Listen carefully: Palin clearly doesn't know Bush Doctrine

Gibson:  Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?

Palin:  In what respect, Charlie?

Gibson:  What do you interpret it to be?

Palin:  His worldview? (N.B., This is a question and not, as I have seen in other transcripts, a statement.)

Gibson:  No, the Bush Doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq War.

Palin:  I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hellbent on destroying our nation.  There have been blunders along the way, though.  There have been mistakes made.  And with new leadership--and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy--is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

Gibson:  The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.  We have the right of preemptive strike against any other country that we believe is going to attack us.

Notice the question in her voice when she seeks to interpret Gibson's question. "His worldview?" she asks as her voice lilts upward.  She just doesn't know; she's probing for the answer.  


Tags: bush doctrine, Charlies Gibson, Sarah Palin (all tags)




pretty lame and scary

by tarheel74 2008-09-11 06:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Listen carefully: Palin clearly doesn't know

She comes across as shrill, angry, and parroting of the standard talking points.  I agree she has not clue what the bush doctrine is.  I hope many moderates and undecideds watch this interview.  The repub base doesn't care what she says, of course.  

by chubbar 2008-09-11 06:49PM | 0 recs

yep, she didn't know, but lots who will vote for her don't know it either.  She's a decent enough bull-shitter.  I'd have asked her about women's issues, not foreign policy.  But hey, I'd be thinking about swaying some voters, not about making her look uninformed but plucky.

by anna shane 2008-09-11 07:00PM | 0 recs
Re: humm

You're right, of course, but there is no way the McCain people would have let her come out with her agenda on Women's issues in her first interview.  They are not dumb, they know it wouldn't play well with independents.  

That being said, this does further the meme that the news media wanted to further (she's clueless on foreign affairs and unfit to lead) and plays right into McCain's hands by bringing the argument that was a central reason for his selecting of Palin (that by contrast Obama is also inexperienced).  Furthermore if she is this bad and she is inexperienced (like Obama) then he's REALLY bad.

Please note that this line of reasoning is a logical fallacy.  Just because she is new and inexperienced, and doesn't know anything about foreign policy doesn't mean that a similarly new (and considered by some to be inexperienced) candidate also doesn't know anything about foreign policy.

If Green Bell Peppers are sweet and good to eat whole, it does not necessarily follow that Habaniero Peppers (which are also green) are sweet and good to eat whole.

by Why Not 2008-09-11 09:04PM | 0 recs
Re: humm

It's really about who you listen to, more than what you already know. It takes teams of experts and professionals to back a president's decisions, except for Bush, and for that matter more than likely Sarah. So, her first interview she was only asked what she wasn't completely unprepared to answer?  If true, that's news, but right now no one in the media cares much for facts, at least not the media types that have the ears of mainstream Americans.  this whole thing is fucked up.  

by anna shane 2008-09-12 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Listen carefully: Palin clearly doesn't know B

Who knows what the Bush Doctrine is ?

Frankly i didn't know Bush had a doctrine .

by lori 2008-09-11 07:26PM | 0 recs
Oh, sure you did!

Cut taxes and spend, spend, spend. Place politically loyal people into critically important jobs and the hell with operational qualifications.

by lombard 2008-09-11 07:53PM | 0 recs
Let John McCain explain it then

See here.

There are many components of the Bush Doctrine, but pre-emptive war is the most important piece.

Note, also, that after Gibson defined it, she thought she agreed with it, but then defended the "imminent threat" doctrine, which is actually pre-Bush Doctrine.  

I don't think she understands "anticipatory self-defense" or "pre-emptive" war either.

by elrod 2008-09-11 08:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Listen carefully: Palin clearly doesn't know B

you're not running for vice president, and I knew what the Bush Doctrine is, and Charlie Gibson knew, and Barack Obama, John McCain, and Joe Biden know.

by Beltway Dem 2008-09-12 01:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Listen carefully: Palin clearly doesn't know B

we eggheads who listen. She has the real low info voters.  

by anna shane 2008-09-12 08:40AM | 0 recs
I thought it was

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice..........can't fool me again."

by georgiapeach 2008-09-12 05:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Listen carefully: Palin clearly doesn't know B

I had to listen careful to what Gibson said he believed was the Bush doctrine ,I would think as commander in chief every president has the right to do that , its not like it was Bush that came up with that....

That said it is clear she was nervous , don't think it would hurt her though ..

by lori 2008-09-11 07:33PM | 0 recs

This does not hurt her.  She recovered rather well from her nervousness (unfortunately!).

by lombard 2008-09-11 07:50PM | 0 recs
No, she flubbed the next question

She recovered well? She flubbed the follow-up response by defending pre-Bush Doctrine "imminent threat" policy, even though she though she was defending the Bush Doctrine.

She's a poised BSer, I'll grant you that. But media-savviness is not enough.

The VP job is well over her head.

I don't think she was just nervous. I think she was just clueless.

by elrod 2008-09-11 08:42PM | 0 recs
Your opinion doesn't count

You are an Obama fanatic and, consequently, have no credibility.

by lombard 2008-09-11 09:08PM | 0 recs
You are a troll

And are on the wrong board. Try Red State where they think like you.

by elrod 2008-09-11 09:11PM | 0 recs
No, I am an objective veteran Democrat

You are an Obamabot.  I've followed your posts for a long time on various sites.  I have weathered every Democratic candidate since Jimmy Carter.  You, on the other hand, are likely a youthful, low memory, fanatic.  I have the wisdom of age and experience.  You have the misguided zeal of youthful ignorance.

by lombard 2008-09-11 09:17PM | 0 recs
Anticipatory self-defense was new

She tried to define the Bush Doctrine as responding to imminent threats, which every President indeed holds. But Bush went beyond that by attacking countries that might some day threaten us. That was genuinely new.  And it appeared that Palin had no idea.

by elrod 2008-09-11 08:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Listen carefully: Palin clearly doesn't know B

Well, what she ended up saying wasn't very controversial.  On the more nuanced point, I'd recommend this post by Hilzoy on the difference between preventive and preemptive war.

Everyone agrees that if someone is about to attack you, you have the right to attack first as a means of self-defense.  That's non-controversial.

The more difficult question is when someone isn't an imminent threat to you, but you think they're going to pose a threat down the road.  Like Saddam, for example.

The argument has intuitive appeal, that you shouldn't have to wait until he's just about to attack you, because you might wait a fraction too long and get hit.  But the problems with preventive war are:

1. The further off the anticipated attack is, the greater the chance that your intelligence will be wrong.  I think everyone has learned this lesson now, except Rick Santorum who still believes we'll find the WMDs any day now.

2. The harder it is to prove the existence of the threat, the less support you're going to get from the international community.  It's not to our benefit if the world sees us as a rogue superpower, lashing out at whoever we believe looked at us funny.  If you can show people the reasons why you went to war, they're less likely to give you trouble over it.  If it's just like "hey, we really had a strong hunch about it" then it won't sit well with our allies.  And think about what we expect of other countries; sure, we grant them the right to respond to imminent threats, but do we really think it's fine for them to start a war any time they decide someone is engaged in long-term plotting against them?

I think Palin is pretty well able to talk about this sort of stuff in common-sense terms and give her opinion, even though I'm not sure I'd like to hear it.  But she's obviously not up on the theoretically underpinnings and the academic labels like "Bush Doctrine" and all that.  I don't think it really matters, but if people think it's a winning argument to be like "OMG she doesn't know the Bush Doctrine!!!" then far be it from me to stand in the way.

by Steve M 2008-09-11 09:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Listen carefully: Palin clearly doesn't know B

Your position is clearly stated . It is a delicate balance , I would fall on the side of those who argue for a clear and present danger before preemption  can be used .....

I wouldn't support the idea of acting on preemption on perceived dangers down the road unless there is indisputable evidence ( which  is tough because intelligence is not perfect ) that the national security of the nation would be in jeopardy...

When Charlie Gibson asked her about the Bush Doctrine , I frankly had the same reaction she had , what exactly was he talking about . This was really the first time I had heard of a " Bush Doctrine.. " ... That question wasn't specific enough , although it ended up making her look unsure of herself...

By the way I don't think Charlie Gibson himself knows what the hell he was talking about , whe he articulated what he thought was the " Bush Doctrine " he ended up stating the doctrine of preemption which a commander in chief inherently has and has had forever..  

by lori 2008-09-11 10:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Listen carefully: Palin clearly doesn't know B

By the way, my post was the short version.  If you want the long version, you need to go ask Shaun Appleby, although be sure to pack a lunch first.

by Steve M 2008-09-11 10:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Listen carefully: Palin clearly doesn't know B

lol ...

He does put a lot of work in it , I don't agree with his foreign policy views but at least he articulates it in a logical way...

by lori 2008-09-11 10:19PM | 0 recs
There is no traction here!

She didn't know what he meant about the Bush doctrine.  It was an ambiguous question.  She asked for clarification.  When he mentioned preemption, she understood the question.  He then related the question to Pakistan and she said that all options must remain open.  How is that position different than Obama's?

She was let off the hook about the extremely dubious preemptive attack on Iraq, but I don't hear anything in her answer to the Pakistani situation that the majority of Americans (including many Democratic leaders) wouldn't agree with.  Spin if you want to but exploiting this clip is a loser.

by lombard 2008-09-11 07:48PM | 0 recs

She actually defended pre-Bush Doctrine "imminent threat" theory and not pre-emptive or anticipatory war.

And her Pakistan answer was not only contrary to McCain's policy, it was a blind shot. She had no idea what she was talking about regarding Pakistan. She kept talking about "these countries" like Pakistan is just on some list.

It was a terrible interview for her because it reveals how unprepared she is for the job.

by elrod 2008-09-11 08:45PM | 0 recs
Palin clearly doesn't know Bush Doctrine

It wasn't an ambiguous question.  Palin clearly doesn't follow foreign policy.  Neither do most Americans, for that matter, but do you want somebody who lacks basic professional knowledge calling the shots?

The people who are most excited by Palin's answer, actually, are probably the neocons who were edged out of the Bush administration (ie. the smooth talkers whose policies didn't work).

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-09-11 08:17PM | 0 recs
She is a frightening choice

This is the first time I have watched Palin. The interview left me deeply concerned that about McCain's judgement and more determined than ever to make sure the Joe Biden is the next Vice President of the United States of America.

by Hollede 2008-09-11 08:59PM | 0 recs
OK. I agree!

I'd much rather have Biden as VP or POTUS.  But, her answers here are rather mainstream and she recovered fairly well so I don't see this hurting her.  Again, false confidence = foolishness.  

by lombard 2008-09-11 09:13PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads