Thank you, Mr. Gibson, for asking some decent questions. Even though they aren't that tough, they're clearly exposing her naivety.

The problem here, which is of course obvious, is that a candidate a heartbeat away from the Presidency shouldn't need to cram for an interview with the press, only to not know about the Bush Doctrine. My goodness, forget FP's list of questions, I doubt she could answer one of them (foreign leaders? She doesn't even know the policies of our leader). No, I'd love to just hear her answer to what she thinks changed in our foreign policy after 9/11. Forget what she would do differently. Clearly she has no clue - no clue about what's been going on in the world since 2001 beyond those "digestible bites" of briefings she's been getting for the last two weeks. For more evidence, see Ms. Palin's statements on Russia.

And she has the nerve to say, in the same interview, that she's ready to be President? Unbelievable.

Taken from the WaPo (Thursday, August 2, 2007):

"Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama issued a pointed warning yesterday to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying that as president he would be prepared to order U.S. troops into that country unilaterally if it failed to act on its own against Islamic extremists."

Look like Palin agree with Obama who agree with Bush.

By the way, the question about "Bush Doctrine" was very vague. It could refer to a lot of different things. The question should have referred to the "1% doctrine". I guess that the vast majority of Americans would also ask for some context if somebody ask them "what about the Bush doctrine".

Can someone direct me to an intensive ambush interview that Charlie Gibson did with Barack Obama, aka Barry Soetoro? OK how about any interview that is not a puff piece and where he has the questions ahead of time? No? OK how about any interview where Barry has to answer tough questions from an interviewer who is out for a "gotcha?" No? Hmmm. (no Bill O'Reilly does not count, as he seems to be too busy trying to get the top spot at CBS)

First it wouldn't matter what she said, Gibson and no doubt FP and the hate collective would have said she flubbed it. Second the question was VERY VAGUE.

This from Wikipedia (a very left wing site, that no doubt is a fan of the media -- and FP's -- bashing of Sarah Palin)

The Bush Doctrine is a term recognized by some to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, enunciated in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan.[1] Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq), a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism, and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.[2][3][4] Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002.[5]

Hardly a Bush friendly site, and even IT can not decide what the Bush Doctrine is or is not.

It seems odd that FP (not so much the readers of this blog) don't know about the National Security Council ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/index.html ), they have the minor function of advising the President on matters of National Security. Didn't Barry O say he would seek their counsel on everything from what color to paint our bombs to when to use them? YES! he did. Strange that none of you think that is weak. Not really, I know many of Barry Backers hang out here.

What the NSC says the "Bush Doctrine" is:
It is the policy of the United States to seek and support democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world. In the world today, the fundamental character of regimes matters as much as the distribution of power among them. The goal of our statecraft is to help create a world of democratic, well-governed states that can meet the needs of their citizens and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system. This is the best way to provide enduring security for the American people.
They even have a list of what it is:

• Champion aspirations for human dignity;
• Strengthen alliances to defeat global terrorism and work to prevent attacks against us and our friends;
• Work with others to defuse regional conflicts;
• Prevent our enemies from threatening us, our allies, and our friends with weapons of mass destruction (WMD);
• Ignite a new era of global economic growth through free markets and free trade;
• Expand the circle of development by opening societies and building the infrastructure of democracy;
• Develop agendas for cooperative action with other main centers of global power;
• Transform America’s national security institutions to meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century;
• and Engage the opportunities and confront the challenges of globalization.

Oh, and I don't remember anyone (lefty journos specifically) complaining when Blair justified Kosovo with essentially the same argument. http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page1297 . Oh my bad, a liberal was in charge, so it's ok. It was called the "Blair Doctrine" back then.

Going into Kosovo, and Somailia were all "preventative" actions. Well that is how they were sold to us. "We have to save these people from their horrible fates!" Maybe that is why you people are upset, we are saving ourselves; and that just ticks you off, since you feel we are not worthy of being saved. Or maybe it's your pathological hatred for Bush. Most likely it's both.

Chucky Gibson was frustrated that he couldn't get to Palin; and that he would not get a "gotcha" moment. No President makes decsions without consutling the experts. Beyond that she sure as he** sounded more sensible than Barry has to date. Then again he never has to provide substance.

Oh, are we going to see the Blacker shade of Barack? Somehow I don't think we will see that headline.

~ Mark
http://markljackson.net

Were they able to get permission, the Obama campaign would do well to run the "Bush Doctrine" clip as a campaign ad. No commentary--just the clip.

PublicOrgTheory

Bush Doctrine is. That's probably the most embarrassing part of the interview, where Gibson realizes that although he asked the question, he himself doesn't actually know what the Bush Doctrine is.

The Bush Doctrine was not "we have a right to defend ourselves from a threat". Good morning, Mr. Gibson. The Bush Doctrine was founded on the idea that if you harbor terrorists, and help terrorists, you will be treated as the terrorists.

Woops. Time for Mr. Gibson to hit the books, as Blake might say...