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.

Dan Froomkin, writing at the Neiman Watchdog, writes about how the absence of Bush and Cheney from the White House does not mean that they are gone, covering the military, burrowed-in partisans as career government employees and the expansion of the Executive Branch’s power, the handling of Presidential pardons, the expanded role and power of the Vice-Presidency, and how the veterans (and current members) of the second Bush administration are playing a large role in securing the Presidency for John McCain.

I have a hard time defending former Bush press secretary Scotty ‘Flounder’ McClellan, especially given his prior performances:

YouTube Direktvideo link

That said, he appears to be the latest of the loyal Bushies troubled by their consciences after leaving the administration.  So far, the book has delivered observations on wartime propaganda, an apology to Richard Clarke, the revelation Bush outed CIA-operative Valerie Plame via Scooter Libby, the non-suprise that the Administration has allies within FOXNEWS, that Bush similarly declassified National Secrets to advance a political agenda, warnings to be serious and skeptical regarding administration claims on Iran, and (of course) that propaganda and a media operating somewhere between lazy, incompetent, and compliant directly enabled the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

The most important story that most people know nothing about is the Scooter Libby perjury trial.  This trial delivers - Freedom of the Press, Undercover Spying, WMD, Iran, Iraq, the cozy and manipulative relationship the Bush White House has with the Press, bloggers…and well, everything, including possibly the kitchen sink.

The grand jury from whom these charges sprung was charged with determining if a crime had been committed by the disclosure of the name of an undercover CIA operative doing WMD research against Iran and Iraq in an attempt to smear her husband, war critic of former Ambassador to Iraq Joe Wilson, in response to an OpEd he wrote asserting that Iraq never made an attempt to acquire "yellowcake uranium" as mentioned by the President in his notorious SOTU address regarding the "16-words".

The subpeona list was literally a who's who of the government and press, and in the end, the machinations and statements of Scooter Libby, and their contrast with "the truth", ended in perjury charges for "Irving".

But the nagging question remains - is Patrick Fitzgerald, Republican US Attorney from Chicago, Roman Catholic, Jesuit Educated, "relentless" prosecutor done?  Not based on this statement, as recapped at Rawstory, from his rebuttal of the defense closing argument:

While rebutting the closing argument by the defense at I. Lewis Libby's trial, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spoke of a "dark cloud over the White House," due to the alleged obstruction of justice by the former White House aide. At the Washington Post's website, columnist Dan Froomkin points out that for the first time, as many have speculated, the prosecutor wasn't just accusing Libby, he was also referring to "them."

According to Froomkin, Fitzgerald "at long last made it quite clear that the depth of Vice President Cheney's role in the leaking of the identity of a CIA operative is one of the central mysteries that Libby's alleged lies prevented investigators from resolving."

"There is a cloud over the vice president . . . And that cloud remains because this defendant obstructed justice," Fitzgerald said. "There is a cloud over the White House. Don't you think the FBI and the grand jury and the American people are entitled to straight answers?"  More…

Keep this in mind when you're watching tonights 2-hour 24 (from Thinkprogress):

The New Yorker profiles “24″ creator Joel Surnow, whose show has become a foreign policy guide for the right: “Every American wishes we had someone out there quietly taking care of business,” [Surnow] said. “It’s a deep, dark ugly world out there. Maybe this is what Ollie North was trying to do. It would be nice to have a secret government that can get the answers and take care of business — even kill people.“

I'm pretty sure he's gotten his wish, and has for quite some time.  Again, from ThinkProgress: 

The AP on lessons of the Libby trial: “‘What didn’t he touch? It’s almost like there was almost nothing too trivial for the vice president to handle,’ said New York University professor Paul Light, an expert in the bureaucracy of the executive branch. ‘The details suggest Cheney was almost a deputy president with a shadow operation. He had his own source of advice. He had his own source of access. He was making his own decisions,’ Light said.”

These guys just don't do irony, do they?  Has anyone else noticed that the nefarious shadow operator in the last couple seasons has always been the Vice President (Greg Isitkiff and Powers Boothe)?  And that CTU is about as incompetent as FEMA?  Or James Cromwell's uncanny resemblance to George Herbert Walker Bush?

He's like John McCain, but with integrity.

Here's Hagel chiding the Republicans unwilling to buck the authority of Dick Cheney and the White House:

What do you believe? What are you willing to support? What do you think? Why were you elected?

If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes. This is a tough business. But is it any tougher, us having to take a tough vote, express ourselves and have the courage to step up on what we’re asking our young men and women to do?

I don’t think so.

Quickly, it's a horrible thing for the nation to lose a president, and condolences are especially due to the Ford family.  But the historians who are putting Ford on a pedastal for "sacrificing his political career" by pardoning Richard Nixon so the country could move forward is disingenuous and shamefull.

There was a funny meme running around the internets a couple of weeks ago, attributing the troubles we're currently facing with Woodrow Wilson's signing of the Treaty of Versailles (meaning that the treaty was the start of a variety of incidents that culminate in the here and now).