I’d like to see Obama and Biden asked the same question. I bet their answer would be similarly vague.
Ask and ye shall receive! Here is one interview:
Barack Obama and Joe Biden on the Bush Doctrine in December 2007
Last year, the Democratic nominees were asked at the NPR Democratic debate about how they would differ from the Bush Doctrine in their administrations. Joe Biden and Barack Obama’s answers are below.
PROF. CHRIS PENCE (MARION, INDIANA): (From tape.) American diplomatic history books recount the Monroe Doctrine, the Truman Doctrine, and will likely discuss the Bush Doctrine. When future historians write of your administration’s foreign policy pursuits, what will be noted as your doctrine and the vision you cast for U.S. diplomatic relations?
…
SIEGEL: And Senator Biden, the Biden Doctrine.
SEN. BIDEN: Clarity. Prevention, not preemption. An absolute repudiation of this president’s doctrine, which has only three legs in the stool: one, push the mute button, don’t talk to anybody; two, preemption; and three, regime change. I would reject all three. We need a doctrine of prevention. The role of a great power is to prevent the crises. And we don’t have to imagine any of the crises. We know what’s going to happen on day one when you’re president. You have Pakistan, Russia, China, the subcontinent of India. You have Afghanistan. You have Darfur. And it requires engagement — engagement and prevention. That does not rule out the use of force; it incorporates the notion of prevention — prevention.
SIEGEL: Senator Obama, the short version of the Obama Doctrine.
SEN. OBAMA: Well, I think one of the things about the Obama Doctrine is it’s not going to be as doctrinaire as the Bush Doctrine because the world is complicated. And I think part of the problem we’ve had is that ideology has overridden facts and reality.
But I think that the basic concept — and I’ve heard it from some of the other folks — is that, increasingly, we have to view our security in terms of a common security and a common prosperity with other peoples and other countries. And that means that if there are children in the Middle East who cannot read, that is a potential long-term danger to us. If China is polluting, then eventually that is going to reach our shores. We have to — and work with them cooperatively to solve their problems as well as ours.
Palin’s answer:
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?
PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.
Not all that different, all are vague with Biden’s being the least so.
It was a poor answer to an even poorer question. The Bush Doctrine isn’t one single point to be agreed with or disagreed with. Preemptive war? Support for Israel? Support for democracy abroad? Does free trade in support of democracy fit in there? How would Biden answer? How would Obama answer? I doubt anybody thought to ask Obama less than two weeks after he declared he was running for POTUS.
The question and answer seem to be a kind of partisanship Rorschach test. If you thought either that her answer was great or that it proved she’s not ready...you’re probably a partisan. If you’re going to bemoan the idea that Palin is not going to give an interview before the election, and then criticize her interview a few days later without even pausing to reflect...you’re probably Bartink.
sl0re - 12 September 2008 12:15 PM
bathory - 12 September 2008 05:18 AM
The funny thing is that I suspect 99.999% of the people slamming her for asking for clarification would have had to have gone to wikipedia to find out what the Bush Doctrine is, why? because its a fucking horrible term that has been used to describe everything and anything relating to the Bush admin…
Anyway, I know what I means but I’d also dodge the question too. Its a politically bad move to associate with Bush or even be connected to that unpopular idea (proactive intervention is not popular now due to failure to find WMD stockpiles in Iraq). Thats why raising it is a loaded / unfair question from the MSM. There is no good answer, only bad answers.
I think enough of the public is now aware of the blatant MSM bias to make it both acceptable and effective to take a more combative stance with them. Responses such as “Well, I see you want to put me in the position of having to answer in such a way that you can spin it negatively, irregardless of the answer. I don’t think I’ll cooperate with you on that. Try re-framing your question to eliminate your bias from it.” should become common. When an interviewer exposes their bias, they should be immediately called out. The problem is, the interviewer has days to prepare their questions, and the interviewee has only moments to frame a response. It requires a quick and perceptive mind to recognise the trap that’s been laid and respond appropriately. Good preparation can offset some of the interviewer’s advantage, but not all of it. Good preparation was shown in Palin’s answer about ‘doing God’s will’ in the war. That trap was anticipated and very well prepared for. If I were McCain or Palin, I’d seriously consider making advance copies of all questions a prerequisite to agreeing to an interview.
Not all that different, all are vague with Biden’s being the least so.
Good find!
Biden had the enviable advantage of not only being able to define his own doctrine, but Bush’s as well. He replaced “support for democratic movements” with “push the mute button”. What an ass.
The funny thing is that I suspect 99.999% of the people slamming her for asking for clarification would have had to have gone to wikipedia to find out what the Bush Doctrine is, why? because its a fucking horrible term that has been used to describe everything and anything relating to the Bush admin…
Anyway, I know what I means but I’d also dodge the question too. Its a politically bad move to associate with Bush or even be connected to that unpopular idea (proactive intervention is not popular now due to failure to find WMD stockpiles in Iraq). Thats why raising it is a loaded / unfair question from the MSM. There is no good answer, only bad answers.
There is a difference between a question that doesn’t have an easy / good (and we’re also talking popular) answer and a loaded / unfair question.
Bush is the president, he’s been employing the Bush Docterine with what some would argue is terrible results, and these results are important to Americans. How is it unfair to ask her about it.
It’s not uncommon for the president (and by extension his cabinet) to be faced with hard questions about what to do in real life, actually all politicians face these.
What if they asked her what she thought of the Fannie / Freddy bail out? Say she’s for it and it looks like she supports corporate welfare, say she’s against it and it looks like she wants to ruin the economy, but either stance would be better than not having one / ducking the question.
Of course the right thing to do is to give your answer and explain it.
I dare say if I were asked it would be something like “I support the proposed bail out (but replace bail out with the PC term) because it’s the best option available at this point, however it should never have gotten to this stage and if I had been in charge yada yada yada”
I’m not sure how confident I’d be that I could get a smart answer out off the cuff, but then again I’m not running for VP and if I were, I’d probably have planned for questions like these.
Bush is the president, he’s been employing the Bush Docterine
And what is that exactly? She asked for clarification and Charlie waited to give it to her. Before he clarified what he was asking, she answered with what looks to be an appropriate, relevant (though political-ease) answer.
The funny thing is that I suspect 99.999% of the people slamming her for asking for clarification would have had to have gone to wikipedia to find out what the Bush Doctrine is, why? because its a fucking horrible term that has been used to describe everything and anything relating to the Bush admin…
Anyway, I know what I means but I’d also dodge the question too. Its a politically bad move to associate with Bush or even be connected to that unpopular idea (proactive intervention is not popular now due to failure to find WMD stockpiles in Iraq). Thats why raising it is a loaded / unfair question from the MSM. There is no good answer, only bad answers.
There is a difference between a question that doesn’t have an easy / good (and we’re also talking popular) answer and a loaded / unfair question.
Bush is the president, he’s been employing the Bush Docterine with what some would argue is terrible results, and these results are important to Americans. How is it unfair to ask her about it.
It’s not uncommon for the president (and by extension his cabinet) to be faced with hard questions about what to do in real life, actually all politicians face these.
What if they asked her what she thought of the Fannie / Freddy bail out? Say she’s for it and it looks like she supports corporate welfare, say she’s against it and it looks like she wants to ruin the economy, but either stance would be better than not having one / ducking the question.
Of course the right thing to do is to give your answer and explain it.
I dare say if I were asked it would be something like “I support the proposed bail out (but replace bail out with the PC term) because it’s the best option available at this point, however it should never have gotten to this stage and if I had been in charge yada yada yada”
I’m not sure how confident I’d be that I could get a smart answer out off the cuff, but then again I’m not running for VP and if I were, I’d probably have planned for questions like these.
I’m aware. I’m also aware they don’t ask Obama those because they sense they’re unfair and they don’t want to be ‘unfair’… whereas with a republican they either can’t see that or don’t care.
And I think dodging the question was probably the most prudent response for her.
The interviewer’s intentions? It’s to grill her, isn’t it? Surely. I’ve seen Obama and McCain grilled. You want to see her perform under pressure, and find out her knowledge.
Overall, her performance was passable, I guess. Enough to tell me that come November she’s not going to make the difference either way.
Actually, no I’m arguing something else than a test / grilling. Please reread my last message.
What were arguing? That her vagueness showed a talent for sophisticated diplomacy? That’s stretching things a bit. I thought it was a horrible answer, but she had some better moments in the interview, and I’m still open minded.
I think enough of the public is now aware of the blatant MSM bias to make it both acceptable and effective to take a more combative stance with them. Responses such as “Well, I see you want to put me in the position of having to answer in such a way that you can spin it negatively, irregardless of the answer. I don’t think I’ll cooperate with you on that. Try re-framing your question to eliminate your bias from it.” should become common.
There you go again, assuming large portions of America see politics like you do.
DIO: Once we have the debates and all of America gets to see all the candidates, they’ll all see how obvious it is that the Democraps are all a bunch of hopeless morons.
When an interviewer exposes their bias, they should be immediately called out. The problem is, the interviewer has days to prepare their questions, and the interviewee has only moments to frame a response. It requires a quick and perceptive mind to recognise the trap that’s been laid and respond appropriately. Good preparation can offset some of the interviewer’s advantage, but not all of it. Good preparation was shown in Palin’s answer about ‘doing God’s will’ in the war. That trap was anticipated and very well prepared for. If I were McCain or Palin, I’d seriously consider making advance copies of all questions a prerequisite to agreeing to an interview.
Gosh, when I think back to my days at school and university, it was so unfair when I sat exams. Sure, I could study all the material and learn answers by rote, but those darn examiners had months to prepare questions and they could lay traps to make sure that my knowledge was deep and my understanding of the material was multi-dimensional. I approached my lecturers and demanded that they give me advance copies of the exams, but for some reason, they didn’t.
This whole issue is ridiculous. I want all 4 candidates to be grilled mercilessly. “Grill, grill, grill” to misquote Larry Kudlow. I mean, what the heck is a biased interview anyway. A good interview is one where the interviewer sets themselves up as a devil’s advocate against whatever the subject might say. That’s why it’s good for Charlie Gibson to interview Palin, and Bill O’Reilly to interview Obama. Would you prefer a question like, “Gosh, Sarah, you’re a Governor and a mother of five, where do you find the energy?”
My main problem with Palin is not that I don’t like her, but that I don’t know her. And most of the Republican BS about her not being treated fairly seems designed to prevent me from finding out. I’m glad Gibson asked the question because before he did I didn’t know that Palin didn’t know what the Bush doctrine was. Now, I think it’s fair to point out that this might be a somewhat esoteric term to some people and I consider that when I evaluate her. But I’m still better off knowing.
The interviewer’s intentions? It’s to grill her, isn’t it? Surely. I’ve seen Obama and McCain grilled. You want to see her perform under pressure, and find out her knowledge.
Overall, her performance was passable, I guess. Enough to tell me that come November she’s not going to make the difference either way.
Actually, no I’m arguing something else than a test / grilling. Please reread my last message.
What were arguing? That her vagueness showed a talent for sophisticated diplomacy? That’s stretching things a bit. I thought it was a horrible answer, but she had some better moments in the interview, and I’m still open minded.
It was not grilling or a test of knowledge, it was attempt to put words in her mouth / trap her. They are not ‘testing’ the same things. A normal test is about knowledge and views, not how well you can avoid hostile verbal traps / games.
I think enough of the public is now aware of the blatant MSM bias to make it both acceptable and effective to take a more combative stance with them. Responses such as “Well, I see you want to put me in the position of having to answer in such a way that you can spin it negatively, irregardless of the answer. I don’t think I’ll cooperate with you on that. Try re-framing your question to eliminate your bias from it.” should become common.
There you go again, assuming large portions of America see politics like you do.
The vast majority of American voters believe media bias is alive and well – 83% of likely voters said the media is biased in one direction or another, while just 11% believe the media doesn’t take political sides, a recent IPDI/Zogby Interactive poll shows.
The Institute for Politics, Democracy, and the Internet is based at George Washington University in Washington D.C.
Nearly two-thirds of those online respondents who detected bias in the media (64%) said the media leans left, while slightly more than a quarter of respondents (28%) said they see a conservative bias on their TV sets and in their column inches.
I don’t doubt Biden has a great understanding of the issues. I do doubt Obama a bit and I am waiting for the debates. I’d like to see a tough interview with him.
The bits of the Palin interview I saw weren’t too impressive. I think she speaks well and is confident but rj’s assessment is right, she has studied hard but doesn’t seem truly fluent.
Someone with a straight face tell me that this candidate knows what the Bush Doctrine is.
Someone with a straight face tell me bartink knows what the Bush Doctrine is.
Oh, so now it’s a choice between Bartink and Palin.
Is there a choice there? I bring it up, because I would bet money bart hasn’t the foggiest clue, not necessarily to pit him against Palin, just to point out what a partisan twat he is. I doubt Obama or Biden could tell you what is meant by “The Bush Doctrine” without clarification on the question. bart is implying that they could.
You have clearly lost the debate, resorting to name-calling and distractions from the issue of whether she knows what the Bush doctrine is.
Are you, Bartink, going to take back your prior whining about her not doing any interviews?
Actually, this makes my point. She wasn’t prepared so she didn’t give one. When she finally does, she hasn’t had long enough to study and it clearly shows. She has no grasp of the issues beyond the very basics.
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.
I don’t think she had ever even heard of it.
You keep referring to “it” when there is no “it”. There are several “its”.
I would say there is no definitive “it”. Did Bush come out and say “here is my doctrine bullet point by bullet point”? Fer Christsakes… errr sorry… I mean fer Obamasakes Bartink, you’re toeing the line here. I guess that you feel that the messiah did a better job answering Gibson’s questions. Not to get off subject, but can you show me one hard interview that the messiah has had? Make that two, since I know you’re going to say Bill O’. You’re sounding like Olbermann, who actually gives advice to Obama.
Are you, Bartink, going to take back your prior whining about her not doing any interviews?
Actually, this makes my point.
So her interview with Gibson “makes your point” that she wouldn’t do an interview with the media? Okayyyyyy…
.
.
.
Welcome to Bartinko-world. Even stranger than Bizarro-world.
Interpretation: He’s never admitted he was wrong, and sure as hell ain’t gonna start now.
As I listened to Mara Liason and some brit discuss Palin’s performance on NPR today, I was struck by the fact that Liason said that Palin “definitely didn’t say anything to hurt herself” and the brit (can’t remember his name as I was talking to my supervisor when the guy was introduced) said flat out that Gibson’s question was unfair.
Also, last night chris mathews raved about Palin’s response to what she considers to be reason to go to war. He said (and his two guests agreed) that Palin sets a much higher standard for going to war than Bush does. I was surprised that the pundits were that impressed with her.
As for the barts of the world, they’ll only be impressed when she walks across the Mighty Mississippi whilst holding Obama’s hand…
As I listened to Mara Liason and some brit discuss Palin’s performance on NPR today, I was struck by the fact that Liason said that Palin “definitely didn’t say anything to hurt herself” and the brit (can’t remember his name as I was talking to my supervisor when the guy was introduced) said flat out that Gibson’s question was unfair.
Also, last night chris mathews raved about Palin’s response to what she considers to be reason to go to war. He said (and his two guests agreed) that Palin sets a much higher standard for going to war than Bush does. I was surprised that the pundits were that impressed with her.
As for the barts of the world, they’ll only be impressed when she walks across the Mighty Mississippi whilst holding Obama’s hand…
Bart would simply argue that it was Obama doing the walking on water and Palin was being carried along in a Lois Lane manner. :)
By Charles Krauthammer
Saturday, September 13, 2008; Page A17
“At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of ‘anticipatory self-defense.’ “
-- New York Times, Sept. 12
Informed her? Rubbish.
The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.
There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration—and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.
.
.
.
Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed “doctrines” in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.
Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.
Yes, Sarah Palin didn’t know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn’t pretend to know—while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and “sounding like an impatient teacher,” as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes’ reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.
And Krauthammer is no dumbass. Far from it. Read it all.
Well, Gibson did specify the Bush Doctrine as inunciated in September 2002, before the Iraq War. At that time the Doctrine was articulated clearly enough as a justification of the invasion. After that time, Bush’s policy changed as the reality of world events turned against him. I respect Krauthammer, but I’m not sure he has “naming rights” of the Bush Doctrine, to say that it has changed along with the policy.
Well, Gibson did specify the Bush Doctrine as inunciated in September 2002, before the Iraq War. At that time the Doctrine was articulated clearly enough as a justification of the invasion. After that time, Bush’s policy changed as the reality of world events turned against him. I respect Krauthammer, but I’m not sure he has “naming rights” of the Bush Doctrine, to say that it has changed along with the policy.
