What "Bush Doctrine"?
If somebody were to ask me what I thought about the Bush administration's notions of preventive war I'd have something to say. Or on the "global war on terrorism." Or on a raft of other policy measures /slash/ rhetorical devices. But as far as I know there's never been a "Bush Doctrine," either in foreign policy or domestic. The Bush people just don't have enough intellectual clarity (or firepower) for anything they do to be accurately describes as doctrinal unless it might be their unspoken philosophical belief that rich people should always get richer, and at the expense of everybody else.
Indeed, I wonder whether Charlie Gibson understood all this perfectly well in setting up Palin's question. Gibson, the worst sort of Republican shill, may have guessed — correctly, as it turns out — that liberals would go into full hue and cry mode at the sight of a Palin balk. No matter there was cause to balk. Ultimately, however, condemning Palin for her ignorance of an essentially meaningless point simply reinforces her scathing attack on pin-headed Washington insiders.
The fact is, nobody among undecideds gives a tinker's damn whether Palin knows about the "Bush Doctrine." Wasting time talking about this distracts from plenty of other things that Palin has said and done that should cause severe heartburn for everybody.
And if you don't believe me about the "Bush Doctrine" then Google it. Serious people who work on foreign policy, for the most part, haven't bothered to discuss the term (until the Gibson imbroglio), which should tell you something. For a précis, you could also see the Washington Post's reporting on whether a "Bush Doctrine" exists.
Posted by George Kenney on September 13, 2008 5:03 AM 
« The Seventh Anniversary | Main | The Knowledge »
Comments
I think so called Bush doctrine attempts to elevate the crime of aggressive war to level of apparent respectability. I believe it has as much currency as the Pottery Barn Rule (which is atonement for war crimes). Basically it is out there and open to interpretation and endless argument as to significance, an example which is the thread at GG's.
Palin did not entirely not recognize the term, in the sense that she's never heard of it. Had that been the case she would not have faked understanding. What was failure in this particular examination of character was the pretending to know what the question was and trying to draw out the meaning by faking it. A reflexive and clueless countering against issues before you is not a quality that one would want in a person that will be deciding matters far more complex and nuanced. If ignorant of the matter and issue, which is normal and perfectly understandable, pretending to understand is the worst trait to have for better outcomes. She should have straight up asked that the question be clarified because she did not understand. With sycophantic staff or adversarial negotiations, you may not get the chance of faking it. This is how you end up bombing the wrong country. Whether or not Charlie knew what he was talking about is another matter.
It is hoped that this barracuda has now jumped the shark and the pitbull is singing its swan song.
Posted by: YY | September 15, 2008 2:21 AM