Best of The Streak: Palin and The Bush Doctrine

Best of The Streak: Palin and The Bush Doctrine

First appeared September 12, 2008

As the cable news networks parse every word of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s interview with ABC’s Charlie Gibson — with more still to come today — some are debating the fairness of Gibson asking Palin for her views on “the Bush Doctrine.” In short, the Bush Doctrine states that the United States government has the right to launch preventive war against another country to remove a perceived threat to American security.

When Gibson asked the question, Palin clearly did not know what the Bush Doctrine was. I have heard some pundits on TV say it would have been more fair for Gibson to ask simply about pre-emptive war, as many people probably couldn’t define the Bush Doctrine if asked. However, I think Gibson handled it correctly.

The Bush Doctrine is the most controversial foreign policy concept of the 21st century, and it lies at the heart of the debate over the justification of the war in Iraq. Anyone who has followed this debate, or the broader national discussion of American foreign policy over the last eight years should be familiar with the concept and its association with President George W. Bush. The fact that she was not indicates she has not paid much attention to the conversation inside and outside of Washington.

Given that she is a governor of a sparsely-populated state four thousand miles from the nation’s capital, her ignorance would be forgivable — except now she aspires to a higher office. Matt Damon caused a minor stir when he suggested the other day that actuarial tables indicate Sen. John McCain has a “one in three chance, if not more” of not surviving his first term, if elected. Though it may be a morbid thought, the fact is that it’s true. If McCain is elected, there is a significant chance that Palin will become president during that first term. If she has, until this point, failed to show a curiosity — let alone learn — about the basics of foreign relations, that means she has a lot of catching up to do.

The McCain campaign might not like to admit it, but combined with her comments on the Russia-Georgia conflict, Palin’s interview did reveal a lot about Palin’s preparedness to both lead the United States on the world stage and command its military.

UPDATE: It came to my attention after I wrote this post that The Atlantic’s James Fallows expands on Palin’s lack of intellectual curiosity in foreign policy matters on his blog. I encourage you to check out his take on the subject.

Now that the roller coaster that was 2008 has come to an end, we thought it would be fun to look back at some of our most popular, thought-provoking and entertaining posts from The Streak over the past year. This post was chosen by TWI staff as one of the most memorable of 2008.

Reality Finality

Matthew and "Independent":

Your post above was inappropriate when it ran first time and this time. Mainly, for it's lack of depth in analysis and your obvious lack of experience in matters of media analysis, politics, and foreign policy. Your lack of understanding of the topic is embarrassing. As "AMike" has pointed out on this thread, there are more than the limited definitions you proposed for the Bush Doctrine and that your fellow over-educated James Fallows asserted in his shallow review of this topic on The Atlantic posting. Even Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post and not without his own criticism of Gov. Palin at times, publicly chided Gibson's ambush of Palin on the "Bush Doctrine." How? and Why? Because Krauthammer coined the term "Bush Doctrine!"

As Krauthammer states, “I know something about the subject because...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."
Read his retort of Gibson at this link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

As John Skookum, so accurately pointed out in this thread, this "minor" issue is an issue worthy of a pass, when compared to the glaring mistakes and gaffes of Joe Biden, especially since Gov. Palin had just been thrust onto the stage at the time with little of the prep compared to the prep that McCain, Obama and Biden had been receiving up to that point. Even more telling that the pop quiz mentality of Gibson, Delong and Fallows, John Skookum's breakdown of the answer to the Georgia question is spot on and the response by the media was typical. (Great post John!)

I have tired of Sean Hannity's cries of 2008 being the year that journalism died. It may be in fact the year that it was born again. Now, we must endure the time that it will take to mature and over take the likes of bloggers like Matthew Delong and other "Independent" types as well as the media giants like the New York Times (How's NYT stock doing today? 7.58, down from $50 a share in 2002, might go up if they sell their Red Sox's shares.) Matthew, what you do not understand is that you should report on the agenda's of politicians not report or analyze your own agenda.

But then again, it does not appear that you are a "journalist," your just a blogger. There is a difference. You work for a non-profit blogging and promoting the liberal agenda of your liberal benefactors right? Oh, I see you have the "Politics Magazine” listed as an employer. I searched their site...NO "by line" yet? What do you do for them. On your "Independent" blogging, I notice you some corrections in your work. Having some accuracy problems or is it on the job training program mistakes? So what did you actually learn with that Political Science degree at Northern Arizona University?

(I know I am being hard on Delong, but my criticism is valid. And you folks will earn one credit of credibility for leaving this post on this thread.)

AMike

There are at least six different definitions of the "Bush Doctrine" and Gibson didn't know what it was either. This incident was just another example of liberal media bias that gave Palin so much sympathy from the public.

John Skookum

The Bush Doctrine question was a minor flub, not in the same league as the bizarre confabulation about France, Hezbollah, and Lebanon that Biden came up with during the VP debate. I'm still wondering why that didn't get more traction, coming as it did from someone portrayed as the wise old man of Senate foreign policy.

Sarah's response to the question about Russia and Georgia was not only not a gaffe, it was handled nearly perfectly. Some media types with limited powers of comprehension did not understand that it was a hypothetical question, asking whether we should take Georgia's side *IF* Georgia were admitted to NATO and this were to be followed by a Russian invasion. Georgia is not a member of NATO, but the question was framed that way, and there are plenty of people on both sides of the aisle who support their bid to join.

There are really only four ways to answer such a question: Yes, No, Maybe, Don't Know. Sarah understood perfectly well that the NATO charter calls upon members to defend another member state if attacked.

If she had answered "No, we should not come to their aid", she would have been pilloried for cowardice and not knowing our responsibilities as a member of NATO.

If she had answered "Yes indeed, both guns blazing", she would have been pilloried for belligerent warmongering.

If she had begged off from answering the question, she would have been pilloried for indecision and ignorance.

Her answer, "Perhaps so", was close to the Platonic ideal of diplo-speak in response to such a loaded question, and this was confirmed by none other than Henry Kissinger.

As it turned out, she got pilloried for warmongering anyway, which should give you an idea of the obstacles the left-wing media threw in her path all through the campaign.

I think Mrs. Palin will turn her attention to foreign policy for the next four years, and I also believe she is bright enough to learn it very well indeed. With a bit of elocution practice, and the unlikelihood that Obama will be able to make much headway against the economic forces arrayed against us, I do think she will make a much more formidable candidate in 2012 than some may think today.

Certainly I will be backing her heavily with money and time. I predict she will be the first Presidential candidate to raise a billion dollars, now that the Democrats have destroyed public financing.

Holmes

Charlie certainly set a trap with that, but it was fun to watch anyway.
Happy it's all over and we can say goodbye now to the bad dream that was the last 8 years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vw9bxJb--3c

Related Posts

Special Feature

Latest Posts

Best of The Streak: Palin and The Bush Doctrine

Blogroll