It was reported that the “Bush Doctrine” was the concept that we had the right to engage in preemptive war, as we did in 2003, although Saddam Hussein had not attacked us or anyone else as he had in 1990 when he entered Kuwaite. This unfortunately pulled us away from finishing the job in Afghanistan. [And means my son will be sent back there for a second tour next year.]
It that is correct, then it is clear from her answer that she had no idea what it was.
She got it right, though. She just wanted clarification on what HE meant by the Bush Doctrine since there have been like, I don’t know...4 or 5 in the media.
Once he clarified the date 2003, she gave the answer about America acting in it’s best interest if there is clear threat, and intelligence to support it.
What are you talking about?
>>It was reported that the “Bush Doctrine” was the concept that we had the right to engage in preemptive war, as we did in 2003<<
You are taking Gibson’s word for it? In fact, either Gibson didn’t understand that the term “Bush Doctrine” refers to several different Bush policies, or he just wanted to set a trap by asking a question that had no correct answer.
Find Charles Krauthammer’s article about the “Bush Doctrine.” It’s a media generated term, not a written policy statement. He said Gibson got it wrong and defined it so as to trap Palin into a gaffe.