Sarah Palin Interview with ABC News’ Charlie Gibson

I’d say Gibson was condescending and abrupt and more than a bit hostile.

Agreed. This is the possible Vice President and he treated her like a hostile witness. She was classy and assertive…this is no wilting flower. She is professional and capable. The hardest question for any politician is personally disagreeing with your bosses ideas and assessments. If she were President, I think she would use force as a last resort, unlike President Bush.

I thought it was a fairly flawless interview considering the media has been Obama’s dominatrixmistress for countless months.

Gibson was trying to play the tough reporter but it just came off as another man frightened by a straight talking woman.

The Bush Doctrine? Come on Charlie. Was that to link McCain to Bush?

Whatever.

Sarah just proved she’s cut out to command.

charlie started off with “can you look america in the eye and say you’re ready….” – would he have used snark like “can you look american in the eye” with its clearly intended undertone of come on now….if he were interviewing obama? we all know he wouldn’t have.

the thing about a blur of words, puleeze – obama answers EVERYTHING with a blur of words, but they don’t call him on it.

the mumbled “hubris” line was off the charts snark.

charlie gets an f.

I have never heard Obama asked anything resembling the questioning of Govornor Palin.What else is new?She did great and I am still impressed with Johns pick.

Personally, I think that Gov.Palin held her own and answered the questions head on. I think “Charlie” tried his hardest to make her look unqualified.

Has Obama EVER sat through such a tough interview? EVER?

Ummm, uh, er,…Give me a break. The racist dolt running for the Dhimmicrats has NEVER, and will NEVER, be questioned on anything. The One speaks, and the “media” pretends to sigh. Period. Full stop. I say pretends because everyone, including all those who will vote for this fraud, know that he is a pathetic figure. MTV has done it’s job well. An effete, faux elite, racist, terrorist-befriending, America hating idiot isthisclose to the presidency. Great job all…

Charlie’s comment about “I was distracted by a blizzard of words” was just a total asshole moment.

the abc blogs are on fire. I would guess around 75% blasting Charlie Gibson as being a disgrace and calling for him to be fired.

i’ll bet she never forgets what the ‘bush doctrine’ is.

it’s like that one question you missed on a test – you’ll never forget the answer to it

go sarah! good job!

Charlie gets an ‘F’ and a trip to the outhouse for a good ol fashioned thrashing. He is clearly stepping up to the table to take his turn at trying to grind her under his thumb.
The tone of the questions, the rapid fire manner in which they are phrased, it almost seemed like he didnt want an answer, he only wanted to phrase questions that would make her look bad because they ‘alluded’ to something else. More bullshit from the msm, this season the entire msm should be marched outside in the snow and give a big birch whippin’

When she was pressed about troops entering Pakistan to go after terrorist against without the knowledge or approval of the Pakistani government, her answer was a firm, we have to go after them wherever they are. Gibson was trying to lead her into saying that yes, we will invade Pakistan, she was too clever to fall for that trap.

However, Gibson did come back and specifically mention the Warzistan province of Pakistan. At that point, I would have like to have seen Palin say, if Pakistan has lost sovereign control over its Warzistan province and it has bome under the control and authority of al-Qaeda or the Taliban or any other extremist group, then it has ceased to be Pakistani territory and our intervention into Warzistan would be justified to enable an ally to re-secure its sovereignty over its land.

I haven’t watched the video yet, but I’m already annoyed at Gibson. From the descriptions I’ve read, his transparent attempt to trip up Palin on the Bush Doctrine represents a true low for the media this election season. Normally wouldn’t reporter phrase the question more like this: “President Bush developed a policy for doing x,Y, or Z. Do you support this so-called Bush Doctrine?” (thereby giving the subject a clear point to address)

Why didn’t he just quiz her on random facts from the world of politics? Who’s the prime minister of Burkina Faso? What’s the number-one export of Namibia? What treaty ended the Crimean War, and what effect did it have on Russia?

What an asshat.

Gibson was very condescending!

The videos aren’t loading for me. Using IE 7 and all I see are two black YouTube video screens. Anybody else having issues?

I did not see the whole interview but Palin looked a little nervous and rightly so. Doing interviews is a matter of practice not studying. She will get better and she needs to just relax and be herself.

However, I have never seen anybody interview obama with questions like that. Palin is being held to a much tougher standard because she basically stuck her thumb in the eye of the press during the convention with the “washington elite” comment. They were gunning for her. She will be back strong again. She needed to get one under her belt.

PUMA

Suggestion: Everyone with a critique of the ABC interview by Charlie Gibson could log on to their site and join the roughly 75% negative comments, and help support the performance of Gov. Sarah Palin, especially in light of all the crap thrown at her lately. You all have really good, insightful comments – make it greater than 75%!

FYI – I heard that Rick Warren called Gov. Palin first, and she called him back, asking for scripture to help deal with all of the unfair, vicious attacks, etc. I.e., unlike some media accounts, she didn’t seek him out first. Hope he had some good chapter and verse to sustain her.

ladies & gentelmen, this interview is a setup for the october debate,,,mark my words.

set the bar servicably low lul your opponent into thinking its a no brainer then explode far above it.

watch and see.

I have travelled, and spent more time in more places than Obama – Germany, London, France, Guatemala, Mexico, Turks and Caicos, Canada, Jamaica, Africa, just to name a few. Does that mean I have foreign policy experience? For Charles Gibson and others to question Sarah Palin’s foreign policy experience based purely on travels is ludicrous.

Webster defines EXPERIENCE as: 1) Participating in or living through an event. 2)Knowledge from doing.

Tell me, how is Obama or Biden more prepared than Palin? At least Palin has executive experience. Those who have served as Secretary of State can be credited as having foreign policy experience.

Wow!! Very impressive Sarah!!! Is it just me OR did Charlie Gibson seem irritated…”his body language” that she nailed his “gotcha” questions…..

Charles Lemos writes “the Bush Doctrine, the policy that US adopted that espouses a unilateralist approach to foreign crisises where the US reserves the right to use military force at its will and in defiance of international law.”

“Reserves the right”? Hey boy, this ain’t a game of RISK. We didn’t need to “reserve” a right to have the American Revolution and we haven’t changed our minds. The crap you’re “espousing” about “unilateralism” is just modern partisan political labeling of normal sovereign policies that the party on the outs needs to invoke to regain power. Didn’t you know?

Yes, much to Charles’ amazement we can invade any country we like any time we like without checking with the hall monitors. We HAVE the right. Just the same every other sovereign country in the world. Whether they exercise it or not is their problem, not ours. If they need it explained to them… it’s probably not worth mentioning. What kind of rube are you? International law is observed as LIP SERVICE by everyone involved. When it comes time to throw it out the window – OUT DA window it goes! God, you must be bad at poker.

Charles also writes: “It is clear that she still has some work to do on learning foreign policy issues and I’d be happy to help her work through them. ”

Ah, no thanks genius scholar, we’ll take Sarah. One of you will be IN the history books. One of you only READS history books. Guess which? By the way, “collective security” has only worked because our Big Boy Billy Club is waving around in the background. Just like our flag. And please don’t quote me from your erudite and scholarly papers. George Washington would have used them to start a campfire.

She did really well. These were very tough questions. She did not blink once. He tried to trip her up. She is actually much better orator then anybody I have seen in a long time.

I did miss all the um, um, um’s that we get with Obama interviews. At least, it wasn’t above her pay grade. Palin can always clarify tomorrow and say what she really meant to say was ……
I am so sick of Obama and the biased media.

I agree that Gibson seemed hostile and even seemed to be rolling his eyes and moving in his chair as she was answering the questions. I thought she did a good job and avoided giving a yes or no answer to the “striking militarily Pakistan, I felt he was trying to goad her into saying yes.

She seemed nervous, but she never flinched or hemmed or hawwed when answering the questions. She is smart and a quick thinker, I was impressed.

She is what she says, a public servant, and someone who loves her country. I also believe what she says. She is authentic.

I watched the interview and Sarah Palin did a great job. Charlie Gibson tried to unnerve her and make her blink and she just focused on her points and did not hesitate. She obviously bested him and he could stand it. Sorry Charlie but you failed the test. No wonder no one watches the news anymore.

There is no sexist bias in the media or in the Obama campaign, it has all been manufactured by the McCain and Clinton campaigns. Just ask Howard Kurtz:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091100793.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAEnu89dxCY
This is the interview that Gibson did with Obama on his world tour….very cozy…

I don’t understand why everybody is falling for this argument the guy was tough on her. So what SHE DID VERY WELL.

All the Obamabots would have you believe she did not do well but then again what else would you expect form them?

Did you see the Nightline version of the interview? It revealed how selectively ABC edited the interview to make her look worse. Her answers were strong and more comprehensive, including the statement “I hate war. I don’t want war,” and then she included the statement about her son leaving. Her answers on a multi-lateral allied response to Russia was also edited, plus a phrase about all the officials that come through Canada that she meets with. Instead, they just included the sentence about heads of state. Agenda anyone?

And I see many of you referring to Clinton as regards Palin. Please, don’t embarrass Hillary Clinton by in any way shape or form comparing Palin to her.

I know a lot of you wanted Palin to do well in an interview so as to rub Obama’s face in it somehow, but Palin was beyond bad. Her knowledge of world situations and events literally appears to be at about a tenth grade level.

There isn’t enough lipstick on earth to cover up the cavernous holes that are going to sprout up in her candidacy. Just write in Clinton and hope for the best.

Gibson was clearly trying to intimidate her with his body language.
More of the same. The same shit . Boundary violation. Back the F___k off Charlie.

I am getting ready to vote a straight republican ticket. This is war.

I think Gibson is giving her a real hard time and I think she’s just blasting back.

I really wonder if he’s going to ask Obama if he’s ready, didn’t he wonder or ask himself about his lack of experience?

How do we know that Sarah passed this test with flying colors?

This interview made no news, that’s how.

A quibble here, a quibble there, but nothing big, nothing earth-shattering, just some debate about the nuance of her answers/positions.

The meltdown the O-bots were praying for, simply did not occur.

Sarah – 1
O-bots – 0

Next!

PUMA

WOW!!! From snippets I heard earlier about the interview with Palin, I was a bit concerned. But, when I listened to the whole thing… WOW!!! Palin ROCKs. No doubt about it. In two weeks, they come out asking her tough questions. And, to most she responds spot on. And, to the ONE question she doesn’t seem to grasp full-on at once, she takes command of in the end. That is true leadership material. And nothing I have seen from Obama in the whole time he has been campaigning. She is ready. And she is not even at the top-of-the-ticket. Not even running for President. She definitely is more ready to lead than Obama. And, I was for McCain over Obama before he chose her. Now, I know I chose right!

Obama could not have gotten a more anti-women opponent that will give him serious amunition. Palin is a gift, because she hate women, want raped women to be punished. Want to overturn Roe Vs. Wade. All the women groups is going to come out in mass to vote against this simpleton puppet being used, so they can just Pawn Alaska. Emily’s List, Naral, Plan Parenhood. Rapes were the highest in the Nation, and incest in Wassilla. She made them pay for their rape kits. Then she wants to take away free will, and force women to carry their rapist baby to full term. Her husband has got her real simple. She is Anti-American. She and all her self-hating women will be held up in front of the world on how much they hate their daughters, and liberties. They will prove that white women have ruined the world with their foolish fake humanism. Its a shame because many white women have sense. But the world will realize they are full of hate. A lot of it being self- hatred. These are the trash of the world.

Are the palin supporters here serious?

She did well in the interview?

Ok, I’ve just stumbled upon the most unbelievably ignorant website on the world wide web.

You guys would vote for a corpse if it said ‘R’ on his shirt.

You can put lipstick on a dummy, but it’s still a dummy…

Sara Palin may not have come off all polished and answered the questions to your liking. BUT – We watched her in our house tonight and she got an A+ accross the board from 6 Democrats supporting McCain/Palin. They are REAL, down to earth, smart, humorous, bright, they have what it will take to govern this country.

What she said to Charlie when he first ask her about the Bush doctrine “do you support it?” or something like that? I liked what she said. “In what since Charlie? Like come on fella I understand where you might be going with this but you have to give me more than that for a complete answer to an important question. SHE HIT IT OUT OF THE PARK WITH HER ANSWER. I believe she will be an awesome VP and is ready on day one to be Presdent if need be.

Apparently – Biden is not.

Go Obama and all of Obama supporters, the polls are lying, and watch out if you receive absentee voter ballots. John MCbush knows he loosing so he is caging voters, and the Republicans dont trust Sarah Palin who children are wild druggies and fornicators. So the Repugnants, are threatned students who register to vote in Virginia, voter fraud is in process in every state. Every thing is a lie. Sure some dead brain vagina carriers switched to McInsane, but they are grossly exaggerating the amount in the fake poll numbers. That is why they are planning to steal,cheat and lie in Every state. So make sure you can vote, and everything is straight. Because Palin is going to give obama the election.Her Investigation and all her trash, and her impeachment in Alaska, her stealing Federal moneys all will come out. Obama can argue since he has daughters he has a right to protect his daughters and not allow no one to force them to carry a rapists baby, that this bitch is a right wing nutcase, her and her followers will be seen as the nutcases in America. They willing to have their assbone cut out, just for their fake womanhood, when they don’t know what women hood is. Sarah Palin is puppet, who will be ran over like a 18 wheeler, they know she does not know her ass from her breast.

TROLL ALERT!!! TROLL ALERT!!!

new addition to…

alex
david hart
sam boner…

everyone, meet…

marlene.

do not feed, but feel free to taunt. it’s the least we can do, after all, they’re all only making $7/hr from obarky and stuck living in their mom’s basement since getting laid off from 7/11. awwwww…

mccain/palin ’08
puma

TROLL ALERT!!! TROLL ALERT!!!

oops… forgot one…

KATE.

jeeesh, i guess your moms let you guys stay up late to earn a little bit more money with your kool-aid dribble.

mccain/palin ’08
puma

Charlie Gibson has two daughters and has always seemed sympathetic toward women’s issues. Remember, he and George Stephanopolis are the ones who seered Obama in one of those last debates. So, I don’t think he is necessarily an Obama freak like some of the others.

On the other hand, can you imagine how the media has jumped on Sarah Palin, in the name of ‘doing its job’, sending herds of attorneys, investigators, and media people to Alaska to dredge up whatever they can possibly find on this VP candidate. The gall of Gibson’s severe questioning of Palin as to her readiness to be VICE Pres when that has NEVER been asked of BO who is the PRESIDENTIAL candidate straight out of the IL State legislature and before that, organizing the streets of Chicago.

There have been rumblings of terrorist connections, political underground activity, a member of the often corrupt Chicago political machine that has been known to vote grave yards in elections, the Black Nationalist/Liberation church he belonged to for 20 years that preaches hatred toward this country, whether or not he has a muslem background/connections, whether he is a naturalized citizen of this country or his father’s country in light of no certified birth cerificate (a constitutional requirement to run for president) with no record of his birth in Hawaii – none of these issues has aroused the mainstream media. They are straining knats with Palin and swollowing elephants with Obama. Had they skewered BO like they are doing Palin, we may have had a different outcome even with the caucus fraud that nominated him.

I used to respect Charlie Gibson, but obviously his bias is showing in this interview. He did not treat her as an equal, belittling her in all his mannerisms and questions.

First – he spoke in a very soft, patronizing tone and voice to force her to lean in and try and listen to hang onto his every word (a way to garner power over your subordinates – first thing you learn in communications class). Maintaining the creepy, whispery tone during the whole interview while asking confrontational questions that cut into the other person’s credibility without allowing them sufficient chances to answer has made me lose much respect for Gibson. And I’m not even a fan of McCain/Palin as they share too many of the same Bush failed policies of which they want to continue. I just think you should give every one a fair shake and this wasn’t it. Hope the other interviews go more fairly.

Sad to see that it really still is a “man’s world” and they don’t like a girl coming in to ruin their all-boy’s club. And we tout ourselves as being way ahead on equal rights for all. I hope this election has awaken women to the fact that equality must be demanded, not just expected and taken for granted. I hope women do form a voting block and push through some major sexist reform. Otherwise, expect to continue to be belittled and marginalized as that stuff from the media and government seeps into the homes, workplaces, and schools.

OMFG did Obammunist program all his paid anchovies to come here tonight and badmouth Palin’s interview?

What’s the reason for this sudden influx of scared sh*tless morons spewing their kool-aid induced ramblings here at NQ?

Like any one of us here are going to say “Damn, you know they have a valid point, WTF, I think I’ll vote for Obammunist now.” NOT!

John McCain/Sarah Palin ’08

Hillary Clinton ’12

Come on…I’m an intelligent voter from the Midwest. Yes, Gibson was obviously acting defensively because of the recent media criticism of him as Palin’s first interviewer. HOWEVER. We are discussing the possibilty of Palin being the next VP of the most powerful nation at this time, both economically and militarily. As an independent thinker, I have focused my studies on history and culture. It is IMPERATIVE that our next presidential team be informed and sensitive about how the rest of the world thinks. DO NOT be disillusioned about our status in this world. If you want to be isolationist, vote for Ron Paul. If that’s not palatable, PLEASE consider how important it is that we understand both our “allies” and “enemies” in this changing world. I’m not saying that Obama is the ideal candidate in this world, but the choice of McCain/Palin seriously worries me. We are not in our own little world.

Here is a post from PUMAPAC

“Hillary Clinton has already shown her devotion to party, not the people. Self ambition is no longer a relevent option. Therefore, she has nothing to lose now by replacing Biden as VP. It’s all or nothing at all this election year for the Democrats. If they lose then not even her own party will be relevent anymore.

BTW, Sarah Palin wowed me again tonnight. She has a solid unwavering mind. Seems well versed on world affairs and media ploys. “Charlie” is taking a back seat to her manner in my opinion. Turned on PBS after the abridged interview with “Charlie” and a BBC Washington correspondent thought she came off very well. Very well, indeed.”

From Obamapedia.com

What Exactly Does a Community Organizer Doo-dad?

A community organizer organizes things in the community.

Think of it as a organizer that lives in a community organizing things in the the community for the community that need organizing especially things that were not organized before..

You wont find community organizers in communities that are highly organized, because they don’t need an organizer to organize stuff in their community due to their existing level of organization.

Often times a community will spontaneously self organize and the community organizers they may have had suddenly are organized into a productive force and are found meaningful employment doing something that actually contributes to the community in ways that go beyond just organizing.

Other times a community discovers that they lack a compelling reason to have an organizer organizing so they organize an organization of organizers in the community responsible for organizing the organizers who don’t have anything to organize

October Surprise:
Osama Bin Laden Captured – You heard it here first Obots! Run to Daily KOS now to get the first scoop diary started

Jeremiah,

You’re a joke.You’re damn right I’m here trolling, and getting your panties in a wad obviously. WHY? Because you know in your heart that palin is a fraud. You are terrified that America is not as kooky as yourself and will see right through her.

By mentioning the Bush doctrine, anyone who has been PAYING ATTENTION would understand where Gibson was coming from. YOU DID! Perhaps you should run for VP? She answered the question with “Bushes worldview?” She never heard of the Bush doctrine. It’s a common phrase, almost as common as “lipstick on a pig”. No wonder they’ve shielded her from the press.

“Preventive” war on a country that was not a national security threat and never would be (NO WMD) has been the worst policy decision in the history of this country. The blow-back is only just begining to rear its ugly head as our taking the eye off the ball in Afghanistan has spilled over into Pakistan (a country that actually has WMDS) and has made that country unstable. Because we didn’t tighten the noose on the taliban/ Al Qeada, they have sought haven in Pakistan. They now have free reign to attack us from across the border. Do you know more Americans have been killed in Afghanistan this year since the war began? They are also stirring up trouble in pakistan, and our incursions along the
border are fueling anti-americanism and garnering support for the radicals. A very weak leader has just assumed power, and is very unpopular with the masses.

It is going to take a president with the skill, intelligence, and statemanship of Barack Obama to navigate our way out of this “Bush doctrine” morass.

I don’t type all this to convince you. There is no convincing you, Jeremiah, because you’re too much of a blow-hard to think objectively. Go bow to your cult of republicanism and allow the rational adults to make sense of it all.

My hope is that some who do read this understand the TRUTH of our foreign policy decisions and their consequences, put their coutnry before thier party, and pay attention to REALITY. Not the phoney outrage of “sexism” and other distractions that the right-wing alleges.

We as Americans are smarter than that. I love my country too much to sit back and allow the election for the highest office in the land to come down to a popularity contest.

Palin is a disgrace and a danger to our well being as a nation by her sheer ineptitude. Mccain is a disgrace for choosing her. Period.

OBAMA ’08

Can Obama or Biden field strip an AR-15? And the Bush Doctrine? Gosh- he’s that important to actually have a “doctrine”??

Plain needs to use more ums and ahs so she can look like the questions are hard. Also she will answer less questions and run up the clock like Obama.

Thursday, September 11, 2008

ABC

Defining the Bush Doctrine [Greg Pollowitz]

The left is going bananas over Governor Palin’s answer to Gibson’s “Bush Doctrine” question. Andy McCarthy has a good post on it over in the Corner, but I thought I’d add a little history of the “Bush Doctrine” using the search function at NYTimes.com. The term “Bush Doctrine” looks to have been used for the first time, post 9/11, in mid-November:

A senior administration official said Mr. Bush’s speech would be a fleshing out of what the White House calls the Bush Doctrine — the assertion that nations that harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves.

In January 2002, the editors of the Times wrote:

Mr. Bush appears to be developing an assertive new military doctrine that includes the threat of armed intervention against nations that are developing weapons that may put the United States in peril. The evolving Bush Doctrine implies a preemptive use of conventional force to take out missile launchers, industrial enterprises and facilities that appear to be involved in the fabrication of unconventional weapons. This is a radical departure from what went before. Traditionally, the United States has employed its military forces in retaliation for an attack rather than striking first itself. That should not preclude other options when there is a clear and present danger of attack, but firing first is not a step to be taken lightly.

By March, the “Bush Doctrine” had expanded yet again to include regime change:

In the tug of war between the go-get-’em, nuke-brandishing civilians of the Pentagon and the coalition-minded pragmatists of the State Department, conservatives are now convinced Mr. Bush’s sympathies are gung-ho. The Weekly Standard, which has overcome personal strains with Mr. Bush to become something like the president’s conservative superego, has taken to calling this ”The Bush Doctrine.”

”On tactics, he may be listening to Colin Powell,” said Norman Podhoretz, the influential conservative editor and author. ”But he’s very clear as to his strategic objectives — not just to clean up Al Qaeda cells but to effect regime changes in six or seven countries and to create conditions which would lead to internal reform and modernization in the Islamic world.”

In September, the Times had an editorial titled, “Bush Doctrine,” based on the National Security Strategy paper submitted to Congress. An excerpt:

The tension between idealism and realism in foreign policy runs through America history, and the fault lines are evident in Mr. Bush’s policy statement. The paper — a policy summation that every president is required to submit to Congress — seems in some sections to be animated by the most enlightened and constructive impulses of the land of Jefferson, Lincoln and the Marshall Plan. It dedicates the nation to extending the benefits of freedom, democracy, prosperity and the rule of law to struggling countries around the globe. Mr. Bush speaks eloquently in an introductory letter about working with other nations to combat disease and alleviate poverty, and he reaffirms his determination to increase American foreign aid.

At other points, the paper sounds more like a pronouncement that the Roman Empire or Napoleon might have produced. Given Mr. Bush’s lone-wolf record on matters like global warming, and the nature of the issues he now faces, including a looming confrontation with Iraq, it is clear these combative attitudes will be driving Washington policy in the months ahead. The boys in Lubbock may want to pause before signing on for the overly aggressive stance Mr. Bush has outlined.

This, I believe, is the September 2002 that Charlie Gibson refers to in his interview. Gibson only referred to the preemption aspect of it, but the human rights and regime changes aspects are as important. Gibson never mentioned this in his little snarky lecture to Gov. Palin.

By April, 2003, we have President Bush admitting he’s not quite sure what the “Bush Doctrine” actually is:

Mr. Bush’s overt use of diplomatic pressure against Syria and Iran, two countries that Mr. Bush has identified as sponsors of terrorism, is in stark contrast to the use of preemptive force against Iraq.

Yet at one point in his interview, Mr. Bush acknowledged that he had yet to fully form the ”Bush doctrine,” or to think through how the American victory in Iraq would affect his vow to deal with weapons of mass destruction on a global basis.

In December, we have yet another version of the “Bush Doctrine” as described in the book America Unbound:

Buttressed by extensive research, the authors demonstrate convincingly that Mr. Bush is not the puppet of the vice president or the Defense Department hawks. He has fundamental beliefs that have reversed America’s six-decade commitment to internationalism. His foreign policy for the 21st century marks a decided preference for unilateralism.

As the authors describe it, his policy rests on two beliefs: ”The first was that in a dangerous world the best — if not the only — way to ensure America’s security was to shed the constraints imposed by friends, allies, and international institutions.” The second belief was that ”an America unbound should use its strength to change the status quo in the world.”

This does not mean that America need always act alone. When unilateral actions seem impossible or unwise, Mr. Bush will seek allies, but not to make decisions that would require their approval. His preferred approach is to seek ad hoc ”coalitions of the willing,” what Richard Haas, a former adviser to Secretary of State Colin Powell, has called ”à la carte multilateralism.”

After John Kerry’s defeat in 2005, the “Bush Doctrine” became defined by the left with the buzzwords “preemptive” and “unilateral.” Paul Krugman for example:

On the foreign policy front, the “Bush doctrine” of pre-emption and unilateralism sounded very impressive at first. But Mr. Bush’s tough-guy attitude wasn’t matched by his willingness to commit resources. His administration sought global dominance on the cheap, with an undermanned, underplanned invasion of Iraq that has, indeed, transformed the balance of power in the Middle East – in favor of Iran.

In December 2006, Gary Hart wrote this in defense of Barack Obama:

His inherent internationalism causes him to ponder why, five years after 9/11 and 15 years after the end of the cold war, the United States “still lacks a coherent national security policy,” rightly finding the Bush doctrine of pre-emption and defeat of evil in the world wanting.

In January 2007, there’s this description:

In a sense, it was an extraordinary retreat by Bush – and not just because Fatah and Hamas killing each other daily makes a plan for new talks surreal. More, it winds the United States deeper into the whorls of process, and goes against the Bush doctrine that democratization of the Middle East starts with the defeat of terrorism.

September 2007:

None of the leading Republican candidates has been willing to articulate anything like a new direction for how to confront terrorism or what to do in Iraq, despite the fact that the Bush doctrine of forcibly spreading democracy has been widely deemed a failure, even by a sizable chunk of Republicans.

From the Times review of Norman Podhoretz’s World War IV:

Mr. Podhoretz, however, remains an ardent supporter of the Bush doctrine of unilateral action, pre-emptive war and the exportation of democracy to the Middle East.

So, it’s easy to see why there might be a little confusion on what exactly Charlie Gibson was getting at when he asked about the “Bush Doctrine.” Except for the Times, of course. It’s crystal clear for them. Here’s how they wrote up the Palin interview:

In the interview Thursday, Palin:

— Appeared unsure of the Bush doctrine — essentially that the United States must help spread democracy to stop terrorism and that the nation will act pre-emptively to stop potential foes.

Asked whether she agreed with that, Palin said: ”In what respect, Charlie?” Gibson pressed her for an interpretation of it. She said: ”His world view.” That prompted Gibson to say ”no, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war” and describe it to her.

Here’s what Gibson actually said, however:

The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self defense. That we have the right to a premptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us.

Not only was Charlie Gibson wrong about what was enunciated in September 2002, Gov. Palin was 100% correct in asking what the heck he was babbling about as well as 100% correct in what she said.

09/11 10:28 PM

media.nationalreview.com

Trolls should bone up on some good books- try reading Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra: ” Tempt him not so too far; I wish, forbear- In time we hate that which we often fear.”

Obamanation is not in a meltdown because Sarah Palin is appealing to Hillary voters. Obama is spiraling out of control because the Obama Reform House of Cards, Smoke and Mirrors has been exposed as a hoax by a real reformer, Gov. Sarah Palin.

“Palin quit her position on the Alaska Gas and Oil Regulatory Commission because another Commission member, chair of Alaska’s Republican Party, corrupted his office. Randy Ruderich, the corruption manager stated above, was soon ousted after Sarah Palin left the Commission.”

“Then she went after corrupt lawmakers, four ending up behind bars. Six others are indicted. The brazen half dozen tagged themselves the “Corrupt Bastard’s Club.” They wore caps with CBC posted on the fronts.”
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/swank/080903

http://nobho.blogspot.com/

I could really careless who wins this election, the policies of this country are so deep-rooted that they go beyond political parties…the whole red-state blue state game is nothing more than an excuse for grown people to act like kids and shake their poms-poms and cheerlead….But to be upset because the chairs were too close together durin the interview is the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard…This may be the president of the US and you concerned about how close she sits to someone?

I know, I know, I should move on, but I am still peeved about the whole set up of this interogation.
One more thing, they had her chair so close in front of Gibson, that if she had even needed to shift her weight in the chair, she would have hit his leg, and
he would have accused her of sexual harrassment.
I would have been so uncomfortable!
I am sure Hillary would have said: No, this will not do! But Palin is new to the Washington press and its methods……

“Gibson should of course have said in the first place what he understood the Bush Doctrine to be–and specified that he was asking a question about preemption. Palin was well within bounds to have asked him to be more specific. Because, as it happens, the doctrine has no universally acknowledged single meaning. Gibson himself in the past has defined the Bush Doctrine to mean “a promise that all terrorist organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated”–which is remarkably close to Palin’s own answer.

Consider what a diversity of views on the meaning of the Bush Doctrine can be found simply within the archives of ABC News itself:

September 20, 2001
PETER JENNINGS: . . . Claire, the president said at one point, ‘From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.’ Should we be taking that as the Bush doctrine? CLAIRE SHIPMAN reporting: I think so, Peter,

September 21, 2001
CHARLIE GIBSON: The president in his speech last night, very forceful. Four out of five Americans watched it. Everybody gathered around the television set last night. The president issued a series of demands to the Taliban, already rejected. We’ll get to that in a moment. He also outlined what is being called the Bush Doctrine, a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated.

September 21, 2001
CHARLIE GIBSON: Senator Daschle, let me start with you. People were looking for a Bush Doctrine. They may have found it when he said the war on terror will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped or defeated. That’s pretty broad. Broader than you expected?

December 9, 2001
GEORGE WILL: The Bush doctrine holds that anyone who governs a territory is complicit in any terrorism that issues from that territory. That covers the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Second, the war on terrorism is indivisible, it’s part of the Bush doctrine.

December 11, 2001
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Two years ago, September 1999, Bush gave his first speech when he was running about terrorism. And his first–had the first explanation of the Bush doctrine, that if you harbor a terrorist, you’re going to be attacked. The Bush White House is putting this out, saying it shows that Bush was very prescient, but that was only one speech given in the campaign.

January 28, 2002
BOB WOODWARD: This is now the Bush Doctrine . . . , namely that if we’re attacked by terrorists, we will not just go after those terrorists but the countries or the people who harbor them.

January 29, 2002
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: It was striking and significant that the president really expanded the Bush doctrine. If a nation builds a weapon of mass destruction–Iraq, Iran or North Korea–we will reserve the right to take out those weapons even if we’re not attacked or even if there’s not a threat.

March 19, 2004
TERRY MORAN: That was the Bush doctrine we just heard. On this one-year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, President Bush offered a very broad justification of American leadership in the world under him since 9/11. Not just since one year in Iraq. For American voters as an argument that the country is safer, but more as you point out, for the world, which has been divided by his leadership, that Iraq is knit, in his mind, very firmly into that war on terrorism. One omission which I believe will be noted around the world, he made no mention of the role of multilateral institutions, the UN and others, in this fight against terrorism. In his mind, it’s clear it’s American leadership with others following along.

May 7, 2006
GEORGE WILL: Now the argument from the right is the CIA is a rogue agent because it has not subscribed to the Bush doctrine. The Bush doctrine being that American security depends on the spread of democracy and we know how to do that. The trouble is, Negroponte, who is considered by some of these conservatives the villain here and an enemy of the Bush doctrine is the choice of Bush, which makes Bush an insufficient subscriber to the Bush doctrine.

I’ll stop there, although anyone with a Nexis account can find far more where that came from. Preemptive war; American unilateralism; the overthrow of regimes that harbor and abet terrorists–all of these things and more have been described as the “Bush Doctrine.” It was a bit of a sham on Gibson’s part to have pretended that there’s such a thing as ‘the’ Bush Doctrine, much less that it was enunciated in September 2002.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/09/what_exactly_is_the_bush_doctr.asp

Facing the Snob
http://savagepolitics.com/?p=1815

I’m proud to say that I’m a 31 year old man who has traveled to 24 countries and 41 states, I have an IQ of somewhere around 145, I have been making a six figure income since the age of 22 and I had no clue what the Bush doctrine was until now.

Hey Charlie!

There’s no such thing as a bush doctrine. Just a nickname given to 4 different things. You condensending self righteous prick.

I miss Peter Jennings

The fact is, Charlie Gibson is an ass and should be fired for BLATANT favoritism/partisanship and a FAILED EFFORT to grill Palin, who handed him his ass.

This is another reason to hate today’s news media. When will America tell the media we have had enough?!?

When is someone going to ask the less qualified Pres candidate some tough questions?

Crystal –

What have you been smoking? You mean the interviews where Obama is asked what he is going to go as for Halloween?

The type of debates where non-partisan media watchdogs even verified that CLINTON received 69% of the difficult questions?

Put it out – you’re delusional kid.

And noy only did HC get the hardest questions; she got them first so OB had time to formulate an answer. He is a lightweight; BIGTIME. Sarah’s the man and Charles G. is a bigtime PRICK!!