[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Earth Changes Summary - June 2025: Extreme Weather, Planetary Upheaval,

China’s Tofu-Dreg High-Speed Rail Station Ceiling Suddenly Floods, Steel Bars Snap

Russia Moves to Nationalize Country's Third Largest Gold Mining Firm

Britain must prepare for civil war | David Betz

The New MAGA Turf War Over National Intelligence

Happy fourth of july

The Empire Has Accidentally Caused The Rebirth Of Real Counterculture In The West

Workers install 'Alligator Alcatraz' sign for Florida immigration detention center

The Biggest Financial Collapse in China’s History Is Here, More Terrifying Than Evergrande!

Lightning

Cash Jordan NYC Courthouse EMPTIED... ICE Deports 'Entire Building

Trump Sparks Domestic Labor Renaissance: Native-Born Workers Surge To Record High As Foreign-Born Plunge

Mister Roberts (1965)

WE BROKE HIM!! [Early weekend BS/nonsense thread]

I'm going to send DOGE after Elon." -Trump

This is the America I grew up in. We need to bring it back

MD State Employee may get Arrested by Sheriff for reporting an Illegal Alien to ICE

RFK Jr: DTaP vaccine was found to have link to Autism

FBI Agents found that the Chinese manufactured fake driver’s licenses and shipped them to the U.S. to help Biden...

Love & Real Estate: China’s new romance scam

Huge Democrat shift against Israel stuns CNN

McCarthy Was Right. They Lied About Everything.

How Romans Built Domes

My 7 day suspension on X was lifted today.

They Just Revealed EVERYTHING... [Project 2029]

Trump ACCUSED Of MASS EXECUTING Illegals By DUMPING Them In The Ocean

The Siege (1998)

Trump Admin To BAN Pride Rainbow Crosswalks, DoT Orders ALL Distractions REMOVED

Elon Musk Backing Thomas Massie Against Trump-AIPAC Challenger

Skateboarding Dog


Editorial
See other Editorial Articles

Title: Sarah Palin, The Bush Doctrine, and Why It's Smart To Be Dumb
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20 ... t=As7as_Gk76wFcbYECldLuZGs0NUE
Published: Sep 12, 2008
Author: Tony Sachs
Post Date: 2008-09-14 19:21:10 by angle
Keywords: None
Views: 222
Comments: 15

It's one of the most cringe-worthy moments in recent American political history:

"Do you believe in the Bush Doctrine?"

The awkward pause, then the smug, patronizing comeback.

"In what respect, Charlie?"

Charlie Gibson, taken aback, perhaps realizing that this is The Moment for which he'll be known for the rest of his career.

"The Bush -- w-w-well, what do you interpret it to be?"

And then the painful, filibustering non-answer that I can hardly bear to watch without feeling embarrassed for Sarah Palin, John McCain, and this great nation of ours.

I'm not saying that every American besides Governor Palin knows what the Bush Doctrine is. Hell, I wasn't sure I knew what it was until Charlie Gibson confirmed it for me. But then again, I'm not a Republican governor who's running for national office.

Now, if Joe Biden had said this on national TV, the election would be over. Obama would either be calling Hillary Clinton and begging her to take over the #2 slot or he'd be busy getting to work on his concession speech.

But these are the Republicans, they of vaunted attack machines and vast right-wing conspiracies. Masters of spin, purveyors of semi-libelous commercials, wizards of righteous indignation and instigators of class warfare. If Sarah Palin doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is, well, my goodness, neither do a lot of hardworking, God-fearing hockey moms out there in the heartland. They don't have time to read those fancy city newspapers with lots of big words explaining the Bush Doctrine. They're not eggheads like Barack Obama and Joe Biden, those elitist intellectuals who sit around studying doctrines while raising taxes on hardworking Americans like you and me.

You think Governor Palin is going to waste her time reading books about the Bush Doctrine? No, she's busy with the responsibilities that come with being governor of the great state of Alaska. She's got moose to field-dress, bridges to nowhere to say "No" to, jets to sell on eBay. Maybe community organizers have the time to talk about the Bush Doctrine. But Sarah Palin's too busy trying to reform Washington. By way of Alaska.

Before long, Obama and Biden will have to defend themselves against accusations that they're smart. They'll start claiming that they not only didn't know what the Bush Doctrine is but that they were unaware that Bush was even president. "We thought we were running against his father," they'll say. "We were too busy going to church and shooting animals and saying 'No' to lobbyists to pay attention to any of that Washington election nonsense. Hell, we don't even know how to read."

And the election will become about who's dumber and more ignorant.

And you know which party's going to win that one.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 5.

#3. To: angle (#0)

And now, for a touch of reality as to this 'non screw up' screwup:

From the Washington Post:

Charlie Gibson's Gaffe

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.

rowdee  posted on  2008-09-14   21:01:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: rowdee (#3)

Are you polluting this site with the words of Dr. Kaka?

a vast rightwing conspirator  posted on  2008-09-14   21:20:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 5.

#6. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#5)

Why don't you set your cocktail glass down now, AVRC......and go rest for a while.

rowdee  posted on  2008-09-14 21:23:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 5.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]