Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Krauthammer, Gibson and the Bush Doctrine

Before the moment passes, I’d like to comment on Charles Krauthammer’s column about what he saw as Charlie Gibson’s “gaffe” when he questioned Sarah Palin about the Bush doctrine.

You will recall the moment when Gibson asked, "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?" Palin acted like a student who had missed a chapter in the reading assignment. She seemed to engage in a delaying action, hoping and praying that Gibson would define the term for her.

Charles takes Gibson to task for presuming that there is a single meaning to the Bush doctrine. Charles rightly notes that Wikipedia credits him with being the first to use the term, and he argues that the Bush doctrine has had “four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.”

The column is an interesting exploration of the evolving emphases of Bush’s foreign policy, and it made me wonder whether there could even be a Bush doctrine if it meant so many different things.

(I also do not think that Palin’s response to the Bush doctrine question was her worst moment in that interview. As The Post’s Sunday editorial noted, Palin’s responses on domestic issues were “disappointingly shallow.” The editorial was also right to say that her “efforts to explain some previous statements were lacking in candor,” and to conclude that the interview as a whole was “unsettling.”)

Where I part company with Charles is over the way he places Gibson at the center of this story. Palin, not Gibson, is running for vice president and will be in line to be president. Moreover, if Palin had shown any confidence when she was asked about the “Bush doctrine,” the moment would not have received the attention it did. But she manifestly was, well, unsettled by the question.

As for Gibson’s definition of the Bush doctrine, I though he was rather careful in what he said: “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 that we think is going to attack us.”

Note that Gibson used the phrase “as I understand it,” at least suggesting that he did not pretend that his answer was the only one someone might give. And since Charles referred to Wikipedia, I went back and found the definition of the Bush doctrine on the site as of Sept. 8, before the Palin interview. (As many of you know, Wikipedia definitions go through constant rewriting by readers, and there have been massive rewrites since the Palin interview and Charles’s column. I wanted to see the pre-interview definition.)

Here’s the beginning of the Sept. 8 Wikipedia entry: “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. Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq), a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism, and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.”

On the whole, I think Gibson’s definition of the doctrine was a fairly true, if brief, summary of this entry. At the least, as the Wikipedia entry shows, Gibson was expressing a rather widely held view of how the term should be defined.

Charles's initial reaction to Palin’s selection, on this blog and in a Sept. 5 column, was highly skeptical. While calling her an “admirable and formidable woman,” he also said that McCain’s choice of her as a running mate was “deeply problematic.”

In that column, Charles also wrote this: “The gamble is enormous. In a stroke, McCain gratuitously forfeited his most powerful argument against Obama. And this was even before Palin's inevitable liabilities began to pile up -- inevitable because any previously unvetted neophyte has ‘issues.’ The kid. The state trooper investigation. And worst, the paucity of any Palin record or expressed conviction on the major issues of our time.”

I thought Charles showed real courage when he broke with most of his conservative colleagues to offer this candid assessment. (David Frum of the National Review showed a similarly admirable independence.) Charles was right the first time. And I think the Charlie Gibson interview only lends additional support to his original intuition.

By E.J. Dionne  | September 15, 2008; 3:34 PM ET
Categories:  Dionne  | Tags:  E.J. Dionne  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: One Way to Clear the Air
Next: Obama's Faulty Logic

Comments

agreed

Posted by: kreator6996 | September 15, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Well, she could have said, "Charlie, as I understand it...." But didn't.

Posted by: mmfleming1 | September 15, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Summed up quite nicely, I think.

We vetted Sarah Palin. She was found to be lacking in honesty, lacking in foreign policy skills, possessive of a narrow world view that will not improve the US position in the world, incurious, able to use religion like a bludgeon while curiously ignoring that pesky ninth commandment (you know, the lying one), and willing to appoint cronies for their loyalty instead of ability. She was also found to be exceptionally skilled in parsing words to create a lie (but not being able to be caught in the lie when the words are examined out of context), and connsumately skilled at presenting herself, a woman with a private plane, as "one of us".

She purports her purpose in Washington is change. She plans to help (or ascend to accomplishing herself) change leadership that is currently lacking in honesty, lacking in foreign policy skills, possessive of a narrow world view that has dminished US position in the world, incurious, able to use religion like a bludgeon while curiously ignoring that pesky ninth commandment (you know, the lying one), and willing to appoint cronies for their loyalty instead of ability, yet skilled in parsing words to create a lie (but not being able to be caught in the lie when the words are examined out of context), and connsumately skilled at presenting hisself, a man with millions, as "one of us".

And millions of Americans are buying it. Go figure.

Posted by: patriot | September 15, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

On reflection, I woud have expected that Charles Krauthammer's second column on the Palin nomination, would have been his knee-jerk defense of the GOP pick for VP in the first place. The surprise is that his initial response, the more reasoned and candid one, which he may not have yet entirely abandoned, places him in a position of not undermining his own integrity and intelligence, over loyalty to his party and ideology. We all know where most political journalists stand, and when one appears to stand out for plain, common-sense speaking in face of facts, it's refreshing.

I also agree with DJ that the interview was about Sarah Palin and her first ever interview with the MSM - her qualifications and readiness to assume a monumental job in event of need. As far as I have noticed, there has not been many gratuitous Sarah-Bashing re these interviews, but as citizens of this country, it behooves us to be critical and probing of all the candidates. This new face particularly needs investigation.

Posted by: jblee | September 15, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Krapphammer has taken up the foreign interventionist mantle of the neocons with gusto, but you don't hear him called out on it. That's an example of the ugly position the Krapphamers of this world hold; they speak through media but are never interviewed themselves. They ignore their critics. Who is Charlie K? I'd actually like to see him vetted more than Sarah Palin, he has more power and influence, and is certainly more evil.

Posted by: TJ | September 15, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Regarding Palin's claimed religiosity (which forbids lying) and her difficult relationship with the truth, I think that one of Palin's campaign advisers must be none other than George Costanza.

As George once counseled Jerry: "It's not a lie if *you* believe it."

So, with a little practice at directed self-deception, voila, she can now utter anything at all with an untroubled conscience.

Posted by: Careysub | September 15, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Dionne,

Does it nbot strike you that Gibson the very fact that Gibson added the "as I understand it" to his definition that the Bush Doctrine is not well defined. If it were as simple a question as you make it out to be he would have stated the definition. Palin asked a good question in return saying "In what respect, Charlie?" People scoff at her not knowing exactly what it is but I wonder how many people would have known (before this interview, of ocurse) what the Bush Doctrine is, and not just people off the street, but politicians and members of the media. It is a term I personally have not heard since the beginning of the Iraq war.

I think that in light of the fact that the Bush Doctrine is not well-defined it is perfectly reasonable to respond by talking about the Bush world-view, which is what she attempted to do.

Posted by: Doug | September 15, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Too bad the media won't ask the same questiions of Obama that they do of Sarah. Too bad the talking heads that say Sarah isn't qualified to be president don't take a look at the man-child Obama. He's an empty suit with no job experience. He's never been responsible for anything. Working for the Socialist group ACORN hardly counts.

Posted by: Fergie | September 15, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

EJ. When you have an original thought, e-mail me. Until then, your columns are boring.

Posted by: Rick | September 15, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

I am not voting for either of these two idiots. Ill be writing in Huckabee.
Huckabee 2012 sign in my yard.
http://www.skip08.com

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

If Palin Cheated on Her Husband, Why should We Trust Her http://www.Hotpres.com

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

He did it for a reason. To disguise Palin's lack of experience by diverting attention from her. You know, lipstick and the pig.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Rick writes:

"EJ. When you have an original thought, e-mail me. Until then, your columns are boring."

If the columns are boring, why do you keep reading them ?

Now, Krautyapper's Neocon wheezing from that Dr Strangelove wheelchair, day after day on FOX, that was boring.

I gave the FOX all stars or whatever that thing is called, masquerading as a fair and balanced round table, that Hum-idor "moderates", a fair and balanced chance.

I watched for one week straight and then never watched it again.


Posted by: MA | September 15, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

The Bush Administration will forever be associated with starting a pre-emptive war on faulty intelligence. That much will most likely be the prevailing historical take-away. That one aspiring to be #2 to the President does not immediately grasp that fundamental element, is indeed disquieting. I would think Americans should be concerned for our safety. Mr. Krauthammer and the rest of these anti-media bloggers can lash out all they want, but you cannot evade the truth as it grudgingly unfolds: Ms. Palin is a lightweight.

Posted by: adirondacker | September 15, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

You are be way to generous with Krauthammer.

His deflection was yet another insult to thinking people.

It is beyond me how he gets column inches.

Posted by: K Ackermann | September 15, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Dionne,

Do you notice how much hate your columns generate in the comments?

You can say your columns are hate generators.

Obama wouldn't know what the Bush doctrine is either. He doesn't even know whether he is a Christian or Muslim, or how many states there are. What do you think of Obama making fun of McCain because he can't type duer to war injuries. That's funny, isn't it?

Why don't you try some evenness in columns - write about Obama's many gaffes.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

The most ridiculous definition goes to Senator Barack Obama who described the "Bush Doctrine", as reported by ABC News, as "only speaking to leaders of rogue nations if they first meet conditions laid out by the United States" in July 2007.

Posted by: Ruth | September 15, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

I am not sure what criteria we are using here to elect our next president of the united states. From senator Obama. he has the advantage of not having experience. that means he is untarnished and clear from the impurity washington influences its insiders. So people voted for him instead of senator Clinton. and now we have Sarah Palin with the same argument of experience does not matter. what really matter is your ability to stand up to for what you believe in and reform and fight corruption. Very similar message but from a different angle. All of a sudden to the democrats it is scary to have someone inexperienced in a VP spot and blah blah blah! What is your argument when the democratic nominee stated that we have 57 states vs VP candidate that can not define the Bush's doctorine!

Posted by: CVO | September 15, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Nice to see liberals using the National Enquirer as their source for infidelity.
Seems the Dems (Bill Clinton, Edwards) have cornered the market on Presidents and VP nominees who have documented infildity issues. Smehow we trusted them with the Presidency and as one of 100 Senators. What a Hypocrite

Posted by: Truth | September 15, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

I TOO QUESTION KRAPPHAMERS ABOUT HIS EVIL POSITION AGAINST SEN OBAMA . HE SET ON FOX NOSIE WITH THESE OLD WHITE MEN BRUT HUME THE SOCALLED GRAPEVINE BRUT MUST BE SICK BECAUSE HE IS NASTY AS I HAVE NEVER SEEN HIM BE AND JUDGES OBAMA LIKE HE IS THE ONLY MAN WE HAVE EVER RUN FOR THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT.CHARLES K IS BITTER AND USES THE MEDIA TO SPREAD HIS POISON.

Posted by: SANDRA | September 15, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Hey libs, I admit that FOx is biased to the right. Now why don't you admit that all MSM is in the tank for Obama.

Posted by: libosuction | September 15, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

If you were giving a job interview for the most powerful person in your company, I would think that you would want the most intelligent person for that job, based on education and experience. McCain has experience, Obama has education. However, a quick look at McCain and you can see he's lied on the application, and when confronted about it, continues to lie.

Posted by: guitaristo | September 15, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Was she confused by "Bush Doctrine" or by the word "doctrine"?

Posted by: hdl | September 15, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Hey Dionne: Save some ink for Obama's buddy Rangel and his sleezy tax evasion. So much for the democrats taking the high road on ethics when the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee is an admitted tax cheat. Seems like Obama makes a career of running with cheats, terrorists and racists.

Posted by: OhPlease | September 15, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

* If you grow up in Hawaii , raised by your grandparents, you're
"exotic; different."
* Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, a quintessential American
story.

* If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.
* Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you're a maverick.

* Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.
* Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well
grounded.

* If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the
First black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration Drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran ' s Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.

* If your total resume is: local weather/sports person, 4 years on the city
council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people,
20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you '
re qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive and
next in line behind a man in his eighth decade.

* If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including
the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.

* If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no
other option in sex education in your state ' s school system while your
Unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant, you're very responsible.

* If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in
a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city
community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values
don't represent America's.

* If your husband is nicknamed "First Dude", with at least one DWI
conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until
age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of
Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.

Posted by: Bushme | September 15, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

George Will wrote in June 2003 that the Bush Doctrine was about pre-emptive war -- and that that doctrine was "In Peril" if no WMD are found. Of course, we know that none were found.

Posted by: George F. Will on the Bush Doctrine 6/03 | September 15, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Good people of America,

Senator McCain is an honorable man who has served our country well. However, he is too beholdant to the republican party and the special interests that control it to become an effective president. Please don’t make the critical mistake of being swayed by the republican party’s fear mongering ploys. This is how Bush was elected eight and four years ago and look where it has brought this country to. An endless war of questionable worth, an economy in shambles and a world that is suspicious or even hateful of us. There are too many similarities between McCain and Palin and George Bush. America is in a very challenging period facing competition from many parts of the world. We need a leader who is intelligent and capable of understanding the complexities of today’s world economy and technologies. We simply cannot risk four more years of the old system. We need new fresh and creative ways to solve our problems.

Posted by: verycreative | September 15, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Last year I tutored an 18-year-old kid in International Relations 101. The "Bush Doctrine" was in one of his textbooks, with pre-emptive war cited as a key feature of the doctrine. In an Oxford University Press-published textbook on the basic facts of international relations that a first-year college student should know.

But it's okay if college freshmen know more about international affairs than vice-presidential candidates, right? She's a pretty pitbull!

Posted by: Tom | September 15, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

It took immense effort on the part of the GOP to find a candidate for national office as shallow and uninformed as George W.Bush, but they have succeeded mightily.

The Sarah Palin we saw in the ABC interview was in stark contrast to the poised and confident woman who addressed the Republican convention.

Posted by: Donovan | September 15, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Hey Guitaristo, Pls explain why Obama (AKA Christ) will not release his application to law school where he lied about his youthful use of illegal and mind altering coke? Guess being a coke-head is a prerequisit for Commander -n-Chief these days.

Posted by: Cokeheadobama | September 15, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Why do you think Obama is qualified to be President? ..according to him its because he has run a campaign for c. 2 yrs! Obama is the scary one. At least, what you see is what you get w/ Palin who is a VP spot..with Obama, he has Wright, Resko, etc..not much of a resume exp and has gone from peace love and change to same as any politician...he makes me gag! I have a visceral distrust of someone who has written 2 biographies, no legal papers or legislation and no mgmt exp who puts himself on a stage w/ Collumns..too much hubris!

Posted by: Lauren R1 | September 15, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

E.J. you are spot on. And you can really tell that you are because of the GOP trollers are going apoplectic.

Posted by: Phxflyer | September 15, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

I can't help but think about how, during the presidential debates earlier this year, ALL of the presidential candidates (including Obama, Biden, and McCain) intelligently answered questions about the Bush Doctrine. Now one raised an eyebrow then.

We are treating Palin as though she is a special needs candidate. If the question was good enough for the presidential candidates, it should've been something she could reasonably respond to.

Posted by: LPLT | September 15, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

I've noticed that the Wikipedia seems to have been overtaken by right wingers. The profile of Palin does not seem at all objective.

It's uncritical presentation of Palin's wolf-bounty and wolf killing as part of a "predator control" program, and its discussion of the defeated referendum to stop this program -- without any mention of the prior referendums through which voters came out against it and wanted to stop it -- is singularly biased. They swallow the predator control thing hook line and sinker without presenting the other side.

This piece also calls the $400,000 spent by Palin to promote the program in advance of the referendum money spent to "explain" the program. PLEASE, it was money to influence voters on that referendum!

The Palin piece on the WIKI is a totally right wingers promotional view of her.

The "reception" section talks about people feeling Palin is being treated unfairly in the press, without ever mentioning the millions of us who think they are letting her off easy. Every time she's asked a tough question, the McCain camp squeals that people are being mean to a girl.

WIKI has lost all credibility.

Posted by: Stefani | September 15, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Obama is bombing, and still they try to make the American people think he is the second coming! If Obama had been vetted as much as Sarah has been in the past two weeks he would never ever made it through the primaries!! What is sad the press will answer to this abomination in the end! While we clean out Washington maybe we can clean out most of you too.

Posted by: Independent for life | September 15, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

It's also important to keep in mind, she's a vice-presidential candidate. Hopefully, qualified vice-presidential candidates can think quickly and respond to difficult questions--even questions for which they haven't prepared. For instance, "Charley, that question is so broad. Are you referring to his economic policy, his foreign policy, his policy in regards to immigration?"

I know arm-chair quarterbacking is easy, but we're vetting the potential leader of the free world. Is it too much to ask that she be smart, articulate, knowledgeable and quick witted?

Posted by: Dave Marks | September 15, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

How ridiculous is it to argue about the details of Palin's foreign policy expertise when everyone reading this website knows that she doesn't have any? Krauthammer, who writes a serious column every once in a blue moon, knows that, and so do you, Mr. D. What is there to argue about?

It's not a "gaffe" for Gibson or anyone else to ask a candidate on a national ticket how she would handle any particular foreign policy situation or whether she differs from the current administration's foreign policy in any particular respect. If she doesn't understand the question she can just ask the interviewer to be more specific or define his terms. I'm more interested in what she says when she DOES understand the question. For example, Palin told Gibson that she favors asking Georgia to join NATO and that if they join and Russia invades, we could find ourselves at war with Russia. Don't you think that answer is a bit more important than whether she knows what "the Bush Doctrine" is? I do.

Posted by: simon | September 15, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

How do you pretend to know what Sarah Palin was thinking when she was asked about the Bush Doctrine by Professor Gibson?

Posted by: waynepet | September 15, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Most intelligent Americans who follow foreign policy know that the "Bush Doctrine" includes "preemptive war", whatever else it might include or however else it might have changed.

Therefore, Ms. Palin, even if not sure about the current definition, could and should have answered the question directly;
she didn't do so, and that is disturbing.


Posted by: John Rogers | September 15, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse


"Too bad the media won't ask the same questiions of Obama that they do of Sarah. Too bad the talking heads that say Sarah isn't qualified to be president don't take a look at the man-child Obama. He's an empty suit with no job experience. He's never been responsible for anything. Working for the Socialist group ACORN hardly counts."

Posted by: Fergie

Fergie, you are either a paid shill for McCain, an imbecile, or willfully ignorant. Obama's been raked over the coals of the press. He has been grilled about friends, relatives, acquaintances, friends of friends, acquaintances of acquaintances, and you have the gall to say this? You missed your calling. You should have retired to Argentina after WW2.

Posted by: edwcorey | September 15, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Is the "Bush Doctrine" a phrase that is used in the White House or just the media? Until this article, I wasn't sure what was meant by the "Bush Doctrine." Perhaps Palin had never heard of it defined in those terms either.

Posted by: Alan | September 15, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

tina fey is much better at the part then palin is.

Posted by: mcnertny | September 15, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Fergie, you're right. Obama has been vetted and vetted again over the past 18 months. All the questions Palin is being asked have already been answered by Obama.

McCain's little questionnaire thing (have you ever paid for sex?) was not thorough vetting. If it had been, maybe the press wouldn't need to be looking into Palin's background so much.

I predict the Palin Bubble will soon pop, just like the economy, tech stocks and others have. Hopefully, this will happen before the election.

Posted by: LPLT | September 15, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Palin's lack of knowledge of the Bush Doctrine specifically and international relations in general, should really give us great pause considering she has spent nearly her entire life in an end-times apocalyptic sect. This, combined with the physical remoteness of her upbringing and lack of contact with the cultural dynamics of the contiguous U.S., makes her truly unfit to be anywhere near the seat of power in the most powerful country on the planet.

Posted by: BRobinson | September 15, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Working for the Socialist group ACORN hardly counts.

Posted by: Fergie

Oh, no dear Fergie.
It is the Maoist, Khmer Rougist,Shining Pathist, Trotskist, Stalinist
and atheist ACORN.
Let's Get it Started, fergie.

Posted by: Fred | September 15, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

The Bush doctrine is extreme conservatism at its worst.

It is a dismal failure, the proof is in your house equity, your bank accounts, your paycheck, it’s on Wallstreet, its on the shelves of your supermarket, its on the corner gas station, its in house and job loss,
on the streets and deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan.

It’s in the defiance from Pakistan, Russia, Venezuela and now China!


A great nation is upheld and wars are won or lost by the rightness and decency of the participants!
As our nations history goes we have never lost a war when we were right but now we have lost wars because we were ideologically wrong!
It’s not just about strength its about wisdom and justice.
Such American qualities that have been inactive during the past seven plus years due to conservative politics!

Such is the "Bush doctrine!" It is nothing more then a failure drawn up by a self righteous, self-serving idiot of a small man that betrayed himself and our nation in a complicated world!

Posted by: rube | September 15, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Alan, all the presidential candidates knew what was meant by the Bush Doctrine when they were asked about it in the debates. No one had to ask for a clarification. Perhaps Palin should've done her homework better or maybe her handlers should've prepared her better.

Posted by: LPLT | September 15, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

A very wise man once said if I could get the vote of a person that drives a 4X4 pickup truck with a gun rack and flag license plate I could run for any office and win hands down. Did that just describe the "First DUDE"!! Oh and guess what he IS a blue collar worker! WOW he has a DUI from twenty years ago is that worse than Obamas drug use? Think not!

Posted by: Just say NOBAMA | September 15, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Good call E.J.

You are right on all counts.

Poor Krautie. As soon as the article hit the wire, Krautie got reamed by his 'pals' over at AEI.

Poor Krautie.

As for Palin; what a joke.

Posted by: Magoo is bitter | September 15, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Palin, for all her sudden celebrity, doesn't worry me nearly as much as John McCain and the economy.

He was honest when he said he didn't know much about the economy and that really scares me. McCain still strikes me as a fly-boy who wants to bomb somebody. I don't think he really cares about 'his friends' out there in middle-America.

I know he doesn't care about women's rights on many levels and he doesn't know the meaning of being poor or struggling.

Yes, he is a patriotic person who sacrificed much for his country but he's not a man who can lead this nation into anything but another war. He's way too reliant on his 'advisors' who do not have the nation's best interest at heart. This is one 'whiner' who doesn't want more year of lobbyists and fat cats running the White House for years and I sure don't want Sarah Palin as President. Because honestly the woman is not ready and it is laughable to suggest that she has the background and knowledge of either Obama or Biden.

Posted by: Reboot | September 15, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS' IRAQ WITHDRAWAL
Amir Taheri

September 15, 2008

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.

Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.

Supposing he wins, Obama's administration wouldn't be fully operational before February - and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still.

By then, Iraq will be in the throes of its own campaign season. Judging by the past two elections, forming a new coalition government may then take three months. So the Iraqi negotiating team might not be in place until next June.

Then, judging by how long the current talks have taken, restarting the process from scratch would leave the two sides needing at least six months to come up with a draft accord. That puts us at May 2010 for when the draft might be submitted to the Iraqi parliament - which might well need another six months to pass it into law.

Posted by: JohnN | September 15, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

If everyone wants to truly get back to the constitution as both Obama supporters and McCain supporters say they want and say their candidate will do then why doesn't everyone go to the constitutional partie's website and read their platform! It is a wake up call! They are the ones that should win this election. But most people that agree with them will not vote for their candidate because they have been duped into believing that their vote will only count if they vote either Obama or McCain. "If I vote for Chuck Baldwin then I am just throwing my vote away!" ugh. Why don't we get back to voting our conscience and truly vote for who we think should be the next president. If Chuck Baldwin doesn't win then I personally will know this country doesn't really want to abide by the constitution.

Posted by: Lori | September 15, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Sounds like Ms. Palin dropped the puck on this question. The look on her face seemed eerily reminiscent of a wolf (or moose) caught in the crosshairs of someone's high powered rifle.
All she does is regurgitate material. She can copy like no one's business. Can she generally speak well? Well, yes. But someone else in history who could speak well, give some great oratory, and yet....be fascist in his beliefs turned out not to be such a nice fellow. Now, I'm not putting lipstick on a pig here, but I am saying if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, then...>QUACK QUACK QUACK.

Posted by: Suzanne | September 15, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

I am a single twice divorced fater of two teenagers. We are considered the Religious Right... at least my minister say so. My children are old enough to follow this campaign. And they are old enough to understand the lies told by John Mc Cain and Sarah Palin. After all they are in the news so much. And now my children are asking me "when is it ok to lie." I have turned to my minister for guidance and he says he will get back to me but doesn't. What is happening to the moral fiber of our great America? I am starting to even worry about my young daughter looking at Bristol Palin as a role model.
Depressed and confused.

Posted by: Robert Cannon | September 15, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse


***BOMBSHELL***

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.


http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm

Posted by: Roger Anderson | September 15, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

McCain has let us know what he really thinks of this country by selecting someone so unvetted, ill prepared and uneducated (general and world knowledge) to be his running mate and very likely to fill in for him as he becomes more infirmly senile and dies on the job.. McCain has a real case of e.d. as it relates to his duty to this country.. I wonder how he got his medals from his incarceration in Nam since by military rule such awards require at least two witnesses. I guess the he was one and the North Vietnamese filled in as the second.. Oh, I forgot that is why they referred to him as songbird..he earned their admiration..

Posted by: ooftie | September 15, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

To Doug,

Maybe her answer to "the Bush doctrine" satisfied you, but can you please for the life of me, tell me why she said "Charlie" 18 times in her interview? That sounded like it was coached, rehearsed, and scripted. Whether you want to admit it or not Palin is not the one, one thing I must say about her though, she sure knows how to fake it to make it, as said in the Corporate-Executive world! Romney should have been his VP running mate,12 years foreign policy experience, what was McCain thinking about, Romney had what he needed to go up against Biden, Palin doesn't have it, no match even to Romney.

Posted by: ms j | September 15, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

The point is not how many different version of the so-called "Bush doctrine" there are but had Palin even ever remotedly heard of that "foreign policy" mumblings of the Bush administration, she would have responded with " I don't know which version of the 'doctrin' are you talking about, so let me comment on just a particular version that comes to mind, etc." It is indeed apalling that she obviously knows nothing about the subject matter, even if she could "see" Russia on a clear day!

Posted by: Steve Chan | September 15, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

E.J. why don't you just come out and say it.. Charlie Gibson did Gov Palin a diservice by asking what turned out to be a trick question, since it had multiple meanings in an attempt at a gotcha moment. He SHOULD have explained what he understood was the Bush Doctrine FIRST, and asked her to comment on it. Now that it is coming out that it wasn't really a fair question only now is E.J. saying.. well he never thought it was her worst moment.. well gee thanks E.J. She was hammered by the media over this question, apparently the media never had a good grasp of what the Bush doctrine was either. The people who ripped her before should now come out now and admit it was a misleading question, but yeah like that would ever happen.

Posted by: rss | September 15, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Is the "Bush Doctrine" a phrase that is used in the White House or just the media? Until this article, I wasn't sure what was meant by the "Bush Doctrine." Perhaps Palin had never heard of it defined in those terms either.

Posted by: Alan | September 15, 2008 5:33 PM

Or, perhaps Palin, like you Alan, doesn't know enough to be one weak heartbeat away from the presidency. Unless of course you can see Russia from your house.

Posted by: McCain/Palin= Out of Touch/ Inexperienced | September 15, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

If Sarah Palin REALLY knew about the complexities of the Bush doctrine, WOULDN'T she have prefaced her response by noting "It's a complex topic, Charlie," and then gone on to give a nuanced answer?

But instead, she displayed her ignorance show by ice-fishing for an answer ("In what respect, Charlie?") with all the poise of a caribou-caught-in-the-headlights.

Posted by: Hugh Briss | September 15, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Most everyone knows that he Bush Doctrine is about preemptive strikes against sovereign nations. But everyone knows that anything called a "Bush doctrine" is bound to be some kind of stupid mistake. The point here, though, is that Palin had never even heard of the term "Bush Doctrine." Krauthammer's obfuscation has no hope of hiding Palin's cluelessness on that score.

Posted by: jchaney | September 15, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

I have a question, how can on one hand Democrats claim that McCain/Palin want to continue the Bush doctrine.. while on the otherhand say.. McCain/Palin don't know what the Bush doctrine is??? How the heck can you continue something if you don't know what it is you are continuing?

Posted by: rss | September 15, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

There are 4 different versions of the Bush Doctrine because they've had to change the reason for invading Iraq at least 4 different times.

And Krauty was a cheerleader for each and every failed reason....

Posted by: 4 different excuses... | September 15, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Palin is as qualified for the VP spot as Bush Sr.'s was.... Feeling better now...

Posted by: JC | September 15, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Jeez. I wonder why Chuck is diverting attention…

When I was a Republican, pre-2003, we would not have tolerated someone who…

-Voted in lockstep with a President who took the Federal Debt from $5.7 Trillion to $9.5 trillion, in 8 years. (up 70%-darn liberals!) (PS. It’s $11 bill when you count the nationalization of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Nationalized? Like France? But isn’t that socialism? Yup. We spent 19% of our tax revenues. $432,000,000,000.00 on interest this year. Socialism? Oh god yes, the government grew 57% under Bush, the Debt 70%. For what again? At least the French get some services.

-Says “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should,”

-Did not mention, not once, the extremely dangerous deficit in his Convention speech. What happened to Gramm-Rudman? Times have changed huh? The greatest threat to our nation did not get mentioned? Did the Wall Street Journal note as much? Did they notice who McCain’s economic advisor was? Gramm. The hypocrisy meter just exploded.)

-Voted to pursue the ‘debacle by choice’ of an Iraq War while Bin Laden and Zawahari continue to mock us from Afghanistan. ( 5.5 years, 1 tril, 4200 dead, Iran emboldened, and no surge parade?)

-Supported Bush’s efforts to hide the fact that he was standing on the wall when the nation got attacked. The Repubs let us down as low as we could go! National Security? Please.

-Supported a President who squandered 232 years of good will. Who wants to buy American stuff? No one. Obama puts the USA right back at the top of the heap. Do we want to lead the world, or be hated by it?

-Claims State ownership over my wife and daughter’s womb. (and we fought the Cold War because….?)

-Reneged on his pledge to remove the language in the Republican platform that demands my wife carry and birth a rapists’ child. (Fascist liar-that’s freedom?)

-Is an adulterer, having divorced his wife after a disfiguring car accident. (Oh my god. He’s one mean ‘maverick.’) What’s odd is that Palin’s ‘literal’ bible says we should stone him to death.

-Supported a President who used fear against the American people. (‘the only thing to fear is fear itself’ being what a real Patriot would say. )

-Gave up on whatever last principle he had in order to get elected. Country First? Please. Do we look that stupid? Do you really think that your base is that stupid?

--Whose VP has no experience after saying that ‘experience was the most important thing.’

-Called his 2nd wife a c*nt in public for joking about this hair.

-Roughly pushes ladies in wheelchairs when they displease him

-Has written extensively about his temper tantrums and rash decisions. (unstable)

-Chose someone who had met only once to be a heartbeat from the Presidency.

-Called the religious right agents of intolerance. Only to pandered to them in 2008, in a move that re-ignited the culture war in our nation. He’s not only willing to give up his most base principles, he is willing to declare civil war on his own nation in order to win.

John McCain ain’t no Patriot in the sense of loving his country more than he loves power, nope, he’s a Patriot in that’ last refuge of a scoundrel’ kind of way. What’s weird is that Republican’s like him at all. He’s not conservative. He’s a contortionist.

The problem being that the country can’t survive another 4 years of the Repubs duping the world. We went from 5.7 trillion in debt to 11 trillion in eight years. The Repubs have given way the shop, socialists to the core, like it or not. And to the Middle Class? Wow, I can’t believe for one second that anyone would vote for the Centi-Millionaire McCain. Unless they do.

Unless he wins. At which point the country will have made it’s choice. They will have chosen to continue down the path of recklessness. And our country will be a third world nation by 2020. Socialized, and fascistized, by Republicans of all things!

Posted by: Rob L. | September 15, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

First Charles Gibson was named as the first to interview Palin because he would show "deference" to her, afterwards he is attacked for trying to through a few gotcha questions to a self described pit-bull. Deifnitely a first for a convention acceptance speech.

Everyone in America who succeeds in getting a job interview for positions that are ever more competive can expect tough curve ball questions on multiple interviews for practically any job worth having. We get to meet tough pit bulled hiring managers who relish throwhing a candiate off because those curve balls winnow out those who can think on their feet and learn the different ways prospective job candidates will approach a new situation.

Why should it be any different for someone who is running for VP. Has one of the critical questions that's been asked is "what do you do when you get a call at 3:00 AM?"

We look up to the president when our twin towers are being attacked by airplanes, hurricanes break levees near major cities, the dow plunges 500 points in a day.

The press was rough on Palin I admit and probably gave Obama a pass a few more times than it did for Hillary but now everyone is going overboard criticizing Charles Gibson?

Any VIABLE candidate would have seized the speaking opportunity that Gibson opened up and informed Gibson ( and America ) what her own doctrine or philosophy was about confronting dictators and butchers and state politicians who might be harboring Bin Laden, not to mention dozens of other issues like Israel, Palestinian, Iran - our plate it full.

Sympathy for Palin because her family got dragged into the news ( yes - but she should have know ).
Sympathy for Palin because she might have been given a misleading question - try dealing with leaders like Putin and Musharaf ( or even the French ).

Posted by: John | September 15, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

"Too bad the media won't ask the same questions of Obama that they do of Sarah."

You're kidding right? We've seen the other 3 candidates in a bazillion debates and individual interviews running up to the primaries. Did you see Bill O'Rielly interview Obama? If you haven't go check it out on youtube. Can you imagine a more hostile interviewer for him to face? Obama went on that show even though it's clear he was going there to get skewered. His answers were not scripted. He was articulate as well as effective and demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of the issues and expressed his thoughts in depth and with no vagary. He did so with grace and was a gentleman in the face of O'Rielly's red-faced open aggression. O'Rielly himself admitted he gained a new found respect for Obama after the interview although it's clear he disagrees with him greatly.

"He's never been responsible for anything."

He chairs a senate subcommittee on foreign relations for one. That's at least a little better than claiming that being able to see Russia from across the border qualifies as foreign policy experience.

"Socialist group ACORN hardly counts."

Did you happen to notice the bail out of Freddie and Fannie? Necessary in part because of a total lack of oversight of the industry by our government (under Republicans) who's mantra, the market will monitor itself, lead in part to our government needing to prop them up. Have you ever tried do get assistance from ACORN? They require you to participate in training sessions with tests that teach you exactly what you are getting into when taking on a mortgage. They require you to calculate and demonstrate that you understand exactly what your expenses and actual net income numbers are and that they conform to conservative debt ratios. You have to prove you understand how a mortgage fits with your specific cost of living and will not let you buy more house than you can afford. They require you to fill out forms that involve getting your own credit check and proving that you have addressed any outstanding credit issues before they will help you. In short, they educate people so they fully understand what they're getting into with a mortgage, and require they be able to meet the financial obligations the will be assuming. If that is socialism, we need more of it, I don't care what it's called. If every lending agent followed those procedures, we wouldn't need to bail out banks.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Some how we need a sound bite encapsulate Sara Palin lack of stellar experience, something captures the GOPs obsession with incompetence and medocraty. Could the rest of us identify with Michael "Katrina" Brown = Sara "Executive VP" Palin? Is she ready? Was Michael Brown's horse show experience up to the challenge?

I rest my case.

Posted by: RBStanfield | September 15, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Americans love a train wreck. Sarah Palin is the new Britney. Go figure.

Posted by: Alex | September 15, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

I'd love to see a debate between Palin and Dan Quail .... What a hoot that would be!!!
l

Posted by: Joe | September 15, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

The Gibson Gaffe story wasn't about Palin. There was a story deserving of report regarding Gibson's treatment of Palin. He was condescending, disrespectful in addressing a Governor of a State like he was talking to his little sister and not immediately responding to Palin's request for definition shows his lack of conducting a professional interview.
When addressing someone in a high public office there is a courtesy that must be given when doing an interview. Gibson failed on the gravest terms and should be issuing a public apology to Gov. Palin.
This article is just more Obama supporters going after Palin. That is not journalism, it is lobbying. You could learn a thing or two Mr. Dionne from Mr. Krauthammer. You see two sides to two different stories because his reporting is fair and balanced. How about yours?

Posted by: 1rap | September 15, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

If she spent as much time as me, a school teacher, spends reading about our country and our world (not really that much), she would have not been so stunned by the question. She could have said, "Why Charlie, you know there are many different 'Bush Doctrines.'" But I dare say she has been totally uninterested in anything outside of Alaska.

I think the notion that she can cram for this like a college final exam implies a level of intelligence that I doubt she has. How many years at how many different schools did it take for her to get a communications degree?! Notwithstanding the degree, she looked utterly incompetent in that interview.

Posted by: KevinPC | September 15, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

The most ridiculous definition goes to Senator Barack Obama who described the "Bush Doctrine", as reported by ABC News, as "only speaking to leaders of rogue nations if they first meet conditions laid out by the United States" in July 2007.

Posted by: Ruth | September 15, 2008 5:14 PM
===============
Ruth Obama is not running on the "Republican" ticket. Sarah Palin is. It is strange how so many people do not grasp that when you are the representative of your party and your party has the sitting president, you should know what your president stands for whether or not you agree with it. Obviously she had no idea what this is.

Had she been speaking with the head of another country and asked in conversation whether she agrees with the Bush Doctrine have answered it in the manner she did? Both with body language and content? Sarah palin is skating on good looks and a defeated party base. Her winking at the her audience to me is cocky. And she winks when she thinks that she is convincing...check it out at her next performance.

You people set the bar very low when the candidate have (R) next to their name, don't you?

Posted by: just another reader | September 15, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Hey Truth wrote:
Seems the Dems (Bill Clinton, Edwards) have cornered the market on Presidents and VP nominees who have documented infildity issues...

Don't forget John McCain was poking Cindy before the divorce was final, and maybe even before he was separated. If you want to cast your net of adulterers a little farther you could add Newt Gingrich and Larry Craig too.

Don't be such a hypocrit. Cheating on your spouse is bipartisan.

Posted by: DDS | September 15, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Given that "Bush Doctrine" was and is never little more than an excuse to justify preemptive, unilateral, military acts on the part of the Bush administration, i remain baffled as to how it qualifies as a doctrine.

Posted by: bob mcconnaughey | September 15, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

I'm no Krauthammer fan, but he's not the only one who remembers the Bush Doctrine as a broad statement of policy, rather than the simple one-liner offered by Charlie Gibson.

Besides me there is this NY Times' assessment:

The Bush Doctrine

Published: September 22, 2002

As a presidential candidate two years ago, George W. Bush called for a degree of humility in our dealings with other nations. Since Mr. Bush took office, it has often been hard to locate that sentiment in his foreign policy. The latest and most definitive articulation of his views, published on Friday, reflects a good deal more modesty and generosity than earlier expressions, but it also bristles with bald assertions of American power. Mr. Bush's Texas supporters may like it -- he instructed his staff to write it in plain English so ''the boys in Lubbock'' could read it -- but it is sure to make the rest of the world uneasy, including America's closest allies.

The tension between idealism and realism in foreign policy runs through America history, and the fault lines are evident in Mr. Bush's policy statement. The paper -- a policy summation that every president is required to submit to Congress -- seems in some sections to be animated by the most enlightened and constructive impulses of the land of Jefferson, Lincoln and the Marshall Plan. It dedicates the nation to extending the benefits of freedom, democracy, prosperity and the rule of law to struggling countries around the globe. Mr. Bush speaks eloquently in an introductory letter about working with other nations to combat disease and alleviate poverty, and he reaffirms his determination to increase American foreign aid.

At other points, the paper sounds more like a pronouncement that the Roman Empire or Napoleon might have produced. Given Mr. Bush's lone-wolf record on matters like global warming, and the nature of the issues he now faces, including a looming confrontation with Iraq, it is clear these combative attitudes will be driving Washington policy in the months ahead. The boys in Lubbock may want to pause before signing on for the overly aggressive stance Mr. Bush has outlined.

Mr. Bush imagines an intimidating, heavyweight America. A few of the policy prescriptions capture the spirit: American military power will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from ever trying to challenge the military supremacy of the United States. Washington is free to take pre-emptive action against hostile states that are developing weapons of mass destruction. The successful strategies of the cold war, which relied on the threat of overwhelming American retaliation to deter foreign aggression, are largely obsolete. Forceful measures to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons are more effective than treaties.

In an era of international terrorism and the constant danger of devastating attacks, there is good reason for Mr. Bush to keep the nation strong and vigilant. Striking first to prevent aggression is not unreasonable when dealing with groups like Al Qaeda, which operate independently of the restraints that govern the behavior of most nation-states. Intercepting a shipment of smuggled plutonium before it reaches a rogue nation makes sense if countries are unwilling or unable to enforce treaty commitments to block the spread of nuclear materials. But when these pugnacious strategies become the dominant theme in American conduct, overwhelming more cooperative instincts, the nation risks alienating its friends and undermining the very interests that Mr. Bush seeks to protect.

Strong, confident leaders need not be arrogant leaders. Indeed, arrogance subverts effective leadership. Whether the issue is protection of the environment or protection of the homeland, the United States needs help. In securing America's safety, Mr. Bush must be careful not to create a fortress America that inspires the enmity rather than the envy of the world.

Posted by: Carol | September 15, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

it's funny reading some of these posts that say obama hasn't been asked the same kind of questions as palin -

obama has appeared in debates with the candidates during the primaries and has been interviewed by reporters and appeared on sunday political talk shows and panel discussions...

other than this controlled and edited interview, it is palin who has never answered questions spontaneously from reporters or appeared in interviews - if she says she's ready to be vp, than why the limited exposure? - the answer is obvious - i'm not so much against her as tired of people having to make excuses for her -

Posted by: muslit | September 15, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Pulling for Palin but Palin is failin' I'm damned if I do and I'm doomed if I'm damned and the McPain in my brain is fixin' to kablame!

Posted by: maltete | September 15, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

"Hey Guitaristo, Pls explain why Obama (AKA Christ) will not release his application to law school where he lied about his youthful use of illegal and mind altering coke? Guess being a coke-head is a prerequisit for Commander -n-Chief these days."

Bush (a guy who claims Christ is the person who inspires him most) is an ex-alcoholic AND ex-cocaine user (don't forget AWOL from the national guard). He more than meets your definition of "Commander -n-Chief." According to that, you should be just fine with Obama as president.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

"Palin is as qualified for the VP spot as Bush Sr.'s was


Wow, you mean Palin was head of the CIA? How'd they keep that one quiet?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

"We have vetted the "Journalists for Obama" and found no transparency, that they lie and don't share their real agenda"

This is about as true as anything this "journalist" writes.

Posted by: rljmsilver | September 15, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Is it too much that we ask our candidates to be educated, articulate, and broadbased in their knowlege and interests. We're not electing First Brother; we're not a good old boy; we're electing the President of the United States and the First in Line to the Presidency in case the elected President cannot complete his term.

Yes, I know women can do multiple tasks; and so can men. Yes, I know people can juggle family and employment. But I'm not electing a mayor of a small town, or putting someone in charge of a local supermarket. I'm electing the person who will lead this country for the next four years, who will face economic issues ranging from unemployment to housing forclosures, problems in the banking and investment secotrs, global environmental and terrorism issues, treaty negotiations and non-proliferation, health care issues and a myriad of other concerns.

Is it too much to ask for someone that's better than average, someone that is elite?

While I may not agree with every positon of Senators Obama and Biden, or of Senator McCain, they have, at least, been at a high platform of responsibility. They have been vetted, not by a committe of three or so for several hours supported by written responses; they have faced the public and won - or lost - based on the public's perception, the voters perception. Senator Biden, as well as Senator McCain, have faced the voters in numerous primaries and have had their records and opinions exposed in public, for good or bad. Senator Obama met his peers in primaries and other venues and the public has vetted him. The only one who has vetted Governor Palin is Senator McCain who, reportedly looked to put a woman on his ticket.

There are numerous qualified - highly qualified - Republican women who would be better candidates to succeed a President McCain should it be necessary. Can Senator McCain say, in good faith, that if Governor Palin was a male with the same record, that the male should be considered the first in line to assume the Presidency?

Do I think academics are everything? Of course not. Do I think Senator Obama is the most qualified Democrat to run for or assume the Presidency? Of course not. But at least he has been vetted in tens of primaries against his peers and an overwhelming majority have selected him versus the other democratic candidates.

And I don't like the idea that we're electing a role model, or a woman for the sake of it's a woman's time any more than I think you should be electing a black or a Hispanic or a gay simply because...

Can people seriously tell me that they think Governor Palin is qualified to assume the Presidency if necessary? And tell me why? And don't say that she ran the city of Wasilla, that her selling of the governor's airplane and firing the cook, and being the commander in chief of one of the smallest state National Guard organizations makes her more qualified than Governor Romney or Huckabee, or many other governors with a more proven record.

I have nothing against Governor Palin. I don't; and I'm not dismissing her because of gender. I'm simply frightened that, based on her being vetted solely and quickly by Senator McCain and a small team of his choosing, with so little time for the public to learn anything substantive about her, that she might have to assume the Presidency early on. I can't find any reason to feel secure knowing she might be the President. I can't find any reason at all.

Dungarees@gmail.com

Posted by: Washingtonian | September 15, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Even after Gibson explained what he meant by the Bush Doctrine, Palin still didn't answer the question. After launching into God knows what mess of rambling, he tried to clarify and even referred to her first answer as a "blizzard of words" (or something to that effect). And she just repeated the same mumbo-jumbo again. A simple Yes or No will suffice, Governor Palin.

Posted by: treen | September 15, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

If McCain/Palin win... when can I expect my oil revenue check of three or four thousand annually like Alaskans get???

Posted by: JC | September 15, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

I think Krauthammer's first disappointment at the selection of the inexperienced Palin was pure self-interest. He'd been hammering and doubtless wanted to continue hammering Obama on his inexperience. His previous anti-Obama attack pieces were continual variations on the "Who does he think he is?" theme. Obama the uppity. It was the purely selfish Krauthammer the columnist who felt disabled by McCain's choice of Palin. Perhaps he'd even written a few columns ahead and thought, "Sh*t, now I'll have to trash that work and find a whole new angle from which to attack Obama."

Almost immediately, though, Krauthammer found that he could use Palin's ineptitude, deceitfulness and inexperience as arguments (ah, the ingenuity of man!) with which to attack the Democrats, and whatever questioning reporters got in the way of Republican victory. It's the questioner who's at fault!

Posted by: GaryL1 | September 15, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

There's a reason Palin has been sequestered from the press ... the McCain advisers know she's a loose canon who has insufficient knowledge and experience to handle serious questions, like why she's lying about turning down federal funds for the bridge to nowhere. If the GOP has its way, she'll not face the press in any real way before election day.

Posted by: Jeff | September 15, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Given whatever definition of the Bush doctrine one might choose, it has never included "Bush's world view" as Palin initially responded. It was patently obvious, she never heard of this doctrine under any definition, even though it led us into a preemptive war costing trillions of dollars. McCain may not have vetted his VP selection, but as each day passes the details of that process are being managed for him and his candidate looks less and less appealing as a consequence.

Posted by: Butch Dillon | September 15, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Palin's whole appeal for republicans is thaT SHE IS A BEAUTY QUEEN. That is how FOX got on the map with "Married with Children". Their message... DON'T PICK ON THE PRETTY GIRL !!!

Posted by: JC | September 15, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Jeff, There's a reason Palin has been sequestered from the press ... the McCain advisers know she's a loose canon who has insufficient knowledge
++++++++++++
There's a difference between being a loose cannon which is how jon carry's fellow officers portrayed him and recon. People need to ask how come Barak, Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer were involved with contributions from the FM's

Posted by: Skager21 | September 15, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

I would cast my vote for an Alaskan moose, an actual pitt-bull or an actual pig (with or without lipstick) or even a chimp in a balarina's tutu for that matter, before I'd vote for Palin.

Do you thing she'll speak in tongues in upcoming debates? If handlers let her debate that is.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

McCAIN NOW EVEN IN PA. AND VA. UP IN CO. OH. FL.

Looks like the efforts of Dionne and the rest of Obama's shills are backfiring.

Pennsylvania FOX News/Rasmussen Obama 47, McCain 47 Tie

Ohio FOX News/Rasmussen McCain 48, Obama 45 McCain +3

Florida FOX News/Rasmussen McCain 49, Obama 44 McCain +5

Virginia FOX News/Rasmussen McCain 48, Obama 48 Tie

Colorado FOX News/Rasmussen Obama 46, McCain 48 McCain +2

Posted by: Parkhurst | September 15, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Excellent piece.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

First, a minimally qualified VP pick would have responded with something along the lines of "which Bush Doctrine?" if she had any awareness of the multiple (failed) "doctrines." Second, Gibson asked her next what she though it was, to which she replied "his worldview?" This is the answer of someone who never took even an introductory international relations class, or doesn't have enough interest to regularly read the daily news, for that matter. Third, don't forget that Gibson actually specified in his next follow-up that he wanted her take on the Bush Doctrine as laid out by the Bush Administration in the fall of 2002 (hint, hint)... she still didn't have a clue.

Gibson didn't have the time, having to fit in all the photo-ops at the gym and pipeline and lake, but I wished he had invited her to talk for awhile about her understanding of the Georgian conflict, after she said the Russians were completely unprovoked. It would have been painful to watch, but her ignorance, disinterest in the world, and shallow understanding would have been even more on display if she had to discuss a complex issue beyond 20-second talking points.

Posted by: cali | September 15, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

I thought republicans hated polls...Didn't you acuse Clinton of sticking his finger to the wind... Hypocrits all...

Posted by: JC | September 15, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

I'm completely flummoxed by everyone's fixation on the "Bush Doctrine" goof. Did anyone hear her offer the fact that you can see Russia from an Alaskan island as a foreign policy credential? Did that non-sensical answer not strike real fear into anyone's heart? The average American citizen would have been stumpped too given our children can't find the US on a map. This woman could be, and more than likey will be, a chemotherapy session away from being president. My mother in law had three bouts with breast cancer before it moved into her lungs, lymph nodes, abdomen, and killed her within a year. McCain's had three bouts with melanoma (two malignancies) which follows the same pathway as breast cancer. People are actually defending the answers of a person who's demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt that she is completely out of her league. She might be skillful at gut-bucket politics (i.e. smiling, kissing her own baby, and hurling insults), but a person this ignorant of the world around her has no place on the international stage. She would be completely paralyzed and useless if she had to manage a financial crisis like the one we're in. Shake up Wall Street? She's never even been to Wall Street. Alaska's economy's been fueled by high oil prices, not wise fiscal management. Have you noticed how silent Bush is being and he's a graduate of Harvard Business School? Do you believe that someone who has zero background in finance, economics and how the world really works could actually shake up some of the most savvy, subtle and aggressive people on Earth? At least McCain's admitted that he doesn't have a clue about economics. McCain and Palin will be completely dependent on the advice of people who will still be under the control of the Street. Obama spent a little bit of time in the financial world so he has at least half a clue. People please wake up and see things for what they truly are.

Posted by: Ho Chi Daddy | September 15, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Gee I knew exactly what Gibson meant by the "Bush doctrine" and Im just a reasonably informed average citizen. The idea that Palin would be running for vice president without even the simplest comprehension of what the Bush presidency has been about is completely chilling. THIS is who the GOP wants to lead the country?

McCain/Palin...WORSE than Bush.

Posted by: Cal | September 15, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Too bad the media won't ask the same questiions of Obama that they do of Sarah. Too bad the talking heads that say Sarah isn't qualified to be president don't take a look at the man-child Obama. He's an empty suit with no job experience. He's never been responsible for anything. Working for the Socialist group ACORN hardly counts.

Posted by: Fergie | September 15, 2008 5:00 PM

Actually Fergie, I guess you chose to hide from the O'reilly interview with Obama. he grilled him in a way that you would have called sexist if it was palin. Even O'Reilly was impressed by Obama. you are in a shrinking crowd of the "empty suit" hecklers.

Posted by: dippa | September 15, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Dionne, once again I have to say you are not being paid enough by the post. Great job.

Posted by: JanD | September 15, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Bravo!

Keep on keepin' on, E.J. Dionne.

Posted by: binkynh | September 15, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Sara Palin is clearly unqualified to be Vice President. You do not have to be a liberal or a Democrat to know that. All the Repubs in the blogosphere would be screaming bloody murder if someone with Palin's background and lack of curiosity were running as a Dem. Both sides of the debate show how shallow they are by accepting in one of thier "own" what they would not accept in one from the "other". Dems do the same thing. Until we stop tolerating incompetence in any and all elected officials, despite whose team he/she is on, we will continue to get what we pay for. Complete incompetence.

Posted by: Knightrider | September 15, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Where is the WAPO, with their extensive archival records of past statements, in calling these partisan shills to task for denigrating those who speak truth to power??

Posted by: JC | September 15, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Latest Poll:
McCain trailing Palin by 12 points!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

If she really isn't ignorant, why didn't she ask: "Which Bush Doctrine, Chuckie?" "I understand there are a number Bush Doctrines ranging from preemptive attacks being valid to it's okay for us to go in to countries harboring terrorists, and I think they are all steaming, heaping mounds of evidence that a horse is nearby." She didn't respond that way because: 1)She's clueless. 2)She felt the need to be evasive because she wanted to create the mendacious notion that she is not clueless. 3) She and McCain are not mavericks. They thoroughly agree with boy george and plan to give us more of the same.

Posted by: Mike Kolb | September 15, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

It just amazing how fearful some folks are of Sarah Palin. It shows what a woman of integrity can do to those on the other side. Once all the rumors clear the air, and people with common sense will clearly see how qualified she is. It is funny how someone who has more experience than Barak Hussien Obama, is not qualified to be VP, while Barak is qualified to be Pres.

Sarah Paline who is Commander and Cheif to the OLNY National Guard unit on constant alert and is briefed with more classified material than even Joe Biden. Sarah is considered less experienced that Obama who goes to a rock concert in Germany to speak to a group of radical Germans who were given free bear and brats and made it look like he is some international hero. America I believe will vote their heads this election and not their emotions and will elect the first woman VP.

Posted by: true patriot | September 15, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

When the Democrats nominated two former Southern State Governors to the Top of the Presidential ticket (and won the elections) were they any more qualified on International Affairs than the current standard being applied to the current Republican Vice Presidential candidate?

Posted by: JV DeForest | September 15, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/15/youtube-removes-viral-video-on-palins-churches-for-inappropriate-content/

Video of Palin's Church. It was removed from You tube because it's Inappropriate.

Not the church. What the church is doing.

Scary.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Typical Republican Lies, example #4584737

They say that Obama tried to slow the drawdown of troops from Iraq.

NO what he did is ask Iraq to delay the "Status of Force Agreement" , replacing it with a temporary one, until Bush is out of office.

WHY? Because Bush is locking in high troop levels for years. He's keeping open possibilities to establish permanent bases. His agreement lets him control the war, even long after he leaves office! This agreement will make it MORE DIFFICULT to draw down troops.

In short, what Obama did is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what some liars here are claiming.

But what do you expect? When the top of the Republican ticket is lying without hesitation, you might as well completely ignore anything their paid lackeys say here. You can't lie any more than he already is.

Posted by: orrg1 | September 15, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Seriously, at least 85% of the people reading this column or commenting on it (whether democrat or GOP) are more knowledgeable and prepared to be president than Sarah Palin.

At the same time, I actually feel sorry for her being used as a cynical, sexist tool for the GOP.

Posted by: GTY | September 15, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

So few people remark on Palin's response to Gibson's follow-up question, "What do you interpret it to be?" She answered, not confidently -- and with a vocal question mark at the end that doesn't appear in transcripts -- "His world view?" She clearly didn't know what the hell he was talking about, and no amount of whitewashing can cover that up.

Posted by: Mara Seaforest | September 15, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

The question now becomes, "What does Sarah Palin know, and when in the last week was she tutored to learn it?"

Posted by: Michael | September 15, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin should take some lessons from a pop-tart on fooling the press....see Britney!!

Posted by: JC | September 15, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

well said, bushme.

Posted by: glen | September 15, 2008 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin be failin' and that old man McCain be wailin' and this dang economy be ailin'.

Posted by: trebon | September 15, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

“I'm completely flummoxed by everyone's fixation on the "Bush Doctrine" goof.”

Posted by: Ho Chi Daddy | September 15, 2008 7:11 PM


I agree that it’s only the tip of the iceberg. But it matters in part because it’s another example of how vast her ignorance is and what a disaster she would be if she succeeded McCain. She didn’t even know how Bush justified his invasion of Iraq. That’s how disconnected she is up there in Alaska , aka the “microcosm” of the rest of the US. You might think Bush apologists everywhere would be howling, instead of covering for her. But, they know she’s a blank slate in an appealing package with the right act first, think later gut instincts (“ya don’t blink, Charlie”). And they love McCain since he is a firm believer in the same policy of “preemption” that led us into the Iraq debacle. We’ve got plenty of spare billions and lives to direct towards wars with Iran and Russia, right?

Posted by: cali | September 15, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

This may be a quibble, but I'm puzzled that you would use Wikopedia in such a reverent way to drive home certain of your points. As we all know in using W. or writing or editing its contents, it's mainly a self-generating, self-regulating corpus, with a bit of deux ex machina trying to keep the balance and the 'truth' in the more 'sensitive' articles, such as the one explaining the Bush Doctrine. It is not inconceivable that Mr. Krauthammer gave himself the credit by helping to write or edit this piece. It has been done before. So, just a bit more qualification might be in order when using this wonderful but open resource. Or triangulate with some other references?

Posted by: Kent | September 15, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

Anything Krauthammer says is suspect to the radical neo-con neo-reaganite mindless delusional hallucinations.

If anyone says anything about his "precious" Israel ... (like Gollum) he comes apart... this guy is a 100% fruitcake. A mild-mannered poison-pen Rush.

Posted by: DVM | September 15, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

The pathetic thing is that pundits do not have more to write about than what other pundits write about a stupid interview by yet another pundit. REAL WORLD OUT THERE GUYS. Please.

Posted by: Larry Oswald | September 15, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Last night I was having a conversation with a friend about what employers put engineers through when we're interviewing for a new job. I thought, this is particularly relevant here because that's what we're participating in. This is one big interviewing process.

When I go to an interview I can always expect fresh new problems to be flung at me at light speed which often results in stress and pre-interview jitters, but it's expected because problem solving is part of what I do. I'm not a prefect problem solver. Seldom do I nail a problem on the first try. So, part of the way to prepare is to anticipate asking questions or "probing" the interviewer. When I watched the Palin interview I noticed that she tried this tactic. She asked "What aspect Charlie?" to the question of "What do you think of the Bush Doctrine?" If Charles' assertion is that the question was a gaffe and unfairly vague then I argue that Palin's response was also a gaffe and unfairly vague. Replace the original question with anything other than "What do you think of the Bush Doctrine?" and you'll see for yourself. Try this one:

Charlie: "What do you think of a double bacon cheeseburger with fries and a drink?"

Palin: "What aspect charlie?"

Posted by: engineer an election | September 15, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

If Sara Palin had a clue she would have asked, "Which one?" She obviously didn't have a clue. At least a journalist got it partly correct and a VP candidate missed it completely. How that can be justified is only a task a conservative could attempt to do. Attempts at trying to cover up inexperience and lack of basic foreign policy knowledge only illicit snickers and out right laughter from people who know the difference. It would even be funnier were it not for the fact if McCain wins Sara Palin will be a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

Posted by: BobL-VA | September 15, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

Newest latest poll

Palin 52%
Fey 38% (up seven percent since Sunday)
undecided 10%

Posted by: Larry Oswald | September 15, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse


"Seriously, at least 85% of the people reading this column or commenting on it (whether democrat or GOP) are more knowledgeable and prepared to be president than Sarah Palin.

At the same time, I actually feel sorry for her being used as a cynical, sexist tool for the GOP."

Posted by: GTY | September 15, 2008 7:50 PM

Good point, although it's a low bar to clear!

I had the same reaction, feeling sorry for her during that Gibson interview at times, but then reality intrudes. She's aggressive and ambitious and more than willing to be used for now and she'll be Bush squared if she ever ends up as president.

Posted by: cali | September 15, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Krauthammer and McCain should be scheduled to take the alzheimers test on the same day.

Posted by: JC | September 15, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

All the hate speech, smears, lies and half-truths do not take away from two simple facts;

1. Unlike how the unqualified, empty suit Obama was treated during the media interviews, the total lack of respect and condecension by Gibson towards Governor Palin, showed that the previously likeable image mask of Gibson is gone and the real typical bias media personality was exposed and made transparent.

2. All the above actions by the Democrats and the media, will not change the fact, what every Americn voter knows. Obama is an empty suit, beloved by the media and the least qualified candidate for the Presidency or Vice Presidency in the last 100 years. This was validated by previous comments from Biden, Geraldine Ferraro and Hilary Clinton.

The majority of Amercian voters will go into their voting booth in November, 2008, look down at their ballot and logically determine that they cannot vote, for the most liberal and unqualified candidate for either the Presidency or Vice Presidency in years.

The progressive (radical left) and liberal Democrats, bloggers and media elite will scream. Racism! Cheaters! We Will Sue! We should have won!

Sorry.

Posted by: rljmsilver | September 15, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

together we will conquer

Posted by: judge alan | September 15, 2008 8:17 PM | Report abuse

A very classy piece. You correct Krauthammer without being snarky about it.

Thanks.

Posted by: nrglaw | September 15, 2008 8:28 PM | Report abuse

Alzheimers disease is a terrible debilitating afliction that I would not wish on anyone... That said, it caracterized by a distinct detachment from reality. The strong possibility that the leader of the free world may be so afficted is untenable. NO PERSONAL ATTACK IS INTENDED OR EXPRESSED!!!

Posted by: JC | September 15, 2008 8:28 PM | Report abuse

OK. Gov. Palin could not say anything about any "version" of the Bush Doctrine last week, and now we've got a blizzard of commentary. Administration supporters, former employees, and rightwing editors were all quoted in a 9/12 WaPo article to say that the Bush Doctrine is not what interviewer Charles Gibson said it was. There has been a blizzard of commentary since.

Charles Krauthammer weighed in to say that he'd defined the Bush Doctrine and liberals haven't understood it.

There has been very little work done on how the term was used in the run-up to the Iraq War. Professional international relations scholars have written a lot about it, noting that the really ominous new term in the 2002 National Security Strategy was "preventive war," which is a step up from "preemptive war." On page 15 of the Strategy, the terms are used as if synonymous, but they are not. "Preventive" war means, unprovoked aggression with the thought that the other side may attack. It is appreciably different from "preemption."

Trying to see whether Krauthammer is right, I downloaded all references to "Bush Doctrine" in the Washington Post in 2003: over thirty cases. The results were interesting. First, "prevention" is very seldom mentioned: this term, regarded by professionals as ominous (and treated as ominous by military men like Andrew Bacevich and William Odom) was evidently not commonly used in that year. A search of the 2004-2008 period yields 39 hits, showing that it's more widely used now.

In any case, what we find is that nearly every one of the passages in 2003 clearly understand the Bush Doctrine to refer to "preemptive war." Two authors (Fred Hiatt and Jim Hoagland, once) says the Doctrine concerns bringing "freedom." Some of the authors cited clearly had axes to grind, but others were reporters or commentators, not all on one side of the fence. Some of them (Krauthammer for instance) use the term approvingly. But one thing is clear:

In nearly every case in this widely read newspaper, "Bush Doctrine" was not ambiguous at all. It is used as if everyone understands it. Take a look at the list below. (My apologies for absence of quotation marks, etc. I did this on my own time.)

Dan Tompkins

____

The Bush Doctrine in the Washington Post, 2003


2003

January

Mr. Bush's preemption doctrine. Editorial

N. Korea Tests Bush's Policy of Preemption [HEADLINE}
… administration officials from President Bush down are subtly distancing themselves from elements of the new doctrine of strategic preemption Michael Dobbs

Bush's doctrine of preemption George Will

the Bush Doctrine on preemptive strikes. Mary McGrory

the entire Bush Doctrine, which sees the conjunction of rogue states, terrorists and weapons of mass destruction as the great existential challenge of our age, KRAUTHAMMER


February

Mr. Bush's new doctrine of preemption, Editorial.

March

The first item on that agenda is that the United States will move beyond decades of trying to deter and contain its enemies. Instead, it embraced a doctrine of preemptive military attack, meaning it will attack terrorist and rogue states before they can threaten the United States with weapons of mass destruction. Thomas Ricks

Iraq is the first test of the new Bush doctrine of preventive war. Joseph Nye

Bush Wanted His Doctrine And the Allies, Too

It is almost as if the administration has been running its foreign policy out of two different sides of its brain. On one side, it has been developing a whole new set of principles, centered on the doctrine of preventive war. On the other, the administration has clung to and operated with more traditional views about the continuing importance of our friends and allies, who do not accept the administration's new doctrines. [partial quote]

James Mann


The Bush doctrine of preemption becomes a replacement for international law Leon Fuerth

we pledge to redouble our efforts to put an end to the Bush Administration's doctrine of pre-emptive attack and the reckless use of military power Move On, quoted by Robert Kuttner

[foreign critics do have one legitimate complaint: The Bush doctrine is maddeningly vague. Far superior would be a consensus among major powers (including China and Russia) that countries suspected of aiding terrorists or building weapons of mass destruction would first be isolated economically and diplomatically -- before the use of military force. North Korea would be a good starting point. Robert Samuelson]


doctrine of preemption spelled out by President Bush in his 2002 State of the Union address Philip Taylor


April

The Bush Doctrine, which pledges the preemptive use of force as a tool of counter-proliferation Ray Takeyh

[an emerging Bush doctrine that would harness America's vast and precise military power to moral purpose in world affairs. Jim Hoagland]

the Bush administration's doctrine of preemption is dangerous in our overarching search for world peace. letter

May
the so-called Bush Doctrine: Go after the terrorists and the states that harbor them. Michael Grunwald


I am opposed to the Bush doctrine of "preemptive war" -- what heretofore has been known as aggression or invasion. I am also opposed to congressional resolutions that give the president a blank check to go to war when he pleases.
George McGovern

June

The Bush Doctrine At Risk
The doctrine of preemption -- the core of the president's foreign policy -- is in jeopardy. George F. Will

The essence of the Bush doctrine is "anticipatory self-defense," a fancy name for preventive war. Arthur Schlesinger

September

Annan … was critical, but not dismissive, of the Bush administration's doctrine of preemption. Jim Hoagland

The entire assumption underlying the Bush Doctrine of preemption is that Sept. 11 taught us that we live in a world where the enemy is too stealthy, his capacity for destruction too great and the margin for error too small to permit the traditional luxury of waiting for imminence KRAUTHAMMER

October

the doctrine that Bush calls preemption and others call preventive war. James Mann


November

Perhaps the clearest, strongest message you have ever sent from any podium has been what you like to call the Bush doctrine. That is to say: "If you feed a terrorist, if you clothe a terrorist, if you harbor a terrorist, you are a terrorist . . ." (query to GWB at news conf; he responds that we don’t ALWAYS go to war to enforce the doctrine)

Poem: The Bush Doctrine:

Out in the world is an axis of evil
Who'd give us all their worst.
Because of this it's now okay
For us to do it first.

(Michael Simon, Gaithersburg)

December

the Bush doctrine that America's self-defense may require a first strike. Henry Hyde

a clearly enunciated policy -- now known as the Bush Doctrine -- of targeting, by preemptive war if necessary, hostile regimes engaged in terror and/or refusing to come clean on WMDs. Charles KRAUTHAMMER

the Bush Doctrine -- a policy of taking preemptive, unprovoked action against emerging threats Dana Milbank

Bush's doctrine of preemption Michael Powell

the Bush doctrine of preemption. Jim Hoagland

Bush Doctrine as a temporary aberration George Soros

I don't know a single [Slovene] who supports the Bush doctrine of American global supremacy and preemptive war. – letter

[Hiatt: Bush Doctrine as democracy promotion]


Posted by: Dan Tompkins | September 15, 2008 8:33 PM | Report abuse

"Empty Suit" Obama ? Wonderful job, sticking to the "personality" tact the sinking ship that is the GOP took a week ago.

I've always liked the child/adult analogy to the conservative/liberal cultural argument. When reading through the criticisms of Obama, Gibson, and Dione through this page, there is no doubting fact vs. opinion. Children are much more eaisley influnced to emotional and rash decisions, often see things in an all or nothing fashion, and when faced with certain evidence of their mistake, stike out in an incoherent or non-sensicle jibberish.

If Obama does lose this election, I would say the same thing I said when Kerry lost.

Peoples' quality of life will detiorate to the point where they will have to chose a candidate/party/ideology that can improve it on the most important aspects of life. I live with the faint hope that we in America in 2008 are on the cusp of another Progressive movement, that both Republicans and Democrats can proudly take part in. The social issue division strategy in politics, while still having some punch, is facing diminishing returns the more and more it's used.

Please think America....


I'd go one step futher for Sarah and point out that Lipstick is often tested on pigs before it's sold to the masses... I know it may not be PC, but it is topic an adult would take on.....

Im sorry were you all watching 5th grader on TV ?

Posted by: eric | September 15, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

"GIBSON [to Palin]: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

Basically, it was a Yes/No question. She could have taken that route and strung "Charlie" with some generalities. How could a loyal Republican openly disagree with any doctrine named after the Republican President, no matter how it evolved over time ? If McCain campaign wanted to start distancing itself from Bush, one could have adding some nuanced differences or qualifications. But that's hard for a new comer, no matter how well-tutored to stick by the 'talking points' at all the time.

It was a gotcha question, perhaps unconsciously. Had he really wanted to get Palin's views on it, he should have put it differently. That, I am afraid, wouldn't have gotten us anything better than another round of generalities.

Krauthammer may have been person who coined the term ['Bush Doctrine'], but he doesn't own and can not control it or its growth over time. Most of his argument simply revolves around it. His initial reluctance over McCain's choice of Palin was more revealing than any support for Palin now.

Posted by: Cantabb | September 15, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

"1. Unlike how the unqualified, empty suit Obama was treated during the media interviews, the total lack of respect and condecension by Gibson towards Governor Palin, showed that the previously likeable image mask of Gibson is gone and the real typical bias media personality was exposed and made transparent."
...
Posted by: rljmsilver | September 15, 2008 8:14 PM

Rljmsilver: your sexism is showing. Did you see the “deference” that Gibson showed Obama during the dem primary debate? Most of the debate was spent throwing RNC talking point attacks at Obama. In contrast, Palin got the Barbara Wawa treatment, otherwise I’m sure Gibson wouldn’t have gotten the interview. The interview was maybe 40 minutes total, and it was split between five picturesque locations e.g., walking around the Wasilla HS gym looking at Palin’s trophy, a lakeside dock. What other serious candidate get treated this way? At some point she’s going to have to do real press conferences and real interviews. Or do you think it’s OK to hide her from the people and just read the same “thanks, but no thanks” convention speech (which is full of misrepresentations/lies, by the way... she loved that boondoggle bridge to nowhere until she had to pay for it)?

Posted by: cali | September 15, 2008 8:50 PM | Report abuse

EJ your attacks have been incessant and in a way I admire you for that, but it’s all too little too late. You remind me of that flea floating down the river jerking off hollering "raise the drawbridge!"

Look at the electoral polls...you're done...your kind is done…this election is over!

Posted by: mdexpat | September 15, 2008 8:51 PM | Report abuse

Please read this latest what the McPalin machine is doing to the"Trooper Gate" its like the plague has hit Alaska:
http://progressivealaska.blogspot.com/

Posted by: grdn_nell | September 15, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

More Lies From the McCain Side.
---------------------------------


Corsi's Dull Hatchet
September 15, 2008
Jerome Corsi's "The Obama Nation" is a mishmash of unsupported conjecture, half-truths, logical fallacies and outright falsehoods.
Summary
Despite its place near the top of The New York Times' nonfiction bestseller list, where it has been riding high for the past six weeks, Jerome Corsi's "The Obama Nation" is not a reliable source of facts about Obama.

Corsi cites opinion columns and unsourced, anonymous blogs as if they were evidence of factual claims. Where he does cite legitimate news sources, he frequently distorts the facts. In some cases, Corsi simply ignores readily accessible information when it conflicts with his arguments. Among the errors we found:

Corsi claims that Obama "could claim to be a citizen of Kenya as well as of the United States." But the Kenyan Constitution specifically prohibits dual citizenship.
Corsi falsely states that Obama, who has admitted to drug use as a teenager, "has yet to answer" questions about whether he stopped using drugs. In fact, Obama has answered that question twice, including once in the autobiography that Corsi reviews in his book.
Corsi relies on claims from one of Obama's "closest" childhood friends to "prove" that Obama once was a practicing Muslim, without revealing that the witness later said he couldn't be certain about his claims and confessed to knowing Obama for only a few months.
Corsi claims that despite Obama's "rhetorically uplifting" speeches, the candidate has never detailed any specific plans. In fact, Obama's Web site is full of detailed policy proposals.

----------------------------------------
Vote Obama for the Truth!!!!

Posted by: Richard | September 15, 2008 8:56 PM | Report abuse

Apparently, Palin knows no shame. She told Gibson that she would cooperate fully with the Troopergate case. Now, the McCain campaign says that she will not cooperate.

What gives?

McCain and Palin are moving targets, and all lies.

Posted by: EarlC | September 15, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

This question about the Bush Doctrine is interesting because there does not seem to be a tidy, well defined answer. Interviewers might refer to this kind of question as "open ended". I imagine one way for Palin to answer would be "I am not sure what exactly is the Bush Doctrine, but I support the foreign policy as practiced by the Bush administration. Which is to say, I support the imprisonment and torture of terrorist suspects and others classified as illegal combatants. I support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan because the U.S. must exercise all means of killing terrorists, where ever they might be hiding. I support the electronic surveillance envisioned by the Bush administration so as to catch terrorists making plans to act when using a cell phone." In other words, Palin could have simply said she supports the foreign policy of the Bush administration, because it is not popular but because it is necessary to protect american lives. I know that John McCain supports the Bush Docrtine of foreign policy because it is best of our country. We need more real patriots like John McCain who put country first. This is the ultimate sacrifice that a man (or woman like me) can make when they give their life to stop terrorists from coming into our country. We need to keep terrorists out of country, and there is only way to do that: round 'em up, and lock 'em up, and deny their rights to kill us. I mean it like killing salmon in the Copper River. There are so many fish in that river, and God wants us to eat them. So I say let's get a big net, go out on the sand bar, and catch us some dinner!"

Posted by: richard | September 15, 2008 9:02 PM | Report abuse

I'm more concerned about potentially electing someone who thinks that God wants drilling in ANWR than I am whether or not she knows what the Bush doctrine is. That makes about as much sense as Pat Robertson publicly praying that Hurricane Donna would avoid striking Virginia Beach. Palin is running for Vice President, not vice shaman or vice witch doctor. My idea of God is that which inspires and connects us to our better instincts, not someone who loads the dice in our favor.

Posted by: George Robertson | September 15, 2008 9:07 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Krauthammer's original intuition was correct-- she is wholly unqualified and no amount of after-the-fact spinning can change that. I loved the part about how she "never blinked" when asked if she felt qualified to be commander in chief and It was such an obviously pre-fed, rehearsed line-- everything in her body language screamed "I'm so not ready!" It almost made me laugh except for the terrifying fact that we might very soon be stuck with her as our president and then half of the electorate will wish they'd been honest with themselves when they had the chance. Post November 4th, she needs to head back to Alaska where she will belongs.

Posted by: lsigalov | September 15, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

How come the Republicans always seem to prefer intellectual lightweights to center stage. Bush Sr, like his son were intellectually shallow men who had a history of being poor students. John McCain graduated near the bottom of a class of 900 naval cadets, fifth from the bottom I believe. Ronald Reagan had a high school education, and of course there is Mr. "Potatoe Head" Dan Quayle. On the other hand we have Jimmy Carter, a nuclear scientist, Bill Clinton a Rhode Scholar, and Barack Obama top of his class at Harvard. Why do Americans prefer the dumb ones, I guess they are more like themselves.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

PS....Can't leave out Sarah Palin who took six years to graduate from the U. of Idaho.
Her education consists of believing that dinosaurs roamed the earth chasing cavemen...you know the Flintstones. Now there's a bright person for you......not.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Charlie Gibson is a pompous ass and to think
he was right is to be deaf and out of touch.
Krauthammer is so far higher in "class" and
awareness. He is not the only one who
indicates there was more than one policy
that could be an answer to the question, but
charlie clearly is the mouthpiece of the left in this case trying desparately to present a "gotcha" and appear superior but
in fact shows his inferiority..

Posted by: ron v. | September 15, 2008 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Well, this makes things interesting again: Palin has refused to meet with an investgator regarding "Troopergate". She may not be able to return to Alaska before this is all over.

This is so "Cheney" of her.

Posted by: Donny | September 15, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

So sick of this debate about Palin. She is completely, utterly unqualified for the position of Vice President. The president of the University of Arizona here in Tucson underwent lengthier interviews than she did before McCain foisted her on us.

Posted by: homer | September 15, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

folks: Dionne said he isn't bothered by Palin's answer on the Bush Doctrine question, in part because it isn't coherent enough to qualify as a 'gotcha' - so be it. the real problem with the interview for me was her response to the war with Russia issue - perhaps we would go to war over Georgia if we let it in NATO and Russia tries again because that's what the treaty requires? that's embarassing. Can you imagine reinstating the draft to raise a million or so person army to fight a ground war in Russia's back yard? Ask the Germans how that turned out.

Now Palin has completely flipped on Troopergate. After taking pride in promising to cooperate fully with the investigation, she has just announced this afternoon that she will now refuse to cooperate because she thinks its just political (never mind that the committee that is in charge of the investigation has a majority of Republicans). So now you can hide from an investigation just by claiming that it's the other party out to get you? sounds a lot like Bush to me. where's the open, transparent, reformer now?

and it just gets better. we now know that Palin is the biggest crony rewarder in history. the joke in Alaska (that McCain's vetters must not have heard in the 36 hours they vetted her after he gave up on naming Lieberman) is that if you want to find out who's in her administration, you need a copy of her high school yearbook, because she appoints her classmates to everything, qualified or not, up to and including her attorney general.

she's turned out to be a fraud on every angle she's being sold on

Posted by: JoeT | September 15, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

EJ is all aflutter.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

There is something very fishy about how Krauthammer's name got inserted into the Wikipedia entry for the Bush Doctrine two days before Krauthammer cited Wikipedia in his claim that he invented the term.

See this DailyKos diary, including the comments, for the suspicious history changes in Wikipedia.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/13/152937/962/371/597619

Posted by: deben | September 15, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

I disagree with both you and Charles Gibson. Sarah is highly intelligent, likeable, independent in her thinking, a successful and popular Governor and a model for all American women. What's wrong with that!! As far as the "Bush Doctrine" is concerned, yes she was flumixed. So was I, so was Bill O'Rilley, so was Rusty Humphrey's. Sarah probably never heard the term used before ( nor had I ) and it was the term that threw her not that she was unaware of what Bush's policies were. Wikipedia described it as a " journalistic term," implying that it was similar to shop jargon and for that reason it should not have been used. Naturally it threw her and it probably upset her for the rest of the interview. Charlie laid a well placed trap and she was startled, yet she managed to recover without loosing composure. I wonder if Obama would have known the term, and how he would have recovered under the same circumstances. But we will never know because the media has never dared question him the same way with the same intensity- for the simple reason that the media and the press is promoting his campaign and carrying his water. Yet he will not be just a heart beat from the presidency but he may well be The Man. Yet this bothers the media not at all, even though he has plenty of flaws and a very shady past that the media absolutely refuses to explore. We don't even know for sure whether or not he is a U.S. citizen since he either cannnot or refuses to produce a valid U.S. birth certificate.

Posted by: Edward Reinhart | September 15, 2008 9:26 PM | Report abuse

richard: fyi, over the last couple months McCain has demonstrated in spades that his party comes first, not country. He and his campaign keep telling blatant lies and refuse to correct them once caught. Just take a look at non-partisan factcheck.org if you doubt it. His most recent un-corrected lie is that Palin didn't request earmarks as gov. This is demonstrably false. The truth conflicts with the phony "reformer" story line, though, so he's sticking with it as long as he can. How long before he's forced to come clean?

Posted by: cali | September 15, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

You can vote for the PALIN/mccain ticket (yes, in that order since she draws bigger crowds and attracts more voters), but don't be surprised when the economy continues to take a crap on your 401k.

You want to vote for the PALIN/mccain ticket out of spite, well, go ahead.

If you hate liberals more than you love your middle class family, then by all means vote the PALIN/mccain ticket.

Posted by: Mike of Atlanta | September 15, 2008 9:33 PM | Report abuse

Why should anyone expect Sarah to know some dumb question like this, when George probably couldn't answer it either?

Posted by: daweeni | September 15, 2008 9:40 PM | Report abuse

For a masterful dissection of the pundits' brouhaha about the supposed ambiguity of the "Bush doctrine," see Glenn Greenwald in yesterday's Salon.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/14/bush_doctrine/index.html

Posted by: herzliebster | September 15, 2008 9:41 PM | Report abuse

Let's see if we can keep tabs on Sarah so far:
- She's under investigation for abuse of power and official corruption.
- She was twice warned by a judge not to "disparage" her brother in law.
- Her teenage daughter is pregnant.
- Her husband belonged to a secessionist movement.
- She was FOR the "bridge to nowhere" but campaigns that she was against it.
- She hired a lobbyist connected to criminal Jack Abramhoff
- She continues to claim that she sold the governors jet on ebay for a profit though both have been PROVEN FALSE.
- She continues to claim that she fired the governors chef, though it's been PROVEN FALSE and the she merely reassigned the woman and kept her on the payroll.
- She continues to claim that she was against "earmarks" though she hired a lobbyist to WIN EARMARKS.
- She first said that she "welcomed" the investigation into wrong-doing in "troopergate"; now she says that she will NOT cooperate.

WHAT IS SHE HIDING?!

╒╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╕
╞McCAIN/BUSH 2008—NO THIRD TERM ╡
╘╧╧╧╧╧╧╧╧╧╧╧╧╧╧╧╧╧╧╧╧╧╧╧╧╧╧╛

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 9:41 PM | Report abuse

When the whole presidential race changes substantially over the addition of a person no one outside of Alaska has ever heard of, it's probable that she's not the real source of that change. McCain could have picked anyone who espoused far right views and had the same result. Surely he could have found someone better than this dimwit, though.

Posted by: Shakin'myHead | September 15, 2008 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Dionne should have also pointed out that, although Krauthammer claims credit for first reference to Bush Doctrine, that he lost possession of the phrase by common understanding and use.

That is not entirely his fault, but by not objecting to the common use and understanding of the phrase over the years, the one that is valid is the one described here by Dionne.

Mute point though because those who buy into Krauthammer's defense of Palin on this point, would believe anything if it allows them to justify voting Republican.

Posted by: Jim M | September 15, 2008 9:44 PM | Report abuse

I can't wait for the Biden interview... oh wait, Obama's camp won't let him do an interview because Biden is an imbecile. Guess that's what happens when you run with a "clean black man"...
Maybe Joe can summon up some of his plagiarizing skills and rip off one of Palin's speeches. If Obama or Biden ever get vetted by the media you silly libs can find out about such things.

Posted by: Silly Libtards | September 15, 2008 9:46 PM | Report abuse

President Bush doesn't know what the "Bush Doctrine" is. He and his apologists redefine it to create new rationalizations for their foreign policy blunders.

Posted by: JM of Maryland | September 15, 2008 9:46 PM | Report abuse

Bwaahahahha !!!!
Mute point.... hhhahah !!!
Liberals making comments... priceless.

Posted by: Mute point | September 15, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

If it's the "Bush doctrine" it would inherently be incoherent. How could Bush author anything else. But by those standards, his female counterpart, gunslingin'Sarah, ought to understand it better than anyone else in the country. Save for Dandy Dick Cheney, that is.

Posted by: Pistols at Nine | September 15, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

Bwaahahahha !!!!

Republicans flapping their lips and making no sense as usual. Maybe some lipstick would help.

Posted by: Not so mute | September 15, 2008 9:49 PM | Report abuse

Charles Krauthammer would drink poison if it would further the Republican agenda. Why is it a stretch that he now defends Palin? It was only a matter of time.

Posted by: Adrasteia | September 15, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

Oooo, I can solve this whole Troopergate flap. If Charles Gibson would just "interpret" for the investigators, then Palin might agree to answer their questions about her criminal activity (alleged). Just an idea.

Posted by: Donny | September 15, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

True Patriot, are you serious? Integrity and Sarah Palin seem to be mutally exclusive. This woman is not qualified to be dog catcher. It never surprises how some people can be sold on almost anything. When the election is over, I have some nice swamp land, cheap price...Its far north...you can even see Russia.

Posted by: GetaClue Pleez | September 15, 2008 9:54 PM | Report abuse

The “Bush Doctrine” question was unprofessional. Mr. Gibson didn’t know enough about the "Bush Doctrine" to ask a question about it. Mr. Gibson had to answer Governor Palin's question about the specifics of the doctrine, with yet another question. Either Charlie Gibson was unprepared to talk about the "Bush Doctrine," or he was so intent on leading the interview or both, that when Ms. Palin asked for the clarification Charlie blew it. By tossing what everyone could tell was an erroneous question back into her lap, Mr. Gibson looked at least like a lazy journalist. Sarah Palin did an excellent job of articulating her take on the "Bush Doctrine." And, that’s what she was called on to do. Don't do your homework, it'll show: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by: Peggy McGilligan | September 15, 2008 9:55 PM | Report abuse

"An experienced, industrious, ambitious, and often quite picturesque liar." - Samuel Langhorne Clemens

I immediately thought of Sarah Palin.

Posted by: Knutton | September 15, 2008 9:55 PM | Report abuse


"For a masterful dissection of the pundits' brouhaha about the supposed ambiguity of the "Bush doctrine," see Glenn Greenwald in yesterday's Salon."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/14/bush_doctrine/index.html

Posted by: herzliebster | September 15, 2008 9:41 PM


yes, I second that, check it out. Gibson asked both dems and reps about it in the primary debates and none of the other candidates said "in what respect?" or "his world view?" and an army of gop pundits didn't weigh in after the debates talking about what a difficult to understand concept it was. Face it, she's not qualified. More important though, as Greenwald points out, McCain and his advisors are all for launching wars with flimsy justification, which is what the bush doctrine boils down to.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 10:02 PM | Report abuse

Bush doctrine? Not a big deal. Being able to see Russia from your state? HUGE!

Posted by: nonvoter | September 15, 2008 10:02 PM | Report abuse

"On the whole, I think Gibson’s definition of the doctrine was a fairly true, if brief, summary of this entry."

This shows how good you are at lying to yourself.


"The kid."

This shows Obama has a lot more class than his followers in the media.

Posted by: Buckdharma | September 15, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse


***BOMBSHELL***

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm


Posted by: Roger Anderson | September 15, 2008 10:21 PM | Report abuse


Krauthammer is the MAN!!!!

The liberals are hopping mad because they can't distort the truth this time!

Sarah Palin did an awesome interview -- speaking with intelligence, confidence and eloquence.

CONGRATS SARAH!

Meanwhile, Obama does interviews, and stutters & stammers in confusion -- sounding like the village idiot.

Imagine Obama trying to negotiate with Putin. He'd be laughed out of the room.

No wonder the Obama campaign is going down the tubes.

Posted by: Roger Anderson | September 15, 2008 10:27 PM | Report abuse


**Gibson interviews Obama**

Charles Gibson: Senator Obama, do you agree with the "Bush doctrine"?

Barack Obama: Urrrr, the what? Well, ya know, uhhh, in all 57 states, it is, uuhhhh, no, I disagree.

Charles Gibson: Wow, Senaor Obama, you are brilliant and eloquent!

Barack Obama: Yes, urrr, the, uh, it's certainly the, uh, of course I am.

Next day's Washington Post headline: OBAMA SHOWS BRILLIANT JUDGMENT ONCE AGAIN!

Posted by: Sarah Jacobs | September 15, 2008 10:29 PM | Report abuse

Here is a question to ask Mr. Obama at his next interview. Where were you coming from Mr. Obama, when you and Michelle sat in the pews and heard this from Rev Wright during a 9/11 observance, and 2 years before you was forced to leave the church and separate from your mentor Rev. Wright. And Obamaites, do not lie, he said himself that Rev. Wright was his mentor.
"And if I could just add one more thing…
A full day of silence
for the tens of thousands of Palestinians
who have died at the hands of
U.S.-backed Israeli forces
over decades of occupation."
Anybody in their right mind who selects that same pastor to be on their PRESIDENTIAL SPIRITUAL COMMITTEE AFTER that statement, is someone who should not be president of the United States of America.

Posted by: woodstock | September 15, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse

"Mr. Dionne,

Do you notice how much hate your columns generate in the comments?

You can say your columns are hate generators.

Obama wouldn't know what the Bush doctrine is either. He doesn't even know whether he is a Christian or Muslim, or how many states there are. What do you think of Obama making fun of McCain because he can't type duer to war injuries. That's funny, isn't it?

Why don't you try some evenness in columns - write about Obama's many gaffes."

Of course the above was quoted anonymously! It is stunning to grasp how some Americans think! On a day when one of the biggest good ol boy clubs go up in smoke you still have people who believe that McCain/Palin is going to be their savior! Funny! What Obama "gaffes" would you be referring? I mean really, you spouted off like you have a long, informed and most of all truthful list of these "gaffes", It is for your sake that I hope you get your good ol McCain/Palin ticket and have to chew your arm off to get out of the shackles that you will most certainly be left in. Lehman ran through all of its good ol slave money and you still can't see the handwriting on the wall! THIS IS SO OVER!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Posted by: lynde | September 15, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse

There are any number of "Bush Doctrines" mentioned by the press in the past seven years. Each of them is synonymous with failure.

Posted by: Onion | September 15, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse


McCAIN / PALIN--Dumb and Dumber!!

A danger not only to themselves, but to the WORLD!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 10:45 PM | Report abuse

Best article yet on McCain's Palin pick blunder:

Sarah Palin: the most underqualified vice-president ever?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4746999.ece?print=yes&randnum=1221348138515

Come on WAPO -- NYT has got you beat. This two week wonder, Crazy Sarah From Alaska, is going to have a maiden voyage comparable to the Titanic.

Posted by: Iceberg Ahead | September 15, 2008 10:50 PM | Report abuse

could palin be playing even dumber than she is to make coservatives happy?

i mean, she comes from a GOP culture that could be threatened if she knew more than them, i.e......anything.


another C student i the offal office.

can't we just keep bush? he hasn't passed yet.

Posted by: bloggod | September 15, 2008 10:50 PM | Report abuse

And yet no commentary on the questions Charlie Gibson gave Obama when he interviewed him. Let's do a comparison;

Obama interview:
How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to "win"?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?

Palin interview:
Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
Questions about foreign policy
-territorial integrity of Georgia
-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
-NATO treaty
-Iranian nuclear threat
-what to do if Israel attacks Iran
-Al Qaeda motivations
-the Bush Doctrine
-attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]

Oh Senator Obama, would you like a pillow?? I think it's pretty clear who got the preferential treatment.

Posted by: Ellen | September 15, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Jesus, 1rap! A governor is a "high" office? Perhaps we should genuflect before Sally, too? Have you forgotten what country you live in? I seem to remember something about all men being equal....

Gibson was respectful because he didn't laugh out loud.

Sally Snowplow puts her skirt on one leg at a time, just like me. If she had any respect for Americans she would never have accepted the nomination for VP.

____________________________

The Gibson Gaffe story wasn't about Palin. There was a story deserving of report regarding Gibson's treatment of Palin. He was condescending, disrespectful in addressing a Governor of a State like he was talking to his little sister and not immediately responding to Palin's request for definition shows his lack of conducting a professional interview.
When addressing someone in a high public office there is a courtesy that must be given when doing an interview. Gibson failed on the gravest terms and should be issuing a public apology to Gov. Palin.
This article is just more Obama supporters going after Palin. That is not journalism, it is lobbying. You could learn a thing or two Mr. Dionne from Mr. Krauthammer. You see two sides to two different stories because his reporting is fair and balanced. How about yours?

Posted by: 1rap | September 15, 2008 6:19 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 11:01 PM | Report abuse

We are missing the point here if we are arguing about whether Charles Gibson’s question to Ms. Palin about the Bush Doctrine was fair or unfair. (Besides, Gibson’s not running for Vice-President—Palin is.) The question created an opening about the size of Alaska for Ms. Palin to demonstrate her understanding of what US foreign policy has been about for the past eight years. IF she had even cursory knowledge of what has been going on in US foreign policy since 9/11, she would have confidently responded to the question by saying: 1)“If by the Doctrine you mean preventive war, then…” (Palin could have elaborated on her views and opinions; 2) “If by the Doctrine you mean our policy toward countries believed to be harboring terrorists, then…..”(again, she could have talked all night; 3) “If by the Doctrine you mean…”fill in ANY of Wikipidia’s definitions). That is IF she had an inkling of what has evolved over the past eight years that passes for a foreign policy. Any American who has been reading a decent newspaper during the Bush years could have expanded on that question, and could have talked all night---without a briefing, without 3x5 cards filled with ‘talking points.’—and even without being able to see Russia from their home state.

Posted by: Rod Ulane | September 15, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse

John McCain voted 19 times against Equal pay for Women....

ENOUGH

Posted by: FeDuP | September 15, 2008 11:11 PM | Report abuse

You lost your point when you used Wikipedia as a source, sir. Congratulations on proving your complete and total ignorance on this subject.

And I'm not supporting Palin. You know you're wrong when your own team says you're full of it.

Posted by: Jack | September 15, 2008 11:11 PM | Report abuse

When I saw Palin ducking and weaving on the question of the Bush Doctrine I saw her pull every beauty queen trick in the book to buy time and come up with some kind of answer.

She reminded me of that poor Miss Teen USA contestant who bumbled on unintelligably for a full minute about US Americans and the Iraq and maps when asked why most Americans couldn't find the US on a map.

Watching Sarah was more painful, though.

Posted by: Adrasteia | September 15, 2008 11:12 PM | Report abuse

is the GOP going to tell us how it will pay for their 15 trillion dollar deficit?


i mean if they didn't snort away all those pallets from columbia and sold it at fair market value, that could at least get GM out of hock.


can we bomb our way out of 15 trillion in debt?

or "go collecting" from the weak kids on the block.....the millionaires.

Posted by: bloggod | September 15, 2008 11:16 PM | Report abuse

Oh Senator Obama, would you like a pillow?? I think it's pretty clear who got the preferential treatment.

Posted by: Ellen | September 15, 2008 11:00 PM

Ellen, you must have taken your talking points right from the Fox News Hannity page! Right on schedule, just like a good foot soldier.

In fact, Obama had already proven himself and answered the tough questions before Gibson interviewed him. Sarah, on the other hand, is only known for pit bulls and lipstick and there was a lot of territory to uncover.

This is why your idols cannot be elected. Waaaa, Gibson was tough on me! Waaaa, Achmadinejad was tough on me! Waaaa, Congress was tough on me! Bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran.....

Posted by: Snake in Wyo | September 15, 2008 11:28 PM | Report abuse

all-i-saw/was-ill-a

great country tune in the making

flying recon in my palin-drone

"all i saw was ill, thru the windasilla"

these are the jokes we tell in our modern gaschamber. we know who owns "the gas."


EJ, keep up the good work.

Posted by: doggolb | September 15, 2008 11:28 PM | Report abuse

i think the imperative doctrine to adhere to like GOP elephantglue is the "no president left behind act" of 2008 i which the decider has to STAY in his bunker till he fixes what he messed up.


i mean, just because he is a slow learner doesn't mean we should just give the next pimple faced guvner his seat!


1. fill the 15 trillion dollar deficit with garnishments from the wealthiest 5% of americans. get their money from overseas where it is all hidden.

2. allow iraq to move here and occupy a major county in each of our so called states. they have plenty of their own gas to fill the left behind suvs.

3. clean up every river and speck of farmland. with a teeny silver toothbrush.

4. take naps to refresh, and let us know when you have awaken. then defuse bombs, incinerate chemical weapons, and read the more humane passages of your bible.

5. you are ready for kindergarden-presidency. now for more critical elements such as not lieing, not spying, not torturing, not covering up for pederasts.

no dunce hat necessary.

the ears and smirk will do fine for a dictator outfit.

Posted by: bloggod | September 15, 2008 11:42 PM | Report abuse

When will Bush offer her executive privilege?

This 'troopergate' thing is starting to reek badly.

Posted by: tic toc tic toc | September 15, 2008 11:46 PM | Report abuse

this column is spot on. anybody who follows national and international politics would describe the bush doctrine as including at least that, the right to invade any country harboring a terrorist, as noted by www.straightrecord.com. for krauthammer or anyone else to try to explain palin's failure to know what it is is ludicrous at best, hypocrisy at worst.

Posted by: jumpingelephant | September 15, 2008 11:49 PM | Report abuse

The Double Standard of American Politics

If a black Democratic presidential candidate was an affirmative action selection (akin to the legacy selection for McCain) at the Naval Academy and graduated 894 out of 899, Fox News and the conservative right would
push this story as the basis for his disqualification for the nation's
highest office. The rest of the media would then be forced to report on
it, giving the story wide exposure.

If a white Republican presidential candidate graduated magna cum laude
from Harvard, he would be celebrated as an intellectual giant ready to
lead the country in bold new directions. But since we are talking Obama
here, his education fits into the "uppity" and presumptuous narrative.

If you're a Harvard and Princeton-educated black woman married for years
before having your first child, Fox labels you a "Baby Mama."
If you are a white woman who eloped and had a baby eight months later, you
are Sarah Palin.

If you have studied international affairs for several decades, you're
inexperienced at foreign affairs.
If you live in a state that is geographically near a foreign country ("I can see Russia from my house!"), you
have foreign policy expertise.

If you both write and present your own words, you just give good speeches.
If you read someone else's words from the teleprompter, a superstar is born.

If you are Obama, your greatness must be measured by what you've done and
it's NEVER enough, NOT by any of the profound speeches you wrote yourself,
or the repeated grillings you've taken in the press.
If you are Palin, your greatness is measured by just one speech, written
by Bush II's speechwriter, and you will not take any questions from the
press.

If you attend two of the top ivy league schools in the country, you are
"surprisingly articulate". If it takes you several colleges and six years to graduate from a state university, and
you deliver a speech with the phonetic new-clear on the teleprompter,
you're a poised and eloquent speaker.

If your staff is so dumb they mix up Walter Reed Middle School for Walter
Reed Medical Center in your convention's big night, it's because you wanted
to focus on education & it would have been political to use the soldiers
in that format. If Obama had done that, he would be eviscerated for not knowing the
difference between the two, hating the troops/America & would be
dangerously unqualified to be CinC.

If you're a liberal mayor and you ask for government financing, you're a fan
of big tax and spend, corrupt government.
If you're a conservative mayor and wind up on John McCain's worst pork
list in 2001, you are disgusted that small towns like yours are dependent
on earmarks, even if your town had no earmarks before you became mayor.
A white woman talkin' tough is an advocate of women's rights, a black
woman is angry and bitter. A white man talkin' tough is a straight shooter
and a conservative, but a black man is angry.

If you're a GOP'er you naturally wouldn't see what the problem with any of
this was, even if you slept for 20 years on a dictionary opened to the
word hypocrisy.

If you're a Republican and you talk to America's enemies, its diplomacy.
If you're a Democrat and you talk to America 's enemies, its appeasement.

If you're a Republican, you swear Jesus is a registered member of your
party. If you're a Democrat, you appreciate that Jesus was a community organizer.

If you're a Republican and you wind up on the cover of People magazine,
it's because you're a regular American.
If you're a Democrat and you wind up on the cover of People magazine, it's
because you're a celebrity.

If you're a black Democratic man who can fill a stadium with 18,000 people
(or worse, a German atrium with 200,000), you're a vapid celebrity. If
you're a white Republican woman who can get a room full of fire breathing
evangelical right wingers to holler, you're a star.

If you are a Democrat, the days are counted down since the last time you
have been to Iraq.
If you are a Republican, you have all the foreign policy experience you
need because your state is close to Russia.

If you're a black woman, with advanced academic degrees, and you have
children while married, you're a baby mama.
If you're a white woman who barely graduated from college, and you get
knocked up and then get married after you're pregnant, you're a "Super
Mom".

If you are black and your daughter is pregnant, unmarried and has an
uninvolved baby daddy, you are a statistic, but if you're white and
your daughter's baby's daddy has an explicit MySpace page where, in
between four-letter words, he exclaims "he don't want no kids," you get to
run for Veep.

If you're a black presidential candidate that has wide appeal and the
ability to motivate over two million Americans to re-engage in the
political process you're an egomaniac with a messiah complex seeking the
spotlight.
However, if you're a right wing conservative – you're applauded for your
likeability and called a unifier for the Republican base.

If you're white, win a beauty contest, attended 5-6 colleges before
finally graduating, join the PTA, are voted to be mayor by 1000 people,
govern a sparsely populated state for a almost two years now, and randomly
get chosen at the last minute to be VP, you've lived the American dream,
she's every American.

But if you're black, raised by a single mother, lived on food stamps, help
the community, get into Harvard, become the first black editor of the
Harvard Law Review, build a great campaign organization from scratch, and
are voted to be the presidential nominee by millions of people, you are
just uppity.

If you are a democratic candidate and people around you complain about the
MSM vitriole toward you, you're a whiner.
If you are a republican candidate and you won’t answer the questions the
MSM attempts to ask about your qualifications for the second highest
office in the land, you're being victimized.

If you are a white republican mom with a special-needs baby, you are
suddenly the advocate of all special needs families in the US .
If you are an Alaskan democrat mom with a special-needs baby, you just saw
state funding cut for programs like special-ed. You're "on your own."

If you are a black democrat homeowner that was preyed upon by mortgage
companies and your house is in foreclosure, you made bad choices and don't
deserve a house.
If you an older white republican who can't keep track of how many houses
he has, then he deserves another one.

Posted by: Rawspoon | September 15, 2008 11:51 PM | Report abuse

The story of the day is this moron ready to govern this country and as a american living overseas and who lived in New York City not far from Ground Zero the Anwser is NO we as a family still suffered from 9/11 and continue to suffer today, but each day the hurt gets less, and do we want to come home to live in a place, that is at war with itsself and could revert to starting more wars with the likes of Russia or Iran I hardly think so,with the exceptions of where we as americans are fighting in the world today ,Generally the world is quite peaceful The wars are going within the USA Administrators of Government, for their own ideals and beliefs, it sad to see such a diverse person like Sarah Palin resort to lies and distorting the truth for gain,as a christian american watching from outside of the USA the forlorn is to awful to discribe, lies after lies and then there is that pause, to chant you sexists, you racists,and lord knows what else, only for all to catch a breathe and do it all again Americans need to vote to put the sanity and respect back into the USA of America. But Sarah palin is another kettle of fish, you know the old saying if you tell to many lies to coverup the first lie then the first lie becomes your signiture of your profile,my mother believe that and so do most people .SARAH PALIN STOP LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

Posted by: willing111 | September 15, 2008 11:58 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who follows the news using the print media (a couple of newspapers, some on-line news sources, etc.), has known for years what is meant by the "Bush doctrine." That Palin didn't know shows pretty clearly that she's just not that interested in foreign policy. Just like our current Occupant - incurious, self-centered and not all that bright.

Posted by: Rena | September 16, 2008 1:04 AM | Report abuse

I think the intrigue of Sarah Palin is her resembleance to a pioneer woman. She has a rifle, 5 kids and a bible. As we get further away from the Constitution, I think that many of us are ready to vacate the weakening branches we've grown and long to get back to our roots. She is refreshing. I don't expect her to be perfect. I do believe in my gut and I think she will be a great historic VP. By the way, my gut tells me that Obama looked to strong, outspoken black men like Ayers and Wright as father figures. Like Jessie Jackson, Obama can tell you what you want to hear but shys away from any decision that would hurt his popularity or electability. That's a sign of a good politician but a sign of weakness. I like Barack Obama's demeaner but I wouldn't want follow him into a dark room.

Posted by: EyeGuy | September 16, 2008 1:39 AM | Report abuse

libosuction: (what a disgusting monicker)

You admit that Fox is biased to the right. Then you expect to trade for that an admission that ALL MSM is biased to the left. What kind of a bargain is that?

I admit that on MSNBC's editorial staff, more commentators are biased left than right. (But don't forget Morning Joe and Pat Buchanan!) But MSNBC is pretty careful with the truth, whereas Fox isn't, unless you give double credit for Bill O'Reilly and Carl Rove's recent attacks of conscience.

Rest of the MSM:

NPR: dead center, except Koki Roberts, who pretends to be an unbiased analyst but is really in the tank for the Republicans.
CNN: wavers with popular opinion
CBS: leans right
NBC: leans left, but barely
ABC: jury's out

Overall, that looks pretty balanced to me. But Fox's all-propaganda, all the time format has no parallel on the left.

Sorry to disappoint you, sucky.

Posted by: Martimr1 | September 16, 2008 1:42 AM | Report abuse

I read a post from a moron above that read, "I can't wait for the Biden interview" as part of an implication that Biden has been given a free ride, or hasn't had to face 'got ya' questions in a one-on-one interview.

Pardon me while my head explodes. Biden gave 2 press conferences by himself within 2 days of being announced as the Democratic candidate for VP. He's been on his own separate campaign trail as VP candidate taking questions from voters and press alike. He participated in debate, after debate, after debate during his own bid for Presidency. That should be plural since he's gone through this process for two different presidential elections.

Oh yeah, HE IS ONE OF THE MOST WELL KNOWN POLITICAL FIGURES WHOSE WORDS HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN PUBLIC RECORD AS MUCH AS ANYONE ELSE IN THE LAST FEW DECADES. For those who don't know much about this new guy, Biden, for better or worse, he's one of, if not THE most outspoken, unfiltered politicians to appear on the political stage. Every heard of the Bork controversy? Have you seen any political interview show on TV—ever in your life? Maybe your a deaf, dumb, and blind kid who's spent the last several decades perfecting your pin ball skills instead of paying attention to politics.

Basically, love him or hate him, you couldn't get the man man to shut up if you threatened to shoot him in the face with a shotgun. Mr. Cheney, by chance if you read that last part it wasn't a challenge to you; we all know how much you love to shoot your fellow old white dudes in the face with a shotgun. If there is one and only one thing you know about Biden, it's probably that he says exactly whatever he thinks the moment he thinks it and he's been talking unscripted off the cuff explaining HIS OWN views in excruciating detail since before Palin was born. What other politician can you think of who isn't dead that has more foreign policy experience than Biden? What I can't wait for is the Palin/Biden debate.

I'm not responding to the post I mentioned because it merits a response but because it's one of many others trying to defend Bush/McCain/Palin that are demonstrative of this country's true crisis. I think slimy John Edwards had it right when he said there were 2 Americas, but had the wrong demographic description. There is roughly one half made up of normal people, and the other half made up of all out, bat-sh!t crazy, delusional, ride the short bus to school, genetic throw backs that make the Geico Cavemen seem like a legion of Einsteins, Archie Bunker for president, suckers who think the Republican Party still exists. I can't pin point the exact date, but it went the way of the dinosaur quite some time ago. It was replaced by wealthy criminals bent on the systematic dismantling and pillage of the constitution and the middle class. By the way, I was raised a Republican, so I'm not exactly a life-long liberal, just someone who remembers that there actually used to be a Republican party.

Posted by: WOW! | September 16, 2008 1:49 AM | Report abuse

Man these right-wingers sure have some misplaced sexual neuroses! Phew! They need to get out more!

Posted by: STILTON | September 16, 2008 1:58 AM | Report abuse

Bush would be surprised to learn that he has a doctrine. I would love to see Charlie ask President Bush this question. It may be easier to schedule! It sounded like Obama's talking point about linkage between McCain and Bush. Next time Charlie, just ask the question!

Posted by: GK | September 16, 2008 2:09 AM | Report abuse

It's fun and glib to say things like "Bush would be surprised to learn he has a doctrine," but in fact, as I write in a new post at Huffington Post - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-kettmann/time-to-hold-bushs-feet-t_b_126397.html no one has gained more from the banal and misleading discussion of Sarah Palin's "Bush Doctrine" moment than Bush. The issue is accountability. The issue is how the administration dressed up its arguments for war in Iraq. When Condi Rice dared go on TV and try to scare Americans about a possible nuclear strike by Iraq, knowing full well she was being at best deeply irresponsible with her talk of how the smoking gun could not be a "mushroom cloud," that was all part of an effort to scare the American people - and a parallel tactic was to float impressive-sounding talk about a new "Bush Doctrine." If the current state of our political discussion is so fractured and hindered that we cannot have a clear thought, rest assured of this: History will record just what the "Bush Doctrine" meant, not be confused by this absurd late-in-the-game attempt to dress it up as some mission of democracy building. If Bush was so intent on supporting democracy, why did the United States funnel billions of dollars to our military dictator "ally" in Pakistan even as he was aiding and abetting the return of Al Qaeda?

Posted by: Steve Kettmann | September 16, 2008 6:32 AM | Report abuse

Oh bollocks. You're all a bunch of self-serving twerps. You want to find something there at any cost. The woman did very well with what can only be described as a hostile environment. Gibson came to the interview looking for blood and he was not nice. If it was Obama they would have called in the Royal Wipers first, padded his cushion, and dropped rose petals at his feet. And not a one of you are interested in putting the same questions to Obama. Look what happened in Killadelphia. You people drink too much Kool-Aid™. Sarah Palin, no matter her personal views, has more integrity in her little toe than Obama has altogether. The one book written about her is factual; she has done a good job in Alaska; Obama writes propaganda and has done nothing and has deliberately hidden his legislative agenda. Grow up.

Posted by: Zelda Crunch | September 16, 2008 7:48 AM | Report abuse

Well now, all you kids need to do a little homework on that Bush Doctrine(s)...and what doe it really matter anyway?
Charlie Gibson’s “gaffe” was just that! Another asinine gaffee.
His pitbull attack was well... just that!
Stop whining and while you are at it do some research on who invented the Internet...and really...it wasn't Al Gorey.

Charles K. you ROCK! Charlies Best Angel

Posted by: CharliesBestAngel | September 16, 2008 8:08 AM | Report abuse

Palin's popularity is having the effect of causing Dionne and the rest to twist themselves around some odd line of reasoning to make her look bad.

By Dionne's own reasoning in his column, Gibson did not fully understand the Bush Doctrine ("As I understand it . . .").
That being the case, one could say Palin recognized that and was giving Gibson a chance to spell out his question. And Gibson's reaction is to arch his back and look down his nose at her.

Either Gibson was being a jerk or a poor interviewer, or both.

One can only note that no one has treated Obama with that kind of disrespect.

Palin came out looking good because Gibson looked so bad. That's a poor interview.

Posted by: Paul | September 16, 2008 9:08 AM | Report abuse

It is noteworthy that Palin thinks she has national foreign policy credentials because her state is the closest to Russia. This makes the average Alaskan a foreign policy expert, by Palin standards.

The fact that she even makes this comment shows her cluelessness of the subject matter. The fact that McCain picked such a running mate speaks volumes about his ability to create a qualified team to help run the country should he win the election.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

I thought Gibson was surprisingly condescending with Gov. Palin--especially since he seems to have managed the ABC Nightly News in a low key way. Yet, as you said, Sara Palin is running for VP. She should have some familiarity with ALL the possible Bush Doctrine meanings or at least have some notion about what Bush policy has been in foreign affairs for the last 8 years. The problem of Palin's shallow understanding is masked almost completely by what I perceive (and I am here suggesting that I am not alone) by "the press." With ideas presented by Charles K and other contortionists, what I see in the pressI am very hesitant to take at face value. However, when there is such a transparent fact, to me, of unreadiness as there appears to me to be with Gov. Palin, Charles K and Rush L and all the other water carriers kinda make it hard for those less fixated on the news to get the clear picture. Well, that is freedom for ya, you got the freedom to be confused and the freedom to make the effort to go figure for yourself.

Posted by: Ol' Joe | September 16, 2008 9:23 AM | Report abuse

With our current administration,anyone that doesn't agree with conservative ideology is disenfranchised. We don't need more of the same or even change to more drastict exclusion. What we need is a country where EVERYONE can prosper, not just Republicans and those that play among them.

Posted by: J Lauber | September 16, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Folks, take a look at
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/14/bush_doctrine/index.html

this shows up Chuckles' argument for the smokescreen that it is.

Posted by: Lee Hartmann | September 16, 2008 9:54 AM | Report abuse

I guess telling the truth is not part of the morality of the GOP.

Posted by: IGIVEUP | September 16, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Baloney. She asked him if he meant Bush's world view. That is precisely the most recent definition of the Bush Doctrine, in which Bush laid out a comprehensive vision of his world view.

Here is a column that appeared on CBS's website on Jan 20, 2005:

\\CBS) This Against the Grain commentary was written by CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer.With characteristic confidence and simplicity, President George W. Bush tossed out the formulas of the modern Inaugural Address. He gave a short speech about one thing, what can now clearly be called the Bush Doctrine. He defined it in one direct sentence:

"So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

Using the religious term, Bush said this is "the calling of our time." And this missionary, idealistic crusade is now the official policy of the United States of America. .,. //

So, Krauthammer was right and Dionne as usual is playing semantic musical chairs.

Posted by: theduke | September 16, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

If W really cared about true Democracy, he would sign bills that our elected representatives pass overwhelmingly, rather than veto them. He is just McCain's role model for hipocrisy.

Posted by: J Lauber | September 16, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

So, why is screwball WAPO OBAMA Shill EJ
Dionne Still Stuck On Stupid and so totally
Obessed With Gov Sarah Palin thst all that
EJ Dionne can find to do and write about is
personal attack and smear GOP Vice President and AK Gov Sarah Palin now then?

So can it be all this obession and fear by
EJ Dionne and all the other Obama Shills at
WAPO and the rest of the Obama Lover Liberal News Media are merely reflecting
the Fears of The Pathological Liar Grandiose Delusional Woman Hating Empty
Suit Cocaine Use Brain Damaged Covert Muslim Extremist Avowed Marxist Socialist
Democrat Liberal Loser Messiah Barack Hussein Obama and old fool big mouth Joe
Biden,Obama Spinmeister David Axelrod,
Nutty Madame Speaker Nancy Pelosi,Howard
Screaming Bobble Head Dean and the Liberal
Democrat Party Losers are afraid that they
cannot admit once again the Democrats have
already lost Election 2008 here now then?

So as a fed up Independent Voter I will be
glad to vote for Sen John McCain and Gov
Sarah Palin,instead of screwballs Obama and
Biden and all the rest of the goofy Liberal
Nancy Pelosi Democrats and end the Stupidity and Incompetence of Obama,Biden
and Pelosi and the Socialist Democrats!

NOBAMA, NOBIDEN,NOPELOSI,NODEMOCRATS EVER!

Posted by: Sandy 5274 | September 16, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

If someone had asked me the same question, the first thought in my mind is "preemption". I am no bush junkie or foreign policy junkie but I wasn’t hibernating in a cave in Alaska for the last eight years and know that by and large the bush doctrine means preemption. She could have at least said asked, do you mean preemption Charlie? Sarah Palin hasn't a clue about foreign policy until she recently took a crash course with the McCain staff. Her excellent speech at the convention, also written by McCain people for her, was most instructive when she refers to foreign policy issues relevant today. She read the teleprompter carefully to pronounce names such as Iraq carefully as if she never heard about them before meaning invariably she never cared to pay attention. She reminds me of bush in too many ways, imagine a scenario where McCain/Palin are elected and McCain does not last, she will be running this country. Scary thought.

Posted by: Tom | September 16, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Now I know the media has gone insane when they start arguing over Wikipedia. The question was vague and was meant to be a 'gotcha' moment. Gibson was not acting an interviewer. He's was acting a biased person who just got a chance at sticking it to the VP candidate. He had a condescending attitude the entire interview. And I've seen the transcripts of when he interviewed Obama and a lot of (laughter) and asking him how he's enjoying the campaign.

Now, she's boycotted the media once again for bad behavior and good for her. They can get their message out through campaigning and debates. But the media shouldn't be trusted to give Americans the real story any longer. They're not even pretending to be unbiased any longer.

Posted by: Jeeze | September 16, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

This should put this stupid "debate" to bed:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/14/bush_doctrine/

Posted by: xSamplex | September 16, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Dionne: As a long time Alaska resident I know that Governor Palin would have no problem or hesitation in dealing with national and international issues with efficiency, decisiveness and non-politically. She is still too courteous and hesitant in dealing with media types who try to make news rather than report news. She was much to nice to Gibson...this time! I suspect that Mr. Krauthammer will be too nice to you...this time!

Posted by: Meristos | September 16, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

EJ,

I would contend that the point of the Krauthammer article was to illustrate that there are multiple deffinitions to the term "Bush Doctrine", a fact that you yourself have illustrated. Asking for clarification on the question in this case would be reasonable. A better question would have been do you agree with America making premptive strikes against foreign nations. Just my opinion.

Posted by: Sean | September 16, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Libosuction: I watched some FOX news this morning and I saw the "reporters" congratulate Sen McCain on how well he is doing in the polls, then ask him "just how smart are you to have selcted Sarah Palin" for his running mate. Then they talked about how magnificently Palin is doing "under interrogation" and blasted the Charlie Gibson interview as a harsh interrogation. then instead of commenting frankly about Palin's answers to the questions, they attacked Gibson for being wrong on the facts and not knowing himself what the "Bush Doctrine" is. A little biased? Give me a break. First, SP has hardly endured even mild questioning, much less interrogation. Instead she has been practically cloistered to prevent her having to give anything other than a scripted and practiced remark, and the press has been told they have to show her "deference" before they will be "allowed" to interview her. As for the fawning FOX team this morning, I have never seen that kind of cheerleading on what you refer to as the liberally biased MSM. If anything Gibson failed in forcing Palin to actually answer any questions. She ducked and dodged and he let her non-answers stand. When he asked about the Bush doctrine, she first stalled for time, then fished for a hint, and when Gibson actually told her what he was asking about, she then gave a response that revealed she is clueless. So, even if one disagrees that Gibson's explanation of the "BD" was accurate (in fact, it's main inaccuracy was that it minimized the degree to which Bush believes in preemptive attacks), Palin's answer was superficial at best. And what was obvious is that, is asking "in what respect" she had no notion of her own about what Bush's foregn policy positions were or whether she agreed or disagreed. But here's the main point - why do FOX news reporters, and their folwoers like you, even care whether Charlie Gibson can state with precision what is the Bush Doctrine? He's not running for VP. Sarah Palin is! She should know. But she does not. How can these guys waste our time with diversions like attacking a news reporter when the question is the readiness of the candidate for Vice President. They seem determined to support her in spite of her lack of qualificaitons, not because she is qualified. This is indeed hard to understand. Why do they fight so hard to prevent the public from knowing what Sarah palin had really done, said, and what she really knows and thinks. If you ask her a question of any kind you are either sexist or an "interrogator." Bizarre!

Posted by: John | September 16, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

I only know one true thing in this election. If Tim Russert (rest in peace Tim) were alive, this race would have a totally different look to it. He would not let the BS of inexperience and evasion slip by un-challenged. The press has failed to expose the dog and pony show that is going on. Present the policy proposals of both candidates and let us decide who will best serve the people, for we the people are our country that should be first.

Posted by: J Lauber | September 16, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

In case you missed it, about three years ago Charles Krauthammer wrote an article in praise of George W. Bush's vision and the correctness of his belief that he could build democracies in the middle east. As his one example for proof he gushed about the tremendously successful democracy in...Afghanistan. At that time, anyone who actually knew anything about that country knew that President Karzai couldn't leave the city of Kabul without getting killed, and it has only gotten worse since then. Yeah, Charles K rocks!

Posted by: jack | September 16, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

to IGIVEUP: Amen. the so-called Christian right seem to delete "thou shalt not lie" from the list of commandments, and the list of their core "values" so long as the candidate will support their agenda. What's amazing abut the Palin phenomenom, is that if her lies are acknowledged, it's plain to see tha Palin isn't even what they believe (or want to belireve) she is. So they are being deceived themselves but perpetrate the fraud as well.

Posted by: John | September 16, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Does E.J. support the authoritarian socialist agenda of the American left?
I won’t define the term but your answer will be used against you.

It is a transparent stunt isn't it?

Posted by: dcn | September 16, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Of course, liberals think that the Bush Doctrine only refers to pre-emptive warfare. That's because they don't pay attention to anything but that which allows them to hate Bush.

Palin got the question right. Gibson only knew the outdated liberal version of the Bush Doctrine. She knew that it now refers to the all-encompassing vision that Bush presented in his 2nd inaugural speech.

Liberals think that everyone fixates on the same things they do. There is a good chance now that the election will remind them once again that most people aren't buying their twaddle.

Posted by: theduke | September 16, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Krauthammer got it right, as did Palin, and Gibson got it wrong. The fact that Dionne states, "that he (Gibson)did not pretend that his answer (definition of the Bush Doctrine)was the only one someone might give," proves that a rational clear thinking individual would ask for clarification. Further, I think this debate only proves the median is out of touch with main street America.

Posted by: sap | September 16, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

The Duke: Please expalain something/anything Sarah Palin said that supports your claim: "She knew that it now refers to the all-encompassing vision that Bush presented in his 2nd inaugural speech." Wow, you really must be able to "relate" to her in a special way because I didn't hear that part. Her answer only restated the long-standing international law doctine of anticipatory self defense - you can attack when faced with an imminent threat. Any version of the Bush doctrine you want to use goes way beyond that. No, she did not "get the question right." Your creative interpretation of her answer is indeed "lipstick on a pig." But I'm too fixated on facts and truth I guess, instead of partisan spin. The way the conservatives are trying so hard to make SP look qualified in spite of the plain fact that she isn't would be funny if it didn't have such important consequences for the country. They'd rather risk the country than admit McCain made a mistake.

Posted by: Bill | September 16, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

theduke: And an updated version of Bush doctrine would be what? W's version of democracy is quite different than that of the founding fathers. They made 3 branches of government so that one alone could not be all powerful. I don't think he has shaken my right to say that out of the constitution yet, but a McCain/Palin sucess could remedy that.

Posted by: J Lauber | September 16, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Even my high schoolers are not allowed to use Wikipedia as a source. Now we have you telling us that is where you find information that you deem reliable enough to base your research of a topic on national security ? Is this what "the media" does these days ? No wonder we are disenchanted and readership numbers for newspapers are falling. What has happened to journalism ?

Posted by: has | September 16, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

we all know she didn't understand what the bush doctrine is.That ooh damn look in her eyes told the whole story.I am not a politician but I think I know what kind of political leader I want to represent me.
someone who at least was paying attention to our country and her ultimate boss (Bush)
The women of this America should feel insulted by the republican sexist vp pick.
obviously they pick her to get the Hilary women votes .Her qualification is not 3% of Hilary or 200 other female republican politician around America.
I hope America don't fall for the republican games. again!!!

Posted by: darron.c | September 16, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Bill wrote: The Duke: Please expalain something/anything Sarah Palin said that supports your claim: "She knew that it now refers to the all-encompassing vision that Bush presented in his 2nd inaugural speech."

--------------------------------------------

See the transcript. When he first asked the question, she asked him to clarify. She'said something to the effect of "Do you mean his world view?" In other words, she was referring to the latest media annointed version of the Bush Doctrine, the one he enunciated in his second inaugural, which, if truth be told, is the only one of the three or four so-called "doctrines" that actually has all the characteristics of a "doctrine." The others are policies or strategies.

Gibson is stuck in the version that liberals obsess on. But the definition changed in 2005 and as usual, liberals are stuck in the past.

Posted by: theduke | September 16, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

The Duke, you are stuck in a fantasy. Sarah Palin said she has foregn policy credentials because Alaska is close to Russia. Spin that. Can you honestly find any way to claim that someone who says that should be VP and possibly President. Get real!

Posted by: john | September 16, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

I saw the interview and thought Gibson was trying to play gotcha.I wondered myself at the time which version of the Bush doctrine was being asked about.I took Palins hesitation as resulting more from Gibsons obvious smug intimidating manner than a lack of command of the subject matter.
Gibson certainly could conduct himself in a more fair manner.
The media can twitter to themselves all they want but the childish games and the silly biased posturing are obvious to anyone who watches the actual interviews .
Thanks for telling the viewers what we saw but I prefer to rely on what I saw than your spin.
JMB

Posted by: jhn brisbois | September 16, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

True Patriot, you are either extremely uninformed or "willfully ignorant." Palin a woman of integrity? How can you say that wehen whe admitted to Charlie Gibson that she supported "the Bridge" and then went back on the campaign trail and repeated her lie that she "said thanks but no thanks" to Congress. Almost everything she said is her acceptance speech is well documented to be unture. Also, your comments about the Alaska National Guard made me laugh. Why? I am an Air Force member and have been stationed in Alaska and I know what the Guard does there. Primarily the are a search, rescue and recovery force for lost mountain climbers, avalanche victims, and crashed pilots. National Security and actual military activities are not a big part of the program. The idea that Palin's role as "commander" of the state Guard give her some qualification to be CINC is absurd.

Posted by: Tom | September 16, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

If Sarah Palin was well informed about foreign policy as Charles Krauthammer, et. al, would like her to be, she would have replied to Gibson that there were several interpretations of the Bush Doctrine, ranging from fighting a vigorous war on terrorism to the right of pre-emption. If Krauthammer, et. al., vigorously proclaim that the actual content of the Bush docrine is unclear, then the thoughtful Sarah Palin should have known it and answered in that manner. Their excuse for her ignorance actually reveals her ignorance.

Posted by: Sandy K | September 16, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

John: much of what she said about Russia was edited out. She said much more than that. Here's the pre-edited transcript:

GIBSON: Let’s start, because we are near Russia, let’s start with Russia and Georgia.

The administration has said we’ve got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

PALIN: First off, we’re going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain’s running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we’ve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep…

GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.

PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals. That’s why we have to keep an eye on Russia.

And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

Sarah Palin on Russia:

We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We’ve learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.

We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?

PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.

GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.

PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.

Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but…

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.

But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to — especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.

We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.

GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.

PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.

And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.

It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.

His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that’s a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.

Posted by: theduke | September 16, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

I saw that interview. Her answer was very intelligent. Always ask for a definition of a vague term before you start to give your opinion. I knew that Gibson was aiming for a "gotcha" moment when he refused to clarify the term for Sarah. I lost respect for him then.

The term "Bush Doctrine" is made up by journalists and academics. I doubt you'd find the White House ever having put out a release which declared a "Bush Doctrine." Krauthammer clearly knows a lot more about this subject than either Dionne or Gibson did.

Posted by: Mr. Ramsey | September 16, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

I saw that interview. Her answer was very intelligent. Always ask for a definition of a vague term before you start to give your opinion. I knew that Gibson was aiming for a "gotcha" moment when he refused to clarify the term for Sarah. I lost respect for him then.

The term "Bush Doctrine" is made up by journalists and academics. I doubt you'd find the White House ever having put out a release which declared a "Bush Doctrine." Krauthammer clearly knows a lot more about this subject than either Dionne or Gibson did.

Posted by: Mr. Ramsey | September 16, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse


First of all not to downplay the important of being a governor but how much executive experience could she have gotten in Alaska especially for only one year.The only reason Alaska has a government is to baby sit the oil rich state, and obviously they have not done a good job at that in the past,from all the scandals the hockey mom had to clear out.
well at least she got to keep some of the money from the bridge to nowhere scam.
clever!!!!

Posted by: darron.c | September 16, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Why does some loose translation by Charles Gibson 'as he understands it' qualify as the Bush Doctrine? Lately, reporters (not real journalists) invent stories to trap the politicians they don't support. I hadn't thought Charlie was one of them, but I guess working for NBC has finally made his brain completely dead air.

Posted by: Sue Aimes | September 16, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

"Do you notice how much hate your columns generate in the comments?

You can say your columns are hate generators.

Obama wouldn't know what the Bush doctrine is either. He doesn't even know whether he is a Christian or Muslim ..."

Shorter anonymous: Stop me before I hate again.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Whether or not there is one, four, seven or eleven aspects of the "Bush Doctrine" is meaningless. It's arguing about how many angels can stand on the head of a pin.

When Gibson (finally) expounded on this real question, "Do you believe in pre-preemptive war" Ms Palin stated the pre-Bush (no "doctrine" attached) idea, used before and since the trials at Nuremburg, that one county cannot invade another unless attack is at least imminent. That's OK with me, that's what I believe, too. That's what used to be called "a just war."

However, she did NOT know that that is not the position of John McCain. And I don't think she really understood that Bush had moved beyond that, since "preemptive" is an ambiguous work and could be applied when a country does face imminent attack, too.

I suggest serious columnists quit discussing whether there is a Bush Doctrine that has morphed over the years and has one or many hydra-headed meanings. What SHOULD be discussed is whether the US should go around invading countries willy-nilly.

Palin apparently (but only apparently) thinks not. McCain has no problem with doing so.

Posted by: RealCalGal | September 16, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse


Obama worked on the senate foreign affair committee ,how in the world would he not know what is the bush doctrine.Hate is to suggest otherwise.and hate is saying he is Muslim if his bio says otherwise.one question ,why is McCann's policy's slowly starting to look exactly like obama's.
I guess you need to adapt to what works right?!!!

Posted by: darron.c | September 16, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

HAHAHAHA!! the republican vp candidate is more popular than your democratic presidential candidate.. that's hilarious!! i love to see you liberals squirm... gooooo McCain ; )

Posted by: jeff | September 16, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Dear Jeff:

It frightens me as an AMERICAN, not as a democrat or republian, leftie or rightie, that you can find humour in the fact that your VP pick is lying to attract voters and that your presidential candidate is commending her for doing so. Will it be funny when the healthcare crisis is not solved? Or is it in fact solved because Sarah Palin can actually "see" people in the emergency room, therefore she is confident that there is no healthcare crisis?

Regards,
The Democratic Warrior

Posted by: The Democratic Warrior | September 16, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Jeff
the point is not popularity,because if it was popularity Hilary would have won ,she is married to the must popular president in our time.we are basically trying to uncover this scam the republicans are trying to do on the American people.
they think they could just find a women that looks good ,a good vocabulary and this would be suffice to the get the women (Hilary) voters.american women are not stupid and America is not stupid.LOL

Posted by: darron.c | September 16, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

why isn't anyone pointing out that the 2002 document where moveon.org extract their favored interpretation of the "Bush Doctrine" bears little resemblance to what they claim is "Bush Doctrine".

In other words, Gibson said "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 that we think is going to attack us."

If Charlie Gibson actually read the 2002 document from which that "doctrine" was wrangled he'd find that the document from beginning to the end identified that the only possible recipients of pre-emptive attacks were "rogue" "terrorist" nations who targeted non-combatants and civilians.

If anything we should be calling Gibson's interpretation of Bush Doctrine "Gibson's Doctrine", as the only thing it has in common is "pre-emptive strike" powers, but Gibson's version targets ANY nation, whereas Bush's verion targets only rogue terrorist nations.

This gaffe, I suggest, is the biggest and most glaring one ... and it is one that seeming has been entirely ignored.

Posted by: davea0511 | September 16, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

The above point I just made is why Palin's response to Charlie's question more accurately represents the particular doctrine to which he refers. The 2002 document was entirely about keeping us protected from Islamic terrorists, and had NOTHING to do with making ANY nation the target of a pre-emptive strike by us.

Posted by: davea0511 | September 16, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Darron.C-

Although I understand your point completley, and in a perfect world, your answer of "they think they could just find a women that looks good ,a good vocabulary and this would be suffice to the get the women (Hilary) voters.american women are not stupid and America is not stupid.LOL" applies to most of the women in this country who have like, a SMIDGEN of a brain, there are those out there who obviously LACK that smidgen of a brain and don't know any better. (hence the post RNC bump). I don't know how much more exposing needs to be done on her blatant lies and obvious disregard for the intellect of the American people. SHE IS A PHONY. And John McCain is even worse for pushing this phony on the American people. I'm deeply troubled at the ignorance of this country and if the last 8 years doesn't speak volumes to them and show a working prediction of what the next 4 under the McCain?I-can-see-Russia-from-Alaska-Palin administration would be than I don't know what will. Where did the post 9/11 patriotism go??? Remember that day that George Wonderboy Bush stood on the pile of rubble with the megaphone in his hand and amid the cheers for him he replied "I hear you...and soon the people that knocked these buildings down will hear you too!" I was so proud to be an American. And I'm a Democrat! And furthermore, I've never even really liked GWB! But that day I did....but he let me down, along with the rest of the country, even world. And guess what else? THOSE BASTARDS STILL DON'T HEAR US. THEY NEVER HAVE EVEN SEVEN YEARS LATER. So my question to the American people is this: when we FINALLY get our day to have those F*&CKERS hear us, who do you want to represent you? Grandpa oldie McCain and Ignorant Palin? OR DADDY BAMMY AND UNCLE JOE!?!?!??!?!? NO WAY NO HOW NO MCCAIN NO PALIN...NO MA'AM.

Posted by: The Democratic Warrior | September 16, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Darron.c

"she is married to the must popular president in our time."

HUH???? No way dude. Ronald Reagan is the most popular president in our time.

Posted by: Jeff | September 16, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Let's keep to the source documents.

US National Security Strategy
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/

Terrorism Strategy
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/gwot.pdf

You'll all be shocked at what the so called "Bush Doctrine" really is. You will not find scribbled writting and drool, but thoughtful planning and potential solutions. If only State and Treasury were as capable as Defense we might see better progress. But name calling and epitaphs are not discourse. The bitter scribbling above shows that neither side has a handle on the issues, but the most vitriole is certainly coming from McCain-Palin haters.

Posted by: the_node | September 16, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Darron.c

"the point is not popularity,because if it was popularity Hilary would have won"

So you are saying that Hillary is more popular than your candidate too? Two beautiful, powerful women are more popular than your Mr. Obama? That's even funnier.

Posted by: Jeff | September 16, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

yeah Jeff
you are right Ronold(hollywood)Raagan
was the must popular Reagan and as a democrat I am a fan of him but bill Clinton had 8 of the must prosperous years
of this country where the country grew,the american people grew and big business grew all at once.and to top it off America still had influence and respect in the world communities.

Posted by: darron.c | September 16, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

popularity is why we have a son of a nother dumbing for president and also Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor of one of our biggest states.And is also the reason mayor guiliani thought he could president.LOL

Posted by: darron.c | September 16, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Gibson also gave a date as a frame of reference. And her answer, for that matter, would not have really satisfied any Bush Doctrine version to do it justice.

Posted by: rcc_2000 | September 16, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Sounds like you men are afraid of a lady. Last time I checked the ticket reads "McCain-Palin" not "Palin-McCain" LOL

Posted by: Candice | September 16, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

It's obvious that Palin isn't qualified to be President. The same is true for Obama, but for reason we don't hear much about that from WP.

Posted by: Common Sense | September 16, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Yonkers,New York
16 September 2008

Pesonally, I admire Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer for parting ways with his conservative colleagues and saying, in plain language, that Sarah Palin, John McCain'schoice for his running mate, is, in effect, not qualified to be a Vice President.

The reason should be obvious: She is not ready and able--just in case--to take over in case John McCain, now 72, and suffering from a dangerous form of cancer, leaves the scene unexpectedly and suddenly.

It should by now be quite clear to the American people that Sarah Palin thus must be McCain's dumbest decision in all of his 26 years of public life.

Which is why Washington Post columnist George F. Will quickly pointed out to John McCain that the seat of wisdom is not the gut--which McCain claims was the basis for his choice of Palin--but the brain.

It is a mistake to assume that the American people can be hoodwinked into believing that Palin, a completely unknown and nondescript politician, will ever be ready--just in case.

Her stint as mayor of Wasilla, a small town of 7,000 residents, plus her 2-year tenure as governor of Alaska, are in reality inadequate preparation for the awesome and terribly complicated duties and responsibilities of President of these United States and also as "Leader" of the Free World.

Palin herself shoul have had the good sense to refuse McCain's offer outright for her to serve as his running mate.

But even this she apparently does not possess because she jumped on McCain's offer like a little girl jumping on somebody offering her ice cream!

The reality is that it takes more than sharp teeth, strong jaws and a vicious temper to be President.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Posted by: Mariano Patalinjug | September 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Yonkers,New York
16 September 2008

Pesonally, I admire Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer for parting ways with his conservative colleagues and saying, in plain language, that Sarah Palin, John McCain'schoice for his running mate, is, in effect, not qualified to be a Vice President.

The reason should be obvious: She is not ready and able--just in case--to take over in case John McCain, now 72, and suffering from a dangerous form of cancer, leaves the scene unexpectedly and suddenly.

It should by now be quite clear to the American people that Sarah Palin thus must be McCain's dumbest decision in all of his 26 years of public life.

Which is why Washington Post columnist George F. Will quickly pointed out to John McCain that the seat of wisdom is not the gut--which McCain claims was the basis for his choice of Palin--but the brain.

It is a mistake to assume that the American people can be hoodwinked into believing that Palin, a completely unknown and nondescript politician, will ever be ready--just in case.

Her stint as mayor of Wasilla, a small town of 7,000 residents, plus her 2-year tenure as governor of Alaska, are in reality inadequate preparation for the awesome and terribly complicated duties and responsibilities of President of these United States and also as "Leader" of the Free World.

Palin herself shoul have had the good sense to refuse McCain's offer outright for her to serve as his running mate.

But even this she apparently does not possess because she jumped on McCain's offer like a little girl jumping on somebody offering her ice cream!

The reality is that it takes more than sharp teeth, strong jaws and a vicious temper to be President.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Posted by: Mariano Patalinjug | September 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Yonkers,New York
16 September 2008

Pesonally, I admire Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer for parting ways with his conservative colleagues and saying, in plain language, that Sarah Palin, John McCain'schoice for his running mate, is, in effect, not qualified to be a Vice President.

The reason should be obvious: She is not ready and able--just in case--to take over in case John McCain, now 72, and suffering from a dangerous form of cancer, leaves the scene unexpectedly and suddenly.

It should by now be quite clear to the American people that Sarah Palin thus must be McCain's dumbest decision in all of his 26 years of public life.

Which is why Washington Post columnist George F. Will quickly pointed out to John McCain that the seat of wisdom is not the gut--which McCain claims was the basis for his choice of Palin--but the brain.

It is a mistake to assume that the American people can be hoodwinked into believing that Palin, a completely unknown and nondescript politician, will ever be ready--just in case.

Her stint as mayor of Wasilla, a small town of 7,000 residents, plus her 2-year tenure as governor of Alaska, are in reality inadequate preparation for the awesome and terribly complicated duties and responsibilities of President of these United States and also as "Leader" of the Free World.

Palin herself shoul have had the good sense to refuse McCain's offer outright for her to serve as his running mate.

But even this she apparently does not possess because she jumped on McCain's offer like a little girl jumping on somebody offering her ice cream!

The reality is that it takes more than sharp teeth, strong jaws and a vicious temper to be President.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Posted by: Mariano Patalinjug | September 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Yonkers,New York
16 September 2008

Pesonally, I admire Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer for parting ways with his conservative colleagues and saying, in plain language, that Sarah Palin, John McCain'schoice for his running mate, is, in effect, not qualified to be a Vice President.

The reason should be obvious: She is not ready and able--just in case--to take over in case John McCain, now 72, and suffering from a dangerous form of cancer, leaves the scene unexpectedly and suddenly.

It should by now be quite clear to the American people that Sarah Palin thus must be McCain's dumbest decision in all of his 26 years of public life.

Which is why Washington Post columnist George F. Will quickly pointed out to John McCain that the seat of wisdom is not the gut--which McCain claims was the basis for his choice of Palin--but the brain.

It is a mistake to assume that the American people can be hoodwinked into believing that Palin, a completely unknown and nondescript politician, will ever be ready--just in case.

Her stint as mayor of Wasilla, a small town of 7,000 residents, plus her 2-year tenure as governor of Alaska, are in reality inadequate preparation for the awesome and terribly complicated duties and responsibilities of President of these United States and also as "Leader" of the Free World.

Palin herself shoul have had the good sense to refuse McCain's offer outright for her to serve as his running mate.

But even this she apparently does not possess because she jumped on McCain's offer like a little girl jumping on somebody offering her ice cream!

The reality is that it takes more than sharp teeth, strong jaws and a vicious temper to be President.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Posted by: Mariano Patalinjug | September 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Yonkers,New York
16 September 2008

Pesonally, I admire Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer for parting ways with his conservative colleagues and saying, in plain language, that Sarah Palin, John McCain'schoice for his running mate, is, in effect, not qualified to be a Vice President.

The reason should be obvious: She is not ready and able--just in case--to take over in case John McCain, now 72, and suffering from a dangerous form of cancer, leaves the scene unexpectedly and suddenly.

It should by now be quite clear to the American people that Sarah Palin thus must be McCain's dumbest decision in all of his 26 years of public life.

Which is why Washington Post columnist George F. Will quickly pointed out to John McCain that the seat of wisdom is not the gut--which McCain claims was the basis for his choice of Palin--but the brain.

It is a mistake to assume that the American people can be hoodwinked into believing that Palin, a completely unknown and nondescript politician, will ever be ready--just in case.

Her stint as mayor of Wasilla, a small town of 7,000 residents, plus her 2-year tenure as governor of Alaska, are in reality inadequate preparation for the awesome and terribly complicated duties and responsibilities of President of these United States and also as "Leader" of the Free World.

Palin herself shoul have had the good sense to refuse McCain's offer outright for her to serve as his running mate.

But even this she apparently does not possess because she jumped on McCain's offer like a little girl jumping on somebody offering her ice cream!

The reality is that it takes more than sharp teeth, strong jaws and a vicious temper to be President.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Posted by: Mariano Patalinjug | September 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Yonkers,New York
16 September 2008

Pesonally, I admire Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer for parting ways with his conservative colleagues and saying, in plain language, that Sarah Palin, John McCain'schoice for his running mate, is, in effect, not qualified to be a Vice President.

The reason should be obvious: She is not ready and able--just in case--to take over in case John McCain, now 72, and suffering from a dangerous form of cancer, leaves the scene unexpectedly and suddenly.

It should by now be quite clear to the American people that Sarah Palin thus must be McCain's dumbest decision in all of his 26 years of public life.

Which is why Washington Post columnist George F. Will quickly pointed out to John McCain that the seat of wisdom is not the gut--which McCain claims was the basis for his choice of Palin--but the brain.

It is a mistake to assume that the American people can be hoodwinked into believing that Palin, a completely unknown and nondescript politician, will ever be ready--just in case.

Her stint as mayor of Wasilla, a small town of 7,000 residents, plus her 2-year tenure as governor of Alaska, are in reality inadequate preparation for the awesome and terribly complicated duties and responsibilities of President of these United States and also as "Leader" of the Free World.

Palin herself shoul have had the good sense to refuse McCain's offer outright for her to serve as his running mate.

But even this she apparently does not possess because she jumped on McCain's offer like a little girl jumping on somebody offering her ice cream!

The reality is that it takes more than sharp teeth, strong jaws and a vicious temper to be President.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Posted by: Mariano Patalinjug | September 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Yonkers,New York
16 September 2008

Pesonally, I admire Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer for parting ways with his conservative colleagues and saying, in plain language, that Sarah Palin, John McCain'schoice for his running mate, is, in effect, not qualified to be a Vice President.

The reason should be obvious: She is not ready and able--just in case--to take over in case John McCain, now 72, and suffering from a dangerous form of cancer, leaves the scene unexpectedly and suddenly.

It should by now be quite clear to the American people that Sarah Palin thus must be McCain's dumbest decision in all of his 26 years of public life.

Which is why Washington Post columnist George F. Will quickly pointed out to John McCain that the seat of wisdom is not the gut--which McCain claims was the basis for his choice of Palin--but the brain.

It is a mistake to assume that the American people can be hoodwinked into believing that Palin, a completely unknown and nondescript politician, will ever be ready--just in case.

Her stint as mayor of Wasilla, a small town of 7,000 residents, plus her 2-year tenure as governor of Alaska, are in reality inadequate preparation for the awesome and terribly complicated duties and responsibilities of President of these United States and also as "Leader" of the Free World.

Palin herself shoul have had the good sense to refuse McCain's offer outright for her to serve as his running mate.

But even this she apparently does not possess because she jumped on McCain's offer like a little girl jumping on somebody offering her ice cream!

The reality is that it takes more than sharp teeth, strong jaws and a vicious temper to be President.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Posted by: Mariano Patalinjug | September 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Yonkers,New York
16 September 2008

Pesonally, I admire Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer for parting ways with his conservative colleagues and saying, in plain language, that Sarah Palin, John McCain'schoice for his running mate, is, in effect, not qualified to be a Vice President.

The reason should be obvious: She is not ready and able--just in case--to take over in case John McCain, now 72, and suffering from a dangerous form of cancer, leaves the scene unexpectedly and suddenly.

It should by now be quite clear to the American people that Sarah Palin thus must be McCain's dumbest decision in all of his 26 years of public life.

Which is why Washington Post columnist George F. Will quickly pointed out to John McCain that the seat of wisdom is not the gut--which McCain claims was the basis for his choice of Palin--but the brain.

It is a mistake to assume that the American people can be hoodwinked into believing that Palin, a completely unknown and nondescript politician, will ever be ready--just in case.

Her stint as mayor of Wasilla, a small town of 7,000 residents, plus her 2-year tenure as governor of Alaska, are in reality inadequate preparation for the awesome and terribly complicated duties and responsibilities of President of these United States and also as "Leader" of the Free World.

Palin herself shoul have had the good sense to refuse McCain's offer outright for her to serve as his running mate.

But even this she apparently does not possess because she jumped on McCain's offer like a little girl jumping on somebody offering her ice cream!

The reality is that it takes more than sharp teeth, strong jaws and a vicious temper to be President.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Posted by: Mariano Patalinjug | September 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Yonkers,New York
16 September 2008

Pesonally, I admire Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer for parting ways with his conservative colleagues and saying, in plain language, that Sarah Palin, John McCain'schoice for his running mate, is, in effect, not qualified to be a Vice President.

The reason should be obvious: She is not ready and able--just in case--to take over in case John McCain, now 72, and suffering from a dangerous form of cancer, leaves the scene unexpectedly and suddenly.

It should by now be quite clear to the American people that Sarah Palin thus must be McCain's dumbest decision in all of his 26 years of public life.

Which is why Washington Post columnist George F. Will quickly pointed out to John McCain that the seat of wisdom is not the gut--which McCain claims was the basis for his choice of Palin--but the brain.

It is a mistake to assume that the American people can be hoodwinked into believing that Palin, a completely unknown and nondescript politician, will ever be ready--just in case.

Her stint as mayor of Wasilla, a small town of 7,000 residents, plus her 2-year tenure as governor of Alaska, are in reality inadequate preparation for the awesome and terribly complicated duties and responsibilities of President of these United States and also as "Leader" of the Free World.

Palin herself shoul have had the good sense to refuse McCain's offer outright for her to serve as his running mate.

But even this she apparently does not possess because she jumped on McCain's offer like a little girl jumping on somebody offering her ice cream!

The reality is that it takes more than sharp teeth, strong jaws and a vicious temper to be President.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Posted by: Mariano Patalinjug | September 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Yonkers,New York
16 September 2008

Pesonally, I admire Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer for parting ways with his conservative colleagues and saying, in plain language, that Sarah Palin, John McCain'schoice for his running mate, is, in effect, not qualified to be a Vice President.

The reason should be obvious: She is not ready and able--just in case--to take over in case John McCain, now 72, and suffering from a dangerous form of cancer, leaves the scene unexpectedly and suddenly.

It should by now be quite clear to the American people that Sarah Palin thus must be McCain's dumbest decision in all of his 26 years of public life.

Which is why Washington Post columnist George F. Will quickly pointed out to John McCain that the seat of wisdom is not the gut--which McCain claims was the basis for his choice of Palin--but the brain.

It is a mistake to assume that the American people can be hoodwinked into believing that Palin, a completely unknown and nondescript politician, will ever be ready--just in case.

Her stint as mayor of Wasilla, a small town of 7,000 residents, plus her 2-year tenure as governor of Alaska, are in reality inadequate preparation for the awesome and terribly complicated duties and responsibilities of President of these United States and also as "Leader" of the Free World.

Palin herself shoul have had the good sense to refuse McCain's offer outright for her to serve as his running mate.

But even this she apparently does not possess because she jumped on McCain's offer like a little girl jumping on somebody offering her ice cream!

The reality is that it takes more than sharp teeth, strong jaws and a vicious temper to be President.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Posted by: Mariano Patalinjug | September 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Yonkers,New York
16 September 2008

Pesonally, I admire Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer for parting ways with his conservative colleagues and saying, in plain language, that Sarah Palin, John McCain'schoice for his running mate, is, in effect, not qualified to be a Vice President.

The reason should be obvious: She is not ready and able--just in case--to take over in case John McCain, now 72, and suffering from a dangerous form of cancer, leaves the scene unexpectedly and suddenly.

It should by now be quite clear to the American people that Sarah Palin thus must be McCain's dumbest decision in all of his 26 years of public life.

Which is why Washington Post columnist George F. Will quickly pointed out to John McCain that the seat of wisdom is not the gut--which McCain claims was the basis for his choice of Palin--but the brain.

It is a mistake to assume that the American people can be hoodwinked into believing that Palin, a completely unknown and nondescript politician, will ever be ready--just in case.

Her stint as mayor of Wasilla, a small town of 7,000 residents, plus her 2-year tenure as governor of Alaska, are in reality inadequate preparation for the awesome and terribly complicated duties and responsibilities of President of these United States and also as "Leader" of the Free World.

Palin herself shoul have had the good sense to refuse McCain's offer outright for her to serve as his running mate.

But even this she apparently does not possess because she jumped on McCain's offer like a little girl jumping on somebody offering her ice cream!

The reality is that it takes more than sharp teeth, strong jaws and a vicious temper to be President.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Posted by: Mariano Patalinjug | September 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Yonkers,New York
16 September 2008

Pesonally, I admire Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer for parting ways with his conservative colleagues and saying, in plain language, that Sarah Palin, John McCain'schoice for his running mate, is, in effect, not qualified to be a Vice President.

The reason should be obvious: She is not ready and able--just in case--to take over in case John McCain, now 72, and suffering from a dangerous form of cancer, leaves the scene unexpectedly and suddenly.

It should by now be quite clear to the American people that Sarah Palin thus must be McCain's dumbest decision in all of his 26 years of public life.

Which is why Washington Post columnist George F. Will quickly pointed out to John McCain that the seat of wisdom is not the gut--which McCain claims was the basis for his choice of Palin--but the brain.

It is a mistake to assume that the American people can be hoodwinked into believing that Palin, a completely unknown and nondescript politician, will ever be ready--just in case.

Her stint as mayor of Wasilla, a small town of 7,000 residents, plus her 2-year tenure as governor of Alaska, are in reality inadequate preparation for the awesome and terribly complicated duties and responsibilities of President of these United States and also as "Leader" of the Free World.

Palin herself shoul have had the good sense to refuse McCain's offer outright for her to serve as his running mate.

But even this she apparently does not possess because she jumped on McCain's offer like a little girl jumping on somebody offering her ice cream!

The reality is that it takes more than sharp teeth, strong jaws and a vicious temper to be President.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Posted by: Mariano Patalinjug | September 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Yonkers,New York
16 September 2008

Pesonally, I admire Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer for parting ways with his conservative colleagues and saying, in plain language, that Sarah Palin, John McCain'schoice for his running mate, is, in effect, not qualified to be a Vice President.

The reason should be obvious: She is not ready and able--just in case--to take over in case John McCain, now 72, and suffering from a dangerous form of cancer, leaves the scene unexpectedly and suddenly.

It should by now be quite clear to the American people that Sarah Palin thus must be McCain's dumbest decision in all of his 26 years of public life.

Which is why Washington Post columnist George F. Will quickly pointed out to John McCain that the seat of wisdom is not the gut--which McCain claims was the basis for his choice of Palin--but the brain.

It is a mistake to assume that the American people can be hoodwinked into believing that Palin, a completely unknown and nondescript politician, will ever be ready--just in case.

Her stint as mayor of Wasilla, a small town of 7,000 residents, plus her 2-year tenure as governor of Alaska, are in reality inadequate preparation for the awesome and terribly complicated duties and responsibilities of President of these United States and also as "Leader" of the Free World.

Palin herself shoul have had the good sense to refuse McCain's offer outright for her to serve as his running mate.

But even this she apparently does not possess because she jumped on McCain's offer like a little girl jumping on somebody offering her ice cream!

The reality is that it takes more than sharp teeth, strong jaws and a vicious temper to be President.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Posted by: Mariano Patalinjug | September 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Yonkers,New York
16 September 2008

Pesonally, I admire Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer for parting ways with his conservative colleagues and saying, in plain language, that Sarah Palin, John McCain'schoice for his running mate, is, in effect, not qualified to be a Vice President.

The reason should be obvious: She is not ready and able--just in case--to take over in case John McCain, now 72, and suffering from a dangerous form of cancer, leaves the scene unexpectedly and suddenly.

It should by now be quite clear to the American people that Sarah Palin thus must be McCain's dumbest decision in all of his 26 years of public life.

Which is why Washington Post columnist George F. Will quickly pointed out to John McCain that the seat of wisdom is not the gut--which McCain claims was the basis for his choice of Palin--but the brain.

It is a mistake to assume that the American people can be hoodwinked into believing that Palin, a completely unknown and nondescript politician, will ever be ready--just in case.

Her stint as mayor of Wasilla, a small town of 7,000 residents, plus her 2-year tenure as governor of Alaska, are in reality inadequate preparation for the awesome and terribly complicated duties and responsibilities of President of these United States and also as "Leader" of the Free World.

Palin herself shoul have had the good sense to refuse McCain's offer outright for her to serve as his running mate.

But even this she apparently does not possess because she jumped on McCain's offer like a little girl jumping on somebody offering her ice cream!

The reality is that it takes more than sharp teeth, strong jaws and a vicious temper to be President.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Posted by: Mariano Patalinjug | September 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Yonkers,New York
16 September 2008

Pesonally, I admire Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer for parting ways with his conservative colleagues and saying, in plain language, that Sarah Palin, John McCain'schoice for his running mate, is, in effect, not qualified to be a Vice President.

The reason should be obvious: She is not ready and able--just in case--to take over in case John McCain, now 72, and suffering from a dangerous form of cancer, leaves the scene unexpectedly and suddenly.

It should by now be quite clear to the American people that Sarah Palin thus must be McCain's dumbest decision in all of his 26 years of public life.

Which is why Washington Post columnist George F. Will quickly pointed out to John McCain that the seat of wisdom is not the gut--which McCain claims was the basis for his choice of Palin--but the brain.

It is a mistake to assume that the American people can be hoodwinked into believing that Palin, a completely unknown and nondescript politician, will ever be ready--just in case.

Her stint as mayor of Wasilla, a small town of 7,000 residents, plus her 2-year tenure as governor of Alaska, are in reality inadequate preparation for the awesome and terribly complicated duties and responsibilities of President of these United States and also as "Leader" of the Free World.

Palin herself shoul have had the good sense to refuse McCain's offer outright for her to serve as his running mate.

But even this she apparently does not possess because she jumped on McCain's offer like a little girl jumping on somebody offering her ice cream!

The reality is that it takes more than sharp teeth, strong jaws and a vicious temper to be President.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Posted by: Mariano Patalinjug | September 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Yonkers,New York
16 September 2008

Pesonally, I admire Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer for parting ways with his conservative colleagues and saying, in plain language, that Sarah Palin, John McCain'schoice for his running mate, is, in effect, not qualified to be a Vice President.

The reason should be obvious: She is not ready and able--just in case--to take over in case John McCain, now 72, and suffering from a dangerous form of cancer, leaves the scene unexpectedly and suddenly.

It should by now be quite clear to the American people that Sarah Palin thus must be McCain's dumbest decision in all of his 26 years of public life.

Which is why Washington Post columnist George F. Will quickly pointed out to John McCain that the seat of wisdom is not the gut--which McCain claims was the basis for his choice of Palin--but the brain.

It is a mistake to assume that the American people can be hoodwinked into believing that Palin, a completely unknown and nondescript politician, will ever be ready--just in case.

Her stint as mayor of Wasilla, a small town of 7,000 residents, plus her 2-year tenure as governor of Alaska, are in reality inadequate preparation for the awesome and terribly complicated duties and responsibilities of President of these United States and also as "Leader" of the Free World.

Palin herself shoul have had the good sense to refuse McCain's offer outright for her to serve as his running mate.

But even this she apparently does not possess because she jumped on McCain's offer like a little girl jumping on somebody offering her ice cream!

The reality is that it takes more than sharp teeth, strong jaws and a vicious temper to be President.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Posted by: Mariano Patalinjug | September 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Yonkers,New York
16 September 2008

Pesonally, I admire Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer for parting ways with his conservative colleagues and saying, in plain language, that Sarah Palin, John McCain'schoice for his running mate, is, in effect, not qualified to be a Vice President.

The reason should be obvious: She is not ready and able--just in case--to take over in case John McCain, now 72, and suffering from a dangerous form of cancer, leaves the scene unexpectedly and suddenly.

It should by now be quite clear to the American people that Sarah Palin thus must be McCain's dumbest decision in all of his 26 years of public life.

Which is why Washington Post columnist George F. Will quickly pointed out to John McCain that the seat of wisdom is not the gut--which McCain claims was the basis for his choice of Palin--but the brain.

It is a mistake to assume that the American people can be hoodwinked into believing that Palin, a completely unknown and nondescript politician, will ever be ready--just in case.

Her stint as mayor of Wasilla, a small town of 7,000 residents, plus her 2-year tenure as governor of Alaska, are in reality inadequate preparation for the awesome and terribly complicated duties and responsibilities of President of these United States and also as "Leader" of the Free World.

Palin herself shoul have had the good sense to refuse McCain's offer outright for her to serve as his running mate.

But even this she apparently does not possess because she jumped on McCain's offer like a little girl jumping on somebody offering her ice cream!

The reality is that it takes more than sharp teeth, strong jaws and a vicious temper to be President.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Posted by: Mariano Patalinjug | September 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Yonkers,New York
16 September 2008

Pesonally, I admire Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer for parting ways with his conservative colleagues and saying, in plain language, that Sarah Palin, John McCain'schoice for his running mate, is, in effect, not qualified to be a Vice President.

The reason should be obvious: She is not ready and able--just in case--to take over in case John McCain, now 72, and suffering from a dangerous form of cancer, leaves the scene unexpectedly and suddenly.

It should by now be quite clear to the American people that Sarah Palin thus must be McCain's dumbest decision in all of his 26 years of public life.

Which is why Washington Post columnist George F. Will quickly pointed out to John McCain that the seat of wisdom is not the gut--which McCain claims was the basis for his choice of Palin--but the brain.

It is a mistake to assume that the American people can be hoodwinked into believing that Palin, a completely unknown and nondescript politician, will ever be ready--just in case.

Her stint as mayor of Wasilla, a small town of 7,000 residents, plus her 2-year tenure as governor of Alaska, are in reality inadequate preparation for the awesome and terribly complicated duties and responsibilities of President of these United States and also as "Leader" of the Free World.

Palin herself shoul have had the good sense to refuse McCain's offer outright for her to serve as his running mate.

But even this she apparently does not possess because she jumped on McCain's offer like a little girl jumping on somebody offering her ice cream!

The reality is that it takes more than sharp teeth, strong jaws and a vicious temper to be President.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Posted by: Mariano Patalinjug | September 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Yonkers,New York
16 September 2008

Pesonally, I admire Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer for parting ways with his conservative colleagues and saying, in plain language, that Sarah Palin, John McCain'schoice for his running mate, is, in effect, not qualified to be a Vice President.

The reason should be obvious: She is not ready and able--just in case--to take over in case John McCain, now 72, and suffering from a dangerous form of cancer, leaves the scene unexpectedly and suddenly.

It should by now be quite clear to the American people that Sarah Palin thus must be McCain's dumbest decision in all of his 26 years of public life.

Which is why Washington Post columnist George F. Will quickly pointed out to John McCain that the seat of wisdom is not the gut--which McCain claims was the basis for his choice of Palin--but the brain.

It is a mistake to assume that the American people can be hoodwinked into believing that Palin, a completely unknown and nondescript politician, will ever be ready--just in case.

Her stint as mayor of Wasilla, a small town of 7,000 residents, plus her 2-year tenure as governor of Alaska, are in reality inadequate preparation for the awesome and terribly complicated duties and responsibilities of President of these United States and also as "Leader" of the Free World.

Palin herself shoul have had the good sense to refuse McCain's offer outright for her to serve as his running mate.

But even this she apparently does not possess because she jumped on McCain's offer like a little girl jumping on somebody offering her ice cream!

The reality is that it takes more than sharp teeth, strong jaws and a vicious temper to be President.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Posted by: Mariano Patalinjug | September 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Yonkers,New York
16 September 2008

Pesonally, I admire Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer for parting ways with his conservative colleagues and saying, in plain language, that Sarah Palin, John McCain'schoice for his running mate, is, in effect, not qualified to be a Vice President.

The reason should be obvious: She is not ready and able--just in case--to take over in case John McCain, now 72, and suffering from a dangerous form of cancer, leaves the scene unexpectedly and suddenly.

It should by now be quite clear to the American people that Sarah Palin thus must be McCain's dumbest decision in all of his 26 years of public life.

Which is why Washington Post columnist George F. Will quickly pointed out to John McCain that the seat of wisdom is not the gut--which McCain claims was the basis for his choice of Palin--but the brain.

It is a mistake to assume that the American people can be hoodwinked into believing that Palin, a completely unknown and nondescript politician, will ever be ready--just in case.

Her stint as mayor of Wasilla, a small town of 7,000 residents, plus her 2-year tenure as governor of Alaska, are in reality inadequate preparation for the awesome and terribly complicated duties and responsibilities of President of these United States and also as "Leader" of the Free World.

Palin herself shoul have had the good sense to refuse McCain's offer outright for her to serve as his running mate.

But even this she apparently does not possess because she jumped on McCain's offer like a little girl jumping on somebody offering her ice cream!

The reality is that it takes more than sharp teeth, strong jaws and a vicious temper to be President.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Posted by: Mariano Patalinjug | September 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Yonkers,New York
16 September 2008

Pesonally, I admire Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer for parting ways with his conservative colleagues and saying, in plain language, that Sarah Palin, John McCain'schoice for his running mate, is, in effect, not qualified to be a Vice President.

The reason should be obvious: She is not ready and able--just in case--to take over in case John McCain, now 72, and suffering from a dangerous form of cancer, leaves the scene unexpectedly and suddenly.

It should by now be quite clear to the American people that Sarah Palin thus must be McCain's dumbest decision in all of his 26 years of public life.

Which is why Washington Post columnist George F. Will quickly pointed out to John McCain that the seat of wisdom is not the gut--which McCain claims was the basis for his choice of Palin--but the brain.

It is a mistake to assume that the American people can be hoodwinked into believing that Palin, a completely unknown and nondescript politician, will ever be ready--just in case.

Her stint as mayor of Wasilla, a small town of 7,000 residents, plus her 2-year tenure as governor of Alaska, are in reality inadequate preparation for the awesome and terribly complicated duties and responsibilities of President of these United States and also as "Leader" of the Free World.

Palin herself shoul have had the good sense to refuse McCain's offer outright for her to serve as his running mate.

But even this she apparently does not possess because she jumped on McCain's offer like a little girl jumping on somebody offering her ice cream!

The reality is that it takes more than sharp teeth, strong jaws and a vicious temper to be President.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Posted by: Mariano Patalinjug | September 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Yonkers,New York
16 September 2008

Pesonally, I admire Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer for parting ways with his conservative colleagues and saying, in plain language, that Sarah Palin, John McCain'schoice for his running mate, is, in effect, not qualified to be a Vice President.

The reason should be obvious: She is not ready and able--just in case--to take over in case John McCain, now 72, and suffering from a dangerous form of cancer, leaves the scene unexpectedly and suddenly.

It should by now be quite clear to the American people that Sarah Palin thus must be McCain's dumbest decision in all of his 26 years of public life.

Which is why Washington Post columnist George F. Will quickly pointed out to John McCain that the seat of wisdom is not the gut--which McCain claims was the basis for his choice of Palin--but the brain.

It is a mistake to assume that the American people can be hoodwinked into believing that Palin, a completely unknown and nondescript politician, will ever be ready--just in case.

Her stint as mayor of Wasilla, a small town of 7,000 residents, plus her 2-year tenure as governor of Alaska, are in reality inadequate preparation for the awesome and terribly complicated duties and responsibilities of President of these United States and also as "Leader" of the Free World.

Palin herself shoul have had the good sense to refuse McCain's offer outright for her to serve as his running mate.

But even this she apparently does not possess because she jumped on McCain's offer like a little girl jumping on somebody offering her ice cream!

The reality is that it takes more than sharp teeth, strong jaws and a vicious temper to be President.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Posted by: Mariano Patalinjug | September 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Yonkers,New York
16 September 2008

Pesonally, I admire Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer for parting ways with his conservative colleagues and saying, in plain language, that Sarah Palin, John McCain'schoice for his running mate, is, in effect, not qualified to be a Vice President.

The reason should be obvious: She is not ready and able--just in case--to take over in case John McCain, now 72, and suffering from a dangerous form of cancer, leaves the scene unexpectedly and suddenly.

It should by now be quite clear to the American people that Sarah Palin thus must be McCain's dumbest decision in all of his 26 years of public life.

Which is why Washington Post columnist George F. Will quickly pointed out to John McCain that the seat of wisdom is not the gut--which McCain claims was the basis for his choice of Palin--but the brain.

It is a mistake to assume that the American people can be hoodwinked into believing that Palin, a completely unknown and nondescript politician, will ever be ready--just in case.

Her stint as mayor of Wasilla, a small town of 7,000 residents, plus her 2-year tenure as governor of Alaska, are in reality inadequate preparation for the awesome and terribly complicated duties and responsibilities of President of these United States and also as "Leader" of the Free World.

Palin herself shoul have had the good sense to refuse McCain's offer outright for her to serve as his running mate.

But even this she apparently does not possess because she jumped on McCain's offer like a little girl jumping on somebody offering her ice cream!

The reality is that it takes more than sharp teeth, strong jaws and a vicious temper to be President.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Posted by: Mariano Patalinjug | September 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Yonkers,New York
16 September 2008

Pesonally, I admire Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer for parting ways with his conservative colleagues and saying, in plain language, that Sarah Palin, John McCain'schoice for his running mate, is, in effect, not qualified to be a Vice President.

The reason should be obvious: She is not ready and able--just in case--to take over in case John McCain, now 72, and suffering from a dangerous form of cancer, leaves the scene unexpectedly and suddenly.

It should by now be quite clear to the American people that Sarah Palin thus must be McCain's dumbest decision in all of his 26 years of public life.

Which is why Washington Post columnist George F. Will quickly pointed out to John McCain that the seat of wisdom is not the gut--which McCain claims was the basis for his choice of Palin--but the brain.

It is a mistake to assume that the American people can be hoodwinked into believing that Palin, a completely unknown and nondescript politician, will ever be ready--just in case.

Her stint as mayor of Wasilla, a small town of 7,000 residents, plus her 2-year tenure as governor of Alaska, are in reality inadequate preparation for the awesome and terribly complicated duties and responsibilities of President of these United States and also as "Leader" of the Free World.

Palin herself shoul have had the good sense to refuse McCain's offer outright for her to serve as his running mate.

But even this she apparently does not possess because she jumped on McCain's offer like a little girl jumping on somebody offering her ice cream!

The reality is that it takes more than sharp teeth, strong jaws and a vicious temper to be President.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Posted by: Mariano Patalinjug | September 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Yonkers,New York
16 September 2008

Pesonally, I admire Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer for parting ways with his conservative colleagues and saying, in plain language, that Sarah Palin, John McCain'schoice for his running mate, is, in effect, not qualified to be a Vice President.

The reason should be obvious: She is not ready and able--just in case--to take over in case John McCain, now 72, and suffering from a dangerous form of cancer, leaves the scene unexpectedly and suddenly.

It should by now be quite clear to the American people that Sarah Palin thus must be McCain's dumbest decision in all of his 26 years of public life.

Which is why Washington Post columnist George F. Will quickly pointed out to John McCain that the seat of wisdom is not the gut--which McCain claims was the basis for his choice of Palin--but the brain.

It is a mistake to assume that the American people can be hoodwinked into believing that Palin, a completely unknown and nondescript politician, will ever be ready--just in case.

Her stint as mayor of Wasilla, a small town of 7,000 residents, plus her 2-year tenure as governor of Alaska, are in reality inadequate preparation for the awesome and terribly complicated duties and responsibilities of President of these United States and also as "Leader" of the Free World.

Palin herself shoul have had the good sense to refuse McCain's offer outright for her to serve as his running mate.

But even this she apparently does not possess because she jumped on McCain's offer like a little girl jumping on somebody offering her ice cream!

The reality is that it takes more than sharp teeth, strong jaws and a vicious temper to be President.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Posted by: Mariano Patalinjug | September 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Yonkers,New York
16 September 2008

Pesonally, I admire Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer for parting ways with his conservative colleagues and saying, in plain language, that Sarah Palin, John McCain'schoice for his running mate, is, in effect, not qualified to be a Vice President.

The reason should be obvious: She is not ready and able--just in case--to take over in case John McCain, now 72, and suffering from a dangerous form of cancer, leaves the scene unexpectedly and suddenly.

It should by now be quite clear to the American people that Sarah Palin thus must be McCain's dumbest decision in all of his 26 years of public life.

Which is why Washington Post columnist George F. Will quickly pointed out to John McCain that the seat of wisdom is not the gut--which McCain claims was the basis for his choice of Palin--but the brain.

It is a mistake to assume that the American people can be hoodwinked into believing that Palin, a completely unknown and nondescript politician, will ever be ready--just in case.

Her stint as mayor of Wasilla, a small town of 7,000 residents, plus her 2-year tenure as governor of Alaska, are in reality inadequate preparation for the awesome and terribly complicated duties and responsibilities of President of these United States and also as "Leader" of the Free World.

Palin herself shoul have had the good sense to refuse McCain's offer outright for her to serve as his running mate.

But even this she apparently does not possess because she jumped on McCain's offer like a little girl jumping on somebody offering her ice cream!

The reality is that it takes more than sharp teeth, strong jaws and a vicious temper to be President.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Posted by: Mariano Patalinjug | September 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Yonkers,New York
16 September 2008

Pesonally, I admire Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer for parting ways with his conservative colleagues and saying, in plain language, that Sarah Palin, John McCain'schoice for his running mate, is, in effect, not qualified to be a Vice President.

The reason should be obvious: She is not ready and able--just in case--to take over in case John McCain, now 72, and suffering from a dangerous form of cancer, leaves the scene unexpectedly and suddenly.

It should by now be quite clear to the American people that Sarah Palin thus must be McCain's dumbest decision in all of his 26 years of public life.

Which is why Washington Post columnist George F. Will quickly pointed out to John McCain that the seat of wisdom is not the gut--which McCain claims was the basis for his choice of Palin--but the brain.

It is a mistake to assume that the American people can be hoodwinked into believing that Palin, a completely unknown and nondescript politician, will ever be ready--just in case.

Her stint as mayor of Wasilla, a small town of 7,000 residents, plus her 2-year tenure as governor of Alaska, are in reality inadequate preparation for the awesome and terribly complicated duties and responsibilities of President of these United States and also as "Leader" of the Free World.

Palin herself shoul have had the good sense to refuse McCain's offer outright for her to serve as his running mate.

But even this she apparently does not possess because she jumped on McCain's offer like a little girl jumping on somebody offering her ice cream!

The reality is that it takes more than sharp teeth, strong jaws and a vicious temper to be President.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Posted by: Mariano Patalinjug | September 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Yonkers,New York
16 September 2008

Pesonally, I admire Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer for parting ways with his conservative colleagues and saying, in plain language, that Sarah Palin, John McCain'schoice for his running mate, is, in effect, not qualified to be a Vice President.

The reason should be obvious: She is not ready and able--just in case--to take over in case John McCain, now 72, and suffering from a dangerous form of cancer, leaves the scene unexpectedly and suddenly.

It should by now be quite clear to the American people that Sarah Palin thus must be McCain's dumbest decision in all of his 26 years of public life.

Which is why Washington Post columnist George F. Will quickly pointed out to John McCain that the seat of wisdom is not the gut--which McCain claims was the basis for his choice of Palin--but the brain.

It is a mistake to assume that the American people can be hoodwinked into believing that Palin, a completely unknown and nondescript politician, will ever be ready--just in case.

Her stint as mayor of Wasilla, a small town of 7,000 residents, plus her 2-year tenure as governor of Alaska, are in reality inadequate preparation for the awesome and terribly complicated duties and responsibilities of President of these United States and also as "Leader" of the Free World.

Palin herself shoul have had the good sense to refuse McCain's offer outright for her to serve as his running mate.

But even this she apparently does not possess because she jumped on McCain's offer like a little girl jumping on somebody offering her ice cream!

The reality is that it takes more than sharp teeth, strong jaws and a vicious temper to be President.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Posted by: Mariano Patalinjug | September 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Yonkers,New York
16 September 2008

Pesonally, I admire Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer for parting ways with his conservative colleagues and saying, in plain language, that Sarah Palin, John McCain'schoice for his running mate, is, in effect, not qualified to be a Vice President.

The reason should be obvious: She is not ready and able--just in case--to take over in case John McCain, now 72, and suffering from a dangerous form of cancer, leaves the scene unexpectedly and suddenly.

It should by now be quite clear to the American people that Sarah Palin thus must be McCain's dumbest decision in all of his 26 years of public life.

Which is why Washington Post columnist George F. Will quickly pointed out to John McCain that the seat of wisdom is not the gut--which McCain claims was the basis for his choice of Palin--but the brain.

It is a mistake to assume that the American people can be hoodwinked into believing that Palin, a completely unknown and nondescript politician, will ever be ready--just in case.

Her stint as mayor of Wasilla, a small town of 7,000 residents, plus her 2-year tenure as governor of Alaska, are in reality inadequate preparation for the awesome and terribly complicated duties and responsibilities of President of these United States and also as "Leader" of the Free World.

Palin herself shoul have had the good sense to refuse McCain's offer outright for her to serve as his running mate.

But even this she apparently does not possess because she jumped on McCain's offer like a little girl jumping on somebody offering her ice cream!

The reality is that it takes more than sharp teeth, strong jaws and a vicious temper to be President.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Posted by: Mariano Patalinjug | September 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Yonkers,New York
16 September 2008

Pesonally, I admire Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer for parting ways with his conservative colleagues and saying, in plain language, that Sarah Palin, John McCain'schoice for his running mate, is, in effect, not qualified to be a Vice President.

The reason should be obvious: She is not ready and able--just in case--to take over in case John McCain, now 72, and suffering from a dangerous form of cancer, leaves the scene unexpectedly and suddenly.

It should by now be quite clear to the American people that Sarah Palin thus must be McCain's dumbest decision in all of his 26 years of public life.

Which is why Washington Post columnist George F. Will quickly pointed out to John McCain that the seat of wisdom is not the gut--which McCain claims was the basis for his choice of Palin--but the brain.

It is a mistake to assume that the American people can be hoodwinked into believing that Palin, a completely unknown and nondescript politician, will ever be ready--just in case.

Her stint as mayor of Wasilla, a small town of 7,000 residents, plus her 2-year tenure as governor of Alaska, are in reality inadequate preparation for the awesome and terribly complicated duties and responsibilities of President of these United States and also as "Leader" of the Free World.

Palin herself shoul have had the good sense to refuse McCain's offer outright for her to serve as his running mate.

But even this she apparently does not possess because she jumped on McCain's offer like a little girl jumping on somebody offering her ice cream!

The reality is that it takes more than sharp teeth, strong jaws and a vicious temper to be President.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Posted by: Mariano Patalinjug | September 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Krauthammer is in good company on this issue, including Jacob Weisberg of Slate, Dennis Prager, Bret Stephens, and many others.

The only thing I would like to add to the discussion is that Gibson had to look down at his briefing book and READ the (suposed) definition of the "Bush Doctrine" to Palin during the interview.

If Gibson's intrepertation of this so called doctrine is so universally recognised as to legitimately garner Gibson's theatrical incredulity at Palin’s request for clarification, then why did he have to read the “definition” to her instead of rattling it off the top of his head?

Posted by: Stephen Gianelli | September 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Krauthammer is in good company on this issue, including Jacob Weisberg of Slate, Dennis Prager, Bret Stephens, and many others.

The only thing I would like to add to the discussion is that Gibson had to look down at his briefing book and READ the (suposed) definition of the "Bush Doctrine" to Palin during the interview.

If Gibson's intrepertation of this so called doctrine is so universally recognised as to legitimately garner Gibson's theatrical incredulity at Palin’s request for clarification, then why did he have to read the “definition” to her instead of rattling it off the top of his head?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

I don't think what anyone is afraiad of is a lady, she may indeed be one although she prefers to be referred to as a "pitbull" which is a dog. I think what people are afraid of is that Americans have dumbed down to the point where they cannot tell the difference between reality, possibility of another great depression, and fantasy, a world where everyone would be rich if John McCain had his way, and we can claim we hate war while escalating the wars we wage.

Posted by: J Lauber | September 16, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Krauthammer is in good company on this issue, including Jacob Weisberg of Slate, Dennis Prager, Bret Stephens, and many others.

The only thing I would like to add to the discussion is that Gibson had to look down at his briefing book and READ the (supposed) definition of the "Bush Doctrine" to Palin during the interview.

If Gibson's interpretation of this so called doctrine is so universally recognized as to legitimately garner Gibson's theatrical incredulity at Palin’s request for clarification, then why did he have to read the “definition” to her instead of rattling it off the top of his head?

Posted by: Stephen Gianelli | September 16, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

The "four definitions" thesis being promulgated by Krauthammer and other McCain surrogates is a red herring. Even if there are multiple definitions of the Bush Doctrine (a contention I would dispute), Palin plainly showed that she isn't aware of the fact that the US position on self-defense has been fundamentally changed by Bush. THAT is the problem, NOT the initial failure to recognize the term "Bush Doctrine."

As Dionne explains, Gibson correctly used the Bush Doctrine definition known as "the right to anticipatory self-defense". Prior to Bush, the US asserted a right to self-defense that included preemptive strikes against "imminent threats." The singular feature of the Bush Doctrine (as used by Gibson) that distinguishes it from all prior formulations of US policy is that it says that the United States' right of self-defense extends to anticipatory action to eliminate "threats" as the US defines them, even if they are not imminent. This change is arguably the biggest development in US defense policy in the last 50 years.

So whether or not Palin stumbled on the definition of the "Bush Doctrine", Gibson GAVE Palin the definition that includes the changed policy on self defense, and she STILL flubbed it. Palin she said she agreed with the Bush Doctrine specifically as the right to "preemptively strike an imminent threat", thus proving that she is unaware of the salient fact that Bush has CHANGED the US position on its right to self-defense.

Palin proved she is not ready for prime-time. And any person, candidate, or party who would place her one heart-beat away from the presidency does not put "country first."

Posted by: Brian E. Sims | September 16, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Please define what are "acceptable" qualifications for vice president. Did Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan have appropriate "qualifications" when they ran - and won? Sarah Palin did ask the appropriate clarifying question of Gibson when asked about the so-called Bush Doctrine - "you mean his world-view Charlie?" That's exactly the issue - Bush's world-view. I assume we will all define appropriate qualifications for vice-president by our respective "world-views" as well. For me, maybe a moose-hunting mother of 5 can help get us out of the mess we're in.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

As usual, the press focuses on the wrong thing:

Charlie Gibson may or may not be confused on the current or exact meaning, but it was very clear that Sarah Palin had never even heard of the Bush Doctrine.

Posted by: John Stone | September 16, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

The thing to keep in mind is that Palin's initial answer, when asked what the Bush doctrine is, was, "His world view." No matter how you slice it, that does not conform to any version of the Bush doctrine. IN short: She had no idea of what the Bush doctrine is.

Posted by: Mike C | September 16, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

Ready for reality? There's no ambiguity. The Bush Doctrine = Preemptive Military Strike. Period. The so-called ambiguity came after the fact from the RW spin machine whose gal clearly hasn't got a clue. All the other candidates answered this question during the primary debates. There was no questioning of meaning after the fact. Everyone was clear in the meaning of The Bush Doctrine, and simply answered this simple basic. The phrase is a near house hold name, which means "preemptive strike". And that's all Gibson and all who were watching were expecting. Nobody was looking for a PhD dissertation on the nuances of its definition (if any exist outside of the RW spin doctors) from Palin. I started answering the question in my mind, anticipating the "change candidate's" lock-step with Bush answer... Then sat completely astonished - utterly amazed, that the republican VP candidate clearly didn't have the first clue of what the Bush Doctrine is(!!!) This is chilling and sad. Our poor country. The after the fact spin from republican Palin apologists is, however, most entertaining in its incredible silliness.

Posted by: Nick T | September 16, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

Palin is certainly has more executive experience than Obama. Obama has zero experience in executive position. Unfortunately, some people can not admit that.

Posted by: Joe | September 16, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

EJ is finally starting to make sense. Don't mind if flaws in Democrats are highlighted as long as truth is recounted vis a vis the Republicans............Need to Keep it up to Nov.

Posted by: Motichu | September 16, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

So what is the Bush Doctrine?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 10:55 PM | Report abuse

The Bush Doctrine is whatever neocons like Krauthammer tell him it is.

Palin is their latest empty vessel to pour their Dr. Strangelove notions of foreign policy into, so they don't want us cracking her open to see how empty she is. They figure that a 72 year old McCain, who has always been a dilettante politician, will not last long, so they can turn Palin into the Bride of Bush.

Posted by: AxelDC | September 16, 2008 11:16 PM | Report abuse

two words (wall street)
fight the war at home first.

Posted by: darron.c | September 16, 2008 11:29 PM | Report abuse

What is amazing in Dionne's posting is that he attempts to validate Wikipedia as a source of factual information instead of simply another site for public opinion (a site that Dionne admits endures constant revision "As many of you know, Wikipedia definitions go through constant rewriting by readers, and there have been massive rewrites since the Palin interview and Charles’s column. I wanted to see the pre-interview definition." Again, another journalist fails to deepen the discourse on substantive issues of policy, and instead get mired in definitions from a source that is weak at best.

Posted by: Anon | September 16, 2008 11:32 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for taking Krauthammer to task, Mr. Dionne.

Posted by: rebecca | September 17, 2008 12:12 AM | Report abuse

Ridiculous that the blame for Governor Palin's weak performance is being shifted to Charles Gibson.

And a few questions on Palin's answers, rather than Gibson's questions:

--Why is no one focusing on the fact that Palin still had no cogent response AFTER Gibson defined (his understanding of) the Bush doctrine for her?

--Why is no one mentioning that Palin was unable to cite three changes she'd make in Bush Administration policies under her reform platform?

--Why are so few disturbed that the only thing that Palin could offer about her foreign affairs expertise was that one can see Russia from a remote island in Alaska?

Yes, Governor Palin photographs well, connects with many Americans, and delivers speeches smartly. But she's not prepared for the hard job of running the U.S. government.

In Governor Palin's words, looks like you need more than lipstick to pretty up this pit bull.

Posted by: ANetliner | September 17, 2008 12:22 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Dionne and Mr. Krauthammer, among others, have been poring through quotes and articles and various references to make their respective cases on what the Bush Doctrine means. Mr. Dionne even quotes Wikipedia’s lengthy and multi-part definition before concluding that Gibson’s question was consistent with the widely held view of what the doctrine meant (Wikipedia? Widely accepted?).

We’ve had close to a week to research and discuss and argue over this, and we still don’t have any consensus as to what the term Bush Doctrine means. We don’t even have consensus on the one inescapable conclusion in all this – that the term is neither clearly understood nor widely accepted. If it were, we’d all be onto a different issue by now.

Is it not somehow reasonable, when asked about such an unclear doctrine, for the Governor of Alaska to seek clarification? Is it so surprising that she was hesitant when it became clear that Charlie Gibson was less interested in knowing the Governor’s view on the issue than he was in tripping her up? Maybe I’m being too easy on Sarah Palin for not expecting, as so many others seem to, that she should be an expert on foreign policy just two weeks after being thrust into the national spotlight.

All in all, considering this was her first foray into hostile territory since being nominated Vice President, I think she was fantastic. Give her a couple months to brush up on the issues, and this woman will be able to go toe-to-toe with anybody. She’s got more class, spine, and, yes, brains than we’ve seen in Washington or in the media in a long time.

Posted by: chillpost | September 17, 2008 1:12 AM | Report abuse

Too bad Charlie didn't notice how Palin depends on him to come to her rescue - she couldn't come up with the 'many doctorines' explanation on her own.

Too bad Bush never thought long and hard enough about our position in the world, our national interest, and our capacities to enunciate a Doctorine that was good for more than a year or two.

Posted by: LikesToWatch | September 17, 2008 1:19 AM | Report abuse

So there he goes again! The Head WAPO Obama
Shill attacking and smearing Republican
Vice President Nominee Sarah Palin with
a new smear of the day,compliments of the
Messiah Barack Hussein Obama Vile Vicious
Lying Smear Chief David "Dr Gobbels" Axelrod on the Direct Orders of Der Leader
Messiah Barack Hussein Obama again today.

Posted by: Claudine 1000 | September 17, 2008 1:22 AM | Report abuse

Sooo! Is Governor Palin going to cooperate in the Trooper-Gate investigation or not?

Posted by: JAC | September 17, 2008 1:57 AM | Report abuse

I am not voting for either of these two idiots. Ill be writing in Huckabee. Huckabee 2012 sign in my yard. http://www.skip08.com Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 5:06 PM

THANKS, Anonymous! My vote just went up a tiny bit. Please people, don't vote! If NONE of you do, then I get to pick! :)

Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2008 2:01 AM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is not qualified to be president of the U.S. and probably never will be.

Barack Obama is under qualified at this time; maybe after another couple of terms in the Senate he will be ready. If he does Senatorial work other than voting "present", that is.

John McCain is qualified to be president.

Joseph Biden is qualified to be president.

I suggest a bipartisan, compromise McCain/Biden ticket. Let Sarah finish out her term of office and run for Senate. If she's young and promising then let her fulfill that promise because she's got plenty of years ahead of her.

Let Obama serve a couple more terms in the Senate, then run again when he has proven himself on the national and international stage.

Let's not elect a president or vice-president on the basis of his/her color or gender. The Presidency is far too important to become an affirmative action token.

Posted by: Terry Traub | September 17, 2008 3:34 AM | Report abuse

So, why don't you compare the first 3 questions your great journalist asked the DEM PRESIDENTIAL Candidate interview vs. the first 3 questions the he asked the REP VICE Presidential candidate. So what happened to the DEM VICE Presidential candidate, but of course you have subscribed to the DEM Presidential candidate and Censorship and cannot say anything about that. SO based on all of this you that favor the fact that the media cannot say anything about the DEM Presidential candidates family or the VP and his family, but anything else is fair game, you are buying into the loss of free speech and censorship. So you are all willing to give up your 1st and 2nd amendment rights, allow the government to tax you again on the wages you earned and paid income tax on, by taxing you for proceeds on the sale of your house and investments (double taxation). But then again as I write this I must take into consideration of the mentality of the readers and these issues are of no concern to anyone that cannot comprehend to ramification of any of this

Posted by: ICBHSYAA | September 17, 2008 3:36 AM | Report abuse

Doesn't anybody see a problem with E.J. quoting Wikipedia??? Talk about revisionist history! Regarding the flux and evolution of the Bush Doctrine (Krauthammer would know), the real issue is not in the inability of Palin to provide an acceptable answer. The issue is Gibson's inability to provide impartiality and unbiased rapport in seeking a dialogue with Palin. The entire interview wreaked of gotcha mentality. Nobody expects that Gibson would do the same of Obama. Maybe Couric will host an effective interview with the VP candidate, Palin.

E.J., I hope a first year college student would know better than to reference Wikipedia.

Posted by: Rocky | September 17, 2008 4:42 AM | Report abuse

STOP ALL THE HOOPLA AND THINK WITH COMMON SENSE; IN THE LAST EIGHT YEARS, AMERICA HAS SUNK TO A NEW LOW OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND WE HAVE IGNORED EVERY SPOT OF DECENCY AND FAIR PLAY THAT EXIST. I BELIEVE IN TURNING THE OTHER CHEEK; BUT NOT TAKE MY WHOLE HEAD OFF. WE CAN'T STAND ANOTHER FOUR YEARS OF THE SAME; IF A BLACK MAN CAN TAKE A PEANUT AND MAKE IT INTO SOMETHING GREAT; I KNOW A BLACK MAN WITH ALL OF THE RESOURCES AVAILABLE CAN TURN THIS MESS AROUND IN DUE TIME, DUE SEASON, AND DUE PROCESS.

Posted by: FANNIE MAE | September 17, 2008 5:04 AM | Report abuse

Palin asked the right question: "In what respect?".

It was a general question. It needed clarification. The bush doctrine about economy, about the military...? Gibson is a moron. He himself doesn't know what the bush doctrine is, he is fed the information.


Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2008 5:16 AM | Report abuse

you are full of it dude. I heard the "bush doctrine" thingy. it was total bs by charley. only you media types think you know what the world is like. Admittedly, Palin should have told charliey he was full of crap, but she, unlike myslef, is a lady.

Posted by: grant gaby | September 17, 2008 5:24 AM | Report abuse

This article is not even written in the form of an editorial. It is a bald campaign ad.

Posted by: Karl | September 17, 2008 5:50 AM | Report abuse

In the selection of Joe Biden, by Sen. Obama, you can see he is wise enough to select a fully qualified V.P. in the event of his demise.But, for other reasons as well! He knows to be effective as a leader you must surround yourself with wise people. On the other hand, it is as though Mccain is running an O.J.T. seminar with Palin. "Just hang in there Sarah, You'll catch on." Think back on the failure of the Bush Adminstration, whereas several things became apparent as the cause for the failure. He refused to pick competent people to work with. He chose special interest people and business associates. He could not keep his story straight on why we are in Iraq. WMD, then to get Sadam, then to bring democracy to the Iraqi people and now to stop the spread of terroism. This seem to be the classic conservative approach, "can't pick someone smarter than I."

Posted by: logical steve | September 17, 2008 5:58 AM | Report abuse

While Krauthammer thought he was diverting attention (the Right Wings' favorite ploy?) from Palin to Gibson, what he did instead was to give Palin multiple possible correct answers to the original question.

Instead of trying to blame Gibson, it makes more sense to simply accept the fact that the person John McCain and his party want to be the next Vice President of the United States (and by extension a future president) didn't have a clue what the Bush Doctrine -- any Bush Doctrine -- was, is, or has ever been.

I agree it was not her worst moment in the interview, but there were so many truly bad moments ranking them seems like a waste of time.

Posted by: Ellis | September 17, 2008 7:37 AM | Report abuse

LPLT is right on. Why are so many people going to such great lengths to explain why the person they want to be Vice President is ignorant? And why isn't it as big news that a) she wants to go to war with Russia over Georgia and b) she thinks an oil pipleine deal got an endorsement from God? Do you know why she "doesn't blink"? Because she's nuts (not to mention a thug who uses the government to punish people). That's also why there is a battalion of lawyers and hacks trying to shield her from questions.

Posted by: Progressive Observer | September 17, 2008 8:03 AM | Report abuse

The real question is; why would a "grown up" go around calling himself EJ?

Posted by: ej_smug | September 17, 2008 8:07 AM | Report abuse

Palin, is another good lieing Repub. If they can tell a good lie the Repubs don't want them---and her voice drives me mad, can't stand to hear her talk.

Posted by: MtnMan | September 17, 2008 8:09 AM | Report abuse

That's just one of scores of examples of how Bush-Cheney have moved the goal posts, changed the meaning of "is" (or whatever the word/concept du jour happens to be: success, war on terror, terrorists, uprising, civil war, corruption, invasion, occupation, winning, democracy, torture .....).

They don't stick to one version anything because they have no morals. They have no core values. Everything is mutable. Everything is political. Everything is about winning (while also simultaneously obfuscating in order to defeat and punish the opponent -- i.e. democrats, working people, real journalists, TRUTH) ...

These are the most corrupt people on earth and they're the richest and most powerful.

I remember when Jesus said: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven."

But the reality is they don't care about that either since they don't believe or practice any of the religious batsh*t they foist on all their little true believers scurrying around like rats in a maze at the beck and call of their commandantes.


Hitler, Göring, Hess and Goebels would have been so proud of the republicans, especially this administration.

What a hoot. What a bunch of lemmings the devoted amerikkkan right wing is filled with.


.

Posted by: Moving the Goal Posts | September 17, 2008 8:12 AM | Report abuse

to: bushme
you are better than Joseph Goebbels at propaganda and about as factual. funny how you omit obamas racist and terrorist friends and mentors. THE MAN WONT EVEN WEAR AN AMERICAN PIN ON HIS LAPEL BECAUSE IT SYOMBOLIZES OPPRESSION FOR SOME!!!!!
the "some" are radical extremeists.
Obama in 08 means Osama in 09 - God help us

Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2008 8:31 AM | Report abuse

I believe that, if anything, Gibson wasn't tough enough. The gaffe about her opinion on the Bush Doctrine aside, I felt she offered almost no substance to the answers she gave. This lady needs to be scrutinized, just like any other candidate and it is a little troubling that the McCain campaign seems to want to block her from media scrutiny. I believe that underlines the fact that she was chosen as McCain's VP pick as a gimmick to draw some of Hillary's disenfranchised feminist supporters.

Posted by: S-B | September 17, 2008 8:39 AM | Report abuse

Hey Cokeheadobama,

No, you have Obama confused with the CURRENT Commander in Chief who used cocaine regularly (along with plenty of alcohol)
way after his collegiate experimental days. Seems like that never entered your comments.......


Posted by: EWillpwr | September 17, 2008 8:39 AM | Report abuse

I think it is ridiculous the way the mainstream media, (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, Yahoo) are trying their best to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin. The more they try to dig up dirt, the more stupid they look and the more I like Sarah Palin.

Posted by: Phil Coe | September 17, 2008 8:49 AM | Report abuse

People get the kind of leaders they wish for. The GOP has been known to scare the voters who don't care about the economy, but see everything in terms of security. You cannot eat security when you are powerless. American should wake up to the reality of what the GOP is all about. Bush scared them to death and they went ahead and elected him. What is happening is now is what people wished for. They are this time at it again; they want to elect someone who profess to have no idea about economic fundamentals, and someone who think economy is doing good despite the meltdown. Seriously, unless something is wrong that people don't care any more about their pockets and the future of their children, go ahead and elect MaCSame. This will be what you would wish for and God is going to grant your wish. Electing fundamentalists, people who wants to burn books, threaten those who don't share their ideas...seriously...America is going to loose it big.

Posted by: geo | September 17, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse

I would compare Palin's qualifications to be VP as equal to "Brownie's" qualifications as head of FEMA during hurricane Katrina.

Posted by: J Lauber | September 17, 2008 9:07 AM | Report abuse

What's really pathetic is that Krauthammer uses Wiki to "back up his statements"! FFS, I like wiki too, but Colbert has demonstrated the reliability of wikipedia. Is wiki the best source Krauthammer has? If that's the case, all the posters here are qualified to take his place! Can I have Krauthammers job? I'll work from home and you can pay me 1/2 his salery!

Posted by: Marc Edward | September 17, 2008 9:27 AM | Report abuse

I'm sorry, but I'm a teaching assistant and master's student at a university. If my students used Wikipedia as their only citation, they would receive a ZERO. Shouldn't interviewers conducting nationally televised interviews have a better source than Wikipedia? (citation needed)

Posted by: Jay | September 17, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

grant lady: Palin prefers to be refered to as a pitbull. She didn't act like one toward "Charlie" because she was lying about that too. You can put lipstick on a pitbull but it will not qualify her for much.

Posted by: J Lauber | September 17, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Gibson's question was a deliberate trap. He asked a question he knew was ambiguous, and in fact, no one could answer without a context, and then acted condescending towards Palin when she didn't know the answer. As if she is ill-informed on policy issues.

Which is the illusion that the DNC was trying to make.

Posted by: Bob Farabee | September 17, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Krauthammer must have been off the kool aide when he wrote that article and was urged by his minders to set the record straight.

What loosers....what happened to John McCain? He used to give the impression that he was an honorable man but now he has revealed himself to be just like the rest of the criminals who have run our country into the ground.

Posted by: Becky | September 17, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Seems the Pit Bull is nothing more than a Neo-Con Poodle....

Posted by: Tori | September 17, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Aside from the Fox cable network's Bill O'Reilly interview, I am still waiting form anyone in the mainstream media to question Barack Obama with the scrutiny Charlie Gibson gave Sarah Palin.

I do not have a problem with how Palin was interviewed. Mine is to only ask when did the msm ever bother to grill Obama in the tone they did her?

Can you say, "Double standard?"

Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

I think Gov. Palin's answer to Mr. Gibson's question should have been, "What do you mean by 'the Bush doctrine?"

And a note to Mr. Dionne. When reading your article, I was getting a bit confused by the references to "Charles" -- which Charles, Gibson or Krauthammer?

Posted by: cynthia | September 17, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

It is interesting that Dionne states that Palin's response was similar to a student. My complaint about Obama is that all his comments sound like those of a Poli Sci major in their Junior year. Lots of "gonna's" but no substance. I watched both the Gibson interview and the O'Reilly dissection of it. I thought Gibson was uncharacteristically stiff and stilted in his questions and demeanor. I do not blame Palin for being hesitant. Just what was the "real" question and what was the purpose? I like people who do not have easy answers to poorly formed questions. To my experience Palin was following the "teacher's" rule - always answer a "student" question with a question to determine the frame of reference. Had Gibson been better prepared by his handlers he would have been more definitive in his question and framed the discussion. It is interesting that liberals fault Palin and praise Gibson. It was another missed opportunity missed to discuss the issues in an honest and objective way. Really sad!

Posted by: Frank | September 17, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Yikes! So looks WAPO OBAMA Shill EJ Dionne
is living proof that anyone who drinks too
much toxic Obama/Biden kool aid brains will
rot and turn into useless goo...After all
the voters will not elect a big time drug
addict like Obama Fraud and another drunkard like Big Mouth Joe Biden to be our
next President and Vice President.

Thank you God for giving us both wondeful
candidates like Sen John McCain and Gov
Sarah Palin and to be our next President
and Vice President. McCain/Palin 2008!

Posted by: Ralphinphnx | September 17, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Democrats for John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008

Posted by: Jennifer | September 17, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

I was one of those who was "re- energized" by Palin selection. From that perspective, I thought the Gibson interview was "pleasant and relatively gentle", typical Gibson. I'm not naive enough to think that the Republican party didn't make that a precondition to the interview, or, that ABC offered it up as a way to land Palin's first major prime time interview. In terms of the "Bush Doctrine" question, I think Mr. Gibson may have been more interested in showing he's a formidable interviewer than in trying to elicit Palin's knowledge or opinion on the subject. If Mr. Gibson had been interested in the later, and knowing that Governor Palin is a neophyte on the national electoral stage, the "doctrine" question's definition would have been set in the question. In terms of Governor Palin's qualification to govern, I differ to Steven Haywards article at the Weekly Standard for that discussion: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/552kbtvz.asp

Posted by: JimH | September 17, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

The MSM has failed to do its job regarding providing the American Voter with the TRUTH about Obama. They are clearly biased and failed to report on Reverend Wright and Obama’s relationship to other questionable associates in Chicago. They have also failed to question his ethics, principals and values. His supporters BELIEVE in everything he says or they see in the paper. But no one questions HOW he got to where he is today. I am not a reporter, but I have voted democrat for 37 years. Please read and do your own research.

Obama 1996 - 2000
Senator Obama: promoted to Senior Lecturer in constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. Elected to the Illinois Senate. Sponsored more than 800 bills. In 2000, lost a Democratic primary run for the U.S. House of Representatives to four-term incumbent Bobby Rush by a margin of two to one.

What mattered was that, beginning on Jan. 2, 1996, his campaigners began challenging thousands of petition signatures the other candidates in the race had submitted in order to appear on the ballot. Thus Mr. Obama would win his state Senate seat, months before a single vote was cast. Note that when he finished he was the ONLY democrat on the ballot. Republican candidate had to step aside for political reasons.
The 800 bills he ALLEDGEDLY sponsored were actually submitted by other democrats and all OBAMA did was date and stamp. He voted present 130 times on bills that would require him to step out of the box. Gained a reputation that the ‘then’ governor would make him a United States Senator.

2001 - 2004
Obama: reelected in 2002 and became chairman of the Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services Committee.
Initially the committee was looking at Health Care for all residents of Illinois. After accepting funding from insurance lobbyists he insured that universal healthcare became merely a policy goal instead of state policy, basically learned how to again use his power to benefit himself at the expense of doing what was right for the residents of Illinois.
Publicly spoke out against the invasion of Iraq BEFORE the congressional authorization in 2002, and then again before the actual invasion in 2003. This was a given speech that sounded great but was actually a speech that was critical of the war BECAUSE it was distracting from the real issue regarding the black community in the United States. (Note gave this speech with support of Jessie Jackson)

Wrote and delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.
The Black Elite in the DNC decided along with the good ole boys… that to put a Democrat President in the White House in 2008 that they needed to attract the black vote… and that a Black Harvard Lawyer named Obama was the one that they needed. He was seen as an upcoming star because he won the Illinois US Senate Seat. (See the real facts of how he won by such a large number.) No one knew the Republican Candidate)

November 2004: elected to the US Senate, receiving over 3.5 million votes, more than 70% of total.

Now this is an interesting election even by Chicago standards. Seems that the front runner (Hull) mysteriously become involved in a domestic abuse trial and withdrew his name from the race. (Sounds like the Chicago Political Machine may have dropped a dime on Blair.) So Obama had a cake walk to get the democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate Seat. (Reminds me of how he won his State Senate seat by having his legal team disqualify his opponent’s signature petitions. At the same time Jack Ryan won the Republican Nomination, but announced his withdrawal from the race — four days after the Chicago Tribune succeeded in persuading a California court to release previously-sealed child custody records containing embarrassing allegations by Ryan's ex-wife. Now how is that for being one LUCKY politician. Obama walked into the US Senate Seat, when the Republicans brought in the little known Keyes to run as a Republican. Now it looks like the Chicago Political Machine along with Ayers, Jackson, Rezko Wright and the rich and wealthy Black community in Chicago loaded the deck in Obama’s favor.

There is a ‘pattern’ that one can obviously see about how OBAMA runs his campaigns. He has sent his Hack teams into Alaska to discredit Palin, because she is a serious threat to him. He has used racist, he uses smear tactics, he discredits his opponents. He is an skilled actor, intense but still an actor.

This is the individual that wants to change politics in Washington, the champion of bi-partisanship. The one that offers HOPE to the American People.

Is he corrupt? Does he say one thing and do another? Is he deceptive and hiding a hidden agenda? Does he use the ‘system’ to achieve his goals? You have to decide. There is nothing illegal, or wrong about how he rose to political power.

I for one firmly believe in Duty, Honor and Country. (West Point Motto)
Obama is EXACTLY what we do not need in Washington. He is not about Duty, Honor and Country. His is about deceit, lying; winning at all cost, wealth, power and fame.

Posted by: miller51550 | September 17, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse


obviously (Anonymous) didn't see the 30 plus
debates obama has been through already and the multiple attacks on his religious background, patriotism and also his so call celebrity. This is something they all must withstand because she is being interview by the American people.Don't you want to ask her questions too,but wait a minute you can't because the republican is hiding her.all we could do is listen to her and mean the republican speeches she is saying over and over and over.you could almost see the puppet strings over her head.

Posted by: darron.c | September 17, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

"In what respect, Charlie?" is destined to go down in history as one of the greatest summaries of a campaign the US has ever seen. It belongs right there with "Its the economy, stupid."a

Let's begin asking some other questions of Sarah to which her answer will apply. How about, "Do you think John McCain was being truthful when he said he does not pretend to understand economics?"

Posted by: LeftGuy | September 17, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

The Bush Doctrine = Pre-emptive War. Period.

If you didn't know that before the interview, you are an uninformed voter. If you still don't understand that, you are an uninformed Republican voter who refuses to accept reality. If you got busted unprepared for the pop quiz on national TV, you are their VP candidate.

Posted by: HereWeGoAgain | September 17, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Krauthammer was transparently disingenuous in that column. He is suggesting that Palin was not able to answer because she couldn't decide which sense of the "Bush Doctrine" she was asked to comment on (imagine!).
If that were indeed the case couldn't she have simply said something like "well Charley, do mean the preventive war or the democracy for the Middle East?"
And then towards the end he (Krauthammer) simply states "She didn't know it". He doesn't seem to realize that makes the entire preceding disquisition about the blessed doctrine pointless!

Posted by: Sayeed | September 17, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

So you based this entire column on the Wikipedia definition of the "Bush Doctrine?" You would be just like those college professors who don't want students to give the right answer, so much as echo the professor's opinions. I suppose it's time for some Wiki-vandalism so that I can read other empty-headed editorials about the "stealing underpants for profit" version of the Bush Doctrine. Hey, I've already changed the Monroe Doctrine to read, "hands off the brown people!"

Posted by: operagost | September 17, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Nice try Dionne. Gibson repeated a Democrat "preemptive war" talking point rather than provide an accurate definition. The "as I understand it" language is deep. It completely exposes Gibson for the lefty that he is. He understands Bush's foreign policy to be about preemptive war, rather than defeat radical Islam, or spread democracy, or any neutral/objective way to describe it. He explained that his understanding lies in Democrat talking points. Since Dionne agrees with him on that, he does not challenge it. Typical.

Posted by: Matt | September 17, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse


read below article from today's reuter.
which is the reason we need calmer heads in washington. not McCan't.
--------------------------------
Moscow is ready to help Cuba develop its own space center, Russia's space agency chief said on Wednesday after talks in Caracas with Venezuelan and Cuban officials, Itar-Tass news agency reported.
Russia has stepped up efforts to develop closer links with both countries, which are ideological enemies of Washington, including sending Russian strategic bombers on a mission to Venezuela this month.

( does this look like russia is playing the same game The Bushes are playing)
missils ,space rockets. looks the same right? LOL

Posted by: darron.c | September 17, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse


Sigh.

I remember when reporters actually did their job like Charlie Gibson did.

The only other time I've heard a Republican challenged on the facts was during Katrina, on NPR, when Brownie was confronted on conditions on the ground in New Orleans. Later, Brownie was apologized to for NPR's "gruff" treatment of said bureaucrat.

Oddly enough, I predict an Obama-Biden administration will see no shortage of challenges from the MSM. Not because Obama-Biden won't know the facts, but because the MSM is largely antagonistic towards Dems.

How far towards hell will this country go with a McCain-Palin team? There's only one way to find out.

Posted by: tony the pitiful copywriter | September 17, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

We're missing something here.

Where's the posting(s) from a phony "female" "Democrat" who was "for" Hillary Clinton and is now "for" Mcain-Palin?

Lord, you Republican trolls are lazy today!

What's the matter, the market got you down?


Posted by: tony the pitiful copywriter | September 17, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse


tony the pitiful copywriter,
I dont think you heard palin stock is down 10 percent now .LOL

Posted by: darron.c | September 17, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

So there he goes again! The Head WAPO Obama
Shill attacking and smearing Republican
Vice President Nominee Sarah Palin with
a new smear of the day,compliments of the
Messiah Barack Hussein Obama Vile Vicious
Lying Smear Chief David "Dr Gobbels" Axelrod on the Direct Orders of Der Leader
Messiah Barack Hussein Obama again today.

Posted by: Claudine 1000 | September 17, 2008 1:22 AM

Yikes! So looks WAPO OBAMA Shill EJ Dionne
is living proof that anyone who drinks too
much toxic Obama/Biden kool aid brains will
rot and turn into useless goo...After all
the voters will not elect a big time drug
addict like Obama Fraud and another drunkard like Big Mouth Joe Biden to be our
next President and Vice President.

Thank you God for giving us both wondeful
candidates like Sen John McCain and Gov
Sarah Palin and to be our next President
and Vice President. McCain/Palin 2008!

Posted by: Ralphinphnx | September 17, 2008 11:43 AM


Something seems a bit strange with the pro-Palin/McCain posts on this forum. They never seem to write in complete sentences and the arguments tend to be completely disconnected from the story and the rest of the posts.

I’m guessing these are either from Democrats posing as Republicans and trying to make them look stupid or from WAPO staff who are trying to create some partisan rants to increase the number of hits on this article.

Either way it would be nice to have some coherent republican arguments on some of these forum, even if they are just from Democrats playing devil’s advocate.

Posted by: Southeasterner | September 17, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Fergie

The media keeps asking the same questions that they asked Obama she just isn't feeling the need to answer. Does that make her an empty skirt?
Maybe, before the election, she might answer a few questions from voters. Until that happens the people that think she is the greatest thing to come along ever are selling themselves short. So sad.


Posted by: elbuzz | September 17, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

It's wildly disingenuous for Sarah Palin's defenders to explain away her ignorance of the "Bush doctrine" by claiming that it's had so many incarnations that no one knows anymore what it really is. Gov. Palin had no idea that such a term ever even existed.

That being said, as I heard it Gov. Palin's hesitant enunciation of a foreign policy doctrine, once she got around to it, was a rejection of the Bush Doctrine in its preemptive war incarnation, for as I heard and understood her, she stated that the U.S. had the right to initiate the use of force only when an attack from an adversary was deemed imminent, rather than a potential threat.

Having given Gov. Palin the credit that she is due, I can't for the life of me see how we can consider putting in national office a person who talks about going to war with Russia in the same glib tone as if we were considering another intervention in a place like Grenada, Haiti, or Nicaragua.

Posted by: Deja Vue | September 17, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Here's a Simple answer to your Question and All the Obama's Supporters/Haters of free thinkers, The Reason Palin didn’t answer the question in a Fashion that you Liked and why all the Media is in a Frenzy because it scared them, was the Fact that she doesn't follow or want to follow the Bush Policies and by saying it any other way you would just turn around and say she’s in locked step with the Bush Policies..
So why don’t you do real reporting Like what is real in Life not just how much “Your King with No Clothes On” is falling in the poll’s

Posted by: Parker | September 17, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

People are making opinions on and EDITED interview? Why? Do you guys like all your news chopped up and handed only they parts they want to give you.. I'm not a fan of Palin but.. I'm not a fan of being unfair .. the Bush Doctrine was a loaded question the media love Obama its a fact and you can tell most of the time he is treated.. When Bill O'reilly interviewed him and he pretty much stated that taking from people that have more money and giving it to people who have less money is not redistribution of wealth the meida was silent... Palin screwed up there you have people running around hopping up and down yelling she messed up burn her in the media.. but when Obama screws up its 'oh he just misspoke don't he look so keen' Obama like every one else in this race has skeletons in the closet but you don't see a surge or reporters running to his home state to investigate and he is the one actually running for president. I what to be informed when I go vote I don't vote for a party I vote for who I think is best for me but with a mieda that will only give me what they want me to know how can I do such a thing... We have freedom of the press...... when will we get freedom from the press???

Posted by: Mavric | September 17, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

My favorite question of all ---

GIBSON: "Have you ever met a foreign head of state?"

...... and then later in the exchange ---

GIBSON: "I’m talking about somebody who’s a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?"

Palin should have responded with a question of her own: "Do you even know what a Governor does Charlie? Rather than meeting with foreign heads of state, I thought it made more sense to do what I was elected to do -- govern Alaska. But, had I known I'd be asked to run for Vice President, I would have travelled all over the globe trying to meet with as many foreign leaders as I could, even though neither they nor I would have any reason to be meeting, just so I'd have a better answer to your stupid question."

Posted by: tickerchill | September 17, 2008 8:52 PM | Report abuse


lets see how sarah"Thepitbull" palin and
joe" TheRottweiler" biden have there debate.so we could see what a puppy she really is.she wouldnt have McCan't to throw screens for her on that stage.

Posted by: darron.c | September 18, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Instead of political babble, here's what Obama said on 07/26/2007:

In a conference call with reporters, Obama said Clinton would continue the "Bush doctrine" of only speaking to leaders of rogue nations if they first meet conditions laid out by the United States. He went on to suggest that being "trapped by a lot of received wisdom" led members of Congress -- including Clinton -- to authorize the war in Iraq.

Apparently, Obama thinks there's more to the Bush Doctrine than "preemptive strike".

Posted by: Larry | September 18, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

The MSM does not give a hang about how unqualified Obama is, only Palin. And we can debate forever which is more or less qualified to be president, there are good arguments on each side, but the fact remains that Palin is the VICE presidential candidate where Obama is the presidential candidate. You cannot attack the GOP vice presidential candidate regarding inexperience without also attacking the Donkey's presidential candidate as well. You just can't.

Posted by: Dano | September 18, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

It is fascinating that the MSM is obsessed with Palin's qualifications, but could care less about Obama's. In the tank for Obama, much?

Still, Palin has one qualification that is absolutely crucial to McCain, which she has been demonstrating and will continue to demonstrate once in office. She can talk to the base.

McCain had little support from the base before Palin, and now he does. If he is elected he will face a hostile Congress and will need enthusiastic support from the Republican base in order to govern. He cannot get that support himself. Palin will be a goodwill ambassador to the base.

Could Palin take over as president if she had to? Who knows? But, assuming she does not have to, can she play a vital role in a McCain administration? Absolutely.

Posted by: David | September 19, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

The media elite are in an anti-Palin frenzy and taking every cheap shot they can scrounge up, from Gibsons ignorant 'Bush Doctrine' question being twisted into a measure of Palins knowledge to BillMaher calling her a stewardess to Sandra Bernhard calling for Palin to be gang-raped by black men.

The left is so over-the-top that they dont even realise that they are creating huge sympathy among normal people for Palin by making her a martyr.

It is simply incomprehensible that the media has been hijacked by such fantasists as this.

Posted by: BillyBob1776 | September 20, 2008 6:51 AM | Report abuse

After reading many of the posts on this subject, it occurred to me that, suddenly, many liberals have a concern with what they call "lying". Did this concern grow out of the Clinton experience in which they actually learned about the very existence of lying by politicians or could there possibly be a double standard being applied here?

Posted by: MW | September 21, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Sara be a ho - and her girl be a ho too - jiss followin in mamy's footsteps...
after all, aint nutin else to do in that frozen wasteland besides gettin laid...

Posted by: JB_quick | September 21, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company