WaPo et al come to Palin's rescue

[Joanne98]

As Josh points out, the Washington Post has chimed in with an article supporting Sarah Palin’s request for clarification of Charlie Gibson’s probing question into foreign affairs. WaPo writer Abramowitz, writes:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin seemed puzzled Thursday when ABC News anchor Charles Gibson asked her whether she agrees with the "Bush doctrine."

"In what respect, Charlie?" she replied.

Intentionally or not, the Republican vice presidential nominee was on to something.

(emphasis is mine)

Intentionally or not...hmmm...Then the article goes on to explain how one could easily be confused about the question since there are actually many definitions of the Bush Doctrine, and Palin rightly questioned Gibson, and that her response was one of many possible "correct answers™."

<more below>

snowbelt's diary :: ::
So now, the rightists and their minions have taken what was perhaps the most pointed example of Palin’s inexperience and lack of knowledge (to date) and turned it into a great example of her wisdom by rewriting what happened in the interview. It’s not that she didn’t know, it is that she was grappling with which definition Gibson was looking for. That explains it. Because everyone knows that the Bush Doctrine can be interpreted as meaning many things.

OK. So the WaPo deserves a big thumbs up sticker for going into some depth on this subject (did they do so 6 years ago?). And suddenly, rightists are all, like, into nuance and gray areas and fuzzy definitions?

But the WaPo article left out part of the exchange, the part that clearly shows that Palin didn’t know what Gibson was really talking about...from ABC:

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

(If you listen to the interview, it seems to me that the response, "His world view" is actually a question- "His world view?"

So the actual exchange is this:

Palin believes the Bush Doctrine is "His world view."
Then she goes on to say what she "believes" Bush has attempted to do.
THEN, Gibson defines it for her.
THEN she goes off on what she thinks about this:

PALIN: I agree that a president's job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.
I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.

So there still has not been a correct response to the original question.

The fact that the Bush Doctrine is not cut and dry, not a five-word summary of the world, is not new to those of us who are part of the reality-based community. However, this does not, in any way, point to Palin’s mastery of the issues. It does not point out that Palin has a firm grasp of policy. Palin has no idea of what to say, so she BS's her way until Gibson tells her the answer so that she can spout her memorized talking point. Anyone who has been through an oral exam, or has given one recognizes this exchange as an example of trying to lead someone to an answer when it is clear they don't know the answer.

It does point out that she is hellbent on faking her way through this campaign.

On a side note, the WaPo article points out that:

The White House staff member who helped draft the 2002 document, Stephen E. Biegun, now serves as Palin's foreign policy adviser.

So another Bush/Rove/Cheney staffer working as part of the McCain/Palin team? That, my friends, is not change. That is more of the same. This really needs to be driven home: If you liked the past seven years, then you’ll love the sequel with McCain and Palin and friends.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/13/122010/017

[OwnedByFerrets]

1. IF there are many definitions of the phrase.....

why couldnt she pull ONE of them out of her ass.:rofl:

[cal04]

2. Washington Monthly: A Novel Defense for Ignorance

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

It was a classic deer-in-the-headlights moment. Charlie Gibson asked Sarah Palin if she agrees with the Bush Doctrine. "In what respect, Charlie?" she responded. Asked what she interpreted the Bush Doctrine to be, Palin said, "His worldview?"

Now, apparently, there's a new defense for Palin -- her response is understandable because there's more than one Bush Doctrine.


(sniip)
Let's not play games. Yes, there have been a variety of foreign policy maxims dubbed the "Bush Doctrine" over the years. If Sarah Palin heard the question and said, "Which one?" I would have gladly accepted that as a perfectly legitimate response. Indeed, if she'd answered the question under the assumption Gibson was asking about a different doctrine, that would have been fine, too. Hell, if Palin could have explained the differences between some of the various concepts that have been given the label, she would have shut up her detractors for a very long while.

But none of that happened. You can watch the video. She said she perceived the Bush Doctrine as the president's "worldview," which really doesn't make any sense at all.

Post-hoc rationalizations for Palin's embarrassing ignorance don't do her any favors.

[samuraiguppy]

3. the only thing this woman

knows how to do is spit out babies. come on people--of course she looked stupid. breeder bimbo barbie

[Hugin]

4. Maybe Charlie could ask a second question... Like.

"Gov. Palin, please let me clarify my question, is this the first time you've heard of the United Nations Security Council (of which Russia has a permanent seat with veto powers) or do you believe it's God's Will that the United States careen around unilaterally (that means "by itself", Your Majesty) waging war willy-nilly on a whim?"

[Frustratedlady]

5. Is the Washington Post owned by Rev. Moon?

That strange member of the BFEE?