Charlie Gibson's Gaffe-Krauthammer debunks "Bush Doctrine"

DuH2 · #1 (**permalink**) 09-12-2008, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Charlie Gibson's Gaffe

By Charles Krauthammer
Saturday, September 13, 2008; Page A17

"At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' "

-- New York Times, Sept. 12

Informed her? Rubbish.

The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."
ad_icon

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

DuH2 · #2 (**permalink**) 09-12-2008, 09:39 PM

Quote:

ABC News’ Charles Gibson, who is being credited with stumping Sarah Palin on the definition of the “Bush Doctrine,” has himself defined the nebulous phrase in a variety of ways, including one that mirrored Palin’s disputed explanation.

Gibson and his colleagues have been all over the map in defining the Bush Doctrine over the last seven years. In 2001, Gibson himself defined it as “a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated.”

But when Palin tried to give a similar definition on Thursday, Gibson corrected her.

“I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation,” Palin said in her first interview since being nominated as the GOP’s vice presidential candidate.

Gibson countered: “The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us.”

Much has been made of the fact that Palin had to ask for clarification when Gibson inquired: “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”

“In what respect, Charlie?” the Alaska governor said.

“The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?” Gibson challenged.

“His world view?” Palin queried.

“No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war,” Gibson said.

That’s when Palin talked of ridding the world of “Islamic extremism,” prompting Gibson to define the Bush Doctrine instead as preemption.

The term “Bush Doctrine” was first coined by columnist Charles Krauthammer three months before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 and has undergone profound changes as the war against terror has evolved.

“There is no single meaning of the Bush Doctrine,” Krauthammer noted in a forthcoming column. “In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.”

Richard Starr, managing editor of the Weekly Standard, agreed.

“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,” Starr observed. “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.”

Starr pointed out that other ABC journalists, including George Stephanolous, George Will and the late Peter Jennings, have defined the Bush Doctrine on the air in a variety of ways.

Ben Smith of the Politico said the Bush Doctrine exchange was “not a great moment” for Palin. But he conceded that critics are unfairly “pouncing on Sarah Palin’s apparent unfamiliarity with the Bush Doctrine as last night’s gaffe.”

“This isn’t an easy question,” Smith noted. “Commentators have offered a range of meanings for the phrase, from the principle that countries that harbor terrorists are responsible for their actions to broader statements about the spread of freedom.”

Starr added: “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://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09...e-gibson-mark/

Shep Dawg · #3 (**permalink**) 09-12-2008, 09:43 PM

Charles Krauthammer is an assclown. The guy wouldn't know facts if they bit him in the ass.

CRIMSON MASK · #4 (**permalink**) 09-12-2008, 09:47 PM

The "gotcha" interview is a joke. You could confuse any candidate by asking some oddball question. There technically is no Bush Doctrine and can be defined a couple different ways.

**SpotsCat** · #5 (**permalink**) 09-12-2008, 09:58 PM

Charlie needs to be careful - he's tap dancing on a landmine.

If he tries to be too hardball in his interview with Governor Palin, it'll blow up in his face like it did with Rick Lazio debating Hillary Clinton - and that will make Governor Palin look better in the eyes of the undecided electorate.

If he isn't hardball enough, he ends up looking like a 2nd-rate version of Larry King.

WalkingSoftly · #6 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuH2

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09...e-gibson-mark/

So you're saying, if a question has multiple answers, and you get them all wrong, it's ok.
zzzzzzz zzzzzzzzz bs bs

prrriiide · #7 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shep Dawg

Charles Krauthammer is an assclown. The guy wouldn't know facts if they bit him in the ass.

Agreed. And I can honestly say that if my dog looked like Krauthammer, I'd shave his ass and teach him to walk backwards. His face is almost as ugly as his mind-set.

Spare · #8 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shep Dawg

Charles Krauthammer is an assclown. The guy wouldn't know facts if they bit him in the ass.

Well, that settles it ... who cares about facts?

Cajun Controller · #9 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spare

Well, that settles it ... who cares about facts?

That's right when some people can't present a good argument they resort to name calling and diversion, proving they are wrong.

prrriiide · #10 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cajun Controller

That's right when some people can't present a good argument they resort to name calling and diversion, proving they are wrong.

OK, smart guy...how about this:

Krauthammer is a neo-con's neo-con. His world-view is that which says "(*)(*)(*)(*) the rest of the world, the U.S. can do as they please because they are the U.S." Simply because the USSR folded their tents and held a vote.

This is a man that feverishly supports war as long as "U.S. national interests" are involved, such as fighting for oil in the middle east. Yet when there is a humanitarian crisis like the Balkans, he thinks the U.S. shouldn't act and let the genocide continue.

Here is a chicken-hawk's chicken-hawk that never spent a day in uniform, yet advocates military action to further the intetrests of the rich and powerful. Never mind that the vast majority of the soldiers he would so cavalierly throw into the breech are not from a background of means.

This is a man who said that "neo-conservatism is a governing principle who's time has come." Sorry. Neo-cons are why Goldwater is spinning in his grave. They aren't conservatives. Conservatives actaully give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about the constitution and their fellow man. In a different era, neo-conservatism was called the NSDAP. And yes, I know Krauthammer is ethnicly Jewish. But his nationalist ideology is the modern-day equivalent of the NSDAP.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
PALIN'S Bush Doctrine definition matched Gibson's OWN,from 2001	Grokmaster	Elections & Campaigns	18	09-17-2008 11:48 AM
Gibson's "Bush Doctrine" Gaffe - according to the man who coined the term!	Calminian	Elections & Campaigns	71	09-16-2008 11:15 PM
Obumble the human gaffe machine mangles "Nittany Lions"	JLB	Elections & Campaigns	22	09-05-2008 02:54 PM
"Fairness Doctrine"-Bush Primises to Veto if it comes up.	DuH2	Media & Commentators	140	04-01-2008 02:15 PM
"Charlie Wilson's War"	JP5	Media & Commentators	18	01-03-2008 09:11 AM