Charlie Gibson certainly thinks he knows, and he certainly thinks it's pretty clear. In a recent interview, he ripped into her for not knowing quite what he meant. The left, by golly, is quite relieved: with Obama's poll numbers currently low enough to lose him the presidency, Democrats are rejoicing that they've got a new weakness to pick on.Nonetheless, after seeing the interview, watching Charlie Gibson very confidently enunciated the finer details of the Bush Doctrine (that it was "anticipatory self-defense"). I listened, and thought, "wait, really?" I know a thing or two about the Bush Doctrine, and I wasn't entirely sure I agreed with Mr. Gibson. But surely, he'd done his research, and sometimes even I am wrong. Now, I do expect the Vice President of the United States to know a bit more about foreign policy than, lo, even I do.
But then I was sent an article written by the guy that first used the term. Mr. Krauthammer gave vindication to my intuition--despite Gibson's arrogance in being smarter than Palin, he was wrong for two reasons. Reason the first is that there are four separate meanings of the Bush doctrine from four different time periods, all of which have been called the "Bush Doctrine" in literature. These are:
1) Pre-9/11 unilateralism, including withdrawing from treaties;
2) Post-9/11 "if you harbor terrorists we will consider you hostile"-ism;
3) March 2002 pre-emptive defense-ism (what Gibson cited);
4) Later "aggressively spread Democracy through the world"-ism.
The last one is the one most cited and most encompassing of all of Bush's doctrinal statements. It's no wonder Governor Palin was confused when Mr. Gibson threw the phrase out there and expected her to pick up exactly what it meant. It's not quite an excuse for the level of Palin's fumbling during the foreign policy section of that particular interview, but (like most things in politics), this is nothing as it seems. And, like most things in politics, the media has again taken the position of impatient sage, and has told you and the Governor what to think.
In truth, all this reveals about the McCain ticket is its failure to market correctly. No, of course Palin is not an expert in foreign policy. No, she hasn't met with world leaders (which Gibson asked about). Why the heck would she? She's a governor, not a diplomat. Unlike Mr.'s McCain, Obama, and Biden, she has not been custom-tailoring her position as governor as a springboard, and so doesn't yet know much about foreign policy. Will she learn? Sure; Governor Clinton did, Governor Carter did (although his foreign policy was admittedly quite naive), Governor Reagan did. And for all the clamoring about John McCain's imminent departure from the earthly world, she doesn't have to be ready to fight the war-on-terror on day one, without any mentoring.
Mr. Obama himself, while running against Clinton, said that "experience is only a proxy for judgment." Those without experience will be wild cards in their decision-making. But for all their experience in foreign policy, Mr.'s Obama, Biden, and McCain lack any executive experience whatsoever. Further, have the foreign policy experiences of Mr.'s Obama and Biden culminated in proof of sound foreign policy judgment and good understanding of how to grace America's diplomatic and military might upon the world stage? More about that, later.
8 comments:
Note, however, that Mr. Gibson clarifed that he meant the Bush Doctrine that was "enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq War". And besides, Palin's fumbling on this was not because she was about to ask "which Bush Doctrine?"--- having watched the video, it seems pretty clear to me that she hadn't heard the term in that context and was trying to cover for it.
Also note that while #1 is a separate doctrine from the rest (the bright line being 9/11), #2 was not followed by #3, but came to include #3. Also, #4 came as justification for previous acts committed under #2/3.
I mean, I would have gone with #4 also, had I been asked the question, but her general cluelessness was pretty awful. Generally, I don't mind McCain much, but as far as I can tell Sarah Palin seems to have decided to behave like the stereotypical "dumb/crazy Republican." In both her interviews with Charlie Gibson she was clearly wayyyy out of her depth. Normally, this wouldn't bother me that much, except for the fact that John McCain is practically near death :(
It really pisses me off when angry liberals are right about these kinds of things.
Yes, she clearly didn't know what she was talking about in the foreign policy field. I think the biggest mistake here, though, was the McCain camp trying to market that she did, not that she lacks it. McCain should be touting her executive experience, not her foreign policy experience. I agree with Mr. Obama that he is trying to slap some lipstick on the pig of her foreign policy expertise.
So I read Krauthammer's article today, and find it fundamentally dishonest. He lays out four, time based, "Bush Doctrines," and says that Gibson was using the third, pre-Iraq war, definition, instead of the fourth, current definition. He then says "If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume -- unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise -- that he was speaking about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration." (emphasis added).
He then *totally fails to mention* that before providing Palin with the third, pre-Iraq war definition, Gibson says "No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war," and gives her another chance to answer before he gives her the definition he's using. At that point, Krauthammer's "defense" is sufficiently poisoned by playing fast and loose with the facts that I can't credit anything else he says, and will find it hard to trust future analysis he provides. (Not that he had a *good* reputation with me to begin with, but that's just inexcusable.)
Charles,
The fact that Gibson happened to know the date of the issue of the one of four Bush doctrines he was using does not mean that Krauthammer was somehow dishonest. Krauthammer is not claiming that Palin cited the "wrong" Bush doctrine, or that Gibson was vague; he is simply saying that Gibson was _wrong_; Gibson's first question was "how do you feel about the Bush Doctrine," not "How do you feel about such-and-such a statement issued before the Iraq War." Krauthammer cites that "the Bush Doctrine" and "that statement issued before the Iraq War" are not certainly the same thing, and by most citations, different things; and on that note, is entirely correct.
I don't think Mr. Gibson got it wrong. Even though Mr. Krauthammer coined the term Bush Doctrine, that term has taken on a meaning in literature. Mr. Krauthammer isn't mentioned, except for his citation in the Wikipedia article, in any of the results on the first page of Google hits for "Bush Doctrine". Regardless of what Mr. Krauthammer may think on the term, it means something beyond what he has the authority to define at this point.
Since it is an accepted term on its own (without qualifying "which"), asking what Mrs. Palin thinks of the Bush Doctrine is a valid question, especially from a journalistic point of view. It gives us an opportunity to see what she knows and what she thinks. She might have impressed us by explaining that there are different manifestations of the doctrine. But she didn't. Mr. Krauthammer might want to expound the subtle meanings that he thinks we should be educated in, but Mr. Gibson was right to educate us a little more on Mrs. Palin's foreign policy philosophy.
Great entry, Fogg!
I agree with your comment on how McCain's simply looking to "slap some lipstick" on the fact that (lo and behold) the Governor of Alaska has little foreign policy experience. In a more veiled slap, his selection of Palin directly mirrors the highly-rumored and highly-anticipated choice for Obama's VP: remember the female Gov from Kansas? Gosh, isn't this the year for letting the chicks tag along? I'm all for a female in the top seats, but its almost insulting how McCain feels he must pretend to work well with a polar opposite--non-military, not interested in foreign policy, complete ignoramus--in order to get the token pair of breasts at the podium. In any case, it's a cheap ploy to pick up Clinton's voter body of progressive women, though the GOP might have offered something better than the moose-slayin' atrocity who can't hold down an interview... Will it be enough to upset Obama? We shall see soon enough...
This is an egregiously late response, but your newest post reminded me that I never answered it.
I still think Krauthammer is fundamentally dishonest in this piece. If Gibson had asked about "the Bush Doctrine", Palin had answered in reference to the fourth meaning, and Gibson had played "gotcha" and claimed that the third meaning was the "real" doctrine, Krauthammer might have a point. But that's not what happened. Gibson asked about it, Palin said, effectively, "Huh?", and Gibson explained which one he meant, to which she *still* said "Huh?"
Only then does Gibson define what he means. At that point, Gibson's definition was *not* wrong. Krauthammer claims that the fourth definition is the "current" one, but that the others are acceptable to use with appropriate annotation. Then he calls Gibson wrong for using an earlier definition despite the fact that he annotated it, and without even referring to the fact it was annotated. That's the thing I find fundamentally dishonest.
A piece saying there are multiple meanings of the term, and it was legitimate for Palin to be confused initially, would have been fine. A piece saying Gibson got his definition wrong, when he got his definition right, is a lie.
Post a Comment