« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Charlie Gibson Got The Bush Doctrine Wrong! Major MSM Gaffe!

Turns out Sarah Palin knew what she was talking about, Charlie!

We need to hold Gibson and ABC to account for this, and get the word our before the MSM spreads more lies!

According to Wikipedia, Charles Krauthammer was the first to use the term, The Bush Doctrine, in 2001. He explains in the Washington Post todaythat there are four successive meanings to the term, Bush Doctrine. Thus it was quite appropriate for Sarah Palin to respond by asking “in what respect, Charlie?” Charlie then, looking over his professiorial glasses, proceeded to lecture and explain what he thought the term meant.

However, as Krauthammer explains,

when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine. It’s not. It’s the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush’s second inaugural address: “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”

This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy’s pledge in his inaugural address that the United States “shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson’s 14 points.

If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume — unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise — that he was speaking about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration. Not the Gibson doctrine of preemption.

Get Alerts