Sqrl said:
I'm going to repost this for the edumacation of all, but first the CliffsNotes version up front: CliffsNotes Wikipedia editing at its finest: Sep 12th the first sentence of the "Bush Doctrine" page was: "The Bush Doctrine is a term used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United StatesGeorge W. Bush, enunciated in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks." - Source Sep 13th the first sentence of the "Bush Doctrine" page was: The Bush Doctrine is a journalistic term used to describe some foreign policy principles of United StatesGeorge W. Bush, enunciated in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. - Source Isn't it interesting how the word "various" was mysteriously removed right as it would clearly indicate that Palin was justified in asking for clarification. Now the much less effective word "some" is used. But the point still remains even after the edit, no matter how you slice it asking for clarification was justified. Full explaination (and very well done I might add). Its certainly done by a conservative but the argument is laid out factually and substantively. Pointing out he is conservative simply diverts attention from the very real points he makes, and I'll state up front that everyone should consider that this was written by a conservative and take that into account when reading it. But that also means acknowledging which portions are facts and which are opinion, and which are just conservative blathering (there is certainly some of that). Bottom line I expect rebuttals to be substantative, ignore his pot shots and lets look at the facts only.
Posted by: William Dyer at 9:14 AM [Guest Post by Bill Dyer a/k/a Beldar] If Charlie Gibson had asked me, "What do you think about the Bush Doctrine, Beldar?" I'd have said, "What exactly are you referring to, Charlie?" And that's pretty much what Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said Thursday in response to that same question:
Critics from the Left such as Josh Marshall have described as "painful" the "awkward moment when Charlie Gibson tries his best not to press the point that Sarah Palin doesn't know what he's referring to when he asks her about the 'Bush Doctrine'" — as if it should have been perfectly obvious, and as if Gov. Palin is a dimwit for not immediately knowing what Gibson meant. TPM ElectionCentral co-blogger Greg Sargent is more explicitly insulting: "The real news from Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin is this stretch, where she is clearly clueless about what the Bush Doctrine is." And predictably, Andrew Sullivan is neck-deep in disdain:
Beware top-of-the-head reactions from leftist pundits that depend on their knowledge of even recent history! Even those with PhDs in American history like Josh Marshall frequently demonstrate themselves to be the clueless ones — and that's exactly what has happened here: In fact, there are at least two major but distinct concepts that have been labeled as "the Bush Doctrine," along with a bundle of other related themes too. Based on the date reference, Gibson was probably referring — as ABC News confirms on its "Political Radar" blog — to a formal White House position paper from September 2002 entitled "The National Security Strategy." But as guest-blogger WLS at Patterico's points out, that document is
The National Security Strategy was updated in 2006, and that document is also extremely broad. So let's look together at the two major but distinct themes that, separately or together, have been described as "the Bush Doctrine," and also at some of the other less distinct themes that have been included as well. ******* Holding Rogue States Accountable for Non-State Actors' Actions: After 9/11/01, I clearly recall that people began talking about the new and still-evolving "Bush Doctrine" almost immediately. Contrary to Charlie Gibson's suggestion to Gov. Palin, however, that was when the nation was discussing whether to go after al Qaeda and its enabling hosts, the Taliban, in Afghanistan. The discussion then was not about preemptive operations, but rather about retaliatory operations against both non-state actors and the state actors who harbored or helped them. In his address to a joint session of Congress and the American people on September 20, 2001, President Bush made demand upon the Taliban, as the effective government of Afghanistan, to cease its support of al Qaeda and to cooperate with us in apprehending its leaders. And he clearly and deliberately put all state actors on notice that the United States would thereafter hold them responsible for their harboring and support of non-state actor terrorist organizations:
That was something new, and it certainly was being translated into dramatic, violent action on the ground a full year earlier than Gibson's question to Gov. Palin suggested. Indeed, without the clarification Gibson gave that he was referring to preemptive action, I'd have almost certainly have assumed that he was talking about the last sentence of the paragraph I've just quoted when he asked his question about the "Bush Doctrine." ******* Acting Preemptively to Stop Grave and Gathering Threats: By June 2002, however, after the Taliban was toppled (albeit not finally defeated) and the December 2001 Bonn Agreement had put underway the creation of a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Bush Administration turned its attention again to continuing violations of U.N. resolutions by Iraq. Preemptive use of force began to be discussed more directly as an aspect of the "Bush Doctrine." In his 2002 State of the Union Address, President Bush spoke memorably and powerfully of the need to confront "grave and gathering dangers" preemptively:
Certainly President Bush's commencement address at West Point on June 1, 2002, marked an important further enunciation of that part of the overall policy:
And of course, in his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003, President Bush clearly signaled the imminence of preemptive action against Saddam Hussein's regime:
So surely there are strong associations between President Bush on the one hand, and the concept of preemptive military action on the other. But at best for Gibson, or for anyone else who's been criticizing Gov. Palin for asking for clarification, a willingness to act preemptively is only one aspect of "the Bush Doctrine," and it wasn't even the earliest aspect. ******* Other Meanings of the "Bush Doctrine": Even the rogue nation and preemption policies aren't the totality of, or the only definitions for, the "Bush Doctrine." Norman Podhoretz, in trying to define the Bush Doctrine in 2006 for purposes of examining whether it was dead, famously wrote that it has "three pillars": a rejection of cultural relativism and a willingness to use terms like "good" and "evil" more assertively; a willingness to attribute non-state actors' terrorism to their rogue state sponsors; and the "determination to take preemptive action against an anticipated attack." Does Podhoritz' "first pillar" — moral clarity — not count as an additional possible definition of the "Bush Doctrine"? Moreover, from at least the beginning of the Iraq War and continuously thereafter, the promotion and maintenance of liberty and democracy — something closely related to the Truman Doctrine of the Cold War era — has also been described as part of the "Bush Doctrine." A large number of Bush speeches, including his second inaugural address, stressed the American intention to support "democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." Some observers have characterized this as "the Bush Doctrine." On January 31, 2003, Thomas Donnelly published an essay called "The Underpinnings of the Bush Doctrine" for the American Enterprise Institute which treated the term as a description broad enough to include almost all of American foreign policy:
And there are still more variations and permutations and formulations. Sometimes the "Bush Doctrine" has been characterized as being a willingness to act unilaterally, without permission or cooperation from the United Nations or other organizations. At other times, especially in the mouths of critics, the "Bush Doctrine" has been characterized as a willingness to turn to military force too soon, a willingness not just to act preemptively but to rush to war without necessarily exhausting all conceivable diplomatic efforts. But by contrast, if we look at the 2006 National Security Strategy, we don't find much about unilateral or precipitous action, but instead we find an emphasis on even such things as promoting free trade and meeting the challenges of globalization. By asking about the "Bush Doctrine," then, Gibson could legitimately have been understood to have been asking about any of these themes and topics — or all of them collectively, in which case Gov. Palin's first guess (that Gibson meant Bush's "world view") would have been exactly right. Given the lack of a single clear meaning for the term "Bush Doctrine," Gibson might as well just have asked, "What do you think about President George W. Bush's foreign policy?" *******Summary Anyone who criticizes Sarah Palin, then, for asking Charlie Gibson to be more specific about the "Bush Doctrine" is trying to mislead you in at least two ways:
If they had bothered to look, even the Wikipedia could have cured Josh Marshall, Greg Sargent, or Andrew Sullivan of their illusion that there's a single, simple meaning to the term "Bush Doctrine." When it comes to any discussion of Gov. Sarah Palin, these folks have shown us yet again that they just can't be trusted to get their basic facts right. — Beldar
Also note, that its been claimed that the interview was edited "to hell and back", and that "they didn't do her any favors with the edits". Just a few comments I heard from Democrats responding to it on TV tonight. |
After reading that, I think it's safe to say anyone who jumped on Palin for this now looks like a giant fucking douchebag.
With that said, I still don't like many of her policies. But the way she's being attacked for the slightest thing is fucking ridiculous and the left should be ashamed of themselves (including many posters on this forum). Repulsive.
It's sad to see how many people have shown their true colors when debating Sarah Palin. My lack of faith in humanity has been reassured on a daily basis since she was nominated. The liberal left is no fucking different than the fear-mongering right. Sad creatures. I used to think leftists were slightly more tolerant but that's not the case. They're the same slimy, backstabbing greaseballs that right-wingers are.
I'm having a hard time articulating just how disgusted I am over this entire situation. I have lost all respect for many "journalists" and certainly a few posters on this forum in the past two weeks.
Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/