Charlie Gibson’s Gaffe
One of the best writers in the business, Charles Krauthammer, delivers a hammer blow to hypocrisy in his Washington Post article. When I saw Gibson peering haughtily over his reading glasses at Sarah Palin, as he wearily asked her a question about the “Bush Doctrine” I thought that this moment defines the MSM. No wonder we hold them in contempt. Charlie Gibson, the wanna-be professor who condescendingly instructed Gov. Palin on the fine points of foreign affairs, turns out to be a twit who would be well advised to sit down in front of Charles Krauthammer and receive a lecture from the master on what is really going on in the world of foreign policy.
~~John Cronin~~
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457_pf.html
By Charles Krauthammer
September 13, 2008
“At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of ‘anticipatory self-defense.’ ”
– New York Times, Sept. 12Informed her? Rubbish.
The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.
There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.
He 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.”
Wrong.
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Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” This “with us or against us” policy regarding terror — first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan — became the essence of the Bush doctrine.
Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.
It’s not. It’s the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush’s second inaugural address: “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”
This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy’s pledge in his inaugural address that the United States “shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson’s 14 points.
If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume — unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise — that he was speaking about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration.
Not the Gibson doctrine of preemption.
Not the “with us or against us” no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.
Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.
Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed “doctrines” in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.
Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.
Yes, Sarah Palin didn’t know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. [Editor's Note: Emphasis mine] And at least she didn’t pretend to know — while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and “sounding like an impatient teacher,” as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes’ reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
September 14th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Great article on Mr. Gibson’s pretense at being an un-biased newsman. Thanks, John.
I’ve no doubt there will be many more “gotcha moments” in the weeks leading up to the election.
September 14th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Well, everybody has biases but Sarah is showed that she is ill informed. She could said have said what particular aspect of the Bush doctrine are you referring to and rattled off several points . . . but she didn’t.
Compare her interview with Romney when he went on Meet the Press with Russert. Romney and his advisors knew that he would need to field a lot of difficult and gotcha questions. I recall that he handled each one of those questions very well. I remeber thinking . . . wow, is this guy ever smart. In contradistinction to Gov. Palin, I do not recall people running to the defense of Mitt and saying, “oh isn’t Russert”, the former Democratic staffer for Daniel Patrick Moynihan, “biased?”
The line of questioning by Gibson was straight forward. You would think that a V.P. candidate could knock those types of questions out of the park or at least effectively side step the issue with political speak? Palin did neither. But maybe that is asking too much from a person that seeks the second highest office in the nation . . .
September 14th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Revised -
Well, everybody has biases but Sarah is showed that she is ill or under informed. She could have said what particular aspect of the Bush doctrine are you referring to Charlie and rattled off several points . . . but she didn’t. Rookie mistake?
Compare her interview with Romney when he went on Meet the Press with Russert. Romney and his advisors knew that he would need to field a lot of difficult and gotcha questions. I recall that he handled each one of those questions very well. I remember thinking . . . wow, is this guy ever smart. In contradistinction to Gov. Palin, I do not recall people running to the defense of Mitt and saying, “oh isn’t Russert”, the former Democratic staffer for Daniel Patrick Moynihan, “biased?”
The line of questioning by Gibson was straightforward. You would think that a V.P. candidate could knock those types of questions out of the park or at least effectively side step the issue with political speak? Palin did neither. But maybe that is asking too much from a person that seeks the second highest office in the nation . . .
September 14th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
With the nation rightly focused last Friday on Hurricane Ike, another hurricane in the making failed to light up the media’s computer screens. At 6:00PM last Friday, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson Jr. and Christopher Cox, (chairman Securities and Exchange Commission) along with president of New York Federal Reserve, Timothy F. Geithner, called an emergency meeting of major Wall Street officials to address the wobbling Lehman Brothers issue (4th largest investment bank). They are calling for a “rescue” of Lehman Brothers and contingency plans to solidify financial markets.
Wall Street CEO’s attending the meeting were: Goldman Sachs Group - Lloyd Blankfein, JP Morgan Chase – James Dimon, Morgan Stanley - John Mack, Citigroup – Vikram Pandit, and Merrill Lynch – John Thain. The Royal Bank of Scotland and Bank of New York were also present. Reps from Lehman Brothers did not attend.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/business/13rescue.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&src=linkedin&adxnnlx=1221408063-Wyxnm81emI6YaT9IZ+gSKA
See also: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/greenspan
What does this mean? The possibility that our government will be called upon to liquidate Lehman Bros is real. Does Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac-Bear Stearns ring a bell? The financial industry should find solutions within the industry. If the industry doesn’t solve their problems, as Mr. Geithner told meeting participants, their individual banks – commercial and investment, could be next.
Why should we care? The collapsed housing market and resulting de-stabilized financial institutions, 750 billion U.S. dollars per year spent on foreign oil, (largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind), over ONE TRILLION 94 BILLION dollars (and counting) of federal debt in the hands of China and Japan, along with additional foreign debt to the United Kingdom, Brazil, Russia, Norway, Taiwan, Sweden, Caribbean banking centers, and other countries too numerous to mention, dramatically increasing mandatory debt levels due to Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security plus interest, huge trade deficits, exportation of manufacturing jobs, devalued U.S. dollar, wasteful ear-marked, pork-barrel federal spending, ongoing Afghanistan and Iraq war debt, and tax increases coupled with promised expansion/addition of entitlement programs proposed by Obama/Biden should AWAKEN every freedom-loving American. Loosey-goosey economics and our broken-do-nothing- government has placed us in captivity and most of us are oblivious.
Mitt Romney understands the link between domestic issues, economic stability, and national security. It was he who sounded the early warning, long and loud, that Washington is broken. In his Detroit Economic Club speech on February 7, 2007 he warned: “America faces new challenges. Some are unprecedented. If we fail to react, to adjust, we could fall behind our potential. The standard of living of our citizens could fail to keep pace. The future could be less prosperous than the past.”
“There are some who insist that the way to address these new challenges is by growing government, growing spending, raising taxes, protecting ourselves from the rest of the world by building isolating barriers and regulations. A government-centered strategy has been tried before, first by the Soviets, then by European welfare states. It has lead to economic stagnation, falling standards of living and high unemployment. To take the same path they have taken and expect a different destination is foolishness.”
“It is the American way that leads to a brighter future for our children, to higher incomes, to a more secure employment, and to a more secure retirement. The American way, tested and proven, is low taxes, open markets, low burdens on employment, excellent education, good healthcare and reliable energy.”
Read Romney specifics here: http://www.mittromney.com/DEC_Speech)
What should we do? As hurricane clean up begins in Texas and Louisiana, Americans will turn up the lamentation volume on “Ike Spike” gasoline prices. That’s a mewling-kitten start. Wise Americans will turn their meow into a collective lion’s roar demanding answers to our impending ECONOMIC HURRICANE. We see it coming and storm warnings have been issued! What solutions do Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin propose for this multi-faceted, deepening crisis? What answers are local, state, and national Democratic and Republican candidates/leaders offering? We must keep this issue before the media and press legislative representatives for answers. The private sector must have a voice at the table. We must demand DETAILS. Then, we must listen closely, check candidates’ records, and vote accordingly.
Vote for vast, real reform on economic policies which, in turn, will enhance domestic security and strengthen America’s foreign policies. Let’s roar for a FREE and STRONG America.
September 14th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Off topic, but a fun website I found while surfing for infomation to make me a better voter. (still not voting for McCain). I was just wondering what other’s thought.
Hey, it’s a fun place to hang for a while.
September 14th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
sorry, here’s the link
http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/?p=1999
September 15th, 2008 at 7:39 am
On the subject of Bush…
I’m going to miss W when he leaves in four months. I’m going to miss him a lot…
I read this article this morning in the Wall Street Journal discussing Bush’s decision to go against all the critics even those in his administration to search for a winning startegy for Iraq.
W maybe a poor manager of government and was unable to properly/effectively implement compassionate conservatism as it should have been. He will still be known as The Decider and one of the greatest presidents in my eyes.
September 15th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Economic Woes Worsen
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=5789135
Lehman Brothers filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy today. Couldn’t overcome its 60 billion in real estate holdings gone bad. This day has been labeled “Armageddon” for people in the financial services industry. The 14 month old real estate downturn has placed financial giants in trouble – Merrill Lynch is merging with Bank of America and AIG is now faltering – being forced into restructuring. A breathtaking half a trillion $ in mortgage investments have turned sour with more expected to come.
Alan Greenspan says this is a once in a century event that is still unraveling.
Oil update: On Sept. 10, 2008, OPEC decided to cut oil production by half million barrels in reaction to the 30% drop in fuel prices this summer. Figures. We cut back to save our pocketbooks, demand decreases, and strangle-hold OPEC wants to maximize profits. Opec pumps 40% of the world’s oil, but controls most oil that is exported. The situation is volatile; experts are hesitant to predict how high oil prices will go but venture to say could be $200 per barrel next summer.
America needs real leadership. We need comprehensive, sweeping changes in our economic policies and comprehensive, sweeping changes on energy policy. We need the best minds – experts who know economics and energy – to partner with government to craft solid solutions.
Mitt Romney, we need YOU!
September 15th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
2tp. We do need leadership. Do you honestly think any of the above will Provide it? This oil crisis has been brewing for several years. It is only been in the last few weeks, that mcCain has even considered drilling. Palin has put windfall taxes on oil companines. I guess that helped our price at the pump. I can’t see any of them making any bit of difference. So, where do we stand? I don’t really know. I do know I can’t vote for McCain. His past history is very clear. His present history is all talk, no juice. All I hear is about Palin. Last time I looked she’s second seat. And to be honest, she’s hardly my cup of tea. I don’t think I would have voted for her as PTA president, Mayor of Disneyland sized city or Gov of Alaska.