The blogosphere is abuzz about Palin’s answer to Charlie Gibson about Bush Doctrine, asking for clarification. I have to confess, I thought everyone agreed on what the Bush Doctrine is, but I was wrong. Apparently, different people take the phrase differently. (Dan Froomkin makes this point in a Washington Post column today attacking President Bush.)
I thought that the Bush Doctrine referred to President Bush’s pronouncement that we will not distinguish between terrorists and the states that harbor them. But Charlie Gibson takes it differently, saying that it refers to the right to “anticipatory self-defense.”
So I think Palin was wise not to assume that she and Gibson meant the same thing by the phrase. But I think there’s no escaping that her answer wasn’t very strong. After Gibson gave his (incorrect, I think) definition of the Bush Doctrine, her answer was rather unfocused.
This would have played out better if she had given her own definition, rather than asking for clarification. Particularly if she had used the definition I think is correct, she could have said that she did agree with it, and lamented the fact that Bush has abandoned it.
Since it turns out that no one knows what the Bush Doctrine is (or, more accurately, everyone knows but no one agrees), I think we have to acquit Palin of not knowing what Gibson was talking about. But she should have been more assertive about it, rather than deferring to Gibson for his definition.
POSTSCRIPT: Let me close with this letter, posted at the Corner:
Gibson: What do you think of the Constitution?
Palin: Could you be more specific?
Gibson: [Stares over glasses]
Kos: OMG SHE DOESN’T KNOW WHAT THE CONSTITUTION IS!!!!
UPDATE: A reader points out that Barack Obama has his own offbeat definition of the Bush Doctrine.
UPDATE: Charles Krauthammer, who coined the phrase “Bush Doctrine”, says Gibson was confused, not Palin. He says my version is Bush Doctrine #2, and Gibson’s is Bush Doctrine #3. “The” Bush Doctrine (his current policy), is Bush Doctrine #4, and is distinct from both #2 and #3. Given the ambiguity, it was reasonable to ask for clarification.
(Via the Corner.)
UPDATE: A page one Washington Post story agrees with Krauthammer:
Intentionally or not, the Republican vice presidential nominee was on to something. After a brief exchange, Gibson explained that he was referring to the idea — enshrined in a September 2002 White House strategy document — that the United States may act militarily to counter a perceived threat emerging in another country. But that is just one version of a purported Bush doctrine advanced over the past eight years.
Internet Scofflaw 