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Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror.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
Would you be willing to accept Dick Cheney? This is from an interview with Tim Russert in March of 2003 - with Vice President Dick Cheney:
"After we got hit on 9/11 the president said no more and enunciated the Bush doctrine that we will hold states that sponsor terror, that provide sanctuary for terrorists to account, that they will be treated as guilty as the terrorists themselves of whatever acts are committed from bases on that soil. That’s a brand- new departure. We’ve never done that before. It makes some people very uncomfortable, but it’s absolutely essential as part of our strategy for taking down the al-Qaeda organization and for ending the terrorist threat that the United States has been forced to deal with over the years. So the notion that the president is a cowboy—I don’t know, is a Westerner, I think that’s not necessarily a bad idea. I think the fact of the matter is he cuts to the chase. He is very direct and I find that very refreshing."
Good enough for you now?
McCain picked Palin because he was told to, and he does whatever the party and Karl Rove tell him to do. Palin has no accomplishments, only the ones she's taking credit for. LOL, she fought
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.
It sounds like you're getting upset by having been proven wrong by the facts.
*** But since I am far from the only one who has heard of the Bush Doctrine it just doesn't work.
I only asked you to provide a credible link to what the definition of the "Bush Doctrine" is...and you aren't able to do that. Your own experience should speak volumes as to how "fair" the Gibson-Palin interview was...if you can look at it with any degree of honesty.
*** 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.
There's evidence that a million dollars exists. Your desperate searches for the "Bush Doctrine" have proven unsuccessful.
*** Believe it or not your not being familiar with it doesn't negate its existence.
Sounds like an argument for WMDs in Iraq. LOL!
*** 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.
I don't have to prove you wrong...YOU proved you wrong when you couldn't support your allegations.
*** Would you be willing to accept Dick Cheney? This is from an interview with Tim Russert in March of 2003 - with Vice President Dick Cheney:
*** Good enough for you now?
First off…no…Cheney was speaking in general terms, not about a delineated doctrine. But thanks for proving our point on the “interview question”…if that’s your perception of the “Bush Doctrine” then you’ve just proved that Gibson was wrong and biased, and that Sarah Palin was exactly right. Thanks.
*** Oh so now you presume to know Dick Cheney's thoughts do you?
No, I can read...and that was the gist of his comments.
*** Boy are you brave I would not want to do into that deep dark dungeon.
I wouldn't be too afraid...you have to know something important before they'll waterboard you. ; )
*** Funny first I am spewing liberal propaganda, now Dick Cheney isn't talking about the Bush Doctrine - there is simply no pleasing you.
Well, your propaganda pretty much speaks for itself...but as for for Cheney, he's certainly referencing a change in foreign policy, but it isn't the policy that Charlie Gibson was talking about. So what, exactly is the "Bush Doctrine" that YOU're talking about?
*** Must be one of the complications from so much spinning around. Try standing still for a while until everything looks clear again.
It usually clears up once liberals stop talking. ; )
I appreciate you opinion, but the facts say otherwise.
Your thoughts are facts and mine are opinions. Please, show me a link to your "facts".
I've already brought up the whole foreign policy thing. I guess it's a non-issue (her foreign policy experince) because she'll bomb everyone and won't need to talk anyway.
<<< I appreciate you opinion, but the facts say otherwise.
*** Your thoughts are facts and mine are opinions. Please, show me a link to your "facts".
The facts have already been posted…a side by side comparison of the Gibson’s interview with Obama and with Palin. The differences are clear and striking.
<<< You’d be right if, in fact, Palin had lied and Gibson had called her on it…but neither did.
*** Your right she never "supported" that bridge to no were. She doesn't have 10X the earmarks as Illinois old Charlie just pulled those FACTS out of his butt. Can I live in your reality, please. It's a sort of unreality but we all need that from time to time.
The “fact” is that Palin never said she didn’t support the bridge project, she said she put the kibosh on it…and she did. She’s said she cut earmarks, and she has…significantly. And while Palin hasn’t requested any earmarks as Governor…because they can’t…Obama has requested nearly a BILLION dollars in earmarks.
<<< It’s funny to hear that comment come from the mouth of an Ob…uh…er…um…uh…er…um…ama supporter.
*** It doesn't take away from the FACT that Hillary is far more intelligent, articulate, and experienced then Palin will ever be.
I was waiting for the “so there” at the end of that. LOL!
<<< 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.
*** They are dead even but have fun with that unreality. BTW~~~ Sarah "no earmark Palin" had 10X the ear marks per person as Obama's state.
Not surprising considering the differences in population between the two states…but considering the energy that Alaska provides the country, and the growing amount it’s likely to provide, it’s important that it have a good infrastructure. You might have noticed that Illinois already has a pretty substantial infrastructure…which makes you wonder what that BILLION dollars in earmarks was for?
*** She alsp kept that bridge to no way that she didn't "support".
Actually she didn’t. The project was scrapped when she discovered that the 200 million dollar project had grown into a 400 million dollar project. But the money that was previously allocated for the bridge project had it’s earmarks removed and was sent to Alaska to use as they saw fit…what kind of fool politician would refuse Federal funds?
<<< And you think that “change for the better” is pooh-poohing obvious media bias in a Presidential campaign? You must be an Obama supporter.
*** If you think everyone is the media is "out to get you" you may be a little paranoid.
Not me…Palin…and it’s pretty obvious.
The “fact” is that Palin never said she didn’t support the bridge project, she said she put the kibosh on it…and she did. She’s said she cut earmarks, and she has…significantly. And while Palin hasn’t requested any earmarks as Governor…because they can’t…Obama has requested nearly a BILLION dollars in earmarks.
Don't forget to mention, Palin took the BILLION'S from the government, that were EARMARKED for the bridge. She put the kibosh on it, but took the money anyway!! The technicalities are silly, considering she has gotten more money from the government than Obama has. It doesn't matter what you want to call it. As mayor, she ran on a fiscally responsible platform, however she INCREASED spending. The money she so generously wants to give each person, comes from the money she took from the government, not from money she saved (which was none). She HAS requested money in earmarks!
Rose
Pages