GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
PALIN: 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. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
GIBSON: 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. Do you agree with that?

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?

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.

Mr. Bush imagines an intimidating, heavyweight America. A few of the policy prescriptions capture the spirit: American military power will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from ever trying to challenge the military supremacy of the United States. Washington is free to take pre-emptive action against hostile states that are developing weapons of mass destruction. The successful strategies of the cold war, which relied on the threat of overwhelming American retaliation to deter foreign aggression, are largely obsolete. Forceful measures to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons are more effective than treaties.

doc·trine /ˈdɒktrɪn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dok-trin] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.

The Bush Doctrine, which is likely to shape U.S. policy for decades to come, reflects the realities of American power as well as the aspirations of American political principles.

Does the Bush Doctrine represent a new course for American policy or simply an elaborate justification for the administration's actions? Why attack Iraq but not North Korea? What is the real role of preemption? What is wrong with the tried-and-true concepts of deterrence?

If nothing else, the Bush Doctrine, articulated by the president over the past eighteen months in a series of speeches and encapsulated in the new National Security Strategy paper released in September, represents a reversal of course from Clinton-era policies in regard to the uses of U.S. power and, especially, military force. So perhaps it is no surprise that many Americans--and others in the rest of the world as well--are struggling to keep up with the changes. Indeed, it often appears that many in the administration cannot keep up with the president. But in fact the Bush Doctrine represents a return to the first principles of American security strategy. The Bush Doctrine also represents the realities of international politics in the post-cold-war, sole-superpower world. Further, the combination of these two factors--America's universal political principles and unprecedented global power and influence--make the Bush Doctrine a whole greater than the sum of its parts; it is likely to remain the basis for U.S. security strategy for decades to come.

The real question is whether she even understands what a doctrine is much less the Bush Doctrine. The brightest lights in the room where not coming from her eyes when Gibson asked her at least 4 questions regarding the Bush Doctrine. She will get eaten alive by world leaders.

my,my,isn't the right sensitive when one of their stooges exposes the incompetence of....one of their stooges.

"I admit it -- the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
William Kristol, as reported by the New Yorker, 5/22/95

Translation: Anyone who doesn't kiss Frau Palin's ass is being "pretenceous," or showing pretenceousness (sic). Or, pretentious even.

I have only gotten the excerpts of this interview.
It reminded me of the beauty queen answers in South Carolina.

On Hartman's Friday show they said the same thing.
Hartman's wife popped up with it.

"Miss Congeniality" was applied by McCain, to himself,
on that Columbia U thing with Obama. He really should not encourage beauty pageant vacuousness.

He can't stand-in for his inept choice in the swimsuit competition.
'Course she's not the hot 18 year old any more either.

I'm sorry. What does the word 'pretenceousness' mean exactly?

pretentious-
making demands on one's skill, ability, or means
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pretentious

pretentious-

expecting a Vice Presidential candidate to have a nodding acquiantence with National Security, the one
issue her ticket would like us to believe they know more about than anyone else.

BINGO!!

The term Bush Doctrine is now accepted in political science circles, and is well known among the current crop of college freshmen. The fact Ms Palin needed a couple of hints to figure out what was being asked does not reflect on the reporter. In fact if this interview had been vintage serious reporting he would have given no quarter and asked with no further ado "Do you have any clue what I mean by that?"

Whether her performance tonight maintains or diminishes her ticket’s standing in the polls will depend entirely on whether the Obama campaign decides to tell a story about her, rather than challenging isolated statements, and relate it to the last 8 years. If they pick away at isolated facts or say nothing, which has been their primary approach to her thus far, people will continue to find her performances endearing. If they paint her as just like Bush, people will find her far less endearing. In fact, she’s just like Bush in multiple respects. They both seem like great people to have a beer with (if either one of them drank—they’d actually both be lousy bar-mates unless you’re sipping Virgin Marys). But you wouldn’t ever send your child to see her if she were a doctor and your child had leukemia, any more than you would with Bush, because doctors have to know something, and you wouldn’t put your child’s life in the hands of someone who doesn’t even pretend to know much and who has to “cram” for her exams with Charlie Gibson just to pass. We’ve seen what happens when “the average person” becomes president. The world is simply too complex to do that again. She wants to be a heartbeat away from becoming the leader of the free world behind a 72 year old man with a recurrent deadly illness and she gives answers like she’s in a beauty pageant and hasn’t even followed the news enough over the last 6 years to know what the Bush Doctrine is. It’s fine for the average person not to know, but it’s not fine for someone who could become President at any moment, any more than it’s fine for your pediatric oncologist to say, “Ah, gee whiz, I don’t read what’s in those fancy medical magazines—I just give it my all and pray a lot when I see a sick child.” Time for a second opinion. Like Bush, she also seems to view truth as optional, and most Americans have had enough of that as well. But those are stories the Obama campaign is going to have to tell, tell effectively, and tell repeatedly. Isolated “facts” will just bounce off a folksy persona like hail off a bridge to nowhere.

Since Charlie Gibson is usually a right wing tool, I was amazed with his professionalism in this interview. He wasn't as tough as he would have been grilling a male candidate, but that would be shameful, because you know women are fragile little butterflies. With lipstick, of course. You can tell it was successful since the right is whining about it. are only happy when the media completely kowtows to their interests. Go Charlie!!

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSF..._bush_doctr.asp

Throw Gibson back in the "Defective Journalists" pile with Dan Rather, Matthews and Olberman.

This Presidential Election is serving at least one good cause. It's helping us take out the trash which has been piling up in our television news media for far too long.

More to come in the W. Post tomorrow I think...

Yeah, I almost have to wonder who is the bigger idiot; Palin or Gibson. Why he didnt expose her for the idiot that she is basically reveals what a corporate hack he is. Seriously people, dont you think its time to just start ignoring the corporate media. Isnt it obvious that their only role is to keep the low-informed voters to remain low informed?

I grew up with "the John Wayne Doctrine":
The good guy NEVER throws the first punch.
(He's strong enough that he doesn't have to.)

"The Bush Doctrine" is just the opposite of that.
And Palin didn't even have a CLUE!

(I thought the Neo-cons revered John Wayne. I guess not.)
Mac

This was her golden opportunity to make a good impression in the big time. She failed, so it must have been Gibson's fault.

I grew up with "the John Wayne Doctrine":
The good guy NEVER throws the first punch.
(He's strong enough that he doesn't have to.)

"The Bush Doctrine" is just the opposite of that.
And Palin didn't even have a CLUE!

(I thought the Neo-cons revered John Wayne. I guess not.)
Mac

I grew up with "the John Wayne Doctrine":
The good guy NEVER throws the first punch.
(He's strong enough that he doesn't have to.)

"The Bush Doctrine" is just the opposite of that.
And Palin didn't even have a CLUE!

(I thought the Neo-cons revered John Wayne. I guess not.)
Mac

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.15845/pub_detail.asp

I guess tfire didn't understand the question either

I'm shocked!! Tfire didn't understand much more than my 9 yr old nephew when I was here a year ago and I fear he's lost a little of his "edge" in that past year. This just proves that and save me a lot of time from reading his dribble.

RC

For a self proclaimed genius, you certainly do celebrate mediocrity.

Love to play victim don't you. Probably said the same thing when Gore trounced GW in the debates. Gotta catapult the idiots.

For a self proclaimed genius, you certainly do celebrate mediocrity. Love to play victim don't you. Probably said the same thing when Gore trounced GW in the debates. Gotta catapult the idiots.

For a self proclaimed genius, you certainly do celebrate mediocrity.

Love to play victim don't you. Probably said the same thing when Gore trounced GW in the debates. Gotta catapult the idiots.
ZING!

Gibson gave her a pretty big pass.
He could have called her on her attempt to coerce him into giving the answer FOR her.

On the other hand, he could have given her what she wanted: reframing it for her so that she had more wiggle room to evade the question with double talk.
While it wasn't as incisive as it could have been, Gibson pretty much let her make an ass out of herself.

Maxxi has the right word - he just applied it to the wrong person!!!! LOL
---------------------

pretentious |priˈten ch əs|adjective
attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed : a pretentious literary device.
________________

Palin: 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. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
Gibson: 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. Do you agree with that?
Palin: I agree that a president's job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.
I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.
Gibson: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?
Palin: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

Gibson was having a meltdown when he couldn't remember his own descriptions of the Bush Doctrine.

what did he say? [grrr grrr, what's your understanding of it?] as he scoured his tiny mind, then crapped out the only definition which the Left thinks is anything more than basic common sense, which Palin responded perfectly appropriately.

Let see Blues, if you knew someone was going to attack and kill your family, do you think you should have the option to strike them first?
Gibson would best serve this country by preventing that hole under his nose from opening up in front of any camera or microphone.

Gibson was correct when interviewing Palin in using the accepted definition of "The Bush Doctrine." That Charles Krauthamer, et al, disagree and argue that there is no accepted definition is of no consequence.

Palin stumbled, Gibson did not.

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?

She did not stumble. She answered perfectly according to Gibson's own definition below, which Gibson conveniently failed to include. The man is a boob and his career is now prone to a downward slow burn. His credibility has been suffering ever since. Maybe he'll take the low road like Dan Rather. I don't care what he does, but he deserves to have his peers stare at him down their noses with their glasses at the tip. Complete jackass.

Using a seven year old quote to justify the premise of your thread has a problem Tfire. Mainly being that what has come to be known as the Bush Doctrine, the policy of preemptive self defense, was outlined in the aforementioned national security strategy which was released a year later in 2002.

Like I said, that is the accepted definition of the Bush Doctrine.

The only way the premise of your thread is validated is if you use a quote from Gibson which predates what we know, and what is generally accepted as the definitive statement of the Bush doctrine.

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.

gibson did one thing that mccain didn't do.

he interviewed palin.

Taken from the Weekly Standard:
It's quite clear that the reason Gibson couldn't think of the answer to his own question and had to refer back to Palin is because he couldn't get it straight in his own head, at which point he became a Boob in front of millions of viewers. Gibson's credibility as a journalist is in question when it was not so much before. Palin's answer was quite correct, and used a quite common understanding, one of many. Your selective time stamp on the Lexicon has legitimacy only to those who are biased in favor of Obama and/or against Palin. Otherwise it's fairly meaningless.

Stop stating arguable opinions as if they are facts.

Now, to transcend the pettiness of this particular argument, what goddamn difference does it make to begin with? We sent soldiers into Korea withOUT ANY threat to our country. Do you believe in the doctrine which allowed for that? If we had advanced warning of the 9/11 or Pearl Harbor attacks would you NOT be in favor of preemptive strikes to prevent such attacks? The whole thing is stupid. But, I must say that I enjoy comparing Palin to Obama, and often.

1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.