I didn't see the entire interview, but I think she could've answered the question as to whether we have the right to invade a country to go after terrorists, in a cogent and more eloquent fashion.
She could've said that a country harboring known terrorists posing an imminent threat to our country is in fact, aiding in that terrorist threat themselves. If they do not go after those terrorist, or allow us to preemptively go after them, that country is complicit in terrorism. That gives us the right to go after them.
>>She could’ve said that a country harboring known terrorists posing an imminent threat to our country is in fact, aiding in that terrorist threat themselves. If they do not go after those terrorist, or allow us to preemptively go after them, that country is complicit in terrorism. That gives us the right to go after them.<<
I’ll have to give Gibson credit if his goal was to ask a question to which there is no single correct answer, and to give all the possible answers would take a week just to look up quotes and references.
No matter how she answered the question, the MSM would pick one aspect of Bush’s policies and say that she didn’t know the answer.
The best answer might have been that the phrase “The Bush Doctrine” means so many things to different people that the question is meaningless, but then the MSM would say she was dodging the question.