Friday, September 12, 2008

Sarah Palin already resembling Bush. She has no clue what the Bush Doctrine is. Are you shitting me?


Palin is clueless on the very document that gives this country the right to preemptively strike other countries even if we just think they are a threat!

by Larry Simons
September 12, 2008

It has only been two weeks since Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was announced as John McCain’s running mate for the Presidency and already she’s having a Bush “da—duhhhhh” moment.

Yesterday, ABC’s Charles Gibson asked Palin if she agreed with the Bush Doctrine. Palin visibly looked confused and it was quickly clear that she had no clue what the Bush Doctrine is…and this is frightening. Two things make her ignorance worse (than Bush’s). 1) As much as I cannot stand to hear Bush speak, I am becoming almost equally annoyed by the sound of Palin’s voice because she talks exactly like Marge Gunderson (Frances McDormand’s character in the 1996 film “Fargo”). BUT, I like looking at Palin so that almost balances out. 2) Bush wouldn’t even be clueless on this since it is his policy!

Here is the dialogue:

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?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

Watch the clip (and be frightened)


One of the most striking things about the Bush Doctrine is that it was re-written by the very same man who was appointed executive director of the 9/11 Commission....Philip Zelikow. Anyone who doesn’t see a major problem with this huge conflict of interest is simply living their day to day life with their head completely up their ass. If no one can see the huge problem there is with the very same man who had major influence in our foreign policy (by re-writing the very policy that gives the United States the green light to preemptively attack any country, not by knowing they are a threat, but even just thinking they are), that also spearheaded the 9/11 Commission, then I’m afraid you can’t be saved. In fact, you probably don’t know what the Bush Doctrine is either, so if you vote for McCain and the woman who doesn’t know what the Bush Doctrine is, then you’re getting what you deserve.

In lock-step with the alumni of Neocon university (Bush, McCain, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rice, etc..), Palin also equates the Iraq war with 9/11 by saying, "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." What does being in Iraq have to do with "ridding the world of the.... terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation?"

I also find it unbelievable that Palin says this, “Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.”

In October of 2002, the CIA released it’s National Intelligence Estimate (N.I.E.) which represented all 16 intelligence agencies in our government and they ALL concluded that Saddam Hussein was NOT an imminent threat to the United States. So, yes, while I agree with Palin that if there is “legitimate and enough intelligence” that tells us a strike is imminent against America, that we have every right to defend our country. But, this was NOT the case with Iraq.

As former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi points out in his book, “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder”:

“So Bush and his gang of criminals were constantly telling Americans that Hussein constituted an imminent threat to the security of this country, but they kept the truth from the American people that their CIA was telling them the exact opposite, that Hussein and Iraq were not an imminent threat to this country. Indeed, that Iraq would only attack us if they, Iraq, were in fear of an imminent attack on them by us. How evil, how perverse, how sick, how criminal can Bush and his people be? Yet unbelievably, they got away with all of this.”

So, Governor, you see, we did NOT have “legitimate or enough” intelligence that a strike on us was imminent, we had NO intelligence telling us that.

How can anyone claim this woman has foreign policy experience and not know the name of Bush’s “war on terrorism” foreign policy? As unconstitutional and illegal as it is, a VP candidate should at least know it!

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

what this women needs is to have her dress lifted bent over her vp desk and plowed properly.