September 13, 2008
Gibson's Version of Bush Doctrine = US Constitution
Charlie Gibson made much of the "Bush Doctrine" in his interrogation of Sarah Palin. As it turns out, the Bush Doctrine has several aliases: the US Constitution, Public Law 107-40, and the Kerry Doctrine.
For those of us not in-the-know about exactly what the Bush Doctrine is, Charlie Gibson educated us in serious baritone: the Bush Doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."
There are several things to say about this interchange, not the least is that President Bush never specified such a thing; it is a concoction of the media. Moreover, as Charles Krauthammer has pointed out, there are at least four definitions of the "Bush Doctrine" as used by the media, and Charlie was not even using the most recent one.
But more importantly, we do have the right of anticipatory self-defense, and we always had. It is in the Constitution. Congress recognized that right, in writing. And John Kerry, running for President, reiterated that right in unambiguous terms.
Public Law 107-40 states
"The President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and
prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States."
So this law created nothing new in this regard; it merely recognized a power of the
President already authorized by the Constitution. Senator John Kerry, in the 2004
Presidential debate, said this;
"The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control. No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America."
Does Charlie think it somehow embarrassing to agree with the US Constitution, public law passed by Congress, and John Kerry, just because President Bush might also agree with it?
I wonder of Sarah Palin agrees with the Gibson Doctrine. That doctrine is, of course, that nothing can be good, not even a cure for cancer, if George W. Bush is for it. Or maybe it's just the Media Doctrine.
To comment on this or any other American Thinker article or blog, you must be a subscriber to our ad-free service. Login to your subscription to access the comments section. You can subscribe on a monthly basis for $6.79 a month or for a year at $69.99
Login
Subscribe / Change PwdAd Free / Commenting Login
FOLLOW US ON
Recent Articles
- Trump’s Chess Game Is Improving
- Trump Has the Taxpayers’ Back
- Downsizing the Federal Government
- Is There A Problem With Colorado State University And Its Nipah Virus Research?
- Media Titans Rattled by Lawsuits
- Tribalism: The Key to Understanding Islam
- Reaching for the Source of Meaning and Certitude
- The Musk-eteers Reveal You’ve Been Living in a Simulated Reality
- America Must, Can, And Should Renew Its Nuclear Energy Dominance
- Trump and the States Confront Digital Issues
Blog Posts
- Democrats decry Trump’s cancellation of ‘green’ subsidies because he’s ending a ‘low-cost’ industry
- Larry Summers and four other Democrat Treasury secretaries come out together to howl about DOGE
- Anti-white propagandists spread disinformation to spur race wars in South Africa
- Democrats are politically bipolar on illegal immigration
- Country as home
- Legos called ‘heteronormative,’ problematic
- President Trump addresses his largest TV audience ever during an interview before the Super Bowl yesterday
- Lawfare 2.0: A New York judge launches a coup
- Politically bipolar
- My experience with USAID and Israel
- Marco Rubio, not Obama, on Cuba
- Homeland Security Secretary Noem accuses FBI of leaking news of ICE raids to the press
- Rathergate at 21
- Revisiting Benghazi
- The Second Amendment: new Trumpian opportunities