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

[Paul Stewart]

Gibson had the right definition. The Bush doctrine was basically a way to go into Iraq. It was a neo con argument for doing whatever Americans please. While the principle is not without merit, its conception and its original meaning were later altered and the true thinking and meaning a bit hidden. Because the Iraq imbroglio made a mess of the doctrine. Make no mistake what the original doctrine was. It was originally posted and available on the internet. It disappeared later, when it became shall we say "discredited". Perhaps the concept is not totally discredited, but certainly the President and the right wing are.... and so they should be. Hear that Krauthammer?

And frankly, Palin does not have a clue. The only thing she knows is what was put in her head by McCain advisors. They obviously did not think to prep her for this obvious question. She is a perfect fit for the right wing. An empty vessel to fill up with right wing Rovian concepts. And to keep the masses in their places and the money flowing to the wealthy and powerful. Palin is just foolish and naive enough not to realize she is just a tool.

And the Krauthammers and others are out there with their right wing instructions to discredit the knowledgeable, discredit the truth, and discredit America by attacking people's character.

Now Palin may be a nice woman and just like you and me. That is not the point. And she deserves some respect, but I say so does Charlie. But none of that should be used to gloss over the simple fact that Palin is not VP material unless you want an empty vessel. I mean, if that is what you want, you really don't need the proper experience right?

[Chromeheadman]

I guess she should have asked him for his cited source document, so she would have known where to look for a possible follow-up.

Not having seen a published "Bush Doctrine", where would a person find it published?

If the Bush administration published this, I guess it would be considered The Bush Doctrine, but if is a coined term by someone else, isn't it really someone else's framing of a concept or group of concepts?

[Ricardo Zborovszky]

Do Barrack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, or any of the 535 members of congress know about the Bush Doctrine?

[H. Aslan Aslani-Far]

Mr. Krauthammer:

While I certainly respect your opinion and understand your point, I do think you are being slightly disingenuous. The argument you present is that there is no clear definition of the "Bush Doctrine", although as a matter of justifying an unsanctioned war against a sovereign state, I would argue that it is precisely that definition that most clearly emerges as being applicable within the context of Mr. Gibson's interview question. But that is not the point.

You say that the question itself was inherently "rubbish" because of the various interpretations that could be derived. In response to Gov. Palin's query, "In what respect, Charlie?" Mr. Gibson explicitly asked, "How do you interpret it?" -- somehting you conveniently leave out of this piece. You go on to rationalize that Sarah Palin did not know what it is but that at least she did not pretend to know (as Mr. Gibson apparently did.) But, Charles Gibson, knowing at least one of the defining principles of A Bush Doctrine provided not THE definition of "The Bush Doctrine" but ONE interpretation (one of the very ones you cite in this article). As you'll recall he prefaced his definition as such: "As I understand it..." She had every opportunity to establish her definition of The Bush Doctrine -- something you foresake in your piece -- and yet, she did not. For the record, I'd have to think I'd be far more comfortable in the hands of someone who has a familiarity with one of four defining principles of the President's foreign policy, and would assume that that person has a further understanding of the other extant three than someone who is oblivious to them all.

[DJK]

The Wikipedia page for "Bush Doctrine" was only edited AFTER the Palin interview. Click on "history" and go back to the September 8 version of the page. Not only will you find no reference to seven definitions, you'll also find no mention of Charles Krauthammer. Interesting that the McCain campaign is specifically directing people to this page as a definitive source, now that it's been edited to their liking. (The page is also now semirestricted to not allow any further editing.) Just remember that on Wikipedia, you CAN rewrite history. Fortunately, you can't hide the whole story. Go back and read the page as it appeared a week ago, then decide for yourself.

[Dennis]

This is the most ridiculous title ever. Palin was revealed to be ignorant of the reason the U.S. went to war with Iraq. The worst part is, better-informed conservatives are now pretending they don't know what the Bush doctrine is too.

This is not really an opinion column, but a poorly crafted propaganda piece for Palin.

[H. Aslan Aslani-Far]

Mr. Krauthammer:

While I certainly respect your opinion and understand your point, I do think you are being slightly disingenuous. The argument you present is that there is no clear definition of the "Bush Doctrine", although as a matter of justifying an unsanctioned war against a sovereign state, I would argue that it is precisely that definition that most clearly emerges as being applicable within the context of Mr. Gibson's interview question. But that is not the point. You say that the question itself was inherently "rubbish" because of the various interpretations that could be derived. In response to Gov. Palin's query, "In what respect, Charlie?" Mr. Gibson explicitly asked, "How do you interpret it?" -- somehting you conveniently leave out of this piece. You go on to rationalize that Sarah Palin did not know what it is but that at least she did not pretend to know (as Mr. Gibson apparently did. But, Charles Gibson, knowing at least one of the defining principles of A Bush Doctrine provided not THE definition of "The Bush Doctrine" but ONE interpretation (one of the very ones you cite in this article). As you'll recall he prefaced his definition as such: "As I understand it..." She had every opportunity to establish her definition of The Bush Doctrine -- something you foresake in your piece -- and yet, she did not. For the record, I'd have to think I'd be far more comfortable in the hands of someone who has a familiarity with one of four defining principles of the President's foreign policy, and would assume that that person has a further understanding of the extant three others than someone who is oblivious to them all.

[Joshua Sutton]

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

The Senator should more time working and less time trying sniping at the mic. For the record, the people that sentenced Jesus to his death and bartered with the Romans were legislators. Pilate washed his hands of it and had the people to decide what his fate would be. Jesus was not a community organizer, he never organized anything. He was a teacher and a prophet, he spoke and people listened. He didn't organize a church that was paul and it was done after his death. Or should I take it as the senator was once again calling Obama a messiah?

Ah and the Bush Doctrine, now if there are so many different meanings which one would Gibson be talking about using the Generic Term "Bush Doctrine" the one from eight years ago or the one used today. I would imagine if you asked a majority of the people in the country they could not answer that question either, yet she did. All the while Gibson leering down like a underpaid principal. Should we go over Obama's gaffes in this election, like he didn't know that Russia had a veto on the UN security council, he thought there were 57 states, or that Russian and Georgia were equally to blame.

It's amazing that you liberals can't have a discussion with out resorting to labeling and name calling. While I don't fall lock step with the liberal party I'm ignorant and uninformed, nice to lump a group of people in one category. Maybe that shows how closed mind and shallow you are to think we all must believe what you believe. And Obama is preaching the same democratic policies since Clinton. He want's new socialist government installed here in American. And as far as I know your just here posting on Palin she is the Governor of a State and a VP nominee and your a person not brave enough to use your own name when degrading someone. So I think it shows your level or intelligence. By the way how do you figure out his fuzzy math...how do you give 95% of people a tax break when 40% don't pay any taxes at all?

By the way check your facts no elections were tampered with or stolen. It's been 8 years maybe you should do some research..and by the way it is the liberal organization "acorn" that has been signing up fake people and fake socials and dead people to vote democratic..so how is tampering with what?

[jordan]

I agree with the article. Its not that Palin knew too many policies relating to the socalled "Bush Doctrine" that she asked for clarification. The question is flawed in itself because there is no such thing as a defined "Bush Doctrine" as a it would be referred to like the Truman or Monroe Doctrines. It is something a few writers put in opeds over the years to coin phrases and attempt to make history. Its not the the Bush Doctrine is going to be taught to our childred in school, and something that defines a president. I'll bet the larger percentge of the dem and rep congress wouldn't have had a clue what it was either if asked two days ago, just not a commonly known reference.

[Chup]

Anyone who uses the lying Charles Krauthammer as a source instantly has absolutely no credibility.

How gullible are you, anyway? It's obvious the GOOPers are making up excuses after the fact for the brilliant Sarah's deer-in-the-headlights response. She had no clue what Gibson was talking about, and you know it.

You may not be one, but your latest few posts are showing you to be a pathetic hack.

[Mary]

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

But, is Jesus a Jew? A black Jew with a middle name Hussien? Too wachy.

The problem with the liberals is that they think they are way too intelligent than the most, even when they are working under their bosses. Gov. Palin is happened to be many people's boss, by election.

Palin is, in fact, more qualified than all the other three older men also running in this election

[Andy]

I am astounded by the naivete shown by the writers of this blog.

Krauthammer's spin is accepted as reality? Of COURSE he's spinning her responses, he is a relentless partisan, that's his right and responsibility. You accept them as fact, which says much more about you than Krauthammer.

My 13 yearold nephew was able to recite the preemptive Bush doctrine from his social studies class. Palin could not. How embarrassing.

Another headline on this blog reads " Oops, Obama ad mocks McCain's inability to send e-mail. Trouble is, he can't due to tortured fingers..."

STEPHEN HAWKING SENDS EMAILS. The spin, again, is accepted as fact by bloggers without the wherewithal (try The Google) to look deeper.

As an LA resident, I've been saddened by the declining standards of the LA times. How unfortunate those standards extend to web coverage.

[George McLiar]

McLiar claimed Iraq was behind the anthrax scare of 2001 and that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

a $1Trillion LIE.

[West Coast thing]

wow.... in less than 1 month Sara has taken on Oama/ Biden and the media. And is already reforming. Look, even this OLD HACK is getting slapped already. Good going Sara!

it sure is fun to watch the dem/libs try to defend the same ole same ole media tricks. Sara is already reforming even the media!

Sorry Sara wants to change how this country is run. She is a fresh. Your Obama/Biden is the same ole same ole!

paint the white house Pink!

Your Obama bumper stickers do you no good

[Bryan]

The transparently biased reporting conducted by Charlie Gibson and others is going to make it much more difficult for Obama/Biden. Their credibility is sliding with every "news report" they print and air. As a very conservative American, I actually have no problem with the tone or the "toughness" of Mr. Gibson's interview questions for Governor Palin. Candidates for public office need to be aggressively vetted by the media. The problem is that Mr. Gibson and the rest of the media are not asking equally tough and probing questions of the Democrats. The media would be providing all Americans a tremendous service if they aggressively and relentlessly vetted ALL candidates the way Mr. Gibson did with Governor Palin.

[kawehi]

I second Reality Check's comment. Who cares if Gibson doesn't exactly know what the Bush doctrine is. He's not running for VP of the United States.

[John William]

It's starting to sound like you have Obama Democratic Party staffers participating around the clock on your blog. They are very articulate but also very elitist in their attitudes toward other Americans who don't share in their enlightened views. "How dare there be a difference of opinion in America." I saw a lot of this when I was living in communist China: full time bloggers hired to shoot down any semblance of democracy and free thought.

[Chris]

Charlie Gibson acted smug and arrogant. He could have asked for Palin's views in a much better way. He should be ashamed of himself and should do some self-introspection about his motives. He was only trying to impress his peers. I will not be watching ABC News in the future.

[tired]

Please rember when she tried to correct him on is inaccurate quote he stated "Exact Quote"

Charlie was on a mission

[MiMi]

I agree with the prior poster, all this focus on minutia misses the point, the fact is every time Sarah Palin opens her mouth she comes off as a dimwitted high school debater. She is supposed to be able to handle unscripted questions but clearly cannot. She is slow.

[M Smith]

Michael--

I'm so grateful you're here to articulate and judge the intellectual status of your fellow citizens. Thank heavens for people such as yourself who are not ignorant and who are informed.

[Steve V]

Mr. Malcolm, are you on the McCain campaign's payroll or something? By competing for partisan hack honors with Charles Krauthammer you are bringing down the reputation of a once-fine newspaper.

[Casey Cole]

In order to defend Palin's lack of any knowledge about Bush's "doctrine" of preemptive war, Republicans are now insisting that there are so many definitions of the Bush Doctrine that no one can agree what it means. In that case, the doctrine would be useless, at best. However, it sould be quite clear that Gibson's interpretation of the Bush Doctrine is correct. Bush was not the first to promote an agenda of freedom or democracy. He was simply the first American leader to claim he was legally entitled to start a war of aggression and remain blameless even when he turned out to be wrong about the weapons of mass destruction that he claimed were the reason for launching the war. After World War II, we executed General Tojo of Japan, who made a similar claim that he had a right to attack China to defend against fictitious Chinese terrorists who he claimed blew up a bridge. So, the only thing unique about the Tojo-Bush Doctrine is that everyone since Tojo has realized preemptive war was a crime. Thus, Palin should have responded to Bush's uniquely incorrect understanding of international law.

Palin's answers are very scary, since she seemed to suggest recent events in Georgia, Ukraine and Iran could lead us quickly into more wars. No one with any real foreign policy could support this absurd position.

[jimvj]

Mr. Edward Smith:
(And all other lying rightwing water carriers):

In what universe is it better for the reporters not to be smart?

Why is it that you would destroy America by elevating dumb people like George W Bush, John McCain and Sarah Palin, to positions of power? Even our allies are laughing at the stupidity of our voters - especially the ones who vote dumbasses like these three to power.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a smart and knowledgeable president for a change?

Btw, the answer is YES!!

[Brian White]

Krauthammer's citation of wiki is very suspicious. The wiki article on "Bush Doctrine" does indeed mention Krauthammer, but a couple of days ago it did not. The sentence mentioning Krauthammer was added at 8:07 on September 12. It was added by someone ("Sun Dang") who gives no contact info and who has not otherwise contributed to wiki. You can verify this here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bush_Doctrine&offset=20080912173008&limit=500&action=history