PrintSeptember 12, 2008
NY Times TV columnist doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is either
Is there a vast liberal-wing conspiracy here?
The snide commentary starts off in the headline: "Showing a Confidence, in Prepared Answers."
I wonder if "prepared answers" were ever noted by many in the media when covering Obama?
When Ms. Palin seemed not to know exactly what the Bush doctrine is, Mr. Gibson made a point of explaining it — pre-emptive self-defense — and demanded that she tell him whether she agreed with it.
Repeat-there is no set definition of the "Bush Doctrine." Neither George Bush nor anyone in his Administration ever defined the putative Bush Doctrine. There has been an accumulation of ideas and principles that have been layered over the years and that the term the "Bush Doctrine" supposedly defines.
Ms. Stanley does NOT KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE BUSH DOCTRINE IS; NOR DOES CHARLES GIBSON; NOR DOES ANY AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE.
Ms. Stanley does NOT KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE BUSH DOCTRINE IS; NOR DOES CHARLES GIBSON; NOR DOES ANY AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE.
Even ABC News has varying defintions of the so-called "Bush Doctrine"
One more point; how does Stanley come up with this sentence?
Mr. Gibson, who sat back in his chair, impatiently wriggling his foot, had the skeptical, annoyed tone of a university president who agrees to interview the daughter of a trustee but doesn’t believe she merits admission.
So..Stanley thinks that Gibson thinks that Palin does not deserve the VP slot? Why don't we ask him? She is merely inserting her poltical opinion into her fanciful interpretation of Gibson's body language.
