Charlie Gibson Got It Wrong
Find a Conversation
| Sat, 09-13-2008 - 2:36pm |
By Charles Krauthammer
Saturday, September 13, 2008; A17
"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.
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 entitled, "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.
Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush doctrine.
Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.
It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."
This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy's pledge in his inaugural address that the United States "shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson's 14 points.
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.
Not the Gibson doctrine of preemption.
Not the "with us or against us" no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.
Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.
Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.
Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.
Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.

Pages
*** All because he didn't wrap Palin in bubble wrap and treat her with kids gloves??
No, because the media should be fair and unbiased and it's a fact that Gibson treated Palin unfairly and with bias...especially when compared to his interview with Obama.
*** WOW, if she can't handle Gibson then Putin, Kim, and the president of Iran will chew her up and spit her out.
Unlike the way Obama came off in the O'Reilly interviews, Palin handled Gibson magnificently, but that doesn't excuse his bias and treatment of her.
*** Poor, Poor Sarah she has NO IDEA what she has gotten herself into. Guess what, Sarah?? LIFE IS NOT FAIR OR BALANCED ;)
True...and it's a shame that's ok with you when it comes to electing our leaders.
Who said anything about white house links - oh I forgot you decide which hoops we all have to jump through to make you happy - sorry I'm not jumping. There are many things in history that are not on the white house links, but if you want to read a BOOK about it - (you knoe a book those things with many pages?) here are a few:
In his new book, In Defense of the Bush Doctrine, Robert G. Kaufman argues that the Bush administration has developed an effective foreign policy, especially in regards to the Middle East. The culture of tyranny of that area necessitates swift, preemptory action. This action is a must in order to promote democracy to an otherwise fanatical and unstable region.
The Underpinnings of the Bush Doctrine by Thomas Donnelly
The Bush Doctrine, which is likely to shape U.S. policy for decades to come, reflects the realities of American power as well as the aspirations of American political principles.
Does the Bush Doctrine represent a new course for American policy or simply an elaborate justification for the administration's actions? Why attack Iraq but not North Korea? What is the real role of preemption? What is wrong with the tried-and-true concepts of deterrence?
If nothing else, the Bush Doctrine, articulated by the president over the past eighteen months in a series of speeches and encapsulated in the new National Security Strategy paper released in September, represents a reversal of course from Clinton-era policies in regard to the uses of U.S. power and, especially, military force. So perhaps it is no surprise that many Americans--and others in the rest of the world as well--are struggling to keep up with the changes. Indeed, it often appears that many in the administration cannot keep up with the president. But in fact the Bush Doctrine represents a return to the first principles of American security strategy. The Bush Doctrine also represents the realities of international politics in the post-cold-war, sole-superpower world. Further, the combination of these two factors--America's universal political principles and unprecedented global power and influence--make the Bush Doctrine a whole greater than the sum of its parts; it is likely to remain the basis for U.S. security strategy for decades to come.
thiNo, because the media should be fair and unbiased and it's a fact that Gibson treated Palin unfairly and with bias...especially when compared to his interview with Obama.
*** Who said anything about white house links - oh I forgot you decide which hoops we all have to jump through to make you happy - sorry I'm not jumping.
What? No links on the White House website detailing an important, unprecedented, historical doctrine established by a sitting President? I’m outraged! And you should be outraged too…at your kid’s school for teaching them lies and propaganda...and ashamed of yourself for promoting it.
*** There are many things in history that are not on the white house links, but if you want to read a BOOK about it - (you knoe a book those things with many pages?) here are a few:
LOL! Right…so you can’t find any links on the one website that would definitely have that information in detail, so you offer up some “book” that can’t even offer specificity about the “Bush Doctrine.” Wouldn’t it be nice if the folks on the left had the integrity to admit when they’re wrong? Maybe you school should teach that lesson and leave inventing history to the Dems.
I never looked on the White House web site - why would I? I am not in the habit of checking with the White House web site to verify historical information. By the way my youngest dd took AP US Government last year and we didn't need to check anything on the White House web site, this year she is taking AP American History and again, not surprisingly I have not needed to check the White House web site. If you are so interested I assume you know how to find that site yourself.
I did post two published titles that you can refer to - I am sure there are other avenues should you actually be interested.
I am not buying your feeble attempt to convince me that my children are being taught lies and propaganda - especially since much of the Bush administration has been just that. Your statements are kind of like people in glass houses throwing stones and all don't you think?
<<< No, because the media should be fair and unbiased and it's a fact that Gibson treated Palin unfairly and with bias...especially when compared to his interview with Obama.
*** He didn't treat her unfairly at all.
I appreciate you opinion, but the facts say otherwise.
*** I am sure you think calling her on her lies is unfair but it's really not.
You’d be right if, in fact, Palin had lied and Gibson had called her on it…but neither did.
*** I want a woman for president(if there was one) that is far more intelligent and articulate then Palin will ever be. Hillary, would have NEVER stuttered like Palin did.
It’s funny to hear that comment come from the mouth of an Ob…uh…er…um…uh…er…um…ama supporter.
<<< Unlike the way Obama came off in the O'Reilly interviews, Palin handled Gibson magnificently, but that doesn't excuse his bias and treatment of her.
*** If you think she handled him "magnificently" I have a bridge to no where to sell you.
If you’re a Democrat you’re probably funding it with earmarks. LOL! But seriously, you’re right she did terribly…I guess that explains why McCain/Palin are ahead in the polls.
<<< True...and it's a shame that's ok with you when it comes to electing our leaders.
*** Sorry, I am not really sure what you mean here. Life isn't fair for most Americans and All I can do is try to change that for the better
And you think that “change for the better” is pooh-poohing obvious media bias in a Presidential campaign? You must be an Obama supporter.
Fascinating! I've never heard anyone, even a conservative, accuse Obama of being coached!! Obama doesn't hold a candle to McCain when it comes to backtracking. Today's conservative
Rose
Honestly - you can try to twist and turn every statement made by people who don't hold your views - and if it makes you feel better than good for you. But since I am far from the only one who has heard of the Bush Doctrine it just doesn't work.
I am sorry you have never heard of the Bush Doctrine - I've never seen a million dollars - but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Believe it or not your not being familiar with it doesn't negate its existence. And again you have not 'proven me wrong' you haven't proven anything yet. But keep trying - if you throw enough crap something is bound to stick eventually.
Pages