Do you actually keep up with current affairs or just study trivia well enough to fool your editors into letting you print a column?

In reference to Gibson’s question about the “Bush Doctrine”, you said, “Without being smarmy about it or unfurling gotcha questions, ABC News anchor Charles Gibson demonstrated that he knows volumes more about national security and foreign policy than does Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin.” Furthermore, you go on to quote Gibson, “Gibson: The Bush Doctrine as I understand it is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense. That we have the right of a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?”

In point of fact, Gibson was the one displaying “hubris” in the condescending manner with which he responded to Palin’s request for clarification. Why? The document popularly known as the “Bush Doctrine” is actually the The National Security Strategy published in September 2002. While the table of contents gives a broad overview of the points which make up the “Bush Doctrine”, reading this document clarifies that there are a minimum of 4 main parts of the “Bush Doctrine”, of which preemption is only one (Preemption, Military Primacy, New Multilateralism, and the Spread of Democracy). Was he referring to cooperation with other global leaders, defusing other regional conflicts, spreading democracy or transforming national security to meet terrorist threats? None of the above. When Palin asked a clarifying question, she was clearly more knowledgable on the “Bush Doctrine” than Gibson.

And that’s not just my opinion. Charles Krauthammer originally coined the term “Bush Doctrine” three months before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. It has undergone at least four different iterations as the war against terrororism has evolved. “There is no single meaning of the Bush Doctrine,” Krauthammer said in response to the Plain interview. “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.”

Richard Starr, managing editor of the Weekly Standard, agreed. “Palin was well within bounds to have asked him to be more specific. Because, as it happens, the doctrine has no universally acknowledged single meaning.” Furthermore, Gibsons contemporaries George Stephanolous, George Will and the late Peter Jennings, all ABC journalists, have defined the Bush Doctrine on the air in a variety of ways.

Unfortunately, the facts show very simply that you are wrong. Even if we give Gibson the benefit of the doubt that he actually goes beyond memorizing enough trivia to fool his editors and he does keep up with current affairs, then he would have known the term “Bush Doctrine” is multi-faceted. That means that he was in fact, as you deny, “being smarmy about it or unfurling gotcha questions” when he asked a question that any pundit knows is a multi-dimensional reference that would warrant clarification.

For shame. I have to tell you, I am truly disappointed. I love SLATE and am an avid fan and daily reader. I guess now that changes to “was”.

Thanks Bearmomma for so clearly articulating my exact thoughts. I am now bearish on Salte.

Double Thanks to Bearmomma! Strangely enough, i was listening to NPR ( that well know conservative station ? LOL) and they all agreed that Palin did well enough! Just goes to show you that we can count on Slate to SPIN like crazy

Oh, please. She had NO idea what she was talking about. If she had wanted a clarification about the doctrine and whether it was actually the National Security Strategy she would have asked. Sarah Palin has admitted having little or no interest in foreign affairs until very recently. And yet now she's an expert on how to handle Russia's aggression against Georgia. We're talking about the Jessica Simpson of the Republican party here. I wish everyone who's going to vote for McCain because of her or in spite of him would just say "Yes, I'm voting for them and I don't need to have a reason. I don't give a damn what the issues are but I just LIKE them."

Would you be comfortable with someone calling Obama the Kanye West of the Democratic party?

As an Australian it is terrifying that the role of the second most important and powerful elected official on the planet is potentially in the hands of a naive gun totting bible bashing redneck who is proud of the idea that to shoot first and ask questions later is clever foreign policy. We're talking about nuking the Russians here, folks, and by the way, the rest of the world is supposed to sit back and watch while on the job training is given to somebody who wants to throw any advances made since nineteen fifty into the garbage.

Give me a break!

Yes, I realise I'm not entitled to an opinion on US politics, because we in Australia are merely slaves to the bigger powers. Line us up when you need cannon fodder, and call us gutless if we don't toe the line in brain dead agressive deceptive act of war like finding the weapons of mass destruction.Was that not the reason given to invade Iraq?? Oil, who needs it!?

BWHAHAHAHAHA.

Sorry. Couldn't stop myself.

Yeah. THAT's why she was confused. She was so deep into the intricacies of the issue that she coulnd't deal with such a simplistic broadbrush view of such a complex concept.

I'll give you this -- 10 points for sheer chutzpah on this argument.

Down is up. Up is down. We've always been at war with Eurasia.

You know, reality is a harsh mistress. No matter how you try to twist and turn and pretend and argue, it has a way of whapping you upside the head. A way of killing over 3,000 of your country's precious troops when you insist on ignoring it. A way of sapping your moral standing in the world when you say one thing and do another too many times.

So, keep on spouting the Party line. Keep on doing your best to ignore painful truths. I suppose it worked in 04. And things have only gotten better since then.

Some points:
a) If you lined up 25 Ph.D.'s (generally well informed people) and asked each one what "the Bush Doctrine" is, you'd have less than 10% giving the precise definition Gibson gave. To pretend anything else is the typical Democrat sophistry that characterizes their politics. As I was watching the interview, I thought, "What IS he referring to? The general neocon notion that we project democracy to intercept terrorism? Our right to pre-emptive strike? That countries that harbor terrorists are themselves terrorists?" Of COURSE Palin looked somewhat stumped. In a high-stakes stituation, Gibson, with his smarmy aura of condescension and resigned impatience, had set her up perfectly. Palin lost her composure briefly. On the other hand, Obama, confronted much more directly and with far less condescension by Bill O'Reilly, had trouble articulating a direct answer on many questions.

b) The press on the left, SLATE being high on the list, simply don't get it. You can't legislate truth anymore simply by repeating lies. The rules have changed. You can refer to the "now-discredited Swift Boat Veterans" and complain about "the Republican Attack Machine" all you wish. We know that (a) the Swift-Boat Veterans haven't been discredited, and in fact most of their key assertions were absolutely correct, and (b) Democrats attack just as viciously as Republicans.

In terms of the media, Democrats were born on third base and think they hit a triple. Sorry, the rules are changing. In 1975, a dumb, dishonest editorial like this in a major media outlet would have a damaging effect on the person attacked. In 2008, it simply confirms that SLATE lacks balanced editorial control.

JimInNashville:

As I was watching the interview, I thought, "What IS he referring to? The general neocon notion that we project democracy to intercept terrorism? Our right to pre-emptive strike? That countries that harbor terrorists are themselves terrorists?" Of COURSE Palin looked somewhat stumped.

If she had responded as you did above, maybe I might admit that she had some sort of clue. Her response indicates she doesn't have a clue.

The thing I dislike most about Palin is that she seems to actually believe she is qualified for the job she is running for. And before you bash me, I have my doubts about Obama's qualifications too. But at least he has the intelligence to realize it and to bring on board wonderfully experienced people to support him - like any top-notch executive.

"If you lined up 25 Ph.D.'s (generally well informed people) and asked each one what "the Bush Doctrine" is, you'd have less than 10% giving the precise definition Gibson gave."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

How many PhD's do you know? Is this your first time using stats? 10%? REALLY? How'd you get this great scientific measure? You honestly didn't know what the Bush Doctrine refers to and yet enjoyed some rudimentary form of consciousness over the last seven years?

Oh, crap. I'm sorry. Maybe you were in a coma.

Sorry, I just get SUCH a kick out of the usually chest-thumping, anti-nuance, anti-intellectual right wingers who have suddenly discovered fine distinctions in the very complex tapestry that is the Bush doctrine. (giggle, snort) PhDs, no less. Good lord, give it up, you hacks. She screwed up. No one is really surprised and you should be grateful these interviews went as well as they did given the disinterest Palin has shown in national and international politics. So, she showed that she barely reads the papers when it comes to foreign affairs (and maybe even politics). It is what it is. Get over it. Count yourself lucky she didn't just chant the phrase "9/11" over and over for a solid hour while her eyes rolled into the back of her head. Republican coaching has gotten a hair better.

And let me be clear -- I DON'T think this gaffe is that big a deal. Just re-confirms what a joke this candidacy is. By itself, it's nowhere near deserving of the frantic attempts at justification the right is throwing around. ("Not only is she not uninformed, she's a freaking GENIUS," they insist).

We know, you're Republicans. But is there some rule out there that also says you HAVE to be disingenuous, dishonest, idiots? Have some self-respect! At least the writers for Pravda were getting paid to come up with the absolute crap they did. You? You're doing it for FREE.

You think that Obama believing he is qualified is not hubris? In all honesty the accusation of hubris probably applies to anyone who thinks they are qualified to be President of the United States. Thats our system folks, take it or leave it. That is why half the world despises us, but oh how they want to have us on their side when they need our small town boys and girls to defend them against the real evils of the world. Obama just wants to tax the "rich", meaning those who earn just slightly more than a New York times Op ed. columnist, to further his hubristic and more accurately marxist plan for income redistubution that will please our Eurpean comptetitors/allies, by putting us in the same soul sucking dolldrums they are currently in, with onerous and enervating taxes on business and entrepenuers. At the same time we will be subjected to humanistic sermons on the value of state funded public service (oxymoron?), while the real public servants, small business people who risk it all to provide jobs and the engine for our economy, are sliced apart in search of the proverbial golden egg.