GIBSON: What?!? I don't know that!!!
ZOT!!!!
Love ya, Sarah....
Posted on 09/12/2008 1:11:06 AM PDT by jeltz25
What Exactly Is the 'Bush Doctrine'? It's being taken in some quarters as revelatory of inexperience that Sarah Palin sought clarification when ABC's Charlie Gibson asked her about the Bush Doctrine. To review, here is the passage from the transcript.
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine? PALIN: In what respect, Charlie? GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be? PALIN: His world view. GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war. PALIN: 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. GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
Gibson should of course have said in the first place what he understood the Bush Doctrine to be--and specified that he was asking a question about preemption. Palin was well within bounds to have asked him to be more specific. Because, as it happens, the doctrine has no universally acknowledged single meaning. Gibson himself in the past has defined the Bush Doctrine to mean "a promise that all terrorist organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated"--which is remarkably close to Palin's own answer.
Consider what a diversity of views on the meaning of the Bush Doctrine can be found simply within the archives of ABC News itself:
September 20, 2001 PETER JENNINGS: . . . Claire, the president said at one point, 'From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.' Should we be taking that as the Bush doctrine? CLAIRE SHIPMAN reporting: I think so, Peter,
September 21, 2001 CHARLIE GIBSON: The president in his speech last night, very forceful. Four out of five Americans watched it. Everybody gathered around the television set last night. The president issued a series of demands to the Taliban, already rejected. We'll get to that in a moment. He also outlined what is being called the Bush Doctrine, a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated.
September 21, 2001 CHARLIE GIBSON: Senator Daschle, let me start with you. People were looking for a Bush Doctrine. They may have found it when he said the war on terror will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped or defeated. That's pretty broad. Broader than you expected?
December 9, 2001 GEORGE WILL: The Bush doctrine holds that anyone who governs a territory is complicit in any terrorism that issues from that territory. That covers the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Second, the war on terrorism is indivisible, it's part of the Bush doctrine.
December 11, 2001 GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Two years ago, September 1999, Bush gave his first speech when he was running about terrorism. And his first--had the first explanation of the Bush doctrine, that if you harbor a terrorist, you're going to be attacked. The Bush White House is putting this out, saying it shows that Bush was very prescient, but that was only one speech given in the campaign.
January 28, 2002 BOB WOODWARD: This is now the Bush Doctrine . . . , namely that if we're attacked by terrorists, we will not just go after those terrorists but the countries or the people who harbor them.
January 29, 2002 GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: It was striking and significant that the president really expanded the Bush doctrine. If a nation builds a weapon of mass destruction--Iraq, Iran or North Korea--we will reserve the right to take out those weapons even if we're not attacked or even if there's not a threat.
March 19, 2004 TERRY MORAN: That was the Bush doctrine we just heard. On this one-year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, President Bush offered a very broad justification of American leadership in the world under him since 9/11. Not just since one year in Iraq. For American voters as an argument that the country is safer, but more as you point out, for the world, which has been divided by his leadership, that Iraq is knit, in his mind, very firmly into that war on terrorism. One omission which I believe will be noted around the world, he made no mention of the role of multilateral institutions, the UN and others, in this fight against terrorism. In his mind, it's clear it's American leadership with others following along.
May 7, 2006 GEORGE WILL: Now the argument from the right is the CIA is a rogue agent because it has not subscribed to the Bush doctrine. The Bush doctrine being that American security depends on the spread of democracy and we know how to do that. The trouble is, Negroponte, who is considered by some of these conservatives the villain here and an enemy of the Bush doctrine is the choice of Bush, which makes Bush an insufficient subscriber to the Bush doctrine.
I'll stop there, although anyone with a Nexis account can find far more where that came from. Preemptive war; American unilateralism; the overthrow of regimes that harbor and abet terrorists--all of these things and more have been described as the "Bush Doctrine." It was a bit of a sham on Gibson's part to have pretended that there's such a thing as 'the' Bush Doctrine, much less that it was enunciated in September 2002
Even ABC's own people have said it means at least 5 different things. Even Gibson himslef said it means something else than he now says it means.
Here's Gibson in Sept, 2001:
September 21, 2001 CHARLIE GIBSON: The president in his speech last night, very forceful. Four out of five Americans watched it. Everybody gathered around the television set last night. The president issued a series of demands to the Taliban, already rejected. We'll get to that in a moment. He also outlined what is being called the Bush Doctrine, a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated.
September 21, 2001 CHARLIE GIBSON: Senator Daschle, let me start with you. People were looking for a Bush Doctrine. They may have found it when he said the war on terror will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped or defeated. That's pretty broad. Broader than you expected?
But Gibson last night says it was ennunciated in Sept 2002 and means we have the right to anticpatory self defense.
Hmm. In 2001, a yr before it was "ennunciated in Sept, 2002" Gibson was saying it means that "all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated"
Why does that sound familiar?
last night:
PALIN: 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
compare Gibson's description of the Bush Doctrine in 2001 to Palin's last night
"all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated"
vs
"rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation"
It's virtually the same thing
Gibson even broadened it by saying all terrorists not just Islamic ones.
So, Palin was right, Gibson was wrong and he's diagreeing with what he himself said. What a joke.
Also, the post shows how just about everyone one ABC news had their own explanation of what the Bush Doctrine is. Jennings, Gibson, George Will, Bob Woodward, Stephanopoplous. They all disagreed on what it meant.
Hopefully the McCain camp gets this out there if the media of left tries any pushback.
What a stupid man!
Very nice.
GIBSON: What?!? I don't know that!!!
ZOT!!!!
Love ya, Sarah....
Yeah, that was obvious. Glad to see others picking up on his juvenile attempt to puff himself up.
Yeah it's a joke.
And as I've said on my raging angry rants today, Republicans and Conservatives need to get off their whining that they should be treated "fairly"
Gee Dee it, get over it. You're NOT going to be treated "fairly" by the Mediots.
Bring your Truth to the table, locked and loaded.
Tell the G*d-Dam*ed TRUTH, stop being pussies, say the truth, then explain why what you said is the TRUTH.
Try that some time, dumba$$es. It might work. DUH.
THIS IS AWESOME!!!
You’re exactly right, if we don’t know by now that Republicans/conservatives will never get a fair shake from the media, we’ll never learn it. We have to operate from that premise, and be overly-prepared when it comes to the ‘interviews” which are always nothing more than “gotcha’s” lying in wait.
Let the Obama campaign act like a bunch of pussies. Let them.
There is no crying in baseball.
Bush doctrine bookmark.
Good job.
Go Sarah!
III. Strengthen Alliances to Defeat Global Terrorism and Work to Prevent Attacks Against Us and Our Friends
“...defending the United States, the American people, and our interests at home and abroad by identifying and destroying the threat before it reaches our borders.While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country”
Palin could have chosen, with the question asked, to parrot current US policy or a differing opinion.
Sarah Palin should not be treated like a piece of fancy china that is only brought out once a year.
I have no worries. It’s obvious that she’s the kind of person who learns from every experience, and instead of moaning, it just makes her more determined to do even better. As a mother, that would be one of the first things she’d teach her own kids. I thought she did just fine anyway.
These sexists/racists cannot match her, and they know it.
They're dead meat.
Palin lives reality. She proves it.
Right.
She can handle ANY tough question.
Notice she don’t get and softball questions...??????
Geez.
no I’m talking about freepers who are shocked that Charlie tried to trip her up and don’t want to see him ask her anything ever again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.