Posted on 09/12/2008 7:30:40 PM PDT by Plutarch
By Michael Abramowitz Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 13, 2008; Page A01
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin seemed puzzled Thursday when ABC News anchor Charles Gibson asked her whether she agrees with the "Bush doctrine." "In what respect, Charlie?" she replied.
Intentionally or not, the Republican vice presidential nominee was on to something. After a brief exchange, Gibson explained that he was referring to the idea -- enshrined in a September 2002 White House strategy document -- that the United States may act militarily to counter a perceived threat emerging in another country. But that is just one version of a purported Bush doctrine advanced over the past eight years.
Peter D. Feaver, who worked on the Bush national security strategy as a staff member on the National Security Council, said he has counted as many as seven distinct Bush doctrines. They include the president's second-term "freedom agenda"; the notion that states that harbor terrorists should be treated no differently than terrorists themselves; the willingness to use a "coalition of the willing" if the United Nations does not address threats; and the one Gibson was talking about -- the doctrine of preemptive war.
"If you were given a quiz, you might guess that one, because it's one that many people associate with the Bush doctrine," said Feaver, now a Duke University professor. "But in fact it's not the only one."
...[excerpt]
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Maybe you can interview Lindsey lohan getting married.
Once upon a time a professional reporting...
rawk on sara!!!!
There is no such thing as the “Bush Doctrine.” There is no position paper, law, or anything of that title published by the United States.
It is a term used by media talking heads amongst themselves to summarize their take on many differing positions that President Bush has taken.
Some credit Charles Krauthammer with being the first to use the expression, “Bush Doctrine.”
Charlie Gibson was talking in “media-ese.” Considering that this demonrat congress and the lamestream media are 2 of America’s most despised institutions, as proven in polling data, it is refreshing that Palin hasn’t immersed herself in their bilge.
I think the WaPo, unlike the NYT, has an editor who wants to retain some small grasp on old-style, down-the-middle reporting. So every once in a while, they try to be fair.
You take what you can get, I guess.
By getting the first MSM interview with Gov Palin, Gibson was given a major opportunity to introduce her to the American people in an objective way. He seemed more interested in solidifying his lib cred than doing a fair and objective interview of tough questions. Instead, he adopted condescention, and ‘gotcha’ using misrepresentaiton of facts. In the process he lost a lot of respect he may have commanded beforehand.
I have predicted for some time that the WaPo will endorse McCain. If you’ve read their editorials, they’ve hammered Obama again and again on Iraq and foreign policy, and on other things as well. Way more than the NYT(who’s criticized him on nothing)or other MSM papers.
Not that a WaPo endorsement means anything, but I think they will endorse him and that it will only help him.
As for the Palin interview, with Ike going on, no one will remember a thing she said by Monday.
Wow. The Washington Post. I was a bit worried that the response to Charlie’s idiocy wouldn’t get out. But this sure ought to do it.
And make him pretty red in the face, too.
I saw her recognition of his attempted trap when “Mr Gibson” asked her that question. There are several versions of the “Bush Doctrine”. Confused? No, she was correct to ask for a clarification, and “Mr Gibson” was then revealed again to be a cad and unprepared for this interview. Totally unprofessional. I saw the recognition in her eyes that she knew that “Mr Gibson” was setting a trap. She’s seen one or two of those before. She was gracious. He was an imbecile.
A moose has more intelligence than “Mr Gibson”.
I saw her recognition of his attempted trap when “Mr Gibson” asked her that question. There are several versions of the “Bush Doctrine”. Confused? No, she was correct to ask for a clarification, and “Mr Gibson” was then revealed again to be a cad and unprepared for this interview. Totally unprofessional. I saw the recognition in her eyes that she knew that “Mr Gibson” was setting a trap. She’s seen one or two of those before. She was gracious. He was an imbecile.
A moose has more intelligence than “Mr Gibson”.
The problem was really the poor formulation of the question, Charlie later asked what he meant, preemptive strikes, if that was truly the intent of his question, he should have said so from the beginning. Of course the intent of the question was to trick and badger the good Governor of Alaska.
In addition - ABC removed Gibson’s “your exact words” gaffe when he claimed that Sarah claimed war as “task from God”. Gibson was so gullible as to repeat a left-wing “fake, but accurate” stuff instead of Palin’s words (which were a quote from Lincoln speech). So much for Gibson’s competency... Now ABC has just quietly removed the gaffe. Like it never happened...
Maybe you missed Washington Post’s A1 hit piece on Cindy McCain? It was out yesterday.
The Washington Post is better than the NY Times.. but that isn’t a very high threshold to cross.
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.