Pardon my French, but Charlie…
By Johnny Roosh
Charlie Gibson, spectacles dripping off the end of his nose, asked Governor Sarah Palin to offer an opinion on the “Bush Doctrine.”
In my interchanges with some of the most politically articulate people I know, Sarah Palin’s response to the question has come far less into question than the existence of a “Bush Doctrine” and the wisdom of Gibson’s attempt to trip up the Governor.
The consensus? There is no singular “Bush Doctrine.” Clearly, President Bush has articulated (admittedly a poor choice of words for G.W. Bush) America’s response to the attacks of 9/11 as a desire to secure America’s safety through the promotion and support of democracy throughout the world. This is an element of his neoconservative roots. He has also asserted that America now retains the unilateral right and responsibility to strike terrorists and hostile regimes before they strike us; but no one has consistently used the phrase “The Bush Doctrine.”
That is, until now.
From Wikipedia (emphasis mine)
The Bush Doctrine is a term used to describe the foreign policy doctrine of United States president George W. Bush, enunciated in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. It may be viewed as a set of several related foreign policy principles, including stress on ending terrorism, spreading democracy, increased unilateralism in foreign policy and an expanded view of American national security interests. Foreign policy experts argue over the meaning of the term “Bush Doctrine,” and some scholars have suggested that there is no one unified theory underlying Bush’s foreign policy. Jacob Weisberg identifies six successive “Bush Doctrines” in his book The Bush Tragedy, while former Bush staffer Peter D. Feaver has counted seven.
Set back on their heels, Democrats on the talk show circuit are saying Charlie Gibson wasn’t tough enough.
The rest of America is putting themselves in that chair across from Charlie Gibson and saying (or at least thinking):
“Charlie, you’re an a**hole.”
We expect the media to conduct hard-hitting interviews and do their part in the “vetting” process. But to intentionally attempt to trip up Sarah Palin with a contrivance only serves to elevate the contempt the voter has for the media.
And it surely doesn’t help the Obama campaign because everyone is still talking about Sarah Palin. They are rooting for her because so many Americans are like her.
The Gibson interview is a bad omen for Obama. The Democrats are quickly realizing that there is no way to take down Sarah Palin without severe blowback. She is rubber, they are glue.
…and the best is yet to come!
The confluence of Joe Biden’s inability to control his diction and the strengthening warm front that is Sarah Palin’s candidacy portends The Perfect Storm for the Obama campaign.
September 14th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Fallows takes Gibson to task for misstating the Bush Doctrine, while nonetheless remaining critical of Palin for not being able to point that out.
The other was Gibson’s own minor mis-statement. American foreign policy has long recognized the concept of preemptive action: if you know somebody is just about to attack you, there’s no debate about the legitimacy of acting first. (This is like “shooting in self-defense.”) The more controversial part of The Bush Doctrine was the idea of preventive war: acting before a threat had fully emerged, on the theory that waiting until it was fully evident would mean acting too late.
Gibson used the word “preemptively” — but if a knowledgeable person had pushed back on that point (“Well, preemption was what John F. Kennedy had in mind in acting against the imminent threat of Soviet missiles in Cuba”), Gibson would certainly have come back to explain the novelty of the “preventive war” point. Because he knows the issue, a minor mis-choice of words wouldn’t get in the way of his real intent.
September 14th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
I like the the Hillary Clinton Forum’s summary of the questions asked by Gibson to both Obama and Palin. Read them and see if you think them fair and balanced, especially given that one’s running for President and the other for Vice President.
Obama interview:
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5000184
How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to “win”?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?
Palin interview:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09…with-abc-news/
Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
Questions about foreign policy
-territorial integrity of Georgia
-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
-NATO treaty
-Iranian nuclear threat
-what to do if Israel attacks Iran
-Al Qaeda motivations
-the Bush Doctrine
-attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]
You know, I actually thought Gibson did a good interview of Palin. It’s just that when he only performs well and asks tough questions that we should get worried.
And if you really want a travesty, read the transcript of the entire interview. They really hacked that thing to be as biased against Palin as possible.