The Slate Has it Right

This article captures the essence of my thinking concerning the Charlie Gibson interview.  

In What Respect, Charlie?

Charlie Gibson, in his calm way, questioned Sarah Palin on the seventh anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 2001.  Watch the first part of the interview here.

Among other issues, Charlie asked the Governor whether she agrees with the Bush Doctrine. 

Her response should have sent chills down the spines of millions:  "In what respect, Charlie?"

It took about three seconds to become eminently clear that Governor Palin did not have a clue what the Bush Doctrine is.  She only muddied the waters when she guessed that Charlie used the term "Bush Doctrine" to refer to the President's "worldview. "

The Bush Doctrine, for those who might be in Governor Palin's shoes, is the doctrine that came out of the White House in the run-up to the Iraq War.  It describes the President's position that the United States has the sovereign right to attack other countries when we think that they might be planning to attack us.  The doctrine is a marked departure from international law and standards, for it drops the requirement of imminency.  

It is no longer necessary, according to the President, for an attack by another country to be imminent.  All that is necessary is that we think that other country MIGHT be planning such an attack.  That's the Bush Doctrine.

Had we waited until an attack by Iraq against the United States was imminent, we would have avoided what was undoubtedly the largest international calamity in the twenty-first century thus far:  going into Iraq in the first place.

Sarah Palin had obviously never heard of the Bush Doctrine.  

She had never considered the difference between going to war when we think another country is planning to attack us versus going to war when an attack by a hostile country is imminent.

Governor Palin reminds me a lot of a certain 2000 presidential candidate who could not name the President of Pakistan.  Conservatives at the time didn't think that was important.  Will they now say it is not important to know what the Bush Doctrine is?  In the strictest sense, they're right:  who cares if she knows the doctrine by name?  I don't.  What I care about is whether she has spent serious time thinking about international issues--whether she is ready to lead the greatest and most powerful military ever to exist on this planet.  

The interview today should be a clarion call to all Christians.  Is this patriot ready to lead?  And will she carry our banner, remaining true to faith to which we dedicate our lives?  

Abortion is a religious issue.  True.  Homosexuality is a religious issue.  That's also true.  

But war is a religious issue too.

Christianity is not a monolithic faith.  As Christians we must look outside the box of the wedge issues that have come to define our politics.  And we must do that before we enter the ballot box.

Is Governor Palin ready to lead?  Has she given serious thought to international crises?  Can she assume command if the unthinkable happens?  What will happen to this great country if she were forced to do just that?  And what does her selection say about John McCain?  These are the questions we must ask ourselves.