If Joe Sestak was hoping to shore up his pro-Israel bona fides, he badly miscalculated with his “please be impartial” letter to the UN Human Rights Council. Dan Senor of the Council on Foreign Relations had this response, pointing to Israel’s own investigation:
The investigation is already taking place. If Sestak was genuinely concerned, he could have written the UNHRC and called it out for existing and operating in a blizzard of double-standards, and make it clear that he would not support any UNHRC investigation of Israel under any circumstances until the Council repudiates the Goldstone Report and stops singling out Israel time after time. That would have been praiseworthy. Instead he endorsed the investigation.
The American Jewish Committee, a rather liberal outfit, had this to say in early June:
“The UN Human Rights Council remains a kangaroo court, in which repressive and authoritarian states like Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan can indulge their obsession with Israel, while ignoring serial violators such as Iran and North Korea,” said AJC Executive Director David Harris. “Fresh from convicting Israel through the notoriously biased Goldstone Report into the war in Gaza, which presumed Israel’s ‘guilt’ before launching a fact-finding mission, the Council is now embarking on a new attempt to vilify Israel.”
(Well, before Harris got to the National Jewish Democratic Council, he was a bit more candid.)
Early last month, AIPAC also went after the UNHRC, urging that the Obama administration “maintain its longstanding position not to allow the Security Council and other U.N. organs such as the U.N. Human Rights Council to exploit unfortunate incidents by passing biased, anti-Israel resolutions that obscure the truth and accomplish nothing.”
What activist, lawmaker, or pro-Israel advocacy group (J Street, not you) genuinely concerned about the bile-drenched UNHRC and its serial attacks on the Jewish state would have sent a letter like Sestak’s? I’m going out on a limb: none.
Rep. Peter King gets it. He e-mails: “We should have no contact whatsoever with the UN Human Rights Council. It is impossible for that Council to even begin a fair investigation.”
CORRECTION: David Harris of the AJC and David Harris of the NDJC are not one and the same. David Harris of the AJC remains as candid as ever. I regret the error.
Not being a regular viewer of MSM programs, I don’t know what type of questions this Gibson asks of liberals. He struck me as a wise-ass. But, more importantly, summoning up all objectivity, she did fine; just fine.
The buzz is Sarah Palin does just fine in her first Charlie Gibson interview except for one gaffe. Charlie Gibson quotes Gov. Palin’s words, but inaccurately, and the quote just happens to be from our first gay* president, Abraham Lincoln. http://ace.mu.nu/archives/273244.php
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/11/open-thread-palin-on-abc/
I assume tomorrow the comment from Andrew Sullivan will be Sarah Palin is a dangerous Christianist because she quoted a notoriously gay (but in the closet and self hating) anti-states right athiest hypocrite racist radical.
* According to Andrew Sullivan http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2005-02-17
Actually. . . Charlie Gibson did Palin a HUGE favor with this one, by asking the question again.
It pains me to say it, but Palin didn’t know what the Bush Doctrine was. You could see it in her eyes, and hear it in her first answer. Yeesh.
Paul:
The MSM people are like sophomores writing term papers. They think if they get enough “sources” and quote someone that they actually know something. Gibson’s assistant, likely a 23 year-old and Obama sycophant, probably pulled the Palin “quote” off the Daily Kos.
Dave, I’m not so sure. I think she correctly smelled a trap and wanted this Gibson guy to explain his interpretation of it. A very good move on her part.
Interpretation of it? The doctrine of preemption? The one we’ve ostensibly had for seven years running now?
I dunno if there needs to be much interpretation there to have an opinion on it. Here in 2008, it’s Foreign Policy 101.
Do you really trust this Gibson guy in not trying to pull out some obscure interpretation of the doctrine that could be used to jump on a reasonable answer? I don’t. By the way, my INTERPRETATION of it is not a doctrine of unilateral preemption as you suggest.
Paul, agree to disagree.
And I never used the word “unilateral,” so perhaps we share the same interpretation.
Difference between us and Palin, however, is that we know what the Bush Doctrine is.
Dave – my understanding is that the Bush doctrine is not preemption, that was articulated on the eve of shock and awe. Rather, what commonly is referred to as the Bush Doctrine is the notion that we will make no distinction between terrorists and those who harbor them.
The preemption doctrine you speak of relates to Bush’s statement in 2003 that “we must not wait until threats become imminent” or something to that effect.
I always understood the Bush Doctrine to also be “If you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists.”
I thought it was, “Praise God and pass the ammunition!”
Dave and others critical of her answer on the Bush doctrine, I believe my point in an above post is on the mark. Go to Wikipedia and read their definition. The important emphasis is “varying.” That is, the article points out that there are several layers to it. She was more than wise to force this Gibson guy’s hand in offering his definition. By the way, haven’t all of us, when asked a question about something, often asked exactly what the questioner means or his/her interpretation? On a less serious note, didn’t Clinton try to get away with this in his famous question of : “it all depends upon what the meaning of is is.”
>>I thought it was, “Praise God and pass the ammunition!”<<
If only!
I joke, I joke.
Maybe.
CAN WE PLEASE GET THE COMMENTS ALL ON ONE PAGE!?!?!?!?!?!?
If we smarty-pants Contentions commenters can’t agree what the Bush Doctrine was/is, then why should it be held against Palin? I didn’t see the clip, but what did Gibson do, throw out a coldcut like “Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?” If so, the only logical response would ask for clarification. Bush Doctrine in education? taxes? housing? vacation schedules? menus at state dinners?
#14,
Maybe they can contract Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs to make them a nice comments section that scrolls within the same page as the post.
CAN WE PLEASE GET THE COMMENTS ALL ON ONE PAGE!?!?!?!?!?!?
I second the motion. Multipage comments are particularly annoying when I am reading on my blackberry.
I get all comments on one page. I’m using an iPhone.
The original Bush policy of making no distinction between terrorists and nations that harbor them, was, for a time, called the Bush doctrine. However, the common academic, diplomatic, and media usage of the term is the policy of preemptive warfare. This isn’t just striking to prevent an attack, but striking BEFORE THE THREAT MATERIALIZES. Consider the case of Iraq. The causus belli was to take Saddam Hussein out of power and seize WMDs BEFORE they could get into the hands of terrorists.
Consider this article defining the parameters of the Bush Doctrine, cited on the US Dep’t of State Website: http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/1202/ijpe/pj7-4lieber.htm
Like other famous “doctrines” (Monroe, Truman, Nixon), the term reflects a major shift in US policy to a “strike-first” policy of preemptive war. Remember, the Iraq situation wasn’t about an imminent threat, but rather the threat of an imminent threat emerging.
Google it and see how commonplace the phrase is: news headlines, magazine covers, quotes, etc. I cannot see how Palin could be confused by the term.
I teach this stuff to Advanced Placement students in high school That Palin was clearly unfamiliar with it in inexcusable. She is, after all, running for the second highest office in the land.
Regarding “interpretations” of it, I would perhaps cut Palin some slack if she had answered it in some sort of contextually accurate way (e.g., how to deal with nations harboring terrorists). Instead, her vague discussion of Bush’s world-view, and the need to promote democracy struck me as an attempt to skirt the question. The look on her face was enough to indicate that she had no idea what Charlie was talking about.
She had every right to have that look on her face. He had no idea what he was talking about when he asked the question.
Here is the monumental fear…
when asekd about a political ideology put into practice in life changing ways…regarding the “Bush Doctrine” (see wikipedia if not familiar) Sarah Palin tried the old tactic of “clever fishing” for the meaning of the question in her evasive answer. It was bad enough a VP who is 1/2 heartbeat from the Presidency did not know this (scares the hell out of me actually), but WORSE that she attempted to 1. practive clever fishing and 2. then bluff her way through it with a generalized answer.
Here is the question I have? How many times could this woman step in such political doo-doo related to volatile issues WITH (not Charlie Gibson) but Putin, Achmadinijad, Chavez, or the volatile middle-east situation.
Please people…rethink the “hockey mom infatuation” These is much more at stake here…much more.
Here is the monumental fear…
when asekd about a political ideology put into practice in life changing ways…regarding the “Bush Doctrine” (see wikipedia if not familiar) Sarah Palin tried the old tactic of “clever fishing” for the meaning of the question in her evasive answer. It was bad enough a VP who is 1/2 heartbeat from the Presidency did not know this (scares the hell out of me actually), but WORSE that she attempted to 1. practive clever fishing and 2. then bluff her way through it with a generalized answer.
Here is the question I have? How many times could this woman step in such political doo-doo related to volatile issues WITH (not Charlie Gibson) but Putin, Achmadinijad, Chavez, or the volatile middle-east situation.
Please people…rethink the “hockey mom infatuation” These is much more at stake here…much more.
And there is no trap when one asks about the “Bush Doctrine.” It is common knowledge to those political…if one is objective.
While I have to concede that she didn’t know what the Bush Doctrine was, Gibson’s explanation that, “The Bush Doctrine is we have the right to self-defense, pre-emptive strike against any country we think is going to attack us” showed that he also had no clue about what the “Bush Doctrine” is. What Gibson was apparently clueless about is that a nation’s right to a pre-emptive strike against another country in appropriate circumstances has been a standard part of Natural Law and International Law thinking in the West at least since the time of Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) as seen in Book 2, chapter 5 of his “The Law of War and Peace” (1625) and has, for instance, been exercised by Scotland in the Bishops Wars against Charles I (1639-1640) and by Israel in the Six Days War (1967). What was new about the so-called Bush Doctrine was invading another nation even if the threat to your nation was NOT imminent. Gibson, then, clearly misrepresented the Bush doctrine.
Anyway, what was important in that part of the interview is is not whether she (or Gibson) could give a proper definition of the Bush doctrine, but what her view of America’s right to a pre-emptive strike is. Since Gibson fumbled his third attempt at the question, he didn’t get a clear answer to whether she thinks a pre-emptive strike is justified if the threat to the U.S. is NOT imminent.
“. . .[H]er vague discussion of Bush’s world-view, and the need to promote democracy struck me as an attempt to skirt the question.”
Mark are you implying that the question was above her pay grade. Gimme a break!
“Here is the question I have? How many times could this woman step in such political doo-doo related to volatile issues WITH (not Charlie Gibson) but Putin, Achmadinijad, Chavez, or the volatile middle-east situation.”
Here is your answer: Whether it’s Vlad the Impaler, or some crazed Iranian wanker, or even a spit flecking South American Creep the people facing him have a staff of foreign policy experts to do research on their positions and self-interests. Conceivably they also have a little more time to flesh-out an American position. So, Rachael, please tell me how The One might be better or worse than Palin in this context, especially after he’s proven to the world that he can’t handle the heat.
It’s apparent that no one here can agree what the Bush Doctrine is either.
I agree with Cas, the President (which she is NOT running for) has many foreign advisors and does not act on impulse. Whoever is President has plenty of help with decision making at every level. He/she doesn’t have to be an expert on everything, or maybe not on anything at all, but only has to use wisdom in listening to and considering the advice given, and then to make the decision based on that.
Sometimes I think we expect the President to be an all-knowing god and then are disappointed to find out otherwise.
I would be very hesitant in electing someone who is too arrogant to listen to advice and consider the advice given when he or she doesn’t at first agree. And I would want to know that those advisors were well qualified and wise and can see more than a narrow view.
Palin doesn’t HAVE to know all the answers. She hasn’t advertised herself as an expert in foreign affairs. She is an excellent executive and knows some aspects of it all, but not everything. No one person has to know all the answers.
I think there is a media-fed tendency to attack everything Palin is, says, or does, and we are keeping that going by trying to find as much fault as we can.
I think it is ungenerous to ask Palin to know and to be able to answer every question within a couple of weeks of being selected as VP and to set traps and then pounce when she can’t answer a question. Here is an independent woman who has had experience making her own decisions and is now expected to support McCain’s stand on every issue. She is walking a tightrope between trying to answer with her own views and supporting another person’s views at the same time (they don’t always agree on the answers), and she may not even know every stand McCain would take. She has to make a shift from her usual saying it “like she sees it” to more of a party line, and I don’t think that is natural for her. Maybe they should just give her the freedom to express her own views, which is what some of us love about her, but it won’t happen. That is the difference between running for VP instead of for President.
For her, it is a different kind of politics, that’s all, but she is a quick study, and she’ll learn. Watch the Oct 2 debate with Biden…she’ll be ready for it then.
I also agree with Cas that Obama is the one who can’t handle the heat. He makes blunders everytime he doesn’t have a written script or teleprompter in front of him, and he IS running for president!
Come on, people… the phrase “Bush Doctrine” is a MEDIA CREATION, a way they have of making Bush scarier by implying he will ALWAYS react the same way to the same provocation.
If you’re a mother of five and a state governor, do you know each and every media created phrase?
We do, because we’re sitting here paying close attention to media dialogue.
She didn’t. She’s not to be held responsible for not knowing media catch phrases.
Once she knew what he was talking about, she was solid on it.
Bush has a “doctrine?” What… ? Shoot first and ask questions later? Well, we obviously dont want anymore of that stuff right now, so Palin professing ignorance of a so-called “Bush doctrine” is just fine with me.