’t blink.

  2. Jon says:

    Good answer Palin.

  3. Mike says:

    Do you agree with the Obama Doctrine?

    Was that a blink?

    Try again.

    Ohhh, that’s wrong. Thanks for playing.

  4. Jim says:

    You mean to stop pumping up Americans’ fears at home and to place primary emphasis on diplomacy and cooperative efforts abroad? Damned straight I agree with it. Palin doesn’t even know what her patron’s foreign policy doctrine.

  5. julie burket says:

    I did think it strange that Sarah said she didn’t even BLINK in saying
    yes to being VP…I didn’t think Charlie was being anything but human
    to say that seemed a little arrogant. (I would think the most qualified person
    in the USA would think it a tremendous challenge to be a heartbeat away from being
    the leader of the USA.) I would think the answer would
    have been a little more humble. Apparently she didn’t even need to
    talk it over with her husband.

  6. Jon says:

    If Palin according to you Jim “doesn’t even know what her patron foreign policy doctrine” is than how would she be another four years of Bush, sence she doesn’t know his policy.

  7. Jim says:

    There are many ways in which that might be the case. Think logically about it.

  8. Jon says:

    Ok, but you are contidicting your beliefs with that statement. If she doesn’t know Bush’s policy how is she another Bush. If she don’t know according to you Bush’s policy how could she be blindly following Bush with out considering the cercumstances for herself and make her own decition. Irregular times have been leading people to believe that Palin is just a Bush pawn.

  9. Ralph says:

    It’s refreshing to see a reporter finally demand an answer to a question.

    The difference between Sarah Palin and Dan Quayle? Lipstick.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Poor Losing Democrats all your flailing will not help Obama win and your gaffer Biden is helping to take him down asking a man in a wheelchair to stand up. what an idiot, you deserve this for all your derangement against president Bush.

    Oh and Gibson did not know what “the Bush doctrine” was himself (Looking at his notes from his pimple faced director) and it was a broad question, you dummies, he was clearly trying to set Palin up to make her look bad, but it did not work, at worse we have what you premature losing liberals are crying about now, you can talk about it all you like but it did not help you one bit the so called Bush doctrine is 16 Paragraphs and Gibson like all you knuncleheads only focused on one area of those 16 paragraphs the reason Sarah palin asked the question so keep it up the more you fight the more you make her look Good.

  11. Ralph says:

    Bullshit, Anonymous.

    First, the term “Bush doctrine” has been commonly used for years to refer to Bush’s policy of pre-emptive war. That is how everyone familiar with American national politics understands it.

    Second, Palin never referred to any 16 paragraph document. She described her understanding of the Bush doctrine as “his worldview.”

    You can try to explain Palin’s fumbling by claiming that she was so much MORE knowledgeable than Gibson that she had trouble communicating with him.

    But it’s just plain bullshit.

  12. Jon says:

    You’re right she a freaken idiot thats why she is running with McCain and according to the poles they are ahead, but guess that half of America is idiots then.

  13. Anonymous says:

    No it is not Ralph, stop trying to play your liberal games the more you work your stupidity the more you look bad. Yeah the half that are liberals are idiots and John Mccain has shown his true leadership by knocking Obamas Idiot Biden out the Park. Biden says:” Stand up man in the wheel chair” this guy we are going to have a field day with. this shows just how Nobama is not ready to lead by his idiotic choice.

  14. Leanne Parks says:

    We have just had 8 years of “leaders” who don’t blink- who don’t think twice about what damage their “unblinking” policies have done to undermine our country’s standing in the world and in our economy and environment. I just hope and pray that that the folks who are so enamoured of this Republican ticket start blinking themselves before they go to the polls!

  15. Ralph says:

    OK then, explain to me how calling a “doctrine” a “worldview” is a reference to a document.

  16. Kevin says:

    Here is the Bush Doctrine witch does list preemptive strikes as one of its major components. It also states that if any country harbors terrorist then it is considered a terrorist state, therefore we have the right for a preemptive strike…here it is:

    The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The phrase 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, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan.[1] Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq), a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism, and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.[2][3][4] Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002.[5]

    Central to the development of the Bush Doctrine is its strong influence by neoconservative ideology,[6] and it is considered to be a step from the political realism of the Reagan Doctrine.[6] The Reagan Doctrine was considered key to American foreign policy until the end of the Cold War, just before Bill Clinton became president of the United States. The Reagan Doctrine was considered anti-Communist and in opposition to Soviet Union global influence, but later spoke of a peace dividend towards the end of the Cold War with economic benefits of a decrease in defence spending. The Reagan Doctrine was strongly criticized[7] by the neoconservatives, who also became disgruntled with the outcome of the Gulf War[6] and United States foreign policy under Bill Clinton,[8] sparking them to call for change towards global stability[9] through their support for active intervention and the democratic peace theory.[8] Several central persons in the counsel to the George W. Bush administration consider themselves to be neoconservatives.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!