Majivo wrote:
Second, as already established by other posters on this board - including you, in the past - the Bush Doctrine is concrete.
No, it's not (more accurately, it's not what Gibson and most liberals think it is). There are at least three distinct political actions by the Bush administration which have been labeled "the Bush doctrine". The first was his decision to withdraw from ABM and Kyoto. I'm quite sure that's *not* what Gibb was referring to in his question, and certainly is not what you think the Bush Doctrine is about.
The second refers to the policy to hold state sponsors and protectors of terrorist groups accountable for the actions of those groups. This was specific to the decision to invade Afghanistan (among other actions like seizing property and bank accounts of terrorist groups abroad) after the 9/11 attacks. When the Taliban refused to help in finding or arresting the members of Al-queda responsible for the attacks, this policy was enacted. BTW, this is what both Bush and Cheney referred to in the quotes earlier. This is the only use of the phrase which the Bush administration itself referred to as the Bush Doctrine. However, this is *also* not what Gibson was talking about when he asked the question, was it?
Gibson was referring to a broader policy based almost entirely on liberal pundit's re-interpretations of the decision to invade Iraq. It reads more or less as the right of the US to unilaterally invade a nation pre-emptively if that nation is seen to represent a future threat to the security of the US. That's *not* what Bush or Cheney or anyone in the administration ever referred to as the "Bush Doctrine".
The question was a bad one because it's a complex question. If Palin answers it straight and in the context Gibson intended the question to go, it would be seen as an affirmation of the label of "Bush Doctrine", not to what the Bush administration actually used it to mean, but as the liberal pundits had come to view it. She would have to accept the premise that this was "the Bush Doctrine" by answering the question.
It's comparable to asking about the "Obama Agenda", because it can be assumed that a conservative asking the question is referring to an agenda of using the power of the government to bring about socialist change to the US. That's what conservatives mean when they say it. If he answers without clarifying what is being spoken about, he's made the mistake of accepting the premise of the question itself.
The difference is that Palin asked Gibson to clarify what he was talking about, while the esteemed congressman chose to assault the guys asking the question. Hence, I made a
joke that perhaps Palin should have just punched Gibson in the face for asking the question. But apparently the mere mention that Palin might have handled a similar situation with vastly greater aplomb than this guy didn't fly so well with some of the more rabidly liberal posters on this board. It's funny actually, I wasn't trying at all to defend Palin's answer, but apparently I can't mention her name without some people having to attack her.
EDIT: Hah. Charlie Gibson. Dunno why I kept writing "Gibbs"...
For the record, this is what Gibson said the "Bush Doctrine" was:
Quote:
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?
I'll point out again that this is a liberal interpretation of the decision to invade Iraq, repackaged and labeled as "the Bush Doctrine", and is *not* what Bush and Cheney were talking about. They changed the meaning so that if someone supported the Bush Doctrine, they could be attacked for supporting unilateral pre-emptive attacks on foreign nations with sketchy intelligence, and all the other anti-Iraqwar arguments. That's why she was correct to answer as she did.
That's also why it's fair to compare the two statements. If you were to ask Obama what his agenda is, he'd presumably give a very different answer than what a conservative pundit would say the "Obama Agenda" is. Same deal.
Edited, Jun 17th 2010 7:45pm by gbaji