Liberals are whooping it up because she stumbled over the Bush Doctrine question. The doctrine, which was never formally called such by President Bush, is this: Terrorists that threaten the United States can be attacked by our government, as will governments who choose to harbor terrorists. Palin didn't seem to know what it was. However, the term Bush Doctrine isn't used much anymore. The fallout of the Iraq War has pushed the doctrine deep into the background of our foreign policy--and unless I'm missing something, there was never a formal declaration of the Bush Doctrine.
Then there is the Russian controversy. Palin favors NATO membership for Georgia. Part of NATO's charter is Article V: An attack on one, is an attack on all.
Gibson asked if that means American forces would fight the Russians in Georgia was attacked, she responded, "Perhaps so."
She added, "I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help."
That's what an alliance means.
Patrick Hynes of Ankle Biting Pundits points his disapproving finger at the craziness that has emerged in the wake of the Gibson interview, including this e-mail subject line: "GOV. SARAH PALIN WARNS WAR MAY BE NECESSARY IF RUSSIA INVADES ANOTHER COUNTRY."
Technorati tags:
elections 
Republican 
politics 
Election 
Palin 
Media bias
10 comments:
John wrote, "and unless I'm missing something, there was never a formal declaration of the Bush Doctrine."
Sad to say you are missing something: The National Security Strategy of the United States first released in 2002 by the White House and in place to this day which calls for preemptive military strikes against perceived threats (ie, the Iraq invasion).
This shift in focus away from national defense and toward "anticipatory action" is commonly known as "the Bush Doctrine" since he is the president who implemented the shift.
Now, would your average john and jane doe know this? Perhaps not though I think the average American citizen is smart enough that they probably would.
But should a vice-president know it forwards and back and understand the consequences of such a dramatic shift in national security focus?
Absolutely. And she clearly had no clue what the Bush Doctrine is, whether or not "the term Bush Doctrine isn't used much anymore."
Here was a golden opportunity for her to riff on the standard GOP mantra of the past 7 years regarding terrorism and she flubbed it.
But, of course, it's ok by you because she's a Republican.
You invariably do, Rob. The Point - in the might and main of things.
Palin did fine; Did not blink.
http://hickeysite.blogspot.com/2008/09/mccainpalin-salon-insists-that-readers.html
Let me rephrase, it was never called the "Bush Doctrine."
Rubes, drop me a note on Yahoo and update me on the other matter.
John,
Now you're just making things up.
The official document is called "The National Security Strategy of the United States" which, as Charlie Gibson noted, was "enunciated" by the Bush Administration "in September 2002" and it declares the United States has "the right of anticipatory defense. We have the right to preemptively strike any other country that we believe is going to attack us."
And, again, everybody has taken to calling it the Bush Doctrine, including yourself in this Marathon Pundit post from 2005 in which you picked up conservative partisan talking points about some "socialist" conference.
PS: The Bush Doctrine of "preemptive strikes" is why we invaded Iraq, or are you going to change your spin on that now too?
Last night's interview reinforced my feeling about John McCain's poor judgement. I thought he was a man of character, but he is showing now how little he cares about the future of the U.S. Otherwise why would he pick a totally unprepared person of average intellect to be his VP? Imagine if Joe Biden claimed foreign relations experience based on the idea that he was able SEE a foreign country from their window! I'm embarrassed for her.
rob,
There is no "standard" definition of the "Bush Doctrine".
From a colloquial aspect, you might have a point, but from a term paper aspect, you're swimming upstream.
Even wikipedia tosses on your argument by demonstrating that time, in fact, does march on:
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.
Tks, yo. And Rob, I'm astounded at your dilegence in finding that 2005 post, but keep in mind, it was three years ago, and I haven't thought of using that term here since.
John,
You're not running for vice president, and keep in mind that 3 years ago the candidate you support who is running for veep was mayor of a town of 6500... and on her way to requesting a few hundred million in earmarks.
And, apparently, didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was this whole time.
--
Yo,
Given that that wikipedia entry can change 5 minutes from now your argument holds little water... Talk about swimming upstream.
Do you guys really want to keep pretending to be so ignorant of facts?
Post a Comment