The question was meant to "catch" Palin. Gibson did not even understand what he was asking.

Biased, prejudicial and unprofessional was Gibson's performance. A moron he is not.

Using the secondary definition of a moron as a particularly stupid person, I beg to differ. To begin with the "Bush Doctrine" has never been articulated by the President and the commentators that have generated several different versions to address different subjects. Gibson should have explained what he was asking. His failure to do so was either a deliberate attempt to try and embarass Palin or moronic, possibly both.

OK Ranger, Gison is a biased, prejdicial, unprofessional moron. I'll go along with that.

Ranger boy,

Gibson explained exactly what he was asking about. Palin is too ignorant for the job she wants. This is a job interview she's in right now, and she's already blown it. That's hardly a surprise, and your asinine defense of her is no surprise, either.

oxboggle, Gibson got the definition of The Bush Doctrine wrong. You can look it up.

Look this up. Even as far back as 2002, The Bush Doctrine was defined as pre-emptive strike.

<link>

Not exactly sure where you're doing your research but it's begs the question of who is the moron, Gibson or you.

Having watched the interview several times now, Gibson did NOT explain what he was asking. The "Bush Doctrine" is:

1. Preemptive attack

2. The spread of Democracy

3.Coalition building

There are more. Which one did Gibson ask Palin about? He did not say. It was a trap. Gibson is a moron.

Ranger, I'd like to find an unedited version of the Gibson interview. Have you seen one?

I do not think such an animal exists.

It depends if you think this is an trustworthy site or not.

<link>

And she didn't ask which part either, did she, Ranger. If she had known the National Security Strategy which is the Bush Doctrine was more than one part, then why didn't she simply ask, which part of the doctrine are you refering to Charlie?

She was lost. She didn't know what he was talking about. That's why she asked if he was referring to Bush's worldview.

To begin with there is no "Bush Doctrine". Any attachment of that term to some policy is done by the person doing the talking and not the current administration. Like the Monroe Doctrine or the Truman Doctrine historians may well develop an agreed upon version. For today however, Gibson and his minions need to ask what they mean.

Ranger boy,

As of 2002, the later boilerplate additions of democracy, hun=man rights, proper diet rich in roughage and green vegetables and so on had yet to be churned out by the Bush bullshit machine. The significant elements in the Bush Doctrine were already established, to wit:

--preemptive attack,

-- any country sheltering or supporting terrorists is subject to attack.

The "doctir4ne" as originally propounded was designed to support our invasion of Afghanistan, and also, contingently, to support our subsequent invasion of Iraq.

You can blather and bullshit all you want, but the subsequent blatherings of the Bushies were just window dressing, and were broadly understood as such.

Gibson, by identifyint the doctrine with a date -- 2002 -- made it quite clear what he was after. It was about Iran and whether she thinks the Bush Doctrine applies to Iran. I, personally, think he should have gone all the way and specified iran as the context of the question, but I guess Gibson was trying to be softer and more general. I guess he didn't realize how stupid and uhninformed Palin is. He knows that now, though.

Thanks Adrsteia, that link was a revelation. If the site's version is the real deal, then the ABC editor conducted an exercise in distortion and concealed some interesting insights by Palin. The complete ,uncut version will show her to be much deeper than they chose to potray her.