My thoughts so far…
- She’s being aggressive in her posture, tone and hand gestures. I think she feels a little uncomfortable in this setting.
- OMG, she doesn’t know what the Bush Doctrine is! First major foreign policy gaffe of Palin’s candidacy.
- I think this Palin favors war with Russia story floating around is missing the angle. It seemed more that she didn’t foresee the war with Russia angle when Gibson asked her if Georgia should be in NATO. When Gibson asked the obvious follow-up, Palin was forced to give the answer she did.
- Gibson can’t sort through her answer on Pakistan: “I got lost in a blizzard of words.” Ouch.
I’ll add to this after more clips are played.
UPDATE: I think that first segment was pretty rough for her. The overriding impression the viewer got was that Palin is not well informed about foreign policy issues. We’ll see if she recovers in the second segment.
UPDATE X2: The second segment was shorter and not as bad for Palin. She was clearly ready for this line of questioning. I still thought she seemed aggressive.
UPDATE X3: Ambinder agrees with me, the Bush Doctrine question (and Palin’s obvious ignorance of it) was big moment in the interview:
The news: Palin’s deer-in-headlights moment when asked if she agreed with the Bush doctrine
Loading ...
So continues the process of trying to find a gaffe. I knew this whole thing would somehow be reduced to that.
@dtm
At this level when the gaffes are this big… It’s kind of a big deal.
In this instance gaffe really means total incompetence.
I expect competence in my leaders… not some bozo who has no idea what he/she is doing.
Don’t turn this around and try to make it out as “just” trying to find a gaffe. It’s more than that and you know it.
According to the American Heritage Dictionary (you should appreciate that right?) the second and most applicable definition of gaffe in this situation is… “A blatant mistake or misjudgment.” So if this all just only about finding mistakes and misjudgments then why don’t you just admit your totally for them already.
So does the fact that Obama has repeated his answer on more repetitions make him more qualified? After all, it is still only an answer to a question. He has never actually experienced the situation. Same with Palin.
I’m not making excuses for her. I can just see blogs and MSNBC discounting 98% of her message and waiting for a gaffe, and labeling it a gaffe.
I think the fact that Obama had little perspective on healthcare policy in his one campaign presentation when the teleprompter stopped was a gaffe, but it certainly didnt’ get a headline.
Think of it this way: This is one big job interview. McCain is an average interview with great references. Obama is a great interviewer with no references. Biden is an OK interviewer with good references. Palin — she is a novice interviewer but has pretty good references.
DantheMan I agree 100%,
Everybody knows Barack Obama has no references. None. There is no reason for anyone to try to find them, because nobody can. Anyone who lists the so called “credentials” is lying.
Palin though, she does have pretty good references…..
…..Like Energy. McCain said she is the biggest expert on energy in the country, so that must be true, and McCain also says that is her National Security credential. This is the only credential that makes any sense in todays crazy world.
Great Job Minnesota Republican blogger DamtheMan
Please expand upon what instance you are referring to Obama… what answer… what question… and what situation?
If I’m not mistaken and not taking you out of context your deriding Obama for being consistent?
Palin’s message isn’t news. Her message is John McCain’s message. Currently there isn’t a single headline on CNN about Biden… but there is one about Palin and her response to the Georgia/Russia question. The reason Palin is in the news is because A. She is brand spanking new. and B. She is a walking controversy. Don’t get pissy with the media when they report on something newsworthy that doesn’t shed good light on you candidate. The media is only doing their job reporting the screwups. Of course we couldn’t blame her at all for messing up in the first place now could we?
Here is Obama’s healthcare stance. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/ It’s widely available and easy to find on his website. Any complaints about lack of specifics is only codespeak for “I’m too goddamn lazy to look it up myself so I’m gonna use Fox news GOP talking points to sound like I actually have a valid criticism speak.” If you want to debate policy, let’s debate policy. If your gonna throw out talking points about how Obama is supposedly all flare and no substance than I suggest you do some reading.
My version of your analogy…
McCain is a poor interviewer using examples of his performance and success years ago to compensate for his current shortcomings in attempt to impress the judges.
Obama is a very good interviewer with very recent and very favorable references.
Biden is a decent interview with a plethora of knowledge and references to back him up.
Palin is a very poor interviewer with very poor references.
McCain/Palin? Thanks, but no thanks!
Sarah Palin knows more about energy than anyone else in the country. Did he actually say that? Oh yeah that was today, while Sarah was having her terrible interview. This is getting otherworldly…
Just read the transcript. Something that I admittedly should have done before I started posting my thoughts here.
1) On a transcript, she did OK. I’d give her a 6 on a scale of 1-10
2) Yes, she needs to be crisper on the Bush Doctrine question. But, to her defense, asking “in what respect” as a clarifying question is fair. Asking if you agree with the Doctrine is a rather broad question. But still, she missed the mark.
3) On most answers, she is simply taking McCain’s position on foreign policy, which, as a McCain supporter, I hardly view as a bad thing.
Bottom line: If you agree with McCain, you’ll like most of her answers. If you don’t like McCain, you won’t like many of her answers. Simple as that.
Dan, the transcript doesn’t do the moment justice. Its very clear that she didn’t know what Charlie was talking about. Watch the video.
DantheMan, I agree 100%,
If you agree with McCain, you’ll like most of her answers.
EVeryone knows, however, if you agree with Bush, you won’t like her answers because she is a maverick, and is completely different than Bush.
Great Job Minnesota Republican blogger DantheMan
Just saw the video on CNN.
Cindy Crowley nailed it: “People will view this through the prism that they already see Sarah Palin”
I’ll blow it off. You all will think its a big deal.
Considering that about 60% of moderates have either an unfavorable or very unfavorable, and liberals have about a 90% unfavorable view of Palin, I’m glad to endorse DtM’s opinion.
DtM:
Here’s an Obama foreign policy reference for you from Zbigniew Brzezinski:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caeP33025UY&feature=related
He endorsed Obama again today on morning Joe, but I couldn’t find a clip.
Palin’s lack of knowledge on which to base foreign policy decisions is quite clear. I’m an elementary school teacher that knows enough about the Bush doctrine to respond to a question about it (strongly opposed.) I believe my president should be WAY more intelligent and knowledgable than me, which is why I look forward to an Obama presidency. If Palin were to become president hopefully she would be the spokesperson for a good team of advisors that will be developing her foreign policy (no more neocons please). Her religious beliefs, as shared earlier this summer give me pause as well:
“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,” she exhorted the congregants. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”
I think it was Lincoln who said something like we need to be concerned with are we on God’s side rather than certain that he/she supports our wars.
Finally, I’m curious as to why you believe Palin would make a good president. Is it for Mccain / Palin policies? Do you think the country is on the right track? What change are they offering that you support?
I know she clarified her remark about God being on our side to make it sound more Lincoln-esque but I’m a little more concerned about her exhortation to her congregation to pray for the building of a natural gas pipeline because it’s what God wants. It reminds me of what Susan B. Anthony once said: “I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.” (see also: Michelle Bachmann)
The fact that you’re so eager and desperate to find a reason to attack Gov. Palin shows (1) what a brilliant pick she was and (2) how nervous Democrats are that Obama is going to get his ass kicked. I heard a Democratic analyst on the radio this morning who says Democrats are going to blow it because they’re so obsessed with Palin that they aren’t going after McCain. There’s a lot of truth to that.
She just looked angry and agressive to me, and Charlie Gibson would be the last interviewer to be so uncomfortable with. She obviously doesn’t know her stuff. I honestly can’t understand why so many republicans defend her. There are so many other far more qualified republican women that could have made this ticket viable. How about Condi, or Kay Bailey Hutchison or Susan Collins or the governor of Hawaii (very well spoken), or most of the comgresswomen who are on the “Palin truth squad”.
For the republican party to make these very well qualified women (especially Condi with her PHD)get out in front of cameras and say that Sarah Palin is more qualified than they are is quite insulting. And yes, I believe they are being told to do that “for the good of the party”. How sad.
I just watched the Bush doctrine fiasco. She came off as completely ignorant. What a terrible choice.
LOLn@ Chris.
Well, well, well. Hypocritical republiCons - what a surprise.
Anyone remember an E-85 moment? Anyone remember what the republiCons said about that?
Now, Governor Moose Meat has an E-85, er, ‘scuse me, “Bush Doctrine” moment, and it’s no big deal.
DtM and Chris demonstrate on damn near a daily basis why reasonable people can no longer reasonably trust republiCons to tell the truth.
The reason people are looking for gaffes is that gaffes are the only thing the media will latch on to. Palin is a buffoon who ran Wasilla, Alaska into the ground and has no business being anywhere near the vice-presidency. She is an almost pathological liar and completely corrupt. But since the media wants gaffes, you have to look for gaffes.
Think about Al Gore, who said he was instrumental in the creation of the internet. He was misquoted as saying he invented the internet, and that became a damaging gaffe. The truth is that Al Gore was talking about the internet and seeing that it got funded years before most people had heard of it. The guys who actually did invent the internet have nothing but praise for Al Gore’s work. And while Al Gore was doing this work, George Bush was getting drunk. Yet, Al Gore was the one who got ridiculed.
I would love it if the media took the time to report on Palin’s incompetence as mayor of Wasilla, her love of wasteful pork projects and subsequent lies about them, her abuse of power as governor and her stonewalling of the bipartisan investigation into her misdeeds. But the media wants gaffes.
Perhaps most disturbing about not knowing about the Bush Doctrine is that it was a history making concept. Never before in the history of our country had we stated that we could react militarily to a perceived or future threat. It was the first time a President stood up for preemptive strikes against other countries. This changed 250 years of American policy in a pen stroke and contributed mightily to making our world a much more dangerous place. It was a center point in George Bush’s foreign policy initiative and considered a major point of his legacy.
Her ignorance of this misguided doctrine does not bode well for America.
amuseinc, you just proved you are more qualified to be Vice President then the Dickless Nixon McCain has foisted upon the electorate.
Dan -
While I disagree with the vile tone of your post, I agree with the concept. I’d love if more focus is put on content and less on soundbytes. Soundbyte politics produces gaffes. If I said match the politician with the line, you would be able to do it in a heartbeat. Who said:
1. Read my lips: No new taxes.
2. It did not have sexual relations with that woman.
3. Potato-e
4. Fool me once, shame on…. me. And don’t fool me again.
And the sad thing is that while most Americans know who said those things, few could correctly match a major policy intiative with the same politicians.
DantheMan, I don’t what you see as vile. Do you dispute that Bush was a drunk half his adult life? The point is that Al Gore was a visionary who saw the potential of the internet and worked to develop it. And at the same time, Bush was doing absolutely nothing but waste the money of the investors in the businesses he bankrupted.
Do you think its ok that Palin took a per diem for staying in her own home on Thanksgiving? You guys whine about Obama’s connection to Rezko, but your sleazebag VP nominee is a bigger crook than Rezko himself. How is she doing on those subpoenas? And when is she going to stop lying about the “bridge to nowhere”? At least John Kerry was honest about being for something before being against it.
“…on Thanksgiving?”
On THANSGVING??!?
How about 312 days??!?
From The Washington Post:
“Palin Questioned Legislators’ Per Diems
By Matthew Mosk
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin charged taxpayers a per diem for her meals and incidental expenses as governor but was a vocal critic of a similar perk for state legislators.
The Washington Post reported yesterday that, during the first half of 2007, Palin billed the state a “per diem” allowance while she was working from her Wasilla, Alaska, home and away from the state capital in Juneau. She later amended her expense reports so they no longer included the phrase “Lodging — Own Residence,” but still kept the alloted money.
Yet when it came to a historic special session of the state legislature in Anchorage this summer, Palin sharply questioned granting per diems to law makers who traveled to it from distant parts of the state.
The Anchorage Daily News reported that, in July, Palin spoke out against costs associated with the seven-hour special session 600 miles from Juneau held June 26.”
Sarah Palin is proving, once again:
“Hypocrisy, thy Party is GOP”
This morning on the View, John McCain used the same tired old republican talking points to defend Palin, while stating that he was the same maverick he always was. How come the maverick and his sidekick have to rely on party tried and true talking points?! A maverick wouldn’t need anyone to give him words or tell him how to think and respond.
Same goes for Palin, who obviously had memorized talking points that she kept repeating throughout her interview. And when Gibson stumped her, the viewer could tell she was lost.
So sad. There are much better women in the republican party than Sarah Palin. More intelligent, better educated, more experienced, and without the baggage.
DtM, the fact that Palin is woefully unprepared for the office she’s been selected for doesn’t bother me nearly as much as the judgment of those who selected her and their reasons.
So, everyone, what is the Bush doctrine?
Because the definition of the Bush Doctrine varies widely by ABC’s anchors and journalists. Everyone has a different definition of its meaning, its scope, even when it was identified as a “doctrine”. The definition of the doctrine is as wide-ranging as the political views of George Will and George Stephanopolous.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/09/what_exactly_is_the_bush_doctr.asp#more
The first thing you’re taught about Q&A’s in a communications class is to never answer a question that could be interpreted in multiple ways. Instead, ask for clarification on what the questioner is getting at.
Watch any good politician — they all do it.
So DtM, you would be happy with the mayor of North Branch selecting the next 2 or 3 supreme court justices?
Nice try, DtM - but Palin blew the question.
End of story (except for bootlickers).
Seeing that clip reminded me of law school when a prof called on someone who hadn’t read the case. Actually, most students were able to bullshit more convincingly then Palin. What an absolute dope.
Why do Republicans think they can change history by saying it is different than the facts presented? Dan you are being a complete tool… there is absolutely NO confusion on the Bush Doctrine… what is at all confusing about this official White house transcript? Do you need me to give you the specific passages?
President Bush Delivers Graduation Speech at West Point
United States Military Academy
West Point, New York
President’s Remarks
9:13 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, General Lennox. Mr. Secretary, Governor Pataki, members of the United States Congress, Academy staff and faculty, distinguished guests, proud family members, and graduates: I want to thank you for your welcome. Laura and I are especially honored to visit this great institution in your bicentennial year.
In every corner of America, the words “West Point” command immediate respect. This place where the Hudson River bends is more than a fine institution of learning. The United States Military Academy is the guardian of values that have shaped the soldiers who have shaped the history of the world.
A few of you have followed in the path of the perfect West Point graduate, Robert E. Lee, who never received a single demerit in four years. Some of you followed in the path of the imperfect graduate, Ulysses S. Grant, who had his fair share of demerits, and said the happiest day of his life was “the day I left West Point.” (Laughter.) During my college years I guess you could say I was — (laughter.) During my college years I guess you could say I was a Grant man. (Laughter.)
You walk in the tradition of Eisenhower and MacArthur, Patton and Bradley - the commanders who saved a civilization. And you walk in the tradition of second lieutenants who did the same, by fighting and dying on distant battlefields.
Graduates of this academy have brought creativity and courage to every field of endeavor. West Point produced the chief engineer of the Panama Canal, the mind behind the Manhattan Project, the first American to walk in space. This fine institution gave us the man they say invented baseball, and other young men over the years who perfected the game of football.
You know this, but many in America don’t — George C. Marshall, a VMI graduate, is said to have given this order: “I want an officer for a secret and dangerous mission. I want a West Point football player.” (Applause.)
As you leave here today, I know there’s one thing you’ll never miss about this place: Being a plebe. (Applause.) But even a plebe at West Point is made to feel he or she has some standing in the world. (Laughter.) I’m told that plebes, when asked whom they outrank, are required to answer this: “Sir, the Superintendent’s dog — (laughter) — the Commandant’s cat, and all the admirals in the whole damn Navy.” (Applause.) I probably won’t be sharing that with the Secretary of the Navy. (Laughter.)
West Point is guided by tradition, and in honor of the “Golden Children of the Corps,” — (applause) — I will observe one of the traditions you cherish most. As the Commander-in-Chief, I hereby grant amnesty to all cadets who are on restriction for minor conduct offenses. (Applause.) Those of you in the end zone might have cheered a little early. (Laughter.) Because, you see, I’m going to let General Lennox define exactly what “minor” means. (Laughter.)
Every West Point class is commissioned to the Armed Forces. Some West Point classes are also commissioned by history, to take part in a great new calling for their country. Speaking here to the class of 1942 — six months after Pearl Harbor — General Marshall said, “We’re determined that before the sun sets on this terrible struggle, our flag will be recognized throughout the world as a symbol of freedom on the one hand, and of overwhelming power on the other.” (Applause.)
Officers graduating that year helped fulfill that mission, defeating Japan and Germany, and then reconstructing those nations as allies. West Point graduates of the 1940s saw the rise of a deadly new challenge — the challenge of imperial communism — and opposed it from Korea to Berlin, to Vietnam, and in the Cold War, from beginning to end. And as the sun set on their struggle, many of those West Point officers lived to see a world transformed.
History has also issued its call to your generation. In your last year, America was attacked by a ruthless and resourceful enemy. You graduate from this Academy in a time of war, taking your place in an American military that is powerful and is honorable. Our war on terror is only begun, but in Afghanistan it was begun well. (Applause.)
I am proud of the men and women who have fought on my orders. America is profoundly grateful for all who serve the cause of freedom, and for all who have given their lives in its defense. This nation respects and trusts our military, and we are confident in your victories to come. (Applause.)
This war will take many turns we cannot predict. Yet I am certain of this: Wherever we carry it, the American flag will stand not only for our power, but for freedom. (Applause.) Our nation’s cause has always been larger than our nation’s defense. We fight, as we always fight, for a just peace — a peace that favors human liberty. We will defend the peace against threats from terrorists and tyrants. We will preserve the peace by building good relations among the great powers. And we will extend the peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent.
Building this just peace is America’s opportunity, and America’s duty. From this day forward, it is your challenge, as well, and we will meet this challenge together. (Applause.) You will wear the uniform of a great and unique country. America has no empire to extend or utopia to establish. We wish for others only what we wish for ourselves — safety from violence, the rewards of liberty, and the hope for a better life.
In defending the peace, we face a threat with no precedent. Enemies in the past needed great armies and great industrial capabilities to endanger the American people and our nation. The attacks of September the 11th required a few hundred thousand dollars in the hands of a few dozen evil and deluded men. All of the chaos and suffering they caused came at much less than the cost of a single tank. The dangers have not passed. This government and the American people are on watch, we are ready, because we know the terrorists have more money and more men and more plans.
The gravest danger to freedom lies at the perilous crossroads of radicalism and technology. When the spread of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons, along with ballistic missile technology — when that occurs, even weak states and small groups could attain a catastrophic power to strike great nations. Our enemies have declared this very intention, and have been caught seeking these terrible weapons. They want the capability to blackmail us, or to harm us, or to harm our friends — and we will oppose them with all our power. (Applause.)
For much of the last century, America’s defense relied on the Cold War doctrines of deterrence and containment. In some cases, those strategies still apply. But new threats also require new thinking. Deterrence — the promise of massive retaliation against nations — means nothing against shadowy terrorist networks with no nation or citizens to defend. Containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies.
We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign non-proliferation treaties, and then systemically break them. If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long. (Applause.)
Homeland defense and missile defense are part of stronger security, and they’re essential priorities for America. Yet the war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge. (Applause.) In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act. (Applause.)
Our security will require the best intelligence, to reveal threats hidden in caves and growing in laboratories. Our security will require modernizing domestic agencies such as the FBI, so they’re prepared to act, and act quickly, against danger. Our security will require transforming the military you will lead — a military that must be ready to strike at a moment’s notice in any dark corner of the world. And our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives. (Applause.)
The work ahead is difficult. The choices we will face are complex. We must uncover terror cells in 60 or more countries, using every tool of finance, intelligence and law enforcement. Along with our friends and allies, we must oppose proliferation and confront regimes that sponsor terror, as each case requires. Some nations need military training to fight terror, and we’ll provide it. Other nations oppose terror, but tolerate the hatred that leads to terror — and that must change. (Applause.) We will send diplomats where they are needed, and we will send you, our soldiers, where you’re needed. (Applause.)
All nations that decide for aggression and terror will pay a price. We will not leave the safety of America and the peace of the planet at the mercy of a few mad terrorists and tyrants. (Applause.) We will lift this dark threat from our country and from the world.
Because the war on terror will require resolve and patience, it will also require firm moral purpose. In this way our struggle is similar to the Cold War. Now, as then, our enemies are totalitarians, holding a creed of power with no place for human dignity. Now, as then, they seek to impose a joyless conformity, to control every life and all of life.
America confronted imperial communism in many different ways — diplomatic, economic, and military. Yet moral clarity was essential to our victory in the Cold War. When leaders like John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan refused to gloss over the brutality of tyrants, they gave hope to prisoners and dissidents and exiles, and rallied free nations to a great cause.
Some worry that it is somehow undiplomatic or impolite to speak the language of right and wrong. I disagree. (Applause.) Different circumstances require different methods, but not different moralities. (Applause.) Moral truth is the same in every culture, in every time, and in every place. Targeting innocent civilians for murder is always and everywhere wrong. (Applause.) Brutality against women is always and everywhere wrong. (Applause.) There can be no neutrality between justice and cruelty, between the innocent and the guilty. We are in a conflict between good and evil, and America will call evil by its name. (Applause.) By confronting evil and lawless regimes, we do not create a problem, we reveal a problem. And we will lead the world in opposing it. (Applause.)
As we defend the peace, we also have an historic opportunity to preserve the peace. We have our best chance since the rise of the nation state in the 17th century to build a world where the great powers compete in peace instead of prepare for war. The history of the last century, in particular, was dominated by a series of destructive national rivalries that left battlefields and graveyards across the Earth. Germany fought France, the Axis fought the Allies, and then the East fought the West, in proxy wars and tense standoffs, against a backdrop of nuclear Armageddon.
Competition between great nations is inevitable, but armed conflict in our world is not. More and more, civilized nations find ourselves on the same side — united by common dangers of terrorist violence and chaos. America has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge — (applause) — thereby, making the destabilizing arms races of other eras pointless, and limiting rivalries to trade and other pursuits of peace.
Today the great powers are also increasingly united by common values, instead of divided by conflicting ideologies. The United States, Japan and our Pacific friends, and now all of Europe, share a deep commitment to human freedom, embodied in strong alliances such as NATO. And the tide of liberty is rising in many other nations.
Generations of West Point officers planned and practiced for battles with Soviet Russia. I’ve just returned from a new Russia, now a country reaching toward democracy, and our partner in the war against terror. (Applause.) Even in China, leaders are discovering that economic freedom is the only lasting source of national wealth. In time, they will find that social and political freedom is the only true source of national greatness. (Applause.)
When the great powers share common values, we are better able to confront serious regional conflicts together, better able to cooperate in preventing the spread of violence or economic chaos. In the past, great power rivals took sides in difficult regional problems, making divisions deeper and more complicated. Today, from the Middle East to South Asia, we are gathering broad international coalitions to increase the pressure for peace. We must build strong and great power relations when times are good; to help manage crisis when times are bad. America needs partners to preserve the peace, and we will work with every nation that shares this noble goal. (Applause.)
And finally, America stands for more than the absence of war. We have a great opportunity to extend a just peace, by replacing poverty, repression, and resentment around the world with hope of a better day. Through most of history, poverty was persistent, inescapable, and almost universal. In the last few decades, we’ve seen nations from Chile to South Korea build modern economies and freer societies, lifting millions of people out of despair and want. And there’s no mystery to this achievement.
The 20th century ended with a single surviving model of human progress, based on non-negotiable demands of human dignity, the rule of law, limits on the power of the state, respect for women and private property and free speech and equal justice and religious tolerance. America cannot impose this vision — yet we can support and reward governments that make the right choices for their own people. In our development aid, in our diplomatic efforts, in our international broadcasting, and in our educational assistance, the United States will promote moderation and tolerance and human rights. And we will defend the peace that makes all progress possible.
When it comes to the common rights and needs of men and women, there is no clash of civilizations. The requirements of freedom apply fully to Africa and Latin America and the entire Islamic world. The peoples of the Islamic nations want and deserve the same freedoms and opportunities as people in every nation. And their governments should listen to their hopes. (Applause.)
A truly strong nation will permit legal avenues of dissent for all groups that pursue their aspirations without violence. An advancing nation will pursue economic reform, to unleash the great entrepreneurial energy of its people. A thriving nation will respect the rights of women, because no society can prosper while denying opportunity to half its citizens. Mothers and fathers and children across the Islamic world, and all the world, share the same fears and aspirations. In poverty, they struggle. In tyranny, they suffer. And as we saw in Afghanistan, in liberation they celebrate. (Applause.)
America has a greater objective than controlling threats and containing resentment. We will work for a just and peaceful world beyond the war on terror.
The bicentennial class of West Point now enters this drama. With all in the United States Army, you will stand between your fellow citizens and grave danger. You will help establish a peace that allows millions around the world to live in liberty and to grow in prosperity. You will face times of calm, and times of crisis. And every test will find you prepared — because you’re the men and women of West Point. (Applause.) You leave here marked by the character of this Academy, carrying with you the highest ideals of our nation.
Toward the end of his life, Dwight Eisenhower recalled the first day he stood on the plain at West Point. “The feeling came over me,” he said, “that the expression ‘the United States of America’ would now and henceforth mean something different than it had ever before. From here on, it would be the nation I would be serving, not myself.”
Today, your last day at West Point, you begin a life of service in a career unlike any other. You’ve answered a calling to hardship and purpose, to risk and honor. At the end of every day you will know that you have faithfully done your duty. May you always bring to that duty the high standards of this great American institution. May you always be worthy of the long gray line that stretches two centuries behind you.
On behalf of the nation, I congratulate each one of you for the commission you’ve earned and for the credit you bring to the United States of America. May God bless you all. (Applause.)
END 10:05 A.M. EDT
Prior to last night, how much variance would there have been on this board to the question: “In a sentance, define the Bush Doctrine?” Lots.
Would I be comfortable with the Mayor of North Branch nominating three justices? That would be a bit scary. I’d have slightly more confidence asking a freshman Senator to do it. Even more asking a Governor to do it.
You’re right, Chris, the Democrats should focus more on McCain. Let’s hear him explain why so many lobbyists are on his payroll, when he spends so much time villifying them Let’s asks if he agrees with Phil Gramm — still an informal advisor to the campaign — that we are a nation of whiners when it comes to the economy. Let’s ask Senator “I forget how many houses I have” what he is going to do about the housing market. Perhaps he could tell us how/if he intends to try to reform the delivery of health care.
Or maybe it’s about character. The nation could have an interesting discussion about whether his apology for his Keating Five involvement was sufficient expiation. Perhaps we could learn more about his wife’s drug thefts and — more importantly — what he knew about them. I would also like to know how many Navy pilots crash four jets but still keep their wings (I know the figure five is tossed around, but he was only on the controls for four) — does graduating at the bottom of the class at Annapolis help?
Yes, let’s talk McCain.
Dan prior to last night any American who reads about our Foreign Relations would have been able to say… “America has now said that we have the right to militarily respond to perceived or future threats with force.”
It was a big deal and the justification for the invasion of Iraq… not some esoteric thing. You are being completely fooled if you think this basic change in American foreign policy was ever not clear. Now how the policy was used in the real world is up to conjecture and discussion, but the policy never was.
Is an incursion into Iran by Special Forces operatives an example… maybe. We have done this over our history and it is not something new under the doctrine. Invading another country, Iraq, without a clear threat that was a clear use of the doctrine based on perceived and future threats.
Look your candidate for Vice President is exactly what she appears to be… a small town mayor, barely two years on the job governor of an sparsely populated state, thrust onto the world stage by a rash decision from John McCain for political purposes. To make her appear as anything else is stupid… to make excuses for her not being up to the task of Vice President or President does an immense disservice to the safety and security of the United States of America.
You may think this is just a “gotcha” from the media, to me it proves she is not ready to serve and presents a clear and present danger to our country.
I am now convinced that Palin is in fact no more qualified to be the Commander in Chief than Obama. I was wrong. You all were right.
Too bad this election is between McCain and Obama. That one is a no-brainer.
DtM, you are correct - Grampa McSame is so old, his brain is now mush.
“Bushy McSame - the no-brainer.”
Care to elaborate on how this rash and risky decision by John McCain to put an unprepared person into the role of his Vice President makes you want to have him as President? I’ll skip the obvious qualifications of Obama because you wouldn’t understand them.
If McCain had picked Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Olympia Snow or any of a the qualified, competent Republican women available, this discussion would be very short. He didn’t prove himself as a thoughtful, responsible candidate by doing that, he proved himself a danger to our security by willing to put political expediency before country.
His risky choice all but called for war with the Russians over countries directly in their sphere of influence. There is little to no upside for us saber rattling our nuclear weapons about the Ukraine or Georgia to Putin. This is like the Russians threatening war over our drug arrests and detentions in Mexican border towns. Laughable if the stakes were not so high.
Sarah Pallin has single handedly brought back the worst elements of the Cold War through simple ignorance.
To try and claim that Obama is not ready or capable of leading this nation is blowing smoke. Obama is Harvard educated and he did not graduate at the bottom of his class, not did Daddy get him enrolled or provide preferential treatment. Obama EARNED his way. He also has run a $100 million dollar campaign very successfully- in fact nonpartisan analysts say that it is the most well run and well organized campaign in recent history. That has to count for something! He already has garnered world wide respect — when was the last time an American got 200,000 people in Europe to come out and wave American flags?! A good start I would say!
Yes, McCain has more years in the Senate, but he also owns the Keating 5 scandal and a 90% and above voting record with Bush, so his talk of being a Maverick is just empty words. He is 73 years old, has survived 3 bouts of cancer, and has shown us what kind of judgment he will use with his pick of Sarah Palin, a mayor and governor who the republican party has given energy experience because she lives in Alaska, and foreign policy experience because Russia is across the water. Given McCain’s age and health, his VP pick MUST be vetted extensively. Obama is younger, in good health, and showed with his VP pick that he was doing what was good for America, not just trying to win an election.
I can’t support Palin. She’s like Michelle Bachmann without the charm.
this thread is fantastic. And there is no justification for Palin. McCain would have been hard pressed to pick a worse vice presidential nominee. That is most obvious. The GOP is not a football team trying to win the super bowl. We are talking about leading the free world here, and blind following of obviously incompetent candidates doesnt bode well for anyone. Blue or Red, Palin is incompetent, even as governor.
McCain is a 72-year old man with a history of cancer. There have been a number of different actuarial studies done on McCain’s expected lifespan, but there is a very real possibility that he doesn’t make it four years. I’m not worried about McCain running the counry, nor would I have been worried about some of the rejected VP picks mentioned above. I could have lived with Tim Pawlenty, who at least is a rational, intelligent human being. But Palin is so dishonest, so corrupt, so stupid, and such an incredible nutbag, that the thought of her being president scares me.