When Gov Palin offered a seemingly ignorant non answer to a question about "The Bush doctrine", my first thought was about whether there is actually some substance to this repugnicon? I didn't have to wait long to find out there wasn't, but thats not the point is it now.
The real point is the Bush doctrine that isn't.
Has what is foisted upon us constantly as the Bush doctrine of preemptive war ever really been tried? In other words, was the "doctrine" really any more than a cheap ploy?
Since there was no real threat to preempt in Iraq, that war cannot be the example the great preempting. If anything, Iraq--or specifically the run-up to and conduct of the war in Iraq--represents the best argument against preemption. Iraq actually makes it harder to engage in preemption in the near future. If a President Obama were to get credible evidence of a pending attack, it would be harder to argue a right to preemption specifically because of the Iraq war.
There are those who would argue that the administration--or specifically the chief executive--may not have known there was no real threat posed by Iraq at the time, but there was plenty of evidence available that they did know and their attempts to justify war show they did IMHO. Their claims of Mobile clean rooms and drones that would be flown to the US were so laughable that they could not have been thought of as honest. The only way someone makes such an argument is if they know real evidence doesn't exist.
Where else could anyone claim that preemption was actually a guiding policy?
Is a doctrine dishonestly expressed really a doctrine?
In my view, the real Bush doctrine is really one of using belligerence to create the appearance of strength.