Front page story:
Many Versions of the Bush Doctrine: Palin's Confusion in Interview Understandable, Experts Say
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin seemed puzzled Thursday when ABC News anchor Charles Gibson asked her whether she agrees with the "Bush doctrine."
"In what respect, Charlie?" she replied.
Intentionally or not, the Republican vice presidential nominee was on to something. After a brief exchange, Gibson explained that he was referring to the idea -- enshrined in a September 2002 White House strategy document -- that the United States may act militarily to counter a perceived threat emerging in another country. But that is just one version of a purported Bush doctrine advanced over the past eight years.
Hmm. I wonder what "experts" they found to help them support that story. Do you even have to read what follows?
Peter D. Feaver, who worked on the Bush national security strategy as a staff member on the National Security Council, said he has counted as many as seven distinct Bush doctrines. They include the president's second-term "freedom agenda"; the notion that states that harbor terrorists should be treated no differently than terrorists themselves; the willingness to use a "coalition of the willing" if the United Nations does not address threats; and the one Gibson was talking about -- the doctrine of preemptive war.
Wow, that's a lot of doctrines. No wonder Palin was confused. She was so familiar with all of Bush's doctrines, it's understandable she didn't know the one Gibson was talking about.
Of course,
This debate may ordinarily be little more than cocktail chatter for the foreign policy establishment, but political blogs were buzzing yesterday over Palin's entire interview with Gibson, including the confusion about the doctrine. Liberals said it was yet another case of Palin's thin grasp on foreign policy, while conservatives replied that she handled herself well by putting the question back on Gibson.
See, it's your fault that the Washington Post had to write a front page story explaining that the conservative bloggers were right.
But the title clearly says "experts say," so other experts must have been cited in the story. Right? Well, aside from Mr. Feaver, WaPo quoted dueling arguments by two online reporters, James Fallows of TheAtlantic.com and Andrew C. McCarthy of National Review Online. No indication that they are experts. The story then quotes Richard C. Holbrooke. What did he have to say:
he saw the 2002 National Security Strategy of the White House as the critical statement of a Bush doctrine....According to Holbrooke, "the core point is that the Bush people were extremely proud of it and they presented it as a historical breakthrough."
Well, that certain doesn't support the "many versions" theme.
Well than the other expert must be Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security adviser. He said he
thought there was no "single piece of paper" that represents the Bush doctrine, but said several ideas collectively make up the doctrine, including the endorsement of preventive war and the idea that there is such a thing as a "war on terror."
"There are many elements to the Bush doctrine," he said.
I don't read "many elements to the Bush doctrine" to mean "many versions of the Bush doctrine," but then again I'm not smart enough to write front page stories for the Washington Post.
The article ends with a quote from Dana Perino, the White House press secretary, who, I don't think, anyone would describe as an expert.
So there you have it. An article by whose headline you would think would be a review of experts commenting on the meaning Bush doctrine...isn't.
And you wonder why the polls are tied?
Update:Regardless of how one feels about how Sarah Palin answered the question about Bush's doctrine, the point of this diary is that the Washington Post should have provided a sounder basis if it was going to print a front-page article defending her side of the story. By the way, Charles Krauthammer has a column in today's Post making the same argument. At least they put that where it belongs - in the op/ed section of the paper.