Posted by Peter W. Schramm
I think Rich Lowry’s take on this entirely correct, by the way.
Lowry's point that Palin is new to many national security issues is well taken but the Bush Doctrine question is a poor guide to what she actually knows. When I first heard the question I guessed that Gibson meant the idea that terrorist sponsering states would be treated the same as the terrorist groups the sponsered. Thats all anyone did: guess. The label Bush Doctrine could be applied to too many policies. The policy that Gibson described usually goes by the name preemption or anticipatory self defense. Palin was right not to guess.
I'm guessing that alot of the people who are complaining about Palin's ignorance know full well that Gibson's question was to vague to be meaningful. I'm also guessing that alot of persuadable people are not going convinced that Palin is ignorant by having liberals snicker, roll their eyes and say "See, she doesn't even know about the Bush Doctrine."
An alternative point of view.
Lowry is right: She didn't know at all.
Gibson was unfairly vague in his initial question. But it's mildly distressing that she didn't give an account of any of Bush's distinctive foreign-policy beliefs. And she should have, even at the risk of being corrected by Gibson on the definition of the Bush Doctrine. She would have looked better-informed than she did.
Palin didn't do terribly in the interview, but at times she wasn't entirely on top of it. We do not want to see this again with Katie Couric.
Ashbrook Center at Ashland University | 401 College Avenue | Ashland, Ohio 44805 | (419) 289-5411 | (877) 289-5411 (Toll Free)