What was Charlie Gibson trying to accomplish in his recent interview with Governor Palin?
“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 worldview?
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war. "
Did you see his face? It spoke volumes. So full of contempt there could be no doubt of his desire to demean and humiliate her.
“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 -- the right to preemptive attack of a country that was planning an attack on America?”
“PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend."
Well I sure hope anyone who wants to be our President, the Commander in Chief, would agree with that! Would take action against any country that was planning an attack on America!
Since that interview, the Democrats and mainstream press have been all over Palin’s slightest hesitancy in answering the question about the Bush Doctrine. So excited they caught her in a “Gotcha” moment! She’s ignorant! Doesn’t know what the Bush Doctrine is!
When Gibson asked about the “Bush Doctrine”, I wondered exactly what he was referring to. I have since learned there are at least four doctrines that are called "Bush Doctrine," which means that there is no "Bush Doctrine."
In an interview, Bush press secretary
Dana Perino said that "the Bush doctrine is commonly used to describe key elements of the president's overall strategy for dealing with threats from terrorists." "The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor terrorists. . . . We will confront grave threats before they fully materialize and will fight the terrorists abroad so we don't have to face them at home. . . . We will counter the hateful ideology of the terrorist by promoting the hopeful alternative of human freedom." Bush, she added, "is comfortable with the way I just described it."
As reported in a recent Washington Post article: “Peter D. Feaver, who worked on the Bush national security strategy as a staff member on the
National Security Council, said he has counted as many as seven distinct Bush doctrines. They include the president's second-term "freedom agenda"; the notion that states that harbor terrorists should be treated no differently than terrorists themselves; the willingness to use a "coalition of the willing" if the
United Nations does not address threats; and the one Gibson was talking about -- the doctrine of preemptive war.
"If you were given a quiz, you might guess that one, because it's one that many people associate with the Bush doctrine," said Feaver, now a
Duke University professor. "But in fact it's not the only one."
Don’t Gibson and the rest of the mainstream media feel like fools now!
I remember that Gibson was one of the network anchors who adoringly traipsed after Obama on his European tour. The same Gibson who was absent on any of McCain’s numerous trips to Iraq. Kind of makes you wonder ..