I hope this lets everyone take a deep breath and be ready to ask your liberal friends to explain "The Bush Doctrine" in their own words .
Exactly! Gibson wasn’t specific and he should have been.
I wonder what Charlie thinks the “Bush Doctrine” is?
And When McCain is President he will have a McCain Doctrine, or, God forbid, the Oabama Doctrine
I thought Sarah finessed the question very well and stayed clear away from fully embracing it, as Gibson defined it.
In any event, the Bush Doctrine is broad and doesn't just mean 'go and invade'.
Question: Are folks able to go in to Wikepedia and edit postings?
"Used" by whom? Although I am very familiar with the "foreign policy principles," this is the first time that I ever heard anyone refer to them, individually or collectively, as the "Bush Doctrine."
So nice to see important information found by a freeper, that totally debunks the latest attack on Palin, moved to “personal” as if it was some cheeseball vanity.
/s
Maybe it wasn’t breaking news material, but now it will just wither away...
Great work.
I was really surprised to find that anyone thought that a blunder. I thought it was really deft. She wasn’t going to let him hang “BUSH” on her, which was all he wanted to do. Define the doctrine, and I’ll tell you whether I agree with it. Perfect.
This is the only place I have seen the correct report on Gov. Palin’s answer to Gibson’s question:
“Do you agree with the Bush doctrine? PALIN: In what respect, Charlie? “
She asked because the Doctrine is not simply about pre-emptive strikes....of course, Gibson doesn’t know that and apparently neither do any of the left-wing blogs.
“1) 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.”
This is the actual Bush Doctrine. The remaining three points are hardly unique to Bush.
“the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate”
This has been U.S. policy since Jefferson went after the Barbary pirates. Mexico did not directly provoke us, we thought Spain attacked us but they didn’t, Germany did not directly attack us before WWI, Germany did not attacke us before WWII, North Korea did not attack us before the Korean War, Vietnam in all likelihood did not attack us before that conflict. In fact, we have gone to war because of direct provocation very few times. Japan comes to mind, as do the Confederate States and Great Britain twice. Any others?
“3) a policy of supporting democracy around the world”
At least since Wilson’s quixotic Fourteen Points, this has been our official policy. Bush’s use of it is an updating of Wilsonianism and the Truman Doctrine.
“4) a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way”
This depends on how one defines “unilateral.” To libs, I suppose it means giving nebulous “world opinion” the equivalent of a UN security council veto. In point of fact, we now have, and always have had, allies. The only time I can think of when we allowed our allies to dictate our foreign policy was with Stalin at the end of WWII
In summary, whoever wrote this Wikipedia entry is ignorant.
Now Palin was smart enough to see Gibson trying to ask a loaded question filled with presumption and asked for clarification. Gibson then changed the question to simply, “What do you believe the Bush Doctrine is?” and Sarah saw the trap and yet still obliged to a certain extent. Her answer was spot-on but she is now on notice that the MSM will from here on out try “Gotcha!” questions relentlessly and she needs to stilletto it artfully back in their face.
I didn’t have a chance to see the interview. Did she know any of them?
The Bush doctrine
In American foreign policy, a new motto: Don't ask. Tell
By Charles Krauthammer
February 26, 2001
http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/2001/03/05/doctrine.html
America is no mere international citizen. It is the dominant power in the world, more dominant than any since Rome. Accordingly, America is in a position to reshape norms, alter expectations and create new realities. How? By unapologetic and implacable demonstrations of will.