Robert Groden
David Von Pein
RE: AN ONLINE INTERVIEW WITH ROBERT J. GRODEN......
Occasionally I like to take a look at the www.BlackOpRadio.com website,
just to see what the crazy conspiracy kooks are talking about there at
that Internet radio station. And this past week, I noticed a name that I
hadn't seen as a guest on Len Osanic's regular weekly BlackOp program in
the past (although he's probably been interviewed there in previous years)
-- conspiracy theorist and author Robert J. Groden:
www.blackopradio.com/black392a.ram
So, I downloaded the interview (linked above) and listened to it. And I
discovered, not surprisingly, that Mr. Groden is still living in his dream
world of fanciful theories with respect to the way JFK died in '63
(although he specifically states in the above-linked interview that he,
himself, never deals with "theories" about the case at all; he says he
only deals with the facts based, to a large extent, on the photographic
evidence). [LOL #1.]
And there is one particular incredibly-wrong statement that Groden makes
during that radio interview that I wanted to comment on....and that's when
Groden makes the outrageous claim (while generally attempting to trash
Vincent Bugliosi's fabulous JFK book at the same time) that ALL of the
Parkland Hospital doctors (not just some of them, but "all" of them, per
Mr. Groden) agreed that President Kennedy had a bullet entry hole visible
in the right temple at the front of his head.
Quoting Groden from his September 2008 BlackOpRadio appearance -- "They
[the Parkland doctors] saw an entrance wound in the right temporal area
and an exit wound in the back of his head; and they're unanimous about it;
well, Bugliosi ignores all of that."
Now, I'd like for Mr. Groden to dig up the testimony (or any other
post-1964 comments) of the Parkland doctors, and then point out within
those doctors' quotes where they say (in "unanimous" fashion, no less!)
that they specifically saw a bullet hole in the "right temporal area" of
President Kennedy's head on November 22, 1963.
That "unanimous" comment about all of the Dallas doctors seeing an entry
hole in the right temple of JFK's head is just an outright lie....and
surely Mr. Groden must know that it is.
Bob Groden should be embarrassed at having to resort to spreading
utterly-false information to the public via an Internet radio program in
order to continue the 45-year-long charade of a "JFK Conspiracy".
Groden, in the BlackOp interview, goes on to claim that Vince Bugliosi
"ignores" the HSCA's acoustics evidence. Of course, nothing could be
further from the truth. Bugliosi spends page after page after page in the
endnotes of his book ("Reclaiming History") talking about the
acoustics/Dictabelt evidence.
And, of course, Bugliosi also tells his reading audience the truth about
that supposed evidence for "conspiracy" -- i.e., it's bogus evidence.
Plain and simple. It's junk. It's just about as worthless as you can get.
And yet, still, in 2008, we have people like Robert J. Groden going on
Internet radio shows and singing the praises of the acoustics/ Dictabelt
evidence that was propped up 30 years ago by the HSCA as representing a
"95 percent or greater" chance that there was a second gunman firing at
JFK in Dealey Plaza.
But what Mr. Groden "ignores" is far worse for his "case for conspiracy",
and that is the fact that the acoustics evidence has been deemed invalid
and not credible by a variety of different experts. One of those being
Dale K. Myers:
http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/acoustics.htm
Also:
In another portion of Mr. Groden's BlackOp appearance, another incredible
"head in the sand" moment occurs with respect to another chunk of evidence
in the JFK case -- Groden is still trying to promote the blatantly-false
idea that Governor Connally was sitting "directly in front" of JFK in the
Presidential limousine on 11/22/63, instead of Connally sitting a few
inches to the left of Kennedy.
But just one glance at some of the pre-assassination motorcade pictures
showing the two men in the limousine will tell anyone that Groden is
just--well--full of feces when he claims that Connally was situated
"directly in front" of John Kennedy:
http://www.faniq.com/images/blog/JFK%20connally%204.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/inboard.jpg
Plus: the body draft (schematic) of JFK's limo from Hess & Eisenhardt is
further proof that Connally was sitting somewhat "inboard" (to the left)
of Kennedy's position in the limousine. And whether you want to argue that
the jump seat was "6 inches" inboard of the back seat or "2.5 inches"
inboard, the H&E schematic certainly shows the jump seat to positively be
inboard of the back seat:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0028b.htm
And since we can see (via various motorcade photographs taken on November
22) that JFK was jammed pretty much all the way to the far- right of his
back seat during the Dallas motorcade, this makes it even more certain
that Mr. Groden doesn't know what he's talking about with respect to the
two victims' seated positions in relation to each other.
But as long as Bob Groden has a conspiracy-slanted book to sell from his
newsstand on the steps near the Grassy Knoll in Dealey Plaza, he'll
continue to stay inside his cocoon of never-ending and never- proven
conspiracies regarding the death of the 35th U.S. President.
And he's got a new book coming out soon, called "JFK: Absolute Proof",
wherein--get this--Mr. Groden is going to tell the world where JFK's brain
is located at this very moment. He's got proof of it! And photographs!
[LOL #2.]
It's a shame really (and quite sad), because Mr. Groden is a good speaker.
He can make a good speech, and I actually enjoy listening to him talk. His
theories about the assassination are totally crazy and idiotic, of course,
such as his notion (per his 1993 book "The Killing Of A President") that
it was highly likely that ZERO of a proposed number of up to TEN gunshots
had come from Oswald's Sniper's-Nest window in the TSBD on November 22nd.
[LOL #3.]
But I still kind of like listening to him talk, despite his nutty views on
the way the assassination occurred.
It's just too bad that a little more common sense hasn't been able to seep
into the many talks he's given to the crowds who have gathered to listen
to him on the Grassy Knoll.
Because if more conspiracy promoters would cling to just a little more
"CS&L" (Common Sense & Logic) when evaluating the JFK murder, they'd
probably soon thereafter find themselves promoting Vincent Bugliosi's
book, instead of calling it "bullshit" (which is the term Mr. Groden
thinks best applies to Mr. Bugliosi's magnificent tome).
David Von Pein
September 19, 2008
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d24cfcf0d0f8894b
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b1eb925fd0d000cb
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html
Dave Reitzes
> And he's got a new book coming out soon, called "JFK: Absolute Proof",
> wherein--get this--Mr. Groden is going to tell the world where JFK's brain
> is located at this very moment. He's got proof of it! And photographs!
I don't know about that, but when I met Groden in Dealey Plaza last
year (with my tour guide for the day, Ed Cage), he flashed us a couple
of images he alleged to be previously unseen JFK autopsy photographs
that he said he would be publishing soon.
He vouched for their authenticity. I respectfully withheld comment. It
will be interesting to see how people respond if/when they appear.
Dave
David Von Pein
>>> "He vouched for their authenticity. I respectfully withheld comment.
It will be interesting to see how people respond if/when they appear." <<<
Oh, I'm sure the CTers of the world will eat it up.
His new book, however, might be interesting just for the wealth of photos
in it. Groden says the book will contain 800 pictures, including a lengthy
series of pictures taken of Lee Oswald at Parkland just before and just
after he died (gee, I wasn't aware there was a photographer in the ER with
Oswald; this sounds most curious to me, in a "WTF?" kind of fashion; but,
we'll see). <shrug>
But if the conspiracy-oriented text in his newest book is anything like
the blatant falsehood (below) that he spouted on BlackOpRadio the other
day, then his book is going to have a really tough time, credibility-wise
(as if it won't anyhow):
"They [the Parkland doctors] saw an entrance wound in the right
temporal area and an exit wound in the back of his head; and they're
unanimous about it." -- Bob Groden; Sep. 2008
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 19, 9:35�pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> And he's got a new book coming out soon, called "JFK: Absolute Proof",
>> wherein--get this--Mr. Groden is going to tell the world where JFK's brain
>> is located at this very moment. He's got proof of it! And photographs!
>
>
> I don't know about that, but when I met Groden in Dealey Plaza last
> year (with my tour guide for the day, Ed Cage), he flashed us a couple
> of images he alleged to be previously unseen JFK autopsy photographs
> that he said he would be publishing soon.
>
Excuse me? Groden showed those at the lecture at Emerson College many
years ago. There are additional Fox set photos which had never been
published before an a couple of color photos.
> He vouched for their authenticity. I respectfully withheld comment. It
> will be interesting to see how people respond if/when they appear.
>
Typical comment from a non-researcher.
> Dave
>
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>
> RE: AN ONLINE INTERVIEW WITH ROBERT J. GRODEN......
>
>
> Occasionally I like to take a look at the www.BlackOpRadio.com website,
> just to see what the crazy conspiracy kooks are talking about there at
Isn't that a little redundant since you think that anyone who believes in
any conspiracy is a kook? You do so to reassure yourself that you are not
a kook because you never believe in any conspiracy.
Unfortunately the acoustical evidence is incompatible with Groden's
solution of the shooting.
> And, of course, Bugliosi also tells his reading audience the truth about
> that supposed evidence for "conspiracy" -- i.e., it's bogus evidence.
> Plain and simple. It's junk. It's just about as worthless as you can get.
>
> And yet, still, in 2008, we have people like Robert J. Groden going on
> Internet radio shows and singing the praises of the acoustics/ Dictabelt
> evidence that was propped up 30 years ago by the HSCA as representing a
> "95 percent or greater" chance that there was a second gunman firing at
> JFK in Dealey Plaza.
>
> But what Mr. Groden "ignores" is far worse for his "case for conspiracy",
> and that is the fact that the acoustics evidence has been deemed invalid
> and not credible by a variety of different experts. One of those being
> Dale K. Myers:
>
> http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/acoustics.htm
>
Of course you cite a known liar.
>
> Also:
>
> In another portion of Mr. Groden's BlackOp appearance, another incredible
> "head in the sand" moment occurs with respect to another chunk of evidence
> in the JFK case -- Groden is still trying to promote the blatantly-false
> idea that Governor Connally was sitting "directly in front" of JFK in the
> Presidential limousine on 11/22/63, instead of Connally sitting a few
> inches to the left of Kennedy.
>
A few inches? You think "a few inches" solves the problem?
> But just one glance at some of the pre-assassination motorcade pictures
> showing the two men in the limousine will tell anyone that Groden is
> just--well--full of feces when he claims that Connally was situated
> "directly in front" of John Kennedy:
>
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/025.+DALLAS+MOTORCADE+(11-22-63)(RARE+AERIAL+VIEW)?gda=0vRafmwAAACxA9os6ADQQ0uomp7ozclQ-vF_oDvUD5bKRaECykmnP6x4LCN4YpqLld7PXgs29s-zbqxcsFMH0iPBsuEy8HmtHyALrWLst1g2AAY27vcMm5COv-c1ArNal0rWF1CJWd79Wm-ajmzVoAFUlE7c_fAt
>
> http://www.faniq.com/images/blog/JFK%20connally%204.jpg
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/inboard.jpg
>
>
>
> Plus: the body draft (schematic) of JFK's limo from Hess & Eisenhardt is
> further proof that Connally was sitting somewhat "inboard" (to the left)
> of Kennedy's position in the limousine. And whether you want to argue that
> the jump seat was "6 inches" inboard of the back seat or "2.5 inches"
> inboard, the H&E schematic certainly shows the jump seat to positively be
> inboard of the back seat:
>
>
So, in your mind, it really doesn't matter if the difference was 2.5
inches or 6 inches. Accuracy doesn't matter to you.
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0028b.htm
>
>
> And since we can see (via various motorcade photographs taken on November
> 22) that JFK was jammed pretty much all the way to the far- right of his
> back seat during the Dallas motorcade, this makes it even more certain
> that Mr. Groden doesn't know what he's talking about with respect to the
> two victims' seated positions in relation to each other.
>
Oh really? And you can point to some recently Groden diagrams which get
it wrong?
>
> But as long as Bob Groden has a conspiracy-slanted book to sell from his
> newsstand on the steps near the Grassy Knoll in Dealey Plaza, he'll
> continue to stay inside his cocoon of never-ending and never- proven
> conspiracies regarding the death of the 35th U.S. President.
>
> And he's got a new book coming out soon, called "JFK: Absolute Proof",
> wherein--get this--Mr. Groden is going to tell the world where JFK's brain
> is located at this very moment. He's got proof of it! And photographs!
>
Well, photographs of the brain do exist. Must I remind you of you wacko
Gus Russo's false claim that he had photographs proving that Kennedy's
brain was in a wooden box at the reinterment and then buried with the
President's coffin? And do you remember that it was I who actually did the
research to find the additional photos that Russo never knew about which
proved that the wooden box was empty and just there to cover a flower?
> [LOL #2.]
>
>
> It's a shame really (and quite sad), because Mr. Groden is a good speaker.
> He can make a good speech, and I actually enjoy listening to him talk. His
> theories about the assassination are totally crazy and idiotic, of course,
> such as his notion (per his 1993 book "The Killing Of A President") that
> it was highly likely that ZERO of a proposed number of up to TEN gunshots
> had come from Oswald's Sniper's-Nest window in the TSBD on November 22nd.
> [LOL #3.]
>
You keep repeating this falsehood as if it is a badge of honor to prove
that you are a WC defender.
> But I still kind of like listening to him talk, despite his nutty views on
> the way the assassination occurred.
>
> It's just too bad that a little more common sense hasn't been able to seep
> into the many talks he's given to the crowds who have gathered to listen
> to him on the Grassy Knoll.
>
> Because if more conspiracy promoters would cling to just a little more
> "CS&L" (Common Sense & Logic) when evaluating the JFK murder, they'd
> probably soon thereafter find themselves promoting Vincent Bugliosi's
> book, instead of calling it "bullshit" (which is the term Mr. Groden
> thinks best applies to Mr. Bugliosi's magnificent tome).
>
Only a couple of people in the world still promote Bugliosi's fiction.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/6d6ebf975f19cf97
>>> "You do so [tune in to BlackOpRadio every now and then] to reassure
yourself that you are not a kook because you never believe in any
conspiracy." <<<
Well, yes, I can't lie to you, Tony. You're right. ;)
Everybody needs a little "Non-Kook" assurance from time to time. And
tuning in to Lenny "Bugliosi's Book Is Bullshit" Osanic's CT playground
usually does the trick.
BlackOp Footnote:
Here's today's "Did You Know?" fact (re: Len Osanic, whom I assumed was
probably a pretty knowledgable JFK "researcher", seeing as how he hosts a
90-minute all-conspiracy Internet radio talk show every single Thursday
night, and has done so for years at BlackOpRadio):
Osanic, over the course of the last few months on his various radio shows,
has admitted that he had never even heard of Dale Myers or Charles Givens
prior to those names being mentioned by guests on his show.
Len also had no idea that the Jack Ruby 1964 "Guilty" verdict had been
overturned and that Ruby was awaiting a re-trial at the time of his death
in January 1967.
It's hard for me to believe that a presumably well-seasoned "JFK
Conspiracy" talk-show host would have no idea who Dale Myers is (as of
2007).
And it's even more incredible that a person in Len's position would have
no idea who Charles Givens is (a key witness to critical events
surrounding the assassination).
I'd be willing to bet I could really trip him up when it comes to things
associated with the Tippit murder. (He might even ask me: Who's Tippit?)
;)
>>> "Unfortunately the acoustical evidence is incompatible with Groden's
solution of the shooting." <<<
A good, valid point.
Then again, ALL the evidence is incompatible with Groden's crazy "6-
to-10-shot" solution of the shooting. How could it NOT be incompatible,
seeing as how three and only three shots were fired...and all from a
location where Mr. Groden thinks no shots likely originated (the southeast
corner window of the TSBD)?
>>> "You keep repeating this falsehood [re. Groden's "0-for-10 From The
SN"] as if it is a badge of honor to prove that you are a WC defender."
<<<
Mr. Marsh evidently can't read. It's right there on pages 20-40 of TKOAP.
Plain as day. For everybody to see. Groden thinks ZERO shots likely came
from Oswald's SN window. And no amount of foot-stomping by Anthony or
anybody else will change what is printed on those 21 pages in his 1993
publication. Bob is stuck with that 0-of-10 silliness....in print.
That's the danger of putting something stupid like that on the printed
page in book form. Even if he decides to change his mind, the stupid stuff
is still in print for all time, as a reminder of his original
"Zero-For-Ten" goofiness.
>>> "Of course you cite a known liar [Dale K. Myers]." <<<
You keep repeating this falsehood as if it is a badge of honor to prove
that you are a CT defender.
<smirk>
>>> "A few inches? You think "a few inches" solves the problem?" <<<
What "problem"? There is no problem. The SBT is obviously the true and
accurate solution to the double-man wounding of JFK & JBC.
As Vinnie B. says in "RH" (and he's right, of course): The SBT is so
obvious, a "child" could figure it out. (I wonder what that makes CTers
then? They're still in the womb, probably.)
>>> "So, in your mind, it really doesn't matter if the difference was 2.5
inches or 6 inches. Accuracy doesn't matter to you." <<<
Whether the jump seat was 2.5 inches from the right door or 6 inches from
it, John B. Connally is still going to get hit with that bullet that
exited John Kennedy's throat -- and that's a irrevocable fact. Given the
trajectory it was on after departing the President's neck, the bullet
couldn't have missed JBC.
"At that angle, no matter WHERE [the bullet] came from, it HAD TO
PASS THROUGH THE PRESIDENT'S BODY FIRST!" -- Albert E. Jenner, Jr.;
02/11/1967
THE WC's AL JENNER ON TAPE:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GN-LG8uZcs
>>> "Only a couple of people in the world still promote Bugliosi's
fiction." <<<
Oh, I imagine I could find a third (if I tried really, really hard).
<eyeroll>
BTW, Tony, did you cue up the BlackOp program with Groden's bald-faced
"All the Dallas doctors said there was a right-temporal entrance wound"
lie?
Here's the link again (just for luck):
www.blackopradio.com/black392a.ram
Great researcher, that Robert G., huh?
Anthony Marsh
>
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/6d6ebf975f19cf97
>
>
>
>>>> "You do so [tune in to BlackOpRadio every now and then] to reassure
> yourself that you are not a kook because you never believe in any
> conspiracy." <<<
>
>
>
> Well, yes, I can't lie to you, Tony. You're right. ;)
>
> Everybody needs a little "Non-Kook" assurance from time to time. And
> tuning in to Lenny "Bugliosi's Book Is Bullshit" Osanic's CT playground
> usually does the trick.
>
Wasn't/isn't Len Osanic a supporter of Fletcher Prouty? That should tell
you something right away.
>
> BlackOp Footnote:
>
> Here's today's "Did You Know?" fact (re: Len Osanic, whom I assumed was
> probably a pretty knowledgable JFK "researcher", seeing as how he hosts a
> 90-minute all-conspiracy Internet radio talk show every single Thursday
> night, and has done so for years at BlackOpRadio):
>
> Osanic, over the course of the last few months on his various radio shows,
> has admitted that he had never even heard of Dale Myers or Charles Givens
> prior to those names being mentioned by guests on his show.
>
And Sarah Palin had never heard of the Bush Doctrine before.
> Len also had no idea that the Jack Ruby 1964 "Guilty" verdict had been
> overturned and that Ruby was awaiting a re-trial at the time of his death
> in January 1967.
>
> It's hard for me to believe that a presumably well-seasoned "JFK
> Conspiracy" talk-show host would have no idea who Dale Myers is (as of
> 2007).
>
> And it's even more incredible that a person in Len's position would have
> no idea who Charles Givens is (a key witness to critical events
> surrounding the assassination).
>
>
> I'd be willing to bet I could really trip him up when it comes to things
> associated with the Tippit murder. (He might even ask me: Who's Tippit?)
> ;)
>
There are tons of things I could trip you up with.
>
>
>>>> "Unfortunately the acoustical evidence is incompatible with Groden's
> solution of the shooting." <<<
>
>
> A good, valid point.
>
> Then again, ALL the evidence is incompatible with Groden's crazy "6-
> to-10-shot" solution of the shooting. How could it NOT be incompatible,
> seeing as how three and only three shots were fired...and all from a
> location where Mr. Groden thinks no shots likely originated (the southeast
> corner window of the TSBD)?
>
Groden did not rule out any shots from the TSBD.
>
>
>>>> "You keep repeating this falsehood [re. Groden's "0-for-10 From The
> SN"] as if it is a badge of honor to prove that you are a WC defender."
> <<<
>
>
> Mr. Marsh evidently can't read. It's right there on pages 20-40 of TKOAP.
We've been over this 1,000 times before. Groden does not rule out a shot
from the TSBD.
> Plain as day. For everybody to see. Groden thinks ZERO shots likely came
> from Oswald's SN window. And no amount of foot-stomping by Anthony or
> anybody else will change what is printed on those 21 pages in his 1993
> publication. Bob is stuck with that 0-of-10 silliness....in print.
>
> That's the danger of putting something stupid like that on the printed
> page in book form. Even if he decides to change his mind, the stupid stuff
> is still in print for all time, as a reminder of his original
> "Zero-For-Ten" goofiness.
>
It's fun to make fun of someone by misquoting him.
>
>
>>>> "Of course you cite a known liar [Dale K. Myers]." <<<
>
> You keep repeating this falsehood as if it is a badge of honor to prove
> that you are a CT defender.
>
>
> <smirk>
>
>
>
>>>> "A few inches? You think "a few inches" solves the problem?" <<<
>
>
> What "problem"? There is no problem. The SBT is obviously the true and
> accurate solution to the double-man wounding of JFK & JBC.
>
> As Vinnie B. says in "RH" (and he's right, of course): The SBT is so
> obvious, a "child" could figure it out. (I wonder what that makes CTers
> then? They're still in the womb, probably.)
>
The FBI didn't need a SBT. The WC didn't need a SBT until late April
1964 when they realized they had a timing problem.
>
>
>
>>>> "So, in your mind, it really doesn't matter if the difference was 2.5
> inches or 6 inches. Accuracy doesn't matter to you." <<<
>
>
>
> Whether the jump seat was 2.5 inches from the right door or 6 inches from
> it, John B. Connally is still going to get hit with that bullet that
> exited John Kennedy's throat -- and that's a irrevocable fact. Given the
> trajectory it was on after departing the President's neck, the bullet
> couldn't have missed JBC.
>
Jeez, I don't care whether Myers gets that right or not. I could nitpick
and say it is only 5 inches instead of 6 inches, but that inch can be
accounted for by having JFK scrunch more to his right. The fact remains
that Myers got confused and stated as a fact that Connally's MIDLINE was 6
inches to the left of Kennedy's midline. That's the danger of putting
something stupid like that on the printed page in book form. Even if he
decides to change his mind, the stupid stuff is still in print for all
time, as a reminder of his original SIX INCH goofiness.
Just the bullet continuing to travel right to left after leaving the
midline of Kennedy's throat would make it travel 5 inches more to the left
of his midline over the 24 inches to Connally. That means that such a
bullet would hit Connally's back only one inch to the right of his
midline. Yet Connally's back wound was about 8 inches to the right of his
midline. Simple math. Lightyears beyond your abilities or Myers.
> "At that angle, no matter WHERE [the bullet] came from, it HAD TO
> PASS THROUGH THE PRESIDENT'S BODY FIRST!" -- Albert E. Jenner, Jr.;
> 02/11/1967
>
>
Nonsense. Dale Myers own illustrations from Video Toaster show plenty of
room for a bullet to pass over Kennedy's right shoulder and hit Connally
in the back.
> THE WC's AL JENNER ON TAPE:
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GN-LG8uZcs
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> "Only a couple of people in the world still promote Bugliosi's
> fiction." <<<
>
>
>
> Oh, I imagine I could find a third (if I tried really, really hard).
>
> <eyeroll>
>
>
>
> BTW, Tony, did you cue up the BlackOp program with Groden's bald-faced
> "All the Dallas doctors said there was a right-temporal entrance wound"
> lie?
>
No need. I am aware of his theories and he knows where I disagree with
him.
Steve Thomas
> David Von Pein wrote:
>
> >www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/6d6ebf975f19cf97
>
> >>>> "You do so [tune in to BlackOpRadio every now and then] to reassure
> > yourself that you are not a kook because you never believe in any
> > conspiracy." <<<
>
> > Well, yes, I can't lie to you, Tony. You're right. ;)
>
> > Everybody needs a little "Non-Kook" assurance from time to time. And
> > tuning in to Lenny "Bugliosi's Book Is Bullshit" Osanic's CT playground
> > usually does the trick.
>
> Wasn't/isn't Len Osanic a supporter of Fletcher Prouty? That should tell
> you something right away.
>
>
>
> > BlackOp Footnote:
>
> > Here's today's "Did You Know?" fact (re: Len Osanic, whom I assumed was
> > probably a pretty knowledgable JFK "researcher", seeing as how he hosts a
> > 90-minute all-conspiracy Internet radio talk show every single Thursday
> > night, and has done so for years at BlackOpRadio):
>
> > Osanic, over the course of the last few months on his various radio shows,
> > has admitted that he had never even heard of Dale Myers or Charles Givens
> > prior to those names being mentioned by guests on his show.
>
> And Sarah Palin had never heard of the Bush Doctrine before.
LOL! Sarah Palin was right to ask "what context?" The man who invented
the "Bush Doctrine" said there is no one "Bush Doctrine" there are
actually 4 different Bush Doctrines. As far as "Official Policy" goes,
there is no "Bush Doctrine" it was a term created by pundit Charles
Krauthammer. The fact that someone on the extreme left does not know that
is no surprise. Charlie Gibson did not know that either and he ended up
looking like a stupid ass on national television. I suggest you try
reading something other than DailyKos for your current events Tony. Start
with the guy who invented the term "Bush Doctrine"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html
> > Great researcher, that Robert G., huh?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 23, 7:30 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>>> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/6d6ebf975f19cf97
>>>>>> "You do so [tune in to BlackOpRadio every now and then] to reassure
>>> yourself that you are not a kook because you never believe in any
>>> conspiracy." <<<
>>> Well, yes, I can't lie to you, Tony. You're right. ;)
>>> Everybody needs a little "Non-Kook" assurance from time to time. And
>>> tuning in to Lenny "Bugliosi's Book Is Bullshit" Osanic's CT playground
>>> usually does the trick.
>> Wasn't/isn't Len Osanic a supporter of Fletcher Prouty? That should tell
>> you something right away.
>>
>>
>>
>>> BlackOp Footnote:
>>> Here's today's "Did You Know?" fact (re: Len Osanic, whom I assumed was
>>> probably a pretty knowledgable JFK "researcher", seeing as how he hosts a
>>> 90-minute all-conspiracy Internet radio talk show every single Thursday
>>> night, and has done so for years at BlackOpRadio):
>>> Osanic, over the course of the last few months on his various radio shows,
>>> has admitted that he had never even heard of Dale Myers or Charles Givens
>>> prior to those names being mentioned by guests on his show.
>> And Sarah Palin had never heard of the Bush Doctrine before.
>
>
> LOL! Sarah Palin was right to ask "what context?" The man who invented
By asking "what context" Sarah Palin revealed the fact that she did not
know what the term means.
> the "Bush Doctrine" said there is no one "Bush Doctrine" there are
> actually 4 different Bush Doctrines. As far as "Official Policy" goes,
> there is no "Bush Doctrine" it was a term created by pundit Charles
> Krauthammer. The fact that someone on the extreme left does not know that
> is no surprise. Charlie Gibson did not know that either and he ended up
> looking like a stupid ass on national television. I suggest you try
> reading something other than DailyKos for your current events Tony. Start
> with the guy who invented the term "Bush Doctrine"
Every other TV commentator knew exactly what the phrase meant.
Steve Thomas
According the Charles Krauthammer, Palin was correct to ask what
context because there are 4 different "Bush Doctrines." He should
know, he invented the term. I'll take his word over yours.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?sub=AR
>
> > the "Bush Doctrine" said there is no one "Bush Doctrine" there are
> > actually 4 different Bush Doctrines. As far as "Official Policy" goes,
> > there is no "Bush Doctrine" it was a term created by pundit Charles
> > Krauthammer. The fact that someone on the extreme left does not know that
> > is no surprise. Charlie Gibson did not know that either and he ended up
> > looking like a stupid ass on national television. I suggest you try
> > reading something other than DailyKos for your current events Tony. Start
> > with the guy who invented the term "Bush Doctrine"
>
> Every other TV commentator knew exactly what the phrase meant.
>
Care to cite some of these "other commentators?" LOL, the
commentator who invented the term says Palin was right.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?sub=AR
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR200...
Anthony Marsh
Of course you would, because he is a right-wing nut. List and explain all
4 different Bush Doctrines. Sarah Palin did not say, "Which of the 4 do
you mean"!
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?sub=AR
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>> the "Bush Doctrine" said there is no one "Bush Doctrine" there are
>>> actually 4 different Bush Doctrines. As far as "Official Policy" goes,
>>> there is no "Bush Doctrine" it was a term created by pundit Charles
>>> Krauthammer. The fact that someone on the extreme left does not know that
>>> is no surprise. Charlie Gibson did not know that either and he ended up
>>> looking like a stupid ass on national television. I suggest you try
>>> reading something other than DailyKos for your current events Tony. Start
>>> with the guy who invented the term "Bush Doctrine"
>> Every other TV commentator knew exactly what the phrase meant.
>>
>
>
> Care to cite some of these "other commentators?" LOL, the
> commentator who invented the term says Palin was right.
Every commentator on MSNBC.
Steve Thomas
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Steve Thomas wrote:
LOL, i would because he CREATED the term you know so little about.
> List and explain all
>> 4 different Bush Doctrines. Sarah Palin did not say, "Which of the 4 do
>> you mean"!
HAHAHAHAHA you want ME to tell YOU??????????? I dont have to,
Krauthammer explains it in the link i posted. Did you not read it?
Otherwise you claim to be a google expert, use that skill and read
something other than DailyKos for a change. Here is the link again
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html
. I suggest you read it so you dont end up looking like Charlie Gibson.
Palin was correct, she didnt ask which of the 4 because its not just a
single issue that defines all 4 differently. Read the article by the man
who invented the term. YOU obvioulsy dont know what the Bush Doctrine is,
LOL and your trying to make fun of Palin who was correct. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR200...
>>
>>>>> the "Bush Doctrine" said there is no one "Bush Doctrine" there are
>>>>> actually 4 different Bush Doctrines. As far as "Official Policy" goes,
>>>>> there is no "Bush Doctrine" it was a term created by pundit Charles
>>>>> Krauthammer. The fact that someone on the extreme left does not know that
>>>>> is no surprise. Charlie Gibson did not know that either and he ended up
>>>>> looking like a stupid ass on national television. I suggest you try
>>>>> reading something other than DailyKos for your current events Tony. Start
>>>>> with the guy who invented the term "Bush Doctrine"
>>>> Every other TV commentator knew exactly what the phrase meant.
>>
>>> Care to cite some of these "other commentators?" LOL, the
>>> commentator who invented the term says Palin was right.
>>
>> Every commentator on MSNBC.
HAHAHAHAHAHAH LMAO, when i told you to try reading something other than
the psykos kids, i didnt mean turn on the boob tube and watch the network
that gets their talking points and "news" from reading the clowns at
DailyKooks.
>>
>>
>>
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR200...
William Yates
Krauthammer claims in his column that he first used the phrase "Bush
Doctrine" in the June 4th, 2001 issue of the Weekly Standard. When his
Washington Post column was published, it was posted on another newsgroup I
read. One of the regular posters there did a Lexis Nexus search and found
65 uses of the phrase between Jan 20, 2001 and June 4, 2001. Krauthammer's
first use of the phrase was actually earlier than he claimed, a March 5,
2001 column in Time magazine.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,999353,00.html
The first use of the phrase, referring to the current president,
however, was in the British newspaper the Telegraph, on Jan 21, 2001.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2001/01/21/dl01.xml
>
>
>
> > List and explain all
>>> 4 different Bush Doctrines. Sarah Palin did not say, "Which of the 4 do
>>> you mean"!
>
>
>
>
>
> HAHAHAHAHA you want ME to tell YOU??????????? I dont have to,
> Krauthammer explains it in the link i posted. Did you not read it?
> Otherwise you claim to be a google expert, use that skill and read
> something other than DailyKos for a change. Here is the link again
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html
According to this column, there have been four different definitions of
the phrase, each one superseding the last.
QUOTE
If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were
to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume -- unless
my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise -- that he was speaking
about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the
Bush administration.
Not the Gibson doctrine of preemption.
Not the "with us or against us" no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the
immediate post-9/11 days.
Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the
Bush administration.
END QUOTE
>
> . I suggest you read it so you dont end up looking like Charlie Gibson.
> Palin was correct, she didnt ask which of the 4 because its not just a
> single issue that defines all 4 differently. Read the article by the man
> who invented the term. YOU obvioulsy dont know what the Bush Doctrine is,
> LOL and your trying to make fun of Palin who was correct. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Here's a link to the relevant part of the transcript of the Gibson/Palin
interview.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5782924&page=4
Palin gives no indication that she knows there are supposed to be four
definitions of the phrase, and when Gibson provides her with the third,
and according to Krauthammer, no longer operative, definition, she doesn't
correct him and explain that they should be discussing the fourth
definition. She's winging it, badly.
Or, as Krauthammer himself wrote in the column you keep citing, ""Yes,
Sarah Palin didn't know what it [the Bush Doctrine] is."
John McAdams
<william_...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Steve Thomas wrote:
>> On Sep 25, 11:35 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Steve Thomas wrote:
>>
>>>>> According the Charles Krauthammer, Palin was correct to ask what
>>>>> context because there are 4 different "Bush Doctrines." He should
>>>>> know, he invented the term. I'll take his word over yours.
>>>> Of course you would, because he is a right-wing nut.
>>
>>
>>
>> LOL, i would because he CREATED the term you know so little about.
>
>Krauthammer claims in his column that he first used the phrase "Bush
>Doctrine" in the June 4th, 2001 issue of the Weekly Standard. When his
>Washington Post column was published, it was posted on another newsgroup I
>read. One of the regular posters there did a Lexis Nexus search and found
>65 uses of the phrase between Jan 20, 2001 and June 4, 2001. Krauthammer's
>first use of the phrase was actually earlier than he claimed, a March 5,
>2001 column in Time magazine.
>
>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,999353,00.html
>
>The first use of the phrase, referring to the current president,
>however, was in the British newspaper the Telegraph, on Jan 21, 2001.
>
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2001/01/21/dl01.xml
>
But this was long before the Iraq War, and could not have referred to
preemption, right?
Right. Because there is no such thing as "what the Bush doctrine is."
It has meant four different things.
Even if you don't count the "Bush Doctrine" of George H.W. Bush.
Gibson asked a question that showed *he* didn't understand the
equivocation surrounding "Bush doctrine." Palin was right to ask him
what he meant.
And she answered him when he explained what he meant.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Steve Thomas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > List and explain all
> >>> 4 different Bush Doctrines. Sarah Palin did not say, "Which of the 4 do
> >>> you mean"!
>
> > HAHAHAHAHA you want ME to tell YOU??????????? I dont have to,
> > Krauthammer explains it in the link i posted. Did you not read it?
> > Otherwise you claim to be a google expert, use that skill and read
> > something other than DailyKos for a change. Here is the link again
>
>
> According to this column, there have been four different definitions of
> the phrase, each one superseding the last.
>
> QUOTE
>
> If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were
> to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume -- unless
> my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise -- that he was speaking
> about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the
> Bush administration.
>
> Not the Gibson doctrine of preemption.
>
> Not the "with us or against us" no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the
> immediate post-9/11 days.
>
> Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the
> Bush administration.
>
> END QUOTE
>
>
>
> > . I suggest you read it so you dont end up looking like Charlie Gibson.
> > Palin was correct, she didnt ask which of the 4 because its not just a
> > single issue that defines all 4 differently. Read the article by the man
> > who invented the term. YOU obvioulsy dont know what the Bush Doctrine is,
> > LOL and your trying to make fun of Palin who was correct. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>
> Here's a link to the relevant part of the transcript of the Gibson/Palin
> interview.
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5782924&page=4
>
> Palin gives no indication that she knows there are supposed to be four
> definitions of the phrase,
Gibson, Marsh and everyone on MSNBC(as well as other outlets) gave no
indication that they knew there are supposed to be 4 definitions of the
phrase. Add that to the fact that there is no, and has never been an
administration approved "Bush Doctrine." Its a made up phrase by a
journalist. What is wrong with asking the context? Can you name me ANYONE
other than mabey Krauthammer that could have defined each 4 before the
Gibson interview?
and when Gibson provides her with the third,
> and according to Krauthammer, no longer operative, definition, she doesn't
> correct him and explain that they should be discussing the fourth
> definition. She's winging it, badly.
You are asking the impossible, unless you think you could name someone
other than Krauthammer who could have ratteled off all 4 correctly. The
term has been thrown around and the meaning has changed(if thats possible
cause there is no TRUE "Bush Doctrine" its made up). The people who use
the term in the media have used it to mean everthing that you just quoted
Krauthammer as saying would be wrong
" Not the Gibson doctrine of preemption.
Not the "with us or against us" no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of
the immediate post-9/11 days.
Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of
the Bush administration."
The term has no official meaning and would mean something
different to different people.
>
> Or, as Krauthammer himself wrote in the column you keep citing, ""Yes,
> Sarah Palin didn't know what it [the Bush Doctrine] is."
Neither did anyone untill it became a campaign issue. Gibson didnt
know it, neither did anyone else in the media.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
William Yates
> On 27 Sep 2008 21:24:30 -0400, William Yates
> <william_...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Steve Thomas wrote:
>>> On Sep 25, 11:35 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Steve Thomas wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> According the Charles Krauthammer, Palin was correct to ask what
>>>>>> context because there are 4 different "Bush Doctrines." He should
>>>>>> know, he invented the term. I'll take his word over yours.
>>>>> Of course you would, because he is a right-wing nut.
>>>
>>>
>>> LOL, i would because he CREATED the term you know so little about.
>> Krauthammer claims in his column that he first used the phrase "Bush
>> Doctrine" in the June 4th, 2001 issue of the Weekly Standard. When his
>> Washington Post column was published, it was posted on another newsgroup I
>> read. One of the regular posters there did a Lexis Nexus search and found
>> 65 uses of the phrase between Jan 20, 2001 and June 4, 2001. Krauthammer's
>> first use of the phrase was actually earlier than he claimed, a March 5,
>> 2001 column in Time magazine.
>>
>> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,999353,00.html
>>
>> The first use of the phrase, referring to the current president,
>> however, was in the British newspaper the Telegraph, on Jan 21, 2001.
>>
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2001/01/21/dl01.xml
>>
>
> But this was long before the Iraq War, and could not have referred to
> preemption, right?
Yes, the day after Bush's first inauguration was before the Iraq War. So?
According to Krauthammer there is. It's the "the grandly proclaimed (and
widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration." That's
supposed to be the current version.
>
> It has meant four different things.
To Krauthammer anyway. Most of the what I've seen discussing the
Doctrine has been about preemption, Krauthammer's third incarnation.
>
> Even if you don't count the "Bush Doctrine" of George H.W. Bush.
>
> Gibson asked a question that showed *he* didn't understand the
> equivocation surrounding "Bush doctrine." Palin was right to ask him
> what he meant.
According to Krauthammer, the third version of the Doctrine was replaced
by the fourth, which was first stated in Bush's second inaugural
address. The July 9, 2006 issue of Time had a lengthy article about the
Bush Doctrine.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1211578-1,00.html
It's about preemption, not the freedom agenda, and makes no reference to
preemption being replaced. Note, the article was published well over a
year after the third definition had supposedly been replaced. Nothing
about Bush being on the fourth version of his doctrine. It does,
however, refer to "unilateralism" as a plank in the current Bush
doctrine, which pretty much kills off Krauthammer's interpretation. He
had unilateralism as the first doctrine, replaced three times, now. And
Michael Gerson, Bush's former speech writer, wrote a column explaining
what he thinks the Bush doctrine is. He included preemption, the freedom
agenda, and "fighting disease and promoting development."
http://www.sgvtribune.com/ci_10525322
It would appear that, instead of four separate definitions, each of
which succeeded each other, the Doctrine evolved over time. But it's
always included preemption. So Gibson's question shows he was familiar
with at least one part of the Bush Doctrine. Palin wasn't until he
explained it to her.
John McAdams
<william_...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>John McAdams wrote:
>> On 27 Sep 2008 21:24:30 -0400, William Yates
>> <william_...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> LOL, i would because he CREATED the term you know so little about.
>>> Krauthammer claims in his column that he first used the phrase "Bush
>>> Doctrine" in the June 4th, 2001 issue of the Weekly Standard. When his
>>> Washington Post column was published, it was posted on another newsgroup I
>>> read. One of the regular posters there did a Lexis Nexus search and found
>>> 65 uses of the phrase between Jan 20, 2001 and June 4, 2001. Krauthammer's
>>> first use of the phrase was actually earlier than he claimed, a March 5,
>>> 2001 column in Time magazine.
>>>
>>> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,999353,00.html
>>>
>>> The first use of the phrase, referring to the current president,
>>> however, was in the British newspaper the Telegraph, on Jan 21, 2001.
>>>
>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2001/01/21/dl01.xml
>>>
>>
>> But this was long before the Iraq War, and could not have referred to
>> preemption, right?
>
>Yes, the day after Bush's first inauguration was before the Iraq War. So?
>
It was not about preemption. Which is one case of the "Bush Doctrine"
*not* meaning what Gibson thought it meant.
>>>
>>> Here's a link to the relevant part of the transcript of the Gibson/Palin
>>> interview.
>>>
>>> http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5782924&page=4
>>>
>>> Palin gives no indication that she knows there are supposed to be four
>>> definitions of the phrase, and when Gibson provides her with the third,
>>> and according to Krauthammer, no longer operative, definition, she doesn't
>>> correct him and explain that they should be discussing the fourth
>>> definition. She's winging it, badly.
>>>
>>> Or, as Krauthammer himself wrote in the column you keep citing, ""Yes,
>>> Sarah Palin didn't know what it [the Bush Doctrine] is."
>>>
>>
>> Right. Because there is no such thing as "what the Bush doctrine is."
>
>According to Krauthammer there is. It's the "the grandly proclaimed (and
>widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration." That's
>supposed to be the current version.
>
Then Gibson didn't ask about the "current version."
And you are admitting that there have been different versions.
>>
>> It has meant four different things.
>
>To Krauthammer anyway. Most of the what I've seen discussing the
>Doctrine has been about preemption, Krauthammer's third incarnation.
>
How was Palin to know he was talking about version 3, and not version
1 or 2 or 4?
It could not have included preemption before the Iraq War.
Gibson was clueless. He simply didn't understand that the "Bush
Doctrine" has meant different things -- which I think is something
you've admitted.
So it's perfectly fair to ask him "what do you mean by 'Bush
Doctrine.'"
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Steve Thomas
wrote:
> John McAdams wrote:
> > On 27 Sep 2008 21:24:30 -0400, William Yates
>
> >> Steve Thomas wrote:
> >>> On Sep 25, 11:35 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Steve Thomas wrote:
>
> >>>>>> According the Charles Krauthammer, Palin was correct to ask what
> >>>>>> context because there are 4 different "Bush Doctrines." He should
> >>>>>> know, he invented the term. I'll take his word over yours.
> >>>>> Of course you would, because he is a right-wing nut.
>
> >>> LOL, i would because he CREATED the term you know so little about.
> >> Krauthammer claims in his column that he first used the phrase "Bush
> >> Doctrine" in the June 4th, 2001 issue of the Weekly Standard. When his
> >> Washington Post column was published, it was posted on another newsgroup I
> >> read. One of the regular posters there did a Lexis Nexus search and found
> >> 65 uses of the phrase between Jan 20, 2001 and June 4, 2001. Krauthammer's
> >> first use of the phrase was actually earlier than he claimed, a March 5,
> >> 2001 column in Time magazine.
>
> >>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,999353,00.html
>
> >> The first use of the phrase, referring to the current president,
> >> however, was in the British newspaper the Telegraph, on Jan 21, 2001.
>
>
> > But this was long before the Iraq War, and could not have referred to
> > preemption, right?
>
> Yes, the day after Bush's first inauguration was before the Iraq War. So?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> > List and explain all
> >>>>> 4 different Bush Doctrines. Sarah Palin did not say, "Which of the 4 do
> >>>>> you mean"!
>
> >>> HAHAHAHAHA you want ME to tell YOU??????????? I dont have to,
> >>> Krauthammer explains it in the link i posted. Did you not read it?
> >>> Otherwise you claim to be a google expert, use that skill and read
> >>> something other than DailyKos for a change. Here is the link again
>
William, everything you just posted answers the question of why Palin
asked "in what context" because there is no one meaning. If you asked 10
different people i guarantee you couldn't get 2 people to answer the same
way.
>
>
>
>
> > And she answered him when he explained what he meant.
>
> > .John
> > --------------
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm- Hide quoted text -
William Yates
The "current version" according to who?
>
> And you are admitting that there have been different versions.
No I'm not. I'm saying Krauthammer said there have been four versions.
He also said he coined the phrase. He didn't. Are newspaper columnists
only allowed to be wrong once per column?
>
>
>>> It has meant four different things.
>> To Krauthammer anyway. Most of the what I've seen discussing the
>> Doctrine has been about preemption, Krauthammer's third incarnation.
>>
>
> How was Palin to know he was talking about version 3, and not version
> 1 or 2 or 4?
She couldn't have known that. Neither could Gibson. Krauthammer hadn't
written his column on it then.
No I haven't. The phrase "according to Krauthammer" does not imply
agreement.
Anthony Marsh
I have no problem with Krauthammer claiming that he coined the term,
except the fact that he is a right-wing nut. Let him have his claim to
fame. But there seems to be a Post Hoc Fallacy going on here. Krauthammer
was not describing a doctrine that Bush had already announced. He was
advocating a new doctrine that he wanted Bush to endorse.
>>
>>
>>>> It has meant four different things.
>>> To Krauthammer anyway. Most of the what I've seen discussing the
>>> Doctrine has been about preemption, Krauthammer's third incarnation.
>>>
>>
>> How was Palin to know he was talking about version 3, and not version
>> 1 or 2 or 4?
>
> She couldn't have known that. Neither could Gibson. Krauthammer hadn't
> written his column on it then.
>
The permutations of the Bush Doctrine took place between Krauthammer's
original article and the Gibson interview.
Steve Thomas
> William Yates wrote:
> > John McAdams wrote:
> >> On 29 Sep 2008 00:21:16 -0400, William Yates
>
> >>> John McAdams wrote:
> >>>> On 27 Sep 2008 21:24:30 -0400, William Yates
>
> >>>>>> LOL, i would because he CREATED the term you know so little about.
> >>>>> Krauthammer claims in his column that he first used the phrase
> >>>>> "Bush Doctrine" in the June 4th, 2001 issue of the Weekly Standard.
> >>>>> When his Washington Post column was published, it was posted on
> >>>>> another newsgroup I read. One of the regular posters there did a
> >>>>> Lexis Nexus search and found 65 uses of the phrase between Jan 20,
> >>>>> 2001 and June 4, 2001. Krauthammer's first use of the phrase was
> >>>>> actually earlier than he claimed, a March 5, 2001 column in Time
> >>>>> magazine.
>
> >>>>>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,999353,00.html
>
> >>>>> The first use of the phrase, referring to the current president,
> >>>>> however, was in the British newspaper the Telegraph, on Jan 21, 2001.
>
and Gibson is an idiot for asking a question that he knew nothing
about, he looked like an ass on national TV. Its funny that you didnt know
anything about the "Bush Doctrine" either. You just posted the talking
points straight from DailyKooks which is grand central station for
dillusional left-wing nuts. Like i said earlier, you need to diversify
your reading material.
ra
> >>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm- Hide quoted text -