Palin doesn’t know what the Bush Doctrine is

Palin just hasn't given much thought to anything outside of her immediate surroundings, first in Wasilla, then in Juneau. Like I assume, many working moms with 4, and now 5 kids, she's been too busy to give it much thought.

Completely understandable.

Of course being as incurious as GWB might be considered a disqualification for leadership of the most powerful nation on the globe. But to a certain flavor of conservative all this knowing stuff is dangerously elitist.

The link I meant to post: here.

Intriguingly, the video was much more worrisome than the transcript. (I rarely watch TV and so most of my opinions are based upon words rather than images; one reason I often seem to support uncharismatic people who can write a few good paragraphs.) 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. This didn't come through in the transcript.

That said, for conservatives, she ultimately said the right things. Indeed her answer was general enough that most people would agree on Pakistan. After all, Obama said a long time ago that there might be situations in which he would strike in Pakistan unilaterally. The larger question politically is going to be how it plays to the undecideds. She sure seemed as if she's coming up with the answer right then and there, having never thought about it in detail before. Is this going to be okay with the undecideds?

pacatrue,
You are correct about the video vs. the transcript. And that's not good news for McCain considering the importance of TV news.

This isn't about hard-core conservatives who eat up all the vagaries about Islamic extremism. They were already in McCain's camp. This is about undecided Independent voters who find Palin intriguing but aren't sure yet if she's ready to step in. Her failure to even address the Pakistan question just makes her look over her head.

This is rather meaningless, but I was curious how common the exact term "the Bush Doctrine" is, so I typed it in Google and received 688,000 hits. More importantly, the term has been used in mainstream and alternative publications, as well as liberal and conservative ones. The number 2 link after wikipedia is from the conservative American Enterprise Institute with a 2003 article explicitly arguing that the Bush Doctrine was 1) a return to basic American policy and values and 2) likely to be one of the foundations of American foreign policy for years to come. 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.

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. The question will be: does she have enough other strengths to outweigh this? The answer may be yes.

I should add that she might actually know what the Bush Doctrine is, but had a "I'm having my first unscripted interview to be VP of the U.S. and I'm immensely stressed out about it" brain freeze. People frequently don't exhibit themselves to the best of their abilities, but again her political job here is to convince the worried that she's ready. Brain freezes don't convince.

Watching her try to answer Gibson's questions was almost painful. Good lord...

Methinks you guys (and gals) are being a little rough on Miss Wasilla.

Haven't you seen her full-page photo in Newsweek? One pretty lady wrapped in the American flag. That's good enough for me.

Enough time to learn about the real world.

If only we lived in an alternative reality where the Bush doctrine is what Palin said it is.

Gibson should have asked her if it was acceptable to make up intelligence to justify killing and wounding thousands of innocent and whether a President that lies to start a war should be impeached.

Would God approve of a preemptive strike on a country when there was do evidence of weapons of mass destruction targeted at the United States or any other country. Nor did any other country pleaded for our assistance.

Gov Palin, "Was George W Bush correct according to the teachings of Christ when he started a war that killed and wounded thousands of innocent people?"

Just a comment about the "moose in the headlights look"...Moose don't seem to have the wide-eyed look that deer have. I have encountered both moose and deer on the side of the road and deer tend to move, albeit erratically and moose may or may not. If it moves, it often seems nonchalant. Deer are more skittish than moose; moose are unpredictable and I have never seen one that seemed genuinely afraid of a human.
Not that my rambling relates in any way to this discussion, and I know that it's a reference to her Alaska roots, but "deer in the headlights" is more apt if you're referring to a look that suggests being fearful or not knowing what to do.

Why would Sarah Palin say something like Ukraine and Georgia should be a member of Nato? Does that mean she wants to attack Russia?

The facts involved here is that Ukraine and Georgia obtaining Nato Membership is contingent upon many, many things not the least of which would be Russia attacking either country. For either country to be admitted into Nato this obstacle would have to be removed and no longer a possible.

Therefore making these statements is in no way saying she wants to go to war with Russia but rather is designed to put pressure on Russia to alter its foreign policy or at least initially make them understand what the position of the United States is going to be under a McCain/Palin administration.

In addition Nato itself was considering Both Ukraine and Georgia for membership into their organization with the endorsement of the United States INCLUDING OBAMA, BIDEN, McCAIN and BUSH.

In addition Nato itself was considering Both Ukraine and Georgia for membership into their organization with the endorsement of the United States INCLUDING OBAMA, BIDEN, McCAIN and BUSH.

While literally true, it ignores the gulf in spirit between Obama and McCain on the issue of Georgia and NATO.

Still, I wish Obama hadn't caved and took a more hawkish line.

greenscheme,
I agree with Josh Marshall from TPM more or less...

A further point. It's true that Obama and Biden both favor Georgia's accession into NATO -- a very bad policy position, as I've argued before. However, I do not think that their positions and McCain's positions are equal. The best analogy I can point to is the nominal agreement on Iraq policy (embodied in the Iraq Liberation Act) between the Clinton administration and the most radical neocons in the late 1990s. Nominally, they shared a policy. In practice, however, it was one group that was completely nuts and gung-ho in favor of a reckless idea and another that was sort of dabbling in and passively favoring the same policy. Not that that is saying much in the latter's favor. But there's a big difference.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/216003.php

Fair point Denisedh...

Georgia and the Ukraine is an excellent policy position. Embracing democracy is always a good thing, The failure of the west was in allowing Russia to rot and wollow in its democratic misery until a Putin came along and reinvigorated a new and unique form of communistic democracy.

Allowing the Ukraine and Georgia to rot and wollow in their own democracy is just simply encouraging a repeat of the Russian experiment. This is exactly what Putin is banking on and it is exactly that, with respects, Josh Marshall just dont understand the dynamics of what is going on in eastern Europe.

Georgia is more then a tiny country. It is the face of democracy in this region and where it will go from here.

OMG that was absolutely frightening to see her tap-dance around what should have been an easy question. Maybe news of the Bush Doctrine didn't travel up the pipeline to Alaska ... or her "Bush-League" preparation artists just figured the hockey mom knew about it. Also, Obama way outperformed McCain tonight on the service debate. McCain sounded like someone grandfather, while Obama, well, he sounded like the intelligent and vibrant person who should be in the White House.

Greenschemes,
The problem is we have no way to back up our threats. We have no leverage with Russia. Our military is bogged down. We need Russia to help pressure Iran. And we cannot stifle them economically with all the energy resources they have. We hold no cards with Russia.

All of which is why no American politician should flippantly invoke Article V of the NATO charter. If Russia knows we will never go to war with Russia over Georgia - and they do - mentioning Article V makes us look weaker. We look like like kids picking fights with giant bullies.

The failure of the west was in allowing Russia to rot and wollow in its democratic misery until a Putin came along and reinvigorated a new and unique form of communistic democracy... Josh Marshall just dont understand the dynamics of what is going on in eastern Europe.

Communist democracy eh? And you're lecturing Marshall on Eastern European affairs?

Even more terrifying than her complete ignorance about the Bush Doctrine (has she been living in a cave in Alaska?) is the anti intellectual wave that Bush has continued to endorse. You don't need to pick up a newspaper when you're the "decider" It means that she has a chance of being elected. Our so called fellow "\countrymen don't give a damn about such graphic stupidity because stupidtiy is in. Reagan was the first to appeal to this constituency, Bush Junior is the main proponent, and McBush is feeding into it big time with his campaign about a hockey mom who can dress out a moose. By gum that's what we need! Is it any surprise that the rest of the world holds us in complete contempt? But just as the Bush doctrine has led to the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent so to will his administration have to face up to a war crimes tribunal. Send this disaster back to ALASKA before she can harm anyone.

I too knew Bush had a policy of pre-emptive striking, I did not know it actually had a name. The Bush Doctrine. So I'm a little embarrassed myself. But I am not running for VP.One would think she would have been better prepared for this. For someone with so much experience in front of the camera she did not carry herself very well aside from her obvious lack of knowledge. She crouched alot. More as she got tense. She seemed extremely nervous and whenever she was really pressed by Charlie her of anger was jclearly just below the surface. Anger might be the wrong word but she sure did seem annoyed. Charlie Gibson ( tougher than I am used to seeing him tonight) is not one of the toughest interviewers in general and she had a lot of time to prepare. If this is the best she could do, I do think they are going to continue to keep her at Sen. McCain's side and only allow her to make the most select interviews with a lot more preparation. Rick Davis promised this and tonight will give him plenty of ammunition to keep that promise.

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 limiting 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.

.

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.