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?
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.
Gibson is as clueless as 0bama. 2 pea-brains in a pod.
ROTFLOL. By far the best take on the Bush Doctrine flap that I’ve seen. Genius Satire.
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.
Somebody needs to tell Charlie that he looked like a real dork with the “granny glass” down on his nose. LOL!
Thanks very much! I am most appreciative.
:)
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.
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!
Thank you for taking the time to read it!
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.
Thanks for the affirmation! We knew she got it right. We just weren't sure by how much.
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.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2081460/posts
I agree, Charles Krauthammer exposes Gibson’s Gaffe.
And isn’t he the guy who actually coined the phrase “Bush doctrine”?
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.