Friday, September 12, 2008

Bush Doctrine "A bit of a sham"

L.A. Times rebukes ABC for distorting Palin remarksCharlie Gibson misquotes governor, assuming she saw U.S. in 'holy war'.

The article goes on to take Charlie Gibson to task for seeking sources that were not accurate (tantamount to 'blogger' bashing sources), distorted the truth and challenged journalistic integrity. Gibson was also challenged by the and editor of the Washington Post and Michael Rappaport for Gibson's challenge of the "Bush Doctrine" stating that "not anyone was really sure of what it was right now" and "it was bad journalism and bad reporting" form.
Richard Starr of the Weekly Standard noted, “Preemptive war; American unilateralism; the overthrow of regimes that harbor and abet terrorists–all of these things and more have been described as the ‘Bush Doctrine.’ It was a bit of a sham on Gibson’s part to have pretended that there’s such a thing as ‘the’ Bush Doctrine, much less that it was enunciated in September 2002.”
Bill Simmon reports, "Gibson and his colleagues have been all over the map in defining the Bush Doctrine over the last seven years. In 2001, Gibson himself defined it as “a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated.”

Palin was defended in her response to the 'Russia' question. ABC was challenged for distorting the truth of her response, which was 'not so earth shattering at all.' according to Mark Hemingway at the National Review. She was just stating NATO doctrine, "that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help." Andrew Bolt of the Melbourne Sun responded to cries that 'Palin would have already started 4 wars' noting that "Sen. Barack Obama held the same views."

Robert Kagan of Carnegie Institute for International Peace said, "since the US has an Article V obligation to come to the defense of NATO allies when attacked. If she had said no then she would not have stated U.S. policy. It's possible the journalists covering her interview do not know this."

Other distortions of the truth were challenged in the LA Times article including the original War on Terror and Sudam Hussein. Washington Post's Ann Kornblut took Palin to task for giving incorrect information at her son's Iraq farewell. The truth is, "Blumer says Kornblut "must have missed the news that Saddam Hussein, who was in power in Iraq on 9/11, is not only not in power, but also quite dead – executed by the current, totally unrelated Iraqi government. 'The war in Iraq' morphed from an operation to overthrow Hussein and capture or neutralize his lieutenants to a war against an al- Qaida insurgency at least four years ago."