This article is a joke.

Charles Krauthammer, one of the biggest Neocons around, is now telling everyone the "Bush Doctrine" doesn't really mean a "pre-emptive military attack" on any nation who presents no threat to us but which nation we merely attack "just in case" in the future they "might" be the bad guys. He's a laughing stock.

The Neocons' bible -- the infamous document known as the "Project for a New American Century" (aka "PNAC")-- was entirely based on attacking other nations under the "Bush pre-emptive strike" agenda. Who is Charlie kidding?

The Neocon rats are jumping off the ship as fast as they can trying to change the meaning of their Neocon agenda. Too late now. It's all in print and they can't deny it. Iraq was THE first and prime example of the "Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive attack."

A rat is a rat and a Neocon is a Neocon and they are both stink.

Barracuda could have responded with anyone of the "four" Bush Doctrines Krauthammer describes, but in the end described none of them. She could have given Gibson an education, she did not.

Barracuda eventually did describe "pre-emption", but not Bush's preemption. Yes, of course Ms. Sarah, if we discover the Imperial Japanese Fleet materialized two-hundred miles from Honolulu we have the right to attack it.

But that's classic preemption, accepted under the laws of war Bush and every neocon that's ever posted on this blog regarded with contempt.

Bush's preemption was based on the "one-percent rule"---That is, if a country poses a one-percent threat to the US, it's subject to attack.

What's really chaffing is Jackass here wants to tell us what's an absolete Bush Doctrine and which is not. Any simple reader of the news knows Bush has never retracted any damned thing.

And at the end of his article Jackass has the gall to state---"Yes, Palin does not know what it is (Bush Doctrine)".

Yes, Mr. Pundit. We saw that.

Shhhh, don't tell the drooling morons that they are stupid and ill informed.

They may demand an extra handful of peanuts.

The good news is if Krauthammer condescends to write an article defending Palin on this subject, it must be drawing blood.

I'm pretty sure Gibson's NOT running for VP. Sarah is, however, and her stalls were embarrassing.

I love how krauthammer tries to take credit for "bush doctrine" as though no one has ever added a presidents name to the word "doctrine" before.

And he uses wikipedia as a source. What a delightfully stupid little columnist.

Posted by Alexandrite at 2008-09-12 10:17 PM | Reply

Palin is about what I would expect, sadly. She inspired all the confidence of a mediocre job applicant who was trying just a little too hard, and whose morning didn't go too well.

Next applicant! (oh,dang, this is for keeps)

Bush Doctrine-
"In what respect, Charlie!?!?"

Spare us.

Anyone who is not frightened by the prospect of this energetic moron gaining more power, and possibly being President, isn't thinking clearly.

Let's see.

A.

1. Almost bottom of class at Annapolis.
2. RTF major at Idaho (irony noted) with a poli-sci minor.

B.

1. Magna cum Laude at Harvard Law.
2. "Biden attended the University of Delaware in Newark,[11] where by his own later description he was a lazy student.[12] He graduated with a double major in history and political science in 1965,[3] ranked 506th of 688 in his class.[13] He went on to receive his J.D. from Syracuse University College of Law in 1968,[11] where by his own description he again underperformed and ranked 76th of 85 students.[12][14] He was admitted to the Delaware Bar in 1969.[11]"

Y'all really screwed the pooch not making kissy-face with the Clintons.

Zatoichi-
Would you share a bathroom with the Clintons on a three day weekend and not regret it?

I guess that should be "could you", but you get the point.

"Would you share a bathroom with the Clintons ... "

I have.

Ok. One bathroom? For how long?

"For how long?"

Posted by BetelG

Long enough.

Details involve my ex's late parents.

(Translation: None of your business.)

'nuff said

(Translation: None of your business.)

That's OK.

You can tell us when you're dead.

And at the end of his article Jackass has the gall to state---"Yes, Palin does not know what it is (Bush Doctrine)".

#3 | Posted by Zed at 2008-09-12 09:37 PM | Reply

Yeah, I loved that line, too. I guess the point of this strange article is that even though Palin doesn't know what the "Bush Doctrine" is, she isn't an equally ill-informed yet snobbish journalist and, therefore, Americans are likely to vote for Republicans anyway.

That's reassuring.

I find it implausible that someone wouldn't have heard of and/or have an opinion of the Bush Doctrine. Implausible for someone who keeps up with politics & world events at a minimal level.

The problem, as the article pointed out, is that there have been multiple "Doctrines" coined by the media over time. Your view may differ from my view, yet we'd both call it our interpretation of the Doctrine.

So she asked for clarification. Sensing a 'gotcha' Gibson moved in. Did Gibson consider the question MIGHT be ambiguous? Will he ever be asked that question publicly? She didn't say, "What's the Bush Doctrine?" She asked 'in what way' - sensibly giving the impression the term was open to several interpretations. Rather than embarass Gibson by "schooling" him on the various interpretations, she asked him to provide more info so that she could respond to the question being asked. And she did so in a respectful manner. Gibson's posture changed to the condescending one of tipping the head back and peering over his reading glasses.

All that said, I was glad to see she would sit down with opposing media. Obama did the same by going on FOX. Good for both of them.

She asked 'in what way' - sensibly giving the impression the term was open to several interpretations. Rather than embarass Gibson by "schooling" him on the various interpretations, she asked him to provide more info so that she could respond to the question being asked.
Posted by OohRah

You can't be serious.

The "Bush Doctrine" "Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today."

Krauthammer intones, from so deep in the rightbot sinkhole that his whiney voice sets off echoes.

Memo to Charlie Krauthammer: You're wrong and nuts.

But not as nuts as the Mukluk Messiah.

She tried to tap dance around Gibson's questions about what three things she would do differently from Bush to repair the economy.

1. cut taxes.
2. cut spending.
3. increase efficiencies.

Is that it?

Where have I head that before? Oh yeah, Bush.

Now that is change!

The question of the bush doctrine was bull shit. I hate any of the parties which ask hyperthetical questions, it is stupid.

No answer can be a correct answer having to be conjecture and supposition.

"Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?" is not a "hyperthetical" question.

Palin's problem is that she thought the Bush doctrine was "his world view."

She's already proven she's a liar and now she's securely nailing down her reputation in the loon department.

"You can't be serious." - TFD

Certainly. It's called asking for clarification. That doesn't mean you have absolutely no idea what the questioner is asking... but that there are multiple ways you could go in answering the question. And, to ensure you're addressing the questioner's intended question, the respondent seeks further info to help with an answer that addresses the questioner's inference.

What if, for example, I asked you for your view on our immigration issue? You could address it from multiple directions. A quick reading of DR postings on that subject offers a myriad of component topics surrounding the issue.

OORAH---There's a somewhat bigger issue here, the tendency for many on the Right to turn every issue into intellectual mush. Yes, we understand, if you see every encounter through rose colored ex post facto lenses, your guy always wins.

Reasonable people judge things by what ordinary people are able to do. The ordinary people I know could have handled Gibson's question on the Bush Doctrine. It would not have been any big deal, "four" different meanings or not.

You guys have become so used to setting the bar so low. Apparently the idea is that if Palin could remain sitting up straight with Gibson, she gave a successful performance.

"Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?" is not a "hyperthetical" question.

Bull shit, there was more to this question than just agreement. There are many facits to the question which needed clarity and the question was moved to hyperthetical.

The whole question was a bull shit question made to make her look bad through wordy misleading directional ideal which would force a clarification answer.

Stop political hacking.

What's irritating is Palin's subsequent interactions with Gibson reinforce her lack of depth. Did this woman really tell Charlie her earmarks are very, very good but she needs to go to Washington to exterminate everyone else's earmarks? Yes, she did.

"Stop the political hacking...."

Palin was asked a question a bright 8th Grader would have handled.

So she asked for clarification. Sensing a 'gotcha' Gibson moved in. Did Gibson consider the question MIGHT be ambiguous? Will he ever be asked that question publicly?

#19 | Posted by OohRah at 2008-09-13 07:25 AM | Reply

Would Stephanopoulos have whispered the correct answer to her when she stumbled?

What did Palin do when she thought she finally had a response for Gibson? She nattered on about classic premption instead of Bush's preemption. She had, in other words, no freaking clue about one of the most controversial foreign policy decisions in a generation.

I think you fellows noticed such things. I think the advantages of intellectual mush-making are just too tempting.

Would Stephanopoulos have whispered the correct answer to her when she stumbled?

They would have cut to a commercial break and she would have given her answer when they got back.

OK Zed,

What is the bush doctrine?

"She would have given her answer when they got back...."

In other words, not near ready enough for an appearance on Jeopardy.

I've already defined it, MONEYWAR. Scroll up. Palin could have just said what I said and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

An 8th grader would have answered the question already instead of having to look up what the bush doctrine is really.

MONEYWAR---I'm not sure I follow your point, but it seems to be you're saying no one should expect Palin to be informed or to think on her feet.

Yep, just what I thought zed, you don't fuckin know what the bush doctrine is.

Did you scroll up, MONEYWAR---My post is near the top. Did you read it and disagree with it, or are you just BSing like little Ms. Sarah?

I am saying your talkin out your hind end.

You don't even know what the bush doctrine is and what it involves yet say an 8th grader could of answered the question without clarification so to speak.

Well, I see you have not made it past the 8th grade.

I scrolled up and see nothin, if you think something is there what post number is it?

Did you read my previous post about the Bush Doctrine, or are you wasting my time?

I need to tell you, when Palin couldn't handle Gibson's question on this subject, more than one person in my household roared with laughter.

It's second from the top, MONEYWAR---Please do take your time. But by all means, lead with an insult.

I am suggesting you're not fairly viewing the question asked of her, which has many views, so clarification was needed but we should attack russia too........right!

"Which has many views...."

Before we go any further, is my view of the Bush Doctrine correct, even accepting it's a mere "one of four"?

I'm not even sure you saw this interview. If you had, you'd note that even when given "clarification" (i.e., the answer) by Gibson Palin DOES NOT USE THAT but goes drifting off into a Never-Never Land that has nothing to do with it.

What if, for example, I asked you for your view on our immigration issue?
#26 | Posted by OohRah

But he didn't ask a general question like that. He asked a specific question about the leader of her party's specific views and declarations. If the question had been "How does Bush want to fight terrorism?" or "How do you agree with Bush on fighting terrorism?" then I would agree with you. But it was a specific question about a specific idea, which Bush clarified many times. Did you hear to her voice choke when she answered. She had no idea.

Before we go any further, is my view of the Bush Doctrine correct, even accepting it's a mere "one of four"?

Correct according to what????

Does it fall into one of the articles 4 facits, yes.

"do you agree with the bush doctrine?" I ask again and if #2 is your answer I am going to jump all over you as that is not the correct facit I want.

MONEYWAR---You think Gibson would have jumped Palin no matter what, fine. But it would have been so much better for everyone if she just could have responded in some way related to the question, and she could not.

The least that can be said is Palin isn't as up on current events as I am. I don't know why she doesn't read the news, but there it is. If you won't even go that far I think I feel sorry for you.

forest for the trees

the real problem is we have so little to judge this person on and no evident effort by the republicans to make her more available.

TFD-
I'm heading out of town and will check back in later on.

A couple items for thought.

1. Do you honestly think Palin had no clue as to the Bush Doctrine? Or do you think her perceived (by you) indecision was borne out of her perceived ambiguity of Gibson's intent?

2. You've read upthread of the four varying "Bush Doctrines" since 9/11/01. Does that sink in with you, not being sarcastic here, but you seem to ASSUME that EVERYONE is monolithic as to the precise definition. The Doctrine goalposts have moved over time and you ask an open ended question with four possible tentacle answers. She asked for clarification - that in and of itself does not mean she's not able to share her views on the Doctrine... but rather she wanted to share her views on the definition Gibson meant.

I do that frequently when coaching interview candidates. Be sure you understand the question before launching into an answer which doesn't address the questioner's meaning. Politicians are GUILTY of this all the time - not answering the question. Here's a case of someone engaging in effective communication by clarifying the question.

Looks like we'll have to disagree on this one. What was your take on Gibson's tipping his head back, looking over his glasses like a professor? What does that body language tell you? How do you think that was perceived by those watching?

"Do you honestly think Palin had no clue about the Bush Doctrine...."

You didn't direct the question to me, but I'll point out I already answered it. Given clarification from Gibson, Palin still didn't get it. What's mysterious here?

"How do you think it was perceived (Gibson's body language)....?"

The Right is certain Gibson was out to get her. Amazing the McCain campaign couldn't have realized that before they picked him for the interview.

What does Palin's body language tell you? Nothing you want to see in a VP.

I wonder which Obama version of the FISA bill Biden supports. I wonder which Obama version of Iraq policy Biden will enforce as president. I wonder which Obama tax plan, drilling proposals, Social Security rescue, wiretapping, and energy legislation Biden will champion.

Seven years on, I still don't know what the Bush Doctrine is. The administration just makes things up as it goes along. But Obama has flipflopped on every major policy position in just the last eight weeks. On Wednesday, it was taxes on the wealthy.

Maybe when Obama learns what his positions are, it'll be easier for Biden on the campaign trail. He can worry less about having the lame walk, and resurrect his own floundering campaign.

1. Do you honestly think Palin had no clue as to the Bush Doctrine?

#52 | Posted by OohRah

It seemed to me that she had never even heard that phrase before. She almost was pushed back by the shock and her voice choked.

I think Gibson's reaction was pretty much the same as everyone else. Shock and disbelief.

Looks like we'll have to disagree on this one.

#52 | Posted by OohRah

You know, I really hate that kind of attitude, one which the Right has driven into the ground. That whole "We report, You decide" thing. It's the refuge of the liar and disingenuous. Facts are facts, there's no disagreeing on it.

Seven years on, I still don't know what the Bush Doctrine is. The administration just makes things up as it goes along.
#55 | Posted by rightisright

Boy, that's a ringing endorsement of the man you voted for twice.
That's kind of the point though. When you phrase something like that, and the Right couldn't have used that phrase enough, they kept spewing Bush Doctrine left and right, trying to make him sound all Presidential and all, but when you use a phrase like that, it should have a clear meaning, it better be something you are willing to stand for.

Sorry, that was the worst run-on sentence ever.

"It's the refuge of the liar and disingenuous...."

It's what I meant by "intellectual mush". Nothing ever has meaning unless it says something good for our side.

Barracuda could have responded with anyone of the "four" Bush Doctrines Krauthammer describes, but in the end described none of them. She could have given Gibson an education, she did not.

Yep. Krauthammer's gotta be kidding.

If the multiple definitions of "Bush doctrine" were the thing that threw Palin off, she could have said something along the lines of, "There are several meanings for that term, Charlie. If you're referring to the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes ..."

Instead, Palin looked like she wanted to use her phone-a-friend.

Gibson looked like a prissy schoolmarm in the interview. Even the democratic strategists were saying he should have clarified his question. He was just out for ratings and to try to help poor Barry get some votes back. Didn't work. The democrats are really showing their hatred of women this election year. First Hillary, now Sarah. Can't wait until Barry has to go to the "barack" of the bus in November!!!

"Stop political hacking.
#28 | Posted by moneywar at 2008-09-13 08:50 P

"His world view," Palin.

C'mon, Moneywar, stop hacking so much and so wildly. People might think you're practicing for a karate competion.

But, typical rightbot, I'll give you that. Complete inability to practice what preach (or is it "screech"?). But, please, give it a try. You might not sound so foolish next time.

"If the multiple definitions of "Bush doctrine" were the thing that threw Palin off...

High unlikely.
She came up with one: "His world view."
She's becoming an archetype for "pathetic."
McCain's always had an encormous chip on his shoulder and this is just his way to saying "fuck you" to the American people.

The Bush doctrine means anything the Neocons, the PNAC and their camp followers want it to mean when they wake up in the morning.

These neocons like Krauthammer and Kristol need to be deported.

They are not "true" Americans by their own choice.

They (like all other neocons) have only Israeli interests in mind, and Americans would be better off not listening to these devisive instigators.

Their only purpose is to misinform.

"Their only purpose is to misinform."

Posted by BobOtto

"If you don't read the papers, you're uninformed. If you do read the papers, you're misinformed."
-Mark Twain

Great quote zatoichi.
Very appropriate, and troubling when you really think about it.

>I love how krauthammer tries to take credit for "bush doctrine" as though no one has ever added a presidents name to the word "doctrine" before.

How ironic you should say that. Krauthammer is universally regarded is the person who also made the term "Reagan Doctrine" famous in the 1980's. Go ahead ... look it up. It's everywhere (not just the wikipedia).

Incidentally, Gibson got it wrong. If he's referring to the June 2002 NSC document it does NOT advocate the right to pre-emptively attack ANY nation that may be deemed a threat.

The entire document is exclusionary from beginning to end with the theme of dealing with "rogue states and terrorists", involving multiple strategies including "enhanced diplomacy" and "building coalitions". It defines these rogue nations as "those do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destructionweapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning."

It further defines these rogue nations as "targeting" "civilians" for these activities.

In other words, none of Bush's policies (or "doctrines" if you will) advocate or even allow pre-emptive attacks against countries that use conventional warfare.