Memory fades? In the evening interview (I didn’t catch it) of Mrs Palin was asked about the Bush doctrine.

Gibson’s description—“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,” wasn’t a good description of even the preemption element of the Bush doctrine (and his claim that the preemption element was enunciated in September of 02 is also incorrect), though Palin’s answer suggested she didn’t quite agree with Bush on the question of imminence.

My impression was that the Bush doctrine was essentially that if a country chooses to actively support terrorism, it abrogates the moral right to exist, that is that any other nation may in good conscience attack it. The reasoning behind this is that terrorism, when illegal in nation states is little more than a criminal annoyance. If however, a nation decides to harbor and support terror … those numbers and capabilities grow by orders of magnitude and in our modern world become a threat to our lives and liberty.

Am I wrong in my recollection? Mr Gibson certainly is wrong.

Filed under: Ethics & MoralityGovernmentMark O.

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!