McCain/Bush v. Palin On Preventive War

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 06:44:14 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Matt Yglesias captures the dichotomy:

George W. Bush has outlined a doctrine that he calls “preemption” but that’s really prevention or “anticipatory self-defense.” It holds that we should attack other countries that might attack us at some future point even if we have no particular evidence of a specific or imminent plan to do so. As we also know, John McCain agrees with this doctrine. Sarah Palin . . . outlined a different position, advancing an imminent threat standard.

. . . Which naturally raises the question of whether or not McCain discussed the issue of the Bush doctrine, or preventive war, or anticipatory self-defense, before putting her on the ticket.

That is a good question. Hopefully the Media will ask John McCain about the Bush Doctrine and whether he now agrees with Bush's preventive war doctrine that led to the Iraq Debacle or with Palin's sensible "imminent threat" standard.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< "The Issue Is John McCain" | Obama On Offense: McCain = Bush's Third Term >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

McCain/Bush v. Palin On Preventive War | 32 comments (32 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Of course they should ask McCain (5.00 / 0) (#1)
by JAB on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 06:59:58 AM EST

But I think it's interesting that he chose a VP candidate who disagrees with him and didn't appear to be afraid to say so. She also disagrees with him on drilling. Some may say that it looks like they didn't talk to each other and it was a bad choice, but I say is shows confidence to pick someone that doesn't agree with you and parrot your every word.

JMO.

Interesting take (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:02:36 AM EST

To me the headline would be McCain agrees with Bush.

And is running for Bush's Third Term.

Palin is a prop for me, not the story.


: Absolutely (none / 0) (#6)
by JAB on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:11:56 AM EST

Palin is a prop for me, not the story.
But you are smarter than the average bear. You've been saying the mantra for weeks, but apparently no one in the Obama / media camp want to listen to you.

They agreed to disagree on ANWR (none / 0) (#3)
by steviez314 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:04:13 AM EST

I doubt in 2 meetings and 1 phone call they had a chance to discuss other points of agreement/disagreement.

That said, it doesn't matter, since McCain can always spin it as you wrote: "not afraid to disagree." And the Republicans don't care in the slightest if McCain and Palin agree on some issues or not.


My spin (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:05:51 AM EST

McCain = Bush's Third Term.

Get your head ouit of the Palin tunnel vision.

The question is about John McCain running for Bush's Third Term.


strategy (none / 0) (#15)
by bobbski on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:29:00 AM EST

McCain = Bush's Third Term. -- Big Tent Democrat

While that idea sounds like a winner, I suspect there are enough people out there who know it is nothing more than a slogan.

Using that also tends to slam congressional dems because they controlled the congress for 25% of those eight years and did nothing substantive to confront Bush.

One old man´s opinion.


: maybe congressional dems (none / 0) (#25)
by kredwyn on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:30:36 AM EST

deserve to be hit for not doing anything to stem the tide.

One way of looking at it. (none / 0) (#27)
by JoeA on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:37:42 AM EST

Another is that McCain didn't know/care what her opinion was, given the lack of vetting.

Another still would be that Palin didn't have any opinion on this at all before last week when she had no interest in/ or knowledge of foreign affairs.


: But (none / 0) (#28)
by JAB on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:41:36 AM EST

You have no idea what kind of vetting took place. People on this board have been talking about Palin since February, so I'm going to bet those in charge of these kinds of things knew about her too and were vetting her.

Palin made a point of (none / 0) (#5)
by BernieO on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:11:21 AM EST

emphasizing attacking if a threat is imminent and war as a last resort.

I also thought Gibson did not know what he was talking about when he brought up the Bush Doctrine. What Gibson described - attacking if are in imminent danger - is and internationally accepted standard.

This isn't the first time Gibson has been tough on a question when he had his facts wrong. Remember how he jumped all over Obama for eliminating tax cuts and how he made such a point of saying that every time the capital gains were cut tax revenues went up. Either he doesn't know or conveniently omitted the fact that, while revenues did go up, they did not go up enough to make up for the revenues lost by the tax cuts. The very best return according to ecomonic data has been 50% of lost revenue recouped.

It drives me crazy that an top anchor would get such an important issue wrong. I have to wonder what Gibson thinks caused those big deficits after Reagan cut taxes and how he explains the elimination of deficits after Clinton raised them. Or was he just so steamed about having a big tax increase, being an upper income guy, that he has lost all objectivity? Whatever the reason this was gross dereliction of duty. Too bad for our media this is not a firing offense.

Of course, Democrats could have debunked this fairy tale years ago, but they let

: Oops! (none / 0) (#7)
by BernieO on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:13:04 AM EST

Accidently hit the enter button....
they let Republicans control the facts on this issue, among others.

geez, it's really so simple. (none / 0) (#8)
by cpinva on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:20:06 AM EST

first, define "imminent". for us normal people, that would be something set to occur very soon, like maybe tomorrow or next week. possibly after thanksgiving, so we won't miss the cowboys/lions game. that's kind of how the dictionary defines it as well.

bushmccainpalin define "imminent" as something that might happen anytime in the next century, maybe 50 years from now, if ever. there you go, dichotomy solved.

i wouldn't be to hard on gibson, this is a man who thinks diane sawyer is brilliant.

Silly (none / 0) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:22:06 AM EST

You would play the GOP game instead of taking the opportunity to launch an attack on McCain as Bush's Third Term.


: no silly, (none / 0) (#24)
by cpinva on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:29:47 AM EST

if you read it, it is an attack on a bush's third term.
that's what the republicans do, they provide their own definitions for regular words.
attack those definitions, and the republicans who assume the entire electorate is comprised of rubes.
simple enough for you?

After the Bush Doctrine (none / 0) (#10)
by dailygrind on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:25:59 AM EST

An article from 2006 that I linked last night:

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=17983&prog=zgp&proj=z usr

The article discusses both McCain's potential views and separately discusses the evolution of the Bush Doctrine from the perspective of religious conservatives and their move from realism in foreign affairs.

Yet another definition (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:28:27 AM EST

of the Bush Doctrine. It's funny that so many think of course Palin should have known what Gibson meant.


: If she had clearly said (none / 0) (#14)
by dailygrind on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:16:12 AM EST

I believe there are different definitions, but here's how I see it, and here's how I believe the McCain administration would change it, but made laid out clealry that this was what she was doing- then there would be no issue. I don't want to rehash the other diary, but you continue, IMO, to miss that point. Instead you choose to discuss how we are wrong, and you are right without ever undrstanding that the very way in which you think we maybe wrong (here the definition of Bush Doctrine) only serves to reinforce the point of her lack of being ready for prime time (she could have said there are different definitions or here's how I define it or I don't define it that way- but heres how I do define it, etc or any number of other permutations that would have given an indication of her thinking process).
We can't know what's in other people's mind, but we can pay attention to execution and roadmaps they provide us to suggest what's happening. We can also realize through her other answers given on other questions the level to which she is a sophisticated enough responder to know how to dodge the question or change the subject or answer the question she wanted to answer, etc. You will think this OT, but I compare how Clinton might have answered the questions to her. I compare Obama to her. I compare McCain to her. And Biden.
She didn't show any level of talent to managed the landmines other than stumbling through them. She mostly just stumbled from one landmine to another.

: I think she understood it (none / 0) (#22)
by goldberry on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:07:55 AM EST

When she said "Are you asking about his worldview?" she really got to the heart of the Bush Doctrine: It is Bush's worldview, which is basically, we've got enemies but we've also got the best army money can buy and if any one steps out of line, we crush the motherf^&*ers. That is the Bush Doctrine in nutshell. I have never seen the formal, published, peer reviewed Bush Doctrine but it isn't terribly hard to figure it out.
She "gets it" better than Gibson.

I betcha they will and he will say he does, (none / 0) (#12)
by vicndabx on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:30:10 AM EST

cuz being a flip-flopper on this has less risk than giving credence to the "he's a warmonger" meme. They'll explain away the "attack us first" part by selling some previously bought line on Iraq's role in exporting terrorism or threating the world's oil supplies.

Coached? Or not. Which is it? (none / 0) (#13)
by David123456 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:09:26 AM EST

. . . Which naturally raises the question of whether or not McCain discussed the issue of the Bush doctrine, or preventive war, or anticipatory self-defense, before putting her on the ticket.

I guess Yglesias hasn't seen the "Sarah Palin sounded coached" memo.

: Sarah is in trouble without a teleprompter (none / 0) (#17)
by AvianoTeamB1 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:26:27 AM EST

This interview with Charley Gibson demonstrates the lady Gov. can't cut it without a teleprompter.

: She knew her audience (none / 0) (#20)
by goldberry on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:00:24 AM EST

I'm sure she was prepared and told to "keep it simple". The messages that came across were uncomplicated and principled.
Israel has the right to defend itself.
We shouldn't go to war without provocation.
We try all other avenues first but shoudln't be afraid to do the right thing.
We should prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons because they might fall into the hands of terrorists.
Georgia and Ossetia should join NATO so we can protect these burgeouning petro powers from an aggressive Russia.
What is so hard to understand about any of this? It's straightforward, sensible and to the point. The MSM can provide a filter but she just encapsulated what many Americans have already figured out for themselves. They don't like Bush and she's no neo-con.

Who cares what we think (none / 0) (#16)
by steviez314 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:26:20 AM EST

I sense from reading the MSM reviews of the interview that she didn't do that well. Who knows?

But if the MSM wants to run with that, let them. The Obama campaign should just let it be. We'll see in the polls in a few days if it makes a difference.

In the meantime, the financial system is on track to collapse before the first debate. Maybe it'll come up then.

High school doctrine (none / 0) (#18)
by koshembos on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:32:59 AM EST

Every high school has a bully. This guy attacks every kid he doesn't like. Somehow, no one ever refers to it as the bully doctrine.

The talk about the Bush doctrine is moronic. He just attacks whoever he want and finds a justification later. He wanted to attack Iraq way before 9/11 and used the tragedy to justify his bullying. We shouldn't be conned and call it doctrine; he simply a criminal and a bully.

Which would YOU prefer? (none / 0) (#19)
by goldberry on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:53:54 AM EST

When it comes right down to it, isn't Palin's doctrine the one most American's would agree with? You try to work with the problem country, use every avenue available to you in terms of diplomacy, carrots and sticks etc but then rely on your best intelligence and don't be afraid to do what you have to do to defend yourself?
Jeez, it sounds so simple but it just. might, work,
Sounds familiar too. Lemme see, who also espoused this same approach to foreign policy. No, No, don't tell me. I'm sure it's no one you've ever heard of. Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge now that we've all jumped aboard the Obama Loooooove Train.
Of course, Palin is probably also putting out the McCain doctrine. He had to put up with a lot of $%#@ with the Bushies. He was forced to mouth propaganda for them, sort of like being in Hanoi.
I;m betting he's not going to do that anymore if he's president.

Palin was lying (none / 0) (#26)
by Dadler on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:33:05 AM EST

That's her whole job. She was trying to attract that soft demographic they think they can steal by having a woman b.s. things. Hell, now Palin even says, no, I never rejected human influence in global warming, when she clearly has on MANY occasions.


: And if it works...? (none / 0) (#30)
by goldberry on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:17:59 AM EST

Obama's going to have to do something to woo Hillary voters back and this is the best he can do? She's lying?
Not going to cut it. He's got to win back our trust and so far, we can see his campaign using the same tactics on Palin that he used on Hillary.
Some people never learn.

McCain (none / 0) (#29)
by CST on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:43:33 AM EST

"forced to mouth propaganda for them"

You mean like the speech he gave to congress arguing for pre-emptive war against Iraq?

Because that sounded like McCain 100% with no gun to his head.


and as Palin fades (none / 0) (#21)
by Jlvngstn on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:00:50 AM EST

because she is not up to the task and McCains' numbers fade how will you atribute the success of those who would help disseminate a message that protects our country from having an eminently unqualified, unkown possibly running our country.

As I said 2 weeks ago. Obama will win by at least 8% and may win by double digits. Not because McCain is the Same, but because the nation will love Sarah Palin but will want her to get more experience before they can vote for her.

It is not that she did not know what the Bush doctrine was, but that she tried to fake her way through it. She has a tell when she is trying to bs her way through something. Did anyone else see her tell?

Of course he's Bush's third term, but... (none / 0) (#23)
by Dadler on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:29:42 AM EST

...that slogan won't be enough. Clinton ran against Bush I, who had NONE of the myth surrounding him that McCain does, who did not get a pass on EVERYTHING like McCain does. At some point, Obama is going to have to say what he will do in much more precise and imaginative terms. McCain is an imagination vaccuum, and his lack of vision and creativity are the best avenues to beat him. Lay out a real tax cut plan for those who need a cut, and do not be afraid to say who will pay slightly more (no one is going to feel sorry for millionaires). Say exactly how ambitious his alternative energy plan is going to be, really talk about it in revolutionary terms, people are more than ready. Play the class warfare card and when McCain calls it such, you say "You bet, I'm at war with a lot of people who have no class, who don't seem to care about their fellow Americans, who were never taught what enough means. There are people in need, they are from lower economic classes, and they require help and opportunity, and those who have more than enough ought to be willing to practice what Jesus preached, as all the great religious figures through history have."

I always (none / 0) (#31)
by sas on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 03:47:04 PM EST

laugh sarcastically to myself whenever someone writes about Palin's "inexperience". Are you friggin kidding me? And these same people will ignore Obama's inexperience...

She's been in government longer than he has, and had actually made some decisions....

Sorry but Obama's own lack of credentials completely negates anything you could say negatively toward Palin....

Prophylactic War = Bush Doctrine (none / 0) (#32)
by herb the verb on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 09:35:16 AM EST

For years Bush toadies have been snarkily responding to "Iraq was a preemptive war" by saying "heh, no it wasn't" without describing that they knew it was even more tenuous than a "preemptive" war, it was merely "preventive". A "prophylactic" war, if you will. Preemption implies an imminent threat, they concede (now) there was none, but say that even if there was not an imminent threat, they were justified as a preventive measure to invade Iraq as a "POTENTIAL" threat. That is the rationale they want to apply to Iran too.

Not good.