CK MacLeod, on Peter Wehner:

As for the main topic, the exchange pointed to at THE CORNER was illuminating. In a published interview, renowned international expert and dean of the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton Anne-Marie Slaughter, is asked a general question about the Bush Doctrine:

Interviewer: What are the central differences, and what are the elements of continuity, if any exist, between “the Bush Doctrine” and the “grand strategy of forging a world of liberty under law”?

Slaughter: Tell me what you mean by “The Bush Doctrine.”

The interviewer, Alan Johnson – who was actually interested in a useful answer not a gotcha – offered a tentative definition for purposes of discussion:

Let’s say a fairly aggressive strategy of promoting democracy, a willingness to use military force, and a refusal to be put off from using that force because you haven’t been able to put an international alliance in place. Plus the idea that the root cause of the threat is the stagnation – politically, economically and culturally – of an entire region, so the only serious response is to promote political change in that region.

With the topic thus clarified, the two proceeded to have an interesting exchange about the subject – something Charlie Gibson, like Joe Klein, was obviously neither interested in nor capable of.

I’ll take Palin or Slaughter’s appropriate intellectual modesty regarding the moving target known as the Bush Doctrine over the phony and pretentious certitudes of Klein and Gibson any day.