Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, United States’ Chief Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, August 1945:
We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy.
Bush Doctrine, September 2002:
The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction— and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.
Sarah Palin, September 2008:
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
[Deer in the headlights]
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie? [Fishing for a clue]
GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
[Bzzz]
Our progression from right, to wrong, to clueless.
James Fallows has a column in the Atlantic of precisely why this matters. He explains that, if you’re interested in a subject, you will follow along the ebbs and flows of the debate enough to recognize the relevant issues and generally form an opinion — he uses sports and Brett Favre, the Patriots under Belichick (grrrr), and Lance Armstrong as examples. If you don’t care, then you won’t follow it and you won’t have a clue. No big deal for most of us and most sorts of interests. But Palin’s utter blankness was telling.
What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues. Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the “Bush Doctrine” exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years.
Two details in Charles Gibson’s posing of the question were particularly telling. One was the potentially confusing way in which he first asked it. On the page, “the Bush Doctrine” looks different from “the Bush doctrine.” But when hearing the question Palin might not have known whether Gibson was referring to the general sweep of Administration policy — doctrine with small d — or the rationale that connected 9/11 with the need to invade Iraq, the capital-D Doctrine. So initial confusion would be understandable — as if a sports host asked about Favre’s chances and you weren’t sure if he meant previously with the Packers or with the Jets. Once Gibson clarified the question, a person familiar with the issue would have said, “Oh, if we’re talking about the strategy that the President and Condoleezza Rice began laying out in 2002….” There was no such flash of recognition.
The other was Gibson’s own minor mis-statement. American foreign policy has long recognized the concept of preemptive action: if you know somebody is just about to attack you, there’s no debate about the legitimacy of acting first. (This is like “shooting in self-defense.”) The more controversial part of The Bush Doctrine was the idea of preventive war: acting before a threat had fully emerged, on the theory that waiting until it was fully evident would mean acting too late.
Gibson used the word “preemptively” — but if a knowledgeable person had pushed back on that point (“Well, preemption has was what John F. Kennedy had in mind in acting against the imminent threat of Soviet missiles in Cuba”), Gibson would certainly have come back to explain the novelty of the “preventive war” point. Because he knows the issue, a minor mis-choice of words wouldn’t get in the way of his real intent.
Sarah Palin did not know this issue, or any part of it. The view she actually expressed — an endorsement of “preemptive” action — was fine on its own merits. But it is not the stated doctrine of the Bush Administration, it is not the policy her running mate has endorsed, and it is not the concept under which her own son is going off to Iraq.
If it’s not in Alaska, it doesn’t matter.
She knows the difference between a snowmobile and a snow machine. She almost certainly can tell if a meatball is made of moose or elk. But ask her about the national policy stance that her son just got shipped off to participate in, and she has no clue. It doesn’t even appear that she watches the evening news–let alone have any real grasp of national or world events that one would expect a governor, let alone a VP, to have.
These things just haven’t been important to her. Oh, sure, they are *now*. She has to master them to become the second most powerful person on earth.
This is “My Fair Lady”, except this Eliza Doolittle is being prepped to possibly be president and the commander of our armed forces, and the part of Mr. Higgins is being played by a coterie of neocons deemed too crazy for even President Bush to listen to anymore.
The fact that the average Republican voter fell head-over-heels for her virtually sight-unseen tells us nothing new about them. They fell for Bush the same way.
Charles Krauthammer is the one who first coined the phrase “Bush Doctrine” and in fact there are four versions of the thing which means different things to different people. I have also seen the pieces of the first part of the interview that were edited out. I have also saw Gibson’s soft ball questions to Obama as compared to those he asked governor Palin in a interview.
The fact is Obama should be 8 to 10 points ahead of McCain in this terrible republican year. He is in fact tied or behind in most polls which with his situation to often over poll and what could possibly be a “Bradley” effect from racists things haven’t been looking good for senator Obama. He could still win in a landslide a lot will depend on the debates. I can tell you this much from my little small community of friends and relatives that all voted for senator Clinton they love governor Palin especially the women around here and the more celeberties and the media attack her about things not related to her record or positions on issues the more her popularity will grow. Democratic commentator Kirsten Powers said as much in a article this week.
Some of the hatred and rumors have really been over the top. I mean I hear some democratic surrogates on and they seem so angry. Maybe it was the lipstick on a pig comment that was overblown and made up by the McCain campaign that got them so mad. Was it a lie and rediculous? Sure. But it did what was intended which was to get senator Obama off his message for two days talking about it. That’s what many of these ads and talking points are intended to do.
I like governor Palins biography and the fact she isn’t a millionaire and seems closest to everyday americans at least where I come from but I believe she will have a tough time in the debate against Biden.
Mr.Masson I told ya a while back Palin was going to energize the republican base and create much enthusiasm that was lacking. Not as much as Obama supporters but sure closed the gap. I’ll be back the week before the election to see how things are going over here. Take care all.