I Don't agree with this 'The Weekly Standard'

Alright so here's the article if you haven't read it. I can't even agree with the first sentence. The phrase, "In what respect, Charlie?" doesn't indicate a request for clarification by Palin, it presumes to know what the Bush doctrine is, but asks the interviewer to specify what specific facet (yes, even shit has facets) of the Bush doctrine the interviewer is asking her about.

But anyways the question isn't answered and Gibson clarifies it and dumbs it down by asking her to define it for herself. This gave her the opportunity to state anything about Bush foreign policy post September 11'th (geez, it was slated to air just after the anniversary of it) and show herself to be somewhat knowledgeable about U.S. foreign policy and to agree or critique some or all of the decisions made in the past so the viewer could understand what she knows and where she'd like America to be going, since that's what these interviews are for.

Instead of saying anything that would have given her a passing grade on this question, she curtly defines/interprets "Bush doctrine"

as...

"His world view."

So insightful.

It's like defining the Truman doctrine as the world view of Harry Truman during his presidency. Yeah, it's technically correct, but defining a term by restating it's name is what we all did to B.S. in college because we hadn't read. It adds nothing to the class. It does no analysis. It has no opinion. It's an empty answer.

Anyways within that exchange the opportunity to show America her critique of the Bush administration's handling of foreign affairs was lost in translation. She stated there were mistakes but didn't name them so that the people listening would be assured and understand that she knew what the mistakes were and wouldn't repeat them. She missed the opportunity to specifically state a foreign policy strategy that will make us safer and the world more free. Instead there was just this empty shell of an answer,

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.

This is why some people are up in arms. Not because she couldn't define an admittedly amorphous term, but because she seemed to have no grasp at what the interviewer was even asking her about. Like she hasn't picked up a damned newspaper in 7 years.


Maybe that's because she wants to avoid Bush bashing? Watching the exchange it's hard to really see her being that calculating as she was thoroughly uncomfortable and did have the deer in headlights look. She looked like my wife does when I ask her about some current events that happened in the late 80's (doesn't remember Iran-Contra, doesn't know who Oliver North is, remembers the shuttle blowing up, doesn't remember Dukakis looking like a dork on top of a tank, doesn't remember Bush senior in the grocery store being totally amazed that there were scanners...I'll stop there). My wife dislikes politics, history, current events, but then again she doesn't have political aspirations.

That's cool and the gang. I think if you want to be a politician, it helps to have done your homework as far as knowing your history . At least the history she was asked about happened 7 years ago or so. Did Palin turn off every television set after since September 11'th?!? Was her Alaskan house not hooked up to cable and the internet?

wtf?

Did she miss all those references to Bush doctrine the weekly Standard points out?

I forgot to add that words and phrases morph or completely change meaning all the time. Foreign policy morphs and changes during a president's term due to "shit happening" as well. That's kind of the nature of foreign policy. We all remember that the first week or so post 9/11 thoughts were very fluid about what happened, the enormity, and wtf we were going to do about it. Bush doctrine is such a powerful term because it broke from every president in history. It's historically important because he's the first leader of the greatest civilization on the face of the earth to say, "Yes, we have the right and should hit people that we have reason to believe mighthit us".

Preemptive war policy is kind of a big deal--especially when you used it unnecessarily on a country not involved in talking to,harboring, or assisting the terrorists that caused 9/11. It puts most every other country on a bit of an edge. It has in some ways isolated us from receiving cooperation. We're the country that cried wolf. Critiquing the "Bush doctrine" could have eased many minds. Instead she amorphously refers to "mistakes" adversely affecting "the war". What mistakes? Which war? She gave us nothing. She got a slowly tossed beach ball her way and it went by her, bounced, and she kind of blankly stared at it after it hit the backstop and then rubbed it with her hands and looked around a bit for the valve.

The fact that the term has a bit of an amorphous meaning and many facets doesn't excuse Palin from failing to say anything remotely intelligent or meaningful about the last 7-8 years of foreign policy besides a freaking empty talking point about chasing around Islamic extremist terrorists!!!! That's what I'm steamed about. They berated Obama for having no substance for weeks and then when the GoP convention came, they offered even less substance/specifics than he in their own interviews and speeches.