Gibson's Version of Bush Doctrine = US Constitution

Randall Hoven
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.
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.