Charles Krauthammer Rips Charlie Gibson

The inestimable Charles Krauthammer -- the progenitor of the term "Bush Doctrine" -- takes apart the spineless and effet Charles Gibson in his attempt to build a "gotcha moment" during the interrogation of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

During his ambush interview with Palin, Gibson tried to corner her on the meaning of the "Bush Doctrine" and whether she agreed with it.  Palin, not one to be caught in an ambush, replied "In what respect, Charlie?"

Gibson sighed, and in that effete manner of the snobbish chattering class that makes up the Main Stream Media, looked down over his classes like some borish professor lecturing a college freshman.

There's just one problem:  Gibson doesn't know what the "Bush Doctrine" is.  Krauthammer makes this point very well.  Why?  Because no one -- including George W. Bush -- knows what it is.  Unfortunately, the "Bush Doctrine" is a fungible policy that changes over time.  In this sense, it really isn't a doctrine.  Doctrine requires a single set of unchanging values and principles that guide policy, execution, and purpose.  Doctrine is applied to changing circumstances on the ground to provide a consistent and predictable outcome.  A doctrine itself is not changed by circumstances; doctrine changes the circumstances.

The "Bush Doctrine" can and does mean several different things.  In its early incarnation, it meant that treaties signed with countries that don't exist anymore -- the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty, for example -- shall no longer bind the United States when circumstances warrant.

Then it changed to "If you aren't for us, you are against us", which really wasn't true.  (See, Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, Russia, etc. for examples).

Then it changed to peremptory attack in the right of self-defense.

Then it changed to the promotion of democracy in regions that have only known tyranny and despotism.

At best, the Bush Doctrine can be said to be a set of ideas (not principles) that America will act in its interests first, that American Foreign Policy will be carried out in the interest of America first and other nations second.

At worst, the Bush Doctrine can be said to be "whatever works until it doesn't work anymore".

So, Sarah Palin was right to answer Gibson's question with "In what respect?"  And Gibson displayed a shocking lack of objectivity and knowledge with his sneering, effete snobbery.  When his ambush target showed an unwillingness to play by the ABC news script, he didn't know how to respond.

If Gibson wasn't working so hard to fellate the Democrat ticket, he might have followed up with a question like "Well, Governor, do you think there is a single Bush Doctrine, and if there is, what is it?"

But Gibson had an agenda, and it wasn't to get an answer.  It was doing the bidding of the Obama campaign and take down this upstart Governor.

He failed.