For those that missed it, here are the excerpts from it.

Day 1: ABC News: Full Excerpts: Charlie Gibson Interviews GOP Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin

Day 2: ABC News: EXCERPTS: Charlie Gibson's Second Interview With Sarah Palin

Day 3: ABC News: Excerpts: Charlie Gibson Interviews GOP Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin

-------

Comments to come later.

I'll say it again. It frightens the heck out of me that she doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is. The most significant foreign policy change in 50 years which is what in part allowed us to enter into Iraq and she has no idea what it is. The decision that it is now okay to preemptively strike someone and she can't tell us what that means. It really hacks me off.

I can't explain how mad I am about that. My first thought is that perhaps our country is as screwed up as it is because we continue to elect people who we like instead of PEOPLE WHO ARE SMART. Aaaaaarg!

[dismayed's head explodes]

Have you not been reading a lot of commentators who agree that there is no set definition of the Bush Doctrine, or rather, that there have been several? Gibson has come under some criticism for assuming that his understanding of the doctrine is the only accepted one. This is something that has been debated among politicos and academics for quite some time and is still ongoing.

Her responses on the earmarks she's pursued have been out both sides of her mouth. Pretty much...well when it became negative she was against it, but she would still take the money regardless.

"Well if they are going to give us the money anyways, we aren't going to say no."

Great reformer there of earmarks.

The abuse will stop...when she isn't there to push for it in Alaska.

I knew what the Bush Doctrine was and anybody who knows anything about foriegn policy would know what the cornerstone of our foreign policy is.

Clearly, that does not include Palin.

Then I know what the Powell Doctrine is and which to god that we'd followed it. We'd be in a different world today were Rumsfeld and Cheney not too ego maniacal to listen to somebody who knows what they are doing when it comes to fighting a war.

I also know what the "Just War Doctrine" is which I doubt Bush, Palin, or any of the other war mongers around could understand even though it is rooted in Christian theology.

I knew what his question meant when he posed it and I didn't have to look anything up. I am hearing about the "confusion" now yes, and I simply cannot believe it. It is clear to me what the Bush Doctrine is and my political savvy friends would agree with my definition of it as well. I just don't buy it.

Frankly if there was some confusion on what it meant (which I don't buy), wouldn't that have given Palin 6x the outs to answer the question? If I were put on the spot and someone asked me a question I thought was "vague" I would hammer them and make it clear I know what I am talking about by explaining the vagueness. I got no sense from the interview that Palin was aware of 6 potential explanations, let alone one.

The Powell Doctrine is the superior military/foreign policy doctrine and I hope that we return to it in the near future.

I guess I should point out that the use of the word "doctrine" often denotes a set of rules related to foreign policy and military objectives, a la the Monroe Doctrine, the Reagan Doctrine, the Powell Doctrine, and so on. This is also part of the reason I just can't fathom the "misunderstanding" of what it means... in the last 24 hours I have heard people saying it could have applied to any number of things including Bush's stance on Kyoto. What BS.

Even the UPI gets it ABC's Gibson grilled Palin hard, but it may backfire - UPI.com

God forbid we ever do anything to our politicians like what the UK MPs have to go through during their open comments on the floor of the House of Commons.

I say grill them all... McCain, Palin, Obama, and Biden. I want to see how they all squirm under pressure. If they can't handle Gibson they're not going to be able to handle Ahmadenijad.

I would love to see our leaders try to deal with a House of Commons type atmosphere.

I'm with dismayed...grill them grill them grill them. In the debates, I hope they have a BS buzzer to where the moderator can call the candidates out on their BS.

Anyone who wants to see what UPI has become under the leadership of the Unification Church ought to read this.

Dismayed, you are so wrong. As we proved last night, Charles Krauthammer says "Bush Doctrine" refers to everything except what Charlie Gibson and everybody in the world says it means.

As, as Prune demonstrated last night, Krauthammer has the power to make history, define words, and rid people of that "not so fresh feeling."

So there.

From reading the comments of certain pEOple on this forum I find this article to be right on target:


Joe Mariani

Liberalism: Curable or Terminal?
June 14, 2003

I've often wondered about the curability of Liberalism. I have no doubt that it can be classified as a mental disease, spread by corrupted memes. Memes are defined as "A unit of cultural information, such as a cultural practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another" (http://dictionary.reference.com/). Memes are considered a cultural analogue to genes, and if that analogy is carried to its logical conclusion, can mutate as genes do. When genes or memes mutate, however, the effect is more often harmful than beneficial. Like "bad" genes, corrupted, mutated memes can propagate traits that are harmful, like cultural equivalents of sickle-cell anemia, hemophilia, or Blue Rubber Bleb Nevus Syndrome (ok, I never heard of it either... but trust me, it sounds much cooler than it is).
Some mutations are carried on because they once had a benefit that outweighed the harm they do. Sickle-cell anemia protects the sufferer from malaria -- better to be anemic than dead! Malaria was common, and relatively untreatable, for most of human history... but NOW sickle-cell anemia has no redeeming protective ability due to modern medicine. Similarly, Liberalism once had a purpose. At one time, "classic" Liberalism meant protecting and spreading freedom, being generous to less fortunate people and countries, and caring for all people, everywhere. Those are good values, which deserved to be passed on to future generations. However, somewhere along the way, a corrupted subspecies of Liberalism took root and grew... and has become the dominant strain.

As simply as I can put it, Modern Liberals firmly believe that the average person is a danger to himself and others. They believe that the purpose of government is to protect us all... not from external enemies, but from internal enemies... inside our heads. Liberals believe that people need to be protected from themselves; that they are incapable of making rational decisions; that people are sheep who need to be led. And they believe that they, the Liberals, are the proper shepherds. Liberals have a complete disdain for the "common herd", and show it in every plan they acclaim, in every law they propose, and in every phrase they utter.

Liberals have an unhealthy fear of human differences, and yet also have a hatred of the "normal". For instance, they believe that people -- and by "people", they mean "you" -- are not capable of responsible gun ownership, because you just might go wild and shoot someone, controlled by something scary inside your head that you don't even know is there, and can't fix. They believe that you, if you ever had ancestors from Africa, are unable to compete on an equal basis with people of European descent -- nor can you females compete on the same level as males, nor any of you non-white-males compete with white males equally. They believe that you need to be helped, protected, given advantages, and consoled (with money) when you fail. They believe that you white males are full of secret hatreds that you don't even realise you harbor, and that you need to be trained not to express -- and if you DO express your "wrong" opinions, it can cause actual harm to others. Liberals believe that as children, you should all be taught that you are no different than anyone else -- no winners, no losers, no ranking, no grades, no pass, no fail, no punishments and no rewards -- and then want you to "celebrate your diversity". Is this not the sign of some kind of mental disease?

Rational people, uninfected by Liberalism, know that Americans have always been able to own guns, and only the crazies or criminals abuse that right -- and that banning guns would not remove those elements from society. Rational people know that skin color and ancestry are immaterial when it comes to intelligence and potential -- both distributed evenly throughout the human race. Above all, rational people know that LIFE IS NOT FAIR... that in any field of human endeavor, some people will rise above others, and that life is competitive. Why do Liberals want to cripple children by lying to them about life instead of preparing them for it? It's the sign of a mental disease. Do you wonder why school shootings have become so common? It's what happens when those coddled kids raised in an unrealistic world, believing that everyone's the same, get a bloody nose when they run into the reality that the good-looking football players get to date the cheerleaders, and they don't.

Fortunately, I believe that kind of Liberalism is curable. Many people infected with it learn as they get older that life just doesn't work that way. Others can be cured by "intervention", but that takes a great deal of patience. Those sorts of Liberals aren't the truly dangerous ones, however... it's the Radical Liberals that need to be stopped.

Radical Liberals are the ones that want to interfere -- via the government -- in every aspect of your daily life. They want to ban Oreo cookies because the fat in them is bad for children. They want to sue McDonald's because their food makes you fat. They also want to institute a "fat tax" on televisions, junk food, and cars... the idea being that you won't sit and watch TV with a bag of Cheetos, and you'll walk to the store instead of driving. How much do these people want the government to run your life for you? The answer is: TOTALLY. They want to replace your flush toilet with a chemical toilet, and return you to the days of "thunder mugs" and chamber pots, which have to be emptied by hand. They believe that YOU are not capable of running your own life, and want the government to force you to do everything their way. No choices for you -- you will inevitably make the "wrong" one!

It gets even worse. Radical liberals founded and control the American Civil Liberties Union, which pretends to defend the civil rights OF Americans, but actually defends the indefensible FROM Americans. For instance, the ACLU defended that Muslim convert that insisted she be allowed to wear a veil for her driver's license photo, totally obviating the reason for HAVING a photo license -- to be able to identify the licensee. They want to ban the Pledge of Allegiance altogether. They seek to ban any display of Christian symbolism, while defending the display of any other kind of religious symbolism. Their worst crime is defending NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association. That's right, the ACLU is on the side of a group whose entire purpose is to share tips on how to commit illegal -- not to mention horribly immoral -- acts against children, and how to get away with it.

Radical Liberalism is a mental disease, and one that could be fatal -- not to the Liberals, but to America. If someone approaches you with a radical liberal idea, protect yourself from the dangerous, corrupt memes with common sense and rational argument! Don't let them tangle you up in moral equivalencies, emotional appeals, strawman attacks and other methods of Liberal arguments. You can fight against the spread of this mental sickness!

My biggest worry is this: if Liberalism becomes correctly classified as a mental illness, are they going to claim special rights, priveleges, and Federal funding? Are there going to be programs to force businesses to hire their quota of Liberals, under the "Americans with Disabilities Act"?

Liberalism: Curable or Terminal?

I would say the person who wrote this article suffers from the diseases of radical stupidity, chronic lying, acute paranoia, and hyper-stereotyping. Someone get this poor guy a doctor before he explodes.

I would say the person who wrote this article suffers from the diseases of radical stupidity, chronic lying, acute paranoia, and hyper-stereotyping. Someone get this poor guy a doctor before he explodes.

Yes I am afflicted with terminal liberalism which, as we know GWB beleives along with his buddy Mikey Weiner, is a MENTAL DISEASE!

yawn.

I rarely agree with you, but on this point I do.

Frisky and GWB, thank you for explaining to me my problem.

I've been thinking about GWB's brilliant cut and paste post and gosh, he's right! and I mean that in all the ways...

It's absolutely true that I subscribe to all the harmful memes like:

They hate us for our freedoms
We fight them there so we don't have to fight them here
Global War against terror

God forbid one might understand the real reasons "they" hate us or that "we" fight them "there" or even sillier reasons. I mean if we didn't send insufficeint troops to fight them over there, they would have used thier camel and sand air force and navy to Henderson Hills and Life Church on Sunday morning!

And, what if somebody questioned how you fight a war against an idea? How does an idea surrender? Does it appear on the deck of a battleship to sign a treaty? Does the idea even translate from one language to the next or do we have to teach the idea English before it can surrender to us?

No matter, because as a liberal I don't question the dangerous memes our president and his "advisers" send us to believe in.

I also absolutely believe that people are dangerous to themselves and the internal enemies inside our heads.

For example, I'm really afraid of all things those talk radio guys tell me to be afraid of. I wish the government would protect me from them.

Thank goodness they help me make all my decisions for me.

For example, I thought Sarah Palin was an idiot when I watched her repeat the same funny words over and over again. I mean, my goodness, can't the GOP afford any other words besides "I said thanks, but no thanks to the bridge to nowhere." I believed it the first few times but after awhile I began to wonder if she wasn't trying to sell me something funny.

But then, Mr. Limbaugh, thank goodness the government created him for us liberals, told me how wrong I was about her.

Now I realize how we voted her to be the next president and she's the greatest thing since sliced bread and Jesus.

YES! I also am very afraid of everybody different from me.

For example, Mexicans and gays. Holy mother of god, what if the Mexicans went back to Mexico? who would grow, pick, process, cook, and serve my food? Who would wash my toilets, babysit my children, and manicure my lawn and my wife's groady toenails?

And the Gays! What if they joined my church and infected me with their gayness. I would leave my family and dress like the village people if we let them, you know, do that dirty thing in churches--you know, get married!

But, be vewwy vewwy qwiet, because these are secrets...

Thank goodness nobody has any guns around...they might shoot some of their own kids or something.

And, how will we ever protect our Meth labs from all the other liberals who want our drugs? And, how will we kill policemen who are trying to take away our freedom to cook drugs next to day care centers without our gun show special AK-47's modified to full auto?

If only I could rid of toilets it would be a happy happy world. I mean, if I could keep that rascal Larry Craig out of my bathroom with his tap shoes.

I've been trying to learn Morse code to figure out what he's saying with all that tapping.

It's hard though. I can't seem to get it right because it sounds like he keeps saying "baby do me one more time" but that can't be right because Larry isn't a Gay or anything.

Fortunately, the government gave me my Cadillac and country club membership and big ass mansion right next to the Mathis Brothers and all the other liberal welfare recipients since I'm a disabled mentally ill liberal and all. Thank goodness the government takes such good care of all us welfare recipients.

Some day this war is gonna end and I'll wake up from this right wing fantasy nightmare.

Now, no more love notes you guys!

Sorry, GWB, but that article by Mariani was just a right-wing "reach around". I hope you at least got a kiss out of the deal. lol I don't fault Palin for not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is and I DO think Charlie should have helped her out a bit and explained what he was asking. The fact that so many educated folks are debating this is evidence that it's not common knowledge, IMHO.

While it may not be common knowledge, most people that follow politics and world events know what "The Bush Doctrine" is. I knew. I was frankly shocked that someone who wants to be vice president didn't. It's very telling.

Post removed.

Actually, what was telling is the fact that Charlie didn't clarify exactly what aspect of the Bush doctrine he was referring to. Had he done his job right instead of going on attack mode and trying to get a "gotcha moment" he would have clarified that. And since you know what the Bush Doctrine is, care to describe it in YOUR OWN words?

I don't know if you can say that most people who follow politics know what it is exactly. I was watching "Morning Joe" the day after the interview. Scarborough put the question of "What would you say the Bush Doctrine is?" to his guests and got a variety of answers. These were all people who could be said to be folks who follow politics closely, btw. There was certainly no overwhelming attitude among them of, "Pffftt....how could she NOT know that!"