Palin doesn’t know what the Bush Doctrine is
Forget the war with Russia quote. Yes, that was a terrifying – but clarifying – moment in that it revealed the utter folly of pushing NATO membership for Georgia or Ukraine. Smart politicians are never supposed to admit to a possible war with Russia, even if it’s technically possible. And her “perhaps so” comment is getting WIDE play already (front page on the Washington Post, for example).
But far more troubling for me was her moose-in-the-headlights look when asked about the Bush Doctrine. See the video here.
As a college professor I know when my students are BSing. It’s usually quite obvious. I call on them to answer a question about the reading and they give some completely vague talking point response. Charlie Gibson sensed it here with Sarah Palin too, and he pressed the issue. He had to actually tell her what the Bush Doctrine is: pre-emptive strikes and anticipatory self-defense.
I guarantee you that most people who read The Moderate Voice know what the Bush Doctrine is. We’ve been debating it since 2002. And if they didn’t know it, they wouldn’t pretend to be ready to serve as VP.
How could Palin have flubbed this basic question about current national security policy? It was THE justification for the war in Iraq. There are dozens of books out there on it. Everybody in the McCain foreign policy camp knows the Bush Doctrine backwards and forwards – many of them helped write it. And yet she doesn’t know what it is?
What’s worse is that when she was finally told what the Bush Doctrine was – anticipatory self-defense and pre-emptive striking – she still flubbed it. She answered that the US could respond militarily in the case of an “imminent threat.” Well, that’s actually traditional war theory and NOT the Bush Doctrine. Remember all those defenders of the Iraq war insisting that Bush NEVER claimed Iraq was an “imminent” threat? How many times did we debate the meaning of “imminence?” The reason for that exchange was clear: if Iraq posed no imminent threat, then war was unjustified…UNLESS, you accept the Bush Doctrine that advocates war even when the threat is NOT imminent.
And then when asked about an application of this doctrine in Pakistan – something that Barack Obama got a lot of flak for early on but that has become much less controversial since – she punted again. I honestly got the impression that she doesn’t know if Pakistan has nukes, why Pakistan is of strategic importance, or what’s been happening there in terms of their leadership.
Those of us who were skeptical of the Sarah Palin nomination predicted this would happen. Every day she spent in scripted rallies, the call would grow louder for her to show her actual knowledge and beliefs. And when given an interview with a man deemed appropriately “deferential,” she still flubs it.
The question now is whether or not John McCain will let her speak unscripted again before the debates. Apparently her “regular mom” schtick is better protected by shielding her from even softball policy questions.
But, hey, I’m biased. What do other people think? Did she come across as somebody ready to step in as VP, and as President in a moment’s notice if need be? Did she pass what Hillary Clinton called the “Commander-in-Chief” threshold?
61 Responses to “Palin doesn’t know what the Bush Doctrine is”
crash, I agree completely that not knowing the term “The Bush Doctrine” is nothing to be greatly embarrassed about as an average citizen. That's why we aren't on any Presidential tickets.
Charlie Gibson was engaged in playing a game of semantic “gotcha” instead of asking her to explain her policy positions. The fact is that the Bush doctrine–not an official term so far as I can tell–has had different meanings at different times and Charlie's question, as first posed, ignored that nuance.
Gibson: do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
Palin: in what respect, Charlie?
Gibson: well, what do you interpret it to be?
Palin: His world view?
Wikipedia reports as to the Bush Doctrine:
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.[1] LATER it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a supposed threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq), a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism, and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.[2][3][4] SOME of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002.[5]
A fair question by Charlie would have parsed each point of the Bush doctrine, as he, the questioner understood it, and asked her whether she agreed or disagreed and why.
When Charlie did parse a part of it (himself erring in his understanding of the doctrine in its fullest sense by limited it to the preemptive strike element), asking her a legit policy question, she knocked it out of the box:
“Gibson: the Bush Doctrine is we have the right of self-defense, preemptive strike against any country we think is going to attack us. do you agree with us?
She responded: “”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.”
To the extent that represents a shrinking back from the Bush doctrine by returning to the requirement of “imminence” for a preemptive strike, so what. She gave her own policy answer to the question and it was completely reasonable. You folks are grasping at straws. Whoever the President is, McCain, Obama, Palin or Biden, if a threat arises, not one of them would decide a response based on analyzing what would President Bush, applying the Bush doctrine as understood by the media elite, have done (WWGWBD?!) Just plain petty.
On the right to invade Pakistan, I'll take Palin's somewhat more nuanced answer anyday over Obama's position expressed in August, 2007:
“Barack Obama, a leading Democrat candidate in the US presidential race, provoked anger yesterday by threatening to send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists — even without permission from that country’s Government.
Standing in front of a Stars and Stripes flag, Mr Obama said: “There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”
The problem once again was in the manner Charlie posed the question using “rights” terminology. Difficult to separate out of the equation is the implication that if you have the right, you're necessarily going to use it as soon as you recognize you have it. And that's false. The right to apply military force cross-border into a sovereign nation, albeit into an autonomous or semi-autonomous region, does not exist carte blanche but can arise under a certain set of circumstances and when those circumstances arise, it does not necessarily mean the right should be immediately exercised. Palin's answer about keeping all of the options on the table was, in the final analysis, succinctly correct.
Get over it, libs.
Edit function doesn't seem to work so changed “limited” to “limiting.”
OK… so a show of hands here… Did Palin answer Gibson's question on whether or not she thought the US could unilaterally invade Pakistan (or another country) to fight terrorists and protect the US? I'm not interested in the build-up to the last part of the interview or the evolution of the “Bush Doctrine” through history…. At the end of the clip Gibson had defined “Bush Doctrine” and asked a simple question several times that I don't think she really answered.
I can certainly interpret her response as saying that she beleives we have the right to preemptively invade another country to protect the country, but it was a yes or no question and all she could say was that the US should keep all options on the table.
In other words if she had said “yes” or “no” and given the wrong answer, she would have never heard the end of it from the press…. This way she can backpedal if necessary…
Instead Palin had no answer nor had she even thought about it.
So I still don't know where she stands. But no doubt tomorrow there will be clarification from camp McCain that she does support such cross-border action… though an answer from camp McCain doesn't give me any insight or color into her thoughts (and isn't that the purpose of the Gibson interview?) on this matter and what sort of threats she might find acceptable. Does she believe such cross-border military action should be aimed at all terrorist targets, even if innocent civilians are caught in the cross-fire and become anti-American? Or does she believe that the risks of such military strikes are only worth it for “high value” targets (and how does she define high value targets?
Also she said they (the McCain administration) would work with other countries so war is not a first option, but a last option. I thought war was already a last option… If you want to replay the quote, go to time 1:25 on the linked video…. Maybe I didn't hear very well…
The problem is we have no way to back up our threats.
Georgia and Ukraine being admitted into Nato would be done in a manner in which threats would not be an option or necessary. That is what you and yours do not understand when commenting on this matter. Nato would never allow someone into the organization under any form of footing that would immediately or not long after promise the outbreak of war.
Communist democracy eh? And you're lecturing Marshall on Eastern European affairs?
The people themselves in Russia have adopted democracy to fit their own agenda. They themselves speak of democracy of being something that is not and should not and will not be defined for them and certainly does not merit definitions coming from the west. Thus anyone who understands and studies what is happening in Russia understands that Putin is attempting to give communism a new name called Democracy.
The failure is not His. It is not Russia. It has always been the wests who has embraced nearly every nation under the old Soviet Influence but the one that has the most to gain or the most to loose. Russia.
DGDad,
If you watch the video, it's obvious that Palin thinks she's agreeing with the Bush Doctrine as Gibson defined it, even though she's actually opposing it.
Does she know what “anticipatory self-defense” or “pre-emptive” war means?
And to claim ignorance over the Bush Doctrine is ridiculous. John McCain knows what it is. He is even on video in 2005 defining it and defending it.
The Bush Doctrine isn't some arcane political science term. It's been the central point of contention in national security policy for the last 7 years.
Yes, there are several elements of the Bush Doctrine. But it's not like she started talking about attacking nations that harbor terrorists, or expanding democracy in her response. She asked, “You mean his worldview?” That means she had NO IDEA there even was a Bush Doctrine.
Also, her response on Pakistan was so pathetically vague because she had no idea how to answer the question. This isn't some Karl Rove trick where she's outsmarting everybody else. She was over her head. Watch the body language and it's obvious.
except, as it has been said by those on the Right, that the jobs of President and Vice president are not on the job training exercises. Unless of course you happen to be Karl Rove, then the point is superceded by whatever lie you can come up with.
Why does DGDad's full page “justification” for Palin's ignorance about the Bush Doctrine remind me of Karl Rove and Fox News?'
Stop making excuses Pacatrue. First of all, you can't blame this on “I'm stressed out so I choked”. Please. The Presidency ISN'T a stressful job? I'd have to her not operate “at the best of her ability” in the middle of a foreign policy crisis. Double standards much? If Obama had been this clueless, EVERYONE would be jumping on him about how inexperienced he is. You don’t run for VICE PRESIDENT and NOT know these things. How the are you supposed to pick up where your predecessor left off if you don’t even know what your predecessor DID?
She didn’t have a different interpretation of the Bush Doctrine. She flat out didn’t know WHAT IT WAS. Anyone who’s followed politics for more than 48 hours and isn’t a complete dunderhead knows what it is.
This woman is completely unprepared to be Vice President and by extension, President of the United States. And if you do the actuary tables, there's a STRONG chance she'd be commander in chief.
If Obama isn't prepared, then Palin DEFINITELY isn't.
As Homer Simpson said, “it's funny cause its true.” Seeing a politician pretending the part finally being revealed was neat-o. Darn tooting, her look and “in what respect Charlie?” and also her “his world view” response… with the deadpan look at Charlie, even threw Mr. Gibson aback. He did one of those Daffy Duck, “iiiiyayayayayayayayayayaayayay” head shakes like “ohhh nelly, she doesn't know what she's talking about and is pretending.” She seems like a terrific person who means well. She seems like someone who is doing a competent job at her position right now, and seems to be proud of her family and country. If that's the case, then that makes me qualified to be president (or vice), and believe me, we don't want that. I'd just declare Fridays to be Hot Dog Day and everyone gets free hot dogs (mustard only) and then off from work as well.
I just wish Charlie, when he defined the doctrine for her (they needed crickets in the background when she gave that deer in headlights pause), would have made something up on the spot, and then she'd HAVE to have gone along with it, not knowing what it was. That would have been suhweeeeeeet. Maybe like this…. Charlie: “Well, the Bush Doctrine as I believe it, states that any country which is in the Middle East and is headed by someone with more than 4 syllables is an imminent threat. Do you agree with this?”
What's the difference between a pretty politician and someone who actually knows what they're talking about? lipstick. I wish her luck, just not as my president (or vice) right now. maybe someday, maybe after she works her way up and does some *learning*, but not right now.
Relaaxx, Beckoner. I realize that you probably don't study my comments (why would you?), but right above the one you critique, I say, “Anyway, in the video, she looks EXACTLY like someone who got caught in class not knowing the answer and knows its important. She looks really put-out and defensive as opposed to in command of the situation.” And then later, “It sure gives the impression that Palin just has not been following foreign policy issues at any level of detail. Instead she's having to learn to be President in a great cram session now.” And “To state the obvious, nothing is wrong with this for the normal person. Probably Mother Theresa wouldn't have known much about the Bush Doctrine and she wasn't too shabby of a human being. But it clearly IS worrisome in a possible President.”
So, I basically said in many different ways that it's troubling she doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is. I guess I apologize that I also offered other legitimate possibilities, but I don't think I was offering excuses or spin for her. The lack of knowledge is revealing. Reasonable people will disagree whether she has other qualifications that make her a great VP choice, but foreign policy knowledge has not yet been demonstrated to be one of them.