Skip to content

Charles Schools Charlie on the “Bush Doctrine”

September 16, 2008

The best piece I’ve seen so far on the whole issue of Governor Palin’s knowledge of the “Bush Doctrine” that came up in her interview by ABC’s Charlie Gibson is this one by the one and only Charles Krauthammer.  Charles knows something about the subject… as he’s the one who coined the phrase “Bush Doctrine.”

The Duchess was outraged by the usually-fair Gibson’s condescending attitude (did anybody else see the eye-rolling?) during last week’s interview with Sarah Palin, and found this nicely succinct and revealing comparison by Nancy Kallitechnis of the anchor’s treatment of Senator Obama at a comparable moment.  Notably this piece was posted on a forum for Hillary Clinton supporters.

–Duke of Ray

15 Comments leave one →
  1. David permalink
    September 16, 2008 11:32 pm

    The Duchess! How delusional, Duke, I didn’t realize we were living in a duchy. I thought we had gotten over the monarchy thing on (uhm, when was it) July 4th 1776. Or is that what people want now.

    She can’t answer hard questions, her party is keeping her in controlled interviews until the press (who are pretty lousy) give her the respect that she deserves. That scares me, that we can’t vet her capabilities, she’s not tested or tried just because she’s been a gov for 20 months. She is totally unqualified, and her lies and truth bending are being revealed almost everyday.

    I like my politicians to be grilled until well-done and seasoned. But she is a beaut, or real George Bush III. Religiously delusional to boot. By the way, go to FACTCHECK.ORG to check out how much truth there is in the Alaskan hot air (and the McCain, Obama air as well).

    Our country is bankrupt, and it is only going to get worse for a while. So maybe an ailing old man with myeloma, and his moose baiting heir maybe the best thing for this country. As taxpayers we are left holding the bag, but at least we won’t have abortion and gay marriage. P.S. McCain’s top advisors were lobbyists for a legally dubious mortgage lender.

    Do not listen to the horses mouths, you need to get back up facts. For the 2 people that actually read this blog (including myself), seek out the real truth, you won’t be disappointed.

    Sincerely D

  2. Timmy C permalink
    September 17, 2008 1:48 pm

    So is Krauthammer’s argument: “It’s ok that Palin is unaware of the Bush Doctrine since ‘There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings…’?

    Wouldn’t that make it worse that she hadn’t heard of ANY incarnation of them?

    I do agree however, that Gibson was slightly off on his own definition.

    The new thing of the Bush doctrine was not preemptive attacks against threats that have yet to fully exist, (that is not new to Bush) it was about preemptive WARS against threats that don’t yet exist.

    That doctrine totally flies in the face of the Christian Just War traditions. Following that doctrine got us into Iraq. If N. Korea followed that doctrine, they would be justified in sending nukes our way, as we legitimately might be a threat to them at some point in the future.

    That was new, and unprecedented. And pretty important for a potential President to know.

  3. dukeofray permalink
    September 17, 2008 6:10 pm

    Umm, Hey, David. “The Duchess” was a humorous reference/nickname for my wife. See, my screen name is… nevermind. As the Joker would say, “Why so serious?” Just look at how reasonable our other reader is.

    I was making a simple point: not that the press should avoid hard questions, but that they should be fair. Gibson was grossly unfair, playing ‘gotcha’ games w/ Palin, while being almost sycophantic w/ Obama. Simple point.

    Hi, Timmy. I was willing to give Senator Obama the benefit of the doubt over the lipstick thing, but it doesn’t seem to be a two way street. There is nothing in a fair reading of Palin’s response to suggest that she hadn’t heard of “the Bush Doctrine.” That’s Carvillesque spin. We don’t need to be objective or soft, but surely *fair* is a reasonable request, yes? That’s all I’m asking from Gibson, too.

    Delusionally yours,
    Duke of Ray

  4. Timmy C permalink
    September 17, 2008 7:16 pm

    Hi Duke:

    When I was asking about Kruthhammer’s argument, I was really being honest about not getting it, no Carville-esque spin intended.

    In the editorial Krauthammer says:

    “Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine. Yes, Sarah Palin didn’t know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson.”

    (I will confess that I agree with Krauthammer on I did not believe she knew what the Bush doctrine was…I do think it’s fair to ask if she knew the term, why would she answer wrongly that it was synonymous with Bush’s World view?)

    But regardless, Krauthammer’s argument seems to me to read, “She didn’t know what the Bush doctrine was but that’s ok cause there are 4 or so incarnations of them.” And by the way Gibson is a jerk.

    It just struck me as an odd argument.

    Although for the Gibson is a jerk part, after the one Debate where Gibson grilled Obama on flag pins, out of context quotes, etc… a lot of Obama supporters thought he was a jerk, too:

  5. September 17, 2008 9:44 pm

    My first thought on this was “at least she’s not a card-carrying neo-con”. I see her as someone who has been taking care of business in Alaska and not making grand pretentions twoards global military strategy (like perhaps myself).

    I think it’s too hard to tell how much she knows about the Bush doctrine, but I think it’s not unreasonable to think that she is not an expert on the subject. I also think it’s reasonable to characterize all the positions Krauthhammer lists as “Bush’s world view”.

    At any rate, I don’t really care too much about this controversy beyond the damage done to Palin. It doesn’t make me worry about her. I would rather have someone with the right general sense of things than an actively bad one like Obama.

    And David, I’m getting upwards of 50 hits a day, lately in the 80 to 100 range. Not amazing but more than two. There are a lot of lurkers. I wish they’d join in more!

  6. dukeofray permalink
    September 18, 2008 3:04 pm

    Hi, Timmy, sorry that I missed your sincerity. And you’re right that Krauthammer strictly had your read, my bad. I guess the larger point IMHO is that Gibson was posing a trick question, one that had no good answer, as in the old proverbail “when did you stop beating your wife?” For all intents and purposes, the question “Do you agree with the Bush Doctine” is meaningless.

    And, yes, the bigger point is that Charlie Gibson can be a jerk. 🙂 Esp. when he thinks he needs to impress his compadres. If I remember right, the debate you referenced w/ the tough questioning of Obama happened after the SNL parody of the press puppy love of Obama. Likwise, he clearly wanted to impress his own set by trying to humiliate Palin, this small town rube who dares to run for VP without their approval.

    Overall, though, surely you must agree that the press is slanted hugely against Palin and towards Obama, yes? I mean, they’ve gushed over Obama on air. We deserve a better Third Estate.

    OK, back to work.

  7. David permalink
    September 19, 2008 3:19 pm

    dukeofray, my bad for misunderstanding your blog.

    Intelligent people like you, are being misled by your own ideology. I know that you are republicans, and you feel you have no choice in this election, but supporting such a party because of a personality is no good reason for blind support.

    The Republicans have shown terrible corruption, there is overwhelming evidence of mis-use of power, and terrible ethical and moral choices (condoning torture, cronic cronyism, justice department breaking the law under the incompetent and corrupt eye of Gonzales-who called the Geneva Convention ‘quaint’). Its the system itself that needs changing. If your party gets elected, you will be deeply disappointed-I guarantee it.

    We should all be demanding better cooperation from our politicians on both sides of the isle, take big money and soft money out of the system all together. Because in another four years, you and I will be arguing and things won’t have changed. Left and right wing die hards are also the problem, they help perpetuate this abuse of power, and the ignoring of the hard, unpopular truths.

    As for Palin. She is totally unqualified for the job, I can’t even believe you would think otherwise. The only reason this galvanized the uninspired GOP voting block, is that the religious right didn’t like McCain, but a religious right-wing hockey-mom is just the ticket. It doesn’t matter if she lies, flip-flops or has no clue about foreign policy, that’s not the point. She is for banning abortion even in the case of rape and incest (I know the Bible tells men to treat women poorly, but it doesn’t make it right). Now, her husband is refusing a subpoena, and she is citing ‘executive privilege’ in the ‘Trooper-Gate’ issue (which was happening way before her VP nomination). This excess baggage could bring the GOP down.

    Her views and actions constantly contradict themselves. She was for war with Russia if it invades another country, when with Gibson; but war with Russia was off the table in her interview with Hannity. Palin was for the bridge until she was against it (and took the earmark anyway). This is not left-wing lies, this stuff came from her own mouth-do you refuse to acknowledge it?

    Finally, about the economy. Both parties bear a huge responsibility for the mess we are in. McCain proved he was out of touch when he said, on Monday, that the fundamentals of the economy are sound (next day he recanted that statement). He was against off-shore drilling until he was for it, when it came closer to the election. There have been those, over the last few years, who predicted that this would happen. Our fearless administration did nothing to put the brakes on reckless loans. Why? Because they are part of the problem, Bush’s family is big in the financial industry and were making too much money to notice. GHWB was on the board with the Lehman Brothers. McCain’s top five advisers were executives in the finance industry. Obama has raised $10 million from the industry, McCain has raised $7 million.

    There is no doubt that there are plenty of false claims against Palin, and that is reprehensible (because then the real facts have a problem of being believed).

    By the way the McClatchy web site is a great truth seeker, in the world of journalism. You should be reading it. It calls out whenever Obama, McCain etc are distorting the truth about each other, if the truth matters at all.


  8. dukeofray permalink
    September 19, 2008 4:43 pm

    Thanks for the weblink, David, good resource.

    So, that’s a lot of sweeping statements you’re making and I don’t have the time to do all the researach on the points I’d argue with… so just some quick thoughts:

    Yeah, you’re largely right about the Republican corruption. And the failures of both parties re the economy. Congrats, you totally agree w/ McCain-Palin! If you’re not voting for them (just a wild guess), I take it you think the solution is Obama-Biden, two men who have never challenged their party on a single major issue? If not, for whom do you plan to vote?

    Where do you interpret the bible to say that women should be treated poorly? Are you comparing it to this week’s Cosmopolitan or to every other society and belief system of its time(s)?

    Not sure why I’m asking, given how blindly ideological, ignorant and disdainful of the truth (yet, intelligent) I apparently am, but let’s give it a shot!


  9. Timmy C. permalink
    September 20, 2008 10:42 pm

    Agree we need a better fourth estate. Not sure I buy that it’s “pro-Obama” or “anti-Palin.” I’d say it’s more “pro-sensationalism” and “anti-depth.” And that knife cuts into both parties, to the detriment of a better informed citizenry.

    Later I’m sure there will be good studies on how much air time Rev. Wright/Obama’s a Muslim/Flag Pin/Lipstick on a Pig” stories got, versus how much air time pro-or even nuetral obama stories got.

    But I’m sure when it is political figures you believe in, or causes you find worthy, it’s easy to FEEL like the media is against us!

    But agreed, a truly fair but tough Press would do Democracy, a lot of good.

    Speaking of fair, accusing Barack of never bucking his own party’s interests on a major issue isn’t quite fair… He has done so at personal political risk a ton of times. Here’s a few:

    He did so on his lobbying reform (ruffling lots of Dems who wanted to keep the status quo) on not requiring mandates on health care reform, on teacher merit pay, addressing the future solvency of social security when dems were fighting Bush on privatization, and others.

    He supported an increasingly unpopular Senator Lieberman in his tough re-election against a more Democratically “doctrinaire” challenger. He lost a lot of political points for that support at the time, and as it later turned out, obviously Leiberman hasn’t exactly helped him this election.

    Even though he did not support Roberts as a Supreme Court justice, when fellow Democrat Senator Leahy DID and was attacked by key, important Liberal groups advocacy, Barack publicly stepped up at attacked THEM, accusing them of “knee-jerk unbending and what I consider to be unfair attacks…”

    When very large portions of his party were against the recent FISA compromise that included Telecom immunity, Barack voted for it. That cost him big time support a key point in the campaign that he needed badly.

    So FISA, Social Security, Education, etc… all major issues.

    So there are lots and lots of examples of him voting independently of party or even of his own political benefit.

    Timmy C.

  10. Timmy C. permalink
    September 20, 2008 10:55 pm

    This maybe overkill but one other example:

    When he really should have been wooing the support of the Liberal/Progresive Bloggers, he went on the largest political blog in the world, DailyKos and offered this basic admonishment:

    “… whenever we exaggerate or demonize, or oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. A polarized electorate that is turned off of politics, and easily dismisses both parties because of the nasty, dishonest tone of the debate, works perfectly well for those who seek to chip away at the very idea of government because, in the end, a cynical electorate is a selfish electorate.”

    and spoke specifically to the issue of bucking the political party line, and not being deamonized for it:

    A pro-choice Democrat doesn’t become anti-choice because he or she isn’t absolutely convinced that a twelve-year-old girl should be able to get an operation without a parent being notified. A pro-civil rights Democrat doesn’t become complicit in an anti-civil rights agenda because he or she questions the efficacy of certain affirmative action programs. And a pro-union Democrat doesn’t become anti-union if he or she makes a determination that on balance, CAFTA will help American workers more than it will harm them.

    Or to make the point differently: How can we ask Republican senators to resist pressure from their right wing and vote against flawed appointees like John Bolton, if we engage in similar rhetoric against Democrats who dissent from our own party line? How can we expect Republican moderates who are concerned about the nation’s fiscal meltdown to ignore Grover Norquist’s threats if we make similar threats to those who buck our party orthodoxy?…

    But to the degree that we brook no dissent within the Democratic Party, and demand fealty to the one, “true” progressive vision for the country, we risk the very thoughtfulness and openness to new ideas that are required to move this country forward.”

  11. David permalink
    September 23, 2008 6:18 am

    Some simple reasons that I can’t, with good conscience, vote republican this time around.

    Their environmental record.
    Keeping the tax cuts permanent during a fiscal crisis and a war. I’m not against tax cuts per se, but not if it means generations of people paying for it.
    Their fiscal irresponsibility.
    The way they treated dissenters during the Iraq debate in 2003.
    Rushing to war.
    Unfettered corporate greed.
    The power and support from the religious right-wing.
    Against a woman’s right to choose.
    Handling of our tax dollars over the last 8 years, 6 of which where completely controlled by the republicans. That’s where most of this started.
    Right wing idealogues for SC Justices.
    The torture bill.
    K-Street’s expansion during the first six years
    Little or no oversight committees during the republican majority, leading
    Idealogical responses to scientific data.

    The list goes further……

    Don’t get me wrong. The Dems (though I think a little better), can do all these things.

    My last reason. Sarah Palin. Unqualified for the international scene. This administration has squandered our standing in the world, our tax dollars, our moral values, our ethics. We are 17th in the world for scientific research and development, our infant mortality rate has gone up in the last 8 years. 46 million people without healthcare, and the ones that do are rationed. The EPA, FCC, FDA etc have been turned over to the people that those organizations are supposed to oversee. All in the last 8 years. “Heck of a Job, Brownie”.

    Palin, if she were to become president, would be more of Bush. Simple as that.

  12. Duke of Ray aka Duke Ray permalink
    September 24, 2008 5:15 pm

    Hi, Timmy, glad *you* know which estate our press is said to be (that’s the Fourth, for those at home counting). Doh!

    So true that we all think that when the press gores our ox, they’re bad, but when they get the other guy’s, they’re doing their job. That said, I think if you check out the ombudsman articles in most major papers, you’ll see that the evidence is already there that there is a HUGE bias towards Obama. And seriously, my friend, have you EVER seen a reporter say something like this over ANY other candidate, let alone a Republican one? —

    On the other hand, you’re probably right that my “never” statement was overly broad. The FISA bill clearly was a major issue, and Obama went against the dominant left in his party and sided w/ McCain and Bush. However, Obama did this after he had become the presumptive nominee, reversing the position he had when he needed the backing of the same left. See:

    …So, the courage of this vote is dubious. However, truth should always come first, so I’ll give you props — Obama has gone against the grain on at least one major issue. I will never say “never” again on that point 🙂 And you make a good case for him being a moderate, anti-reactionary voice in his party overall. Thanks for the correction.

  13. Duke of Ray permalink
    September 24, 2008 5:42 pm

    Hi, David. Thanks for clarifying. Given the slant of your rhetoric, it’s hard to believe you ever had a reason to vote for Republican, as you suggest you have in the past., but I’ll take your word for it. And, sincerely, thanks for refraining from “Bush lied, people died.” That one’s not just a cliche, but a lie that gives me a headache. Salud!

  14. March 11, 2009 1:35 am

    Hey, is there a section just for latest news

    • duke of ray permalink
      March 11, 2009 12:47 pm

      Dear Vet,

      That would be found by clicking “home” at the top right.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: