Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SARAH PALIN AND THE BUSH DOCTRINE - EXPLAINED COMPLETELY
Townhall.com ^ | 12 September 2008 | Andrew Roman

Posted on 09/12/2008 9:06:47 PM PDT by andrew roman

Charles Gibson, foot-swinging ABC News “gotcha” merchant, looked like someone poured castor oil in his Cheerio bowl just prior to his interview with Governor Sarah Palin. He had a scowl on his kisser that would’ve made WC Fields envious, all the while masterfully balancing those professorial eyeglasses on the end of his nose like a seasoned circus performer handles the tightrope. In retrospect, he probably should have – and certainly could have - been a smidgen more specific when grilling Governor Palin about the Bush Doctrine.

Still, the onus was squarely on the Governor of the great state of Alaska to answer the coming questions without vacillation. After all, this was the big stage. The world was watching. It was time for the rifle-toting hockey mom to play with the big boys.

And so it was that they sat face to face, the taste of stale Cheerios on Gibson’s tongue (I’m guessing), the Republican Vice-Presidential nominee squared and ready, anxious to field queries from the grimacing Gibson. It was to be the next finest hour of Sarah Palin.

Yet, within a few minutes, something had gone horribly wrong. Unforeseen hesitation had reared its ugly head. Inside of a few brief moments, it was hanging out there like a giant matzo ball – the dreaded Bush Doctrine.

How could Governor Sarah Palin not know what Charles Gibson meant when asked about it?

What on earth was wrong with the woman?

I’m willing to concede that she was, perhaps, a little confused.

Did Charles Gibson mean the Bush Doctrine of preventive war, as he defined it with Governor Palin, or did he mean the Bush Doctrine as he expressed it on September 21, 2001 in which he said the United States planned to follow through on its “promise that all terrorist organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated?”

Gibson may have been alluding to the Bush Doctrine that New York Times columnist Frank Rich declared dead on April 13, 2002, almost seven months after Gibson defined it – not to be confused with the new Bush Doctrine as depicted in Richard Falk’s article on June 27, 2002 in The Nation in which he writes that President Bush was “repudiating the core idea of the United Nations charter.” Evidently, these were only precursors to Michael Kingsley’s March, 2003 perception of the Bush Doctrine in which the President started “a war without anyone’s permission.”

In Palin’s defense, it is possible (and maybe even likely) that she was thinking of Robin Wright of the Washington Post who claimed in June, 2004 the Bush Doctrine not yet dead, but “severely eroding” due to the occupation of Iraq. According to Wright, only one of four tenets of the doctrine still survived by “a sliver” – namely, the hope of spreading democracy. All other tenets were, in fact, finished. This contrasts with the explanation of the Boston Globe’s Jeff Jacoby who in January of this year, like Frank Rich nearly six years earlier, declared the Bush Doctrine completely dead – only five months before deciding it was actually still alive, saying it was almost dead except for the single exception of Iraq. The doctrine, according to Jacoby, was identified as “not permitting the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons.” Add to this the Brookings Institute’s Phillip H Gordon’s tenets of the Bush Doctrine, as explained on December 1, 2006, in which America was, first, engaged in a “war against evil” and second, calling upon other nations to decide if they were for or against us. Gordon, in his recitation, wasn’t ready to say the doctrine was dead, only that he wondered about it.

I believe that most will concur that if Gibson had simply told Governor Palin he was referencing the Bush Doctrine as understood by Peter Jennings and Claire Shipman on September 20, 2001, which is not unlike George Will’s interpretation of December 9, 2001, holding that “anyone who governs a territory is complicit in any terrorism that issues from that territory,” (which was essentially the same as Gibson’s own September, 2001 definition) then the entire interview might have taken a different turn. However, it isn’t out of the question to conclude that Palin probably hit a cognitive bump while recalling that George Will’s Bush Doctrine of May, 2006 was an expanded variation, which included the spread of democracy – not unlike like Robin Wright’s was two years earlier.

It is here that Palin disappoints.

Sure, the Bush Doctrine may have “rung hollow” in the eyes of the Cato Institute’s Charles Pena in January, 2003, but it shouldn’t have kept Palin from “Understanding the Bush Doctrine,” as articulated by Noam Chomsky in October, 2004. Furthermore, her inability to summon the characterization of the Bush Doctrine as articulated by William Marina and David T. Bielo of the Independent Institute on December 9, 2004, both of whom explain that the Doctrine was actually fathered by Teddy Roosevelt a century earlier – a “pre-emptive imperialism,” as they described it – speaks volumes of Governor Palin’s inexperience.

It may actually be this century-old pre-emptive version of the Bush Doctrine, implemented decades before his birth, which Gibson spoke of in his interview with Sarah Palin.

And this woman wants to be Vice President?


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; Political Humor/Cartoons; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abcnews; bush; bushdoctrine; chucklestheclown; doctrine; gibson; mccainpalin; palin

1 posted on 09/12/2008 9:06:48 PM PDT by andrew roman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: andrew roman

Sarah did fine, she was composed and direct.
Non political junkies who watched probably didn’t see ANYTHING wrong with her answer.
She just asked for him to clarify what he meant by the “Bush Doctrine” and most people watching probably were wanting to know as well.
She even said, “his world view?”
I mean, she did fine on that question. Reading all the “Oh no” posts on here I thought she really flubbed it, but it didn’t look like that when I finally watched it later on.


2 posted on 09/12/2008 9:10:34 PM PDT by snarkytart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andrew roman

She’s the Roosevelt Corollary to the Gibson Doctrine.


3 posted on 09/12/2008 9:12:24 PM PDT by Senator Goldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snarkytart

Absolutely.

I wrote this piece with tongue squarely in cheek.

Watching Governor Palin, she was poised, in control and looked great.


4 posted on 09/12/2008 9:12:38 PM PDT by andrew roman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: andrew roman

“The Bush Doctrine” looks to be revised more than LDS documentation.


5 posted on 09/12/2008 9:14:13 PM PDT by unspun (Mike Huckabee: Government's job is "protect us, not have to provide for us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andrew roman

The term “bush doctrine” is so all-emcompassing that one might almost describe it as Bush’s worldview.


6 posted on 09/12/2008 9:17:57 PM PDT by Homer1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andrew roman
C'mon Andrew,get real. Joe Biden asked a wheel chair bound man to stand up earlier in the week and he too wants to to be VP. She made it through the interview without an Uh or a stammer. The Bush doctrine should means as much as the phrase separation of church of state. Its far from the rule of the land.
7 posted on 09/12/2008 9:22:06 PM PDT by stevecmd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andrew roman

ROFLMAO. I heard that question asking Palin about the “Bush Doctrine”, and asked my wife if she heard him say which one?

I must add that I have a hearing impairment, so I often ask my wife to confirm, or correct what I think I hear LOL.


8 posted on 09/12/2008 9:23:47 PM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, Call 'em what you will, they ALL have Fairies livin' in their Trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andrew roman
link to a serious discussion of the Bush doctine - check out footenote 2:

2. The Bush Doctrine is encapsulated in a set of policies articulated in the national security strategies released by the White House in September 2002 and March 2006. The national security policies commonly associated with the Bush Doctrine can also be found in President Bush’s National Strategy for Victory in Iraq, the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, and many of the president’s major addresses on the War on Terror. See National Security Council, The National Security Strategy of the United States (Washington, DC: The White House, 2002 and 2006); National Security Council, National Strategy for Victory in Iraq (Washington, DC: The White House, 2005); and National Security Council, National Strategy for Combating Terrorism (Washington, DC: The White House, 2006).

Seriously, is there a foreign policy position which Bush has articulated which has not been considered, at some point, to be the Bush Doctrine?

9 posted on 09/12/2008 9:24:21 PM PDT by Homer1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stevecmd

Of course, this was written as a tongue-in-cheek piece ... Governor Palin was just fine
:).

The Joe Biden gaffe went largely unnoticed by the main-stream crowd. It would have warranted a two-hour documentary on CBS had McCain or Palin said it.


10 posted on 09/12/2008 9:25:39 PM PDT by andrew roman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Homer1

Well done.

Thank you tremedously!


11 posted on 09/12/2008 9:26:55 PM PDT by andrew roman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: andrew roman
Obama's definition

In a conference call with reporters, Obama said Clinton would continue the "Bush doctrine" of only speaking to leaders of rogue nations if they first meet conditions laid out by the United States.

12 posted on 09/12/2008 9:27:36 PM PDT by Homer1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andrew roman
Can we get some Gibson sourpuss pics on FR?
13 posted on 09/12/2008 9:27:56 PM PDT by endthematrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andrew roman

Good posting Andrew. My own personal memory of the Bush Doctrine was, “You’re either with us or against us...”


14 posted on 09/12/2008 9:32:24 PM PDT by appeal2 (Brilliance is typically the act of an individual, but great stupidity is reserved for the Gov't)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: andrew roman

When I watched the interview, I thought that the way she handled the “Bush Doctrine” question showed that she’s got what it takes to conduct complex negotiations (or take interviews). It’s always smart to ask your interlocutor to define his terms — especially when he’s speaking in jargon, or (in this case) moonbat babble.


15 posted on 09/12/2008 9:33:50 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: appeal2

Thank you for your kind words.


16 posted on 09/12/2008 9:34:15 PM PDT by andrew roman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: andrew roman
Charles Krauthammer provides 4 more definitions
17 posted on 09/12/2008 9:34:31 PM PDT by Homer1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andrew roman

I got it without a </sarc> tag. Gibson really blew it big time. He had three tasks in the biggest interview of his career:

1. be informed and professional. He failed terribly. He took a second source quote and his source was wrong. He asked a question, ie the Bush Doctrine, that he did not know what he was talking about.

2. ask Gov. Palin tough but fair questions. His condesending manner caused him to fail this. Apparently Gipson is so dumb this was the only task his tiny brain could focus on.

3. stay within the range of interviews he has done with other candidates. As the comparison thread with his interview with Obama shows, he again failed terribly. A prepared journalist would have reviewed what he had asked Obama and made sure to stay at least within shouting distance of that type of interview.

Gibson had the biggest interview of his career and he blew it terribly. He was unprepared and unprofessional.


18 posted on 09/12/2008 9:34:48 PM PDT by JLS (Do you really want changec being two guys from the majority of Congress with a 9% approval rating?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: andrew roman

The only Bush Doctrine that ever existed was the straw man doctrine that doctrinaire leftists like Charles Gibson built in order to knock down. He’s a pipsqueak just like his pal Obama.


19 posted on 09/12/2008 9:34:55 PM PDT by jwalsh07 (Mrs. Palin Goes to Washington and the MSM Trembles)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andrew roman

well writen!! You should join Palen’s speech team!!!


20 posted on 09/12/2008 9:37:38 PM PDT by AgThorn (Bush is my president, but he needs to protect our borders. FIRST, before any talk of "Amnesty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: appeal2

The question by Gibson was a bad one. Like asking her:

Do you agree with President Bush?

Well how do you answer that? You ask ...On what issue?

You need clarification. The Bush Doctrine is an ABSTRACT term not a CONCRETE document. It can mean different things to different people. Stupid question. Palin did fine on that one.

I was more concerned about her Bridge to Nowhere explanation. It was kind of fudgy.

I still like her.


21 posted on 09/12/2008 9:38:12 PM PDT by Schwarzeneger (The Empire Strikes Back.....Free Georgia (McCain/Palin 08))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: andrew roman

Gibson is as clueless as 0bama. 2 pea-brains in a pod.


22 posted on 09/12/2008 9:38:28 PM PDT by Tigercap (If 0bama had the experience of Palin, he too might be qualified to run for Vice President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andrew roman

ROTFLOL. By far the best take on the Bush Doctrine flap that I’ve seen. Genius Satire.


23 posted on 09/12/2008 9:47:59 PM PDT by WVNan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andrew roman
Nice piece. Apparently there are still FReepers who need a </sarc> tag but what can you do?

I do think, however, that the campaign made a tactical mistake in allowing ABC the first shot at Palin. I personally think she should have taken her first interview with Chris Wallace, a well respected newsman and I suspect (based on his typical selections for Power Player of the Week) liberal, who's repeatedly demonstrated -- unlike Charlie Gibson -- that he's in nobody's pocket.

I know a lot of people are looking forward to the debates, and I have to wonder why? The galleries will be loaded with Dem operatives, the questions will be loaded with Dem talking points, and the putative newscasters will be loaded for elephant. I really do think we need to to stop granting the left the prerogative of home field advantage. I know ... I know ... it's all in the game, but it's a game we shouldn't play any more. MSNBC isn't even a serious news channel anymore so much as a three ring circus. CBS goes out of its way to disavow comments made by Couric on behalf of Hillary Clinton that apply in spades to Palin. And now this baloney ON ABC: editing clips to hide Gibson's calumny in regards to the "Holy War." Enough is enough.

Palin made an important point in her speech at the RNC, and it should be repeated, and greatly amplified. To wit: How can anybody but the most clueless, self-important, self-aggrandizing fool actually believe that being a Governor of a State of any size, a small town mayor, a member of the AK Oil and Gas Commission, or for that matter chairman of the PTA, is a less important qualification for President than an appearance on Meet the Press? Why is the approval of a handful of stuck-up little bastards in the Washington Press Corps a more important barometer of capability than the approval of 86% of 700,000 Americans?

This is nonsense.

She shouldn't have given the time-of-day to this sanctimonious megalomaniac let alone tolerantly endure the huffing and puffing, eye-rolling, and general disrespect she did.

24 posted on 09/12/2008 9:54:16 PM PDT by FredZarguna (Don't tase me, Pa!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andrew roman

Somebody needs to tell Charlie that he looked like a real dork with the “granny glass” down on his nose. LOL!


25 posted on 09/12/2008 9:54:38 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer ("Whites lift McCain to slim lead over Obama in poll" - Ass. Press ---09-12-08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WVNan

Thanks very much! I am most appreciative.
:)


26 posted on 09/12/2008 9:56:43 PM PDT by andrew roman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

Excellent response. Very thoughtful. Thanks for the time you took to answer my post.

How disingenuous of some to put so much stock in President Bush’s low approval rating, yet somehow discount the magnanimous approval rating of Governor Palin in her home state.

I happen to enjoy Chris Wallace. His program on FNC would have been the perfect forum for Governor Palin. The interview would have tough but fair, would have lasted the entire hour of the show and would have been more informative and illuminating than anything the other networks could have mustered - combined.


27 posted on 09/12/2008 10:00:58 PM PDT by andrew roman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: andrew roman
It is here that Palin disappoints.

Sure, the Bush Doctrine may have “rung hollow” in the eyes of the Cato Institute’s Charles Pena in January, 2003, but it shouldn’t have kept Palin from “Understanding the Bush Doctrine,” as articulated by Noam Chomsky in October, 2004. Furthermore, her inability to summon the characterization of the Bush Doctrine as articulated by William Marina and David T. Bielo of the Independent Institute on December 9, 2004, both of whom explain that the Doctrine was actually fathered by Teddy Roosevelt a century earlier – a “pre-emptive imperialism,” as they described it – speaks volumes of Governor Palin’s inexperience.

It may actually be this century-old pre-emptive version of the Bush Doctrine, implemented decades before his birth, which Gibson spoke of in his interview with Sarah Palin.

And this woman wants to be Vice President?

Great satire!! Thanks for a good laugh!

28 posted on 09/12/2008 10:13:13 PM PDT by Lexinom (I don't want my daughters punished with an Obama!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lexinom

Thank you for taking the time to read it!


29 posted on 09/12/2008 10:14:41 PM PDT by andrew roman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Homer1
Dusted off the pre-9/11 Bush doctrine: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2081394/posts
30 posted on 09/12/2008 10:25:37 PM PDT by palmer (Some third party malcontents don't like Palin because she is a true conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: andrew roman; All

Wonderful!!! Every citizen needs to read this!! I am sending it to my email correspondents, I hope lots of other FReepers will do the same.

Charlie Gibson should be required to read this entire piece on the air and then apologize to VP Palin (oops, I meant to say Governor Palin, I suppose, for now) for his pitiful, biased, inept interview.


31 posted on 09/13/2008 12:18:14 AM PDT by Enchante ("Troopergate" = Obama Democrats Working Hard to Smear Governor Palin in a Non-Scandal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andrew roman
I loved the article! It implied just the right amount of sarcasm for the occasion. Good grief, the research must have been brutal. Keeping all those reporters names, and their own individual permutations of the Doctrine straight, must have been horrible!

Thanks for the affirmation! We knew she got it right. We just weren't sure by how much.

32 posted on 09/13/2008 3:57:02 AM PDT by singfreedom (Obama's solution to the energy crisis: check the air in your tires! Why didn't we think of that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: andrew roman
I did not see the whole interview, only the supposed gotcha moments that were an attempt to portray Palin as a rube. “The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it,...” I believe sent a big red flag to Palin, that this MSM Gibson was trying to catch her rubber stamping the "failed Bush Policies". This could appear later in an attack ad. To her credit, she rightfully stated a correct policy of the use of force.
Gibson is operating on the false premise that we went into Iraq alone and illegally, as a preemptive war. In fact the war was a culmination of a series of Iraqi violations of peace treaties, international law, and US law.

The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, especially uttered on the day of Sept 10th prior to Patriot Day Sept 11, is “we will pursue the terrorists wherever they are, and the nations that harbor those terrorists as though they are the terrorists themselves...”
This Doctrine, which emerged from the rubble of Sept. 11 was the key to the attack on Al Quiada harbored by the Taliban in Afganistan. This Doctrine had important consequences for Saddam and his long history of support for terrorists.

33 posted on 09/13/2008 7:26:40 AM PDT by mission9 (It ain't bragging if you can do it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Homer1

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2081460/posts

I agree, Charles Krauthammer exposes Gibson’s Gaffe.


34 posted on 09/13/2008 7:32:58 AM PDT by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: andrew roman
Andrew, I just sent an email to NPR complaining about their commentators claiming that Palin did not know what "The Bush Doctrine" was.

Even Democrat Kirsten Powers says it was Gibson's ignorance

35 posted on 09/13/2008 7:36:36 AM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (I want to "Buy American" but the only things for sale made in the USA are politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Homer1

And isn’t he the guy who actually coined the phrase “Bush doctrine”?


36 posted on 09/13/2008 9:38:18 AM PDT by WOBBLY BOB (Conservatives are to McCain what Charlie Brown is to Lucy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson