Here is the video of the first part of the interview Sarah Palin gave to ABC News’ Charles Gibson today. The interview covered international issues ranging from NATO expansion to Mideast policy especially US-Israeli relations and tensions with Iran to Iraq to the Bush Doctrine. The interview also covered whether she was ready to be Commander in Chief. On that, she was unequivocal. She didn’t blink she said because one can’t. That was one of her better moments. Her other strong moments came in tackling her religious views and if US foreign policy is interwined with a mission from God. She quoted Lincoln and came out ahead. Her best moment, in my view, came in framing energy security as a national security issue. And she was able to hit home a number of points touting both her experience and her record on that front. By calling energy security “the foundation” of our national security policy, Governor Palin scored high marks with me. Clearly on this issue, she came out way ahead.
Where she faltered was on the Bush Doctrine, the policy that US adopted that espouses a unilateralist approach to security threats to the vital interests of the US where the US reserves the right to use military force at its will in a pre-emptive fashion and in defiance of international law. I didn’t get the sense she understood what was meant by it. Undoing the Bush Doctrine would be one of my objectives for any incoming Administration. In the end, Charlie Gibson gave her his interpretation of the Bush Doctrine and she gave a measured response, definitely not as hawkish as one that current Vice President Dick Cheney would have given. It is clear that she still has some work to do on learning foreign policy issues and I’d be happy to help her work through them. On NATO expansion to Georgia and the Ukraine, for example, she should have noted that the concept of collective security has kept the peace in Europe since World War II and that it is in the interest of US foreign policy goals that democratic governments be protected. Freedom is never negotiable.
The interview was tough but fair. I’d grade her a B overall with a C on the Bush Doctrine portion but an A+ for the understanding that energy is our most vital national security issue at the moment.
Here’s the New York Times’ assessment of the interview. I might quibble here and there but in the end not much different from my own assessment.






