1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Obama Bows to Saudi King

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by ABQCOWBOY, Apr 8, 2009.

  1. iceberg

    iceberg detoxed...part 2 Zone Supporter

    28,339 Messages
    1,362 Likes Received
    ok - again now -

    i never said i wasn't taking the bait by doing it, i never said i didn't take that part of the convo off. i said when i see him quoted and it's just "out there" i take a few convos off and reply.

    i get caught up in the moment. forgive me i must be the only one.
  2. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Bad Santa Staff Member

    61,243 Messages
    4,572 Likes Received
    No not the only one to get caught up in things. I just don't know the reason to kind of brag about having someone on ignore and than ignoring that you have them on ignore. Maybe it is because I am a tad bit jealous that I can not put people on ignore.:D
  3. iceberg

    iceberg detoxed...part 2 Zone Supporter

    28,339 Messages
    1,362 Likes Received
    and i've just had a few weeks from hell in a row from multiple sources - so i'm just venting where i can.

    now back into hell.
  4. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Bad Santa Staff Member

    61,243 Messages
    4,572 Likes Received
    Understandable...I too get a case of that or boredom and go full bore into some things when I am better off just letting it go. It's the bull headed nature we share that makes us do these things.:laugh2:
  5. tyke1doe

    tyke1doe Well-Known Member

    20,494 Messages
    1,135 Likes Received
    :lmao:
  6. ScipioCowboy

    ScipioCowboy More than meets the eye. Zone Supporter

    15,260 Messages
    2,456 Likes Received
    I also asked you to identify the neoconservatives on this board after you claimed that the board was "dominated" by them. Thus far, you've failed to identify any.

    If you can't answer my question, it's fine. I won't press the issue any more.

    It's impossible to demonstrate command of a term whose meaning is contingent almost entirely on the person using it and is subject heavily to the context in which it is used.

    It's akin to asking someone to give their opinion of postmodernism. The meaning of postmodernism depends largely on the context of its usage. Are we talking about a literary movement, an art movement, a movement in intellectual thought, etc.?

    If I were to ask you to give your opinion of postmodernism without providing any context, you would be perfectly justified asking me, "what aspect?".

    This situation is no different. It's well within your rights to cover for Gibson's gaffe, but it's still not Sarah Palin's responsibility to attone for Gibson's lack or research and poor journalistic practice.

    There is no "common usage" of the term Bush Doctrine; therefore, she could not have "erred" on the side of caution.

    After her interview with Gibson, journalists from many different news outlets came out claiming to have the one, true meaning of Bush Doctrine. Of course, their definitions were different; half defined the Bush Doctrine as a policy of preemption while the other half defined it as a policy of prevention -- two definitions that are, for the most part, conflicting. As Krauthammer points out, the word as he conceived it has four possible meanings.

    The assertion that Sarah Palin could've appealed to a single definition upon which everyone would've agreed is dubious at best.

    The term "Goodell approach" isn't really analogous because it hasn't been subject to the same rancorous debate within the media. Have multiple journalists ever provided a myriad of different and conflicting definitions for Goodell approach?

    The assertion that President Roosevelt went on television in 1928 would certainly seem to be rooted in ignorance. I can't imagine any history teacher who would dismiss it as a gaffe on a test. And the fact that Biden is "senior member of Congress" makes it even worse, in my opinion.
  7. iceberg

    iceberg detoxed...part 2 Zone Supporter

    28,339 Messages
    1,362 Likes Received
    this wasn't boredom - this was just frustration at people doing and saying stupid things all around me for 2+ weeks straight. not related to here no - but when someone got all "giggle giggle" cause i took them off ignore long enough to reply like i just got busted or something?

    once again someone around me does something stupid w/o thought or the actual realization that maybe, just maybe, when i saw the quote and wanted to respond, i used that little feature under the post count that takes that particular reply off ignore.

    if you and wg don't want me using the features of the board for gods sake man - hide them!

    at this point it's safe to say i don't agree that tyke never results to personal attacks and that he's a mastermind of peoples habits cause i took him off ignore long enough to respond to what i saw in a quote.
  8. WoodysGirl

    WoodysGirl Shut up and play! Staff Member

    67,140 Messages
    6,923 Likes Received
    Never suggested that. I'm glad you're savvy enough to use the functions of this board.

    It's got a lot of cool features that most don't know about.
  9. iceberg

    iceberg detoxed...part 2 Zone Supporter

    28,339 Messages
    1,362 Likes Received
    yea, my sarcasm is getting out and my attempt at after-lunch humor.

    for the record i took him and everyone off ignore. no sense in a faux ignore if i can still see the quotes - i'll just have to practice self restraint. : )

    but to me the "giggles" came in because i dared to respond to an "ignored" person and pointing out i saw the quote and took messages off ignore seemed to have been missed so i could be told i was caught in a lie.

    it's easy enough for things to get miscontrued when you're typing. i know what i think doesn't always come out in what i type and i know i'm not alone. so we talk through it and move on - like we have.

    but i still find it funny you don't think tyke gets "personal". he may laugh it off and veil it better than others, but the intent is the same.

    at least to me. if this is simply a point of disagreement, i'm ok with that and still love ya woman!

    now i need to go hide from bb...
  10. WoodysGirl

    WoodysGirl Shut up and play! Staff Member

    67,140 Messages
    6,923 Likes Received
    There's personal...and then there's personal attacks if that makes sense. We all get a little personal when we're in the middle of a discussion.

    I guess what I mean is when the person has nothing left to contribute to the discussion, and falls back to "you're an idiot!"

    Generally speaking, I don't see that blatantness from tyke. There are some people in here who can hold their own in a discussion, no matter what you feel about their politics. Tyke, you, and some others are one of those people.

    I admit to not reading every post, in every thread, in every forum, so if I've missed those occasions where he or someone else has gone over the line, well, you know what function to use to help a sistah out, now don't you? ;)
  11. ABQCOWBOY

    ABQCOWBOY Moderator Staff Member

    35,188 Messages
    2,029 Likes Received

    LOL....

    I'm actually glad we can't do that. If we could, I doubt you'd even know who I am BP.

    :laugh2:
  12. iceberg

    iceberg detoxed...part 2 Zone Supporter

    28,339 Messages
    1,362 Likes Received
    in that regard, no i won't disagree. his "attacks" are just a high-brow level it would seem and not the blunt "quit being stupid" type of replies. i've not read every post either so all we can do is summarize and move on. : )

    i'm still hiding from bb though.
  13. bbgun

    bbgun Benched

    27,868 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    [IMG]
  14. tyke1doe

    tyke1doe Well-Known Member

    20,494 Messages
    1,135 Likes Received
    And it's not my intention to name them. You have the discussions. You can research them if you wish.

    And wouldn't the natural response be, "Do you mean postmodernism in art? Postmodernism in intellectual thought?"

    When one has a command of a subject, one doesn't need to be invasive, as Palin was.

    Uh, no. If I were knowledgeable about all aspects of postmodernism, I would reveal my knowledge by point out each aspect, especially if I wanted to impress the voting public with my knowledge on a given subject. People who possess knowledge and have a reason to share it display that knowledge. They don't hide that knowledge, if, indeed, they possess it.

    Sorry, but that's not how the real world works, even the world of politics. If you are going to be vice president of the United States and a heart beat away from the presidency, you don't take that tactic. If you do, you set yourself up to ridicule and claims you're in over your head, just as Sarah Palin was.

    I don't want a leader who can't answer pertinent questions or doesn't know enough about the scope of a topic to not give any response on the topic. Maybe that's good enough for you but not me.

    You mean err on the side of ignorance.

    Oh, pulease. You're spinning now. There's no general difference between "preemption" and "prevention". Both could have exactly the same meaning, i.e., a preemptive strike on Iraq as to destroy its ability to pass on WMDs before those WMDs come back to haunt us or prevent Iraq from ever being able to pass those WMDs to terrorists who could use them against us.

    This argument is silly. Sarah Palin could have used any one of those definitions and she would have been in the ball park. But she didn't. The fact that she couldn't come up with one definition or even give a reasonable response to reflect the doubt says volumes about her ignorance on the topic.

    And it's just not the fact that she didn't know, even when Gibson gave her the answer she was clueless.

    He had to give her the definition. Yeah, she knew all the varied meanings of the Bush Doctrine. And I have a house on Mars for sale. ;)


    But if she gave just one definition, she wouldn't have been seen as the over-her-head candidate she was.

    Actually, the "Goodell approach" has been subject to the "same" level of debate within the media. Media members have called him everything from a hypocrite to a hero.

    Second, let's stop playing ignorant. There was considerable debate about Bush's approach to Iraq. There was much disagreement on whether we should invade Iraq on the belief that it had WMDs and would pass it off to terrorists.

    How would a person NOT be anywhere in the ball park of what the Bush Doctrine meant? :rolleyes:

    It's really pathetic to hear how people bend over backwards to excuse Palin's ignorance. She didn't know. And she didn't know enough to formulate any answer. And when she did answer, it was because Gibson provided her with the information.

    No, there's a big difference. BIG DIFFERENCE.

    First, how many people off the top of their heads know when a television was made?

    Second, what does Biden's comments have to do with any policy he's suppose to support. Is knowing when a president went on television suppose to translate into policy he's supporting?

    Now consider Palin. She's suppose to be carrying on Bush's policies and Bush's legacy. She's suppose to be defending Bush's policies. She talked extensively about staying the course in Iraq, a war waged under the Bush Doctrine. And she can't define the Bush Doctrine? She can't even give a guess, especially since there are suppose to be so many meanings? :rolleyes:

    Heck, just pick one. You'd be in the ball park.

    But she doesn't because she doesn't know.

    She was over her head. Maybe in the four years, she'll improve her knowledge. I doubt it will be enough to make her a leading candidate, though.
  15. ScipioCowboy

    ScipioCowboy More than meets the eye. Zone Supporter

    15,260 Messages
    2,456 Likes Received
    And it's not my responsibility to research the claims you make. Either you can support them or you can't. As I said, if you're unable to support them, we can simply move on.

    Incorrect. There's a wide difference between a preemptive strategy and a preventive strategy. Below are some experts who can explain this very important distinction:

    Lawrence Freedman, DPhil, Professor of War Studies at Kings College, London, in a Spring 2003 Washington Quarterly article titled "Prevention, Not Preemption," wrote:
    "Both preemption and prevention can be considered controlling strategies, that is, they do not rely on adversaries making cautious decisions. They assume that, given the opportunity, an adversary will use force and therefore cannot be afforded the option in the first place...
    Prevention exploits existing strategic advantages by depriving another state of the capability to pose a threat and/or eliminating the state’s motivation to pose a threat through regime change. Thus, prevention provides a means of confronting factors that are likely to contribute to the development of a threat before it has had the chance to become imminent...
    A preemptive war takes place at some point between the moment when an enemy decides to attack—or, more precisely, is perceived to be about to attack—and when the attack is actually launched...
    Prevention is cold blooded: it intends to deal with a problem before it becomes a crisis, while preemption is a more desperate strategy employed in the heat of crisis. Prevention can be seen as preemption in slow motion, more anticipatory or forward thinking, perhaps even looking beyond the target’s current intentions to those that might develop along with greatly enhanced capabilities."


    James J. Wirtz, PhD, MA, Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School, and James A. Russell, MA, Senior Lecturer in National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School, wrote in a Spring 2003 Nonproliferation Review essay "U.S. Policy on Preventive War and Preemption":
    "Although the terms often are used interchangeably, 'preventive war' and 'preemption' are distinct strategic concepts. Preventive war is based on the concept that war is inevitable, and that it is better to fight now while the costs are low rather than later when the costs are high. It is a deliberate decision to begin a war. Preventive war thinking seems to dominate Bush administration planning about Iraq: It is better to destroy Saddam Hussein's regime now than to deal later with a regime armed with nuclear weapons or other WMD. Preventive war thinking, however, can turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, since treating war as inevitable can help make it inevitable. It also can lead to unnecessary conflict because few things are inevitable: Saddam could die of natural causes next week, producing a significant opportunity for the United States and its allies to shape Iraqi politics and policies.
    Preemption, by contrast, is nothing more than a quick draw. Upon detecting evidence that an opponent is about to attack, one beats the opponent to the punch and attacks first to blunt the impending strike."


    The Council on Foreign Relations' Boston Term Member group, in a Feb. 1, 2004 summary paper titled "The Bush Administration's Doctrine of Preemption (and Prevention): When, How, Where?" stated:
    "The difference between preemptive war and preventive war is not a matter of semantics. Rather, it is a matter of timing that has implications for whether an act is justified or not. Traditionally, preemption constitutes a 'war of necessity' based on credible evidence of imminent attack against which action is justified under international law as enshrined in the self-defense clause (Article 51) of the UN Charter. But the Bush administration has expanded the definition to include actions that more closely resemble preventive war. Preventive wars are essentially 'wars of choice' that derive mostly from a calculus of power, rather than the precedent of international law, conventions and practices. In choosing preventive wars, policymakers project that waging a war, even if unprovoked, against a rising adversary sooner is preferable to an inevitable war later when the balance of power no longer rests in their favor. The proposition gains traction when that enemy state is arming itself with WMD, or credibly threatens the supply of a critical resource such as oil, and national intelligence indicates that the enemy intends to harm one's own state."

    http://usiraq.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=877

    There's absolutely no media consensus on whether the Bush Doctrine is preventive or preemptive in nature. Furthermore, as you've demonstrated, many in the media don't seem to know the difference between preemption and prevention. Consequently, there's no general or universal definition to which Palin could've appealed.

    Not really. Each definition represents an entirely different "ball park" because preemption and prevention are not the same thing. They represent completely different approaches to foreign policy.

    By selecting one definition, Palin automatically negates the other definition; consequently, much of the media is still yelling on about how wrong and unqualified she is.

    She couldn't come up with one definition for Bush doctrine because there isn't just one definition. The term is a media contrivance -- and the media has yet to provide a single, consistent definition for it. Unfortunately, much of the ignorance on this issue resides within the media, not Palin.

    Your approach would be fine as long as you were addressing a term with a clear, unified definition. Palin, however, was asked to discuss a term with multiple and conflicting definitions, and she was provided no context within which to do so.

    It's impossible to demonstrate command of the meaning of a term when the originators and perpetuators of the term have no command of its meaning.

    We seem to have different views of what constitutes a good leader. I do want a leader who, when confronted by an amorphous term with multiple and conflicting meanings, has the courage to seek clarification.

    In my opinion, the goal of policy making or any exchange of information is to reach a consensus on meaning and purpose, not to let the issue languish in ambiguity, especially in the absence of a unified meaning. In my opinion, this is how the real world works.

    Palin sought clear meaning, not an opportunity to demonstrate esoteric knowledge of an amorphous term that advances nothing. I won't begrudge her that.

    Because, as I've already explain, there are different ballparks; preemption and prevention are not the same from a standpoint of foreign policy. By providing "just one definition", she's immediately negating the other definition, and the media is still telling how wrong and ignorant she is.

    I'm not making excuses. I'm merely giving you facts. Preemption and prevention are entirely different concepts. If the media can't decide whether the Bush doctrine (a term it created) is preventive or preemptive in nature, how is Palin supposed to know?

    The fact that he didn't know when a television is made is less disconcerting than the fact that he didn't seem to know who was President at the time or the fact that he seemed confused on clean burning coal.
  16. tyke1doe

    tyke1doe Well-Known Member

    20,494 Messages
    1,135 Likes Received
    Just this final point since a lengthy rebuttal will take up too much space.

    Thanks for the scholarly citations. But your own citations basically argue my point.
    That is the Bush Doctrine in a nutshell. It doesn't involve fine-tuned understanding of preemption and prevention. The Bush Doctrine involves a first strike based on the presumption a war is going to happen. It's amusing that your sources are splitting hairs on definitions that result in basically the same thing, i.e., America strikes first based on the assumption of an attack.
    Even so, Palin didn't say, "What aspect, preemption or prevention?" She said, "What aspect?" She clearly didn't understand what the Bush Doctrine was. And her cluelessness in other areas fortifies this suspicion.

    Second, it's not just the Gibson question that makes me suspect strongly that Palin didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was, it was several displays of ignorance including ...

    a. Not being able to cite any Supreme Court cases
    b. Not being able to say which magazines she reads and why
    c. Not being allowed to speak freely to the press
    d. Bubbling her interview with Katie Couric (Remember that line 'Katie, I'll get back with you on that one.')
    e. Not being able to offer a capable defense for even the restriction of abortion, defenses one should have learned in the most basic debate class.

    All these make a convincing argument that Palin didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was.

    Now maybe it satisfies you that she didn't give an answer because there were varied definitions of "the Bush Doctrine." But the people Palin is appealing to the American voters aren't going to understand all the nuances in the definition difference between preemptive and prevention. That's an argument for scholars, and she's not appealing to scholars but to the average American voter with a general understanding of politics.
    If she responded generally and in layman's term that the Bush Doctrine applies to how we handle perceived threats, whether as a measure of preemptive or prevention, and said, "yes, I support it," she would have been safe, and, despite your argument to the contrary, she would have been seen as being knowledgeable about a doctrine she says she supports. I doubt anyone would have argued "She gave the wrong definition" especially when there's debate about the definition.

    But the woman couldn't give even that much. Zilch. Nada. Zero.

    She ... was ... clueless. And she only gave some general response after Gibson gave her the answer. :laugh2:

    And as a matter of professional insight, it has been my experience that when a source doesn't want to answer a question yet are "forced" to provide an interview, they turn the interview on you by asking questions. Sources who want to talk about a given subject and want the public to know about certain information don't wait for clarification, especially if they're knowledgeable about their subject. They outline all the aspects and nuances in an attempt to provide the answer because there's a self-interest aspect involved. They want that information known.

    Palin didn't know. And combined with all the other evidence, that's a very strong conclusion. It just defies common sense to think otherwise given all the other points and variables and the fact that she had something to gain by displaying her knowledge.
  17. ScipioCowboy

    ScipioCowboy More than meets the eye. Zone Supporter

    15,260 Messages
    2,456 Likes Received
    No. They don't.

    You stated, "There's no general difference between 'preemption' and 'prevention'. Both could have exactly the same meaning..."

    The experts vehemently disagree, however:

    Lawrence Freedman, DPhil, Professor of War Studies at Kings College, London, in a Spring 2003 Washington Quarterly article titled "Prevention, Not Preemption," wrote:
    "Both preemption and prevention can be considered controlling strategies, that is, they do not rely on adversaries making cautious decisions. They assume that, given the opportunity, an adversary will use force and therefore cannot be afforded the option in the first place...
    Prevention exploits existing strategic advantages by depriving another state of the capability to pose a threat and/or eliminating the state’s motivation to pose a threat through regime change. Thus, prevention provides a means of confronting factors that are likely to contribute to the development of a threat before it has had the chance to become imminent...
    A preemptive war takes place at some point between the moment when an enemy decides to attack—or, more precisely, is perceived to be about to attack—and when the attack is actually launched...
    Prevention is cold blooded: it intends to deal with a problem before it becomes a crisis, while preemption is a more desperate strategy employed in the heat of crisis. Prevention can be seen as preemption in slow motion, more anticipatory or forward thinking, perhaps even looking beyond the target’s current intentions to those that might develop along with greatly enhanced capabilities."


    James J. Wirtz, PhD, MA, Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School, and James A. Russell, MA, Senior Lecturer in National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School, wrote in a Spring 2003 Nonproliferation Review essay "U.S. Policy on Preventive War and Preemption":
    "Although the terms often are used interchangeably, 'preventive war' and 'preemption' are distinct strategic concepts. Preventive war is based on the concept that war is inevitable, and that it is better to fight now while the costs are low rather than later when the costs are high. It is a deliberate decision to begin a war. Preventive war thinking seems to dominate Bush administration planning about Iraq: It is better to destroy Saddam Hussein's regime now than to deal later with a regime armed with nuclear weapons or other WMD. Preventive war thinking, however, can turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, since treating war as inevitable can help make it inevitable. It also can lead to unnecessary conflict because few things are inevitable: Saddam could die of natural causes next week, producing a significant opportunity for the United States and its allies to shape Iraqi politics and policies.
    Preemption, by contrast, is nothing more than a quick draw. Upon detecting evidence that an opponent is about to attack, one beats the opponent to the punch and attacks first to blunt the impending strike."


    The Council on Foreign Relations' Boston Term Member group, in a Feb. 1, 2004 summary paper titled "The Bush Administration's Doctrine of Preemption (and Prevention): When, How, Where?" stated:
    "The difference between preemptive war and preventive war is not a matter of semantics. Rather, it is a matter of timing that has implications for whether an act is justified or not. Traditionally, preemption constitutes a 'war of necessity' based on credible evidence of imminent attack against which action is justified under international law as enshrined in the self-defense clause (Article 51) of the UN Charter. But the Bush administration has expanded the definition to include actions that more closely resemble preventive war. Preventive wars are essentially 'wars of choice' that derive mostly from a calculus of power, rather than the precedent of international law, conventions and practices. In choosing preventive wars, policymakers project that waging a war, even if unprovoked, against a rising adversary sooner is preferable to an inevitable war later when the balance of power no longer rests in their favor. The proposition gains traction when that enemy state is arming itself with WMD, or credibly threatens the supply of a critical resource such as oil, and national intelligence indicates that the enemy intends to harm one's own state."

    As anyone can plainly see, the difference between preemption and prevention is a large one.

    If a "fine-tuned understanding" isn't necessary, the media needs to be able to explain Bush Doctrine using terms that include neither preemption nor prevention. This is one of the major sources of confusion here; when describing the Bush Doctrine, the media continues to use preemption and prevention interchangeably and, therefore, incorrectly.

    It's not that Palin didn't understand the meaning of Bush Doctrine. It's that there could be no uniform understanding of Bush Doctrine independent of the person using the term. The term was created and defined by the media, and the media was giving multiple and contradictionary definitions for it. The definitions weren't merely amibiguous or vague. They were conflicting; a preemptive strategy is markedly different from a preventive strategy. They aren't "generally" the same.


    I've already said that your other criticisms of Palin are fair. I just don't view Palin's gaffes as worse than Biden's. Her inability to list Supreme Court cases or the magazines she reads is no different from Biden's inability to explain clean-burning coal or his ignorance of who was actually President during the Stock Market Crash.

    The emboldened part effectively encapsulates your critical misunderstanding of this issue, in my opinion. The difference between preemption and prevention is not nuanced, nor is it (thanks to the media) a matter reserved soley for scholars to determine. Preemption and prevention represent approaches to foreign policy that are philosophically very different.

    It's similar to the difference between a triangle and a square. They're both shapes and they both have sides, but they represent completely different objects; a triangle cannot be described as a square, or vice versa. The means of understanding a triangle are also very different from the means of understanding a square.

    Furthermore, no amount of layman's terms is going to resolve a conflict of meaning. If you're seeking a clear, simple definition for Bush Doctrine, I suggest you start within the media. The media created the term Bush Doctrine, and continues to define it using conflicting terms.

    As I said earlier, the mistake is Gibson's, not Palin's. He should've asked "what is your opinion of Bush's approach to foreign policy?" because Bush Doctrine is an amorphous term with conflicting meanings.

Share This Page