Bush Doctrine "A bit of a sham"

L.A. Times rebukes ABC for distorting Palin remarksCharlie Gibson misquotes governor, assuming she saw U.S. in 'holy war'.

The article goes on to take Charlie Gibson to task for seeking sources that were not accurate (tantamount to 'blogger' bashing sources), distorted the truth and challenged journalistic integrity. Gibson was also challenged by the and editor of the Washington Post and Michael Rappaport for Gibson's challenge of the "Bush Doctrine" stating that "not anyone was really sure of what it was right now" and "it was bad journalism and bad reporting" form.
Richard Starr of the Weekly Standard noted, “Preemptive war; American unilateralism; the overthrow of regimes that harbor and abet terrorists–all of these things and more have been described as the ‘Bush Doctrine.’ It was a bit of a sham on Gibson’s part to have pretended that there’s such a thing as ‘the’ Bush Doctrine, much less that it was enunciated in September 2002.”
Bill Simmon reports, "Gibson and his colleagues have been all over the map in defining the Bush Doctrine over the last seven years. In 2001, Gibson himself defined it as “a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated.”

Palin was defended in her response to the 'Russia' question. ABC was challenged for distorting the truth of her response, which was 'not so earth shattering at all.' according to Mark Hemingway at the National Review. She was just stating NATO doctrine, "that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help." Andrew Bolt of the Melbourne Sun responded to cries that 'Palin would have already started 4 wars' noting that "Sen. Barack Obama held the same views."

Robert Kagan of Carnegie Institute for International Peace said, "since the US has an Article V obligation to come to the defense of NATO allies when attacked. If she had said no then she would not have stated U.S. policy. It's possible the journalists covering her interview do not know this."

Other distortions of the truth were challenged in the LA Times article including the original War on Terror and Sudam Hussein. Washington Post's Ann Kornblut took Palin to task for giving incorrect information at her son's Iraq farewell. The truth is, "Blumer says Kornblut "must have missed the news that Saddam Hussein, who was in power in Iraq on 9/11, is not only not in power, but also quite dead – executed by the current, totally unrelated Iraqi government. 'The war in Iraq' morphed from an operation to overthrow Hussein and capture or neutralize his lieutenants to a war against an al- Qaida insurgency at least four years ago."

CONNECT THE DOTS TO THE RELATIONSHIPS

I have watched the relationship build between Russia, Venezuela and Iran for the last several years. I have told people that these countries are not only our enemies, but will swear to do us harm. I still stand by that belief. It is interesting that Iran's President is heading to North America this week as this other event is unfolding........(from foxnews.com).......

"Two Russian strategic bombers landed in Venezuela on Wednesday as part of military maneuvers, the government said, announcing an unprecendented deployment to a new ally at a time when both nations are involved in tense relations with the U.S."

"Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez — an idled critic of American foreign policy — said Wednesday the bombers were welcome in Venezuela, and that he hopes to "fly one of those things" himself.
Chavez called the Russian planes' visit part of a move toward a "pluri-polar world" — a reference to moving away from U.S. dominance. "The Yankee hegemony is finished," Chavez said in a televised speech."

"The apparently retaliatory move follows the U.S. deployment of warships to deliver aid to the former Soviet nation of Georgia, barely a month after Russian armor and aircraft crushed the Georgian military in a five-day war."

The world depends upon oil. Russia, Venezuela and Iran have oil. Then why is Russia trying to take control of the pipeline going through Georgia? Because controlling that oil will control distribution of oil into Europe and has the potential to cut off Europe's oil suppply. It is a purely strategic move by Russia and make no mistake, Russia will attempt it again.

It is even more apparent that WE as a nation MUST tap into our OWN sources of energy and we MUST become OIL INDEPENDENT. We have the oil. Where? Alaska. Liberals would like you to believe that it isn't that much oil there and not worth the time or the money. The facts show that there are in excess of billlions, BILLIONS of untapped barrels of oil in ALASKA.

Can we afford to have countries that HATE US control US with oil? Arguing about BIG OIL isn't going to make the issue go away. We can't afford to let NON-FRIENDLY, BORDERLINE HOSTILE foreign leaders set the tone for the future world economy. Does anyone remember WWII??? Axis leaders of EVIL have the power, money and resources to create major economic disaster for the US and our allies.