I know what the Monroe Doctrine is. I could even tell you that Kennedy pledged to help any country struggling to be free--a take off on the Truman Doctrine: to "support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures."

But I confess I was not familiar with the term Bush Doctrine. At least not in the way Charlie Gibson presented it in his 1st interview with Governor Sarah Palin on Thursday, Sept. 11, 2008.

Seems I am not alone in wondering, what in the world is that? Even Barbara Walters on The View said something akin to she did not know that all politicians would know what that term meant. No wonder.

According to Wikipedia on the Bush Doctrine, there are many aspects to it. "Foreign policy experts argue over the meaning of the term "Bush Doctrine," and some scholars have suggested that there is no one unified theory underlying Bush's foreign policy."

Charles Krauthammer exposed Charles Gibson's Gaffe in this Washington Post piece.

"He [Gibson] asked Governor Palin, 'Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?'

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, 'In what respect, Charlie?'

There are many aspects to the Bush Doctrine. It isn't just one concept as Charlie tried to infer, and he seemed unwilling to define it. (I think Sarah was wise in asking him to define his term. It is always good to know what you are agreeing with.)

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," ["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?"]

So when Charles Gibson defined it, he did so incorrectly. Sarah then restated that portion of the Bush Doctrine, so there would be little doubt as to her convictions. (The Bush Doctrine being the collection of foreign policy themes over the years.)

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."

Sarah made sure her position was well defined, that preemptive strikes were not to be based on a feeling or hunch as Gibson suggested but on legitimate intelligence. 

I found Charlie Gibson's attitude annoying throughout the interview. Guess I wasn't alone. Krauthammer sums up:

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.

The question on Pakistan was irritating to me as well as the one on Israel's right to protect itself against Iran. (Wasn't that the one Obama said he would not answer because he did not deal in hypothetical questions?)

I kept thinking to myself, I sure wish these same questions would be presented to all the Presidential and VP candidates...but then that would only be in a perfect world.

Found this: Gibson didn't pound John Edwards in 2004; Asked him only if GOP attacks made him mad

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna

It is becoming more difficult to ignore the threat of Iran and its long-range (see UPDATE at bottom) missile program. Yesterday they fired 9 missiles  and I heard 4* more overnight. I found the reaction of the candidates to this eyeopening.

Launch Brings Different Reactions: 

Tehran's testing of long-range missiles Wednesday drew  markedly different responses from U.S. presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain, as Iran develops into a defining issue for the campaign.

Sen. Obama cited the test as further evidence of why the U.S. must engage in direct diplomacy with Tehran, while his Republican opponent called for more forceful responses, such as the development of a missile-defense system to protect U.S. allies.

"History shows us that when nations are embarked on paths that can jeopardize the security of the region...other actions besides diplomacy have to be contemplated and taken," Sen. McCain ... 

From US News, Iran Tests Missiles Able To Reach Israel:

McCain Warns Against "Second Holocaust" The CBS Evening News interviewed Sen. John McCain, "The Iranians are testing these missiles not because of action on the part of the Israelis, in my view. This is part of a calculated plan, developing nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them."

McCain told NBC Nightly News, "Hopefully, this event, it will serve as a catalyst that will finally gel all of the different factors that have been out there that will allow us then to act with our friends and allies in a most effective fashion and modify Iranian behavior, but we cannot allow a second Holocaust."

Obama Calls For "Direct Negotiations" ABC World News reported Sen. Barack Obama said in reaction to the missile tests, "The United States has to gather up others in the region, as well as internationally, to apply pressure on Iran. But it's very difficult for us to do so when we haven't shown a willingness to engage in the sort of direct negotiations with Iran that would give them carrots and sticks for a change in behavior." The CBS Evening News reported Obama "said what is needed is direct diplomacy and the threat of tougher sanctions to persuade Iran to drop its nuclear program."

Obama wants to talk. Talk to a nation that says the Holocaust never happened and that has set their sites on eliminating Israel.

Neville Chamberlain thought he could talk the madman Hitler out of his designs to rule all of Europe and the United States too. We know how that worked out for Neville.

*Was it 3 or 4? Seeing is not believing. Check out Michelle Malkin's Fauxtography-fest 2008! and see for yourself. (H/T Fairly Conservative)

UPDATE: Test exhibits no long-range rocket 'Same old Boring Shahab 3'. Not only were the pictures not what they seemed, but the Iranians' story too! Be sure to read all of the linked article. Here are some highlights:

Iran's missile test last week did not demonstrate any new capabilities, said a U.S. official familiar with the intelligence, and the test may not have included one of the longer-range missiles Iran claims was among those launched.

Iranian officials said the tests Wednesday and Thursday demonstrated a new variant of the Shahab missile that had a range of 1,250 miles. Such a missile would put Iran in striking distance of much of the Middle East, including Israel - as close as 650 miles from Iran - as well as Turkey, Pakistan and the Arabian Peninsula.

... Unless the Iranians built a larger missile with the same length-to-width ratio, dramatically improved the thrust of the rocket or decreased its internal structural mass, the missile could not achieve the range Iran claimed it did. Otherwise, it is the same knockoff of North Korea's Nodong-1, according to the blog.

..."Iran frequently exaggerates the capability of its missiles, and it appears it is continuing that tradition with [last] week's tests," said David Wright, co-director of the Union's Global Security Program.

..."We don't believe this exercise to have been an illusion," he [Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell] said Friday. Still, he added, "They were not testing new technologies or capabilities, but rather firing off old equipment in an attempt to intimidate their neighbors and escalate tension in the region. That is not the way to win the trust and confidence of the international community."

Click here to sign the DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS.  domestic drilling petition and see the latest links to related oil news (updated every day).

Drill Here is now over the 1.3 million mark. The goal is 3 million signatures by the Democratic and Republican Conventions. 

Links: