Which “Bush doctrine” did you mean, Charlie?
Charles Krauthammer, the man who coined the phrase “Bush doctrine,” turns the table on the condescending Charlie Gibson.
Take off your smart glasses, Charlie. Because you’ve been schooled:
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_iconWrong…
…Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed “doctrines” in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.
Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.
Yes, Sarah Palin didn’t know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn’t pretend to know — while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and “sounding like an impatient teacher,” as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes’ reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.
***
Video of tonight’s second part of the Palin/Gibson interview — er, interrogation — is up at HA.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
More CPAC speeches in 20 words
February 11, 2012 06:53 PM by Michelle Malkin
72 CommentsPalin: If I Lived in South Carolina, I’d Vote for Newt
January 17, 2012 10:28 PM by Doug Powers
127 Comments
MSNBC Leans Forward to Apologize to Mitt Romney
December 15, 2011 04:33 PM by Doug Powers
41 Comments
Michele Bachmann: By Now, Michelle Obama Would Have Gotten an Apology From NBC; Update: Apology Received
November 23, 2011 02:18 PM by Doug Powers
91 Comments
Did Newt Gingrich Say the Worst Thing Any Presidential Candidate Has Ever Said?
November 21, 2011 01:02 PM by Doug Powers
159 Comments
Nina Totenberg: No Evidence of Anything Political About Solyndra
November 19, 2011 04:21 PM by Doug Powers
45 Comments
Media Seminar: How to Silence an MSNBC Panel 101
November 16, 2011 11:45 AM by Doug Powers
205 Comments
Categories: Media Bias,Sarah Palin
Pundit & Pundette
» Obama's war on conscience, cont'dRedstate
» Media MattersHot Air
» National Review to Newt: Get outAmSpecBlog
» Explosion Near Israeli Embassy in IndiaNRO
» Santorum’s Turn
Excellent link! It even links the actual interviews so you can see for yourself.
I really believe that Gibson and his ilk still think that once a story is “in the can,” nobody can see it again, but the internet is figuratively killing them, and is shows in their declining viewer/readership.
Thank God for the internet! The cure for the liberal media infestation.
Can a person without a clue say another person doesn’t have a clue? Or does it just cancel out?
That’s an excellent summary of the common approach of both mindsets, riggword.
As has been said here before, relying on the young as your voting base is probably not a good strategy. Polls are sooo convenient, you know, cause they call you at home and such. Voting is a big hassle, especially if there’s a line.
The hidden point in your post is that issues really don’t matter too much to either side. That is the sad fact of American politics, and for the most part, it has always been this way.
Even if that were a given, riggword, I don’t see a dichotomy – character vs. ideology. That is, I think it can be said that “good ideology comes from good character”.
Well, actually I know it can be said, cuz I just did
I saw the intro to GLibson;s interview with Governor Palin.
ABC makes her look like a soon-to-be-convicted Felon. Not one positive item about her. This is as stupid as Dan Rather’s fake correspondence ploy in trying to nail Bush on his military record.
Gibson is headed for a fall. What a lummock? What did he do before becoming a “journalist”? Shine Leslie Stahl’s pumps?
Sorry Charlie. You are gonna be served up with lemon slices, you pantywaist moron.
I think riggword was comparing the Cult of Personality vs. the Content of Character. Not ideology vs character.
Dems want a charismatic rockstar, GOP wants an honorable warrior…or pick any metaphors that match exterior beauty against interior grace.
The “Gibson Doctrine” when you don’t even know, what you don’t know about anything.
As a long-time CEO, allow me to offer a few observations about “experience” that are clearly not being brought out.
There is a huge difference between experience that indicates “tactical competence” (i.e., knowledge of job processes, competitors, terminology, etc.) and that which indicates “strategic competence” (i.e., demonstrated ability to solve problems, make good judgments, take decisive action, etc.). It is the latter, not the former, which qualify someone to be Chief Executive. And 20 years of the former do not trump 2 years of the latter.
So the media’s obsession with questions determining the tactical competence of any candidate simply reveals their own lack of understanding. Chief executives cannot simply vote “present”. They need to act. Boldly.
On that basis, there is only one candidate in this election who has demonstrated strategic competence. That candidate is Sarah Palin.
LOL… I like that.
It could also be because he has finally choked on his own shoe leather.
What caused me to frame in that way was this, Doug:
“The choice is between personality driven leftist ideology for the Dems and Character driven American conservatism for the Republicans.”
But I think you’re correct that Rigg didn’t intend to make the distinction I took away from it. I must be having an “Chuck Gibson Moment” or it’s probably just too early on a Sat. morn for me to try thinkin’ too hard on very much.
If Joe B. would go on disability due to infected hair plugs don’t assume Hillary will connect the way Sarah has. Sarah is “our kind of gal–All American”. Leaders must inspire and when you go around blaming folks for causing all the problems in the world it just doesn’t inspire them or fire them up.
GO SARAH!
I agree, but that is the difference. Obama is a personality without character. At this point his ideology is all over the place as well. He is like most leftist politicians they move with the wind to get elected.
Also, you have to remember that ideology should develop from core beliefs the we hold “self-evident” or God given. Obama’s core beliefs are not stable. His core belief is that “He” can fix America. His core belief is that moral questions are,”Above his pay grade”.
Obama’s inner truth is “Obama”. He serves to serve himself.
I see a difference between the leftist self-serving agenda and conservatives’ serving America agenda.
People keep trying to turn McCain into a personality. His strength is his years of service to America and his “mostly” conservative beliefs, policies, and speeches. McCian show his core beliefs through his long term ideology which is reflected in his governance.
Obama’s stregth is his personality, which is beginning to fray by the way.
Obama, Why is There Air? The Gibson Interview.
He can’t help it, it’s kinda like bird flu making the jump from avians to humans. He just happened to be around when hoof-and-mouth disease made it’s only known such “jump”.
Yup – I believe we’re in agreement, Rigg.
It’s great someone like Reagan comes along and you get both “style and substance”. Perhaps we may be seeing such with Gov. Palin – time will tell.
There are those with 10 years of experience and those with one year of experience 10 times.
Which do you want?
You may or may not be a CO2 Producer. You definitely are a BSⁿ producer. n = ∞.
Well put planetgeo.
If I were looking to bring in a new CEO or COO and trust my company to them along with my family and my employees families. Obama would not get a second interview. Biden would not get a first interview. John McCain and Sarah Palin would be on the short list. Sarah would get the job and I would be very comfortable with that decision.
It is to bad about the MSn “news”…they lost all creditably a long time ago I do not watch any more as it is just painful to watch low life’s try to take down there betters…that aside they could be useful in informing us in times of impending disaster like a hurricane they have no creditably with me at all so I would not even tune in to get warnings about evacuations and the like because the information would have no value. I bet a lot of the people who stayed in Galveston and Houston did so because they simply did not believe the “news” reports. Not to mention the “authorities” who WILL NOT LET THEM BACK IN. Yes America is not as it once was…and the liberals are determined that it will NEVER BE.
Everyone needs to read planetgeo’s post at least twice and then email it to at least 5 friends. Very well said!!
Bobby Jindal is this kind of Republican, too. As a Louisiana voter, he is such a refreshing change from the snivelling twit whom he replaced. It will be a thing of beauty when it comes time to unleash him upon the nation.
Last night Conan O’Brien said that Sarah Palin had NO IDEA what the Bush Doctrine was. He emphasized the NO IDEA. His studio audience is usually made up of people who think the news segment on Saturday Night Live is factual, fair and balanced. They all laughed to think Sarah Palin had NO IDEA what the Bush Doctrine was. I know it is a “comedy” show, but should they get away with blatant lying? Geez!
I looked for Charlie’s email addy to tell him what I thought of his silly interrogation of Palin, but like most cowards, he is hiding. So I went to the ABC website, and left a comment there. Right now there are about 1420 comments and from what Ive read, 99% of them are lambasting this leftwing gasbag for his embarrassing attack on Palin. I invite more to do so; let ABC know that they are not as smart as they and the remaining fascist media think.
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/News/story?id=1995736
Nice job of Monday morning quarterbacking on Saturday morning.
So let’s see, now that you know there is more than one definition of the Bush Doctrine, you subscribe to Krauthammer’s analysis that there are four. Charles K is a smart dude and he may be right, but maybe there are actually 5 or 6 or 10.
So in seconds during the heat of a hostile interview, you demand that Palin should have run through the various meanings of Bush Doctrine, picked one, and then responded to it?
Guess what? Had she not picked the one YOU and Charles Gibson picked, you both would have accused her of not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is. Instead, she asked for clarification, which you dismiss as “tap dancing.”
No, tap dancing is answering a question by claiming it is “above my pay grade.”
You’re right about Gibson, though. He asked a gotcha question and conducted a gotcha interview. Right on par with what I would expect from the MSM.
To have one of the most BRILLIANT PEOPLE in the USA come to her aid SARAH should be indeed pleased… And this from a person who is not one of her BIGGEST FANS… As for GIBSON, again to have this BRILLIANT MAN take you to task, you should be ASHAMED VERY ASHAMED… Thank you CHARLES…
Personally, I consider some liberals to be like physicians of 200 years ago: They were intelligent, well educated, meant well, and tried to help their fellow man. However, they thought the best way to cure a patient was to remove the toxins or “bad blood” from the patient; which they did by “bleeding” or attaching leeches. When their patients declined in health, the only answer was to add more leeches, which resulted in a further decline in health and eventual death.
People with common sense avoided doctors and hospitals, as they could see what the typical results were.
Charles Gibson is probably fairly intelligent, and educated, but he (along with most of his fellow journalists) think the best solution to a problem is more government involvement (add more leeches).
We look back at those doctors and think what fools! They weren’t, but they were unable to apply critical thinking and move beyond what they had been taught was the truth. So it is today with most liberals.
As soon as I heard that moronic question come out of Gibson’s mouth I knew that he was trying to trap her and she was responding correctly. The so called Bush doctrine is a MEDIA created term, there is no such thing, and now that we know there are 4 of them, WOW, what a joke. Who does Gibson’s research? That is what happens when networks hire people based on their political bias, vs. qualifications.
The first part of the interview was horrid, Gisbon looked like a biased jerk. I guess he heard the complains cause he was much better during the second day. Someone needs to show on U-tube SIDE BY SIDE, Gibson’s interview of BO and his first part of the Palin interview.
Gov. Palin gave the correct answer, again. There was no specific Bush doctrine, after Krauthammer first made mention of such an animal, it change according to who was talking. Brilliant answer from Sarah, I actually saw her reply as poke in Gibson’s eye, the condescending, close minded, old fool.
The interview was an attempted hatched job, which looked to me as though Gov. Palin saw it coming and stopped it before he could get in a strike, as hard as he kept trying.
Then the follow up was just as dishonest and biased as the interview. Anyone notice the so called Republican had more damaging words to say than Hillary’s spokesperson?
I suffered through the hour, enjoyed watching Gibson make an insulate a$$ of himself, also reminded me why I never watch any news or political programing on any of the soup(MSM) channels
rightisright said:
I noticed that, too. The Republican strategist appeared to have it in for Palin, whereas the Democrat was somewhat complimentary. Very bizarre.
Forgot: Plain has ‘em runnin’ scared and I love every step of it.
McShame/Palin ’08
whoops, “Palin has ‘em….”
Really??? I knew something physical was going on with him, but had no idea what it was! He is truly an impressive individual. Just WOW!
I’m enjoying the show too. Palin isn’t perfect but she has a rare quality called “common sense”. The left doesn’t quite comprehend what it is but they sense it is dangerous. The more personal attacks and deceptions they manufacture against Palin, the more desperate you know they have become.
It’s really quite entertaining to watch the left throw everything at Sarah they can get their hands on in a desperate hope that something will stick.
To appear fair, Gibson will ask the same tough questions of Obama and Biden next time:
1) Barack, can you look me in the eye and tell me Sarah Palin is ready to be president?
2) Do you think Sarah Palin knows what I mean when I say “Chimpy McHitlerburton Cabal”?
3) In the face of the Great Shift and coming Age of Aquarius you are about to bring to the world, do you ever cling to guns and religion?
4) You meant to say “Christian”, right?
I can’t remember the last time I watched any news from the so-called “big three”.
Mr. Gibson’s ham-handed, heavily partisan attempt to do a hatchet job on Gov. Palin is one of the reasons why.
Mr. Gibson has probably done more to decrease vewership for ABC than anyone in the last 10 years.
rightisright said:
Anyone notice the so called Republican had more damaging words to say than Hillary’s spokesperson?
I tend to take it as classic PR-political psych-ops. You downplay your guy/gal and raise expections for their guy/gal.
And I expect the GOP to play up the “he’s a great orator” line (i.e. “over-raise” expectations) re:Obama for the upcoming debates and downplay McCain as the “average plain-talkin’ guy” (i.e. “the underdog”). It’s effective stuff.
I’ve always thought of Gibson as an endearing dope. The best interview he ever gave was while he was drunk! He, and 2 colleagues, were at the Hofbrau House in Munich, drinking big steins of their great beer (Ein Mass, bitte – to start the German grammar wars all over again
)
He was interviewing some Fraulein in a dirndl that was showing way too much cleavage. She was a member of the band. It was 11:00 AM, local time, and he was in the bag! It was pretty funny.
Hey ANYBODY, where can we get the transcript for the entire interview?
the unedited version
Let me repost: unedited transcript “FREE” of the entire interview. because I know they tried to get her to seem like she is a nut on abortion.
I expected this interrogation to be biased, but never imagined it would be so to the degree it was. Obnoxious, confrontational and unrelenting.
Gibson was so screamingly obvious in what he was trying to do, it was almost funny. But I didn’t laugh.
Okay Charlie, now how about exactly the same type of interrogation with Obama, same tone, same lack of respect, same “trying to nail you” questions?
Palin Admits To Her Bridge To Nowhere & Earmark Lies; Flip-Flops On Clinton & Global Warming
Posted by Ashish on 09.12.2008
Palin blows it in latest part of ABC interview…
Palin’s interview with ABC tonight was a trainwreck. The vast majority of her answers made no sense. After spending weeks claiming she was against the Bridge to Nowhere and making a big show of it with her “thanks, but no thanks” line, she admitted now that she was for it originally. After spending weeks claiming that she has always been against earmarks, she admitted now that she requested (and got) hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks for Alaska, including millions of dollars on CRAB RESEARCH, and went on to DEFEND it. How does Alaska wanting money for crab research differ at all from other states wanting money to research animals and environments local to their state? I’d say that 99% of all earmark requests are for things just as important, if not more so, than Alaska crab research. McCain is on record as saying he is against all spending of that kind, yet Palin not only did it, she defending doing it tonight.
The most striking answer though was when Gibson asked her to list three ways she would fix the economy. She said she’d cut taxes. Bush already did just that. She said she’d rely more on the private sector. Yep, that’s also what Bush did. And she’d say she would control spending (but, of course, we cannot cut the extremely important Alaska crab research) so we can get out of debt even though every economic expert is on record saying that BOTH McCain AND Obama’s economic plans would INCREASE the debt (the reality is that we won’t get out of debt unless we raise taxes or if we cut huge chunks of spending on things like the military, social security, medicare, and veterans benefits — cutting minor programs here and there won’t erase a $9 trillion debt when the majority of our spending goes to a handful of things). So basically, her economic plan is the EXACT economic plan Bush had in 2000 and what Bush has, for the most part, implemented over the past eight years. And if you think Palin is going to reduce government spending while defending millions of dollars in spending for crab research in Alaska, I have a bridge to sell you.
But the thing that really exposed Palin as totally transparent in her motives were her comments on Hillary Clinton. She praised Clinton for showing “grit” and “grace” during the primaries. Is she serious? During the actual primaries, before Palin became the VP nominee and before she was enlisted to pick off Clinton supporters, she called Clinton a whiner for crying sexism and for complaining about media coverage during the primaries, going as far as to say that Clinton was doing women an injustice. But now all of a sudden Clinton is her hero. Right.
She also lied about her past statements on global warming while also changing her position on the issue (she originally said humans had nothing to do with it, but today said humans do it) and stuck to her position that she is against abortion in ALL cases including rape and incest unless it risks the mother’s life.
I watched Sarah’s body language during that question and she looked miffed. She got the question right inspite of Gibson’s trap. While Hillary whined about how unfairly the media was treating her, our Sarah is doing just fine.
Which “Bush doctrine” did you mean, Charlie?
How about “the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war”.
Doesn’t get much more specific than that.
On September 13th, 2008 at 11:06 am, Member-VRWC said:
I’m an animal, and I breathe. So yes, I am a CO2 Producer, and so can [sic] you!
Hmm, what does the infinite root of BS equal?
Alfalfa. Definitely alfalfa.A lot of BS, I’d say. I gotta learns me how to make them cool symbols.Ack shully, I wasn’t trying to cut on Palin. I realized after the fact that I must’ve been channelling Kos’ qi when I wrote the comment. I just had the stray idea of what Palin would have sounded like if she spoke like the drone the MSM futilely thinks she is. Your estimation of BS is accurate.
If I have to explain my jokes, then I’m not doing a good job. Oh, well. Just deal. No worries for iowahawk, for reals.
mistressjustice said:
Is THIS what you are referring to?
I think Palin’s comments on Hillary are funny. I bet Obama really is wishing he had picked Hillary over Biden. I wish I could have seen Hillary’s face when she heard Palin say that, I bet she cackled.
Exactly!
I’ve been saying’ the same thing for two days.
Maybe next time ya’ll listen, hehe.
Trollman that clip is excellent. When you see it for yourself, you can see that mj’s charcterization is way off. Palin does show respect for Hillary and mentions that being under the microscope is too be expected and to plow on. And that she thought Hillary was doing herself a disservice to complain. Disservice – really – I mean Hillary’s the nominee – no wait, she’s not, Palin was right. But, but, but I thought Palin was a stoopid moose-hunting rube who couldn’t think for herself. The MSM says so. heh.
Aloha.
My last post was taken from a blogger named Ashish at 411mania.com. I dig the dude. I think the rest of his post was pretty spot on although the Hillary stuff was a little off.
I stand corrected.
You do know that crab fishing (Alaskan King crab fishing in particular), is a major industry in Alaska?
They aren’t researching the spotted owl or some obscure snail darter for the sake of some misguided environmental crusade. This is one of their major industries, and learning how to efficiently take crabs without depleting reserves or other measures to balance yields and future catches is rather important to the functioning of the state.
But if you can’t believe Ashish, who can you beleive?
beleive = believe
Perhaps a small and belated comment. As a wannabe wordsmith; I would suggest the proper term is Inquisition.
Charles Krauthammer is correct as usual. The liberals think they know it all when all they know is in their own heads.
Actually, I accept Krauthammer’s analysis because he took the time to explain it. I will also accept your analysis that there might be more, should you take the time to explain them. I remain open and am prepared to accept facts, and respect opinions.
No, I do not expect, or demand, that Gov Palin should have run through the many Bush Doctrines. If she was aware that there were more than one, she would have said, ‘Charlie, there are several Bush Doctrines, which one are you referring to?’ BTW, as I have noted before, Gov Palin did mention Pres Bush’s ‘world view’ as the Bush Doctrine. And, she answered the question.
Again, no. Had she picked any of the four Bush Doctrines that Krauthammer had mentioned (as she eventually did) that would have been fine. Why? Because she would have educated Gibson that there is more than just one Bush Doctrine. I would have been educated that there is more than one Bush Doctrine. Asking for clarification would have gone more along the lines of , ‘which Bush Doctrine, Charlie?’
And, yes I view her response as tap dancing. In a hostile interview tap dancing is expected, sometimes it is done very well. Sometimes it is done poorly.
Answering a question by claiming it is ‘above my pay grade.’ No, it is an evasion. ‘Hmmmm, what do you think?,’ is tap dancing. ‘There are different opinions and I understand them all,’ is tap dancing.
It was not so much a gotcha’ question as it was an assumption. An assumption on Gibson’s part that could have been handled and knocked down easily with the simple preface of stating what Gov Palin knew the Bush Doctrines were, had she known them all. Unfortunately, only Gov Palin knows if she knew them all, and we will never know.
An Aside -
This is more of a gotcha’ question.
Sen Obama discussed pursuing the terrorists into Pakistan. Do you agree that if a country is too timid to act, then we will?
Go ahead, give yourself some time, give it some thought and then answer it.
Ready for the gotcha part?
Well, in his address to Congress after the attacks of 9/11, Pres Bush said, ‘if a country is too timid to act, then we will.’ Pres Bush offered no caveats about a country being an ally, having permission, or because that country was not involved with the attacks of 9/11. You might even call it a ‘Bush Doctrine.’
Has anyone gotten an update on how hard ABC was hit with negative blow-back on Gibson’s hackjob?
I’d love to see a response along the lines of the disingenuous one from Us Weekly.
Bush Doctrine… Irrelevant.
Someone tell me what The Obama Doctrine is. IF anyone even knows what it is and means.
– RogerC
Let’s hope we never find out. For the sake of argument though (based on his career so far), I’d imagine it would be something like:
- Championing little (if any) legislation of any kind
- Allowing the Justice Dept to legislate from the bench
- Engaging us in a period of worldwide decline of US influence.
- Long speeches involving lots of vague feel-good catch-phrases.
The Obama doctrine is simple:
Preemptive surrender
Take from the makers and give it to the takers