Northwest Indiana Discussion

You are correct. I listed attacks on Americans and American interests, not attacks on actual American soil (although it is debatable, in this case, whether or not an embassy constitutes American or foreign soil).

It's clear the the only one who hasn't got a clue WTF he's talking about every time he posts is Edge the Deleter, who is suffering from PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome).
Just look at the way this t*** attacks her with fowl mouth name calling and insults hurled at every person who posts about Sarah.
Edge the Deleter is simply a troll.

For those of you not suffering from BDS you can learn a lot from the very man who coined the phrase "The Bush Doctrine"

Charlie Gibson's Gaffe

By Charles Krauthammer
Saturday, September 13, 2008; Page A17

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... inionsbox1

To the self-proclaimed experts on the Bush Doctrine:
Seeing as how Krauthammer has effectively handed you a large helping of your own ass-on-a-plate, that particular criticism of Palin is now invalid. But what fault, if any, do you find with this answer she gave?

"Charlie, if there is enough intelligent and legitimate evidence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country," Palin said.

See below to learn how firm of a grasp Charlie Gibson had on the subject at hand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine
Scholars identify seven different "Bush Doctrines," including the notion that states that harbor terrorists should be treated no differently than terrorists themselves, the willingness to use a "coalition of the willing" if the United Nations does not address threats, the doctrine of preemptive war, and the president's second-term "freedom agenda".[1]
The first usage of the term may have been when conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer used the term in February 2001 to refer to the president's unilateral approach to national missile defense well before September 11th.[2][3]
Later the phrase came to describe 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.[4] 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 supposed 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.[5][6][7] This represented a continuation of Ronald Reagan's foreign policy of roll-back, as opposed to the older Cold War policies of deterrence and containment, under the Truman Doctrine; and a departure from post-Cold War philosophies such as the Powell Doctrine and the Clinton Doctrine. The "Bush Doctrine" was never enacted into law.

jack, the woman is clueless dunce.

She’s Not Ready
By BOB HERBERT
While watching the Sarah Palin interview with Charlie Gibson Thursday night, and the coverage of the Palin phenomenon in general, I’ve gotten the scary feeling, for the first time in my life, that dimwittedness is not just on the march in the U.S., but that it might actually prevail.

How is it that this woman could have been selected to be the vice presidential candidate on a major party ticket? How is it that so much of the mainstream media has dropped all pretense of seriousness to hop aboard the bandwagon and go along for the giddy ride?

For those who haven’t noticed, we’re electing a president and vice president, not selecting a winner on “American Idol.”

Ms. Palin may be a perfectly competent and reasonably intelligent woman (however troubling her views on evolution and global warming may be), but she is not ready to be vice president.

With most candidates for high public office, the question is whether one agrees with them on the major issues of the day. With Ms. Palin, it’s not about agreeing or disagreeing. She doesn’t appear to understand some of the most important issues.

“Do you believe in the Bush doctrine?” Mr. Gibson asked during the interview. Ms. Palin looked like an unprepared student who wanted nothing so much as to escape this encounter with the school principal.

Clueless, she asked, “In what respect, Charlie?”

“Well, what do you interpret it to be?” said Mr. Gibson.

“His worldview?” asked Ms. Palin.

Later, in the spin zones of cable TV, commentators repeatedly made the point that there are probably very few voters — some specifically mentioned “hockey moms” — who could explain the Bush doctrine. But that’s exactly the reason we have such long and intense campaigns. You want to find the individuals who best understand these issues, who will address them in sophisticated and creative ways that enhance the well-being of the nation.

The Bush doctrine, which flung open the doors to the catastrophe in Iraq, was such a fundamental aspect of the administration’s foreign policy that it staggers the imagination that we could have someone no further than a whisper away from the White House who doesn’t even know what it is.

You can’t imagine that John McCain or Barack Obama or Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton or Joe Lieberman would not know what the Bush doctrine is. But Sarah Palin? Absolutely clueless.

Ms. Palin’s problem is not that she was mayor of a small town or has only been in the Alaska governor’s office a short while. Her problem (and now ours) is that she is not well versed on the critical matters confronting the country at one of the most crucial turning points in its history.

The economy is in a tailspin. The financial sector is lurching about on rubbery legs. We’re mired in self-defeating energy policies. We’re at war. And we are still vulnerable to the very real threat of international terrorism.

With all of that and more being the case, how can it be a good idea to set in motion the possibility that Americans might wake up one morning to find that Sarah Palin is president?

I feel for Ms. Palin’s son who has been shipped off to the war in Iraq. But at his deployment ceremony, which was on the same day as the Charlie Gibson interview, Sept. 11, she told the audience of soldiers that they would be fighting “the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.”

Was she deliberately falsifying history, or does she still not know that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks?

To burnish the foreign policy credentials of a vice presidential candidate who never even had a passport until last year, the Republicans have been touting Alaska’s proximity to Russia. (Imagine the derisive laughter in conservative circles if the Democrats had tried such nonsense.) So Mr. Gibson asked Ms. Palin, “What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?”

She said, “They’re our next-door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska. From an island in Alaska.”

Mr. Gibson tried again. “But what insight does that give you,” he asked, “into what they’re doing in Georgia?”

John McCain, who is shameless about promoting himself as America’s ultimate patriot, put the best interests of the nation aside in making his incredibly reckless choice of a running mate. But there is a profound double standard in this country. The likes of John McCain and George W. Bush can do the craziest, most irresponsible things imaginable, and it only seems to help them politically.

BOB HERBERT.....?
BWWWWWWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHHA

The liberal op-ed writer for the NY Times....?

Way too funny....more gems from Bob Herbert....

Hold Your Heads Up
Without the contribution of liberals, the United States would be a much, much worse place than it is today.
September 9, 2008

Champagne and Tears
For black residents in and around Detroit, Barack Obama’s nomination helped to redeem some of the grief of many years of racial humiliation and oppression.
August 30, 2008

Head for the High Road
Sarah Palin is the latest G.O.P. distraction. She’s meant to shift attention away from the real issue of this campaign the awful state of the nation after years of Republican rule.
September 2, 2008


Clueless indeed.

Editorial
Gov. Palin’s Worldview
As we watched Sarah Palin on TV the last couple of days, we kept wondering what on earth John McCain was thinking.

If he seriously thought this first-term governor — with less than two years in office — was qualified to be president, if necessary, at such a dangerous time, it raises profound questions about his judgment. If the choice was, as we suspect, a tactical move, then it was shockingly irresponsible.

It was bad enough that Ms. Palin’s performance in the first televised interviews she has done since she joined the Republican ticket was so visibly scripted and lacking in awareness.

What made it so much worse is the strategy for which the Republicans have made Ms. Palin the frontwoman: win the White House not on ideas, but by denigrating experience, judgment and qualifications.

The idea that Americans want leaders who have none of those things — who are so blindly certain of what Ms. Palin calls “the mission” that they won’t even pause for reflection — shows a contempt for voters and raises frightening questions about how Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin plan to run this country.

One of the many bizarre moments in the questioning by ABC News’s Charles Gibson was when Ms. Palin, the governor of Alaska, excused her lack of international experience by sneering that Americans don’t want “somebody’s big fat résumé maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment where, yes, they’ve had opportunities to meet heads of state.”

We know we were all supposed to think of Joe Biden. But it sure sounded like a good description of Mr. McCain. Those decades of experience earned the Arizona senator the admiration of people in both parties. They are why he was our preferred candidate in the Republican primaries.

The interviews made clear why Americans should worry about Ms. Palin’s thin résumé and lack of experience. Consider her befuddlement when Mr. Gibson referred to President Bush’s “doctrine” and her remark about having insight into Russia because she can see it from her state.

But that is not what troubled us most about her remarks — and, remember, if they were scripted, that just means that they reflect Mr. McCain’s views all the more closely. Rather, it was the sense that thoughtfulness, knowledge and experience are handicaps for a president in a world populated by Al Qaeda terrorists, a rising China, epidemics of AIDS, poverty and fratricidal war in the developing world and deep economic distress at home.

Ms. Palin talked repeatedly about never blinking. When Mr. McCain asked her to run for vice president? “You have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission,” she said, that “you can’t blink.”

Fighting terrorism? “We must do whatever it takes, and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.”

Her answers about why she had told her church that President Bush’s failed policy in Iraq was “God’s plan” did nothing to dispel our concerns about her confusion between faith and policy. Her claim that she was quoting a completely unrelated comment by Lincoln was absurd.

This nation has suffered through eight years of an ill-prepared and unblinkingly obstinate president. One who didn’t pause to think before he started a disastrous war of choice in Iraq. One who blithely looked the other way as the Taliban and Al Qaeda regrouped in Afghanistan. One who obstinately cut taxes and undercut all efforts at regulation, unleashing today’s profound economic crisis.

In a dangerous world, Americans need a president who knows that real strength requires serious thought and preparation.

I agree.

Vote McCain/Palin 2008

edge:
I know it may be hard for you and the New York Times to accept, but the Sarah Palin/Bush Doctrine issue was resolved definitively by Krauthammer’s explanation and by the paragraphs below. You might want to quit beating this horse so as not to waste precious time that could be better used finding a new false scandal that will inevitably be shot down in a matter of hours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine
Scholars identify seven different "Bush Doctrines," including the notion that states that harbor terrorists should be treated no differently than terrorists themselves, the willingness to use a "coalition of the willing" if the United Nations does not address threats, the doctrine of preemptive war, and the president's second-term "freedom agenda".[1]
The first usage of the term may have been when conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer used the term in February 2001 to refer to the president's unilateral approach to national missile defense well before September 11th.[2][3]


Concerning the below excerpt from Mr. Herbert’s column, I believe that she was correct in identifying al Qaeda as “the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.” In case you somehow missed it, we are no longer fighting Saddam Hussein.

I feel for Ms. Palin’s son who has been shipped off to the war in Iraq. But at his deployment ceremony, which was on the same day as the Charlie Gibson interview, Sept. 11, she told the audience of soldiers that they would be fighting “the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.”
Was she deliberately falsifying history, or does she still not know that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks?

It’s a long way until November. If you guys aren’t careful, you’re going to run out of ways to embarrass yourselves.

jack,
the rabid right's lame & absurd attempts at making chicken salad out of chickenshit is very entertaining.
Thanks for the laugh.


Then you're as stupid as she is or pretending to be as stupid as she is.
jack, “the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans” are in

Pakistan & Afghanistan....not Iraq.

Never have been.

jack, if you didn't know that you're as ignorant as she is.

Not nearly as entertaining as the left’s never-ending litany of fake scandals.
You have been totally shut down on the Bush Doctrine topic, but it seems that you’re the last to realize it, like one of those Japanese soldiers still hiding out on some God-forsaken Pacific atoll in the 1950’s, not aware that the war was long over.





How many times do you need to smack yourself in the head with a hammer before you realize that it hurts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq
Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) is a group playing an active role in the Iraqi insurgency. Initially led by the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi until his death in 2006, it is now believed to be led by Abu Hamza al-Muhajir[3] (presumed to be the Egyptian Abu Ayyub al-Masri[4]).
The group is a direct successor of al-Zarqawi's previous organization, Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (Group of Monotheism and Jihad). Beginning with its official statement declaring allegiance to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network in October 2004, the group identifies itself as Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (QJBR) ("Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers").[5]
AQI is one of Iraq's most feared militant organisations and many experts regard it as the United States' most formidable enemy in the country.

Reading koz and friends again I see...



And Charlie Gibson pretty much ruined his career with this one...what a faggot...

Read the article you dumbass...or you can contimue to keep your nose buried in barack obamas backside...you dumbocraps are a losers now and always will be...

I have no idea, why don't you let us know since you're the one that's doing it.


No Evidence Connecting Iraq to Al Qaeda, 9/11 Panel Says

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 16, 2004; 1:32 PM


There is "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq collaborated with the al Qaeda terrorist network on any attacks on the United States, according to a new staff report released this morning by the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Duuuuuude.......

You are lost in space.
PDS has left you senseless and deranged beyond recovery.

Methinks when McCain/Palin win the election poor edge is going to go over the edge and probably land on top of artie...don't worry, nobody will get hurt because the room will be padded.

No it's not.
It's complete nonsense & another bald faced lie aimed at stupid uninformed people.

"al Qaeda in Iraq" didn't have a damn thing to do with attacking us on 9-11.
'al Qaeda in Iraq" DID NOT plan and carrY out 9-11.

That's a FACT that people know who are not ignorant.

What you & your soccer mom dunce believe & claim is complete gibberrish.