As I watched a few segments of the interviews Charles Gibson of ABC had with Alaska’s Governor Sarah Palin (soon-to-be VP of the United States), I had this nagging feeling that Gibson was being condescending to her. I brushed it off, thinking that I was being too sensitive to the issue.
Until Charlie tried to play a little bit of “gotcha” with Palin.
Gibson: “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”
Palin: “In what respect, Charlie?”
Gibson: “The Bush…. well, well, what do you interpret it to be?”
Palin: “His world view?”
Gibson: “Well, the Bush doctrine. Enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq War.”
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?”
And so Charlie Gibson looked pretty smug as he just had a chance to educate Governor Sarah Palin.
The media jumped on it. The New York Times reported:
“At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of ‘anticipatory self-defense.’ “
The problem is that Charlie Gibson is the one who was wrong. Charles Krauthammer at the Washington Post writes:
There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.
He asked Palin, “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”
She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, “In what respect, Charlie?”
Sensing his “gotcha” moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine “is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.”
Wrong.
I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, “The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,” I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.
Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: “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.” This “with us or against us” policy regarding terror — first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan — became the essence of the Bush doctrine.
Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.
It’s not. It’s the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush’s second inaugural address: “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”
Hmm. Interesting. I think Charles Gibson owes Governor Palin an apology. But she won’t get one, of course.
Hmm, I disagree – even as outsider Canadian.
Palin should have known one or two ideas known as the Bush doctrine, and responded accordingly.
She should have been able to talk about a pre-emptive strike, or the role of using the military force to spread democratic institutions.
It is not unreasonable to ask her to know something about her party’s stated political positions.
Except there isn’t “a” Bush doctrine. And the Bush doctrines aren’t the “party’s” stated political positions.
I thought the Bush Doctrine was to lose focus on Osama Bin Laden and Afghanistan, and to invade Iraq because, hey, we’re already in the neighbourhood?
Oh, and to launch preventive attacks against perceived threats and sew the seeds of democracy with the world’s most lethal weap…err…farm implements.
Tracy
Who in their right mind could understand what the Bush foreign policy doctrine is? Misdirection, failure to go after the correct enemy? Thrashing despots? Squandering resources in Iraq? Leaving other murderous dictators operate in oil poor nations? Allowing the invasion of sovereign nations by former world powers? Hmmmm? Wasn’t George Bush governor of the 2nd largest state in the US? Palin can brag she has more executive experience as the short-term Governor of the largest State in the Union in a crazy argument about who has more experience where. Hasn’t Bush thrown a monkey wrench into the foreign affair machine not withstanding all his executive experience?
Truthfully, how can anyone believe Sarah Palin has enough experience at the moment to be president? If elected, John McCain will be the oldest president to ever take office? We get Sarah as president and waste 2 or 3 years of the nations time nominating Barack Obama as the Democratic candidate. McCain/Palin plus Democratic Congress equals 4 to 8 years of gridlock at a time when something really needs to be done to fix the broken nature of things both domestically as well as internationally. Isn’t it time for a change? Not a time to waste on gridlock? Sadly, I have to admit, that Obama doesn’t have a lot of experience either, but he took the proper route to the Oval Office: he actually ran for it. Who loses again in this sad state of affairs no matter who wins the election? Yes, the citizens who will have to suffer through another near decade of insanity.
Seems like there is more and more factual information coming out about Sarah like flip flopping on pork, personal vendettas, and appointment of friends to key positions (like the former high school friend she appointed to oversee agriculture whose only claim to experience was “she liked cows when she was growing up?”)
Tracy, haven’t the republicans allowed much of the MLM pyramid scheming companies to get a free regulatory pass and continue operating? Aren’t these companies like Amway, Usana, Herbalife, and Prepaid Legal all examples of corruption and fraud you always expose?
I don’t think the Charles Gibsons of the media have to ask deceptive questions to make any of these slate candidates look bad. They seem to do a good enough job of that on their own?
The fact that you’re citing lies about Sarah Palin as some evidence that she’s not fit for office says a lot. These lies have been debunked and you should really read more about them.
Palin has way more experience than Obama, so all that trashing her does is expose Obama for the fraud that he is.
I have limited tolerance for trashing of our President here, or of the Republican nominees. Please don’t post any further lies about Palin here. I’m willing to discuss facts, but not these vicious lies being promoted by the media and the liberals.
Tracy…
I didn’t say that Sarah Palin was any less fit for office than any of the others. How have I misrepresented her record? Granted the information about the agriculture director was in the liberal New York Times today, does that make it necessarily a lie? I only mentioned it just to point out that she is not as pristine and unsullied as many are representing her to be. Didn’t I also criticize Obama for his lack of experience? Isn’t the potential grid-lock that will result from a Democratically controlled Congress and a McCain presidency a valid campaign issue? McCain obviously has the most experience of all although Biden has been in the Congress for a considerable period of time as well. I give McCain the edge on his military experience. I really was trying to make light of the experience issue as basically being misleading. Heck, I didn’t even mention the weapons of mass destruction fiasco that our current gubernatorial experienced President got us into.
I described President Bush’s foreign affairs record. If it is bad, he did that himself. If you disagree, what are his shinning foreign affairs successes then? “Trashing” is kind of a harsh word. He is my president as well as yours. That doesn’t give him a “free pass” from legitimate criticism. Palin’s flip flopping on requesting earmarks (pork) is a matter of public record as well, hardly a lie, but like any campaign issue is debatable.
I registered dissatisfaction with both parties. Please don’t paint me as a liberal basher of Republican candidates. Might I make the same “broad stroke” that you are a right wing basher of Democratic candidates? You have revealed legitimate issues with Barack? When I do it about Palin, is that much different? Seriously, I registered ire with both parties. Might the electorate be rather jaded with the current state of affairs as I am?
Do you agree or disagree with my observations about the MLM industry being basically given a free ride under the current administration’s regulators? Hasn’t the Bush Administration appointed a former Amway lawyer to oversee the FTC? Doesn’t Devos money continue to buy influence to protect Amway’s global fleecing?
.
Vote for a Democrat so that we don’t have a president disagreeing with the Democrat congress? I think not! LOLLLLLLL
I mean, we shouldn’t decide to screw ourselves even more just because Congress is messed up.
Yes, MLMs have had the time of their lives under Republicans. That sucks. But the rest of the issues far outweigh the MLM issue, as I see it.
I don’t mind if you disagree with me on political issues, it’s just that I’m not going to let this site be a forum for perpetuating lies about Palin and McCain. There are plenty of other sites on which to bad-talk them… this won’t be one of them.
🙂
Tracy…
Sorry we differ on political issues. That is what democracy is all about. Hey, I still love reading your blog. The way politicians love to spend money, possibly gridlock might be a better alternative to massive deficit spending. So much for all the promises of health care reform and the like go out the window for another four years. Why is it that after every election, the promises basically go back in the can till the next election? I just get very unhappy when money that could be better saved or spent on our own people and infrastructure is spent on others or sent to bolster the Muslim countries who are NOT our friends. Might the politicians expedite the conversion of autos to compressed natural gas? Other than then T. Boone Pickens, are any of the candidates doing anything to support this initiative? Why are Obama is standing in the way of drilling the oil this country still has makes no sense unless he is just dead set against the oil industry? Something needs to be done differently regardless of the outcome of the November election.
Your blog gets a big thumbs up from me. I never miss a post. Keep up the good work on the issues that are close to my heart and you know what those are.
Sarah Palin is being called the new American Margaret Thatcher, and only time will tell if this is a accurate praise. I was a supporter of Ronald Reagan and I can’t help but be disappointed with what has been going on in recent years. It bothers me to see bank failures, foreclosures and the massive erosion of our standard of living. Hopefully the economy will begin making a swing in the other direction should lower crude oil prices provide a shot in the arm. A poor economy makes any President look bad. Good luck with your candidates. Oh, I was wondering if you happened to see any of CNN’s Sarah Palin revealed? Kudos for your MLM reporting, and thanks for posting some of my posts on Amway in the past. Obviously we are in the crazy political season. Win lose or draw, we are all Americans.