Evidence of Miss Wasilla's Ignorance: Foreign Policy

[Joe Steel]

Miss Wasilla seems to be in way over her head.


While the presidential campaign's back and forth was largely suspended on Thursday's anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, ABC World News used the occasion to run extended excerpts of Charles Gibson's exclusive interview with Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin, her first televised interview since coming on the national stage. ABC ran 10 minutes of the interview at the top of its broadcast, and another 2 1/2 minutes at the close.

Reviews of her performance tend to be more negative than positive, with a focus on her labored efforts to deal with foreign policy questions. The AP says Palin "struggled with foreign policy, unable to describe President Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive strikes against threatening nations and acknowledging she's never met a foreign head of state." The Chicago Tribune also notes Palin "seemed unfamiliar with the 'Bush doctrine,' which says the United States does not need to wait to be attacked before going to war." The New York Times says in "choosing Mr. Gibson as Ms. Palin's interlocutor, the campaign was going with a journalist known for having a mild manner but the gravitas to be taken seriously. But the interview was hardly gentle." Gibson "expressed exasperation" with Palin, complaining that she "had buried him in 'a blizzard of words.'" The Washington Times reports Gibson "also asked her about her travel experience, and she acknowledged that before a recent trip to Kuwait to visit Alaskan National Guard troops she had only visited Mexico and Canada and had not met personally with any foreign leaders."

In ABC Interview, Palin Seen As Struggling With Foreign Policy (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080912.htm)

[jimnyc]

Joe Quoted:


Reviews of her performance tend to be more negative than positive, with a focus on her labored efforts to deal with foreign policy questions. The AP says Palin "struggled with foreign policy, unable to describe President Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive strikes against threatening nations and acknowledging she's never met a foreign head of state." The Chicago Tribune also notes Palin "seemed unfamiliar with the 'Bush doctrine,' which says the United States does not need to wait to be attacked before going to war."From NY Times:


"At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' "

-- New York Times, Sept. 12Then reality and the truth set it on Joe Steel:


Informed her? Rubbish.

The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, 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 the rest here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457_pf.html

[PostmodernProphet]

Gibson was the one that screwed up there....typical modernist mistake, thinking that one could capitalize a thought and then everyone agrees with what you are talking about....."The Bush Doctrine"....there is no "The Bush Doctrine".....and she did the correct thing to ask Gibson what HE meant by it......amusingly, he got it wrong....so did a lot of pundits yesterday.....I heard one guy on the radio say "she didn't know the Bush Doctrine!....and then he stated it "We have the right to attack any country if we think they are nasty!".....

she schooled Gibson and the left is the only ones that don't get it.....

[jimnyc]

Gibson was the one that screwed up there....typical modernist mistake, thinking that one could capitalize a thought and then everyone agrees with what you are talking about....."The Bush Doctrine"....there is no "The Bush Doctrine".....and she did the correct thing to ask Gibson what HE meant by it......amusingly, he got it wrong....so did a lot of pundits yesterday.....I heard one guy on the radio say "she didn't know the Bush Doctrine!....and then he stated it "We have the right to attack any country if we think they are nasty!".....

she schooled Gibson and the left is the only ones that don't get it.....

Libs will deny he was wrong and made an ass out of himself, and Joe will be the first...

[Joe Steel]

Joe Quoted:

From NY Times:

Then reality and the truth set it on Joe Steel:

Read the rest here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457_pf.html

No need to go over it again. Hate radio did that job almost all day yesterday. What more evidence would be necessary that Gibson was right than hate radio's opposite position.

In fact, the Bush doctrine has been accepted universally as a policy of preemptive, and I'd say peremptory, war. All the other stuff is fluff added to make the aggressive war seem less offensive.

And your link was to a Charles Krauthammer column. Are you kidding?

[jimnyc]

And your link was to a Charles Krauthammer column. Are you kidding?

Considering the author was the one who coined the term... Can you dispute what he states?


I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, 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.

[diuretic]

Krauthammer isn't an authority on the Bush Doctrine. Bush is.

[jimnyc]

Krauthammer isn't an authority on the Bush Doctrine. Bush is.

Can you please cite for me when Bush first "coined" that term - presumably before the author I cite did so...

[Joe Steel]

Krauthammer isn't an authority on the Bush Doctrine. Bush is.

I agree.

Bush is the Bush in Bush Doctrine...and he's a war criminal.

The Bush Doctrine is what the Bush Doctrine does.

[jimnyc]

I agree.

Bush is the Bush in Bush Doctrine...and he's a war criminal.

The Bush Doctrine is what the Bush Doctrine does.

In other words, you cannot dispute what the author I cited wrote?

[Joe Steel]

In other words, you cannot dispute what the author I cited wrote?

Not at all. Even Krauthammer admits the definition has changed over the years. I have no obligation to accept a definition which is changed every time someone thinks it's convenient.

As Krauthammer suggests ("Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine",) premptive war is the Bush Doctrine because that's the one the world accepts.

[jimnyc]

Not at all. Even Krauthammer admits the definition has changed over the years. I have no obligation to accept a definition which is changed every time someone thinks it's convenient.

As Krauthammer suggests ("Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine",) premptive war is the Bush Doctrine because that's the one the world accepts.

And Wikipedia shows MANY definitions - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

So how was she out of line asking Gibson to be more specific?

[Joe Steel]

And Wikipedia shows MANY definitions - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

So how was she out of line asking Gibson to be more specific?

She wasn't. Clarification always is acceptable.

In her answer, though, she said "imminent" threat. The Bush Doctrine doesn't demand an imminent threat. The Bush Doctrine permits, as I said ealier, preemptive and, in my opinion, peremptory war.

[jimnyc]

She wasn't. Clarification always is acceptable.

In her answer, though, she said "imminent" threat. The Bush Doctrine doesn't demand an imminent threat. The Bush Doctrine permits, as I said ealier, preemptive and, in my opinion, peremptory war.

So you are saying she is wrong. Can you please cite/link for me where the Bush administration has made this term a part of their administrations goals, and where they define it, specifically? Or are you saying she should be up to date with what all the pundits use to describe what they like or don't like?

[Joe Steel]

So you are saying she is wrong. Can you please cite/link for me where the Bush administration has made this term a part of their administrations goals, and where they define it, specifically? Or are you saying she should be up to date with what all the pundits use to describe what they like or don't like?

The discussion of "imminence" raged for months, maybe years. Are you saying it was inconclusive? Besides Krauthammer, the self-proclaimed inventor of the Bush Doctrine, admitted "preemptive war" was one definition of the Bush Doctrine. By definition, that eliminates the need for imminence.

[jimnyc]

The discussion of "imminence" raged for months, maybe years. Are you saying it was inconclusive? Besides Krauthammer, the self-proclaimed inventor of the Bush Doctrine, admitted "preemptive war" was one definition of the Bush Doctrine. By definition, that eliminates the need for imminence.

So she is guilty of not being up to date with what pundits and columnists write about? Why should she have extensive knowledge about terms and definitions written by the media? Why should she know the various definitions given to a term invented by columnists?

[diuretic]

Can you please cite for me when Bush first "coined" that term - presumably before the author I cite did so...

I didn't say he coined the term, I said he was an expert on his own doctrine, whatever that might be.

[diuretic]

So she is guilty of not being up to date with what pundits and columnists write about? Why should she have extensive knowledge about terms and definitions written by the media? Why should she know the various definitions given to a term invented by columnists?

Because she could be president.

[jimnyc]

Because she could be president.

So you feel that one must be up to date with what the pundits talk about and columnists write about in order to be qualified to be President?

She simply asked the interviewer to expand on what he meant by the "media term", and ultimately answered the question. It's a fact that there are quite a few definitions, so why would it be wrong of her to ask him to be more specific?

[diuretic]

No problem with asking for a clear definition. But I would have expected she would have been able to press Gibson in more definite terms than simply asking him a really open question. She would have done better if she had asked him, "by the 'Bush Doctrine' do you mean............."

[Yurt]

No problem with asking for a clear definition. But I would have expected she would have been able to press Gibson in more definite terms than simply asking him a really open question. She would have done better if she had asked him, "by the 'Bush Doctrine' do you mean............."

not everyone can be as smart as you :D

[Gaffer]

There is no Bush Doctrine. That is just a media talking point used when they want to attack his policies and nothing more. It's a keyword that signals at partisan hack is doing the interviewing disguised as a news reporter.

[PostmodernProphet]

In fact, the Bush doctrine has been accepted universally as a policy of preemptive, and I'd say peremptory, war

you just stated it differently than Gibson did....good thing you weren't the one who had to answer his question.....you would have gotten it wrong....

[PostmodernProphet]

She wasn't. Clarification always is acceptable.

In her answer, though, she said "imminent" threat. The Bush Doctrine doesn't demand an imminent threat. The Bush Doctrine permits, as I said ealier, preemptive and, in my opinion, peremptory war.

she was stating HER opinion on what we should and should not do....