...how many of the posters attacking Palin would have known that the policy of preemptive self defense was known as the "Bush Doctrine"? Charles Gibson could have asked what Palin thought of preemptive self defense in as many words. But instead of looking into her perspective on the policy, we instead found out that she didn't know the name of the policy.

An intelligent writer/interviewer could have a field day with Palin's refusal (failure?) to denounce preemptive warfare. Instead, we get to laugh at the Alaska governor's ignorance of definitions. We can also laugh at McCain not knowing how many houses he owns, or giggle when Obama accidentally said "my Muslim faith" when he was talking about religion.

Forgive me for being more concerned with the candidates actual positions on national defense, and less concerned with how well they smile for the camera.

In case you didn't notice, once she figured out what Gibson was talking about, she still didn't give a remotely intelligent response. Her position would not have described Iraq ("Imminent attack") and she didn't even explain her thoughts on the incursions into pakistan that happened four days ago.

And, in case you didn't notice, "most people," who would have to google the Bush doctrine, aren't running for vice president. Those that do run for vice president SHOULD know what the Bush doctrine is.

Sara Palin is most people.

...and there's no spinning this one. If you want to roll with the A-Team, you need to have your act together. Anybody who aspires to national office should have -- on their own, long ago -- learned that the Bush Doctrine = preemptive war. Christ, I know what the Truman Doctrine is, and he's as dead as Julius Caesar. I wasn't sold on her from the get-go, and right now I half wish that super collider had wiped out the Earth. Since I live in a solidly blue state (and I'm not sold on Obama, either), I think I can sit this election out with a clear conscience.

Good gravy.

Anyone who has read the Sunday NYT or the WA Post would get this without needing to resort to google. After all it kicks out 2,760 hits on the NYT Search alone.

Sorry, her ignorance is showing.

Oh Geez. How many people who use google are in the running for veep of the us? Does it not scare any of you defenders that THIS PERSON COULD BE RUNNING THE COUNTRY? Seriously. Can you let go if ideology for a few minutes to comprehend what that would mean?

degsme:

Anyone who has read the Sunday NYT or the WA Post would get this without needing to resort to google. After all it kicks out 2,760 hits on the NYT Search alone.

Sorry, her ignorance is showing.

You've cited 2,760 hits in the NYT as proof that the Bush Doctrine is some sort of well known foreign policy principle that any serious policy maker would be able to discuss, but you haven't even defined it. Bush didn't say "here's the Bush Doctrine," and it's just silly to expect someone to pick out the same principle of Bush's foreign policy as you to put the label "Bush Doctrine" on. When was the last time you saw foreign policy experts discussing something called the "Bush Doctrine"?

BTW, your own link included this NYT blog entry discussing the conclusion that there was never even such a thing as a "Bush Doctrine," and this article explaining why there was no such thing as a "Bush Doctrine."

Actually, the fact that you do not know what the "Bush Doctrine" is, is only a reflection on you and your lack of this knowledge. While the complexities can be long debated, the term is a very simple foreign policy term and probably the most important thing to come out of the Bush administration regarding lasting impact (right or wrong). Any Political Science or International Relations freshman can tell you what it refers to, its implications, and their position on it as they understand it.

It does not surprise me that most Americans do not understand it, but I am surprised that ANY politition running for national office does not. The fact that the Iraq invasion had such strong support(based on misinformation), and that Bush was elected a second term illustrates that the masses are not paying attention to what is happening in this country and the greater world. You should know what the Bush Doctrine involves and if you do not recognize this term I advise you to buy a foreign policy book or two, and learn about it. It affects you and your children's future in the strongest of sense.

Furthermore, I advise that you DEMAND that your upper-level political leadership has a firm grasp of what this means and its implications.

"The Bush Doctrine" is published in the 2003 National Security Strategy paper. If you don't know what it is, that means you haven't read the paper. It is the rationale behind invading Iraq.

The interview confirms that Palin has not read the paper.

When was the last time you saw foreign policy experts discussing something called the "Bush Doctrine"?

Oh I don't know. Let me check: Ah yes 256 hits in Foreign Affairs Magazine. who's mission statement is

Founded in 1921, the Council on Foreign Relations is a non-profit and nonpartisan membership organization dedicated to improving the understanding of U.S. foreign policy and international affairs through the free exchange of ideas. Its 3,400 members include nearly all past and present Presidents, Secretaries of State, Defense and Treasury, other senior U.S. government officials, renowned scholars, and major leaders of business, media, human rights, and other non-governmental groups.

Gosh, who would have thought to give Ms. Palin a copy of the publication of an organization that specializes in foreign policy discussions. Who'daThunk.

there was never even such a thing as a "Bush Doctrine,"

Wow! As ignorant as Palin. Just for your edification, the below list is the first of 10 pages of references in Foreign Affairs that references or discusses the nonexistant "Bush Doctrine". I guess you and Ms. Palin are better versed in Foreign Policy than Ex Presidents, Past and present Secty's of State etc. etc.

You can appologize now for your bullshitting....

The End of the Bush Revolution - Philip H. ...

by Philip H. Gordon

have: after squandering US legitimacy, breaking the domestic bank, and getting the United States bogged down in an unsuccessful war, the Bush doctrine has run ...

Essay from the July/August 2006 issue

The Past as Prologue: An Imperial Manual ...

by Thomas Donnelly

The Bush Doctrine is thus an expression of the president's decision to preserve and extend Pax Americana throughout the Middle East and beyond. ...

Review Essay from the July/August 2002 issue

Bush and the World - Michael Hirsh

by Michael Hirsh

the president's Manichaean sense of right and wrong and powerful religious faith -- not to mention unilateralist instincts -- the Bush doctrine came naturally ...

Essay from the September/October 2002 issue

Bye Bye Bush - Adam Garfinkle

by Adam Garfinkle

clipped, however, to adequately describe the evolution of the administration's thinking and behavior, especially the protean policy known as the Bush doctrine. ...

Review Essay from the March/April 2008 issue

The Sources of American Legitimacy - Robert W. ...

by Robert W. Tucker and David C. Hendrickson

But although certain aspects of the Bush doctrine were presaged by earlier administrations, no preceding administration brought all of these elements together ...

Essay from the November/December 2004 issue

July/August 2006

have: after squandering US legitimacy, breaking the domestic bank, and getting the United States bogged down in an unsuccessful war, the Bush doctrine has run ...

The Rise of India

have: after squandering US legitimacy, breaking the domestic bank, and getting the United States bogged down in an unsuccessful war, the Bush doctrine has run ...

Losing Iraq - Tony Smith, Ludovic Hood, and ...

by Tony Smith, Ludovic Hood, and James Dobbins

The bottom line is that Dobbins remains faithful to the Bush doctrine's vision of global market democratization imposed by force, only with a caveat: it may be ...

LETTER from the November/December 2007 issue

America's Imperial Ambition - G. John Ikenberry

by G. John Ikenberry

operate. The emerging Bush doctrine enshrines this idea: governments will be held responsible for what goes on inside their borders. On ...

Essay from the September/October 2002 issue

America's Crisis of Legitimacy - Robert Kagan

by Robert Kagan

In Europe's view, this danger is best encapsulated in the so-called Bush doctrine and in its commitment to confronting the global "axis of evil." Many ...

Essay from the March/April 2004 issue

How to Stop Nuclear Terror - Graham Allison

by Graham Allison

For perspective, consider the leap beyond the conventional box that the American president took in enunciating the "Bush Doctrine." With that strategy, the ...

Essay from the January/February 2004 issue

Book Review - The Iraq War Reader: History ...

by Micah L. Sifry and Christopher Cerf

several rubrics: the 1991 war and its aftermath, including the issues of sanctions and inspections; the impact of September 11, 2001; the Bush doctrine; the US ...

Short Review from the September/October 2003 issue

Bush and the Generals - Michael C. Desch

by Michael C. Desch

After criticizing the first Bush administration for not doing enough to end the ... criteria for the use of force, which became known as the Powell Doctrine. ...

Essay from the May/June 2007 issue

The University of Puget Sound Department of Politics and ...

Affairs, November/December 2000. 4. “Explaining the Bush Doctrine,” Robert Jervis, IP, pp. 417-431. 5. “The Unipolar Moment ...

Transformational Leadership and US Grand ...

by Joseph S. Nye, Jr.

As Gaddis argues, Bush's emerging doctrine was "Fukuyama plus force" and was designed to make terrorism obsolete by spreading democracy everywhere. ...

Essay from the July/August 2006 issue

The North Atlantic Drift - William Drozdiak

by William Drozdiak

sides, trust has been eroded by bickering over the war in Iraq and Washington's growing penchant for unilateral action, notably the Bush doctrine of preventive ...

Essay from the January/February 2005 issue

The Iraq Syndrome - John Mueller

by John Mueller

Among the casualties of the Iraq syndrome could be the Bush doctrine, unilateralism, preemption, preventive war, and indispensable-nationhood. ...

Essay from the November/December 2005 issue

When the Shiites Rise - Vali Nasr

by Vali Nasr

Seeing the Bush doctrine proved wrong in Iraq would be an indirect way for Iran's leaders to discredit Washington's calls for regime change in Tehran. ...

Essay from the July/August 2006 issue

Bush's Nuclear Revolution: A Regime Change in ...

by George Perkovich

They say the massive US nuclear arsenal and the doctrine of first use ... The Bush administration justifies its maintenance of vast nuclear arsenals as a response ...

Comment from the March/April 2003 issue

Putting Germany Back Together: The Fabulous Bush ...

by Josef Joffe

Bush, Baker, and their select group of advisers knew when to push and when ... the Germans participated in deployment and the formulation of doctrine, would remain ...

Review Essay from the January/February 1996 issue

Nor has she opened the NYT (2760 hits on it) or Foreign Affairs Magazine (265 hits) the publication of the Council on Foreign Relations, who's members and speakers include such arch liberals as Colin Powell, Condi Rice, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, George Shultz...

Yeah, the "Bush Doctrine" is so obscure in modern foreign policy....

degsme:

there was never even such a thing as a "Bush Doctrine,"

Wow! As ignorant as Palin. Just for your edification, the below list is the first of 10 pages of references in Foreign Affairs that references or discusses the nonexistant "Bush Doctrine". I guess you and Ms. Palin are better versed in Foreign Policy than Ex Presidents, Past and present Secty's of State etc. etc.

You can appologize now for your bullshitting....

Condescending much?

I wasn't saying there was never such a thing as a "Bush Doctrine," I was refering your own link about how well-known it is. As for your new links, it looks like you just typed "Bush" and "doctrine" in a search engine, so you got articles about how the NATO alliance dealt with the USSR in 1990 and how the US nuclear umbrella protects Japan and South Korea.

The others mostly talk about the end or failure of the Bush Doctrine of preventive war. Well, if the Bush Doctrine is over, it's about as relevant as the Polk Doctrine, isn't it? (remember 54-40 or fight? it's okay if you don't care)

If you had asked me about the Bush Doctrine yesterday morning, before the Palin interview, I would have thought you were talking about the 2002 doctrine of preventive (as opposed to preemptive) war, such as Iraq. Obviously, though, since we're not at war with Iran or North Korea, that's not Bush's current doctrine. And the Bush administration has doctrinaire positions on everything from sex education to tax cuts. The Bush doctrine most relevant to Gov. Palin is probably the appointment of anti-choice judges.

I fault Gov. Palin for many things, but failure to connect "Bush Doctrine" with preventive war, when even Gibson didn't describe it as anything more than a preemptive strike against those who are going to attack us (ie, an imminent and certain threat), is not one of them.

I know what the Bush Doctrine means, and don't need Google's help, because it is SERIOUSLY A BIG DEAL.

ANYONE who fancies themselves politically aware should be familiar with this term; what exactly it denotes; and its ramifications, which are enormous and tragic.

The most powerful, most influential nation on the planet decreed, arrogantly and publicly, that it is OK to attack another country first. As soon as Bush made this policy decision, the US lost all credibility in any future condemnation of other countries' wars of choice - and that's WITHOUT considering the quality of the "evidence" that got us into this mess in Mesopotamia.

Sheesh. Don't know what the Bush Doctrine means. What a sad state of affairs this country has sunk to.

bearcat98:

If you had asked me about the Bush Doctrine yesterday morning, before the Palin interview, I would have thought you were talking about the 2002 doctrine of preventive (as opposed to preemptive) war, such as Iraq.

Just out of curiosity, bearcat98, what exactly do you imagine the difference between "preventative" and "pre-emptive" wars to be?

Preemption refers to situations where an attack is imminent, and the goal is to land the first strike in a war that might as well already be on (to "preempt" the attack). If, say, North Korea mobilized its military, prepared its ballistic missiles for launch, and we had good intel that they were really going to follow through with attacks on Seoul and Maui, sending B-2s to bomb the North Korean missile installations and artillery positions would be a preemptive strike.

As far as I know, none of the candidates have any quarrel with our right to preemptive military action.

The public rationale behind the Iraq war was that it was a grave and gathering danger that could, if left alone, gain the capability, alone or in concert with allies or non-state actors, as well as the motivation to seriously attack us. In other words, the war was to prevent an attack from ever becoming imminent.

The same rationale would certainly apply to wars with Iran and North Korea today.

Today, a few posters have reminded us that the first Bush Doctrine referred to our right to attack the safe havens of terrorist groups who themselves attack us, and that Palin's initial answer actually described this principle fairly well. That one didn't stick in my head because it seems so noncontroversial (although McCain did try to take Obama to task for reiterating it).