The World Newser is World News' daily blog. Here, you'll find our staff's thoughts on the day's news and the way we build our broadcast. Plus, we'll share reports from our team of correspondents in the field, as well as producers behind-the-scenes.
RECENT POSTS
- Going Rogue, Selling High
- What One Man 200 Miles Above Earth is Thankful For Today
- Clem's Chronicles: Toyota Recall/Afghan Speech/State Dinner Crashers
- Charlie Gibson...On this Thanksgiving
- Quotes of the Day: 'It is my intention to finish the job'
- Start Your Shopping Engines
- The Hajj and Women's Dress
- Clem's Chronicles: Afghanistan/WH State Dinner/Holiday Travel
- Photos: White House State Dinners Through the Years
- Are We Becoming A Nation of Know-Nothings?
- Quotes of the Day: 'President Obama has the information he wants... to make his decision'
- Clem's Chronicles: Jobs/Afghanistan/Health Care Reform/Deficit
WORLD NEWSER CATEGORIES
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Gingrich: Palin Bush Doctrine Answer Reflects Lessons Learned
September 12, 2008 4:35 AM
ABC News' Teddy Davis and Hope Ditto Report: Appearing Friday on NBC's "Today," Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich described Sarah Palin's lack of clarity on whether she subscribes to the Bush Doctrine as reflecting lessons learned in the last seven years, adding that President Bush would have had a "much harder case to make" in the run up to the Iraq war if he were trying to meet the imminent threat standard articulated by Palin during her Thursday interview with ABC News' Charles Gibson.
"I think it depends on what you mean by the word 'imminent,'" said Gingrich. "I suspect that if you went back and said to her, 'All right, if we find somebody is preparing a biological or nuclear weapon to use against us, would you wait until the last second?' 'Would you move as early as you were sure they were against you?' I think you get into sort of judgment calls there. But I also think she reflects lessons we've learned in the last seven years and you've got to be cautious and you've got to make sure that you have a case beyond reasonable doubt and that you're not just acting at sort of first...notice."
Asked by NBC's Matt Lauer if President Bush would have had a "very difficult case" to make before the American people if he were trying to meet Palin's "imminent threat" standard, Gingrich said, "I think he would have had a much harder case to make."
Gingrich then quickly added that "although at the time, we tend to forget this looking backwards, at the time people thought the Iraqis were explicitly, and that Saddam Hussein was explicitly, trying to get weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass murder, and I think if you think that someone is actively trying to get a nuclear or biological weapon you probably don't wait until they finish the weapon and are prepared to put it in a rocket."
During her Thursday interview with ABC News, Palin said she supports using U.S. military force when a strike is "imminent" against the American people but 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."
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.
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."
While calling for the U.S. to revise its policy on the use of force, the 2002 strategy document 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 that it referred to the president's commitment to ridding the world of Islamic extremism.
September 12, 2008 in Political Radar | Permalink | Share | User Comments (220)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Gibson just another liberal media scumbag.
Posted by: Ken | Sep 12, 2008 4:49:58 AM
Judging from her obvious lack of experience, I think she did quite ok during the interview.
Those that gave her a crash course on foreign policy have done a pretty good job. However, they will still need to do more before the debate with Biden.
From what her saw last night, she was repeating lines like someone rehearsing a script and she seems pretty nervous at times. She was much more comfortable with question on energy than she was on foreign policy. I ll give her 6 out of 10.
Posted by: Ro | Sep 12, 2008 4:59:02 AM
Just one more indication that she is not ready for this JOB!
Posted by: y.sister | Sep 12, 2008 4:59:25 AM
He asked about the Bush doctrine
she got it wrong
she got it wrong because she doesn't know.
this is not the town local...ugh this is the freakin Vice President of the united states! the back up to be the leader of the free world!
this interview didn't come close to details that anyone in that position NEEDS to know...
you all should be very scared...ugh
I can't believe you people...
this woman from that first glimpse last night at who she really is
this woman that people have been screaming about...
is not being elected to the head of the local "lets discuss world politics" committee...which she would have failed at.
She is asking to be the person that is the back up to wade through all of this cr@p we are in
The person that would launch nuclear (or like bush "nucular" missiles)
She didn't do okay...I, a citizen, would be more equipped to be Vice President than she is...
it is about basic knowledge of the problems we face...she is ...there are no words to describe how under-qualified and BAD a choice this woman is.
and how bad John McCain's whacked judgment was that he would actually hire this woman.
Her record is overwhelmingly mixed in Alaska. In a time when the state is having a boom because of the oil industry.
so stop with how popular she is...she is popular because of huge oil windfalls affording the oil companies being okay with getting taxed more and the return flowing into her state.
This is not the local Town Board Chair election oy ugh and AAAAAAAHHHHH!...
This is the person who should known and have known the Bush Doctrine and all of that recent history...and the details of Israel...and known what answering like that about Israel does to our job in the middle east peace process...and how it complicates it...
and ugh
this is ridiculous
that woman you saw last night ...you really think she should be deciding if we go to war,
or deciding whether "nucular" missiles should be launched
or American commercial jetliners should be be shot down over NYC
Gov Palin what if it were a Russian commercial airliner? or British? or Pakistani?
would you know the ramifications of such a choice?
you all should be feeling nauseous from that interview last night.
Absolutely ridiculous that that person on that interview ...would be close to any position of leadership...never mind the Leader of the freakin free world...
like was said before...this is not some Disney movie.
jesu$ how stupid can we be for a third time.
Posted by: dl | Sep 12, 2008 5:01:26 AM
The media has made it sound like the governor didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was. When you replay the entire interview with Charlie Gibson, it is clear she knew the meaning of the doctrine. The media has done everything to try to smear this capable lady. The reason is she's a conservative woman. The feminists and liberal left just don't know how to deal with the concept of a woman who is conservative. After all, all women are suppose to be pro abortion and support all the definitions of a feminist. In otherwords, they don't recognize traditional values. The minute the media is stumped by this new concept, they suddenly support traditional values to discredit this capable conservative lady. The fact that they question her ability to be a good mother with five kids is proof. That's the way the left operates. They change their positions with the wind. Whatever fits their agenda to discredit someone who is different than them. It's plainly as I can put is but a bunch of B.S. They're all liars with and use deception to promote a position that changes all the time. It's like their view of the constition, that it's a living entity. Whatever fits their agenda. I wish people would wake up to the liberal media and the wickedness of their liberal politics.
Posted by: Ray Walsh | Sep 12, 2008 5:01:35 AM
I watched part 1 of the Gibson/Palin interview last night & was sickened at Gibson's demeanor. He was arrrogant, abrupt, mean. Bill O'Reilly is a persistent interviewer - a definite bulldog, but he at least displays humor and senstivity, even when probing the ideas of those with whom he clearly diagrees...such as Hillary Clinton. I have completely lost respect for ABC & Gibson.
Posted by: Teresa | Sep 12, 2008 5:01:41 AM
If you hold up a que card with answers anyone can do it.
The top people advising, trainin, and cramming her for 13 days are directly from years in the Bush white house.
Let's attack Gibson and build Palin up until she gets all soft questions, so we can say hooray for super woman.
Posted by: watching | Sep 12, 2008 5:02:44 AM
__
Was Obama's Freudian slip about his MUSLIM faith the WRIGHT thing to say?
Posted by: dl | Sep 12, 2008 5:06:06 AM
Newt Gingrich is trying to spin an obvious flub by an absolutely unqualified and dangerous choice for VP
backing up a guy who already loses on every issue...
and then tries to use the same tactics that they used in 2000 and 2004 to trick stupid people into voting for them again.
yes you would have to be stupid to vote for this stuff for a THIRD Time as we are sinking into the pit.
Posted by: dl | Sep 12, 2008 5:06:21 AM
After both presidential candidates agreed they wouldn't campaign on September 11th -- there's Sarah Palin, doing an interview.
On Patriot's Day.
On September 11th.
What, indeed, is honor John McCain?
Posted by: Hal E. Burton | Sep 12, 2008 5:07:29 AM
NO ONE AT ABC NEWS KNOWS WHAT THE BUSH DOCTRINE IS: September 21, 2001 CHARLIE GIBSON DIDN'T KNOW: Senator Daschle, let me start with you. People were looking for a Bush Doctrine. They may have found it when he said the war on terror will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped or defeated. That’s pretty broad. Broader than you expected?
December 9, 2001 GEORGE WILL DIDN'T KNOW: The Bush doctrine holds that anyone who governs a territory is complicit in any terrorism that issues from that territory. That covers the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Second, the war on terrorism is indivisible, it’s part of the Bush doctrine.
September 20, 2001 PETER JENNINGS DIDN'T KNOW: . . . Claire, the president said at one point, ‘From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.’ Should we be taking that as the Bush doctrine? CLAIRE SHIPMAN reporting: I think so, Peter,
December 11, 2001 GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS DIDN'T KNOW: Two years ago, September 1999, Bush gave his first speech when he was running about terrorism. And his first–had the first explanation of the Bush doctrine, that if you harbor a terrorist, you’re going to be attacked. The Bush White House is putting this out, saying it shows that Bush was very prescient, but that was only one speech given in the campaign.
January 28, 2002 BOB WOODWARD DIDN'T KNOW: This is now the Bush Doctrine . . . , namely that if we’re attacked by terrorists, we will not just go after those terrorists but the countries or the people who harbor them.
January 29, 2002 GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS DIDN'T KNOW: It was striking and significant that the president really expanded the Bush doctrine. If a nation builds a weapon of mass destruction–Iraq, Iran or North Korea–we will reserve the right to take out those weapons even if we’re not attacked or even if there’s not a threat.
March 19, 2004 TERRY MORAN DIDN'T KNOW: That was the Bush doctrine we just heard. On this one-year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, President Bush offered a very broad justification of American leadership in the world under him since 9/11. Not just since one year in Iraq. For American voters as an argument that the country is safer, but more as you point out, for the world, which has been divided by his leadership, that Iraq is knit, in his mind, very firmly into that war on terrorism. One omission which I believe will be noted around the world, he made no mention of the role of multilateral institutions, the UN and others, in this fight against terrorism. In his mind, it’s clear it’s American leadership with others following along.
May 7, 2006 GEORGE WILL DIDN'T KNOW: Now the argument from the right is the CIA is a rogue agent because it has not subscribed to the Bush doctrine. The Bush doctrine being that American security depends on the spread of democracy and we know how to do that. The trouble is, Negroponte, who is considered by some of these conservatives the villain here and an enemy of the Bush doctrine is the choice of Bush, which makes Bush an insufficient subscriber to the Bush doctrine.
Keep watching! You too may add to the BUSH??? doctrine, brought to you by the MEDIA!
Posted by: HP Boston | Sep 12, 2008 5:07:39 AM
C'mon folks, Gibson was nice. She simply didn't know what the Bush doctrine is. Gingrich can say all he wants, she couldn't answer the question because she had no idea what it meant. Of course if you ask her a detailed question like "if there are a bunch of terrorists plotting to blow up your house, do you attack them?" she'd be able to answer. But so would a four-year-old.
Posted by: joe | Sep 12, 2008 5:08:00 AM
She simply is not qualified on national security. I know what the Bush doctrine is. There were plenty of news reports on it. And I don't consider myself vice presidential material.
Posted by: Yvonne | Sep 12, 2008 5:08:46 AM
Funny to watch Cuomo this morning on GMA been so surprised about Palin answer on Afghanistan. Wasn't Obama the first one saying that he will target terrorist in Pakistan? He backed down and as usual flip flopped later on that one as Carville clarified in the segment! Is just like with Hillary, no matter how she answer they are no happy; but they ignored all the Obama's blunders.
I haven't seen any previous interview interview with Obama or any outrage from the media, ABC, CNN, MSNBC about his lack of experience or qualifications to be President other than a community organizer. They were biased an afraid to ask the hard questions to him, afraid of the race card.
Posted by: Pam_NC | Sep 12, 2008 5:09:29 AM
I'll bet 99.7% don't know what the freaking Bush Doctrine is....why McCain agreed to let Palin get interviewed by this far left scumbag is amazing in it's stupidity.
But regarless she did well, and the far left American hating libs are left pissing in the wind....and down in the polls.
Posted by: Hoot Gibson | Sep 12, 2008 5:10:43 AM
Gibson was clearly being vague in his questioning, trying to trip her up. She did very well despite his rude and condescending attitude toward this Governor, who deserves a bit more respect.
Posted by: Mary Cirucci | Sep 12, 2008 5:11:04 AM
__
Was Obama's Freudian slip about his MUSLIM faith the WRIGHT thing to say?
Posted by: dl | Sep 12, 2008 5:12:28 AM
Yeah, big Kudos! All of the media is so unfair to Palin. I think what we really should be asking our candidates is "Who loves warm fuzzy puppies the most?" It is those types of hard hitting questions that we can trust Fair and Balanced Fox news to report on. Drill Baby Drill!!
Posted by: Chris | Sep 12, 2008 5:12:34 AM
Yvonne...the only thing a Kool-Aid drinking lefty like you is qualified for, is serviving drunks in your local Red Light District.
Posted by: Hoot Gibson | Sep 12, 2008 5:12:37 AM
How can you blame Gibson, when the McCain campaign picked him as the exclusive interviewer?
Posted by: Jimbo | Sep 12, 2008 5:12:39 AM
Post a comment
