Friday, September 12, 2008

The Bush Doctrine: A Mea Culpa from Charles Gibson in the making?

The WaPo has a good story on the now infamous question that will surely throw egg on Mr. Gibson's face.

Many Versions of 'Bush Doctrine'
Palin's Confusion in Interview Understandable, Experts Say

Peter D. Feaver, who worked on the Bush national security strategy as a staff member on the National Security Council, said he has counted as many as seven distinct Bush doctrines. They include the president's second-term "freedom agenda"; the notion that states that harbor terrorists should be treated no differently than terrorists themselves; the willingness to use a "coalition of the willing" if the United Nations does not address threats; and the one Gibson was talking about -- the doctrine of preemptive war.

"If you were given a quiz, you might guess that one, because it's one that many people associate with the Bush doctrine," said Feaver, now a Duke University professor. "But in fact it's not the only one."

Enough said, lets move on to the next set of dumb questions that will be asked in the future.

1 comment:

Joe C. said...

Palin did fine, especially in light of Gibson's terrible performance. He kept asking the same question over and over, either forgetting that he just asked it, forgetting that she just answered it, or expecting a different answer to the same question. Palin was classy enough to carry him through it though.

Gibson embarrassed himself by asking her to respond to a quote that wasn't hers, and then asking her about the Bush Doctrine that he obviously didn't know had changed and expanded. Again, Palin could have slammed him, but she just smiled and answered the vague question the best she could.

Despite all this, she did very well, and didn't embarrass the interviewer - infact carried him most of the time. ABC owes her a vote of thanks for trying to keep Gibson's reputation intact. Hopefully he'll improve.

Still, here we are, a day later, with all kinds of references, and the experts can't agree on a definition. Hence, it was reasonable to ask for clarification because she knew that Gibson probably was thinking of the unilateral and pre-emptive definition. She knew he was wrong, but would address it if that's what he meant. Instead he got indignant, so she answered in the most circumspect way possible to elude his "gotcha."

It was a no win situation because he could have changed the definition no matter how she answered. Hence, without clarification, she gave the best possible answer while avoiding his trap.

It's like asking me, "Do you agree with 'The War on Poverty.'" What are you REALLY asking? Am I against poverty? Do I think Medicaid creates a moral hazard? Does welfare create a dependent class?

Then if I ask for clarification, you respond, "You're an idiot. Obviously I'm talking about how Republican racism causes poverty."

Even Charles Krauthamer, the guy that coined the term "Bush Doctrine" - who also thinks Palin was a bad choice for VP - didn't know what Gibson was talking about( 09/12/AR2008091202457.html ):

"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."

Don't you think that if this was a gaffe of such monumental proportions as the leftists seem to think that every network, cable, and print outlet left of FNC and WSJ would have it emblazoned or looping 24/7? Yet other than Olbermann and the ultraleftist blogs, no one seems to think it's a big deal. If anything, they seem to be covering for Gibson's embarrassing performance.

The leftists so want to believe that she is stupid that they are dismissing that of the 2 - Palin and Gibson - that HE was the one that got the facts wrong and didn't know what he was talking about. That's the way most objective people are seeing it.