Skip to comments.Bush Doctrine? Palin Got It, Gibson Didn't
Posted on 09/12/2008 7:42:59 PM PDT by Kaslin
"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, Sept. 12
Informed her? Rubbish. The Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson 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.
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, he grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."
I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard titled, "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.
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
Tell ‘em Charles! Krauthammer is the best.
Palin whooped Gibson’s ass tonight..good Job Sarah.
I had no idea what Gibson was talking about either. It wasn’t until later I realized he was using left-wing talking points slang.
Krauthammer is right.
Some cartoonist needs to make a cartoon of the MSM pointing a gun at Palin, with the barrel bent 180 degrees to point back at the shooter.
Or the MSM committing hara-kiri. Something like that.
Charles K. sounds authoritative to me. As the man who coined the term the “Bush doctrine,” he should know. The article is good, and the title says it all: “Bush Doctrine? Palin Got It, Gibson Didn’t”
In other words (my Cal educated ex-boss would say ‘another words’) the Bush Doctrine is anything any one of us happens to make up! Until Bush himself says “this is my doctrine, dude!” there is no Bush Doctrine that anyone can test others on! Gibson question was really, “are you up on Potomac speak?”
No can do. That would imply they have honor.
The Bush doctrine as stated by Ted Kennedy's big brother .
My son just called to tell me that he thought Gibson was BRUTAL, exact word, towards Palin in the interview....OMG, I think this is going to backfire on the mediaPUKES royally! OBTW, my son isn’t too involved in politics and I rarely hear him comment about politicians, BUT BOY did he call this one or WHAT??
there are four different Bush Doctrines as label over time by the press.
Gibson cited the second but gave it the date of the third...LOL
Wow. I am so ashamed of some Americans at times. You would think they could think for themselves and see through this childish puppet show after all these years. Some people never learn up from down.
I hope the conservative talk show hosts hammer this.
Charlie made a bit of a fool out of himself, all while thinking he was so smart.
About all the Democrat communists can do at this point is grasp and grope in the darkness. They have nothing at this point. They look like a bunch of lost children with talking points only a high school kid maybe would care about. Brainless clones the lot of them.
Charles lectured Juan Williams on the Bush Doctrine(s) tonight. Told him to read this article.
Mr Krauthammer as usual has hit the nail on the head...He has shown how the Bush Doctrine evolved: from making no distinction between terrorists and those who harbor them; to ‘preventive wars,’ which supercede the previous policies of ‘containment’ of his predecessors; to his current policy of spreading Freedom and Democracy in the world..
He has thus led the US from a position of withdrawn isolation after the Vietnam era, to one of pre-emptive action as called for, to actively nurturing and spreading freedom and democracy, with force if necessary to protect a fldedgling democracy...
This is why History will look kindly on him and will compare him to President Ronald Reagan who told the Kremlin Communists to ‘tear down those walls’ and and the walls came down, torn down by freedom loving people.......
This is a legacy that John McCain can stand on too—building on his predecessors successes..
Gibson is a condescending idiot. I thought he was especially bad when it came to global warming. What she was saying was very moderate, but he thought he had another gotcha, because he is too dumb to understand that there are scientific reasons for skepticism about the global warming hypothesis. A journalist is unlikely to have the intellectual horsepower to have a right to an independent opinion on scientific, economic, foreign policy, or just about anything else important, so is completely a slave to conventional wisdom and the vast echo chamber of the mainstream media.
This paragraph from Mr. Krauthammer is of some interest:
“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.”
I don’t know, but it seems like Krauthammer is being intellectually dishonest. We all know that the popular conception of what the Bush Doctrine is, is the one that concerns pre-emptively attacking another nation. It might be wise to give Amazon a look or Wikipedia, as you suggest, to see how the public at large views the Bush Doctrine. It’s certain not Bush’s “freedom agenda.”
I tell you, I’m kind of confused. I used to think that Krauthammer was an intellectual badass when it came to politics, a real deal guy who understand the gamemanship of politics and called out the BS. He know what the Bush Doctrine is. I don’t have to tell you what it is, and neither does Amazon or Wikipedia.
“suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Kyoto protocols werer rejected by Congress under the Clinton administration.
All this talk about Bush being especially unilateral and pre-emptive is greatly exagerrated. As I’ve said on other threads, an honest interpretation of history will show how often we’ve acted without direct provocation, and how many times we’ve pursued our own interest without regard for the reservations of allies.
Does she shoot with her left hand. Just asking
Not necessary. Apparently you are not familiar with the very rare C. Gibson & Ilk Automatic Pistol in .42 MSM. After some diligent searching, I have successfully located an example.
“We all know that the popular conception of what the Bush Doctrine is, is the one that concerns pre-emptively attacking another nation”
This conception is one that has, I believe, been engbendered by the media to present Bush as being out of line with history. Fact is, the administration wouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq if not for the overt act on 9/11. Of course, 9/11 and Iraq were not directly related. But why did they choose Iraq, instead of, say, Iran? Because we were very careful to choose a nation that had violated the terms of peace from a previous war.
One could argue that the Truman Doctrine, though ostensibly devoted to “containment,” could easily be construed to advocate pre-emption. We “contained” communism, which is as nebulous an enemy as terrorism. If it was alright to intervene in a civil war in Greece or Vietnam, it is not much of a stretch to intervene in the affairs of a nation that we had conditionally promised not to invade 12 years beforehand.
Palin only looked bad to people who have to be told what is right or wrong by their tv sets. No sweat off her back.
I always thought "Bush Doctrine" was his post-9/11 with-or-against stance.
“Correct me if Im wrong, but the Kyoto protocols werer rejected by Congress under the Clinton administration.”
Signed by Klintoon then rejected by the Senate 95 to zip. Omama wasn’t yet there to vote “Present.”
OF COURSE we have the right to go into Pakistan, or any other raghead, shitpoke, stone-age backwater to root out these cowards.
Gibson is a raging hemorrhoid, a puckered sphincter to imply that we can't.
I actually used "Bush Doctrine" in a conversation last week, intending it to have Krauthammer's second definition, per GWB: "From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." While the doctrine can justify a preemptive war, that is far from its only potential consequence.
If "Bush Doctrine" really has such different meanings to different people, I suppose I should stop using the phrase.
That’s the one!
There is no such thing as “The Bush Doctrine”
There is no paper, finding, directive from the United States with any such title.
It is a term made up by media talking head to be used by media talking heads to other media talking heads. They (Krauthammer) thought it up, they talk about it over cognac and cigars, and they think everyone should treat them as if they’ve participated in some kind of diplomatic outreach.
What they are is a bunch of narcississtic, self-congratulatory good ole boys.
Absolutely and I am sure history will eventually settle on one distinct defination but until then the question is most certainly a gotcha one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.