I don't know what the Bush doctrine is, either: UPDATED

Much will be made, I'm sure, of Sarah Palin not knowing what the Bush doctrine is. But every president has a doctrine of some sort when it comes to foreign policy, and to be honest with you, I can't keep track of them. If Charles Gibson had asked me that question I would have said, "Okay, remind me again...what's the Bush doctrine?" And then, once he had reminded me, I would have said, "Oh yeah."

Asking Gov. Palin a question about "the Bush doctrine" is a bit like asking her a Trivial Pursuit question. Asking her about pre-emptive war, on the other hand, is perfectly legitimate. (Seriously, though, are we even sure that pre-emptive war is the essence of the Bush doctrine? I thought it had to do with treating states that harbor or support terrorists the same way we treat the terrorists themselves...)

Footnote: Last night I watched a few of the chattering asses discuss the Palin interview. One of the discussion topics was her answer to the question of our obligations in the event that Israel went to war with Iran. Palin said we'd have to support them without any second-guessing. Wow! A blank check? The Dems are gonna run with that one! Well, when it was time for the Democratic commentator to tee off on Palin he said, "In the real world, Israel would never go to war with Iran without having America's support in advance. So, Gov. Palin was right. There wouldn't be any second-guessing because a war like that wouldn't happen unless the U.S. was already on board."

And that's the last we'll ever hear of that guy.

UPDATE: Charlie Gibson doesn't know what it is either! See Krauthammer. And here's what they have to say over at the generally Palin-unfriendly Slate:

In fact, there is no Bush Doctrine. Or rather, there have been a succession of them, each one quietly tossed aside after it flunked the field test. In his book The Bush Tragedy, my Slate colleague Jacob Weisberg identifies and dates five separate Bush Doctrines: Unipolar Realism (March 7, 1999-Sept. 10, 2001), With Us or Against Us (Sept. 11, 2001-May 31, 2002), Pre-emption (June 1, 2002-Nov. 5, 2003), Democracy in the Middle East (Nov. 6, 2003-Jan. 19, 2005), and Freedom Everywhere (Jan. 20, 2005-Nov. 7, 2006).

Comments

[Lehigh]

I loved this take on Gibson: "Mr. Gibson, who sat back in his chair, impatiently wriggling his foot, had the skeptical, annoyed tone of a university president who agrees to interview the daughter of a trustee but doesn’t believe she merits admission."

I don't see how any rational person could watch that interview and think that Palin seemed as well-versed and/or knowledgeable as most presidential/vice-presidential candidates (Stockdale and Quayle excepted). Yet it also seemed obvious that Gibson was trying to bait her -- for instance, why not just say "What do you think of the so-called Bush doctrine, that says that the U.S. has the right to attack other countries if we believe they are a threat to U.S. security?" I mean, he was trying to make her look silly.

Re: the Israel quote -- SAJU, do you think Obama wants to in any way piss of the Jewish vote in the U.S.? He's already weaker there than most Dem. candidates, historically (I think).

[Special Agent Johnny Utah]

So, Lehigh, are you saying that you think the Dems will NOT go after Palin on this point out of fear of angering Jews?

[Lehigh]

Not the only reason, but one of the factors, certainly. I think the Dems shouldn't go after Palin at all, on anything. Biden and Obama should be saying "Like you, I don't know a lot about her. I look forward to seeing her debate and listening to her interviews, and to a fair examination of her public record."