So, looks like it was Charlie Gibson's gaffe on Bush doctrine, not Sarah Palin's

Charles Krauthammer, the conservative columnist, writes this morning that it was ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson who actually bobbled a question on the Bush doctrine during one of his recent interviews with new Republican vice presidential nominee Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

Testing Palin's foreign affairs knowledge, Gibson asked her if she agreed with "the Bush doctrine."

"In what respect?" Palin responded.

When Palin did not answer a follow-up, Gibson informed her that the Bush doctrine is "we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

"Wrong," writes Krauthammer. "I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term" way back in 2001.

Krauthammer notes both in his Saturday column and on Fox News' "Special Report" Friday that over the years the Bush doctrine has actually had several different meanings and that Gibson's definition isn't even the latest.

The first was the Bush administration's unilateral withdrawal from the ABM treaty and Kyoto Protocol, which was followed by the post-9/11 "you're with us or you're with the terrorists," which was followed by the preemptive war in Iraq, which Gibson was thinking of.

The fourth incarnation of the Bush doctrine, Krauthammer explains, was the "freedom agenda" articulated in Bush's second inaugural address that "the survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands."

"Yes," Krauthammer concludes, "Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain."

Wonder if there'll be time to cover this story on "World News" come Monday night.

-- Andrew Malcolm

Photo: ABC News

To get all Ticket items -- breaking political news and backgrounders -- sent straight to your cell, go here and register with Twitter.

Comments

[Josh M.]

Nice try. I don't think Sarah Pallin was confused because she knew too many definitions. She looked like a 5th grader taking an oral exam from a college professor. Becoming a possible president is not something you cram for in 3 weeks or 3 months. How can people swallow her tripe after 7.5 years of W. is what's ridiculous.

[Dee Thompson]

For the record, the Wikipedia entry mentioned in this article names seven definitions of the Doctrine, while Krauthammer only names four. So, apparently even the so called "expert" doesn't really know.

Further, judging from the number of books written on the subject, the most widely accepted definition of the "Bush Doctrine" is pretty much as Gibson described.

But more to the point, if it's Gibson's gaff and not Palin's then why didn't she correct him? She obviosly had no idea what ANY of the definitions of the "Bush Doctrine" were. To make it worse, she DID pretend to know or why would she have attempted to answer Gibson's question rather than simply say..."I'm not familiar with that specific term" or even better, "there are several definitions of that term, which are you referring to?"

At least Gibson knew one of the supposed four (or seven) meanings of the Doctrine. Palin OBVIOUSLY didn't even know ONE!

[Edward Smith]

Charles Gibson did seem like a self satisfied "look how smart I am" snob. Considering the ambiguity of the question on the Bush doctrine, Palins response was appropriate.

[Reality Check]

The supreme difference here, people is that Charlie Gibson is not running for President or vice President, so we would generally not worry so much about HIS knowledge of the term.

Remember :
"Jesus was a Community Organizer and Pontius Pilate was a Governor"

[McCain is a liar]

Josh M. and Dee Thompson, you both hit the nail squarely on the head. Palin was obviously clueless - like a moose caught in the headlights. She tried the old trick of trying to glean something with her whole, "In what way?" so that she could try to fake an answer. If it were a problem of multiple definitions then that question from her would have made no sense.

[Michael]

Charles Krauthammer is way too blinded by the right to make any intellegent observations, you might as well ask Limbaugh or O'Reilly what they thought. The truth is she is utterly unprepared to be in that office, and does not have the intellegence to handle it. With McCain becoming increasingly incoherent, and Palin waiting in the wings, it becomes obvious the Republican ticket is really bad news. Unfortunately, there are so many ignorant and uninformed people in this country they still might win. (aided by Republican vote tampering of course!)

[Gillian Swart]

Plus, Gibson said, "The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is ...."

[Suzy]

"Krauthammer notes both in his Saturday column and on Fox News' Special Report Friday that over the years the Bush doctrine has actually had several different meanings and Gibson's definition isn't even the latest."

That's a defense? Sound more like an indictment of Bush's incoherency and inconsistent to me.

[Ben S]

This is in regards to what Josh m said as well as to others out there who feel this disdain towards Pallin! A very small segment of our society have the wits or knowledge to become a governor. She not only has the charisma, but the backing of most of her voters! I think that if Obama, Bidon, ran for governor in any state they would surely be more humble!

[Adam]

This has got to be the very pits of journalism. Attacking a long-time news anchor, in an interview with a vice-president-to-be, with information sourced from Wikipedia. Incorrect information, shock horror! I can't wait to listen to eager Republicans rehashing this to justify themselves.

[Doug G]

In Krauthammer's view, the entire world revolves around him. His piece in the Washington post is nonsense. He no more invented the term "Bush doctrine" than I, even if his Wikipedia entry (which he undoubtedly wrote) gives him the credit for this. There was no single "Bush doctrine" inventor, but the term is pretty straight forward and is commonly used as Gibson defined it.

Does Krauthammer really feel Palin is expert in the affairs of the world? If so, the Post should fire him for being so obtuse.

[Ray Bilbo]

Bush Doctrine? Have there been ANY articles in the main stream "media" about the Bush Doctrine? Honestly, when you heard of this question, DID YOU KNOW THE ANSWER?

One of the favorite liberal ploys is to make interviewees uncomfortable with quotes from oblique sources or about impossible to comprehend subjects. To make Palin squirm, Charlie did his best. Palin should have started the interview with a question: "As part of the liberal media, can you use your "journalistic credentials" to be fair and impartial in asking your questions?"

I say, Charlie, you failed in being objective and impartial. Your questions were meant to make Palin squirm. Shame on you and your organization. Yes, you got ratings, but consider: at least one magazine has been hurt trying to deprecate Palin. Your organization, once the only voice of three in the USA is now not even a third rate news source.

Sorry Charlie, you blew it.

[ekw]

When Mrs. Palin said, "In what respect," she was perfectly correct. You can't just expect someone to answer a question which has more than one answer unless the asker is more succinct in his question, can you? Mrs. Palin did quite well in that interview, and people who want to denigrate her are flipping out because she is creating a wave of support for herself and McCain that is just driving Obama supporters out of their minds. You can see this is true by just reading a few of the snippier comments here.

[John C]

I think the point is that this was an inappropriate question in the first place. Some take for granted that it was OK for Gibson to pose gotcha questions to advance his own political view. I do not recall him doing so with any other candidate – and this new assertion that VPs are supposed to have former foreign-affair experience – just makes him look even more biased – thus advancing the Republican ticket. I think Palin’s mistake is buying into this hype

[Armando]

How do you deal with people who outright lie to us and themselves? I think many people fake enthusiasm for Palin because they are afraid of an african-american man becoming the president of the United States.
I saw a post saying "I don't see that many posts defending Palin! It's working!"... is this true? Does this mean we all have stay home and post on the latest blog just to proclaim the TRUTH, that Palin is a threat to this country?... I know it's ironic (posting on a blog) but have we over emphasized the importance of political blogs on newspaper websites?
And all these polls, happening every five seconds, isn't it a little irresponsible to be broadcasting these so much during an election?

Obama/Biden '08!!!!!

[Joe Lowery]

Charlie Gibson added that he was looking for the meaning of Bush Doctrine as it was being used during "September 2002 before the Iraq War" when the it meant "preemptive strike". Gibson was correct for the time period he specified and Palin was incorrect regardless of the time period.

Gibson was not incorrect; ABC doesn't need to air a correction. Andrew Malcolm was wrong and needs to issue a correction.

[pointus]

Krauthammer is (surprise!) being completely disingenuous. 99 out of 100 people who are familiar with the term "bush doctrine" know that, though there were indeed 7 "bush doctrines" (the first elucidated by none other than Krauthammer himself back in feb 2001), the term now usually refers to our so-called right to invade any country which MIGHT someday acquire an offensive capability against us.
Gibson did NOT get this wrong. Please don't buy the right-wing talking point.

[Jane]

Sounds like Charles Krauthammer is grasping at straws... a continuation of that ols smoke & mirrors trick we've been treated to for the last 8 years. Enough already. Sarah Palin is woefully ignorant on world events. Shame on John McCain!

[cyberties]

Remember :
"Jesus was a Community Organizer and Pontius Pilate was a Governor"

Posted by: Reality Check | September 13, 2008 at 07:21 AM

Therefore, not only is Palin an idiot woman, she's an executioner and Obama is Jesus?

Gimme a break! I'd like to know what you've been snorting.

Unless McCain croaks between the election and the inaugural address, SHE can learn what she needs to know about HIS job while doing her job as Vice President. On the other hand, Obamessiah would step into the TOP postion having no experience for the job.

Given the choice of inexperienced VEEP over inexperienced PREZ, I choose the former every time.

[Leslie]

Why isn't Charlie Gibson asking Obama, Biden and McCain these questions too? I am a Democrat and am not impressed with Palin at all but this is just more sexism. If you're going to ask questions, ask all of the candidates and please stop the nonsense topics like lipstick, pigs, mommy wars, stay at home dads, moose burgers, pregnancy etc. Let's get down to the issues, people. Leave the fluff and junk to People Magazine! I am so sick of this election junk that I am not going to watch it any more and won't until we all get serious, maybe a few weeks before the election?

[Sam]

I never understood why this was made into a big deal. Why is it that Palin is supposed to know of a term that was basically made up by the media and/or a wikipedia entry? This isn't a formal government paper or something. Gibson is a moron.

[Lynn]

The real risk is an "Obama Doctrine" --- indecision in times of crisis, equivocation, "present" votes when courage is called for, appeasement of dictators, wavering in war when the going gets tough, words when deeds are needed.

[Meghan Lacey]

'make it worse, she DID pretend to know or why would she have attempted to answer Gibson's question rather than simply say..."I'm not familiar with that specific term" or even better, "there are several definitions of that term, which are you referring to?" '

Or maybe she could have said "In what respect?'...oh wait, she did...

The fact is, there is no such thing as the official "Bush Doctrine", and Charlie Gibson knows that. It's a term that's been thrown around by the media to refer to any number of different things. Anyone sitting there being asked that question completely out of context would have been just as stumped. And Gibson would NEVER have asked it that way of anybody else. It was designed to make her look stupid, and for the sheep, it worked.

[Iridiumred]

Gibson's"question" is just another example of "gotcha" journalism. A real journalist would have asked, "Do you agree with George W. Bush's philosophy of preemptive self-defense?"

[How dare she]

Charlie's treatment of her was totally different than it would have been with another candidate. It was staged and edited and it was if he was lecturing her, not interviewing. I am disgusted by how our media sets the stage and attempts to not show us the candidate, but show us what they think the candidate is. Even Charlie's voice quality was Clint Eastwood like, very low and tough. He sat taller than she looking down at her through those glasses, as if how dare she be on our stage. This race is not about nothing else but electing Obama to those like Charlie. Whether you agree with Palin or not, you have to admit she handled herself well given the circumstances. Those of you that are so harsh with your views towards her had made up your minds before you ever viewed the interview. Retain your own dignity by at least giving her a fair chance and keep your comments and thoughts at a higher level and debate her on the issues, not on what the media presents to influence your opinions.