Clearly, Sarah Palin didn't get the meaning of the term, "the Bush Doctrine.'' But just as clearly, she supports it.
For supporters of Palin, the Alaska governor whom the Republican Party has nominated for vice president, the lack of recognition for a fairly common term inside the beltway of Washington for a strategy formulated by Bush's National Security Council in the fall of 2002 could be considered a badge of maverick honor.
For supporters as well, her certain belief in the underlying tenet of the justification that President Bush used to wage a preemptive war in Iraq should also bring some cheer.
For critics, the gotcha moment in ABC's interview with Palin is a clear lesson in how little attention the first-term governor of Alaska has paid to affairs which, as vice president and potentially president, she would quickly be expected to comprehend.
For critics as well, Palin's clear alliegance to the underlying principal of the doctrine, despite her failure to recognize the name on the political media equivalent of a Jeopardy board - "Charlie, I'll take foreign policy for $1,000'' - will also serve as fodder for the Obama campaign argument that McCain and Palin represent "more of the same.''
Thomas Donnelly wrote for the American Enterprise Institute in January 2003: "If nothing else, the Bush Doctrine, articulated by the president over the past eighteen months in a series of speeches and encapsulated in the new National Security Strategy paper released in September, represents a reversal of course from Clinton-era policies in regard to the uses of U.S. power and, especially, military force.
"So perhaps it is no surprise that many Americans--and others in the rest of the world as well--are struggling to keep up with the changes.''
But that was more than five years ago.
"Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?'' ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson asked Palin in the first installment of the network's interview last night.
Palin paused, looked at Gibson, and correctly guessing that she had been tossed a question for which she did not know the answer, adroitly asked a question of her own:
"In what respect, Charlie?''
Not, what are you talking about?. But rather, please what part of the doctrine are you asking me to agree with? Give the governor credit for thinking in the hot seat.
"Well... what do you interpret it to be?'' Gibson asked.
"His world view,'' Palin said.
.
"I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation,'' she said. "There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
"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,'' Gibson said. "Do you agree with that?''
"I agree that a president's job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America,'' Palin said. "I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.''
Gibson may have caught Palin on a few debating points here. But, inn the end, she probably gave a lot of Americans the right answer.
Here, from an article published at the American Enterprise Institute, a place where Vice President Dick Dney likes to annunciate foreign pokicy, is a take on the Bush Doctrine:
"The Bush Doctrine, which is likely to shape U.S. policy for decades to come, reflects the realities of American power as well as the aspirations of American political principles.
"Does the Bush Doctrine represent a new course for American policy or simply an elaborate justification for the administration's actions? Why attack Iraq but not North Korea? What is the real role of preemption? What is wrong with the tried-and-true concepts of deterrence?
"If nothing else, the Bush Doctrine, articulated by the president over the past eighteen months in a series of speeches and encapsulated in the new National Security Strategy paper released in September, represents a reversal of course from Clinton-era policies in regard to the uses of U.S. power and, especially, military force. So perhaps it is no surprise that many Americans--and others in the rest of the world as well--are struggling to keep up with the changes. Indeed, it often appears that many in the administration cannot keep up with the president. But in fact the Bush Doctrine represents a return to the first principles of American security strategy. The Bush Doctrine also represents the realities of international politics in the post-cold-war, sole-superpower world. Further, the combination of these two factors--America's universal political principles and unprecedented global power and influence--make the Bush Doctrine a whole greater than the sum of its parts; it is likely to remain the basis for U.S. security strategy for decades to come.''
And this was the context of the quetion for Palin on the Bush Doctrine:
GIBSON: We talk on the anniversary of 9/11. Why do you think those hijackers attacked? Why did they want to hurt us?
PALIN: You know, there is a very small percentage of Islamic believers who are extreme and they are violent and they do not believe in American ideals, and they attacked us and now we are at a point here seven years later, on the anniversary, in this post-9/11 world, where we're able to commit to never again. They see that the only option for them is to become a suicide bomber, to get caught up in this evil, in this terror. They need to be provided the hope that all Americans have instilled in us, because we're a democratic, we are a free, and we are a free-thinking society.
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
Related
WATCH: Palin Clarifies 'God' and War RemarksWATCH: Gov. Palin Returns HomeObama or McCain? Find Your Match!GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
PALIN: I agree that a president's job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.
I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.
source : swamppolitics
No comments:
Post a Comment