luvs2mambo wrote:
boarderline one wrote:
Sarah's questioning Charlie as to what part of the Bush Doctrine he was referring to was correct. When she quizzacally asked "His world view?" She was partially true. Charlie was partially correct but according to this article, Charlie needs some updating on The Bush Doctrine ...a media invention.
http://elections.foxnews....ine-hits-the-gibson-mark/
Whether it's a media invention or not, it has been widely used in articles in the way he was referencing it.


Bush Doctrine being a media invention was not the principle point. Point is, Charlie Gibson and others have not updated their meanings of the Bush Doctrine.

Charles Krauthammer who is given credit for coining the term writes in his column:
"There is no single meaning of the Bush Doctrine," Krauthammer noted in a forthcoming column. "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."

I believe Charle K is the one who truly has tracked and understands what is meant by The Bush Doctrine....today. Gov. Palin's question of "In what respect" was pefectly legit. Tagging The Bush Doctrine as pre-emptive war is not only incomplete according to experts but not the meaning currently in use.