Posted on 09/12/2008 7:31:45 AM PDT by Starman417
Last night I watched Hardball with Chris Matthews. As usual he had on spin doctors from both the Democratic Party and Republican Party, and they were discussing the ABC Charles Gibson interview with Governor Sarah Palin. In that interview, Gibson tried to assert that the so-called Bush Doctrine of foreign policy was a practice of pre-emptive attacks on the chance that a nation might someday attack the United States. Governor Palin said that when an attack is imminent from another country (as was the case with Israel in 1967 for example) that the United States would be right to attack given that the intelligence reporting was as good as possible.
It was those two words that Mr. Matthews seized upon, "Imminent Threat." He claimed that President Bush had said Saddam's Iraq was an imminent threat, and he specifically said that it was not Democrats who made that claim even when the Democratic Party propagandist he had on as a guest tried to correct Mr. Matthews to no avail. Matthews is wrong, and he is misleading millions of people around the world as well as fueling the lie that Operation Iraqi Freedom is not about freedom (a war Senator Obama promises tp continue for at least a year and a half-perhaps as long as 2013).
Sorry Chris...it was the Democrats who claimed Saddam was an imminent threat-not President Bush.
"Can we really leave this to chance, when we could eliminate this deadly threat by acting now in concert with the international community, or alone if the threat is imminent -- which it is not now? In my view, we cannot. " -Sen. John Kerry (D) 10/09/2002
If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late. Sen. Joseph Biden D-Del., September 4, 2002
The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event – or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse – to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. -Sen. John Edwards (D) 9/12/02
Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, February 5, 2003
First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq, or moving against his own Kurdish citizens. The credible threat to use force and, when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have caused Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people. We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with the new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. -Pres Clinton Desert Fox announcement December 1998 (NOTE: in response to the Desert Fox attacks, Al Queda issues a press release declaring, "We say it loud and clear that we will retaliate for what is happening to the sons of our nation in Iraq." Immediately afterwards-according to the 911 Commission, Bin Laden authorized KSM's 911 plot to be set in motion.)
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Next time you have a have a question for Gov. Palin about the Bush Doctrine why don't you explain what “you” originally thought the Bush Doctrine was and not what “you” said it was last night in “your” condescending correction to Palin’s answer!
In the interview last night Charlie Gibson had this exchange with Gov. Palin:
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
The following is what Charlie Gibson has said in the past what the Bush doctrine is ... It is the same as Gov. Palin answered last night!
September 21, 2001 CHARLIE GIBSON: The president in his speech last night, very forceful. Four out of five Americans watched it. Everybody gathered around the television set last night. The president issued a series of demands to the Taliban, already rejected. We'll get to that in a moment. He also outlined what is being called the Bush Doctrine, a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated.
September 21, 2001 CHARLIE GIBSON: Senator Daschle, let me start with you. People were looking for a Bush Doctrine. They may have found it when he said the war on terror will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped or defeated. That's pretty broad. Broader than you expected?
Charlie Gibson tried to trap Gov. Palin with this interview question. As you can see from the qoutes above Gibson believes the Bush Doctrin is exactly the same as how Palin Answered!
Got you Gibson!
“Last night I watched Hardball with Chris Matthews.”
Oh. YOU”RE the one..........
good job! I love it when the elite snob know-it-alls are unmasked as just that.
Can someone email this to Chrissy Matthews? Thanks!
......
“CLINTON: Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government — a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.”
President Clinton
Oval Office Address to the American People
December 16, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
How did he get his info? Is his OBAMA sense tingling up his leg??
BTTT
I believe Cheney was the first one in the administration to describe Iraq as an ‘eminent threat’. However, this was several months AFTER we already invaded, and the words were put in his mouth by the interviewer. Cheney made a mistake though, because the leftist media from then on out misconstrued what Bush said prior to the war.
No I think now its more like the warmth spreading down same leg as he wets himself.
Chrissy Matthews is a perfect case of “My mind is made up, don’t confuse me with the facts!!!”
Chris Matthews is no different than James Carville, as they are both paid operatives for the Democrat party. From his Wiki:
“In Washington Matthews worked for four Democratic politicians. He worked in the U.S. Senate for five years on the staffs of Senators Frank Moss and Edmund Muskie before himself campaigning for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, losing his party’s nomination to Pennsylvania Congressman Joshua Eilberg in the Democratic primary in 1974. Matthews received about 23% of the vote.
“He was a presidential speechwriter for four years during the Carter administration. Matthews later worked six years as a top aide to long-time Speaker of the House of Representatives Tip O’Neill, playing a direct role in many key political battles with the Reagan administration.
Despite having worked for Democrats, Matthews said, “I’m more conservative than people think I am. ... I voted for George W. Bush in 2000.” (All *that* means is that he belongs to a Democrat faction that are bitter enemies of Al Gore.)
In other words, he is as much a “non-partisan journalist” as Karl Rove, were he to become a “non-partisan journalist”.
So don’t be worried by any illusion of “non-partisanship” from Chris Matthews. He is a Democrat, fully supports the Democrats, and will never, ever give a Republican or a conservative a fair shake.
“the so-called Bush Doctrine of foreign policy was a practice of pre-emptive attacks”
Why do we allow them to say this? The pre-emptive attack legislation was sign by Clinton. It is the Clinton Doctrine.
Poor, Chris.
Where are the critical thinkers? All these myrmidons have a narrative loop that can’t be broken. They stick to it through hell or high water. It’ll be the ‘loop’ that they hang themselves with.
Never has the liberal media been so inadvertantly helpful to a republican candidate. From unwittingly providing a huge audience for Palin’s convention speach, to making the lipstick smear possible, the MSM must be driving the Obamessiah nuts. I wonder when he’ll finally jump up and scream “stop helping me!”
Great point.
Some other points on topic that debunk this whole lame attack:
1. The Bush Doctrine has various and ephemeral definitions among the lefties, which certainly are in accord with Palin’s implicit understanding of the Bush Doctrine, for example:
Frank Rich, NY Times, April 2002
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2080286/posts?page=285#285
and
Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe, January 2008
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2080441/posts?page=35#35
2. Bush did not say the threat was imminent - RATHER when he made his case for the Iraq War on January 28, 2003, he told a joint session of Congress and the citizens of the US and the world that we could not wait until it became imminent - which is very important given the fabrication that Bush lied about the existence of an actual imminent threat (WMDs). Bush told us all that we could not afford to wait until WMDs posed an imminent threat because by then it would clearly be too late given the modus operandi of the whack-nut terrorists and islamofascists:
“Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
3. Hillary Clinton actually supported what some consider to be a major plank of the Bush doctrine when she spoke from the well of the Senate on September 12, 2001
Senator Clinton on 9/12/2001:
“...We will also stand united behind our President as he and his advisors plan the necessary actions to demonstrate America’s resolve and commitment. Not only to seek out an exact punishment on the perpetrators, but to make very clear that not only those who harbor terrorists, but those who in any way aid or comfort them whatsoever will now face the wrath of our country. And I hope that that message has gotten through to everywhere it needs to be heard. You are either with America in our time of need or you are not...”
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=235656
http://web.archive.org/web/20051210212233/clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/index.cfm?year=2001
**NB: Mrs. Clinton’s remarks were 9 days BEFORE Bush ever expressed that same sentiment - “Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html - for which Bush has been harshly criticized ever since (e.g. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9904E1DC1331F93AA25750C0A9629C8B63)
Why doesn’t Matthews just join the Obama team and call it a day.
Why doesn’t MSNBC just fire Matthews and Olbermann so their ratings will go back up? MSNBC must have a death wish, because they are going down, fast.
You are right! I noticed that too. Gibson expanded the Bush Doctrine to the Michael Moore version. By the way, removal of Saddam was official policy of the US since the Clinton Admin. by virtue of Congressional Law in 1998.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.