The drive-by media seems to be hot on the subject that Palin didn't "know" the Bush Doctrine during the ABC Charlie Gibson interview. She asked Gibson what ASPECT he was talking about. Gibson then takes a "professoral" attitude and explains to Governor Palin the small aspect of it that he's been briefed on. Someone much more intelligent than me (or Gibson) sums it up:
Charles Krauthammer comments in the Washington Post:
" THERE is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, the one Charlie Gibson cited (in his interview with Sarah Palin) is not the one in common usage today.
I know, because I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of The Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the new American unilateralism", I suggested that the Bush administration policies should be called the Bush doctrine. Then came September 11(and) President Bush declared: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan -- became the essence of the Bush doctrine.
Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of pre-emptive war. This is the one Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine. It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine: the idea that the fundamental mission of US foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Gibson.. "
I think Krauthammer is basically right on. But based on her question to Gibson, I think Palin knows there are nuances to the Bush Doctrine and wanted Gibson to be more specific. Also I believe the Bush Doctrine and ALL aspects of it is appropriate foreign policy in today's world. One can't help but wonder what the Obama Doctrine would be.