Decius wrote:
I have to admit it, when Charlie Gibson asked Sarah Palin about the Bush Doctrine, I had no idea what he was talking about, either. I'm not sure whether that cringe I get when I watch the exchange is out of embarrassment for his transparent attempt to catch her with an intentionally vague question or her idiotic response. "His world view?" I was awake enough in high school history class to clearly recall that the word "doctrine" after a President's name refers to his basic principals of military foreign policy. You'd think the concept would be close in mind for someone who was studying up to be Vice President. But I'll bet the average American also had no idea what Gibson was referring to and thought he sounded arrogant.
Now, if I was there, on national television, and I was asked to come up with a response to the Bush Doctrine, I think I probably would have guessed that it states that we have the right to invade countries that harbor terrorists or provide them with material support.
Turns out, on September 8th, Wikipedia said the same thing:
The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan.[1] Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war,
The answer that Palin gave when prodded with the advice that we're talking about the Iraq war, was an answer about the Iraq war:
I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent 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.
That answer really isn't satisfactory. Its an "abortions for some, miniature American flags for others" kind of answer that attempts to placate both supporters and opponents of the Iraq war without actually saying anything substantive. It doesn't demonstrate a depth of understanding or a unique perspective, which are the only things that will silence her critics. In fact, it continues to bleat out that McCain/Palin is for some sort of change, although its not entirely clear what kind of change they are for. If she really wants to change the Bush doctrine this would have been an excellent time to explain how.
However, I'm not sure I can really fault her for not knowing exactly what Gibson was talking about.
This morning, I pulled that Wikipedia article up again, and lo and behold, the Bush Doctrine had a completely new definition:
The Bush Doctrine is a term used to describe the philosophy of pre-emption of United States president George W. Bush.
Wow! I guess I should have known that all along! (Fortunately, this has been reverted. There is currently an edit war going on with partisans from both sides changing the article to make it read more sympathetic to their sides.)
When Gibson explained to Palin that he was talking about the policy of preemption, the answer she gave was, well, not problematic. Its almost exactly the response you'd want to hear from a politician who knew exactly what was being discussed and was signaling that she was not planning to embrace the excesses of Bush foreign policy. Exactly the sort of answer that a Democrat would want to hear.
Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.
So what's wrong with that? Well, nothing about this interview has done anything to convince me that Palin has the depth of understanding required to handle the complicated realities that underly this oversimplified debate about preemption. However, I don't think McCain/Palin is now in the lead because people are particularly concerned with her understanding of complicated foreign policy issues.
Plenty of stupid that you can't much argue with in her Russia/Alaska proximity responses, though. She'll fold like a house of cards in the debates.
