First the transcript (we heard first-hand) but did not hear the word No, preceding Gibson's stating "the Bush Doctrine (enunciated) annunciated September 2002, before the Iraq War."
ABCNEWS Excerpts
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5782924&page=2
CHARLES GIBSON (ABC NEWS)
(Off-camera) Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?
GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN (REPUBLICAN VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE)
In what respect, Charlie?
CHARLES GIBSON (ABC NEWS)
(Off-camera) Well, what do you interpret it to be?
GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN (REPUBLICAN VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE)
His world view?
CHARLES GIBSON (ABC NEWS)
(Off-camera) No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated in September 2002, before the Iraq war.
GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN (REPUBLICAN VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE)
I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made, and with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
CHARLES GIBSON (ABC NEWS)
(Off-camera) 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 we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN (REPUBLICAN VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE)
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.
http://www.clipsandcomment.com/2008/09/12/transcript-sarah-palin-interview-with-charles-gibson-part-i/
transcript of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s interview with ABC News’ Charles Gibson
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view?
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, annunciated September 2002, before the Iraq War.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made, and with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
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 country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with us?
PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligent and legitimate evidence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/11/raw-data-palins-interview-with-abc-news/
Clip
In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.
Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror.
In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush doctrine.
Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.
It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457_pf.html
Now let's think. Ask the regular man or woman on the street, what is the Bush Doctrine and do you agree with it, or disagree with it?
We bet nobody, absolutely nobody, will name the one CK says supersedes the previous ones. Nobody will say: spread democracy around the world.
Except for a few who have read CK and are biting into his explanation, or drinking the koolaid, so to speak, responders to the question will - unlike Charlie Gibson's "anticipatory self-defense" either use one word, "pre-emption," or in street language, use two words: "strike first."
Gibson had the question exactly right. Do you AGREE with the Bush Doctrine?
Had Palin been aware of CK's publication and coining of the phrase "Bush Doctrine" and its subsequent expansion, Sarah Palin would have, not could have, or should have, but would have answered Charlie Gibson with a three or even four part question.
Charlie, as Palin had taken to uttering Gibson's first name throughout the interview, the Bush Doctrine includes these several parts.
Which one do you want me to address? All four? OK.
I agree. President Bush was right to withdraw from the ABM Treaty.
I agree. President Bush was right to reject the Kyoto Protocol.
I agree.
I agree.
Notice, Palin didn't actually answer whether she agreed with the Gibson pick.
Palin did cleverly imply that the Bush Doctrine as Gibson presented was missing a key facet: an "impending" attack on the United States.
Few have caught Palin's intention in her answer. To justify the Bush Doctrine Charlie Gibson defined as "premptive strike."
Palin's responses were not only the sign of a regular politician, they were the sign of a dangerous one. One who changes historical facts to suit one's own purposes.
Beware of the Palin Doctrine.
See if you can define it in one word.
Net the Truth Online
CK on Fox Panel
'Special Report' Panel on Sarah Palin's First Big Media Interview
Saturday, September 13, 2008
rush transcript of "Special Report With Brit Hume" from September 12, 2008. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHARLIE GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush--what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His worldview?
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September, 2002 before the Iraq war, that we have a right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us.
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.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANGLE: Now, Charles, critics say she seemed a little unsure of herself there about what the Bush doctrine was. What do you make of that?
KRAUTHAMMER: Fred is right. It was Charlie Gibson's gaffe.
And this was reported by liberals as if it was a huge mistake that she stumbled, she didn't seem to understand what the Bush doctrine was, and he informed her.
Well, he didn't. He got it wrong. He assumed there's one Bush doctrine. In fact, there are at least four versions which succeeded each other over the eight years of this administration.
And the one that is currently understood as the Bush doctrine, the one that has been around since 2005, is the one enunciated by the president in his second inaugural address, "the freedom agenda," in which he said that the success of the liberty at home is dependent on the success of liberty abroad.
And that is what everybody understands today as the Bush doctrine. It superseded the understanding of the Bush doctrine which Gibson had proposed.
If you hear liberals gleefully say that Iraq has destroyed the Bush doctrine, it is not destroying the idea of preemptive war, it is destroying the idea of spreading democracy.
So Gibson is the one who made a mistake, but he had that kind of condescending sneer that you get among the establishment in instructing a person who to them now appears as a moose hunting rube...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,421882,00.html
Charlie Gibson's Gaffe
By Charles Krauthammer
Saturday, September 13, 2008; A17
"At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' "
-- New York Times, Sept. 12
Informed her? Rubbish.
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."
Wrong.
I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.
Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush doctrine.
Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.
It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."
This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy's pledge in his inaugural address that the United States "shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson's 14 points.
If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume -- unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise -- that he was speaking about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration.
Not the Gibson doctrine of preemption.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457_pf.html
More
Palin vs. Gibson, Round 1
The ABC News anchor flummoxes the GOP amateur.
By Jack Shafer
Posted Thursday, Sept. 11, 2008
http://www.slate.com/id/2199999/
James Fellows
The Palin interview
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/the_palin_interview.php
No comments:
Post a Comment