I’m so tired of the never-ending round of Palin “gotchas”.  Enough already.

I did find Charles Krauthammer’s post from the Washington Post  to be quite interesting mainly because it shed a little more light on what some think was a “gotcha” and provides more information on the Bush Doctrine, which apparently many of us need including the normally loveable Charlie Gibson.Mr. Krauthammer’s post begins:

"At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' "

-- New York Times, Sept. 12

Informed her? Rubbish.

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.He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

Wrong.

….and at this point Mr. Krauthammer gives us his version of “gotcha”……

Mr. Krauthammer goes on to mention that the Bush Doctrine has undergone a total of three further alterations since he first suggested the title “Bush Doctrine” due to the rejection of the Kyoto protocol in his Weekly Standard essay including the “with us or against us” language, the “preemptive war” language due to the Iraq war, and later the call for the expansion of liberty throughout all the world.

So, if  we want to be specific…..if we truly want to include the entire Bush Doctrine then Sarah Palin had every right to ask, “In what respect?”

I will not for a minute try to say that Mrs. Palin knew exactly what the Bush Doctrine is or what it says. However, I would venture to say that Mr. Biden doesn’t know the full story either or how the doctrine has changed, and it would seem Charlie Gibson didn’t either.

Even though I agree with Mr. Krauthammer regarding the fixed forms of the Monroe and Truman Doctrines meaning that the Presidents they are named for issued the statements and did not make any further changes to them during their administrations, we cannot deny that others have tried to reinstitute the Monroe Doctrine according to their current history.

My fourth graders learn that the Doctrine was given birth within a speech President James Monroe gave in his seventh message to Congress on December 2, 1823.  They also learn that it was mainly written by John Quincy Adams who would serve as President from 1825-1829.  Basically President Monroe sent out word to the European nations that they needed to leave their paws off the American continents.  When I teach students about the Monroe Doctrine I always include the vocabulary term “foreign policy” because Monroe’s statements are the foundation for American foreign policy…..kind of a beginning if you have to have one….though I understand that if you get into specifics you can argue the point.

Ever hear of the Roosevelt Corollary?  President Theodore Roosevelt, in 1904, decided even though Europe couldn’t/shouldn’t interfere with Latin America the United States could.  Critics howled, but, Teddy carried that big stick, remember? 

1928 saw another change to the Monroe Doctrine with the Clark Memorandum.  This little memo argued the United States didn’t have to use the Monroe Doctrine to justify any action in Latin America.  It also argued the United States had the right of self-defense and that’s all it needed, so there!  Even so, this little statement didn’t make to the public until two years later in 1930.

In 1954, U.S. Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles attended the Tenth Inter-American Conference where he used the Monroe Doctine to renounce the involvement of Soviet Communism in Guatemala. 

Finally, in 1962, President John F. Kennedy stated, “The Monroe Doctrine means what it has meant since President Monroe and John Quincy Adams enunciated it, and that is that we would oppose a foreign power extending its power to the Western Hemisphere, and that is why we oppose what is happening in Cuba today. That is why we have cut off our trade. That is why we worked in the Organization of American States and in other ways to isolate the Communist menace in Cuba. That is why we will continue to give a good deal of our effort and attention to it.”

Towards the end of the school year if I asked a student to tell me about the Monroe Doctrine they might not ask me, “In what respect….”, but they would tell me to be more specific since they would be aware of the details and after one year with students know an ambiguous question when they hear it.

History and specifics….the two go hand-in-hand.  There are too many details, too many changes, and too many specifics to ask loaded “got-cha” questions.