Did I hear right? Did I hear her say she wouldn't "second guess" Israel on action against Iran?

Gibson asked broad, vague question about "the Bush Doctrine" and Palin asked him to be more precise. How is that ignorance? "The Bush Doctrine" is not a phrase in common currency. I'm a long time sutdent of foreign policy and military histroy, and ***if the same question had been posed to me, my first thought would have been "What's the Bush Doctrine?" because that's not an umbrella term commonly applied to Bush Administrtation foreign policy.***

Matt -- you can't be serious. The Bush Doctrine was the justification for invading Iraq. She didn't know it. She suggested it was his world view. She. didn't. know. it. And if you expect me to believe you didn't know it, then its proof you haven't been paying attention to the last six years. Its not an umbrella term, but its a foundation of Bush Foreign Policy. Weak!

I am serious, Dan. Public discourse is about the War in Iraq, the War on Terror, etc. -- not "The Bush Doctrine."

Once Gibson shifted from gotcha mode to asking a more precise question, Palin knew exactly what he was asking about and answered him -- and without resorting to dodges like "it's above my pay grade" or "those are old arguments."

›››Gibson asked broad, vague question about "the Bush Doctrine" and Palin asked him to be more precise. How is that ignorance? "The Bush Doctrine" is not a phrase in common currency. I'm a long time sutdent of foreign policy and military histroy, and if the same question had been posed to me, my first thought would have been "What's the Bush Doctrine?" because that's not an umbrella term commonly applied to Bush Administrtation foreign policy.‹‹‹

(Ahem.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

This article has been in existence on Wikipedia since September 2002. The Bush White House approved its pre-emptive first strike doctrine (authored by Wolfowitz) before 9/11. I guess Sarah Palin's just been living in a cave wearing moose hides and eating bear jerky.

You are an apologist without shame, Jubal.

Mr. Whipple:

I think Palin should have been aware of the Bush doctrine, despite Jubal's protestations that it is not part of the common lexicon. She's in the political mix and should have known this. But, the fact that she didn't is of no consequence. Once it was explained to her, she went right to the talking points and answered the question.

All this shows is that Palin needs more time to get up to speed. She'll get there (hoepfully, without the Jubal bias masquerading as observation).

You're both all wet. Look up the various explanations of The Bush Doctrine floating around even within a few months of its announcement. Palin's was a perfectly reasonable response.

It's come out that His Superciliousness Charlie Gibson defined it differently back in December 2001 than he did last night.

Once Gibson actually said what he was talking about, she had no problem answering his question.

Whipple -- I don't care for you, but you are welcome to comment here as long as you cease the personal attacks. This is your 2nd warning -- which is one more than everyone else gets, so don't whine about censorship. You will not get a third.

I agree with you Jubal about the fact that Sarah should not necessarily be criticized for not knowing what "The Bush Doctrine" was. Gibson purposely left it vague, to see if she would pick up on it...she didn't...but I don't think it's a huge flaw. Most people probably don't know, out of context, what "The Bush Doctrine" is, and so it's not that surprising that she wouldn't know either. I wouldn't say it's a *good* thing...and it's a *bit* of a flaw, because we do want our top public officials to have complete knowledge of these issues...but it's not a *huge* flaw.

What *is*, in my opinion, a *huge* flaw, is the fact that rather than admitting that she wasn't clear on what Gibson was referring to, Sarah tried to fake her way out of it. It's true, she first asked for clarification, which is good...but when she didn't get it, she tried to fake it. She went on about Bush's general plan to rid the world of evil, she smiled and winked and Gibson a couple of times while saying that McCain/Palin would continue the fight better than Bush did, and she tried to completely fake a confidence in something she knew nothing about. And she was called out on it.

I think this is a real problem. Not because it says anything about Sarah's knowledge of foreign policy, but because it says something about her *character*. I have a saying that I pretty much stand my life by: "True strength is the ability to admit to your weaknesses". I want a leader who is willing to admit when they just don't know the answer to something. In fact, the person that tries to fake their way through these types of situations may be far more dangerous than the person that just doesn't have any clue at all, and doesn't try.

I need to be able to trust that when my leader says something, it is a carefully informed decision, or at least an honest opinion of their best guess on something. But you lose the ability to trust in this way when a person is able to fake their way through situations that they are less confident about.

Wikipedia?

That's your authority, Mr. Whipple?

Both you and Libertarian need to take off your "I hate Republicans" hearing aids, and really listen to the interview. Palin knew exactly what the Bush Doctrine was, once Gibson gave her a definition to comment on.

And Jubal is biased? Gee, when did you figure that out? He still makes 10 times more sense than Whipple.

I don't know how "Matt" pretends to know that Palin DIDN'T KNOW what the Bush Doctrine was, or that she was faking anything. That's pure speculation.

Her answer showed she knew perfectly well what substance of the Bush Doctrine was, but just didn't immediately recognize it as "The Bush Doctrine" because as others have already pointed out, no one talks about "the Bush Doctrine" any longer.

I'll bet if you surveyed every member of Congress -- including Obama and Biden -- yesterday on the same question, few of them could have given a precise answer

JUBAL WRITES: ›››Whipple -- I don't care for you, but you are welcome to comment here as long as you cease the personal attacks. This is your 2nd warning -- which is one more than everyone else gets, so don't whine about censorship. You will not get a third.‹‹‹

I appreciate that, Jubal. I certainly hope the "no personal attacks" rule goes both ways. You've called me both a "hack" and a "tired crank" in recent days:

http://www.redcounty.com/orange-county/2008/09/left-fever-swamp-off-base-on-p/#c72873

http://www.redcounty.com/orange-county/2008/09/left-fever-swamp-off-base-on-p/#c73017

Other than that, I hope you would expect points of view to be raised here that don't coincide with your own. Otherwise, why blog if all you want as an echo chamber? A closed email list is better for that sort of thing.

Will someone please explain to me why she seems to want Israel to have carte blanche in its dealings with Iran. Is this a McCain policy?

Other than that, I hope you would expect points of view to be raised here that don't coincide with your own.

I've been running this blog for more than four years, and have always allowed contrary viewpoints. Tell me something I don't know.

You've called me both a "hack" and a "tired crank" in recent days:

Yes, I have, but you appear to forget I have those lapses in etiquette in response to your feeble attempts to characterize me as an unthinking hack whose thoughts are not his own.

If you refrain from starting with the smack talk to begin with, everyone will get along much better.

I believe your thoughts are your own. I would just like you sincerely to admit to Sarah Palin's weaknesses. But it seems you believe she doesn't have any — she's the perfect candidate without any flaws. Surely you can't believe that. Surely you must see SOME drawbacks in her as McCain's VP pick.

This is what drives me nuts about the die-hards of ANY political party — they are unwilling to be critical of themselves, which (IMHO) is the first step to greatness.

It's like the candidate who is asked, "What's you're greatest weakness?" and responds, "That I haven't done enough to help the people of America." That kind of nonsense.

Now, perhaps Palin isn't as bad as I think she is (and I think she's pretty bad). But how about we arrange a trade? I'll say one sincere thing nice about her as a candidate, and you say one sincere thing that you dislike about her as a candidate.

I'm even willing to go first.

I hate to say it, but the reality of the matter is I know twenty times the amount of foreign policy information as Sara Pallin does (And that's not bragging about my qualifications since some people on this board like Chuck Devore know a few times what I know. That doesn't mean Pallin would not come to the right conclusions with the right team. She isn't ready to be President, but let's hope she's a quick learner, which I believe she might be.

Although it seems to have worked out politically, from a foreign policy standpoint, it was a mistake. She is as prepared as Barack Obama was one year ago, before he had to study hard and get prepared because of his buffoon comments. The good part is Pallin seems to have a better ability to come to the right conclusions.

Nevertheless, I think we are in trouble if she becomes President and we are in a disaster situation if Obama becomes President.

By the way, with respect to the Bush Doctrine, there have been multiple books that have referred to the matter differently. Therefore, the question was unfair. Gibson should have asked do you support the Bush Doctrine that says.... But, he was trying to be challenging.

This one sums it up...

http://mccainpalinworld.com/

Text of conversation in question:

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated 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.

IMHO, McCain's VP pick did not understand the technical term, even after Gibson specified. Points off for that? I didn't know either, but I am neither a political science student, a Bush Presidency student, or a politician running for office so that my finger is on the button that launches America's Nuclear Missiles...

Pete, thanks for reproducing the original dialogue. Given that the interviewer specified a date and context in his response, it is hard to see (1) how anyone could complain that the phrase was used "out of context" (as Matt complained, in a post above), or (2) how SaPa's last-quoted answer in your post (the answer that begins "I believe that what President Bush has attempted ...") could be imagined by anyone to register any awareneness of the meaning of the phrase "Bush doctrine." Rather, her answer signals merely that she knows (because the interviewer told her) that it has something to do with Iraq. Beyond that, it is merely so much arm-waving verbiage that amounts to saying, "hellifiknow."

If anyone cares to read what Bush might call the Bush Doctrine and compare it to Palin's response, read chapter 5 of Bush's June 2002 National Security Strategy:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss5.html

There is no need for pundits on either side when the facts are out there.

Will someone please explain to me why she seems to want Israel to have carte blanche in its dealings with Iran. Is this a McCain policy?

David-

There's a big difference between carte blanche and not second guessing a country's autonomy or right to self defense. You're the one who said carte blanche, not her. And yes, her answer is 100% consistent with McCain's policy.

Mr. Whipple, Sandy, & Pete Bobb-

Your senseless partisan observations sound like "hubris". Claim what you like but you're just lying to yourselves if you actually believe the average independent voter cares/knows about the "Bush Doctrine". Come here and spin all you want, but you're just preaching to the opposition. Instead, go out there and try to convince an independent voter that Sarah isn't ready to be vice-president because she didn't know the answer to a cynical question based on generalities. Check in when you've made progress. Until then, spare me, please. Go to the corner and come to terms with the latest 10 point swing that we're smacking your party with upside yo head!!

d'Anconia-
I saw a discussion where two different viewpoints were being express about a conversation/interview. I could not judge the comments because I did not have first-hand knowledge of the topic.
I quoted from the text of the interview and said IMHO neither Palin nor I understood the 'Bush Doctrine' as a technical term with a defined meaning. I'm not sure how this demonstrates arrogance on my part. I had to look up the text of the interview to have a context to put the discussion in, and thought perhaps others might want it too....
I'm sorry if you intepreted my observation as something that 'independent voters' cared about, it was something I thought people reading this discussion might care about.

D'Anconia -- why did you assume that I'm a Dem.? I'm a Republican who is unimpressed with the party's choice. Though I must add that it is rather disheartenting to be told that no one cares about the image that the VP candidate projects. If my comments amount to "hubris," yours amount to cynicism.

As to Pete Bobb -- I make no assumptions about your party affiliation, but I certainly appreciate your effort to lend clarity to the discussion rather than having people argue on the basis of no information.

She was much better on the 2nd day.

If you are going to quote Wikipedia.......

""Wrong," writes (Charles) Krauthammer. "I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term" way back in 2001.

Krauthammer notes both in his Saturday column and on Fox News' "Special Report" Friday that over the years the Bush doctrine has actually had several different meanings and that Gibson's definition isn't even the latest.

The first was the Bush administration's unilateral withdrawal from the ABM treaty and Kyoto Protocol, which was followed by the post-9/11 "you're with us or you're with the terrorists," which was followed by the preemptive war in Iraq, which Gibson was thinking of.

The fourth incarnation of the Bush doctrine, Krauthammer explains, was the "freedom agenda" articulated in Bush's second inaugural address that "the survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands.""

So asking Gibson what he means by the "Bush Doctrine" is a perfectly legitimate question.

Sandy I assumed that you're a Dem because you sound like one. Put Sarah's comments back in context and you'll realize that a lot of what you wrote really *is* hubris. Read the transcript and imagine John McCain or Joe Biden saying those words and come back and tell me that you think it sounds like *hellifiknow*

Pete Bobb, my observation isn't based on your comment to this post, but on your comments to previous posts instead. You decided a long time ago that you don't like McCain's ticket and nothing anyone does or say will convince you otherwise; therefore your observations come off as the regurgitation of senseless cynical partisan talking points.

In respect to your comment to this post, you curiously left off the rest of her answer, which puts the whole exchange out of context. Curious but predictable

Hi Sandy,
Rather than repeat my polical leaning on this blog, feel free to check out my posts at
www.redcounty.com/orange-county/2008/09/ocdc-a-refreshing-demint/

d'Anconia-
You are correct that it will take alot to change my mind at this point and have me vote for McCain. McCain's leaving his 'Straight Talk' policy to start approving ads containing lies in the last couple weeks certainly don't help influence me return to his side.
It doesn't stop me from reading this blog, Powerline blog, McCain's website, Obama's website, Yahoo, SacBee, NYTimes, Wall Street Journal, etc. I don't like getting my news from one source anymore. Every newsource these days seems too biased for my taste. I wish straight news would be in the news stories, and opinions (from both sides) in the opinion section of the paper.

IMHO, one of the destructive changes in America over the last 8 years is how polarized the country has become. Left-Wingers only talk to Left-Wingers and read Left-Wing papers. Right-Wingers only talk to Right-Wingers and read Right-Wing papers. Name calling such as 'Troll' or 'Neocon' have become too common in my opinion. Calling someone a name dehumanizes them and you don't have to listen to them if they are not human. It seems to me that almost everyone is on one side or the other and neither side listens to the other side.
I read a comment on this site earlier today that seems worth repeating here: 'Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.'
Part of why I post challanging comments here is because deep down, I want to be convinced to return to the poitics of my youth.

Give me an honest 1950's GOP politician that believes in Fiscal Responsibilty in Government, Individual Rights, and World Peace and I will back them in a minute.
Sen. Demint looks promising to me as a politician that wants to bring Fiscal Responsibility back in Government.
Maybe Demint in 2012?
I voted for Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I, being disappointed with all the choices,(Bush, Perot, Clinton) I voted Green Party in the next election. I was working first in Asia and next in school in Holland for the next two elections.
So please explain to me how McCain will get a budget surplus so we can start paying off America's debt. 10 Billion in PORK Barrel funding is in the 2008 budget, but don't we need to figure out how to have Trillions to pay off our debt?
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2008porkpercap

Matt/Jubal,

Do you beleive as McCain claims he does that Palin is the "best" VP in the history of the US?

Better than John Adams? Better than Teddy Roosevelt? Better than George Bush Sr.?

To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure she's better than Dan Quyale! But he won 1 election so we must keep some mind to her role in this election.

At the end of the day, I want to be proud of our leader and our lady-in-waiting. You may be, but I'm not sold on Palin.

Pete-

"So please explain to me how McCain will get a budget surplus so we can start paying off America's debt. 10 Billion in PORK Barrel funding is in the 2008 budget, but don't we need to figure out how to have Trillions to pay off our debt"

As you're well aware our budget problem is a spending problem, not an income problem. Government has had a increase in tax revenues in the last eight years, but we've spent our way into a huge deficit. Even though I'm not trying to convince you, and simply answering your question, I'll go a step further and say that for someone like yourself who proclaims to stand for fiscal responsibility it should be a no-brainer as to what party is better prepared to cap spending, lower taxes (increasing revenues), and keep our economy growing through a period of national and international unrest.

If your notion is that you don't want to "reward" the Republican Party for 8 years of lack of fiscal responsibility, so you'll vote for a third party candidate or for Barack Obama, then I would recommend that you re-asses what your priorities are. You speak of the division within our country but you add to it yourself by claiming that one shouldn't vote for a candidate simply because of the association of which party he/she belongs to.

In the end, I don't claim that McCain has a great plan for getting rid of the budget deficit. Neither does Obama. The difference is that with Obama our deficit is sure to grow, our taxes are sure to be increased (reducing tax revenues), and more regulatory red-tape is sure to send more businesses and more jobs abroad. With McCain, at least I know he's surrounded by people who know what they're doing (i.e. supply-siders).

D'anconnia, she said she wouldn't second guess Israel vis-a-vis Iran. It's pretty clear to me what that means: whatever Israel detetrmines to be in its self-defense interest with regard to Iran (presumably attacking Iranian nuclear facilities) will be accepted (not "second guessed") by Palin/McCain. That's a mighty strong inducement for the Isrealis to act in their own perceived best interests (who wouldn't?) not ours. If that isn't carte blance, I don't know what is.

Well, that's great on Day 1. On Day 2 when Iran has launched counter-attacks against Israel and US installtions in the Gulf/Iraq, etc., we will be engaged in yet a new war we can't afford and won't be asked to pay for - this time with a nation of 100 million angry people. Maybe that's what Israel wants. Maybe that's what McCain wants. It's not what I want.

What I want are American leaders with the courage to acknowledge that the interests of Israel may not be perfectly congruent with ours.

If McCain and Palin want to run for the Israeli Knesset then they should move to a kibbutz and do it.

David your problem is that you don't seem to understand the slightest thing about foreign policy. Palin's answer to the Israel/Iran question is a reflection of the exact same policy that McCain has professed and Obama has fallen in line with.

You talk about an inducement for a foreign country to act in their own best interests. Are you implying that a country SHOULDN'T act in their own best interests? You seem to ignore the fact that Israel has been the #1 target of foreign attacks over the last 50 years, and that the President of Iran has made it a routine of threatening Israel's life just about every other month. If that were happening to you, you wouldn't prepare for the worst while hoping for the best? The idea of not second guessing foreign policy decisions is absolutely in line with what a relationship between two allies should be like.

You are either well versed but playing smart ass with this issue or you're just ignorant on this subject, which is fine, as long as you admit it and stop using it to spam good posts.

D'anconnia, I don't can't imagine where you got your expertise in the nuances of foreign policy, but I believe the U.S. should be able to influence the actions of Israel when those actions have dire consequences for MY country. You would completely undermine that influence by declaring in advance nonsense like "no second guessing." Unless, of course, no one took you seriously.

An Israeli attack on Iran would not be a "foreign policy" decision as you so antiseptically put it; it would be an irretrievable act of war that would have immedidate and dire implications for the US and possibly ignite a general Mideast conflagration. I'm not ignorant and I'm not a smart ass. I just believe in country first (mine, that is).

By the way I wasn't spamming - I was repeating my question until a Palin apologist addressed it). Thank you for finally providing your answer.

re: the Budget
The biggest cost to the American Government is George Bush's war in Iraq. Even after adjusting dollars for inflation, George Bush's war has been the costliest war in American History. More than WW I, WW II, Korea, Vietnam, etc.
It appears that McCain's plan is to stay in Iraq indefinitely until some undefined victory.
Does he want Osama bin Laden to sign the surrender papers for Iraq or does he have some other definition of victory?
I've never heard a measurable definition of Victory in Iraq defined by either Bush or McCain.
Over 70% of Iraqi's want the unending occupation of their country by America to end.
Iraq did not have WMD, and Iraq was not behind 9/11.
Our leader’s stated reasons for attacking Iraq were mistaken.

Obama promises to comply with the wishes of Iraq to withdraw all American fighting forces within 18 months. Let the Shi'ite and Sunni Muslim countries of the Arab League (their soldiers actually speak the languages and understand the culture of the Iraqi’s) settle the religious disputes within Iraq if 'outside' forces need to act as the Region's Policemen.

Between the two major candidates, only Obama is promising to stop the war and the resulting need to borrow money from our friends the Russians, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Germans, the Venezuelans, the Saudis, etc. to pay for this unending war in Iraq. Ending our action in Iraq will be the first step to stopping the drain on America’s economy.

Greenspan says that McCain’s tax plan will result in America needing to borrow trillions more from our aforementioned friends.

As far as which party will bring Fiscally Responsible government back being a no-brainer- Since Ronald Reagan took office, the only fiscally responsible US government occurred during Bill Clinton’s Second term. 20 years of Republicans failing to give us Fiscally Responsible government since 1981. Given that the Republican candidate has no plan to stop the drain on the American economy, and the Democrat candidate promises to end the drain in 18 months, I guess I should figure it out pretty easily….

My father was navigator on the Lead plane for his B-24 Liberator squadron.
He was one of the lucky 20% from his group that survived his tour of duty in WW II.
He was shot down 3 times. Twice, his plane was able to limp to the English Channel before going down. The third time, his plane crashed behind enemy lines in France.
Using his Catholic Church Latin knowledge, he was able to get French Catholic nuns to help him hide from the Nazi’s hunting for him until he was able to escape back across the English Channel to resume his bombing runs on Germany. Does this make him a war hero? Does this make him better suited to lead America than a pilot that was only shot down once? IMHO, being shot down should not be a major criteria for choosing a leader. America has thousands and thousands of people that are true war heroes.