Palin, McCain, and the Bush Doctrine
As we know, George W. Bush has outlined a doctrine that he calls “preemption” but that’s really prevention or “anticipatory self-defense.” It holds that we should attack other countries that might attack us at some future point even if we have no particular evidence of a specific or imminent plan to do so. As we also know, John McCain agrees with this doctrine. Sarah Palin doesn’t seem to know that this s what the Bush doctrine is, and, once recovered from her deer-in-the-headlights pose she outlined a different position, advancing an imminent threat standard.
Now it’s not unusual for a presidential candidate and his running mate to disagree about some stuff. But since as Governor of Alaska Palin didn’t have a record on these issues, it would be hard to just know what Palin thought about this issue. Which naturally raises the question of whether or not McCain discussed the issue of the Bush doctrine, or preventive war, or anticipatory self-defense, before putting her on the ticket. Maybe he doesn’t think this is an important point? I’m not really sure. But it would be nice if someone in the press would ask him. Did he and she talk this over before he made his final choice?
95 Responses to “Palin, McCain, and the Bush Doctrine”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 12th, 2008 at 2:19 am
It’s true, there’s a world of difference between preemptive war (attacking when the other guy’s tanks are massed on your border) and preventative war (attacking because, you know, it seems like a good idea or something).
What’s clear is that Palin has no fucking clue what either terms mean. But she was sure to hit the killing Muslims angle right off the bat. Which is all that their base cares about anyway.
September 12th, 2008 at 2:28 am
And don’t even think about asking her about the Monroe Doctrine.
Something about shock absorbers?
September 12th, 2008 at 2:56 am
Of course, both McCain and Palin are distancing themselves from Bush’s foreign policy. But since we can’t admit that because we’re wedded to the “McSame” talking points, we have to pretend that we don’t understand what we’re seeing.
So back to either the “Palin is an idiot” or the “Palin is unvetted” storylines. After all, those storylines have been working so fucking well that why should we stop now?
September 12th, 2008 at 3:01 am
Which is funnier, Sarah Palin talking about foreign policy or Matt Yglesias analyzing Sarah Palin’s views on foreign policy as if she might actually have views on foreign policy?
Clearly, the only media person qualified to interview Palin is Colbert.
September 12th, 2008 at 3:49 am
Right. It’s hard to know what to say to this. Is it better to play along with the charade and try to expose the internal contradictions in the campaign, or to step outside and make the meta-argument that there’s no real ideas backing up Palin’s confusing statements. Maybe the former would lead to the latter
September 12th, 2008 at 4:15 am
Sarah Palin may get away with these stupid answers if liberals like John Nichols from the Nation think that they somehow represent polical savy. It may just not be the MSM that adds to the Palin mythology, but some overly fearful liberals like John Nichols.
September 12th, 2008 at 4:16 am
I still feel she made the right decision in making Gibson define his terms. Most people don’t know what the term “Bush Doctrine” means. In fact, in the moment and out of Gibson’s mouth, I didn’t quite know what to make of it. But in making Gibson fully outline his interrogative, Palin made sure she could wholly define the terms of her answer which I, an avowed Palin detester, did not find distasteful.
September 12th, 2008 at 4:53 am
“Which naturally raises the question of whether or not McCain discussed the issue of the Bush doctrine, or preventive war, or anticipatory self-defense, before putting her on the ticket.”
Umm, Palin was vetted in about 15 minutes. You honestly think they had time to discuss that? Now, in a six month vetting process, you might expect to cover an issue like that. Too bad MCain didn’t have six months. Oh, yeah….
September 12th, 2008 at 5:14 am
Which is more simply called “aggression” and is clearly a war crime (read the Nuremberg trial transcripts if you don’t believe me).
September 12th, 2008 at 6:26 am
Um, didn’t see the interview, but if this is the level that everyone is harping about, she must have knocked it out of the park. All she really needed to do was not talk with her mouth full of food, sit up straight, and throw back bumper sticker answers. Anyone hoping she’d do otherwise doesn’t remember the vetting process of GWB, who was rather geographically challenged as you may recall.
September 12th, 2008 at 7:02 am
Palin is just a showpiece brought out only long enough to get McCain elected. He has no intention of sharing any military strategy with her at all.
Why am I not surprised that the wingnuts think “Sarahcuda” did just fine in this interview (?) – no, scratch that, she did better than fine, according to Freepers she understands the Bush Doctrine better than Charley Gibson does.
If this woman ever ends up taking over the presidency, we’re so screwed!
September 12th, 2008 at 7:06 am
Um, didn’t see the interview, but if this is the level that everyone is harping about, she must have knocked it out of the park.
Here’s the AP’s take on the interview:
You have to watch it. It was bad. There’s no doubt she’s in over her head.
It won’t make much difference, except at the margins, but the margins matter at this point.
September 12th, 2008 at 7:20 am
Look, the idea that each administration has a “doctrine” that can be formulated in a couple of sentences is a simplifying framework that is a conceit of IR professors, and isn’t very important in itself. The label “The Bush Doctrine” is invented for just such academic purposes, and it’s not very important whether a politician knows anything by that name. It is much more important, as Matt suggests, to focus on general questions about when she would use force. It doesn’t matter whether she can answer a college exam question about the Bush Doctrine.
And what is most important is to find out just how deep Palin’s knowledge goes about global affairs. It’s obvious that she mastered certain standard reposes to the most obvious questions, such as saying she will never second guess Israel. But what does she know about other countries and their histories? What does she know about the sources of the conflicts they have with one another, and the nature of their relationships? What does she know about Southeast Asia and East Asia? What does she now about North Africa or the Horn of Africa? How much does she know about Europe? Does she understand world financial markets, world weapons markets and world resource markets?
If she thinks it is so important to defend Ukraine and Georgia, maybe she can explain something about the nature and history of Russian tensions with those countries, and also outline the nature of US interests, as she sees them, in both countries.
I don’t mind a few gotcha questions, but they should be about something important.
September 12th, 2008 at 7:53 am
Petey’s actually got something right for once, but in a different way than he thinks.
I think the problem is more difficult than that McCain is distancing himself from Bush Jr. Classic (which is affiliating more with New Bush Jr. which has many similarities with what Obama was criticized for by McCain), and thus the game has moved on and Obama’s stuck in McSame mode.
The real development is that any position McPalin now takes is allowed to be portrayed as substantially different from Bush Jr’s, whether it be different or identical.
It’s no longer any sort of objective question. McPalin at this stage simply have to claim that their approach is or will be different, and poof, it becomes true, and allowed into some cloud of claims that floats fairly unquestioned around the McPalin camp.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Any country with oil may be subject to US takeover, regime change,’ with a puppet replacing the current regime which we will call democracy.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:19 am
I am in the camp who thinks Palin has no firm views on this subject, so I suspect with or without fanfare, she will drop the imminence standard she suggested in this interview and start supporting McCain’s preventive standard instead.
By the way, on the gotcha issue: it would be odd not to know it by its common name (the “Bush Doctrine”), but in any event the substantive issue is that anyone well-versed in national security issues should be familiar with the basic tenets of the document “National Security Strategy of the United States” from 2002, including most relevantly its position on “preemption” (which is indeed more a doctrine of prevention than preemption). This, of course, is not some sort of obscure back corner of national security policy: this part of the “Bush Doctrine” stands at the heart of our rationale for the Iraq War, and remains an important component of Bush and McCain’s policies with respect to nations such as Iran and possibly even Russia and China.
I suppose it is conceivable that if we only had the first part of this exchange from Gibson’s interview, we could think Palin did indeed have a working understanding of this key national security policy issue, but somehow failed to understand Gibson’s reference to the “Bush Doctrine”. However, once Gibson clarified what he was asking about, Palin did not show any awareness of Bush and McCain’s views on this subject at all.
The obvious conclusion is thus that Palin doesn’t know much about national security policy issues. And of course she doesn’t–nothing in her background or actions to date would suggest she does. So the “gotcha” story is basically just that despite her best efforts to cram for this interview, her basic lack of knowledge and experience with respect to national security issues came through anyway.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Everybody recognized a right to preemptive attack–it’s explicitly condoned by just war theory. Preventive attack is an entirely different matter, radical and kind of crazy. It’s insane that almost everyone who discusses this in the popular press and on the intertubes fails to recognize the distinction between the two views. I’ve been pounding my head against this for years. But does anybody listen?
September 12th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Winston, I hear you. But, in practice, the R’s also conflated the two to make it seem like Democrats opposed responding to imminent threats. There also was rhetoric that Iraq was an imminent threat, they just didn’t say of what.
The logical follow up would have been: “was Iraq justified under the standard you just set forth.” Instead, Gibson allowed Palin to get away with the incompetence dodge, which is frightful.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:27 am
You are incorrect that there is only one definition of the Bush Doctrine. See, for a sampling of definitions, http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/09/what_exactly_is_the_bush_doctr.asp Palin was right to ask for clarification, and Gibson was wrong to think there is only one definition.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Take your pick:
September 20, 2001
PETER JENNINGS: . . . Claire, the president said at one point, ‘From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.’ Should we be taking that as the Bush doctrine? CLAIRE SHIPMAN reporting: I think so, Peter,
September 21, 2001
CHARLIE GIBSON: The president in his speech last night, very forceful. Four out of five Americans watched it. Everybody gathered around the television set last night. The president issued a series of demands to the Taliban, already rejected. We’ll get to that in a moment. He also outlined what is being called the Bush Doctrine, a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated.
September 21, 2001
CHARLIE GIBSON: Senator Daschle, let me start with you. People were looking for a Bush Doctrine. They may have found it when he said the war on terror will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped or defeated. That’s pretty broad. Broader than you expected?
December 9, 2001
GEORGE WILL: The Bush doctrine holds that anyone who governs a territory is complicit in any terrorism that issues from that territory. That covers the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Second, the war on terrorism is indivisible, it’s part of the Bush doctrine.
December 11, 2001
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Two years ago, September 1999, Bush gave his first speech when he was running about terrorism. And his first–had the first explanation of the Bush doctrine, that if you harbor a terrorist, you’re going to be attacked. The Bush White House is putting this out, saying it shows that Bush was very prescient, but that was only one speech given in the campaign.
January 28, 2002
BOB WOODWARD: This is now the Bush Doctrine . . . , namely that if we’re attacked by terrorists, we will not just go after those terrorists but the countries or the people who harbor them.
January 29, 2002
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: It was striking and significant that the president really expanded the Bush doctrine. If a nation builds a weapon of mass destruction–Iraq, Iran or North Korea–we will reserve the right to take out those weapons even if we’re not attacked or even if there’s not a threat.
March 19, 2004
TERRY MORAN: That was the Bush doctrine we just heard. On this one-year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, President Bush offered a very broad justification of American leadership in the world under him since 9/11. Not just since one year in Iraq. For American voters as an argument that the country is safer, but more as you point out, for the world, which has been divided by his leadership, that Iraq is knit, in his mind, very firmly into that war on terrorism. One omission which I believe will be noted around the world, he made no mention of the role of multilateral institutions, the UN and others, in this fight against terrorism. In his mind, it’s clear it’s American leadership with others following along.
May 7, 2006
GEORGE WILL: Now the argument from the right is the CIA is a rogue agent because it has not subscribed to the Bush doctrine. The Bush doctrine being that American security depends on the spread of democracy and we know how to do that. The trouble is, Negroponte, who is considered by some of these conservatives the villain here and an enemy of the Bush doctrine is the choice of Bush, which makes Bush an insufficient subscriber to the Bush doctrine.
I’ll stop there, although anyone with a Nexis account can find far more where that came from. Preemptive war; American unilateralism; the overthrow of regimes that harbor and abet terrorists–all of these things and more have been described as the “Bush Doctrine.” It was a bit of a sham on Gibson’s part to have pretended that there’s such a thing as ‘the’ Bush Doctrine, much less that it was enunciated in September 2002.
What Exactly Is the ‘Bush Doctrine’?
September 12th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Well, let’s see what others say about the so-called Doctrine…answer…she was right:
September 20, 2001
PETER JENNINGS: . . . Claire, the president said at one point, ‘From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.’ Should we be taking that as the Bush doctrine? CLAIRE SHIPMAN reporting: I think so, Peter,
September 21, 2001
CHARLIE GIBSON: The president in his speech last night, very forceful. Four out of five Americans watched it. Everybody gathered around the television set last night. The president issued a series of demands to the Taliban, already rejected. We’ll get to that in a moment. He also outlined what is being called the Bush Doctrine, a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated.
September 21, 2001
CHARLIE GIBSON: Senator Daschle, let me start with you. People were looking for a Bush Doctrine. They may have found it when he said the war on terror will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped or defeated. That’s pretty broad. Broader than you expected?
December 9, 2001
GEORGE WILL: The Bush doctrine holds that anyone who governs a territory is complicit in any terrorism that issues from that territory. That covers the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Second, the war on terrorism is indivisible, it’s part of the Bush doctrine.
December 11, 2001
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Two years ago, September 1999, Bush gave his first speech when he was running about terrorism. And his first–had the first explanation of the Bush doctrine, that if you harbor a terrorist, you’re going to be attacked. The Bush White House is putting this out, saying it shows that Bush was very prescient, but that was only one speech given in the campaign.
January 28, 2002
BOB WOODWARD: This is now the Bush Doctrine . . . , namely that if we’re attacked by terrorists, we will not just go after those terrorists but the countries or the people who harbor them.
January 29, 2002
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: It was striking and significant that the president really expanded the Bush doctrine. If a nation builds a weapon of mass destruction–Iraq, Iran or North Korea–we will reserve the right to take out those weapons even if we’re not attacked or even if there’s not a threat.
March 19, 2004
TERRY MORAN: That was the Bush doctrine we just heard. On this one-year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, President Bush offered a very broad justification of American leadership in the world under him since 9/11. Not just since one year in Iraq. For American voters as an argument that the country is safer, but more as you point out, for the world, which has been divided by his leadership, that Iraq is knit, in his mind, very firmly into that war on terrorism. One omission which I believe will be noted around the world, he made no mention of the role of multilateral institutions, the UN and others, in this fight against terrorism. In his mind, it’s clear it’s American leadership with others following along.
May 7, 2006
GEORGE WILL: Now the argument from the right is the CIA is a rogue agent because it has not subscribed to the Bush doctrine. The Bush doctrine being that American security depends on the spread of democracy and we know how to do that. The trouble is, Negroponte, who is considered by some of these conservatives the villain here and an enemy of the Bush doctrine is the choice of Bush, which makes Bush an insufficient subscriber to the Bush doctrine.
Scores!!!!
September 12th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Preemptive attacks are a complicated thing to implement. The questions revolve around how much and how certain is the pending aggression that you are considering preempting. Fielding a generic question… asking for more context… seems reasonable to me. Context is everything. For Israel & Iran… since Iran talks monthly about clearing the map… I think you have to take that very seriously. For Iraq and Saddam, the clarity was reduced. For Russia and Georgia and so on, even lower. So yeah, I’d ask for context, too.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Nobody thinks Palin has a vast knowledge of foreign policy and this answer should be viewed as her repeating what she has been told by McCain’s foreign policy team. The question should go to McCain, did Palin accurately portray the foreign policy stance of a McCain administration. McCain may be using this to back away from his earlier embrace of preventative invasion. If not, make him restate his support of Bush’s policy.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:09 am
The fact that there are many versions of the Bush doctrine makes her right? She didn’t suggest any versions at all, just a blank stare (which doesn’t show up in the transcript of course). His world view?
September 12th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Sara, the Bush Doctrine is the reason your son Track may get his ass shot off for nothing in Iraq.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:19 am
How about the Obama Doctrine,Charlie ” talk alot, hours later change your position, then run and hide”
September 12th, 2008 at 10:29 am
“Sarah Palin doesn’t seem to know that this s what the Bush doctrine is”
As the comments above show, neither does Matthew Yglesias.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Come the ?@#! on. She was “advancing an imminent threat standard?!!!” Are you kidding me? She was blindly groping in the dark trying to figure out what the Bush doctrine was so she could agree with it, because she WAS able to remember that the handlers told her “we agree with bush in principal on everything we’ve done internationally, we would just do it better.”
Any high school teacher can tell exactly what Palin was doing there, because students do it everyday when they don’t know the “right” answer. I have seen that exact form of response thousands of times.
This is getting honestly scary.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Palin, like most governors, has no national security background, unless you count the National Guard, which I don’t. Four of our last five presidents were governors. Bill Clinton was famously uninterested in foreign policy because the voters weren’t interested following the end of the Cold War. I wish Palin showed more evidence of a sophisticated understanding of foreign policy, but she’s in the same range as Carter, Clinton and GWB. Reagan was the only governor who had written and spoken extensively on national security matters.
Obama, despite his 300 advisers, shows little awareness of miltary and diplomatic strategy. He parrots the simplistic views that are OK on blogs but unsuited to the real world. For instance, his position to meet unconditionally with leaders who support terrorism was made up on the fly in a presidential debate. As Hillary pointed out, it makes no sense. It betrays a naive belief that international conflict results from misunderstandings and a failure to communicate. I thought so, too, when I was twenty.
Charlie Gibson’s question about the Bush Doctrine was intentionally confusing. The proper answer was, “Which Bush Doctrine?”. Everyone knew what it was after 9/11 when we went after the Taliban who had harbored al Qaeda. After that ,it became more nebulous,and it is now inopperative, as terrorists killing Americans operate freely out of Iran and the Pakistan tribal areas. The following article shows the inconsistent ways media talking heads have described the Bush Doctrine. http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/09/what_exactly_is_the_bush_doctr.asp#more
If Gibson were asking the same question of BHO, he would describe what he meant by “Bush Doctrine”. With Palin his objective was not an answer but a confused look.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Gibson dosn’t even understand the Bush Doctrine because what he outlined in this interview is not what he has outlined in the past. Hence her question as to which part was he referring was the correct response irregardless of how the media is spinning it.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/09/what_exactly_is_the_bush_doctr.asp
“Gibson should of course have said in the first place what he understood the Bush Doctrine to be–and specified that he was asking a question about preemption. Palin was well within bounds to have asked him to be more specific. Because, as it happens, the doctrine has no universally acknowledged single meaning. Gibson himself in the past has defined the Bush Doctrine to mean “a promise that all terrorist organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated”–which is remarkably close to Palin’s own answer.
September 21, 2001
CHARLIE GIBSON: The president in his speech last night, very forceful. Four out of five Americans watched it. Everybody gathered around the television set last night. The president issued a series of demands to the Taliban, already rejected. We’ll get to that in a moment. He also outlined what is being called the Bush Doctrine, a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated. “
September 12th, 2008 at 10:44 am
I’d say which is scarier. There are some things that are inherently unserious, but if you treat them seriously, they become serious. This reminds me of the stories of the paintings of three year olds being introduced in modern art competitions and taking third place with judge comments like “a masterful statement on the complexity of modern life.”
Anyone who watches the interview, rather than reading it, will understand. There is nothing serious being advanced here. There is only an attempt to guess the “right” answers.
McCain, for the love of god, get a new VP. This is a power vacuum waiting to happen.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:49 am
O’neal, must we remind you that Charley Gibson was hand selected by the McCain campaign, and that he’s the only one who was deemed “deferential” enough to do the interview?
You can wax eloquent all you want about the evil media’s evil sexist intentions, and about how there really is no Bush doctrine anyway because it’s all a relativistic media creation, and post ten ways to Sunday that it was reasonable for her to fumble around like an ill-prepared middle-school student and spout what talking points she could remember instead of thinking or talking about the subject.
You look like she did. Only smarter and more thoughtful.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Those quotes dug up by The Weekly Standard don’t actually document multiple current definitions of the Bush Doctrine. Rather, they document the expansion of the Bush Doctrine by Bush himself over time, the most crucial period being from 2001 to 2002, when the Doctrine was dramatically expanded in a way that provided the rationale for invading Iraq in 2003.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Pre emptive doctrine in 6 words or less -
“When in doubt – knock ‘em out”
September 12th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Ray L,
That 2001 quote from Gibson reflects the more limited “Bush Doctrine” as of that time. As the later January 29, 2002 quote from Stephanopolous properly noted, Bush subsequently dramatically expanded the “Bush Doctrine” beyond those original limits.
Now if you believe Palin knew all this and was asking Gibson to clarify whether he was referring to the more limited form of the Bush Doctrine back in 2001 or rather the expanded form that was developed in 2002, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in purchasing.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Bupakis, thanks for the compliment, but I think Sarah Palin is plenty smart and thoughtful. She just, like other governors, hasn’t been focused on the fine points of foreign policy. But she’s a quick study and by January will be fully up to speed, though she won’t be writing articles for Foreign Affairs. Republicans will parry attacks on her experience by saying, correctly, that our number two has more experience than your number one.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:03 am
You guys are just going off your nut. He was hand picked. How about his objective was an intelligent conversation? How about he thought she might be able to handle that question. Even if he did think the question was deliberately vague and confusing (which I doubt), there is a way that intelligent people who are actually thinking react and talk about such an issue, and a way that people who think there is a “right” test answer that they don’t remember react. Jeeze, most politicians prey for such a vague and confusing opening that allows for so many answers.
I’m sorry, you guys are talking yourselves in circles. Do you think candidate Clinton, Carter, or Reagan would have taken that “correct test answer” road? GWB, maybe, I’ll give you that one in part. If he had only had two weeks or whatever to pretend he knew something he might have sounded that bad too. So maybe she’ll only be as bad as Bush someday if we’re lucky. And forgive me, but Carter and Clinton were for the most part not adequate FP presidents. In fact Carter sucked horribly. So what is your point?
September 12th, 2008 at 11:07 am
courtneyme 109, I like that. If Bush had explained it that way, there would have been no confusion. That’s apparently what Qaddafi thought it meant when he gave up Libya’s nuclear program.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:07 am
I often give Petey a hard time, but he’s right here. Next weeks’s battle for the news cycle should be “Whatever happened to John McCain?” Is this the Obama vs Palin race? Is McCain prepared to drop out if he thinks his VP is the better candidate?
Shame him back into the spotlight – it isn’t kind to him. Once the focus is back on McCain there might be references to what a bad choice he made for VP, but they should be marginal.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:15 am
bupalos, you make a good point. Palin was trying to understand and then answer the question. She should have just taken it as a vague opening to give her talking point on the general topic of terrorism. Skilled politicians respond to the general topic, not the specific question. Clinton was a master of this. He would make the points he wanted to make, not accept the premise or narrow parameters of the question. Palin will learn this trick, which probably isn’t favored in Alaska.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Her answer was conpletely consitent with the definitions of The Bush docrine espopused on ABC and by Mr Gibson himself, many many times, that the US has the right to defend itself against terrorist threats. She answered the question just fine.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Single Bush doctrine – The United States reserves the right to unilaterally take preemptive military action against nations that harbor unacceptable threats against our security, be they terrorist organizations, weapons of mass destruction or some other threat.
The important part is not the source of the threat. It is the unilateral nature of the action and the timing. There is also the fact that the Iraq war demonstrated that the doctrine was not “Preemptive”, nor even preventive, but more profilactic in nature.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:28 am
On the meta-politics issue, I think it was worth taking a little time to establish with the media, if no one else, the truth of the claim that Palin really doesn’t have any foreign policy experience or knowledge, and also is anything but a straight-talking, fiscally conservative, government reformer. I am sure the contest will switch back to Obama versus McCain soon enough, and the fact that McCain chose someone like Palin for naked political reasons, and that little or nothing he has claimed about her qualifications or merits is true, will be a useful argument at that point. And I think the media will now accept the premise of that argument without a lot of fuss.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Palin was right about the policy of pre-emptive strikes, which is what matters. Although it’s clear that neither she or Gibson knows what the Bush doctrine is, neither does Bush at this point. The phrase, which originally had to do with how we should treat regimes that harbor terrorists, has become a grab bag for all of Bush’s foreign policy.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Or rather a shorthand for all of his foreign policy actions; which could be described as his …ummm… worldview.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:41 am
I’m not worried about story-lines just now, I’m worried about someone who is dangerously unprepared and unserious. I’m worried about a nastier repeat of the last eight years of shadow puppetry. And I think the real story-line about John McCain is that as serious as he says he is about foreign policy, as much as that is supposed to be his calling card– to the point that he’ll freely admit he doesn’t understand the economy– he went out and got an empty culture war symbol for VP. Why was that?
This is the one executive decision we have to judge him by. And he totally undermined his own meaning as a candidate with it. He made a bullshit cynical political base-revving choice at the peril of the country. Politics came first, country came second. Plain and simple. It’s right that she overshadow him now. She is his record now. And the truth of the matter, and everyone knows this, is that John McCain himself would never have made this choice. And that, more than anything, is probably why the base is fired up. Because they don’t really like McCain. Every now and then he thinks about things like torture, and pragmatic reality. And this pick–like the roe flip-flop, like the tax flip-flop– shows he isn’t the one in control. For people looking for 8 more years of shadow-puppet government, where the country being “right with god” is both the goal and the engine of undefined success, while every objective measure of the broader health of society suffers, it’s a wonderful development.
For the Bill Kristol crowd, it’s a wonderful chance to double us down on “the noble lie” theory of governance that has worked so wonderfully well for most Americans.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Hi E. Thanks! Any probs with Pre emption are actually bass ackwards – as Lame Stream Media, our own dear Matty and despotic fanboys tend to portray with weak, inappropriate and boring handwringing.
The burden for Regime Changing is not on Great Satan – it’s on illegitimate, corrupt, murderous regimes, rocket rich body part collectors and any fanboy fellow travellers (rocket hot or not) that torment their own people, their neighbors, foreign humanitarian compassionates, condone and practice genocide, horrific gendercide on their own sweet girls, indulge in slave trading while their ‘nations’ suffer pitiful literacy rates, poor sanitation, blinging on missiles, militaries, secret police instead of hospitals, schools, free media or a future for their young people and tend to act out against any democrazie in weapons range.
It’s up to those cats to prove they are safe as milk.
There is little reason to even tolerate their existence.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Wrong. Palin was trying to guess the right answer. I know, I’ve seen that thousands of times in my job. In other words, she aspires to be the dopier kind of talking points style politician, like for instance, Harry Reid. But she isn’t there yet. She wasn’t being refreshingly honest and sincere, as your Alaskan Utopia of Truth and Straightforwardness image has it. She wasn’t trying to figure out what he meant and have a thoughtful conversation, like no doubt they do all Sunday at the Pentecostal church in Wassilla. She wanted to guess the right answer. Because in her mind other people know the right answer and she doesn’t.
She was looking for clues as to how to make that guess. She struck me as simply a second rate bullshitter. Maybe someday, after she has passed through the political fires, after she has become a first-rate bullshitter, she will emerge on the other side as what you seem to know she is destined to be. I don’t discount that she might deep down be smart and able in addition to being a nutter. But this is today. Right now, it’s an irresponsible, cynical attempt to cram some culture war into the ballot at the risk of the country.
September 12th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
To everyone bashing Palin on her perceived lack of understanding of geo-political issues or academic knowledge of obscure political history I would submit to you that Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and a whole host of other governors who have ascended to the presidency (not just vice presidency) had a similar learning curve to overcome. That is what national security advisers are for.
September 12th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
this is great. such desparation by dems. “lets have 24/7 R-V.P. coverage because our PRESIDENTIAL nominee stinks.”
it is over. even the polls for the house ans senate are changing. remember the Bradley Effect by the way. whatever the polls says up to election day, subtract another 3-5 points for obama due to people saying they will vote for obama and then chickening out in the privacy of the polling booth.
September 12th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
THE BUSH DOCTRINE…
…..THE COULTER PLAN…..
…….AMERICA…..YEAH!!!!
HEY, LIBTARDS,
LOVE TO HERE YOU WHINE, WHINE, WHINE….
….WHILE WE WIN, WIN, WIN!!!!
BWAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
September 12th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Hey Bupalos,
Let’s compare the first executive decisions that each of the candidates have made shall we?
Obama: self-described change agent and inspiration to youth:
…picked an aging career Washington insider who is one of the most partisan politicians in the Senate with absolutely no connection with anyone younger than my grandfather. This was a cowardly and safe choice based on the fact that Obama doesn’t have any foreign policy cred at all.
McCain: self-described maverick and reformer
…picked an executive of a state who has a proven history of reform and standing for doing what is rigt no matter the political consequences. Someone who has proved her willingness to go against partisan loyalties to make changes and solve problems. This was a bold choice that bolsters his mission of reforming and changing government.
Both choices had unabashed political components – Obama needed experience and credibility, McCain needed conservative cred and the women’s vote.
September 12th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Sorry bud, when it was O v. M, that contest was basically over. That’s why M had to chuck everything he believes in and take the P pick that was foisted on him. Scramble things up with a shitstorm, put the puppeteers back in charge, try to squeek something out. Might work.
The reason there is 24/7 coverage is because she’s the one making the networks money now, because she is what people are interested in. Because she is sexy and dangerous. Sex and fear. That’s why they cover her. That’s why the RNC forced her on the ticket.
The fact that she is also borderline Miss South Carolina will only come out over time.
September 12th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Hey, I’ll give you that they were both politically beneficial choices. Of course, everyone can acknowledge that Clinton would have been a much better purely political choice than Biden. Perception wise, she’s perceived as an FP maven. Why didn’t he take her? Because she couldn’t have helped him govern. She would have interfered with it. Because it would have been a circus after they won with Bill around.
McCain “picked” someone who not only can’t help him govern, but isn’t ready to take over in the relatively likely event that he is incapacitated in office. He didn’t put country first. Being charitable to him, he didn’t make this pick at all. This was the pick from the current culture war machine. Sorry, but to me Palin looks almost exactly like GWB. And empty suit that injects culture war into the race. That’s what passes for “conservative cred” these days.
September 12th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
She is as qualified as your hero Bill was when he took office and as far as helping him govern is concerned, she has more experience in energy management and production issues than any of the other three people on either ticket.
September 12th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
bupalos, our politics differ, but we share a cynical outlook on politics. Politicians don’t need in depth knowledge, only a mastery of talking points. I think Palin is already past the Reid/Pelosi performance level, but she is nowhere near the Clinton/Reagan level of being able to communicate with the audience over the head of the questioner. She should have ignored Gibson and made her predetermined points on a general topic directly to the audience, without of course making it obvious that she was doing so. Instead she let Gibson and his attitude dominate.
September 12th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
After 8 years and two wars any candidate for the presidency or vice-presidency who can’t discuss the Bush Doctrine or the previous Clinton Doctrine, and how they relate to the Truman Doctrine’s cold-war deterrence policies, is not qualified to have our nation’s nuclear codes. Period. And any sclerotic candidate who picks a running mate that ill-qualified shows astoundingly poor judgement.
September 12th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Not that facts matter to certain folks, but Bill Clinton was a lot more experienced than Palin at the time he became President. He was first elected as Governor of Arkansas in 1978, and served continuously from 1982. In that time he also served as Chair of the National Governors Association and eventually led the DLC. I think it is fair to say that as a result of these developments, by 1992 he was a lot more familiar with national issues than he would have been after, say, just his first couple years as Governor of Arkansas.
In other words, Palin is at best equivalent in experience to Bill Clinton in 1980, not Bill Clinton twelve years later in 1992. But more importantly, it doesn’t so much matter how she got here, as the fact that right now, she manifestly knows very little about national issues, including national security issues.
September 12th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Jack Noir, I had never heard of the Clinton Doctrine, so I googled it. It sounds a lot like the Bush Doctrine, except Bush replaced the goal of “maintaining international security” with “defeating international terrorism”. I guess that’s why virtually all the Clintonites supported the war to remove Saddam.
September 12th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Guys, the experience question is moot…Obama has none, so why harp on it unless you want it to hurt the democrats???
September 12th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
I find this funny. No other VP candidate has ever received this much attention or concern.
Has any VP candidate ever faced this much scrutiny?
The answer is no.
And if you look up Bush doctrine you will find a dozen different interpretations. It is not a widely known term or definition. And the way Gibson defined it is different from the way many of you are defining it.
Moreover, people seem to forget her purpose is merely to support McCain’s policies and ideals not her own.
Rob
September 12th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Obama’s buddy Bill Ayers believed in the Bush Doctrine, before it was called the Bush Doctrine. He unilaterally bombed the Pentagon, is that not the Bush Doctrine?
September 12th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
clearly, a hockey mom who studied answers given to her without giving much thought to the emaning of the answers. Is there anyone out there who watched this interview who honestly believes that if she should become president , that she would be capable of independent thought and judgement, or simply be the puppet of whichever masters were in her office, like Dave in the movie?
Although I was pleased that Gibson did not give her the pass that I expected, his clear facial expression of displeasure with her answers will only strengthen her position among the anti “reality” crowd. Finally, when she kept repeating that “clearly, mistakes were made” I wish Mr. gibson had asked her to explain what she meant.
September 12th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Gigantus,
Obama has less national policy experience than Biden or McCain, but far more than Palin. Moreover, again the most important thing is that regardless of how he got there, he manifestly knows a lot about national policy issues, and Palin does not.
RWB,
Um, of course previous VP candidates have been similarly asked to discuss substantive policy issues. This idea that Palin is the first VP candidate ever to be asked significant questions is just absurd.
And by the way, her most important role as Vice President would be to serve as President in the event something happened to McCain. The fact she is unqualified for that role should be a deal-breaker, regardless of whether she is doing a good job of articulating McCain’s talking points (and incidentally, she isn’t).
September 12th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
DTM, Clinton was indeed more experienced than Palin when he was elected president, but his national security experience was identical to hers — none.
September 12th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
This is like a bad Hollywood movie. Someone needs to give Ms. Palin a copy of “US Foreign Policy for Dummies.” It is mind-boggling to think that someone who is obviously terrified of giving an interview, and is being protected from the press, could actually become VP. The Bush doctrine represented one of the most significant departures from precedent in US foreign policy for the last 100 years, and the candidate for VP has apparently never heard of it. These are very scary times indeed.
September 12th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
E. O’Neal,
I think that is incorrect. For example, the DLC includes national security policy within its scope, and as noted Clinton was a involved member and eventually Chair of the DLC before becoming President.
And again, the more important issue is that regardless of how he got there, by 1992 Clinton could discuss the major national security issues of the time in a knowledgable fashion. Palin cannot.
September 12th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Palin did not know what Gibson was asking; her response was textbook technique for ’stall’ and ‘clarify’ – ie. explain please! When he responded specifically with the Bush Doctrine as defined in Sept. 2002 (since after all it’s been an moving target), he clearly wasn’t willing to explain it, and yes, it was a ‘test question’ at that point. She STILL didn’t know what he was talking about, and missed the mark.
It would be funny, except that this is SERIOUSLY SCARY stuff.
The Bush Doctrine of the fall of 2002 went far beyond ‘preemptive’ in that there was no requirement of ‘imminent’ threat. Any perceived future threat – as viewed by the Administration alone, could be cause for an act of war.
Palin must not have been watching the news that fall.
Further adding to the fumbling was her description of the war on terror as ‘killing Muslim extremists’.
What a naive, short-sighted, and insulting thing to say.
First off, not all extremists are Muslim (obviously).
Second, does being an extremist automatically mean that we have the right to KILL them?
For someone so staunchly Pro-Life, she sure wants to get out the M16 and blast away!
She might think that she’s ready to step into the White House without even blinking an eye, but it sure is obvious that the only reason she thinks she’s so ready is that she has no idea what the job is, or what it takes to do it. I have to laugh, she accepted McCain’s offer to run for VP and admitted on video that she wasn’t clear what the VP does. I guess it’s ok that it advances her political career, and that’s enough for her; qualifications be damned.
Somehow the Republicans have yet again been sucessful at making the issues irrelevant. That McPalin might actually get elected truely is scary.
September 12th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
MikeBY, you’re right that it was a test question. Are you saying that she should have known without asking which permutation of the Bush Doctrine he was talking about? Is that the test? Being able to read Charlie Gibson’s mind? Maybe she doesn’t read comic books.
September 12th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Actually, the “six-words-or-less” category for GWB could include the following definitions of “Bush Doctrine”:
“Domestic Policy Suck? Knock Em Out”
“Need some hype? Knock Em Out”
“Threatened your dad? Knoch Em Out”
“Base psychologically insecure? Knock Em Out”
“Financiers need contracts? Knoch Em Out”
“Hypocritical A.N.G. Duty? Knoch Em Out”
“Neither daughter Inlisted? Nnock Em Out”
“Servicepersons mostly poor? Knoch Em Out”
There are many more –
September 12th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
One of the primary line of attacks by Republicans during recent electtion cycles has been to cast Democrats as elitists who are out of touch with most Americans. Despite the actual validity of this claim, one must recognize its effectiveness in recent years. As I listen to some of the comments regarding Bush, McCain, or Palin, and read responses even on this Blog, it is rather apparent why many of these attacks have taken hold with voters. Many of those leaving a response are so filled with anger that they immediately begin attacking the person rather than the ideas represented by the individual. Indeed, I am not pursuaded to change my mind regarding a political candidate merely because he/she could not fully articulate an interviewer’s understanding of the “Bush Doctrine”–a concept that does not possess one single definition. And the Republican elitist charge rings loud when writer after writer on this blog pretends that this concept was blatently clear to the entire thinking world, except for maybe McCain, Bush, and now Sarah Palin. No, a little humility on the Democratic side might go furhter in pursuading Republicans and Independents than the “we-are-obviously-smarter-than-you” approach. To be sure, if such tactics are not changed, then a lot of Democrats will be able to brag about their intellects while watching another Republican be sworn in as President.
September 12th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
I don’t care what candidate selected her, what party nominated her, or what her stated foreign policy views are. It was very clear that she does not have even rudimentary understanding (forget about experience or knowledge) in this area. When the Bush Doctrine was explained to her, she didn’t even understand that there was a difference between pre-emptive strikes (Gibson’s definition) and imminent threat (her response) …. without realizing there is a difference! I suspect most high school seniors (and some in junior high) can figure that one out. (Her views also don’t matter because since they are clearly not thought through, not it’s no problem for her to change them – witness the quick about-face on climate change and, I’m sure, her restatement of the chasing into Pakistan and second-guessing what we back Israel in doing will have changed by next week.) Her honesty, her ability to at least see the big picture, and the way she handles situations requiring calm deliberation (like “would you be vice president), and the way she handles situations in which she doesn’t know something important disqualify her from being one heartbeat away …… You can’t ‘cram’ on those patterns of thought and behavior, by 44, she is who she is. The only open questions, to my mind, are whether McCain and the Republican party are going to be responsible and replace her on the ticket —– or, if not, whether the American people are going to fall for this. I think they won’t: these qualities can be understood by everyone and no one wants them in the leader of our country and the free world.
September 12th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
The difference is that even months before the 1992 primaries started Clinton could intelligently discuss virtually any policy issues – domestic or foreign – that a journalist was likely to raise. He was an intelligent person with a genuine interest in the world around him. That does not seem to be the case with Palin.
September 12th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
E. O’Neal says:
Charlie Gibson’s question about the Bush Doctrine was intentionally confusing. The proper answer was, “Which Bush Doctrine?”. Everyone knew what it was after 9/11 when we went after the Taliban who had harbored al Qaeda. After that ,it became more nebulous,and it is now inopperative, as terrorists killing Americans operate freely out of Iran and the Pakistan tribal areas. The following article shows the inconsistent ways media talking heads have described the Bush Doctrine. http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/09/what_exactly_is_the_bush_doctr.asp#more
If Gibson were asking the same question of BHO, he would describe what he meant by “Bush Doctrine”. With Palin his objective was not an answer but a confused look.
Gibson tried the “gotcha” path with Sarah Palin—like all the MSM biggies, he is dishonest. Trying to make up for showing Obama to be a fumble-tongued oaf earlier in the political year. The drive-by media simply hasn’t questioned Obama closely at all—Katie Couric came closest and was excoriated for Journalism 101 questions.
Now that the ointment is beginning to turn rancid on the head of The Anointed One, maybe some closer looks might be taken on the stuff Barry keeps in his skeleon-filled closet. Like The Annenberg Project stuff he worked on with Bill Ayers, even his GPA transcripts at Columbia, who referred him to Harvard Law School [some guy who now calls hims Khalid bin Somebody], and even his thesis at Columbia on Soviet nuclear policy. Everyone knows McCain was near the bottom at Annapolis, why not draw back the veil from Obama’s transcripts?
September 12th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
E. O’Neal,
If she was knowledgeable of the last 8 years of Bush policy, she should have known after he specified Sept. 2002.
Even giving her a pass on that, she should have been able to ask which permutation he was referring to, ie. ‘Did you mean his doctrine about ‘preemption’ or his doctrine about holding states responsible for harboring terrorists?’ An intelligent responsive question would have indicated that she had knowlege about the subject matter and would have been impressive to me. She couldn’t ask what Gibson was thinking of, because she didn’t know enough about it to ask. The debateable merits of her position one way or another on the matter are irrelevent if she is ignorant of the doctrine.
As far has her reading is concerned; it’s a question that I wish Gibson had asked. Usually the favorite books one has read are an insightful indicator of the person. Perhaps in the next interview.
John,
It might not have been clear to you, but it seems it was clear to a LOT of other people what Gibson was asking. Since when is being part of the ‘thinking world’ elitist?
I, for one (and clearly a Democrat if you read my blog) am not attacking the person, but am questioning their knowledge and positions on the issues and their capacity to lead.
I would suggest to you that part of the responsibility of being of citizen of this country is both to educate yourself and do a little ‘thinking’ about the policies and positions of our government leaders before voting for them.
September 13th, 2008 at 1:44 am
I am no fan of the Bush Doctrine, either in its logic or its consequences, but let’s not confuse what it is with what it’s not.
Yes, the Bush Doctrine is about preventive war, but preemption, by definition, is “anticipatory self defense” — the decision to strike first when facing an imminent threat.
What Cheney et al did was try to stretch, ad infinitum, what “imminent” means. In other words, they want to wage preventive war but cloak it in the legitimacy of preemption.
September 13th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Dave said:
“Most people don’t know what the term “Bush Doctrine” means.”
A mother, whose son is shipping out to Iraq, should know the presidential foreign policy doctrine that has led to his deployment.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:55 am
laptop battery
laptop batteries
February 8th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
laptop battery
February 9th, 2009 at 3:21 am
laptop battery
March 1st, 2009 at 7:40 pm
cialis
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:53 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:35 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:33 am
tramadol
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:28 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 8:21 am
I rarely comment on blogs but yours I had to stop and say Great Blog!! viagra
April 14th, 2009 at 9:39 am
thanks !! very helpful post!
viagra