I've been looking at the interview, and it would seem the "Bush Doctrine" question was definitely planted. *WHICH* "Bush Doctrine" was he referring to? is there anything wrong with asking a direct question these days?
So far I'm unimpressed with Mr. Gibson's interview, as he asked questions that really mean nothing. "Would you support military action against Russia if Georgia were a member of NATO" or some such. Well, Charlie....that's what North Atlantic Treaty Organization means. It is a binding treaty. The United States has already committed itself to such action on the forming of NATO.
The only things that've changed? Russia is less powerful, some of the former COMBLOC nations are now part of NATO or trying to be, as are some former Soviet Republics....and for some reason, our weak knee'd politicians and media types are unwilling to stand up to them, now. What have we become?
The questions about Israel, e.g. would she support Israel in striking an Iranian nuclear facility...were also bait. We do not control Israel. Iran (Charlie you failed to mention this) Iran's leaders have promised the "destruction of Israel".. It would follow that allowing such a regime to acquire thermonuclear weapons with which to tip their Shahab missiles would not be in Israel's interest of self preservation. What, was she supposed to say, no, I think the millions of Israeli citizens are expendable, and hands off Iran's weapons sites?
This is ludicrous. If Mexico had a huge nuclear program and a fanatical dictator in charge who promised to destroy the United States (not just Washington or LA...) do you think we would also have a right to cross their borders and destroy it? Of course. The promise of destruction is the first act of war.
Self defense prevails.
Likewise, Pakistan. If Pakistani military officials are unwilling to carry out strikes in the mission to subdue the Taliban and possibly capture Osama bin Laden, then either we are fighting the war to win or we are not. Allowing the enemy a safe haven in a supposedly friendly country is not in our best interests. Previously Pakistan was an ally, however more and more it seems such is in name only-Pakistani intelligence helps capture quite a few people, but it is a safe wager IMHO that these people are "selected" rather than all being captured as available.
So far I have no issue with her responses, but I'm still watching the various videos trying to get one that is the complete interview...

thanks for the links

John P.