Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post has an excellent article discussing how Charlie Gibson “got it wrong” when it comes to the Bush Doctrine and Sarah Palin. He states:
The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.
There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.
There is actually no written document that clearly defines exactly what the “Bush Doctrine” is. Krauthammer does an excellent job illustrating how the media has attempted to redefine and shape the definition of the Bush Doctrine throughout the years. If Sarah Palin doesn’t understand the Bush Doctrine then Obama clearly does not understand it either. In an ABC interview Obama seemed to be a little confused himself.
In July 2007, Senator Barack Obama described the “Bush Doctrine” as, as reported by ABC News, “only speaking to leaders of rogue nations if they first meet conditions laid out by the United States.”
I don’t recall anyone in the media looking over their glasses at Obama in a condescending manner while drilling him on his statement about the Bush Doctrine. So, if there is only one Bush Doctrine did Obama get it right or wrong?