The Bush Doctrine

It hasn't always been clear what the "Bush Doctrine" is. Originally it was the phrase "You're either with us or the terrorists" or "We will make no distinction between terrorists and nations that harbor them" or other things to that effect (all of these were used to justify the war in Afghanistan). Only later, when Bush really wanted a reason to invade Iraq (and couldn't find any terrorists there), did they start advocating for preventive war war against nations which don't threaten us. Silly people who think that they are serious tried to find some consistent thread in the administration's arguments, and made up this concept of a "Bush Doctrine". Really it's just a semantic dodge used to describe the rationales W. has come up with in order to bomb things.

This, of course, doesn't change the fact that Sarah Palin obviously has no fucking clue what she's talking about, but let's not turn George W. Bush into some sort of systemic philosopher with a coherent national security doctrine...

Transcript/Video, if you missed the interview. Bush Doctrine back and forth:

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.

It's also worth pointing out that Charles Gibson doesn't actually know what he's talking about either. Preemptive war has long been the policy of the United States — if the U.S. is facing an imminent threat (e.g. Japanese ships steaming towards Pearl Harbor), we will shoot first. This has long been the policy of the United States (and, like, every other nation ever), and is actually the policy that Palin endorses here.

The Bush Doctrine, on the other hand, argues in favor of preventive war*. In no way was Iraq an imminent threat to the U.S. They weren't even a near-term threat. The administration admitted as much before the war, that Iraq was years away from being an actual threat to us. Rather than act to preempt an attack, the Iraq war was sold as a way to prevent Iraq from developing the capability to attack us in the future.

Historically, the United States (and the rest of the civilized world) has eschewed preventive war, and it is generally known, technically, as "Making up some bullshit to illegally invade another country". International Law, various treaties the U.S. has ratified, the U.N., the Pope, Howard Dean, and Bono are all opposed.

The multiple levels of ignorance on display here are really astounding:
1. Palin is completely unfamiliar with anything referred to as "the Bush Doctrine".
2. Gibson's knowledge about the topic he was asking about is fairly limited.
3. Even after Gibson explains how the Bush doctrine is different from prior U.S. behavior, Palin's answer clearly indicates that she doesn't understand the distinction.
4. Gibson doesn't follow-up on Palin's insipid answer, indicating that he doesn't actually care about the answer or (more likely), he too doesn't understand the significance of his own question.

Considering that indulging Bush's petulant urges resulted in a series of policy initiatives (war, torture, signing statements, etc.) that ignored International and American norms, it'd be nice if candidates for the office told us how they feel about the changes around here. At the very least, it'd be helpful to know if they even understood them.


*Although most people lie and call it preemptive in order to confuse the issue. Or, like Charlie here, they're too stupid to know the difference.