Thread: Gibsons Interview With Obama vs Gibsons Interview With Palin. Amazing!

Last year, the Democratic nominees were asked at the NPR Democratic debate about how they would differ from the Bush Doctrine in their administrations. Joe Biden and Barack Obama’s answers are below.

PROF. CHRIS PENCE (MARION, INDIANA): (From tape.) American diplomatic history books recount the Monroe Doctrine, the Truman Doctrine, and will likely discuss the Bush Doctrine. When future historians write of your administration’s foreign policy pursuits, what will be noted as your doctrine and the vision you cast for U.S. diplomatic relations?

…

SIEGEL: And Senator Biden, the Biden Doctrine.

SEN. BIDEN: Clarity. Prevention, not preemption. An absolute repudiation of this president’s doctrine, which has only three legs in the stool: one, push the mute button, don’t talk to anybody; two, preemption; and three, regime change. I would reject all three. We need a doctrine of prevention. The role of a great power is to prevent the crises. And we don’t have to imagine any of the crises. We know what’s going to happen on day one when you’re president. You have Pakistan, Russia, China, the subcontinent of India. You have Afghanistan. You have Darfur. And it requires engagement — engagement and prevention. That does not rule out the use of force; it incorporates the notion of prevention — prevention.

SIEGEL: Senator Obama, the short version of the Obama Doctrine.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, I think one of the things about the Obama Doctrine is it’s not going to be as doctrinaire as the Bush Doctrine because the world is complicated. And I think part of the problem we’ve had is that ideology has overridden facts and reality.

But I think that the basic concept — and I’ve heard it from some of the other folks — is that, increasingly, we have to view our security in terms of a common security and a common prosperity with other peoples and other countries. And that means that if there are children in the Middle East who cannot read, that is a potential long-term danger to us. If China is polluting, then eventually that is going to reach our shores. We have to — and work with them cooperatively to solve their problems as well as ours.

From ABC News' January 5 broadcast of the ABC News-Facebook Democratic presidential debate:

GIBSON: Brian Ross there.

Well, Osama bin Laden, as he pointed out, has said it is his duty to try to get nuclear weapons. Al Qaeda has been reconstituted and re-energized in the western part of Pakistan. And so my general question is: How aggressively would you go after Al Qaeda leadership there?

And let me start with you, Senator Obama, because it was you who said, in your foreign policy speech, that you would go into Western Pakistan, if you had actionable intelligence, to go after him, whether or not the Pakistani government agreed. You stand by that?

OBAMA: I absolutely do stand by it, Charlie. What I said was that we should do everything in our power to push and cooperate with the Pakistani government in taking on Al Qaeda, which is now based in northwest Pakistan. And what we know from our national intelligence estimates is that Al Qaeda is stronger now than at any time since 2001.

And so, back in August, I said we should work with the Pakistani government, first of all to encourage democracy in Pakistan, so you've got a legitimate government that we're working with, and secondly, that we have to press them to do more to take on Al Qaeda in their territory. What I said was, if they could not or would not do so, and we had actionable intelligence, then I would strike.

And I should add that Lee Hamilton and Tom Keaton, the heads of the 9/11 Commission, a few months later wrote an editorial saying the exact same thing. I think it's indisputable that that should be our course.

Let me just add one thing, though. On the broader issue of nuclear proliferation, this is something that I've worked on since I've been in the Senate. I worked with Richard Lugar, then the Republican head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to pass the next stage of what was Nunn-Lugar, so that we would have improved interdiction of potentially nuclear materials.

And it is important for us to rebuild a nuclear nonproliferation strategy, something that this administration, frankly, has ignored, and has made us less safe as a consequence. It would not cost us that much, for example, and would take about four years for us to lock down the loose nuclear weapons that are still floating out there, and we have not done the job.

GIBSON: I'm going to go to the others in a moment, but what you just outlined is essentially the Bush doctrine: We can attack if we want to, no matter the sovereignty of the Pakistanis.

OBAMA: No, that is not the same thing, because here we have a situation where Al Qaeda, a sworn enemy of the United States, that killed 3,000 Americans and is currently plotting to do the same, is in the territory of Pakistan. We know that.

And so, you know, this is not speculation. This is not a situation where we anticipate a possible threat in the future. And my job as commander-in-chief will be to make sure that we strike anybody who would do America harm when we have actionable intelligence do to that.

Just two instances where Obama has talked about his foreign policy doctrine, and done so in the context of the Bush doctrine. Perhaps you care to provide the Palin statements on the Palin or McCain doctrine or the Bush doctrine prior to her interview with Gibson.

Perhaps your view is that we should have the opportunity to understand Palin's views over the same 20 month span that we've had for Obama, so that we can decide in November 2010 whether we should vote for Palin as VP?

Originally Posted by mulp

L[I]ast year, the Democratic nominees were asked at the NPR Democratic debate about how they would differ from the Bush Doctrine in their administrations. Joe Biden and Barack Obama’s answers are below.

Hardly an one on one interview when your buddys get to answer the question before you do huh?

Originally Posted by mulp

Last year, the Democratic nominees were asked at the NPR Democratic debate about how they would differ from the Bush Doctrine in their administrations. Joe Biden and Barack Obama’s answers are below.

PROF. CHRIS PENCE (MARION, INDIANA): (From tape.) American diplomatic history books recount the Monroe Doctrine, the Truman Doctrine, and will likely discuss the Bush Doctrine. When future historians write of your administration’s foreign policy pursuits, what will be noted as your doctrine and the vision you cast for U.S. diplomatic relations?

…

SIEGEL: And Senator Biden, the Biden Doctrine.

SEN. BIDEN: Clarity. Prevention, not preemption. An absolute repudiation of this president’s doctrine, which has only three legs in the stool: one, push the mute button, don’t talk to anybody; two, preemption; and three, regime change. I would reject all three. We need a doctrine of prevention. The role of a great power is to prevent the crises. And we don’t have to imagine any of the crises. We know what’s going to happen on day one when you’re president. You have Pakistan, Russia, China, the subcontinent of India. You have Afghanistan. You have Darfur. And it requires engagement — engagement and prevention. That does not rule out the use of force; it incorporates the notion of prevention — prevention.

SIEGEL: Senator Obama, the short version of the Obama Doctrine.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, I think one of the things about the Obama Doctrine is it’s not going to be as doctrinaire as the Bush Doctrine because the world is complicated. And I think part of the problem we’ve had is that ideology has overridden facts and reality.

But I think that the basic concept — and I’ve heard it from some of the other folks — is that, increasingly, we have to view our security in terms of a common security and a common prosperity with other peoples and other countries. And that means that if there are children in the Middle East who cannot read, that is a potential long-term danger to us. If China is polluting, then eventually that is going to reach our shores. We have to — and work with them cooperatively to solve their problems as well as ours.

From ABC News' January 5 broadcast of the ABC News-Facebook Democratic presidential debate:

GIBSON: Brian Ross there.

Well, Osama bin Laden, as he pointed out, has said it is his duty to try to get nuclear weapons. Al Qaeda has been reconstituted and re-energized in the western part of Pakistan. And so my general question is: How aggressively would you go after Al Qaeda leadership there?

And let me start with you, Senator Obama, because it was you who said, in your foreign policy speech, that you would go into Western Pakistan, if you had actionable intelligence, to go after him, whether or not the Pakistani government agreed. You stand by that?

OBAMA: I absolutely do stand by it, Charlie. What I said was that we should do everything in our power to push and cooperate with the Pakistani government in taking on Al Qaeda, which is now based in northwest Pakistan. And what we know from our national intelligence estimates is that Al Qaeda is stronger now than at any time since 2001.

And so, back in August, I said we should work with the Pakistani government, first of all to encourage democracy in Pakistan, so you've got a legitimate government that we're working with, and secondly, that we have to press them to do more to take on Al Qaeda in their territory. What I said was, if they could not or would not do so, and we had actionable intelligence, then I would strike.

And I should add that Lee Hamilton and Tom Keaton, the heads of the 9/11 Commission, a few months later wrote an editorial saying the exact same thing. I think it's indisputable that that should be our course.

Let me just add one thing, though. On the broader issue of nuclear proliferation, this is something that I've worked on since I've been in the Senate. I worked with Richard Lugar, then the Republican head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to pass the next stage of what was Nunn-Lugar, so that we would have improved interdiction of potentially nuclear materials.

And it is important for us to rebuild a nuclear nonproliferation strategy, something that this administration, frankly, has ignored, and has made us less safe as a consequence. It would not cost us that much, for example, and would take about four years for us to lock down the loose nuclear weapons that are still floating out there, and we have not done the job.

GIBSON: I'm going to go to the others in a moment, but what you just outlined is essentially the Bush doctrine: We can attack if we want to, no matter the sovereignty of the Pakistanis.

OBAMA: No, that is not the same thing, because here we have a situation where Al Qaeda, a sworn enemy of the United States, that killed 3,000 Americans and is currently plotting to do the same, is in the territory of Pakistan. We know that.

And so, you know, this is not speculation. This is not a situation where we anticipate a possible threat in the future. And my job as commander-in-chief will be to make sure that we strike anybody who would do America harm when we have actionable intelligence do to that.

Just two instances where Obama has talked about his foreign policy doctrine, and done so in the context of the Bush doctrine. Perhaps you care to provide the Palin statements on the Palin or McCain doctrine or the Bush doctrine prior to her interview with Gibson.

Perhaps your view is that we should have the opportunity to understand Palin's views over the same 20 month span that we've had for Obama, so that we can decide in November 2010 whether we should vote for Palin as VP?

Thank you for reminding us that Obama promised to unilaterally invade an ally in contrast with Bush building a large coalition to remove an actual threat in Saddam. It is always nice to be reminded that he is an unstable thug with no respect for the legal rights of an ally or the negative consequences to diplomacy with all other nations. If we invade Pakistan who is next? France? They have a lot of Islamic terrorists there. India? China? Russia? All have active Islamic terrorists. We have soldiers in Germany, maybe we can have them go into Islamic strongholds. Or Great Britian. You cannot make this stuff up, unilaterally invade an ally.

Interesting you would compare a debate to a regular interview though. Can you really not understand the difference?

Originally Posted by kgpoolerev

Thank you for reminding us that Obama promised to unilaterally invade an ally in contrast with Bush building a large coalition to remove an actual threat in Saddam. It is always nice to be reminded that he is an unstable thug with no respect for the legal rights of an ally or the negative consequences to diplomacy with all other nations. If we invade Pakistan who is next? France? They have a lot of Islamic terrorists there. India? China? Russia? All have active Islamic terrorists. We have soldiers in Germany, maybe we can have them go into Islamic strongholds. Or Great Britian. You cannot make this stuff up, unilaterally invade an ally.

Interesting you would compare a debate to a regular interview though. Can you really not understand the difference?

Mulp obviously doesent understand how easy it is to answer questions when you heard someone else answer the exact same question before you did.

[QUOTE=mulp;596416]
SEN. OBAMA: Well, I think one of the things about the Obama Doctrine is it’s not going to be as doctrinaire as the Bush Doctrine because the world is complicated. And I think part of the problem we’ve had is that ideology has overridden facts and reality.

But I think that the basic concept — and I’ve heard it from some of the other folks — is that, increasingly, we have to view our security in terms of a common security and a common prosperity with other peoples and other countries. And that means that if there are children in the Middle East who cannot read, that is a potential long-term danger to us. If China is polluting, then eventually that is going to reach our shores. We have to — and work with them cooperatively to solve their problems as well as ours.

QUOTE]

Umm, this is to show Obama knows what the "Bush Doctrine" is? Children who can't read? Pollution? Are you trying to show he can duck a question he doesn't understand? (of course knowing no one will challenge him).

Originally Posted by Toby

Did Gibson have a double standard for Palin? Update: ABC’s edits Hot Air Blog Archive Did Gibson have a double standard for Palin? Update: ABC’s edits

In the days leading up to Charles Gibson’s interview with Sarah Palin, many demanded that he ask her tough questions on foreign policy and reform. Certainly that is what journalists should do with all of our elected officials and political candidates, but it seems that Gibson doesn’t always meet this standard. Two bloggers have already provided evidence that Gibson treated Democrats much differently.

First, the Anchoress has a list of questions posed by Gibson to Barack Obama three months ago, who has arguably less experience on foreign policy than Palin and no executive experience at all: http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/0...uestions-more/








Newsbusters, meanwhile, has Gibson’s interview with John Edwards in 2004 after being selected as John Kerry’s running mate. Edwards had less than a full term in the Senate as his entire political background, and no foreign-policy, military, or executive experience at all. Yet Gibson didn’t press Edwards on these points at all. In fact, the entire interview consisted of a hard-hitting interrogation … on how mean Republicans are: Gibson Didn?t Pound Edwards in 2004; Asked Him If GOP Attacks Made Him Mad | NewsBusters.org

Toby, why do you always give your threads 5 stars? Really, they barely qualify to be in this forum...

Originally Posted by Flyhigher

Toby, why do you always give your threads 5 stars? Really, they barely qualify to be in this forum...

Flyhigher why is it that you can never stay on topic? How about you quit spamming and hyjacking threads because you dont share the opinion of the person that posted it. Its immature and its getting way out of hand among the liberals here such as ACrowley, Flyhigher, and Rasta. All I ask is that if your going to post in a thread then post in it but stay relevent. If you got a problem with me then pm me. Is that too much to ask for? Isnt that why we all post here anyway? Now lets see if you can swallow your bias and pride and actually do the right thing and stop this unecessary shit in light of so obviously and indesputably being wrong on the issue of posting irrelevent bullshit. I find it funny that you say my thread barley qualifys to be in the forum yet you post a message that has no relevence in this thread. I guess if it doesent qualify you could easly disput the claim that Gibson threw Obama softballs? But no ...... that would be relevent to the thread and I see you dont do relevence. You just spam and hyjack the threads made by people who you share a different than you do as opposed to actuly debating the issue so plainly drawn out in the first post of this thread. Real mature!