Gibson wrong about Bush Doctrine?

[DarrinS]

Or at least not entirely correct.


In Charles Gibson's interview of Sarah Palin, Gibson "explained" to Palin that "The Bush Doctrine" refers to pre-emptive war. He left a LOT out.


The first usage of the term "Bush Doctrine" was by conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer, who used the term in February 2001 (note: pre 911) to describe Bush' unilateral approach to national missile defense.

Later (post 911), the phrase described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan.

Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a supposed threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq), a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism, and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.

[DarrinS]

And, attacking a country that you think is about to attack you is called the Common Sense Doctrine, and has been around for hundreds of years before GWB was born.

[101A]

She should have known what Gibson meant if she wants to be even remotely qualified to be Vice President.

[101A]

And, attacking a country that you think is about to attack you is called the Common Sense Doctrine, and has been around for hundreds of years before GWB was born.

:lol

[JoeChalupa]

In what respect?

[2centsworth]

in all honesty when I heard the question I wasn't exactly sure what he was asking. the libs have attributed just about everything to Bush and I didn't know that the council had decided Bush Doctrine=Preventive War.

[JoeChalupa]

I knew the answer. Chalupa for VP!!!!!!!

[boutons_]

"attacking a country that you think is about to attack you"

aka, fear-mongering to be exploited by Repugs for power-grabbing.

What TF country is gonna attack USA and its $600B/year offense budget and its nooclur weapsons?

The dubya "doctrine" has proven in two countries to be a huge disaster without end in sight, where afer 7 and 5 years, a bunch low-power, motivated indigent insurgents (aka freedom fighters) tie down 100Ks of US military and US mercenaries.

you're doing a heckuva job, dubya.

[Findog]

Wow, we've really got to prop Sarah up a bit. It's clear she was clueless.

[DarrinS]

in all honesty when I heard the question I wasn't exactly sure what he was asking. the libs have attributed just about everything to Bush and I didn't know that the council had decided Bush Doctrine=Preventive War.


All he had to do was ask her is she believed in Bush's policy of preemption.

[2centsworth]

She should have known what Gibson meant if she wants to be even remotely qualified to be Vice President.

I respectfully disagree. Knowing what preemptive strikes or preventive war means is important, and having a well thought out response even more so. However, Knowing what "Bush Doctrine" means is code for washington insider, because "Bush Doctrine" has no official meaning.

Her grasp of history and what it means to our current situation is what will determine if she is remotely qualified. I know for a fact Obama is not strong when it comes to reciting historical facts. I'm afraid she may not be either.

A sign of the times.

[DarrinS]

Gibson also tried to get her to say she wanted Israel to nuke Iran, but she held her ground.




GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?

PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don't think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.

GIBSON: So if we wouldn't second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.

PALIN: I don't think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.

GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.

PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.

[Mr. Peabody]

Or at least not entirely correct.


In Charles Gibson's interview of Sarah Palin, Gibson "explained" to Palin that "The Bush Doctrine" refers to pre-emptive war. He left a LOT out.


The first usage of the term "Bush Doctrine" was by conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer, who used the term in February 2001 (note: pre 911) to describe Bush' unilateral approach to national missile defense.

Later (post 911), the phrase described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan.

Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a supposed threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq), a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism, and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.

Here's a statement from the founder of the Free Republic (the site you lifted the post from).

Statement by the founder of Free Republic
Free Republic ^ | Jim Robinson
Posted on Mon Mar 22 2004 21:22:17 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by Jim Robinson

I posted the following statement to our front page in response to the criticism I'm receiving lately as to not being fair and balanced and perceived mistreatment of trolls and assorted malcontents. Got news for all, I'm NOT fair and balanced. I'm biased toward God, country, family, liberty and freedom and against liberalism, socialism, anarchism, wackoism, global balonyism and any other form of tyranny. Hope this helps.


Statement by the founder of Free Republic:

In our continuing fight for freedom, for America and our constitution and against totalitarianism, socialism, tyranny, terrorism, etc., Free Republic stands firmly on the side of right, i.e., the conservative side. Believing that the best defense is a strong offense, we (myself and those whom I'm trying to attract to FR) support the strategy of taking the fight to the enemy as opposed to allowing the enemy the luxury of conducting their attacks on us at home on their terms and on their schedule.

Therefore, we wholeheartedly support the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes on known terrorist states and organizations that are believed to present a clear threat to our freedom or national security. We support our military, our troops and our Commander-in-Chief and we oppose turning control of our government back over to the liberals and socialists who favor appeasement, weakness, and subserviency. We do not believe in surrendering to the terrorists as France, Germany, Russia and Spain have done and as Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton and the Democrats, et al, are proposing.

The Free Republic thinks it means what Charles Gibson said it means. Are they now being hypocritical?

[101A]

I respectfully disagree. Knowing what preemptive strikes or preventive war means is important, and having a well thought out response even more so. However, Knowing what "Bush Doctrine" means is code for washington insider, because "Bush Doctrine" has no official meaning.

Her grasp of history and what it means to our current situation is what will determine if she is remotely qualified. I know for a fact Obama is not strong when it comes to reciting historical facts. I'm afraid she may not be either.

A sign of the times.

It's funny that my sarcasm (from the right) can be taken as a legitimate post from the left.

[JoeChalupa]

Come on guys, we shouldn't be second guessing Sarah.

[101A]

I know for a fact Obama is not strong when it comes to reciting historical facts. I'm afraid she may not be either.

A sign of the times.

What evidence has led you to this about the two?

[DarrinS]

Here's a statement from the founder of the Free Republic (the site you lifted the post from).



Well, the following actually IS from the Free Republic (thanks for the tip, detective). I did get some of my words from a website, but not that one.


Evidently, there is confusion about what the Bush Doctrins is.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2080772/posts





The left is going bananas over Governor Palin's answer to Gibson's "Bush Doctrine" question. Andy McCarthy has a good post on it over in the Corner, but I thought I'd add a little history of the "Bush Doctrine" using the search function at NYTimes.com. The term "Bush Doctrine" looks to have been used for the first time, post 9/11, in mid-November:

A senior administration official said Mr. Bush's speech would be a fleshing out of what the White House calls the Bush Doctrine — the assertion that nations that harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves.
In January 2002, the editors of the Times wrote:
Mr. Bush appears to be developing an assertive new military doctrine that includes the threat of armed intervention against nations that are developing weapons that may put the United States in peril. The evolving Bush Doctrine implies a preemptive use of conventional force to take out missile launchers, industrial enterprises and facilities that appear to be involved in the fabrication of unconventional weapons. This is a radical departure from what went before. Traditionally, the United States has employed its military forces in retaliation for an attack rather than striking first itself. That should not preclude other options when there is a clear and present danger of attack, but firing first is not a step to be taken lightly.
By March, the "Bush Doctrine" had expanded yet again to include regime change:
In the tug of war between the go-get-'em, nuke-brandishing civilians of the Pentagon and the coalition-minded pragmatists of the State Department, conservatives are now convinced Mr. Bush's sympathies are gung-ho. The Weekly Standard, which has overcome personal strains with Mr. Bush to become something like the president's conservative superego, has taken to calling this ''The Bush Doctrine.''
''On tactics, he may be listening to Colin Powell,'' said Norman Podhoretz, the influential conservative editor and author. ''But he's very clear as to his strategic objectives — not just to clean up Al Qaeda cells but to effect regime changes in six or seven countries and to create conditions which would lead to internal reform and modernization in the Islamic world.''

In September, the Times had an editorial titled, "Bush Doctrine," based on the National Security Strategy paper submitted to Congress. An excerpt:
The tension between idealism and realism in foreign policy runs through America history, and the fault lines are evident in Mr. Bush's policy statement. The paper — a policy summation that every president is required to submit to Congress — seems in some sections to be animated by the most enlightened and constructive impulses of the land of Jefferson, Lincoln and the Marshall Plan. It dedicates the nation to extending the benefits of freedom, democracy, prosperity and the rule of law to struggling countries around the globe. Mr. Bush speaks eloquently in an introductory letter about working with other nations to combat disease and alleviate poverty, and he reaffirms his determination to increase American foreign aid.
At other points, the paper sounds more like a pronouncement that the Roman Empire or Napoleon might have produced. Given Mr. Bush's lone-wolf record on matters like global warming, and the nature of the issues he now faces, including a looming confrontation with Iraq, it is clear these combative attitudes will be driving Washington policy in the months ahead. The boys in Lubbock may want to pause before signing on for the overly aggressive stance Mr. Bush has outlined.

This, I believe, is the September 2002 that Charlie Gibson refers to in his interview. Gibson only referred to the preemption aspect of it, but the human rights and regime changes aspects are as important. Gibson never mentioned this in his little snarky lecture to Gov. Palin.
By April, 2003, we have President Bush admitting he's not quite sure what the "Bush Doctrine" actually is:

Mr. Bush's overt use of diplomatic pressure against Syria and Iran, two countries that Mr. Bush has identified as sponsors of terrorism, is in stark contrast to the use of preemptive force against Iraq.
Yet at one point in his interview, Mr. Bush acknowledged that he had yet to fully form the ''Bush doctrine,'' or to think through how the American victory in Iraq would affect his vow to deal with weapons of mass destruction on a global basis.

In December, we have yet another version of the "Bush Doctrine" as described in the book America Unbound:
Buttressed by extensive research, the authors demonstrate convincingly that Mr. Bush is not the puppet of the vice president or the Defense Department hawks. He has fundamental beliefs that have reversed America's six-decade commitment to internationalism. His foreign policy for the 21st century marks a decided preference for unilateralism.
As the authors describe it, his policy rests on two beliefs: ''The first was that in a dangerous world the best — if not the only — way to ensure America's security was to shed the constraints imposed by friends, allies, and international institutions.'' The second belief was that ''an America unbound should use its strength to change the status quo in the world.''

This does not mean that America need always act alone. When unilateral actions seem impossible or unwise, Mr. Bush will seek allies, but not to make decisions that would require their approval. His preferred approach is to seek ad hoc ''coalitions of the willing,'' what Richard Haas, a former adviser to Secretary of State Colin Powell, has called ''à la carte multilateralism.''

After John Kerry's defeat in 2005, the "Bush Doctrine" became defined by the left with the buzzwords "preemptive" and "unilateral." Paul Krugman for example:
On the foreign policy front, the "Bush doctrine" of pre-emption and unilateralism sounded very impressive at first. But Mr. Bush's tough-guy attitude wasn't matched by his willingness to commit resources. His administration sought global dominance on the cheap, with an undermanned, underplanned invasion of Iraq that has, indeed, transformed the balance of power in the Middle East - in favor of Iran.
In December 2006, Gary Hart wrote this in defense of Barack Obama:
His inherent internationalism causes him to ponder why, five years after 9/11 and 15 years after the end of the cold war, the United States “still lacks a coherent national security policy,” rightly finding the Bush doctrine of pre-emption and defeat of evil in the world wanting.
In January 2007, there's this description:
In a sense, it was an extraordinary retreat by Bush - and not just because Fatah and Hamas killing each other daily makes a plan for new talks surreal. More, it winds the United States deeper into the whorls of process, and goes against the Bush doctrine that democratization of the Middle East starts with the defeat of terrorism.
September 2007:
None of the leading Republican candidates has been willing to articulate anything like a new direction for how to confront terrorism or what to do in Iraq, despite the fact that the Bush doctrine of forcibly spreading democracy has been widely deemed a failure, even by a sizable chunk of Republicans.
From the Times review of Norman Podhoretz's World War IV:
Mr. Podhoretz, however, remains an ardent supporter of the Bush doctrine of unilateral action, pre-emptive war and the exportation of democracy to the Middle East.
So, it's easy to see why there might be a little confusion on what exactly Charlie Gibson was getting at when he asked about the "Bush Doctrine." Except for the Times, of course. It's crystal clear for them. Here's how they wrote up the Palin interview:
In the interview Thursday, Palin:
—Appeared unsure of the Bush doctrine — essentially that the United States must help spread democracy to stop terrorism and that the nation will act pre-emptively to stop potential foes.

Asked whether she agreed with that, Palin said: ''In what respect, Charlie?'' Gibson pressed her for an interpretation of it. She said: ''His world view.'' That prompted Gibson to say ''no, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war'' and describe it to her.

Here's what Gibson actually said, however:
The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self defense. That we have the right to a premptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us.
Not only was Charlie Gibson wrong about what was enunciated in September 2002, Gov. Palin was 100% correct in asking what the heck he was babbling about as well as 100% correct in what she said.

[Mr. Peabody]

Well, the following actually IS from the Free Republic (thanks for the tip, detective). I did get some of my words from a website, but not that one.


Ha. Sorry. Someone on Freep used the same language (which I think originated on Wikipedia).

My point is that sites like The Free Republic are now posting articles saying that the term Bush Doctrine is vague and ambiguous. The Free Republic's own founder defined the term in a post on the site. How can The Free Republic now claim that no one really knows what the term means? :wtf

[101A]

Well, the following actually IS from the Free Republic (thanks for the tip, detective). I did get some of my words from a website, but not that one.


Evidently, there is confusion about what the Bush Doctrins is.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2080772/posts

Too Late

[fyatuk]

Here's a statement from the founder of the Free Republic (the site you lifted the post from).


The Free Republic thinks it means what Charles Gibson said it means. Are they now being hypocritical?

That doesn't come off as implying Bush Doctrine = pre-emptive strikes, but that pre-emptive strikes are a part of the Bush Doctrine as Darrin said. Otherwise they wouldn't have had to specify "of pre-emptive strikes".

[2centsworth]

What evidence has led you to this about the two?

for Obama the list is long , but from memory he said FDR met with our enemies without preconditions.

I've heard a lot more and a quick search yielded:http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/20/obama-flunks-history-again/

The list goes on and on.


as far as palin, I'm being cynical.

[2centsworth]

Ha. Sorry. Someone on Freep used the same language (which I think originated on Wikipedia).

My point is that sites like The Free Republic are now posting articles saying that the term Bush Doctrine is vague and ambiguous. The Free Republic's own founder defined the term in a post on the site. How can The Free Republic now claim that no one really knows what the term means? :wtf

I'm happy that it's being exposed as an ambiguous term, because it was making me look bad, even to myself.

[Mr. Peabody]

Maybe McCain should have explained it to her, because he knows that it means exactly what Gibson said -

s1lf1I4eFTw

I guess McCain and Gibson don't know what they're talking about.:bang

[2centsworth]

Maybe McCain should have explained it to her, because he knows that it means exactly what Gibson said -

s1lf1I4eFTw

I guess McCain and Gibson don't know what they're talking about.:bang

McCain and Gibson are part of the cocktail scene, so they understand the code.

[Mr. Peabody]

McCain and Gibson are part of the cocktail scene, so they understand the code.

So is the argument that it's actually Palin who understands the many facets of the Bush Doctrine and it's McCain who has failed to grasp such complexities?

That's the argument many on the right appear to be making.

[101A]

So is the argument that it's actually Palin who understands the many facets of the Bush Doctrine and it's McCain who has failed to grasp such complexities?

That's the argument many on the right appear to be making.

Ahhh.

What the Right is doing IS making the subject confusing; taking it away from, "Palin didn't know this" to "It is more complicated than that, and the race is about to start".

It's gonna work. (even though the issue in and of itself isn't a big deal to me)

I have to admit, however, I didn't like her calling him "Charlie" all the time...seemed too contrived and folksy.

[cool hand]

we all know what it means, expect for Palin.

[Notorious H.O.P.]

Gibson also tried to get her to say she wanted Israel to nuke Iran, but she held her ground.

How in the world do you interpret the piece you quoted as Gibson trying to bait her into saying she wanted Israel to nuke Iran? Where was the mentioning of nuking Iran? I see him mentioning taking out IRAN'S nuclear facilities, not Israel using their own nukes to attack Iran.

And the "she held her ground" is laughable. Almost all of her responses to the foreign policy questions leaned toward the uninformed or evasive.

[Creepn]

:lol @ Darrin trying to spin this.

Dude, she fucked up. She didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was. Period. Noticed how she responded to other questions quickly but with the Bush Doctrine, you can see the "oh shit" look. When Gibson explained it to her, Palin had the look of a student learning something new.

Anyway this is not suprising and it shouldnt be suprising to you because she admitted that she didnt really pay much attention to the republicans.

[Biernutz]

Charlie Gibson's Gaff
By Charles Krauthammer (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/charles+krauthammer/)

Saturday, September 13, 2008;
"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.' "

-- New York Times (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+New+York+Times+Company?tid=informline), Sept. 12
Informed her? Rubbish.
The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Charles+Gibson?tid=informline) got it wrong.
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 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Wikimedia+Foundation+Inc.?tid=informline) 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 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+Weekly+Standard+Magazine?tid=informline) 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 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/George+W.+Bush?tid=informline) 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 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Colin+Powell?tid=informline) gave President Musharraf (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Pervez+Musharraf?tid=informline) that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+Taliban?tid=informline) 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.

t'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."

This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/John+Kennedy?tid=informline)'s pledge in his inaugural address that the United States "shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson's 14 points.
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.
Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.



Such is not the case with the Bush Doctrine.
Yes, Sarah Palin (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Sarah+Palin?tid=informline) didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb270/systime/SMILEYS%20%20222/themot-owned.gif

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

[024]

Charlie Gibson's Gaff
By Charles Krauthammer (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/charles+krauthammer/)

Saturday, September 13, 2008;
"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.' "

-- New York Times (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+New+York+Times+Company?tid=informline), Sept. 12
Informed her? Rubbish.
The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Charles+Gibson?tid=informline) got it wrong.
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 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Wikimedia+Foundation+Inc.?tid=informline) 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 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+Weekly+Standard+Magazine?tid=informline) 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 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/George+W.+Bush?tid=informline) 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 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Colin+Powell?tid=informline) gave President Musharraf (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Pervez+Musharraf?tid=informline) that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+Taliban?tid=informline) 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.

t'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."

This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/John+Kennedy?tid=informline)'s pledge in his inaugural address that the United States "shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson's 14 points.
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.
Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.



Such is not the case with the Bush Doctrine.
Yes, Sarah Palin (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Sarah+Palin?tid=informline) didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

wow i don't usually comment here but that was just such severe ownage.

[PixelPusher]

Pretty disingenuous of Krauthammer to act like he isn't a prominent member of the "chattering classes", and he frequently condescends Obama on the very same grounds.

[Mr. Body]

1. Krauthammer is a complete and utter tool. Neocons, die!

2. Gibson was asking a simple question. It was quickly apparent Palin had no idea what the Bush Doctrine was or is. But before that, he gave ample room for her to expand: what is your interpretation?

3. Gibson's defintion is pretty straight up the expected value of the Bush Doctrine.

4. He was clearly stunned that such a softball turned out to be a 'gotcha'.

5. I don't care if Gibson wasn't correct within 0.00001% accuracy, even so. He is not running for any office.

6. Palin showed herself a total lightweight, not just on this question, but throughout the evening.

7. McCain did all of us a disservice by picking a completely clueless person to back up a sickly old man. His judgment is the real issue here.

8. All you 'Nailin' Palin' squaders, just give it up. She sucks. She may be alright in four years, after she gets used to the world outside of Alaska. But she'd be a disaster right now.

[Crookshanks]

All you libs are just frothing at the mouth over this but here's something you should consider: you guys HATE Bush and everything he stands for so you know a lot about him and his policies so you can condemn and criticize him every chance you get.

But ask the NORMAL, every day guy on the street what the "Bush Doctrine" is and I bet you 9 out of 10 wouldn't have a clue!

Also, it seems you're overlooking the fact that Gibson came across as incredibly rude, arrogant, elitist, and condescending - and I think the average citizen isn't going to go for that.

[Bartleby]

Maybe you're comfortable with mediocrity, ignorance, and incompetence, but I expect more than "every day guy on the street" level competence when it comes to an office as high as VP.

[Crookshanks]

Maybe you're comfortable with mediocrity, ignorance, and incompetence, but I expect more than "every day guy on the street" level competence when it comes to an office as high as VP.

Well let's look at this a little closer then. Since it's quite obvious from the above article that the Bush Doctrine has meant several different things over the years; and given the fact that Charlie boy didn't exactly specify what he meant by the question; and given the fact that Sarah Palin has been the Governor of Alaska and not a member of Bush's administration - why should she have been expected to know EXACTLY what Charlie meant?

As soon as he explained his "understanding" of the Bush Doctrine, she knew exactly what he was talking about and gave a pretty decent answer.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

But ask the NORMAL, every day guy on the street what the "Bush Doctrine" is and I bet you 9 out of 10 wouldn't have a clue!

What does that have to do with anything?

Those same people probably couldn't tell you how many articles are in the Constitution, what the EU is and how many countries are part of it or point out Iraq on a map. Is it so bad that we should go by the LCD now?

[Crookshanks]

What does that have to do with anything?

Those same people probably couldn't tell you how many articles are in the Constitution, what the EU is and how many countries are part of it or point out Iraq on a map. Is it so bad that we should go by the LCD now?

boy - sometimes I forget that reading comprehension isn't a strong suit with many of the posters here.

Anyway - that comment was made in response to all the lib posters here who are saying "we all know what the Bush Doctrine is", and "everybody but Sarah Palin knows what it is". I was merely pointing out that probably MOST people DON"T know what it is!

[PixelPusher]

What does that have to do with anything?

Those same people probably couldn't tell you how many articles are in the Constitution, what the EU is and how many countries are part of it or point out Iraq on a map. Is it so bad that we should go by the LCD now?

"EU"? "LCD"? I bet you think yer so smart with yer abbreviations and what not. Fuckin' elitists think they know everything.

And what the hell do LCD screens have to do with this topic anyway?

[Wild Cobra]

I tried to tell you libtards early on in the other thread.

Remain ingorant if you wish.

[024]

on foreign policy, krauthammer is one of the intellectual figures on the conservative side. even though he is obviously a conservative, he is also a very intelligent person who argues his side very well. gibson also had no idea what he was talking about when he mentioned the bush doctrine. the bush doctrine ambiguously refers to about four parts: unilateralism, classification of terrorist states, preemption, and the unwavering spread of democracy.


GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

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

PALIN: His world view.

GIBSON: No, 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?

PALIN: I agree that a president's job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.

I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.

GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?

PALIN: 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 transcript above shows that palin wanted clarification when gibson just threw out the phrase "bush doctrine," which can mean the four parts krauthammer mentioned. gibson, who clearly only had the preemption part of the bush doctrine in mind, continued (knowingly or not) to let palin fish. the "september 2002" doctrine included two argmuents for invading iraq. one of the reasons was that bush claimed all states that refused to combat terrorism were by default, harboring them. obviously iraq was not with the United States, thus it was classified as a terrorist state and gave the United States the right to launch a preemptive strike to prevent future aid to terrorists. even though there was little evidence iraq was harboring terrorists at the time, they were "either with us or against us." palin then gives a vague answer about the terrorism part of the doctrine which gibson quickly jumps on. if gibson had known there were different parts to the doctrine, he should have answered palin he was talking about preemption when palin asked "in what respect?" instead of leading her around.

gibson assumed that preemption was the only part of the bush doctrine and that palin should have known it. it is gibson's fault for intentionally being vague and it is palin's fault for not knowing to correct gibson.