Bush Doctrine:Charles Gibson Interview With Sarah Palin
Bush Doctrine:Charles Gibson Interview With Sarah Palin - Bush Doctrine is back in the news because Sarah Palin was questioned on the topic by Charles Gibson and she thought that the Bush Doctrine meant his world view.On the Bush Doctrine Sarah said:
Gibson: do you agree with the bush doctrine?
Palin: in what respect, charlie?
Gibson: well, what do you interpret it to be?
Palin: His world view?
Gibson: the Bush doctrine, in september 2002, before the iraq war.
Palin: I believe that what president bush has attempted to do is rid this world of islamic terrorists who are hell-bent in 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
Gibson: the bush doctrine is we have the right of self-defense, prememptive strike against any country we think is going to attack us. do you agree with us?
Bush doctrine is defined as followed:
The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan.
That’s all we have for now on Bush Doctrine:Charles Gibson Interview With Sarah Palin.
Ted | Sep 11, 2008 | Reply
Sarah Palin Interview Grade A+ (for Sarah that is, not Charlie)
John Decker | Sep 11, 2008 | Reply
Ted, how do you give an A+ to someone who, when asked a question, has no idea what the question means?
Palin was like a deer caught in the headlights of an oncoming car. How many time did Gibson have to repeat questions just to get a simple answer?
The problem was, Palin’s rehearsal team couldn’t prepare her for everything and Palin has no ability whatsoever to think on her feet. She’s a parrot, at best, and you know what happens to parrots when their owners get tired of the same line over and over again?
Bye bye, parrot.
jason | Sep 11, 2008 | Reply
f you were ever wondering what the next four years be like with MCDADDy AND HIS PUPPET get elected, please click on the link bleow. i hope you enjoy the reality of the next 4years with MCDADDY and his puppet get elected!!!
http://www. youtube. com/watch?v=CWuuXpeqNNw
Mary | Sep 11, 2008 | Reply
This is a dangerous woman and after tonight’s interview with Charlie Gibson, I am afraid of what America will become if she gets into Our White House…. Scary! Scary! Scary! Think about it people. A daughter 17 expecting a baby, a shotgun wedding, a son going to Iraq to stay out of jail… and still more to come. Let’s put our parties aside and think about what’s best for America. With John Mccain and Palin, four more years of the same!
hunter | Sep 12, 2008 | Reply
Clearly Charlie was in over his head.
He did not want the answer she gave, and he is not apparently comfortable with a woman who thinks.
Gibson seems to be OK asking pressing questions and using phony quotes against women, but when it comes to Obama, he only asks softball questions and accepts answers at face value.
No wonder Republicans tend to be tougher than democrats. They do not live in an echo chamber.
Obama could not even go on Fox without preconditions assuring him of easy questions.
And still, the democrats are running against the VP. Sort of a tacit admission that they know their guy is not really ready to be President.
Do you know what the shortest book in the world is?
“The Accomplishments of Barak Hussein Obama”
Ed Rae | Sep 12, 2008 | Reply
While it seems true that Palin did not know what the Bush doctrine was, what is also clear is that Gibson (and an awful lot of internet bloggers) also have no idea what the Bush Doctrine is (and what International Law is).
As far as what International Law is, at least as far back as Hugo Grotius in “On the Rights of War and Peace” (1625), at Book 2, Chapter, 1, Section 5, pre-emptive war was justified if the threat was clear and imminent. That was exactly the position Palin advocated. If that’s all the Bush doctrine was, then the Bush Doctrine would be nothing new (pre-emptive strikes being used by other nations at least as far back as by Scotland in the Bishops’ Wars of 1639-1640 and in the last century by Israel in the Six Days War of 1967).
What was supposed to be new about the Bush doctrine is that the threat did NOT have to be imminent (Iraq may have been thought to be a threat to attack the U.S. down the road, but it was not a threat to attack the U.S. at the time of the invasion).
If anyone should be getting criticized, it’s Charlie Gibson and those internet bloggers who were so unprepared and uninformed that in spite of being able to prepare in advance (Gibson) or after the fact (bloggers) they still can’t accurately explain what the Bush Doctrine is.
Joel | Sep 12, 2008 | Reply
John Decker, you just proved who the parrots really are. As the “real” news services have already pointed out even Charlie Gibson himself disagreed with.. himself.. what the Bush Doctrine is. Simply Google “Charlie Gibson 2001 Bush doctrine” or something similar and you’ll find plenty of research done to highlight what the “press” including Gibson defining the Bush Doctrine originally. None if it matched what Gibson said during Palin’s interview. Palin got it exactly right, proving she’s ready for the job.
It’s almost sad a lady from small town Alaska knows more than the ABC anchorman, and his stooges that pretend to blog, John.
marg422 | Sep 12, 2008 | Reply
What really got me was how he demeaned her experience and insulted her small town, and “sparsley” populated state. As I see it she’s manged more people that the community organizer. Also, even if she had no clue what the question was about, she handled herself with class and strengh. No stuttering. hmmm. Liberals should be scared of Palin.