Charles Gibson is hardly a hardball interviewer, but even he has to explain to Palin (at the 7:52 mark) what the Bush Doctrine is. Here’s part two and part three.
Charles Gibson is hardly a hardball interviewer, but even he has to explain to Palin (at the 7:52 mark) what the Bush Doctrine is. Here’s part two and part three.
But does any of this matter? After all, Palin said she’s ready to be President. That’s called confidence, and how can that be dismissed?
Seems like a reasonable response, judging by the transcript:
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.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
GIBSON: 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?
Wikipedia’s article on the doctrine — which I don’t think was ever enunciated by Bush; the tag was applied to his speeches — says this:
“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 a supposed 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.”
So it seems a reasonable question to ask.
Meanwhile, I’m off to DL the Bonnie Tyler interview. How did you ever think of getting her?
Hey, you can see Russia from an Alaskan island.
Snap!
Way back when I tried to be a stand-up comedian, I tested this sketch I wrote on the theme “We’d All Be Safer If A Guy With Down’s Syndrome Was President.”
I had to stop doing that act, because people didn’t get it. They thought I was making fun of the handicapped.
It went something like this (all voices done by myself on stage):
——————-
ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT: Good morning Mr. President, what would you like to do today?
PRESIDENT WITH DOWN’S SYNDROME: Dunno.
ADVISOR: Would you like to bomb some defenseless third-world country, Mr. President? How about that?
PRESIDENT WITH DOWN’S SYNDROME: Nuh.
ADVISOR: How about I call in your secretary and you have some fun with her in the Oval Office? Wouldn’t that be nice?
PRESIDENT WITH DOWN’S SYNDROME: Nuuh.
ADVISOR: So what would you like to do, then?
PRESIDENT WITH DOWN’S SYNDROME: Go to thuh bathruum. (Pause) Too late.
———–