- Daily Photo: Obama Jokes Around at G-20
- Blackwater gets replaced in Iraq
- Daily Photo: U.S. Marines Look Out for Taliban in Afghanistan
- Hillary Clinton the Tomboy and Her "Ah-Ha" Moment
- Obama Administration Sudan Envoy Headed to Region
- Daily Photo: Potential Flashpoint in Iraq
- Clinton Says New Afghanistan-Pakistan Plan Depends on Diplomacy
- Exclusive: Three Israeli Airstrikes Against Sudan
- Additional 4,000 Troops to Be Ordered to Afghanistan
- Daily Photo: Navy Submarine Trains in the Arctic
- Alarm Over North Korea Missile Prep
- Anti-Terror Stimulus? US Offers Rewards for Top Terrorists
- Daily Photo: Pakistani Women in Refugee Camp
- Condoleezza Rice Appears on "The Tonight Show"
- Diplomat and Aid Group Sound the Alarm on Darfur Camp Situation
- auto industry rescue
- Ballotwatch
- Biden, Joe
- Bush, George W.
- Clinton, Bill
- Clinton, Hillary
- Dodd, Chris
- Edwards, John
- Giuliani, Rudy
- Gravel, Mike
- Huckabee, Mike
- Hunter, Duncan
- Inauguration
- Iraq
- Kucinich, Dennis
- McCain, John
- Obama, Barack
- Palin, Sarah
- Paul, Ron
- Romney, Mitt
- Tancredo, Tom
- Thompson, Fred
- Veepstakes
- Vote 2008: Democrats
- Vote 2008: Republicans
- Washington
- White House
« Previous | Main | Next »
Unclear If Palin Subscribes to Bush Doctrine
Email
ShareSeptember 12, 2008 12:27 AM
ABC News' Teddy Davis and Rigel Anderson report: Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin supports using U.S. military force when a strike is "imminent" against the American people, but in an interview with ABC News, she stopped short of saying whether she supports "anticipatory self-defense," leaving open the question of whether she subscribes to the Bush Doctrine.
"Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country," Palin told ABC News' Charles Gibson. "In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend, and that's what a McCain-Palin administration would do."
President Bush's September 2002 "National Security Strategy of the United States" declares that the U.S. "must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries."
The security strategy reads: "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."
Asked if Palin's bar for the use of force is higher than the one contained in the Bush Doctrine, the McCain-Palin campaign said that it was a highly conceptual question that Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., himself may have never answered, and that it was going to let Palin's interview with Gibson stand on its own.
The McCain campaign also explained Palin's unclear stance on the Bush Doctrine by telling ABCNews.com that Gibson's question was asked in the abstract and not in the context of an Iraq war, which the Republican presidential nominee has consistently supported.
McCain not only voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq, but reaffirmed in an interview earlier this year that he thinks the U.S. invasion of Iraq was not a mistake.
"The war, 'the invasion,' was not a mistake. The handling of the war was a terrible mistake," McCain told the late Tim Russert of NBC News in January.
Palin discussed her views, on the Bush Doctrine and the use of force, with Gibson during her first televised interview since being named as McCain's running mate.
The discussion of "anticipatory self-defense" began with Gibson asking, "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?"
"In what respect, Charlie?" asked Palin.
Gibson explained that he was asking if she agrees with Bush that the United States has "the right to a pre-emptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us."
The Alaska governor did not directly answer the question.
"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," said Palin. "I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president ... we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn-in on Jan. 20, that will be our top priority ... to defend the American people."
Gibson reposed the question, asking, "Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a pre-emptive strike against another country if we feel that country might strike us?"
Palin once again avoided directly answering the question.
Instead of answering whether she agreed with Bush on whether the U.S. has a right to "anticipatory self-defense," she simply stated her support for the traditional concept of using military force to combat an "imminent threat."
While calling for the U.S. to revise its policy on the use of force, the September 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States describes an imminent threat as "most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack."
In her interview with ABC News, Palin was initially unsure of what Gibson was referring to when he asked about the Bush Doctrine. The McCain campaign says that this is because the Bush Doctrine has been used to refer to multiple concepts beyond anticipatory self-defense, including "are you with us or are you against us," and the concept that the United States will hold a nation-state that harbors terrorists, responsible. Before Gibson explained that he was referring to anticipatory self-defense, Palin suggested that she thought it referred to the president's commitment to ridding the world of Islamic extremism.
September 12, 2008 in Palin, Sarah | Permalink | User Comments (820)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
XIO.... THATS CAUSE SHES STUPID.
Posted by: TIMEIS NOW24 | Sep 12, 2008 1:00:23 AM
How can ABC not know how to summarize this moment of its own interview. Clearly the term "Bush doctrine" was wholly new to her. He asked her multiple times, even asking her at one point what she understood it to mean. Her response? His "world view."
It was only after Gibson defined the doctrine for her that she gave the wishy washy answer. Unbelievable that ABC isn't reporting this aspect of the only interview they're allowing her to do.
Posted by: A B | Sep 12, 2008 1:00:57 AM
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/10/article-1054101-029A7F1200000578-189_468x597.jpg
Apparently, even Barrack "Jim Jones" Osama understands the dynamics of the debate has changed...
Posted by: Hostile Knowledge | Sep 12, 2008 1:01:20 AM
After her comments about the Iraq War being the work of God, it is further proof that this woman is a liar. More than that, she is a know-nothing who needs a lot more prepping before she can be let loose on her own. Apparently she is like George W. Bush who takes his orders directly from God. Scary Sarah is truly unprepared and unqualified. She all set to start WWIII - if God tells her its the right thing to do. McCain has put at risk the long term stability of this country by bringing this wingnut into the election. He has made a mockery of the electoral process. Palin must be rejected for the sake of future generations and for the entire world. Shoot First is not an acceptable policy in a nuclear world. She is another Goldwater.
Posted by: jefflz | Sep 12, 2008 1:01:34 AM
The Bush Doctrine is a phrase. Since it has Bush's name on it, nobody really knows what it is. Look at all the Obama people thinking this has got to be the thing that makes people who are never in their life going to vote for Obaba vote for Obama. Wishful thinking.
Posted by: Kitty | Sep 12, 2008 1:02:01 AM
You can see Russia from Alaska??
Boy, she sure hit that one out of the park.
Posted by: Matt | Sep 12, 2008 1:02:48 AM
Matt, it would be hard to sit and have a dinner conversation with you.
Posted by: Kitty | Sep 12, 2008 1:04:20 AM
The hockey mom with lipstick will take us to war with Russia. She scares the hell out of me!!!
Posted by: Mike Nichols | Sep 12, 2008 1:04:39 AM
NO KITTY.... MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARENT TRULLY RELLIGIOUS NUTS OR BITTER NRA MEMBERS... ARE JUST BIGGOTS... FLAT OUT... BUT HE HOPES TO REACH THE MAJORITY OF DECENT AMERICANS WHO WANT A BETTER NATION FOR ALL AND OUR FUTURE AMERICANS.
Posted by: TIMEIS NOW24 | Sep 12, 2008 1:04:53 AM
The "Bush Doctrine" is a pejorative term, coined by pseudo-intellectuals hell-bent on deriding a shoot-first approach to attacking terrorism. Funny that Charlie would believe that it is common parlance. Do you think the President thinks he has a doctrine? Charlie, why don't you ask him?
Posted by: SillySeason | Sep 12, 2008 1:05:09 AM
Actually, Sarah Palin was correct to ask Charlie Gibson, "what aspect of it?" in regards to the Bush Doctrine.
According to Wikipedia:
The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, enunciated in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan.[1] Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq), a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism, and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.[2][3][4] Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002.[5]
Posted by: John | Sep 12, 2008 1:06:35 AM
I bet if Charlie had asked her about the National Security Strategy of the United States she would have known what he was talking about. He should have just said that when she asked for clarity.
Posted by: Kitty | Sep 12, 2008 1:06:36 AM
I have respected Charlie Gibson for many years as a journalist, but I must say I am disappointed in how he interviewed Sarah Palin. It was like he was deliberately showing favoritism to Barack Obama. I haven't heard him ask these kinds of questions to Obama. I doubt many people knew what he was saying when he asked about the Bush Doctrine! Was he talking about all of Bush's policies? He did not clarify what he was asking until he deliberately tried to make her look stupid, which she is not. I watched the whole interview,not just the snippets. I have been a Democrat for many years. I actually was supporting Hillary for President. However, since Obama does not present a solid clear plan for anything other than "change" I cannot support him. Of course this country wants change after George W Bush. But unless I know a solid defined plan, give me credit for my intelligence Obama; I will not support him. Sarah Palin handled herself well and very articulately. I listen to Obama and he does speak well, but he doesn't actually articulate what he stands for. As for you, did you know what the Bush Doctrine was? Or did you like me figure it was all of Bush's policies? Good job Sarah, I am glad John McCain picked you!
Posted by: patricia | Sep 12, 2008 1:07:23 AM
WOOW! JOHN IS REALLY REACHING FOR SOMETHING... WAY TO SUPPORT YOUR PARTY JOHN. LOL
Posted by: TIMEIS NOW24 | Sep 12, 2008 1:07:57 AM
McCain's campaign has jumped the barracuda.
Stick a fork in it.
The fat lady is singing.
This is what lipstick on a pig looks like.
SAY GOODNIGHT, JOHN.
BUH-BYE.
Posted by: Ed from MA | Sep 12, 2008 1:08:28 AM
IKNOW PATRICIA... HE SHOULD HAVE JUST ASKED HER WHAT MOOSE HUNTING IS LIKE AND WHAT HER FAVORITE SHADE OF LIPSTICK IS.... YOU CANT BE SERIOUS.
Posted by: TIMEIS NOW24 | Sep 12, 2008 1:09:20 AM
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but even here in backwoods Oklahoma we knew what Charlie meant about the Bush doctrine. It means that it's ok to do a pre-emptive strike. It was a HUGE change in our entire history of foreign policy. It should be something all Americans have thought about because it's our kids that have to go to fight those pre-emptive wars. To sum up: Afghanistan- classical enemy that struck us first and deserved to be obliterated. Japan, Germany, etc- classical enemies that attacked us first. Iraq- whole new ballgame. But our "watchdog of the people"- the media- prefers lipstick and dead starlets to boring old foreign policy discussions. And we the people will keep doing the same thing over and over and getting results until we decide we've had ENOUGH.
Posted by: Okiemom | Sep 12, 2008 1:09:52 AM
Relax everybody, she did fine. No mistakes.
Posted by: John | Sep 12, 2008 1:11:05 AM
TIMEIS, it'll be OK. Relax. I know you think this is what he wants. Others of us know better. SO, it's still your wishful thinking. You can slap lipstick on it and call it a duck, but it's still wishful thinking.
Posted by: Kitty | Sep 12, 2008 1:11:25 AM
It is amazing isn't it? The Obama Doctrine that is. Such a powerful force that none can refute. So clear that even a child can understand. What is it you ask? Change. Nothing more nothing less, just change.
So you'll have to pardon those of us who need more than just the one word to define their world view.
Posted by: Manuel | Sep 12, 2008 1:11:34 AM
Post a comment
