Bush Doctrine and the Luck of Sarah

When Charles Gibson asked Sarah Palin about the Bush Doctrine, I had two reactions. One was, "I do not know what the Bush Doctrine is, though the term sounds familiar." The other was, "Sarah Palin does not know what the Bush Doctrine is either, but she is trying to finesse it." Gibson would not help her--he wanted to embarrass her.

But Palin was lucky, because it turns out that there is controversy about what the Bush Doctrine really is. Or at least the Conservative side of the argument thinks there is controversy. Joe Klein of Time would have nothing of that message. He wrote:

There is a right-wing smokescreen emerging in an attempt to camouflage Sarah Palin’s utter unfamiliarity with the Bush Doctrine. The new line, assayed by Charles Krauthammer and Peter Feaver among others, is that there were many Bush Doctrines. That is untrue.

There was only one Bush Doctrine. It was enunciated in this speech, delivered by the President, at the West Point graduation in 2002. It was a conscious effort to step beyond the Cold War doctrine of containment and announce a new strategic posture appropriate for the War on Terrorism.

He then goes on to quote a Bush speech that argues that containment is not enough in some cases, and that preemption can be the appropriate policy. And he finishes by saying:

That is the Bush Doctrine. Sarah Palin had no idea that it even existed. Any attempts to divert attention from her ignorance should be rejected for what they are--disinformation.

Mr. Klein has no support for his assertion that there is only one meaning for the Bush Doctrine—he wants us to take his assertion based on his credibility. Unfortunately for Mr. Klein, he had mentioned the Bush Doctrine several years before:

One can only imagine the Republican wrath and utter ridicule-the Rush Limbaugh fulminations-if, say, John Kerry had proposed a similar policy: Let’s pin our Middle East hopes on the statesmanship of Hizballah and Hamas. But that is where the democratic idealism of the Bush Doctrine has led us. If the President turns out to be right-and let’s hope he is-a century’s worth of woolly-headed liberal dreamers will be vindicated. And he will surely deserve that woolliest of all peace prizes, the Nobel.

It must have been a bit embarrassing for Mr. Klein to have someone threw his old words back at him. It certainly makes it hard to take him seriously when he asserts that the meaning of the Bush Doctrine is clearly established.

MarketWatch Columnist Jon Friedman is less assertive, arguing that Sarah Palin will fade away once the media stops paying attention. He also takes a shot at Palin, writing:

Specifically, Palin seemed to have little idea about the Bush Doctrine, in which the U.S must spread democracy around the world to halt terrorist acts. When Gibson put it to her and asked if she agreed with the doctrine, she answered, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Some analysts have suggested that Gibson knew more about the Bush Doctrine than the vice-presidential candidate.

However, according to Gibson the Bush Doctrine was not about spreading democracy, but about preemption:

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?

One wonders if Friedman bothered to watch the interview or read the transcript before penning his piece. You cannot effectively criticize someone for not understanding an issue when your writing shows that you do not understand that issue.

So Palin did not know what the Bush doctrine was, but maybe no one else really does either. If you are trying to impress the public, you are lucky when your critics stumble all over themselves.