Akkam’s Razor

…and if they did, they’d probably agree with it.

Many of us are making a big deal out of Sarah Palin’s inability to articulate the paramount legacy of this White House - The Bush Doctrine [wiki]. Here is a partial transcript and video of her interview with Charlie Gibson of ABCNEWS (more at HuffPo):

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine? PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

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?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

I’d like to make an effort to formally define the Bush Doctrine, to provide context for its existence, to examine its success, and to look at future challenges.

Regardless as to your political leanings, the Bush Doctrine exists for one reason and one reason only - to reinforce the Unitary Executive Theory, weakening what, to this point, had been the sole responsibility of Congress over the Executive Branch - the ability to declare war. Similarly, it seeks to remove any external, non-domestic restrictions by foreign bodies over US actions, including international agreements and treaties. In short, the US, as the sole remaining superpower (after the fall of the Soviet Union) would have the justification for acting unilaterally against any threat. This is further quantified by allowing the ability to wage preemptive war against perceived threats both in the near- and long-terms. In short, it means never having to say you are sorry.

Conservative pundit, columnist, and Bush #41 veteran Michael Smerconish’s Sunday Inquirer piece advocates for Tom Ridge as McCain’s Choice for Vice President.

• truthaction.org :: View topic - *** Bohemian Grove 2008 Guest List REVEALED ***
  (tags: conspiracies bohemian grove)
• 6a00d8341c03bb53ef00e553ad01818833-pi (JPEG Image, 500×374 pixels)
  A graphic of hte “digital pipelines” from Valeria Montoni at Conversation Agent.
  (tags: graphic infographic web2.0 pipeline network exchanges)
• An interactive guide to Bush-administration lawbreaking. - By Emily Bazelon, Kara Hadge, Dahlia Lithwick, and Chris Wilson - Slate Magazine
  Slate’s interactive guide: Who in the Bush administration broke the law, and who could be prosecuted?
  (tags: Bush politics law crime constitution information Interactive)

Given that the Democrats, including some favored by the progressive blogosphere have rolled over and ‘compromised’ on FISA with the Republicans and given them everything the Bush Administration wants - including immunity, as discussed previously.

In hindsight, this entire ordeal is exactly the same as that of the war, with the same rationale and the same problems.  The Administration made its case for action, and Congress, or in this case, the Telecoms, wanting to be good patriots and assist in the war on terror, believed them and cooperated.  To also be fair, some didn’t, and we see how that played out for Qwest.  As time wore on, others, perhaps after acknowledging  their  reservations, put processes in place to document the admins actions.

Update: As expected, the Democrats caved, including local Representatives Pat Murphy and Joe Sestak.  The roll call in the House can be found here, and the Senates tally forthcoming.

In the spring of 1987,  the year of the 200th anniversary of the first Constitutional Convention, President Ronald Reagan began calling for another.  Reagan had been frustrated by Congress’ failure to brovide him with a Balanced Budget Ammendment.  Reagan’s solution was to call for a new Constitutional Convention, as described (but never tested) in Article V of the Constitution, where each state would get delegates to propose a balanced budget ammendment, and then pass it on to the individual state legislatures for approval.  Reagan succeeded in getting agreement from 32 of the required 2/3 of the States, but was eventually blocked by an unlikely coalition of Constitutional defenders, fearful of the seismic changes [pdf] regarding preemptive federalism and the erosion of states’ rights.

Update: I wouldn’t even know about this story if it wasn’t for Phillybits.

It was probably 20-years ago, when I was a wee-lad at Northeast Catholic High School, that I first heard Gil Scott Heron.  Mind you, in my working class, nearly all-white neighborhood and school, there’s no way that Heron would come up in conversation or in academics.  No, I heard it on Howard Stern - who basically helped raise me.  Howard had a very race-centric shtick at that time (late 1980s), and Heron’s “Whiteys on the Moon” was exemplary of what my kind of white-folk grated against - being blamed for the wronging of blacks several generations ago, with a feeling that it was totally unwarranted.  Frustrations over crime, the Section-8′ing of the neighborhoods, and a decline in the comparative advantage for whites (particularly males) certainly enabled a hostile posture on race.

• Slate’s series on how to repair some of the worst Bush administration screw-ups. - - Slate Magazine
  (tags: politics government policy bush slate)
• Logic+Emotion: The Top 10 Made Up Words of Web 3.0
  (tags: web3.0 trends words literacy new)

You may recall my prior post about John Yoo and the politicization of the Justice Department.  One of the things several bloggers have mentioned, after reading through the content and footnotes of Yoo’s 81-page torture memo (drafted when he was a rising star in the Office of Legal Counsel) was the notable absence of a particular hallmark case…

But before that, take a gander at this post at Lawyers, Guns, and Money, regarding Bush, Chertoff, and the border fence, referencing a NYTimes column: