Obama Embraces Bush Doctrine
Sep 10, 2013 Political
The Bush Doctrine of preemption is one that has given liberals like Barack Obama fits. They are opposed to military action but generally only when Republicans want to take it. Liberals, even those who really are opposed to violence, are mostly silent when one of their own is proposing military force.
Barack Obama, the alleged Constitutional Law professor, seems to have a few problems. First, when he was a candidate, he stated that the president does not have the Constitutional authority to attack another nation unless the US has been attacked or there is an imminent threat.
Now the Constitutional Law Professor is saying he has the authority to do just that. He is working on plans to attack Syria even though that nation has not attacked us and there is no imminent threat to us from Syria.
It would seem that a liberal Constitutional Law Professor is one who believes the Constitution authorizes whatever a liberal wants to do. Simply put, it is a flexible document that can be interpreted as a liberal sees fit.
Before John Kerry said that Syria could hand over its chemical weapons to avoid a strike Barack Obama was working on getting authorization to strike Syria. Obama believes he can strike without Congressional approval but is seeking it anyway. It is rough going as many oppose a strike. Obama was on several news shows to make his case and this is what he had to say when trying to justify the strike:
“But we are the United States of America. We cannot turn a blind eye to images like the ones we’ve seen out of Syria. Failing to respond to this outrageous attack would increase the risk that chemical weapons could be used again; that they would fall into the hands of terrorists who might use them against us, and it would send a horrible signal to other nations that there would be no consequences for their use of these weapons. All of which would pose a serious threat to our national security.” [emphasis mine] UPI.com
So, in this long drawn out roundabout way, the chemicals in Syria might end up in the hands of bad people who would use them against us so that is an imminent threat and we can strike Syria. This is a stretch by any measure but if this is the path Obama wants to follow the question becomes how is this any different than the Bush Doctrine of preemptive strike that liberals violently opposed? I see the difference in that there is no actual threat the chemicals could be used against us. It would be different if Syria threatened to use them on our troops in the area. This is a threat and could justify a preemptive strike but saying that some third party might get them and then use them on us is several layers removed from being a threat.
But if this is how Obama is playing it then he is trying to claim the right to a preemptive use of force. The very use of force liberals decried when Bush used it.
The reality is that if we allow Obama to use this contorted view we could basically justify preemptive force against anyone. North Korea or Iran might lose control of their nuclear materials and a terrorist group might get it and use it on us so let’s bomb North Korea and Iran.
Someone might steal Russia’s smallpox virus and sell it to terrorists who might use it on us so let’s attack Russia.
This is the theater of the absurd.
Not to mention the reality that if we attack Syria and destabilize things (even more than they are) there is a greater risk that Syria will lose track of chemical weapons which then could end up in the wrong hands.
In other words, the act Obama wants to prevent (or that he is using to justify force) might be aided by the very attack designed to prevent it.
Yep, it is still amateur hour at the White House.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: bush doctrine, chemical agents, kerry gaffe, lies, Obama, preemptive strike, putin, Syria
CBS Vindicates Palin On Bush Doctrine
Sep 15, 2008 Political
The people on the left who have been running scared by the nomination of Sarah Palin could not wait until Charles Gibson of ABC interviewed her so they could see her exposed. The left went nuts and people like Alan Colmes said that she did not know what the Bush Doctrine was. People said she looked like a deer in the headlights and that she had little knowledge of a doctrine that everybody in the world should know. Turns out there is no official Bush Doctrine but that at least four things have been given that label. CBS, in a hit piece on Palin and how she will fade, unwittingly exonerated her.
The premise is that Palin did not know what the Bush Doctrine is and that this shows she is unqualified to be VP. Yes, Gibson had to tell her what it was because she must have been too busy putting on lipstick to pay attention. But, Gibson told her one version of the doctrine and it was from 2002. Gibson said:
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that? [emphasis mine]
So that settles it. The Bush Doctrine is what Gibson laid out and any rube who does not know that should not be out in public alone. Everyone knows the doctrine except Palin, or do they? In the hit piece at CBS News, they said this:
Specifically, Palin seemed to have little idea about the Bush Doctrine, in which the U.S must spread democracy around the world to halt terrorist acts. When Gibson put it to her and asked if she agreed with the doctrine, she answered, “In what respect, Charlie?”
Some analysts have suggested that Gibson knew more about the Bush Doctrine than the vice-presidential candidate. [emphasis mine]
Now, if CBS is saying that this is the Bush Doctrine we have a problem because it differs from what Gibson said and this means that not everyone is in agreement as to what the term means. The one Gibson relied on is from 2002 and the one CBS wrote about is the most current version. So, when Gibson asked Palin what she interpreted it to be and she answered “His world view”, she was pretty much in line with CBS and the current line of thinking on the topic.
One would think that CBS would have looked at the transcript (they couldn’t have if this is what they think Gibson “put to her”) so that their version would match Gibson’s. Since they decided to write “what everyone knows” they have unwittingly vindicated Palin. She demonstrated there is more than one version when she asked “in what respect?” and she demonstrated that she is current by saying “his world view.”
I think that it is funny that while CBS was trying to reassure liberals (and keep them from jumping off bridges) with a hit piece designed to diminish Palin by promising that she will fade, they actually helped her out by showing that she is not stupid, had the correct answer and that Gibson was wrong. His credibility (and theirs) took a hit.
One other thing. The CBS piece, when discussing the fact that Palin will fade, presented this gem:
This is how the world works in the age of 24/7 news cycles. Whether the subject is Britney Spears, Michael Jordan or Sarah Palin, we inevitably raise stars to mythic levels, out of all reasonable proportions. Then we knock them down. (Look out, Michael Phelps. Your time is coming, too.)
Notice that one name is missing from the list of stars raised to mythic levels, out of all reasonable proportions; Barack Obama.
Obama is a media creation and CBS is right, his star is fading. It is being dwarfed by the Palin star. All we can hope is that this won’t change by election day.
If she gets one third the time he had, she will still be shining in November.
