AP Mis-States The “Bush Doctrine” in Criticizing Palin For Not Being Able To Explain The Bush Doctrine
[Posted by WLS]
Here is the lead paragraph from the AP story on the ABC interview of Palin:
John McCain running mate Sarah Palin sought Thursday to defend her qualifications but struggled with foreign policy, unable to describe President Bush’s doctrine of pre-emptive strikes against threatening nations…
For those of you who haven’t watched the tape, Gibson asked her if she agreed with the “Bush Doctrine.” She gave a generalized answer supporting President Bush’s strategy of combating Islamic extremism wherever it is found.
Here’s the problem — the “Bush Doctrine” is many different things, not one thing that Gibson thinks he knows it to be or the AP thinks it knows it to be. I’ve seen other critics of her performance describe it as the “You’re either with us or against us” warning to third party nations harboring terrorists.
Here is the actual “Bush Doctrine” — otherwise known as the National Security Strategy of the United States 2002:
It’s actually a 31-page policy paper that spells out how the United States intends to pursue and protect its national security interests in a post-9/11 world. It is both the justification for preemptive war, as well as a justification for including rogue nations in the same class as terrorist organizations. And it’s a lot more.
Which just goes to prove that allowing reporters to ask questions on subjects about which they have an incomplete understanding is an invitation to hilarity — at the reporter’s expense.
The Document linked above was issued Sept. 2002.
There may have been an oral formulation of the policy in a speech given earlier than that date. So, what’s the point of Gibson’s question? Whether she had memorized different Presidential speeches that were given on different days and in different locations? Whether she had read the 2002 version of the Policy, or the revised 2006 version of the Policy?
Generically calling a broad national security policy by its short-hand title, and asking someone if they “agree with” it, is inane.