NC Democrat assaults student reporterFollow

Erm, I was responding to you talking explicitly about her interview with Gibbs and saying her response to the question was correct.

OMG Did you see the way you said something and then I replied!! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL SO FUNNY!!!

Is this going to be one of those times when you start crying about how I'm not making the proper Gbaji approved responses to your posts? You really wanted to talk about "Obama Agenda" vs "Bush Doctrine" but I didn't respond to that and so you throw a temper tantrum and say how unfair we all are?

That's always fun. I'll get your blankie and teddy bear ready for when you calm down.

And I was responding to Catwho's statement that his reaction was because only opponents of Obama use the phrase "the Obama agenda". And her statement was in response to Allegory ruminating on the degree to which the question was a "deliberate attempt at antagonism".

I simply pointed out the similarities between being asked about the Obama agenda and being asked about the Bush doctrine and contrasted the relative responses.

To which Mojivo insisted that it's not the same because the Bush Doctrine refers to a "single specific point of foreign policy". Um... Except that it doesn't.

And then you went all red-eyed and started crying and being a baby because I mentioned Sarah Palin, and completely missed the point. Not really surprising.



No. Actually, I was comparing an experienced reporter whom you appear to hold in high regard to a couple of guys on the street with flip phones. And I contrasted the reaction to a dumb question between Palin and Etheridge. Despite your desperate need to make this about me defending Bush or Palin, that really wasn't what it was about.

Edited, Jun 17th 2010 4:05pm by gbaji

I said something similar to this a while back. Sometimes it's almost scary reading his stuff.

It means his "world view"!

You know, like being pro-life? That's the Bush Doctrine! Drilling in ANWR? Bush Doctrine!! Thnking clearing brush is a good way to spend an afternoon? You better believe... BUSH DOCTRINE!

No, it's not (more accurately, it's not what Gibson and most liberals think it is). There are at least three distinct political actions by the Bush administration which have been labeled "the Bush doctrine". The first was his decision to withdraw from ABM and Kyoto. I'm quite sure that's *not* what Gibb was referring to in his question, and certainly is not what you think the Bush Doctrine is about.

The second refers to the policy to hold state sponsors and protectors of terrorist groups accountable for the actions of those groups. This was specific to the decision to invade Afghanistan (among other actions like seizing property and bank accounts of terrorist groups abroad) after the 9/11 attacks. When the Taliban refused to help in finding or arresting the members of Al-queda responsible for the attacks, this policy was enacted. BTW, this is what both Bush and Cheney referred to in the quotes earlier. This is the only use of the phrase which the Bush administration itself referred to as the Bush Doctrine. However, this is *also* not what Gibson was talking about when he asked the question, was it?

Gibson was referring to a broader policy based almost entirely on liberal pundit's re-interpretations of the decision to invade Iraq. It reads more or less as the right of the US to unilaterally invade a nation pre-emptively if that nation is seen to represent a future threat to the security of the US. That's *not* what Bush or Cheney or anyone in the administration ever referred to as the "Bush Doctrine".


The question was a bad one because it's a complex question. If Palin answers it straight and in the context Gibson intended the question to go, it would be seen as an affirmation of the label of "Bush Doctrine", not to what the Bush administration actually used it to mean, but as the liberal pundits had come to view it. She would have to accept the premise that this was "the Bush Doctrine" by answering the question.

It's comparable to asking about the "Obama Agenda", because it can be assumed that a conservative asking the question is referring to an agenda of using the power of the government to bring about socialist change to the US. That's what conservatives mean when they say it. If he answers without clarifying what is being spoken about, he's made the mistake of accepting the premise of the question itself.


The difference is that Palin asked Gibson to clarify what he was talking about, while the esteemed congressman chose to assault the guys asking the question. Hence, I made a joke that perhaps Palin should have just punched Gibson in the face for asking the question. But apparently the mere mention that Palin might have handled a similar situation with vastly greater aplomb than this guy didn't fly so well with some of the more rabidly liberal posters on this board. It's funny actually, I wasn't trying at all to defend Palin's answer, but apparently I can't mention her name without some people having to attack her.

EDIT: Hah. Charlie Gibson. Dunno why I kept writing "Gibbs"...

For the record, this is what Gibson said the "Bush Doctrine" was:




I'll point out again that this is a liberal interpretation of the decision to invade Iraq, repackaged and labeled as "the Bush Doctrine", and is *not* what Bush and Cheney were talking about. They changed the meaning so that if someone supported the Bush Doctrine, they could be attacked for supporting unilateral pre-emptive attacks on foreign nations with sketchy intelligence, and all the other anti-Iraqwar arguments. That's why she was correct to answer as she did.

That's also why it's fair to compare the two statements. If you were to ask Obama what his agenda is, he'd presumably give a very different answer than what a conservative pundit would say the "Obama Agenda" is. Same deal.

Edited, Jun 17th 2010 7:45pm by gbaji

Jophed,



So Obama's agenda is being pro abortion, stopping all drilling of everyone because of BP, govn takeover of major industries and corporations (gm, banking, health, and now apparently BP), spending the morning and afternoon golfing? You better believe it.

The congressman should have known these were Obamas agenda items right? Healthcare, killing big oil, a complete govn takeover of the private sector.

Haha... way to completely miss the point.

Xarus,



This is precisely the situation where an example needs to be made. A congressman assaults, and uses his position to intimidate, someone asking him a legitmate question in our nations capital. I think this is the perfect situation to send a message to the rest of congress that we're not going to continue to put up with this chicago thug style politics. What am I saying; that's how liberals prefer it.

She meant your mouth.

Jophed,

So now we're comparing the acts of candidates to actual congressmen? Is that it? Do you know what the word settlement means? For white businessmen it means pay the lying b*tches off or spend the next 10yrs, and 100's of thousands, of your life fighting attorneys. Do the words Clarence Thomas ring a bell?

Truly show me evidence that a GOP member has done something remotely similar to this and been able to keep his seat. The GOP tend to kick out the scumbags when they find out about them. The democrats circle the wagons and eventually promote their scumbags. H*ll just take slick willy for example or sheets Byrd. The GOP couldn't get away with electing someone who used to be a grand dragon of the KKK but because he's got a D beside his name the Democrats are willing to go to the matts for him.

Jophed,



Yes I understand successful white businessmen who run major corporations are targets for money grubbing b*tches who will lie their as* off to get paid. And in certain states the colour of your skin is all that matters to potential jurors.

Remind me again was this guy elected by the citizens of the US to his position?

Oh and glad you're finally admitting you can't find a current member of the GOP who's done anything close to what this Democrat congressman did.

Jophed,

lmao....obviously you've never been a business owner who's had to defend himself against false charges.