Many in the blogosphere say Billo lied just to protect Sarah Palin. Nope! He’s really IS an idiot!
by Larry Simons
October 29, 2008
It was reported here at Real Truth Online on October 28 [the day after Billo’s appearance on The Late Show with David Letterman] that Billo told Letterman he didn’t know what the Bush Doctrine is when he said this:
"The Bush Doctrine? Remember that, when Charlie Gibson went, 'what's the Bush doctrine'? You got the nose with glasses on and all that. I'm sitting at home going 'what Bush Doctrine'? Is that the doctrine where I go to Crawford Texas five times a year? What Bush Doctrine is that? I don't know what that is. That was just ridiculous. It's all gotcha gotcha gotcha."
It was a classic moment to sit and watch Billo embarrass himself once again by joining VP candidate Sarah Palin in the “I don’t know what the Bush Doctrine is” club. But, a part of me was thinking, “this is too good to be true, that Billo would just admit being so stupid”, so, I had my doubts that he really didn’t know, but I had video of him saying it, so my story wasn’t false.
As I browsed the net today, I stumbled upon some sites that said that Billo really lied when he said he didn’t know what the Bush Doctrine is [in order to protect Sarah Palin]. They were saying it was Billo’s way of becoming the village idiot along with Palin in order to exempt her from being the lone person in the national spotlight to not know something as basic as the Bush Doctrine, so I decided to check it out.
One of my favorite sites, Crooks and Liars, reported that Billo was really lying about not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is because previously, on several occasions, Billo has mentioned it (both times in 2004) here and here (although in both examples Billo really doesn’t mention what the Bush Doctrine IS). So, I decided to research deeper and looked for any clip or story where Billo is actually referencing the Bush Doctrine and saying what it actually is.
Here is where it gets interesting. Turns out, I didn’t have to research long at all. In Billo’s Talking Points Memo on September 12, 2008, Billo says this:
"Governor Palin's debut with ABC News was a mixed bag. She seemed tense - who wouldn't be - and she booted a few questions. But she also made some good points. The governor's best moment was when she expressed her support for Ukraine and Georgia. Her weakest answer concerned the 'Bush Doctrine.' When I heard that question from Charlie Gibson, I thought the 'Bush Doctrine' was the president's belief that encouraging democracy is the ultimate solution to marginalizing terrorism. But Gibson put forth that the 'Bush Doctrine' is the use of military action to prevent anticipated attacks. The record shows there is no precise definition of the 'Bush Doctrine,' so if I were asked about the doctrine I would have been confused, too. Overall, I thought Charlie did his job, but there was a 'gotcha' element to the interview. All in all, Sarah Palin did not injure herself in the interview; she lives to chat another day."
What has happened here is that originally we thought Billo was just an idiot for not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is. Then, when it was discovered that Billo had mentioned the Bush Doctrine before (but never defining it, or defining it incorrectly) we thought he had lied in order to not make Sarah Palin look all that idiotic.
Now, in light of the above quote from 9-12-08 [which, obviously, was made after the Gibson-Palin interview], we see the real picture here: Billo lied to David Letterman when he said, “I'm sitting at home going 'what Bush Doctrine'? Is that the doctrine where I go to Crawford Texas five times a year? What Bush Doctrine is that? I don't know what that is”. It IS a lie because O’ Reilly is CLEARLY stating that he DOES NOT KNOW what the Bush Doctrine is as if he has never even heard the term in his life. The quote from September 12, 2008, as well as the references he made in 2004, CLEARLY state that Billo has heard of the term AND has used the term before.
We know for a FACT that yes, he obviously was protecting Sarah Palin because of the fact that on September 12, 2008, in the above quote from his Talking Points Memo, Billo [even if he really didn’t know what the Bush Doctrine was prior to September 12, 2008] says this, “But Gibson put forth that the 'Bush Doctrine' is the use of military action to prevent anticipated attacks.” If he didn’t know prior to the Gibson interview, he knew AT THE TIME of the interview by acknowledging Gibson’s explanation of the Bush Doctrine. So, one has to wonder, if Billo was going to lie anyway (which we already know he did by stating he didn’t “know what that [Bush Doctrine] is”), then why didn’t he lie in his favor and say he DID know what the Bush Doctrine was since he acknowledged Gibson’s CORRECT definition of it 45 days earlier??? The answer is simple: He was protecting Sarah Palin.
Of course, the idiot part comes in when Billo says in his Sept. 12, 2008 Talking Points memo, “When I heard that question from Charlie Gibson, I thought the 'Bush Doctrine' was the president's belief that encouraging democracy is the ultimate solution to marginalizing terrorism.”
What makes this story more bizarre by the minute is the fact that [also thanks to Crooks and Liars] in August of 2004 during an interview with political analyst Pat Buchanan, Billo said this, "Wow. McCain and Giuliani are going to basically refute what you believe tonight. They're going to come out and say the Iraq war was worth it, that the Bush strategy, they call it the Bush doctrine of preemptive strikes against threatening people in an age of nuclear terrorism, has to happen. What do you think about that?"
So, in two other instances in the SAME year, 2004, [mentioned above] Billo uses the term "Bush Doctrine" without really defining it, but during the Buchanan interview he not only mentions it but seems to state the correct definition by using the words "preemptive strikes", but on Sept. 12, 2008, he has forgotten what the Bush Doctrine is all over again? THEN, 45 days later, during his Letterman interview, he lies and acts like he has never even heard of the Bush Doctrine and says Charles Gibson was unfair when in his Talking Points Memo from Sept. 12, 2008, he makes reference to Gibson stating the CORRECT definition? My God, Billo is even more mentally unstable than even I thought!
So, I wasn’t wrong in my original story, either is Crooks and Liars in their 2 stories. We just didn’t have the complete picture. The story really can’t get any better than this! Everyone who thought this story was only about idiocy, or only about a lie, or only about protecting Sarah Palin. Rejoice! It turns out; Billo is actually guilty of all 3!
Oh, and Billo, by the way, when you said, "The record shows there is no precise definition of the Bush Doctrine", you are incorrect again! See here, and here.