Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

September 11, 2008
By: Hilzoy

Palin And The Bush Doctrine

I watched the first clip of Sarah Palin's interview with Charlie Gibson, and to me, the most striking part was her complete inability to answer the question: "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?" Here's what she said:

"Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?"

"In what respect, Charlie?"

"The Bush -- well, what do you interpret it to be?"

"His world view?"

"No, the Bush Doctrine, enunciated in September 2002, before the Iraq war."

"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."

"The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense; that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?"

The transcript doesn't really do it justice; the video is here, and it makes it pretty clear that she has no idea what the Bush Doctrine actually is. It also makes it clear that she is very quick on her feet -- she almost succeeds in getting Gibson to tell her.

Personally, I would have loved to see a good follow-up question. For instance: do you know in what respect the Bush Doctrine departed from previous policy? -- This one would have gotten away from the mere gotcha of whether she knows what the name "Bush Doctrine" refers to, and onto a much more substantive question. Likewise: how would you argue in favor of the Bush Doctrine to other countries who point out that when we invaded Iraq, the intelligence that we said showed that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to us turned out to be wrong? Or: do you think that other countries have the same right of preemptive self-defense that we have? If so, would you support the right of Russia to invade Georgia, or Pakistan and India to invade one another?

This matters not because I think a whole lot turns on whether or not someone can correctly identify the Bush Doctrine, in particular, but because it is not a hard question to anyone who has been following foreign policy for the last few years. I want someone who might end up being President to have a reservoir of background knowledge to draw on in times of crisis. And Sarah Palin just doesn't have one.

One way to see this: Palin was plainly just pulling a response to this question out of thin air. But when she did respond, after Gibson told her what the Bush Doctrine was, this is what she said: "Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the President has the obligation, the duty to defend."

The big deal about the Bush Doctrine was that it changed our position radically. We used to affirm, along with all other countries, a right of what has normally been thought of as preemptive war: the right to respond to an imminent attack against us, when we have credible evidence that it is imminent. When a country is obviously on the verge of mounting an invasion or a strike against us -- when its troops are rolling towards the border, or its missiles counting down -- we have never thought that we had to wait for that country to actually attack before we did. But we did once claim this right only in response to evidence of an imminent attack, not to a general sense that another country was in some way threatening. The point of the Bush Doctrine was to change that: to say, as Bush said at West Point: "If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long." It was, basically, the acceptance of preventive war: war waged not in response to evidence of an imminent attack, but in response to the possibility that a country that was not attacking us now might attack us at some point in the future.

To anyone who had been following foreign policy in even the most cursory way, but who had somehow forgotten what the name "Bush Doctrine" referred to, Charlie Gibson's explanation would have made it clear what big Bush administration change in policy was under discussion. "Oh, right", such a person would think: "that."

For that reason, one of the most striking things about Palin's response, to me, was this: in answering Gibson's question, she seemed to think that she was accepting the Bush Doctrine, but what she actually said just restated the old doctrine of preemption. When, as Palin said, "there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people", the claim that we have the right to preempt that strike does not require the Bush Doctrine; it just requires the old, and much more widely accepted, doctrine of preemption. That is: in what Palin says here, she's not actually supporting the Bush Doctrine at all. She's just saying what generations of American Presidents and candidates have said: that when a country is actually about to attack us, we don't have to wait for them to actually land a blow before we can strike back.

The good news, I guess, is that when she's forced to make up an answer out of whole cloth, she goes with preemption, not prevention. She doesn't deny that she accepts the Bush Doctrine; she just doesn't say one way or the other. The bad news is that this makes it pretty clear that the problem isn't just that she doesn't know what the name "Bush Doctrine" refers to. She doesn't seem to know that there was a debate about preventive vs. preemptive war, in which the Bush administration came down decisively on the side of prevention. And that's a pretty important thing to be unaware of.

Hilzoy 8:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (99)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

The clip is pretty chilling. So, along with sleazily corrupt, pathological liar, and religious zealot, add to that dangerously simpleminded, and self-righteous to boot.

So, she's different from Bush ... how exactly? I mean, I know that his name starts with a "G" and hers starts with an "S", but what else?

Posted by: DH Walker on September 11, 2008 at 8:49 PM | PERMALINK

Jesus, the transcript didn't even come close.

She really is Bush's rightful heir.

Posted by: TR on September 11, 2008 at 8:52 PM | PERMALINK

The only thing most Americans are going to hear her say is, "those terrorists who are hell-bent on..blah, blah, blah."

The only thing she neglected to mention is that they hate us for our freedoms.

She's awful - but just smart enough to be smarter than the people who want to vote for McCain because of her.

Posted by: gmf on September 11, 2008 at 8:52 PM | PERMALINK

Can you imagine how she would have drowned if she was asked about Joseph Nye's idea of "soft power?"

Glub... glub... glub...

Posted by: koreyel on September 11, 2008 at 8:54 PM | PERMALINK

Right, Hilzoy. The problem isn't so much Palin's intelligence but her ignorance of even basic policies and their predecessors that she, as an alleged expert on foreign policy, should be aware of.

The VP debates will be interesting, to say the least.

Posted by: John B. on September 11, 2008 at 8:55 PM | PERMALINK

But aren't people going to tire quickly of her nattering schoolmarm way of tawking, Charlie? It's like she was invented to be an SNL character.

Posted by: Kenji on September 11, 2008 at 8:55 PM | PERMALINK

Jesus, that whiny, grating nasal voice of hers....

Posted by: Stefan on September 11, 2008 at 8:55 PM | PERMALINK

"quick on her feet"? God! The pause and the bluffing were painful.

Posted by: Dave on September 11, 2008 at 8:58 PM | PERMALINK

hello.It's a good article.

Posted by: gossard on September 11, 2008 at 9:07 PM | PERMALINK

She doesn't seem to know that there was a debate about preventive vs. preemptive war, in which the Bush administration came down decisively on the side of prevention. And that's a pretty important thing to be unaware of.

I get the feeling that this is just one item in a long list of things she's unaware of. What Sarah Palin don't know is a lot.

Posted by: Jennifer on September 11, 2008 at 9:07 PM | PERMALINK

This is petty, but her hairstyle bugs the shit out of me. Does she think that looks good?

Also, the hand gestures are really annoying.

Posted by: Jennifer on September 11, 2008 at 9:11 PM | PERMALINK

I suggest that a better follow-up question would be, "Do you, Governor Palin,also believe that other countries have the same right to a pre-emptive military strike against a perceived enemy?"

Posted by: Subroutine on September 11, 2008 at 9:15 PM | PERMALINK

I suggest that a better follow-up question would be, "Do you, Governor Palin,also believe that other countries have the same right to a pre-emptive military strike against a perceived enemy?"

Posted by: Subroutine on September 11, 2008 at 9:15 PM | PERMALINK

Anybody care to hazard a guess as to how W would have handled similar questions during the 2000 campaign? Better still, is there some video from that time just to remind us? If she is no more clueless than he was, and makes aggressive, kill the ragheads noises, that is good enough for the wingnuts, who think she is plenty experienced (after all they want a smaller, less effective govt that does little more than start wars and hand out earmarks). And the neocons will shape her to their ends just as they did Bush, and get paid well for it.

Posted by: jhh on September 11, 2008 at 9:17 PM | PERMALINK

She just tried to bluff her way through the question, kind of like what one does in college if one really doesn't have a clue about the answer on an exam question. So really, another lie in the sense that she pretended she even new what the question was, much less the answer. No doubt her fans will talk about what a brilliant interview she gave --- we can all rest now.

Apparently, not enough cramming was done for this particular exam. The Bush doctrine, when it came out was at the forefront of our whole policy towards Iraq and was one of the primary justifications for getting into the war. She was clearly not paying attention when this whole discussion was in the papers and mainstream media everywhere. Even a mere layman, or someone with a reasonable interest in foreign affairs could have at least know what this question was about.

The woman is a fraud and even still insists that the two primary qualifications she has is proximity to Russia and a knowledge of energy. She even said you could see Russia from Alaska. But can you see Putin as well?

Posted by: Tom P. Street on September 11, 2008 at 9:19 PM | PERMALINK

If she is no more clueless than he was, and makes aggressive, kill the ragheads noises, that is good enough for the wingnuts, who think she is plenty experienced (after all they want a smaller, less effective govt that does little more than start wars and hand out earmarks).

It also could make a hell of a campaign ad to juxtapose the two.

Posted by: Equal Opportunity Cynic on September 11, 2008 at 9:20 PM | PERMALINK

Can I cry now?

Posted by: Geoff on September 11, 2008 at 9:24 PM | PERMALINK

I got it when he said before the Iraq war.

To which I would have replied, "Oooooooooooooooooooooooh. Pre-emptive strikes. I'd forgotten that some people had given such a simple concept Bush's name. Nobody actually calls it that."

I haven't heard it called that for 5 years.

Posted by: toowearyforoutrage on September 11, 2008 at 9:25 PM | PERMALINK

"Do you, Governor Palin,also believe that other countries have the same right to a pre-emptive military strike against a perceived enemy?"

Please! Since the Bush Doctrine is one of preventive war, the follow-up would be:

"Do you, Governor Palin, also believe that other countries have the same right to a preventive military strike against a perceived enemy?"

Posted by: Wapiti on September 11, 2008 at 9:26 PM | PERMALINK

Problem with Bush Doctrine is if every country in the world adapted it, we would all be in constant war because there are enough countries out there on record threatening other countries. Maybe that is the goal of Bush Doctrine -- constant war.

Posted by: rational on September 11, 2008 at 9:26 PM | PERMALINK

What she's done here is to move the goalpost. She's blurred the distinction between preemption and prevention -- the implication, not stated, is that Leader Bush was smart enough to do what Democrats and timid losers had never done before; preempt imminent war.

We all know that the stated Democratic policy is that we can never declare war until after we are attacked, like Pearl Harbor.

See how it works?

Posted by: Michael on September 11, 2008 at 9:31 PM | PERMALINK

Doesn't American foreign policy and national defense stem from our not second-guessing the generals on the ground? Or does national defense=energy. Or something.

Man. The GOP talking points don't enunciate cogent defense policy, do they?

Sarah the Unready becomes Sarah the Laughingstock.

Posted by: Sparko on September 11, 2008 at 9:32 PM | PERMALINK

Gwen Ifill, I'm praying for you!

Posted by: ringrid on September 11, 2008 at 9:33 PM | PERMALINK

excellent post

so it turns out that Gibson doesn't understand the Bush Doctrine either, which shows up Palin's utter cluelessness about this Foreign Policy 101 issue all the better: if she knew this stuff, she'd have corrected Gibson, but all she can do is answer with the info he gives her. To put it bluntly, she's a decent bullshit artist, but foreign policy wonk she clearly is not. She's never thought about this stuff till 2 weeks ago.

Posted by: sjw on September 11, 2008 at 9:33 PM | PERMALINK

This is also sort of petty, but she has completely lost the cuteness factor that she was working so effectively during her convention speech. Surely even Rove et al. were cringing at this delivery.

Posted by: mmiddle on September 11, 2008 at 9:41 PM | PERMALINK

I'm pretty sure that that European particle experiment actually did destroy the earth, and we are now living in an alternative reality which happens to correspond quite closely to the plot of a novel recently written by Rick Santorum.

Posted by: lampwick on September 11, 2008 at 9:42 PM | PERMALINK

agree w/ mmiddle...

Palin came off as self-righteous... almost like the church lady... there were several times in the interview that her disgust with Charlie Gibson (who I thought was tough though measured and dignified) came through...

Posted by: jcb on September 11, 2008 at 9:47 PM | PERMALINK

Sarah Palin is an insult to everyone who studies hard in school, works to get good grades, strives to be aware of current events, and thinks it's important to be well-educated.

Posted by: George on September 11, 2008 at 9:49 PM | PERMALINK

Hilzoy, I think you're reading too much into it. I think she went to safe base with the preemption response. The may not have a fully formed opinion, or she may even disagree with the Bush Doctrine. If it's the latter, then she gave the perfect response politically speaking as coming out against it is surely going to anger a lot of people in the base. BTW, ALL pols blur, deflect and otherwise refuse to give a straight answer. We'll see in the coming weeks if she has Obama's skill to add the extra stroke to make it seem like you're saying something. It will also be harder to get away with this kind of answer in the debates.

Posted by: david on September 11, 2008 at 9:50 PM | PERMALINK

Standard 2nd place beauty queen answer.

Follow up question should have been about geography and The Irag and U.S. Americans.

Posted by: amy on September 11, 2008 at 9:53 PM | PERMALINK

I'm surprised that ol' Softball Charlie even asked a question like this. Maybe there's hope for the MSM... Nah.

Posted by: scooter on September 11, 2008 at 9:55 PM | PERMALINK

She just tried to bluff her way through the question, kind of like what one does in college if one really doesn't have a clue about the answer on an exam question. So really, another lie in the sense that she pretended she even new what the question was, much less the answer.

Bingo.

But then again we ought not be too critical of Caribou Barbie regarding foreign policy. My understanding is her real expertise is in energy:

She knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America. --John McCain

Oh goody.
The bar has just been raised...

Posted by: koreyel on September 11, 2008 at 9:56 PM | PERMALINK

Constant war.

So you're finally getting it, eh? The goal of the US military-industrial-congressional-think tank-complex is not peace. It is war. Constant war. War and the insurance industry are the only engines the US economy has anymore. So there's also your answer why gay marriage is fought so much. Imagine the complications for the insurance companies if anyone could marry anyone else for as long as they wished, and their significant others could claim benefits as well. Well, the insurance companies would go out of business.

Another thing to remember: the goal of war is not victory. Its not peace. The goal of war is to keep it going as long as it can so the contractors for the war can make as much money as possible.

And if need be, provoking other countries into wars with us works too.

Forget everything you know about morality and ethics. US capitalism doesn't give a damn.

War is the answer. Constant war. It doesn't matter if we win or lose. It doesn't matter how unfavorable it is. They know that as long as there's no draft no one will protest like the 60s.

All war all the time. The machine must be fed. Victory is the least important thing. Unless the high point of your life was being the quaterback on the high school football team and you actually believe how much they've brainwashed you about "winning" and "freedom" as they take the measurements for your casket.

Posted by: Thin White Guy on September 11, 2008 at 10:00 PM | PERMALINK

This is also sort of petty, but she has completely lost the cuteness factor that she was working so effectively during her convention speech.

Since the cuteness factor is a large part of what makes her supporters support her, I don't think it's petty to point out that it was missing here. That's good news.

This is petty: She freaking winked at him during a question about the Bush doctrine. She. Winked. At. Him.

And these are just ancillary criticisms, completely apart from the central shocker that THIS PERSON IS IN SO FAR OVER HER HEAD SHE NEEDS TO GET DEEP WATER CERTIFIED. Sweet Jesus, but that was agonizing to watch. This moron could be our president in a few months.

Posted by: shortstop on September 11, 2008 at 10:01 PM | PERMALINK

Sarah Palin is an insult to everyone who studies hard in school, works to get good grades, strives to be aware of current events, and thinks it's important to be well-educated.

Less than 10 percent of America then?

Seriously, her appeal is to people who distrust book-learnin'.

That's her job. Poster-girl for the willfully ignorant.

That there might be enough of them to vote the GOP ticket into power (against their own interests, natch) is what is truly frightening.

But, that's Democracy. It can't work unless everyone gets a choice, but man it's frustrating to watch the cynical appeal of a well-monied machine targeting ignorant people so blatantly and successfully.

I guess it's true: A fool and his money (or vote) were lucky to get together in the first place.

Posted by: monkey on September 11, 2008 at 10:03 PM | PERMALINK

"She doesn't seem to know that there was a debate about preventive vs. preemptive war, in which the Bush administration came down decisively on the side of prevention. And that's a pretty important thing to be unaware of."

Yeah, but you can actually SEE Russia from land in Alaska. Of course both Alaska and Russia, there, are remote minimally populated areas.

Posted by: CalGal on September 11, 2008 at 10:04 PM | PERMALINK

Why would anybody care about something that the Bush administration pulled out of the air (or somewhere) to try to give bozo Bush some historical credibility. I really hope that Bush doesn't get away with have a "doctrine" dreamed up for political purposes.

Posted by: roger on September 11, 2008 at 10:13 PM | PERMALINK

This whole point is fascinating to me. Unfortunately, it will be lost on most people and all anyone will see is how confident she was.

Because confidence is all one needs to run the country. Unless one is black. Then one is uppity.


Posted by: memoirgirl on September 11, 2008 at 10:27 PM | PERMALINK

I like how she actually used the "Alaska is right next to Russia" argument. I think she said that you can see Russia from some areas in Alaska. Well, it's that neat. I'm surprised she didn't also say she got her foreign policy by osmosis. But then I guess she'd have sounded like a real loony.

Posted by: Tiffany on September 11, 2008 at 10:28 PM | PERMALINK

almost made me throw up in my own mouth to watch this...we are so screwed.

bedtime for democracy. really, this time.

Posted by: effluviantOne on September 11, 2008 at 10:36 PM | PERMALINK

Gwen Ifill and the VP debates? Fagedda bout it. In case you have forgotten, Gwen is the one that threw all the softballs to W during one of the debates. It was laughable. And last night on the News Hour during interviews regarding the two candidate's position on education, I clocked the time she gave to each side. Roughly it's as follows, (but don't take my word for it. Go to the PBS newshour website, watched the video, and count it yourself)

Obama: 4 minutes 30 seconds
McCain: 7 minutes 5 seconds

How is that fair?

Watch Gwen on that weekly news wrap up and you'll see where she stands. It's obvious to me.

Posted by: sayrock on September 11, 2008 at 10:36 PM | PERMALINK

Anyone who even thinks about tying our nuclear tripwire to the grandiose dreams of an ethnically cleansed Greater Georgia is batshit insane.

I agree with all the posters here saying that the interview shows again that Sarah Palin is arrogantly ignorant and proud of it, and totally self absorbed.

Just like George W Bush.

But the NRO wingnuts are over the moon praising her (with the odd irrelevant niggle to show what critical thinkers they are). America don't need no fancy book larnin' in their Presidents. And the rednecks will swallow it whole. (One of these days, NRO will discover that rednecks don't need no intellectual conservative pundits, neither. Like the old Bolsheviks in 1937).

For years now I have had the feeling that we are reliving the Great Gatsby, with Bush in the role of Tom, who bumps and bungles his way through life, insulated by wealth. And now in Sarah P we have the even more dangerous Daisy, who runs people down along the way.

The rest of us are heading for the fate of Gatsby, who gets stuck with the rap for Daisy's crimes and ends up face down in the swimming pool.

And until I see the US media and the so-called leaders of the Democratic Party screw up their self respect, stand up, and with one voice call bullshit on this circus, the only things standing between us and that swimming pool are:

---the ethics committee of the Alaskan legislature, majority Republican, but so far seemingly unbent;

---the chair of the investigation, Hollis French;

---special investigator Stephen Branchflower.

I've got that same feeling I had during Watergate in 1974. The fate of this country is in the balance. I sure hope we get it right, but I am less confident than I was then. I don't see a Woodward/Bernstein duo risking their careers and maybe lives for a story (Woodward is too busy on his lucrative books on what happened under Bush). I don't see a Ben Bradlee and a Katherine Graham risking their entire newspaper to expose the miscreants. The high profile fancy blogs help, but the best real journalism we have is in the Alaska Daily News and the Mudflats blog, and I hope they stay the course.

Posted by: jhh on September 11, 2008 at 10:38 PM | PERMALINK

I am still voting for Palin, but... I will admit this:

She obviously didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was, though 98% of the American Public doesn't either.

The see Russia from Alaska answer was weak... I wish the McCain camp had never played up her fake foreign policy experience.

I wish she wouldn't talk with her hands so much...

She didn't come across as charming as she is capable of.

I hated the editing and camera angle... really unfavorable to her.

Gibson sort of comes across as a jerk (which is the way I think most women voters will see it).

She is a pretty good at generic answers... and pretty decent at bullshitting.

Bottom Line: you guys will continue to hate her. Her fans will continue to like her. She didn't attract any new voters, but she didn't drive any away either.


Posted by: rory on September 11, 2008 at 10:43 PM | PERMALINK

Nicely written jhh...
Keep posting that good stuff here.

Posted by: koreyel on September 11, 2008 at 10:44 PM | PERMALINK

Regarding the comment by Michael at 9:31...

Are you serious? That is the biggest crock of sh*t I've read in awhile (and I read a lot of sh*t). To suggest, even half-seriously, that Bush prevented an imminent war is criminal itself. Invading and occupying a sovereign nation that was not about to attack this country has prevented nothing that you could even remotely describe as imminent. Criminal.

Posted by: Banks on September 11, 2008 at 10:49 PM | PERMALINK

I thought the Bush Doctrine was Lie, Lie, LIE YOUR ASS OFF!

Well you know, I never really starred in "Northern Exposure" but I would have liked to! I was a pig before I was a Hockey Mom.

Posted by: Trollopy Goodness! on September 11, 2008 at 10:52 PM | PERMALINK

Hello, I'm Sarah Putin.

My eyes are cold, my dress is chartreuse and my flag is vivid puce! If you don't have Colortrak from RCA then you aren't living in the same era that I am!

Posted by: on September 11, 2008 at 10:58 PM | PERMALINK

Rory: she drives every sane voter away. The hold-outs like you need to look very carefully in the mirror. Daft=dangerous. Incompetent=disaster. Palin=Bush; Bush=worst president of all time. Palin=worst VP candidate of all time.

Palin is a fraud. She was born dishonest and never got any better. It is a terminal case of mendacity
for all of us.

Posted by: Sparko on September 11, 2008 at 11:02 PM | PERMALINK

I am still voting for Palin, but... I will admit this:

She obviously didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was, though 98% of the American Public doesn't either.

The see Russia from Alaska answer was weak... I wish the McCain camp had never played up her fake foreign policy experience...

...She is a pretty good at generic answers... and pretty decent at bullshitting.

Well, rory, at least you're clear on the fact that competence and honesty aren't important to you. I wonder, though...would you go to a brain surgeon who didn't know what the different parts of the brain are called? After all, probably 98% of people don't know that, either. Though I doubt you'd want them operating on you. Would you go to buy a car from a known fraud, since you admire his skill at bullshitting, knowing full well it would cost you thousands of dollars more? Somehow I doubt it.

Your attitude towards the future of the country is insulting and flippant. Just don't kid yourself - no one who cares so little about the fate of the country should ever think of themselves as a patriot.

Posted by: Jennifer on September 11, 2008 at 11:06 PM | PERMALINK

Personally I both laughed and cringed at her performance... and the winking??? wth?

Still, she bullshitted her way through it well enough for low-information and not-so-intelligent voters, but...

Sarah Pales-in comparison (hugely) to Biden which should be evident in their debate. I just hope Joe doesn't put his foot in his mouth too often.

Posted by: Hannah on September 11, 2008 at 11:14 PM | PERMALINK

At least she didn't link Iraq to 9/11.

Oh wait, she did earlier that day.

Washington Post has the details.

Posted by: Reverend J on September 11, 2008 at 11:14 PM | PERMALINK

Wow! WaPo rips Palin and McCain new ones in practically all the opinion pieces - I guess the ol' POWster "captured the new cycle" in a singularly unpleasant way with his "lipstick on a pig" caterwauling. Even Roger "Crusty" Cohen, who usually snaps to attention when a Republican passes, says "John McCain apparently wants to be president more than he wants to be proud. If he keeps this up, he should be neither".

But my favouritest is here;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091103789.html?hpid=topnews

where Palin links Iraq to 9-11. Just when Dick Cheney thought he was the only one left in the world who still believed that, along comes a soulmate!

Posted by: Mark on September 11, 2008 at 11:20 PM | PERMALINK

The thing is, everyone is so hung up on the her answer to the Doctrine question. She didn't offer a single substantive answer to any question Gibson asked. Her answer to the Israel/Iran question implied that if Israel goes to war we follow them along like sheep. Is our new foreign policy that we just follow other countries to war? Especially given our limited available military resources to say nothing of the state of our economy, debt, oil prices, weakened dollar? I'm glad that when she doesn't "hesitate" she also doesn't stop to consider reality.

Posted by: concerned on September 11, 2008 at 11:21 PM | PERMALINK

She comes across as exactly what she is - not very well educated and unworldly. Her lame attempt to try to squeeze a bit of a lead out of Gibson was pathetic. She reminds me of the sleazy cigarette smoking Martin Short character from his SNL days, Nathan Thurm - "Well, what do you mean by that?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLBQxk72NY

She sounds exactly like the mayor of a small town addressing the city council. But by all accounts, she wasn't any good in that relatively unchallenging position. And this is the person the Rethugs want as second in line to a man with poor health? Fucking desperate.

Posted by: Jeff II on September 11, 2008 at 11:21 PM | PERMALINK

Gaia knows I despise the RePukelican't ticket, but if Sarah Palin didn't hit a home run on this interview, I think she hit a solid triple.

OK, she didn't know what the "Bush Doctrine" is, but she when she got the gist of the question she stated a foreign policy (pre-BD) that you can bet your bottom dollar is what she was told McSame's policy is.

Gibson's "gotcha" was a little pompous, like we saw him in the Dem debates. But Krafty Karl KNEW he'd come across as pompous, going for gotchas rather than a true discussion of foreign policy.

Imagine Jim Lerer asking that question. In response to her obvious infamiliarity with the moniker, he would briefly have explained the policy, and then she would have give her answer.

Same result -- no gotcha. First Base.

Next pitch, I can't believe ABC thought the religion question (is the war God's will) was sponge worthy.

I am not even religious (tho I was raised Episcopalian) and even I knew what she was saying in that video. Maybe it was a little inartful, but generally people do pray that they are conforming to God's will. Anyhoo, I knew enough to realize that Christians would not see any problem with what she was saying in that video. Apparently those folk at ABC didn't. Second base.

Finally, Georgia into NATO. OK, folks may disagree about this, but not hearty support for OPPOSING it. And, clearly, again, what John "We Are All Georgians" McCain thinks. Does that mean war with Russia? Well, yes it does. That IS what NATO membership is all about. We on the left will all say WarWarWar, but how well have pacifists done in the last several decades. Third base.

Yeah, she was nervous at the plate, and may have stumbled going around first. But I think she went in standing up. And there's no doubt, too, that very good coaching got her around first.

There may have been an error on pitcher Charlie "Watch me Look Down My Nose" Gibson's part, but that will be for the scorers to decide.

Well also see tomorrow if there's a big swell of "ooh unfair Gibson" that will make him too soft at the second at bat.

Posted by: Cal Gal on September 11, 2008 at 11:27 PM | PERMALINK

"This is petty: She freaking winked at him during a question about the Bush doctrine. She. Winked. At. Him."

Again, I'm not a Palin person. Her policy positions are somewhat to the right of Strom Thermond, but I saw that as a nervous tick when she heard words she had no idea what they meant: "The Bush Doctrine." I admired her recovery (see my previous post arguing that she will come out OK on this).

Posted by: Cal Gal on September 11, 2008 at 11:31 PM | PERMALINK

"Your attitude towards the future of the country is insulting and flippant. Just don't kid yourself - no one who cares so little about the fate of the country should ever think of themselves as a patriot."

Come on... get serious. Do you really think the fate of a nation depends on the election? That is just plain crazy talk, the sort of crazy talk that leads people to assassinations and countries to coups. Do you really have the low an opinion of our countries checks and balances? Pretty unpatriotic.

btw, your analogy is faulty. A President (or VP) should not be compared to a brain surgeon. They should be compared to a Hospital Director. And yes I would go to have brain surgery at a hospital that had a director that didn't know the different parts of the brain.

To Sparko:

Daft=dangerous. True and the reason why I wouldn't vote for Obama.

Incompetent=disaster. Thus making sure I don't vote for Biden

Palin=Bush; False

Bush=worst president of all time. I agree.

Palin=worst VP candidate of all time. Undeniably false so far. She has boosted the numbers of McCain more than could ever have been expected. If McCain wins, she will be undeniably the best VP candidate of all time.

Now an argument can be made that she might make the worst VP of all time. But then again considering that she has more executive experience than Obama, I would much rather take my chance with her at 2nd string than Obama at 1st string.


Posted by: rory on September 11, 2008 at 11:33 PM | PERMALINK

I think her days are numbered. she came across like an airhead. It looked like a kid in school getting called on and not knowing the answer. also the clip of a a stammering, sputtering John McCain getting grilled on a local tv station in Maine today! Maybe the worm is starting to turn.

Palin-mania RIP. Its going to be very hard for anyone to justify her.

Posted by: Saint Zak on September 11, 2008 at 11:37 PM | PERMALINK

More importantly, does she know the date and time when, according to the studies of Bishop Ussher, the earth was created !

Posted by: pious peter on September 11, 2008 at 11:39 PM | PERMALINK

Has anyone mixed this clip with the clip of the Miss America answering some question about geography?

That would be awesome.

Posted by: gregor on September 11, 2008 at 11:44 PM | PERMALINK

Come on... get serious. Do you really think the fate of a nation depends on the election? That is just plain crazy talk, the sort of crazy talk that leads people to assassinations and countries to coups. Do you really have the low an opinion of our countries checks and balances? Pretty unpatriotic.

Yes, just like we were told in 2000 that it "really doesn't matter who wins the election". Tell that to the tens of thousands of maimed Iraq war vets, or the estimated one million dead Iraqis. Or to your kids, as they struggle to pay off the trillions flushed down the toilet in Iraq for their entire lives.

Yes, it fucking matters who is president and vice president, and it fucking matters that they know their ass from a hole in the ground. You've articulated no reason for voting for Palin (as you put it; apparently you're not keen on McCain or you wouldn't have phrased it that way); you've just asserted that even though you know she's not qualified and is a bullshit artist, that's good enough. My analogy stands. And as for the "checks and balances", see: U.S. History, 2001 - 2008 and tell us how well those are functioning these days. What the hell, we've gotten by without them for the past 8 years, and all it has cost us is a million + dead (ours and theirs), a government rife with corruption where bureaucrats trade favors for hookers and blow, secure in the knowledge that they'll never be held to account, the respect of the entire world and 4 trillion dollars. But according to you, hey, that's good enough! Why bother reviving the checks and balances we've limped along without while all of that was going on?

Posted by: Jennifer on September 11, 2008 at 11:50 PM | PERMALINK

One more thing I want to say about how Jim Lehrer would have questioned Sarah Palin about the Bush Doctrine, as compared to how Gibson did (is this REALLY the BEST TV journalist ABC has?).

Once Jim Lehrer had obtained Sarah Baracuda's Talking Point response, he would have followed up.

"OK," he would have said, "then you disagree with Pres. Bush when he says we can invade another country before an attack is imminent?"

"Yes," she would have said, and she might have restated the Talking Point.

And here's the difference.

Then, Lehrer would have asked, "And I assume that is John McCain's view, too?"

And then the question and response would have had SUBSTANCE. I would have been question and answer about an actual FOREIGN POLICY.

Posted by: I Hate Gibson (aka Cal Gal) on September 11, 2008 at 11:51 PM | PERMALINK

Great -- now half of America thinks the Bush Doctrine is simply about "preemptive" use of military force. Gosh, what's so wrong with that? Why would anybody disagree with the "Bush Doctrine"? Barack Obama and Joe Biden don't believe we should strike first if another country is about to attack us?

The fact that Gibson didn't correct or push her further on her understanding of it leads me to believe that he may not understand it entirely either. Preventive, preemptive, tomato, tomahtoe...it's all good.

Posted by: jonas on September 11, 2008 at 11:53 PM | PERMALINK

she says "nucular" for fucks sake. That's enough reason alone not to let her in the White House. Can't they find someone on that side of the aisle that knows how to speak English. What a bonehead.

Posted by: concerned on September 11, 2008 at 11:53 PM | PERMALINK

Gibson let her off the hook. It wouldn't have been 'gotcha' politics for him to have nailed down the fact that she didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was. A real journalist would have said, in response to her dithering, 'can you tell me in your own words what the Bush Doctrine is?'

There was simply no reason for him to let her off the hook, rather than nailing that point. None.

Posted by: drinkof on September 12, 2008 at 12:22 AM | PERMALINK

There is one extremely aggressive, provocative thing that the Obama camp can do to McPalin in the next three days. It is nothing less than a nuclear attack.

Palin's comment about going to war with Russia after they deal harshly with what they will call (as we would) a "security threat on our doorstep" ---which, the world should be reminded quickly, becomes a nuclear war---should be played in a dual frame next to a running video of the 1964 Daisy ad the LBJ campaign ran against Goldwater.

There would be hows of protest from all corners. But it would be effective. Tying our nuclear weapons trigger to an atavistic dream of an ethnically pure Greater Georgia is, as I have noted before, batshit insane. I am sorry not to support freedom fighters, but as Machiavelli said, freedom comes second, after survival.

And if the Dems have the balls to do this, they should repeat it and repeat it until no network will run it, no matter what anyone says. It is not a lie, it is an extrapolation.

And that is how you attack your opponent and win. And in this case, I think it is now justified.

Here's hoping.


Posted by: jhh on September 12, 2008 at 12:47 AM | PERMALINK

I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it: Sarah Palin (if VP/Prez) would be eaten alive by Putin, Ahmadinejad, and al-queda (et al.).

This candidate is the lightest weight material seen in a VERY long time. Blink or no blink. (and BTW, who the fuck determined that "blinking" has gravitas?!?!?Jesus Fucking Christ.)

Regardless of whether she or McCain avoid/evade her being sooooooo unqualified on the world stage between now and November, it's going to be apparent every time she opens her pie-hole.

I say, even if if is the "celebrity at home" format, interview away!!!

Posted by: jcricket on September 12, 2008 at 1:08 AM | PERMALINK

Bush doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is either.

Colin Powell forgot what the Powell Doctrine was all about.

Posted by: Luther on September 12, 2008 at 1:43 AM | PERMALINK

One thing I don't understand is why, if Palin had aspirations to be involved on the national stage, she didn't start educating herself earlier than two weeks ago. It would have been prudent.

Posted by: Mary on September 12, 2008 at 1:56 AM | PERMALINK

There is some laughing and crying going on in the halls of power tonight...

Posted by: Sarah on September 12, 2008 at 2:15 AM | PERMALINK

I opted to torture myself this evening and was reading right wing blogs. They are scared.

Lots of "no one in the country knows what the Bush Doctrine is so who cares" but overall, they weren't thrilled and can see the writing on the wall.

One good ad. One good one.

Posted by: MsJoanne on September 12, 2008 at 2:36 AM | PERMALINK

Next question: What is the name of the president who enunciated the Bush doctrine?

Posted by: has407 on September 12, 2008 at 2:42 AM | PERMALINK

Didja notice how she didn't even complete a sentence there?

".... working with existing allies but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option..."

That's how rattled she was -- dropping clauses and using Gibson's name to stall.

Posted by: Xofis on September 12, 2008 at 2:52 AM | PERMALINK

Didja notice how she didn't even complete a sentence there?

".... working with existing allies but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option..."

That's how rattled she was -- dropping clauses and using Gibson's name to stall.

Posted by: Xofis on September 12, 2008 at 2:52 AM | PERMALINK

The Bush Doctrine is best forgotten.

As far as I know, there is no paper or anything signed by Bush that officially names the policy of attacking countries over imaginary WMD "the Bush Doctrine." Like the "Powell Doctrine," it is an informal designation, so one should not be held to account for not recognizing an informal name given to a policy by the media.

Furthermore, it is simply bad manners bordering on sadism to try to humiliate someone publicly over this. A decent interviewer would have sensed embarrassment and quickly 'reminded' the person in the hot seat of the essence of the so-called "Bush Doctrine." This is lib "gotcha" journalism of the worst sort. No wonder attacks on Palin are backfiring horribly on the Democrats and the lib media.

Posted by: Luther on September 12, 2008 at 3:20 AM | PERMALINK

Luther: As far as I know, there is no paper or anything signed by Bush that officially names the policy of attacking countries over imaginary WMD "the Bush Doctrine."

Such policies rarely do; they are intended to set out principles and direction in broad, and often ambiguous, strokes. The Bush Doctrine is no different.

Given that the Bush Doctrine was arguably the most radical shift in US foreign policy in decades, and laid out the key points for the US approach to terrorism and national security, you'd expect a candidate at the federal level to have at least a basic familiarity with it. (The key principles were enunciated in the September 2002 National Security Strategy, and in speeches by Bush before and after.)

Gibson's question was a softball. It was hardly a "gotcha", and would provide the simplest, broadest gauge of Palin's foreign policy views, and provided an open-ended opportunity for Palin to talk about her views. Palin should have been able to hit it out of the park.

Any candidate in the late 50's who didn't have a basic understanding of the Truman Doctrine or containment would have been heckled off the stage. Any candidate today who doesn't have a basic understanding of the Bush Doctrine deserves no better.


p.s. Gibson did quickly remind Palin of the essence of the Bush Doctrine, at least one part (even though he didn't do a good job of explaining it to her).

Posted by: has407 on September 12, 2008 at 4:10 AM | PERMALINK

She didn't klnow what she was talking about and it was obvious. While so many are apologetic trying to describe what she meant she talked in circles and generalizations demonstrating she is completely unacceptable to be commander-in-chief. She was picked only because she wears lipstick. Her 'on the job training' is merely getting her more proficient at lying and bullshitting. She is a joke as a VP candidate no matter how one tries to spin it. She belongs in a small town dealing with small town issues yup yup. She would be an embarrassment as a representative of our nation...and it is extremely obvious. Nearly everyone here has more insight than Palin does on world affairs. Those already living the "Idiocracy" either can't see past the end of their noses or are lost in a pathetic attempt to justify her candidacy out of some sense to be nice to the new kid. She literally is putting lipstick on a pig or trying to make a sow's ear look like a purse. Her interview...who cares...she's unimportant and a distraction from what has been done to this country the past 8yrs. A mouthful of lies and a handful of pies for all who come to taste. Is it harder to tell a female liar to go screw yourself than it is a male liar. Or shall we use McCain's famous description of his wife..."f**king c*nt because McCain has made it clear what he really thinks of women in the work place..."they should just go and get more training if they want equal pay"...and health ins cos should not pay for birth control even if they do pay for Viagra. If Hillary couldn't be president right now I'll be damned if Palin is going to be vice president...and we would be damned...literally.
Obama will win in a landslide out of necessity to end the republican disaster.

Posted by: bjobotts on September 12, 2008 at 4:39 AM | PERMALINK

I'm very much afraid Sarah Palin just won the election with that one answer. Watch it again. She said exactly what the American voters want to hear--especially on 9-11--that she'll go after the America-haters.

If you were to remind most people what the Bush Doctrine was, they'd whole heartedly agree with it.

Better scandals, please.

Posted by: KathyF on September 12, 2008 at 4:43 AM | PERMALINK

KathyF: If you were to remind most people what the Bush Doctrine was, they'd whole heartedly agree with it.

Then you need to remind people that the Bush Doctrine was what got us into Iraq.

Posted by: has407 on September 12, 2008 at 5:07 AM | PERMALINK

Caribou Barbie proved that she is nothing more than George W. Bush with a vagina - self-absorbed, uncurious, vacuous and intellectually and morally bankrupt.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on September 12, 2008 at 6:34 AM | PERMALINK

Thy're already screaming "sexism" on Morning Joe. That's good, great really. It means Palin flopped. Had she done well we'd be hearing "grandslam" not "sexism". Its desperation.

She looked like a deer in the headlights. It was obvious she didn't know what she was talking about. If that went over the heads of some people well, rest assured, it cannon fodder for the Obama campaign. They'll make sure you know what happened in that interviw. That interview was a gift from heaven for the Democrats.

Posted by: Saint Zak on September 12, 2008 at 7:06 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry to have missed last night's thread, but here's the point: She had two weeks of cramming to prepare for a softball interview, and still blew it.

That's incompetence you can believe in!

Posted by: Gregory on September 12, 2008 at 7:49 AM | PERMALINK

and yet the irony here is that Bush wants to label prophylactics as abortive devices....

Seriously, America is half stuck on stupid.

Posted by: RememberNovember on September 12, 2008 at 8:09 AM | PERMALINK

Luther: Furthermore, it is simply bad manners bordering on sadism to try to humiliate someone publicly over this. A decent interviewer would have sensed embarrassment and quickly 'reminded' the person in the hot seat of the essence of the so-called "Bush Doctrine."

Caribou Barbie's sissy friends:

US History is hard. The constitution is hard. We are intellectual lightweights who want to run your country: You must coddle us.

Posted by: koreyel on September 12, 2008 at 8:10 AM | PERMALINK

The consequences of Governor Palin's ignorance and inexperience are much, much more profound than Michael Brown's incompetency as head of FEMA.

She is on record (you tube) as saying our troops in Iraq are a mission from God. At yesterday's Alaskan Guard send-off she said the troops were making us safe from the people who attacked us on 9/11 -- even Bush denies that now. She wants to wage war against Russia for their incursion into Georgia.

After listening to Charlie Gibson's kid-glove interview I have no doubt Governor Palin is an agent of America's extreme right wing. As a candidate for VP she is vastly out of her depth. She should have never left the tiara circuit.

Posted by: pj in jesusland on September 12, 2008 at 8:27 AM | PERMALINK

Charlie Gibson?s question about the Bush Doctrine was intentionally confusing. The proper answer was, ?Which Bush Doctrine??. Everyone knew what it was after 9/11 when we went after the Taliban who had harbored al Qaeda. After that ,it became more nebulous,and it is now inopperative, as terrorists killing Americans operate freely out of Iran and the Pakistan tribal areas. The following article shows the inconsistent ways media talking heads have described the Bush Doctrine. http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/09/what_exactly_is_the_bush_doctr.asp#more

Here is Gibson's interpretation in 2001 which dosn't jive with his explanation last night.

September 21, 2001
CHARLIE GIBSON: The president in his speech last night, very forceful. Four out of five Americans watched it. Everybody gathered around the television set last night. The president issued a series of demands to the Taliban, already rejected. We?ll get to that in a moment. He also outlined what is being called the Bush Doctrine, a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated.

September 21, 2001
CHARLIE GIBSON: Senator Daschle, let me start with you. People were looking for a Bush Doctrine. They may have found it when he said the war on terror will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped or defeated. That?s pretty broad. Broader than you expected?

Posted by: Ray L on September 12, 2008 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

Another problem Gibson had is that he mis-quoted Palen and then asked her to explain it. When she stated that she didn't think it was correct he insited he had the exact version in his hands. In fact he had a changed version put out by the AP which was taken out of context.

Posted by: Ray L on September 12, 2008 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINK

I am sure the sexist comment is over his Hubris remark, it took some real balls to put that forth. I am sure he would not of asked the same of BO who has much less executive experiance.

Posted by: Ray L on September 12, 2008 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

What amazes me is that were was Gibson, trying his level best to feed Caribou Barbie softball questions, and she still managed to look like an idiot. I mean, think about it: it's almost like she was a 5 year-old whiffing at t-ball.

No wonder the GOP loves her.

-Z

Posted by: Zorro on September 12, 2008 at 11:46 AM | PERMALINK

Ignorant but also dishonest -- people should discuss the fact that when you don't know something you shouldn't lie & fake like you do.

Posted by: dave on September 12, 2008 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

Palin's gaffes "pale in" compariason to Obama's

Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: Over the last 15 months, weve traveled to every corner of the United States. Ive now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.

Last week, in front of a roaring Sioux Falls, S.D., audience, Obama exulted: Thank you, Sioux City. ... I said it wrong. Ive been in Iowa for too long. Im sorry.

Explaining last week why he was trailing Hillary Clinton in Kentucky, Obama again botched basic geography: Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So its not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle. On what map is Arkansas closer to Kentucky than Illinois?

Obama has as much trouble with numbers as he has with maps. Last March, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Ala., he claimed his parents united as a direct result of the civil rights movement: There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Ala., because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.

Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965. His spokesman, Bill Burton, later explained that Obama was speaking metaphorically about the civil-rights movement as a whole.

Earlier this month in Cape Girardeau, Mo., Obama showed off his knowledge of the war in Afghanistan by homing in on a lack of translators: We only have a certain number of them, and if they are all in Iraq, then its harder for us to use them in Afghanistan. The real reason its harder for us to use them in Afghanistan: Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi, or other non-Arabic languages.

Over the weekend in Oregon, Obama pleaded ignorance of the decades-old, multibillion-dollar massive Hanford nuclear-waste cleanup: Heres something that you will rarely hear from a politician, and that is that Im not familiar with the Hanford, uuuuhh, site, so I dont know exactly whats going on there. (Applause.) Now, having said that, I promise you Ill learn about it by the time I leave here on the ride back to the airport.

I assume on that ride, a staffer reminded him that hes voted on at least one defense-authorization bill that addressed the costs, schedules, and technical issues dealing with the nations most contaminated nuclear-waste site.

Last March, the Chicago Tribune reported this little-noticed nugget about a fake autobiographical detail in Obamas Dreams from My Father: Then, theres the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs dont exist, say the magazines own historians.

And in perhaps the most seriously troubling set of gaffes of them all, Obama told a Portland crowd over the weekend that Iran doesnt pose a serious threat to us cluelessly arguing that tiny countries with small defense budgets cant do us harm and then promptly flip-flopped the next day, claiming, Ive made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.

Barack Obama promoted by the Left and the media as an all-knowing, articulate, transcendent Messiah is a walking, talking gaffe machine. How many more passes does he get? How many more can we afford? -Michelle Malkin

Posted by: Cowboy Jim on September 12, 2008 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

To Cowgirl Jim: anyone who can, with a straight face, quote Michelle Malkin loses any credibility with anyone possessing an IQ over 75.

-Z

Posted by: Zorro on September 12, 2008 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

Her answer on the Bush doctrine was conpletely consistent with ABC news own definition and Charlie Gibson's own definition of the Bush Doctrine as the US right to defend itself against terrorism anywhere. Her answer was consistent with the Bush Doctrine. If he meant specifically preemptive war, he should have asked specificially about preemptive war, which is not the broad definition of the Bush Doctrine.

Posted by: s.b. on September 12, 2008 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

Bringing her in was a political ploy - a trojan moose brought in to distract from the fact the the McSame platform has nothing new to offer. They lied to, and are using her, in the same way they lie to us and use the media. Throw out bits of distracting trivia, and this is all we hear about.



Palin, and the circus she's brought to town, are simply a bountiful collection of small lies deliberately designed to distract the country from one big truth: the havoc that George Bush and the Republican Party have wrought, and that John McCain is committed to continuing.

I agree: I want someone who might end up being President to have a reservoir of background knowledge to draw on in times of crisis. And Sarah Palin just doesn't have one.

Whose fault is that? McCains.

Shame on you McSame!

Posted by: one4REALchange on September 12, 2008 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

Her answer on the Bush doctrine was conpletely consistent with ABC news own definition and Charlie Gibson's own definition of the Bush Doctrine as the US right to defend itself against terrorism anywhere. Her answer was consistent with the Bush Doctrine. If he meant specifically preemptive war, he should have asked specificially about preemptive war, which is not the broad definition of the Bush Doctrine.

Wrong. Just for starters, the Bush Doctrine has never been limited to terrorism. Secondly, preemptive war was already a recognized right of nations -- nations have always had the right to defend themselves preemptively against an imminent attack, so there would be no need to define preemptive war as a new doctrine.

The new doctrin Bush defined, in speech after speech, embraced preventative war -- that the US need not and ought not wait for actual threats to materialize.

Gibson incorrectly defined the Bush doctrine as preemption instead of prevention, and the ignorant Palin grabbed on to the life preserver as tightly as she could, not realizing it was an anchor

It's sad to see Palin's defenders embrace the same falsity, whether out of ignorance or dishonesty.

Posted by: Gregory on September 12, 2008 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

Guys, the obvious problem is that the Bush doctrine, having been uttered by a divine being, cannot pass through the osmotic membrane that Sarah Palin gets all the rest of her foreign policy expertise through. It's so sexist of all of you to belittle her superior learning method. Or elitist, I haven't gotten the new talking points for today.

Posted by: short fuse on September 12, 2008 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

Gibson is a FOOL! He really showed how stupid he was with Sara Palin. He must have thought of these off the wall questions for a month before the interview! Bush's plan! Is it the same as Obama's no plan? If you LISTEN to Obama what do you hear? NOTHING! He spews rederick like its drinking water! Thwe average IQ of a Obama supporter is about 63. Just above STUPID!

Posted by: an american veteran! on September 12, 2008 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK
Posted by: on September 12, 2008 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

Plainly and simply; she botched the interview. Her responses were platitudinous and totally lacking context and nuance. Nobody politician is perfect, but one hopes they are smarter than the average Joe or Jane. Some politicians have encyclopedic knowledge on a broad range of topics and some are adept at think on their feet. One could give her a pass on not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is, but her response of, In what respect Charles? was lame. She obviously is not even close to up to speed on this stuff. Here biggest asset is her confidence and ability to bluster. Just like the bully who backs down when finally confronted, her lack of substantive knowledge will undermine her bluster. The sad thing is, she is in over her head and she doesnt know it. I disagree with virtually all of the political and moral positions, but I almost feel sorry for her.

Posted by: dathound on September 12, 2008 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly