Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

Charlie Gibson got it wrong
Posted by: McQ on Friday, September 12, 2008

Josh Marshall and much of the left thinks Gibson's question about the "Bush Doctrine" showed Palin to be lacking in understanding concerning foreign affairs.
The awkward moment when Charlie Gibson tries his best not to press the point that Sarah Palin doesn't know what he's referring to when he asks her about the "Bush Doctrine" ...
Yet, as it is turning out, it seems that Gibson was asking her to guess what his interpretation of the doctrine was.

Why? The document popularly known as "the Bush Doctrine" is, in fact, the The National Security Strategy published in September 2002. It's table of contents gives a broad overview of the points which make up the "Bush Doctrine":
1. Overview of America's International Strategy

2. Champion Aspirations for Human Dignity

3. Strengthen Alliances to Defeat Global Terrorism and Work to Prevent Attacks Against Us and Our Friends

4. Work with others to Defuse Regional Conflicts

5. Prevent Our Enemies from Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends with Weapons of Mass Destruction

6. Ignite a New Era of Global Economic Growth through Free Markets and Free Trade

7. Expand the Circle of Development by Opening Societies and Building the Infrastructure of Democracy

8. Develop Agendas for Cooperative Action with the Other Main Centers of Global Power

9. Transform America's National Security Institutions to Meet the Challenges and Opportunities of the Twenty-First Century
If you read the document you'll find that at a minimum there are 4 main parts of the Bush Doctrine, of which preemption is only one (Preemption, Military Primacy, New Multilateralism, and the Spread of Democracy).

When Gibson asked "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?", she asked "In what way, Charlie?"

Given the list of the different topics covered by the "Bush Doctrine" or even boiled down to the main 4, that seems a very legitimate clarification question.

Was Gibson talking about the spread of democracy, outlined by the Bush Doctrine? The agenda for cooperation with other "main centers of global power"? The transformation of the national security institution to meet the new threat?

Or was he asking about the plan to defuse other regional conflicts?

None of the above. So when she asked "his world view?", it seems that she was more in tune with what the "Bush Doctrine" included than was Gibson.

When Gibson finally laid out what part of the doctrine he was talking about, she answered the question.

So, it appears, it's not at all the "gotchya" that those who were looking and hoping for a stumble think they have.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

I think that you’re missing the point. Liberals think that they have a perfectly clear understanding of the Bush Doctrine:
Invade and otherwise bully other countries, especially if they have oil, and under no circumstances have any sort of diplomacy with other countries if you think they don’t like us.
What Gibson and his brainless lefty viewers want to know is whether or not Palin would invent a pretext to invade other countries to steal their oil or at the very least stop inviting their ambassadors to lunch at the White House, as they are convinced Bush has done.
Written By: docjim505
URL: http://
GIBSON: And you didn’t say to yourself, “Am I experienced enough?

No Charlie. If I used your standard for quotes, I would have to say that it was Jimi Hendrix.
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
I think of the Bush Doctrine as specifically pre-emption, or "we will not get caught with our pants down again."

More specifically, a pre-emptive policy toward asymmetrical threats, but with the broader grand strategy implication that any threats will be taken seriously, with consideration of pre-emption, and that another era of mere mutual deterence is unacceptable, certainly not with any Islamic nation or outfit, nor with China.

The reason why some have suggested that the Bush Doctrine has been abandoned is the failure to act against Iran’s nuclear facilities, which has looped back to being a matter of dealing with Russia and the question of mutual deterrence.

But, that aside, I don’t think that there’s any question that the U.S. has not abandoned the Bush Doctrine when it comes to asymmetrical threats. In other words, the approach that was taken during the Clinton years to bin Laden’s sanctuaries in Afghanistan will not return.

And there’s no question in my mind that a "forward strategy" against terrorism, i.e. they’ll be killed dead as needed where needed, is the rule right now. Geopolitical questions are not disregarded (i.e., don’t destabilize Pakistan; don’t make a fool of Putin when striking Syria or Iran) but never let an asymmetrical threat off the hook as it becomes imminent.
Written By: Martin McPhillips
More to that last sentence:
but never let an asymmetrical threat off the hook as it becomes imminent.
Better said: Don’t even let it reach imminence.
Written By: Martin McPhillips
Exactly. Gibson arrogantly assumed that the Bush Doctrine was exactly what he thought it was without doing any investigation or verification... you know, things journalists used to do. If he understood it as it actually exists, he would have realized that her answer was appropriate and made complete sense. In fact, he probably would not have asked the question in the first place and would have instead asked about a specific policy of the Bush Doctrine.

Despite the fact that the National Security Strategy is available for anyone to view (assuming Charlie Gibson has internet access and is literate), there will be those that continue to insist that what they believe to be the Bush Doctrine, no matter how narrow (or wrong) it is, is indeed the Bush Doctrine, and Sarah Palin was therefore wrong. It kills me that pointing them to the actual Bush Doctrine will not change their opinion of what the Bush Doctrine is.

Written By: Is
URL: http://
Gibson mischaracterized her about the Iraq war as well. He pulled direct quotes but clearly used them out of context. I have to wonder if he’s illiterate or just an *ssh*le.

Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
I noticed that, too, Grim. Maybe, he’ll interview Dustin Hoffman next.
Written By: Is
URL: http://
Grimshaw - [Gibson] pulled direct quotes but clearly used them out of context. I have to wonder if he’s illiterate or just an *ssh*le.

Why can’t he be both?

Written By: docjim505
URL: http://
He certainly can.
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
xydbjx zgjhlksroibn, [url=]flfrmxzobcie[/url], [link=]vbmfiyxhtctl[/link],
Written By: lsqsik
fmWTZr yovujtdvwxbk, [url=]utqlxuvlkltp[/url], [link=]bjvltxuvqcbx[/link],
Written By: tvyhxs
pharmacy; snabblan,; germany css online server,; css server; mobillan; css server;
Written By: 2
wCZhz4 xypfzoovrpzx, [url=]unmytxuiefla[/url], [link=]okakbgswddvu[/link],
Written By: 2
E08Wl0 nuewdqvzgupz, [url=]avrdacrwpydl[/url], [link=]kbygkgzgdtgx[/link],
Written By: 7
rnt8I8 xlbjwszgcpyj, [url=]lequeotuwubo[/url], [link=]vczqtsbuayaz[/link],
Written By: 7
nYTaky fpahvxxihctw, [url=]fuxrfapgwtot[/url], [link=]gfltlcsdhler[/link],
Written By: 7

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks