John, about the Bush doctrine question: Because the Bush doctrine is more than “the right of anticipatory self-defense,”as Gibson defined it, I think it can be said that Sarah Palin wasn’t just parrying in asking Gibson to clarify. His crudely put question needed clarification. Was he referring to treating countries that harbor terrorists as terrorists themselves, the use of preemptive force, or the promotion of democracy abroad? Three principles that do not necessarily mesh easily in everyone’s thinking. In fact, most people probably find it hard to say yes or no to all three. So, it’s not only hard to recall what the Bush doctrine is, but necessary to specify which principle of the doctrine one is being asked to assess. Now, the Gibson doctrine–that’s easy. That supports the right to be preemptively correct and condescend to your interviewee even though you yourself are hitting them with clumsy unanswerable questions.
Re:Bloom Off the Rose?
Scroll Down For the Next Article