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

[Maxine Schnall]

Harry Truman was less prepared to be Vice-President than Sarah Palin and turned out to be one of our best Presidents after assuming the office during wartime when Franklin Roosevelt died. The snobby, bigoted put-downs of Palin because she's not a foeign policy expert miss the point. Like Truman, Palin has the right stuff--strength of character, common sense, good judgment, and solid populist instincts. Obama, who is running for President, doesn't come close.

[JEff]

In what respect? For the uneducated let me try to explain she was asking which version of the Bush Doc he was talking about. Let not forget the Bush doc is a made up term by the media so its meaning is generally gleened from the source of the Hate America left winger that is refering to it.

[Andrew]

Funny to see that even when the inventer of the Bush Doctrine - Charles Krautheimer clearly spells out thetr are many aspects of the Bush Doctrine and Wilkpedia states that out 7 diffence oneshat are known, the angry liberal left in the face of fact can't admit that good "ole" Chalie didn't know what he was talking about. The left must defeat Palin because she is a fundemental threat to the lies they have portrayed for years about woman. That is that woman must get abortions, burn bras, and beleive that men are responsible for all their problems to be truely successful woman. Palin has has basically chopped of the ungly head of feminism, with style and grace.

[Jason]

Gibson would laugh at her answers and act like a child and argue when she stated her position. Ask a follow up don't be a jerk. It was by far the most unprofessional interview ABC has ever allowed to air. Gibson was asking questions he researched on topics he was most familiar with...he was debating Palin but he had the advantage of knowing the questions and answers before hand. We don't run debates like that for a reason...because it is unfair and doesn't give an objective look at the person or what they know. Palin answered in a very clear manner yet Gibson was so stupid as to have to follow up every other second with "is that a yes or a no"...if he was listening he would KNOW...this is't a multiple choice test...life isn't about yes or no...it's about fine lines and when to cross them. Gibson should be fired. It wasn't fair...it wasn't balanced...and it wasn't professional. On the last day he was trying to put his hands all over her at her old school...he should have been fired when he screwed up the debates way back when and he should be fired now.

The Bush Doctrine doesn't mean ANYTHING it is a made up word in the media...real leaders don't go around quoting the Bush Doctrine...it is not real and was a stupid question. With that said...Gibson tried to make her look bad for the sake of making her look bad. Media should have some standards.

[dems wake up]

What does it matter if she knows the Bush doctrine or not? She still stood firm, didn't stutter, stammer and say err err before she answered. Obama would have given a 20 minute answer and when he was done he would have said nothing. She didn't get the patty cake questions she received. If the seats were reversed and someone actually asked him something more difficult than whats your wifes name he would still be stammering today. Not one of you can give an answer to what qualifies him to be President. Remember she is our Vp pick. He is the Presidentail pick. If he wins, g-d forbid, learn Farsi and where the nearest unemployment office is

[Lydia Lightning]

I think Charles Gibson did an excellent job, it was Gov. Palin would did not have clue of what was being ask. People this is not a popularly contest, or even worst we are not voting for Prom Queen. This is the race for the White House, look they tried to push three weeks worth of information into this woman, and she couldn't hold up. Just think if we elect her and send her to talk to another leader they will continue to laugh at us. I give her this she can read a good speech, but the facts are real. Don't blame Charles Gibson cause she didn't have a clue.Think America think. Realize this is important. eight is enough.

[Greg Boettcher]

Even if Gibson was wrong about the Bush Doctrine, the headline of this article would still be a lie. There would then be two "gaffes," not one, and the larger one would still be Palin's.

[Joe Bua]

As if Charlie Krauthammer were a reliable source.

Laughable.

And you are still the same Andrew Malcolm who was a deputy press sec. for Bush's first campaign, so you're hardly non-partisan.

Betcha that new owner at Tribune loves your stuff though. He'd make big money with McCain installed on top.

[Mary Blanch]

I am weary of the right whining about the biased coverage of the media and pretending their victimization. The right has wrested control of this country in the last eight years and brought the US to its knees economically and philoshophically. It is the media which is the crying victim. The media is the last great hope of this country as the powerful, calculating right wing of this country destroys us and complains that we cry as they torture us. Pallin is no scholar and nor is Bush. The support of the right for people of this genre is only because they grease the wheels of the monied and the monied hate those who see what they are doing and call out the immorality of it all. The author of this article is just another whining bully of the right. Gibson exposed Pallin's inappropriate innocence. And then the author whines, I wonder if Gibson's simplification of the Bush doctrine will reach world media. It woud not matter if it did. At least Gibson identified one aspect of the issue. Pallin did not even know the issue and she would be the leader of this country. How tragic for this once great country that she and her like are doing all they can to destroy it because they are too stupid to realize that they are only lining the pockets of others.

[The Third Policeman]

Really, depending on Charles Krauthammer to verify knowledge? He's a professional ignoramus, as, clearly, are you.

[Rachel Sklar]

Krauthammer is splitting hairs here. Who cares that he coined the term first? It's what it means NOW that matters. He said so himself: First Sept. 11th and then Iraq both updated the definition - and Gibson specified 2002. It was clear to anyone who knew, understood and followed recent history what he was asking her. There is just no way that Palin asked for clarification because she wanted to know to which version of the Bush Doctrine Gibson was referring. It is the worst kind of obfuscation to try and spin this as Gibson's gaffe. However sophisticated the various formulations of "Bush Doctrine" have been, at its core its meaning is pretty clear. Also clear: Palin had no clue what he was talking about.

[calling all toasters]

This post should be retitled "So, it looks like this blog treats Charles Krauthammer as the world's greatest authority." And despite the fact that Charlie Gibson specifically referenced the doctrine of September 2002 (aka "National Security Strategy of the United States"), you can keep up your pretence that there were many possible Bush Doctrines that he could have been referring to.

This blog is embarrassing hackery.

[bsinkop]

Reality Check: If you think it's wise to compare your candidate to the Messiah, go ahead and see how far that gets him. But consider this: Obama is the candidate in this reace who is most like Pontius Pilot. When Pilot was in a position to make the most important decision of his political career, he voted "present"!

Charlie Gibson asked an ambiguous question. Given that intelligent people can't agree on the definition of the Bush doctrine, any answer she gave would have been criticized. The ONLY correct answer, was to ask for clarification.

[John Quimby]

There are a whole lot of questions Gov. Palin can't answer. "Is it legal for the Governor of Alaska to use her office to fire people for personal reasons?" Would be one.

Mr. Krauthammer's sleight of hand is even better when you consider her opinion that the US should lead NATO into a war with Russia. Oh really? Isn't this exceeding our current military doctrine? Three wars at once? Really?

Way to change the subject Mr. Krauthammer But then you thought a war in Iraq would would only take a few weeks.

[Franklin Halasz]

I was struck by this line in Wikipedia:
"some scholars have suggested that there is no one unified theory underlying Bush's foreign policy."
Or any other Bush "policy".

[MIke]

Michael, you need to move away from the view that if someone disagrees with the liberal perspective that that person must be ignorant and uninformed - if they were educated and really understood, they would certainly agree with you. The opposite is true - the more that Americans understand the liberal mission of government control, protectionism, wealth redistribution, and disincentives to productivity and responsibility for one's own future, the more they will disagree with you.

[brad]

So Malcolm, how much longer you gonna be carrying Rove and Krauthammer's water?

[High-brow Gibson]

He was never able to appear objective or even honest.
He kept playing gotcha and thought he had succeded
with the Bush doctrine bit. I thought gov. Palin's candor
and authenticity were just to much for the blase Gibson,
so accustomed and enthused with liberal utopian
hogwash.

[Claudine Louden]

Charlie Gibson there is no Bush Doctrine, you ignorant condescending Democratic Donkey, you just made a fool out of yourself.

[Dr. Wu]

It's not clear to me why The Los Angeles Times bothers to put Andrew Malcom's byline on anything he posts. Why not cut out the middleman, and simply use the byline "Via Facsimile From McCain Campaign Headquarters?" Readers of the Times have a right to something better than stovepiped talking points from Karl Rove's fax machine.

[Lee Lopez]

Give the Gov. a break. She just sent her son's
outfit to go towar. How would you feel. I
am voting for the McCain/Palin ticket.

A Proud Texan.

[yderringer@msn.com]

This is the most extreme example of someone who has a nasty point of view for the widest accepted definition of "The Bush Doctrine" and Sarah Palin didn't know ANYTHING about it..........how's that??

[Kushboy]

Gibson was asking for Palin's interpretation of a complex issue. When Palin responded with an answer nowhere close to an interpretation of the Bush Doctrine, Gibson gave her his interpretation, so she could agree with it, or disagree with it and provide her own interpretation. Instead, she responded with her views on anticipatory self-defense. We never learned what her interpretation of the Bush Doctrine is - probably because she doesn't have one.

[travy]

could you be any more in the tank for mccain? seriously, this blog is a joke...

[joe]

I'd rather have a VP that can't instantly define the concept of the "Bush Doctrine" rather than a President that thinks we have 57 states.