Originally Posted By Darkbeer Well, the person who originated the term and used it first back in June of 2001 has an article out today... <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/...ionsbox1</a> >>"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, Sept. 12 Informed her? Rubbish. The New York 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. 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. << The rest of the article points out that the are 4 distinct different meaning of the term. Charles Gibson picked out the third of the four. The fourth and current use is "the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world." A very interesting read, check out the entire article.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo I thought the Bush doctrine was the anti midas touch, everything he touches turns to...
Originally Posted By dshyates I would have said its Bush's policy of preemptive war. And yes, Charles did first use the term. But after the National Security Council document, National Security Strategy of the United States of 2002 the meaning has meant Bush's policy of preemptive war. In 2006 they added the "to spread democracy" part. But the preemptive war stuff is still contained and is the most controversial and discussed part. But had she answered with how she agrees with using the military to spread democracy, the mean teacher would have counted her answer. By the way, Chales nailed the posturing style of Gibson. He SOOO looked like an impatient teacher. I would have preferred a national investigative journalist posture but the GOP would have gone ballistic if he had acted like a journalist. At times like this I really miss Tim Russert.
Originally Posted By RockyMtnMinnie A Presidential Doctrine is a description of the key attributes of the president's foreign policy outlined by the president. As such, the Reagan Doctrine outlined his policy in dealing with the cold war and called for support of "freedom fighters" who showed aggression toward the Soviet Union, The Nixon Doctrine was shaped by the Vietnam War and addressed honoring all treaties that the United States was part of, and the Clinton Doctrine of No Intern Left Behind. While I would agree, that Bush's foreign policy view has had several elements, his doctrine of preventive aggression is the one that has most shaped his foreign policy and this country in the post 9/11 period and the one that history will attribute to him. Palin should know this.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << The rest of the article points out that the are 4 distinct different meaning of the term. >> And Palin didn't appear to comprehend the meaning of any of them. << He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?" >> I think any moron would know, regardless of the meaning, that the answer is no to this question. Any doctrine with "Bush" in the title should be disavowed by any half-way intelligent person. It's not like there are any doctrines or policies from the Bush administration worth keeping around.
Originally Posted By woody >>And Palin didn't appear to comprehend the meaning of any of them.<< That's a biased interpretation. She answered very thoughfully since she asked for clarification of what Gibson meant. She answered correctly for the second definition of the Bush Doctrine. She also refered to Bush's world view, which is the current Bush Doctrine of wanting to spread democracy. It is thin gruel to make this a gaffe when it isn't. There's nothing there, but the detractors will continue to say she failed to give the correct answer to a question that is anything but definitive and Charles Gibson didn't have the correct answer himself.
Originally Posted By RockyMtnMinnie >>>current Bush Doctrine of wanting to spread democracy.<<< I think even Bush has backed off of this one.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << She answered very thoughfully since she asked for clarification of what Gibson meant. >> If "thoughtfully" means spouting off about Islamic extremism in about every third word of a sentence, then I guess your statement would be accurate. She dodged the question entirely and spewed the standard warmongering talking points that we've been listening to now for 7 years.
Originally Posted By mawnck << She answered very thoughfully since she asked for clarification of what Gibson meant. >> Oh puh-huh-huh-lease! Like the rest of America, I actually watched her "ask for clarification." It was practically comical - the long pause, followed by the strangled way she choked out "In what respect, Charlie"? She may not know much about non-Alaska-related stuff, but she sure knew when she'd just lost a round in the Gotcha game. Big time. BTW - this stuff about the four definitions of Bush Doctrine? Sounds just like the Dems, and it won't help a bit. She fumbled the answer, end of story. Welcome back to the defensive, guys.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NGXlsqPL2A" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...XlsqPL2A</a> Hilarious mash-up here.
Originally Posted By Mr X ****>>And Palin didn't appear to comprehend the meaning of any of them.<< That's a biased interpretation.**** Hardly. She obviously didn't know what the heck he was asking her. That much should be true for anyone watching. Now, whether it's IMPORTANT or not that she know that particular term...I dunno. What scares me more is that she knew so little of the Russia/Georgia situation that she would unequivocally call it unprovoked...twice. Bush didn't think so. Neither did McCain. THAT'S the part people should be talking about, I think. She has an uninformed, uninterested view of geopolitics to put it mildly. In short, pretty much what a hockey mom would think when queried. I don't understand why everyone isn't as nervous as I am about the concept of this person becoming commander in chief, potentially in a matter of months. But not because she's not familiar with what "the Bush doctrine" means (probably better we ALL wipe that concept from our minds).
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo X - I am with you. With McCain, I was kind of relaxed (even though I want the Dems in). But once Palin entered the frame, well frankly it started to scare the heck out of me. And she would be another international embarrasment if she wins.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I don't understand why everyone isn't as nervous as I am about the concept of this person becoming commander in chief, potentially in a matter of months." That's why I've been as aggressive as I have been. It's insane to support this ticket as long as she's on it. As much as I didn't like Romney or Huckabee, I wouldn't have had the venom I have for this woman had they been picked. Palin is an abomination and an insult to this country.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo She is pretty, but that is not what it should be about. She is a GOP femme fatale
Originally Posted By woody >>But not because she's not familiar with what "the Bush doctrine" means (probably better we ALL wipe that concept from our minds).<< You should realize that NOBODY ELSE UNDERSTANDS THE BUSH DOCTRINE. As a gotcha question, it fails. I grant that Palin is weak on foreign policy, but she gave the correct responses. There was some selective editing of her interview. Here are some exerpts. It might or might not help her case. --- <a href="http://marklevinshow.com/gibson-interview/" target="_blank">http://marklevinshow.com/gibso...terview/</a> GIBSON: You believe unprovoked. PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. <edited out> I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals. That’s why we have to keep an eye on Russia. And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor. <end edited out> GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia? PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help. <edited out> But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to — especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members. We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today. GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade. PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries. And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to. It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries. His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that’s a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen. <end edited out> --- The nuance was taken out.
Originally Posted By woody >>But once Palin entered the frame, well frankly it started to scare the heck out of me.<< Again, Obama is running against McCain, not Palin. Wouldn't Obama scare you? He has no experience at all.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy Based on McCain's "experience," we know he'll make the wrong decisions. Let's vote for someone where we have a 90% certainty that they will make the wrong decisions! Great philosophy there.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>You should realize that NOBODY ELSE UNDERSTANDS THE BUSH DOCTRINE. As a gotcha question, it fails.<< Nope. It succeeded, in that he got her. You, of all people, should know that content doesn't matter. It's all about perception. The perception is that he got her. It could be a significant gaffe in this election, but the Obama campaign has to get off this email silliness and capitalize on it effectively, or it won't matter.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Again, Obama is running against McCain, not Palin.<< No longer true, unfortunately.
