Sarah Palin on the Bush Doctrine

One significant side effect of the McCain-Palin ticket is that the response to it spotlights the media bias in a way that can only be denied by the most adamant cool aid drinkers and party hacks.  Examples are too numerous to cover adequately in this space.  However, a good example is the media response to Charlie Gibson’s ABC interview with Governor Palin on Thursday Night.

The part of the interview that seemed to get the most attention on Friday was the part dealing with the Bush Doctrine.

GIBSON: “Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?”

GOVERNOR PALIN:  “In what respect, Charlie?”

GIBSON:  “Well, what do you interpret it to be?”

PALIN:  “His world view?”

GIBSON:  “No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated in 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 other country we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?”

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.”

This exchange was used by commentators, pundits, bloggers, and even many news accounts to be proof that Palin did not have the foreign policy experience to qualify her for the position of Vice President.  James Fallows writing in the Atlantic Online began his article this way.

“It is embarrassing to have to spell this out, but for the record let me explain why Gov. Palin’s answer to the “Bush Doctrine” question — the only part of the recent interview I have yet seen over here in China — implies a disqualifying lack of preparation for the job.”

The Associated Press had this to say;

“….[Governor Palin]  Appeared unsure of the Bush doctrine — essentially that the United States must help spread democracy to stop terrorism and that the nation will act pre-emptively to stop potential foes.”

You will notice there are substantial differences between Gibson’s understanding of the Bush Doctrine and the AP’s.  On Friday’s Hannity and Colmes TV show, Alan Colmes also used this exchange between Gibson and Palin as proof of Palin’s lack of experience in foreign policy.

I have e-mailed both Gibson and Colmes and requested they send me a copy of the Bush Doctrine so I could properly understand just what the flap is about.

When I type, for example, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, or The Declaration of Independence into a search engine I get a number of links to specific documents with those titles.  However, when I type “Bush Doctrine” into a search engine, I get pages of links to news articles, opinion pieces, and blogs related to the Bush Doctrine, but no links to a copy of it.

The reason no search engine can link to a copy of the Bush Doctrine is because none exists.  The term is a media expression used to refer to any one of a number of Bush policies regarding the war on terror.  Had I been asked about the Bush Doctrine, I would have immediately thought of the policy stated by Bush that State sponsors of terrorism would be held accountable in the same manner as the terrorists themselves.

My version, Gibson’s version and the AP version all refer to different Bush policies that have at various times been labeled the “Bush Doctrine”.  All total, there are about five such policies that are given that label.  Governor Palin’s question quoted above, “his world view?” is a pretty good summary of just what the Bush Doctrine is.

The fact that so many news outlets and commentators jumped on this exchange to undermine Sarah Palin”s qualifications to assume the role of Commander In Chief, if need be, is just one more example of the panic in the Democratic Party and their left wing media propaganda arm caused by McCain’s choice of her as his Vice Presidential running mate.

Copy and e-mail this link to a friend:  http://illinoisconservative.wordpress.com/2008/09/13/sarah-palin-on-the-bush-doctrine/


Advertisements

12 responses to “Sarah Palin on the Bush Doctrine

  1. The Bush doctrine is an implied belief that Pre-emptive strikes are allowed if the “evidence” is credible. I knew this from the moment Bush said Saddam is trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction and he must be stopped.

    Secondly there is no such thing as a “left wing” media. I would know I’m trying to find it so I can listen to it. 🙂 The closest thing I can find to a left wing media are blogs, and other sources out of the mainstream.

    Also do you honestly feel that Governor Palin would be ready to lead the country if she needed to? That is the only question anyone should answer in regards to a VP. I for one am scared of that possibility since I do not like war, economic stagnation (the rich getting richer and the middle class suffering, compare the two tax plans of Obama and McCain) nor do I think that all the drilling in the United States would make a lick of difference. We have 3% of the worlds reserves and use 25%. Even if we drilled in all the off shore areas and ANWR we would be miserably short of supply.

    Thank you for your well thought out post. Please respond I would like to hear your arguments.

  2. Mr. McDaniel,

    I have not yet seen the Palin-Gibson interview, so I appreciated reading your comments. After I heard about some of the questions asked of Gov. Palin, I couldn’t help but wonder why these same questions have never been put to Sen. Obama, who is afterall running for president. I cannot understand why Sen. Obama has yet to be put under any type of scrutiny by the press, yet the heat on Palin has been white hot since her VP nomination.

    Any thoughts?

    Terri

  3. Response to endithinks

    If you are having trouble finding the left wing media, you might start with NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The LA Times, Associated Press, USA Today, NPR, Air America. These should get you started.

    There are not many liberal Radio Talk Shows because they cannot garner enough listeners to make them financially viable. That’s why the Left is so desperate for the return of the “Fairness Doctrine”.

    Sarah Palin is more qualified on the basis of experience to be the leader of the Free World than either of the three other candidates. McCain, Obama and Biden only have experience in the legislative branch of government. None have demonstrated any outstanding abilities in carrying out their duties.

    Palin has experience in all levels of government from the Parent Teachers association, to city council, to Mayor, to Governor.

    No one ever enters into the job of President with prior experience specific to the job. What counts is their natural ability as indicated by their life accomplishments and worldview. Sound judgment, the ability to understand and rightly evaluate the facts and make the right decisions based on these facts are among the most important. Palin has demonstrated these abilities in her personal life, as well as her public life.

  4. Response to Terri Vogt

    The reason Barack Obama has not been subjected to the same scrutiny as Palin is because the main stream press is solidly in the Obama camp. Studies have shown that members of the national media are about ninety percent democratic in their voting and financial support of candidates.

    Many of them go into the media directly from liberal schools of journalism where they have been indoctrinated with a bias against capitalism and the free market. Inspired by the radicals of the Vietnam era, the see themselves as furthering “the Revolution”.

    Obama, to them, represents the ideal leader; socialist, anti-American traditions, anti-war, globalist, with a proven left wing radical worldview. Palin represents a real threat to their socialist leaning world view, therefore, it is their duty to eliminate her from the race if possible.

    Their most effective tool, perfected by Saul Alinsky and practiced successfully by Barack Obama is character assignation and the “politics of personal destruction”. If you think the heat on Palin is bad now, just wait. When the poll numbers begin to reveal the true strength of the McCain-Palin ticket the desperation on the left will compel them to measures that will both amuse and frighten you.

  5. According to the Constitution, the executive Power shall be vested in a President who shall be Commander in Chief of the armed forces; and shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons, to make Treaties, appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges, and all other Officers.

    The plain fact is that as Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin is the only candidate who has actually performed similar duties consistent with the Constitutional powers granted to the President.

    Relative to the ”Bush Doctrine” question, the President’s approach regarding preemption is merely a tactic among a long list of other tactics. It is not a strategy. Govenor Palin’s response: ”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.” correctly states President Bush’s approach to keep us safe. Such has worked well for the last seven years. Furthermore, such tactics have been used many times in the history of the country under any number of presidents, governors, mayors and law enforcement in general to deal with people bent on destroying our lives, liberty, freedoms and property.

    And lastly, if one does not subscribe to the notion that the print and video media are biased to the left, simply follow the money. Campaign contributions are a reportable public record under federal law. People do not generally provide the fuel to political campaigns that they are personally opposed to. The proof of bias is that more than 80% of campaign contributions from ”journalists” go to candidates on the left. If left-bias is embedded in your mind, it is not a leap to get such bias into your reporting too.

  6. I think that Obama has undergone plenty of tough questions in his year or so of campaigning.

    Secondly, if Palin is so much more experienced than people who do not have “executive” experience, than doesn’t that mean she is more qualified than McCain as well?

    The Bush Doctrine is in the same vein as other doctrines in regard to Military tactics. For instance the Powell Doctrine is to employ overwhelming force. The Rumsfield Doctrine is to use highly mobile forces regardless of size. The Scharwkoff doctrine is to use rapid strikes at the heart of an enemy’s territory.

    I also do not consider Washington Post a liberal media. Also have you actually watched ABC, NBC, and the AP? They are not to the left in the slightest. In fact McCain was a media darling for most of his career. He was known to reporters and the media for his straight talk express being a bus that anyone could have access to. He has recently stopped that behavior as reporters have started asking him tough questions.

    Thanks for answering my questions and I think you all are very intelligent people whom I just happen to disagree with in regards to the leadership I want to see in this nation.

    I also think that the most important thing to consider in this race is who is at the top of the ticket. I believe that Obama has the better plan for the majority of Americans especially in regards to his tax plan.

    Speaking of tax plans even former director of the Fed Greenspan says the nation cannot afford McCain’s tax plans.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aKZG._gG2NVI&refer=politics

  7. The approach in deciding who will be President has little to do with who is on the left, right or anywhere else. It has nothing to do with what news outlet is slanting the truth. It is about who will follow the rule of law which is the basis of the freedoms and rights embodied in the Constitution.

    For example, Senator Obama’s plan to appropriate the profits of the oil companies an give it to people as a tax cut that don’t even pay taxes clearly represents a Constitutional power government does not have. There is no “Robin Hood” clause in the Constitution’s Sixteenth amendment. Senator McCain wants to lower taxes to achieve a similar economic outcome and is indeed a power the Constitution grants to government. If one accepts the notion of abandoning
    the requirements of the Constitution for whatever reason, what will such a politician ignore the next time?

    Senator Obama’s claim that he supports the second amendment [the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed]. However, at the same time he supports such as banning ammunition and prohibiting guns in entire cities. Being on both sides of this issue represents a person who cannot decide what side to stand on. Senator McCain claims support for the second amendment in terms of the decision handed down by the Supreme Court both before and after the decision was handed down. Being one side of an issue is a desirable quality representing decisiveness and judgement.

    The foregoing are a few issues that plainly call into question Senator Obama’s lack of many qualities needed for the leader of the free world.

    President Bush stated the dilemma well. Terrorists can make a thousand mistakes, but if we make one, it could be catastrophic for America.

    In the final analysis, the most important decision for voters in November lies well beyond positions on today’s issues and proposed solutions. Too many folks get sucked into the myth that arbitrarily voting for a “D” or an “R” is a good thing. Our responsibility is to vote for the best person who has the judgment, knowledge, courage and leadership to resolve a future issue we know nothing about today.

    I will vote for the one who will be a capable and decisive leader. That one who will follow the Constitution and the rule of law that has kept our liberty, freedoms and children safe for more than 200 years. This is the prize – keep your eye on it when you vote.

  8. To Indithinks

    “if Palin is so much more experienced than people who do not have “executive” experience, then doesn’t that mean she is more qualified than McCain as well?”

    Probably. I actually would prefer her as President, but that is not one of the choices given us at this time. Maybe, 2012.

    “I also do not consider Washington Post a liberal media. Also have you actually watched ABC, NBC, and the AP? They are not to the left in the slightest.”

    My guess is that you consider yourself a mainstream moderate. It is natural that you would consider media outlets that promote your world view as “centrist” and objective.

    “McCain was a media darling for most of his career.”

    True, but only because of his willingness to “sell out” the conservative viewpoint in compromises with the left. “McCain-Fiengold, McCain-Kennedy, and McCain-Lieberman” are good examples. These three pieces of legislation are a mockery of the “Supreme Law of the Land” the U.S. Constitution.

  9. To Fenton Burroughs

    “The approach in deciding who will be President has little to do with who is on the left, right or anywhere else. It has nothing to do with what news outlet is slanting the truth. It is about who will follow the rule of law which is the basis of the freedoms and rights embodied in the Constitution.”

    I could not agree with you more. The problem is that few voters possess any in-depth knowledge of the Constitution or appreciate its importance. Consequently, they are easily influenced by the media to accept unconstitutional measures that promise to make their life easier.

    On Sunday night’s Bill Cunningham show a caller asked if the government’s “bailout” of stockholder owned companies such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae was constitutional. His answer: “It has been ruled so”.

    Rulings of the Supreme Court are valid only when they are in compliance with the Constitution, The Supreme Law of The Land. Congress does not have the authority to pass any law that is not based on one of the enumerated powers granted in Article One of the Constitution. When they do so the courts have the responsibility to declare them unconstitutional.

    That the court fails to do so, does not automatically make it constitutional.

  10. I agree that the financial services bailout is a clear violation of Clause 8 of the Constitution [powers of Congress] which states: ”To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”.

    Congress went well beyond the power to ”regulate” when it took taxpayer monies and pledged such as credit to a private corporation. If you did this at a New England town meeting, the attorney general of the state would stop it before it even went to court. The idea that such private corporation would be backed by Congress was yet another unconstitutional act that started this mess.

    This is just another example of the incredible power of financial services lobbyists to ignore the Constitution and get Congress to do the same.

  11. Fenton

    You are right, but I don’t believe the average member of Congress requires a lobbyist to get them to ignore the Constitution. Sometime I wonder if they have ever read it.

  12. I do not consider myself a moderate in the least. I am quite in the camp of being a liberal. I do however think and most of the time I am upset at both sides.

    Thanks for actually talking about issues and not throwing labels around I appreciate your comments using actual evidence from the only pice of writing that we shoudl be concerned about the Constitution and its amendmants.

    Okay about Obama’s windfall tax profits…I am so against that. I think it is a ridiculous proposition that is taxing for let’s face it success. Big oil has made us all addicts and we have willingly walked into that mess.

    The financial bailouts are also not a good idea although it is understandable with the deregulation of the last 30 years leading the normally cautious and conservate banking infrastructure to take more and more risks. The bailouts will hopefully not become the standard. I think that regulations, not control but sensible regulations, are the way to counteract some of the more risky investments.

    Once again thank you for your intelligent comments both of you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s