Charlie asked in Politics & GovernmentElections · 1 decade ago

Why do conservatives defend Palin's ignorance of the Bush doctrine?

by pointing out the doctrine was revised a couple times during his presidency? Is it better that she slept through the entire 7 years rather than just the run up to the Iraq war?

Update:

Sorry this is a little late, but for those who seem to think "Bush doctrine" is a term just invented by Democrats to humiliate Palin, here is a detailed write-up by the conservative think tank The American Enterprise Institute. There are books published about the Bush doctrine. Imagine the hubris, expecting a VP candidate to have heard of it...

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.15845/pub_de...

Update 2:

Krauthammer is an example of what I'm talking about, defends Palin on the basis that the doctrine changed. OK Palin, which version did you hear about? None of them? You think it's his "world view?" What a joke. I don't want to hear that "most of us didn't know about it." Most of us are not trying to be in a position to make decisions about war and peace. If we were, we should pay attention to foreign policy debate, unlike Palin.

34 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    She didn't even know enough to say that there was no solidly defined Bush doctrine or to know the various versions that have been out there.

    A couple of months ago she said that she hadn't really been paying attention to the Iraq war. If she doesn't care about the major things going on in this country why should we care about her?

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The term has had four manifestations.

    Charlie Gibson was not clear, and Governor Palin was right to ask for a clarification "In what regard?"

    Gibson's condescending attitude at that point was disappointing. His little lecture was incorrect.

    I'll bet you did not even know there were four permutations of the Bush Doctrine before Palin's interview.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    There is not such thing as 'Bush doctrine'. This is a term coined by the media that means nothing.

    You need to do some research before you put your foot in your mouth by talking about something you don't know anything about.

  • 1 decade ago

    Because it was a question purposefully made by liberal media to try and stump her in an interview and make her look ignorant. I'm getting sick and tired of the media trying to influence my opinion. Even Fox News, who claims to be fair and balanced seems to have conservative leanings. THERE simply is no objective media, and they ought to just come out and admit it and be honest about their opinions. The amount of power the media has is disgraceful in this country. When are the American people going to take back their power? The media and the celebrities need to be humbled....I'd love to see a candidate in power in the United States that didn't give a flying hoot about celebrities, money, media. I'd love to see a candidate in power in the United States who had an agenda, a plan, teams in place to help him or her carry those plans out, someone flexible enough to admit when a plan isn't working, but strong enough in their personal convictions not to be swayed by popularity.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    If she'd given anything like the sort of analysis her defenders have raised on her behalf, her answer would have been a lot more credible.

    As it was, she fell back on vague generalities. It was obvious she had no idea what was being referred to, in whole or in part.

    The interviewer even supplied her with a date, on which what many consider the definiitive "Bush doctrine" was laid out.

    She doesn't have the slightest idea what's been going on in this country for the past eight years. She's ready to go back to Alaska.

    Information Police: yes, exactly

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    It's obvious. She is very inexperienced in foreign policy. She has yet to meet one foreign diplomat and she still connects the Iraq war with the tragic events of 9/11. She told some troops in Alaska that were to be deployed to Iraq that they have to "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The doctrine is only language. The reality is concept. If you are a Republican it makes sense to you automatically that those who agree with our enemies are not our supporters and that an imminent threat (a situation that will happen no matter what) is something better handled preeminently. People with common sense don't have to know the terminology to understand the concept. Its better to understand the concept and not know the terminology than to be clueless in international affairs as in negotiating with global terrorists who's belief it is that some races or countries should not be allowed to exist. Is that too hard to understand?

  • DAR
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Not everyone knows people called it that. The doctrine is well known, but in GOP circles it isn't called 'the Bush doctrine'. Go figure.

  • 1 decade ago

    They are selling the fraud.

    the problems is that i and many others on this board did know that the Bush doctrine is preemptive war. It's how we got into Iraq and that's why it's important to know. It validates our claim that she's a complete fraud. We were not prepped by Bush Administration Washington professional.If she doesn't know as much as many on this board, she certainly doesn't know enough to be POTUS.

    The(Neo cons) can keep spinning it. But it is what it is.

  • 1 decade ago

    He asked that question as to a date and not a situation. What did you do on June 2002. Do you remember. It was a gotcha question. What was the Clinton Doctrine?

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.