Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (416531)	9/11/2008 10:21:02 PM
From: steve harris	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578556

Can you post the "Obama Doctrine"?

To: combjelly who wrote (416531)	9/11/2008 10:27:14 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578556

"The twit didn't know about the Bush doctrine....the idea of pre-emptive strike." Yeah. She tap danced around until he told her what it was. Actually, Chris Matthews didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was either. It is NOT (as you, and Matthews said) the idea of a "pre-emptive strike". From the outset the Bush Doctrine was a policy of treating countries who provide safe harbor for terrorist groups as though they are themselves terrorists. Pre-emptive strike was tagged onto the definition later on and is one of several concepts subsequently added to the policy. The Bush Doctrine also includes concepts such as promoting democracy in the ME to help combat terrorism. And others. It would appear to me that Palin knew at least as much about it as you or Chris Matthews did.

To: combjelly who wrote (416531)	9/12/2008 1:30:04 AM
From: Joe NYC	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578556

cj, Yeah. She tap danced around until he told her what it was. I think Charlie Gibson would have earned himself some credit if he asked the question: "Do you agree with Bush doctrine, which states XYZ" The way he asked sounded too much like he was playing gotcha. I have to admit I drew a blank for a second there as well, and then when he defined it, I said to myself "aahh". So on that question, Gibson could have either earned some credit, but he lost some. Not a huge deal. Where he lost a lot of credit was when he, twice in a row, quated a statement that was cut off. The part that was cut off gave Palins statement in church full meaning. So a huge blunder there (or intentional sabotage?) Gibson shrunk himself to the size of MiniMe (either MiniMe partisan liberal, or an anchor with incompetent staff). ABC lost a huge amount of credit for editing the interview. Who know what was lost, was it only pauses? Who knows. Editing was painfully obvious. The questions on energy were fair, and pressing Palin on manmade vs. non-manmade causes was fair. Overall, Palin stood her ground, in an area where she performed below level of foreign policy wonk of the Foreign Affairs Magazine, but fine for an well informed mortal - especially a mortal with 5 kids. I give her a B. I Gibson and ABC earn a C. For misleading quote, playing gotcha and annoying editing. Joe