[Charles Gibson] asked Palin, “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”
She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, “In what respect, Charlie?”
Sensing his “gotcha” moment , Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube  that the Bush doctrine “is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.”
I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, “The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,” I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.
Then came 9/11 , and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror.
 It was the “moose in headlights look in her eyes.
 “I’m a victim” argument.
 [And, as you’ve said any number of times…everything changed…including what you called the “Bush Doctrine.” ]
So a bunch of right-wingers have been using this to defend Palin’s complete lack of knowledge regarding the fact that Bush and his neocon buddies (one of which is teaching her foreign policy) completely changed the foreign policy philosophy of the United States.
The lie is easily exposed quickly. Watch now, if you can ignore facts like this, you too, can be a hack.
KRAUTHAMMER: I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, “The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,”
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
So in his inredibly egotistical daydreams, Charles Krauthammer has forgotten 9/11.
You see, in between Krauthammer writing BS policy for PNAC and AEI in June 2001 and the U.S. invading Iraq in 2002, there was a rather large event.
Since Gibson specifically mentioned what he was talking about, and Krauthammer specifically omitted Gibson mentioning that, you can see who the liar is here.
Palin had no idea was any of them was, and offers a couple of complete non-answers. Some, like Krauthammer, have jumpted to Palin’s defense and said that the term is ambiguous. But given Gibson’s clarification, that Kruathammers somehow missed, and the fact that the official through colloquial understandings of the term all have nothing to do with how she answered (I think she thought it was the “War on Terror” which is even more ambiguous).
She didn’t know what it was. If you would like to, please read on.
Then, if McCain nominates you for Vice President (and it is possible) you can know better….he certainly did….
If you want to read the Bush Doctrine, or as it was more officially know “The National Security Strateigy of the Unitied State (2002 version)“.
Since I was one of those weird people who thought it was strange, at the time, that the U.S. stance was “changing” (Yes, Bush brought “change” as well) from “Walk softly and carry to a big stick” to “Swing that big stick hard at fast at the old crazy guy will all the oil.”, I was quite familiar with the Bush Doctrine.
I am also being literal here. The NSSofUS in 2002, the “Bush Doctrine”, included this bit.
At the time of the Gulf War, we acquired irrefutable proof that Iraq’s designs were not limited to the chemical weapons it had used against Iran and its own people, but also extended to the acquisition of nuclear weapons and biological agents. In the past decade North Korea has become the world’s principal purveyor of ballistic missiles, and has tested increasingly capable missiles while developing its own WMD arsenal. Other rogue regimes seek nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons as well. These states’ pursuit of, and global trade in, such weapons has become a looming threat to all nations.
We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends. Our response must take full advantage of strengthened alliances, the establishment of new partnerships with former adversaries, innovation in the use of military forces, modern technologies, including the development of an effective missile defense system, and increased emphasis on intelligence collection and analysis.
That last bit is the absolute MEAT OF THE BUSH DOCTRINE as applied.
We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends.
Note the part that makes it insane……”before they are able to threaten”, i.e. get them before it’s possible for them to get you. This translates to the real world as “Get them!” as everyone will someday be able to threaten everyone else.
Also, of course, it’s interesting to point out that our National Security Strategy included declarations of the fact regarding the existence of Iraq’s WMD.
For some reason that’s not in the 2006 version. But the 2006 version does include these fun facts.
We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran. For almost 20 years, the Iranian regime hid many of its key nuclear efforts from the international community. Yet the regime continues to claim that it does not seek to develop nuclear weapons. The Iranian regime’s true intentions are clearly revealed by the regime’s refusal to negotiate in good faith; its refusal to come into compliance with its international obligations by providing the IAEA access to nuclear sites and resolving troubling questions; and the aggressive statements of its President calling for Israel to “be wiped off the face of the earth.” The United States has joined with our EU partners and Russia to pressure Iran to meet its international obligations and provide objective guarantees that its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes. This diplomatic effort must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided.
As important as are these nuclear issues, the United States has broader concerns regarding Iran. The Iranian regime sponsors terrorism; threatens Israel; seeks to thwart Middle East peace; disrupts democracy in Iraq; and denies the aspirations of its people for freedom. The nuclear issue and our other concerns can ultimately be resolved only if the Iranian regime makes the strategic decision to change these policies, open up its political system, and afford freedom to its people. This is the ultimate goal of U.S. policy. In the interim, we will continue to take all necessary measures to protect our national and economic security against the adverse effects of their bad conduct. The problems lie with the illicit behavior and dangerous ambition of the Iranian regime, not the legitimate aspirations and interests of the Iranian people. Our strategy is to block the threats posed by the regime while expanding our engagement and outreach to the people the regime is oppressing.
Iraq is actually mentioned a little bit near the bottom. I wonder if they meant this part to be ironic?
The Iraq Survey Group also found that pre-war intelligence estimates of Iraqi WMD stockpiles were wrong – a conclusion that has been confirmed by a bipartisan commission and congressional investigations. We must learn from this experience if we are to counter successfully the very real threat of proliferation.
So what did they learn? It was Saddam’s fault we were wrong about WMD and invaded Iraq.
The world offered Saddam a clear choice: effect full and immediate compliance with his disarmament obligations or face serious consequences. Saddam chose the latter course and is now facing judgment in an Iraqi court [got lynched in a small, cold, cell by a gang of masked men. It was taped by a cellphone and broadcast to the world]. It was Saddam’s reckless behavior that demanded the world’s attention, and it was his refusal to remove the ambiguity that he created that forced the United States and its allies to act.
Yes…that is the “official” version of events. Nice to see honesty in leadership, eh?
It’s no wonder Krauthammer, an obvious liar, carries such large bags of Neocon water. He lives on the stuff.
Don’t drink that stuff, it makes you kill. Worse than any brand of Kool-aid I’ve seen since….well…you know…
UPDATE: Sorry, just a bit too on target to miss…