This is a serious question that I hope sparks a conversation. I'll kick off things with my thoughts below the squiggle.
Okay, one of the few times I've felt real empathy with Sarah Palin was when she stared blankly at Charles Gibson when he asked her what she thought about the Bush Doctrine. Given that she was a candidate for VP, I don't consider it a gotcha question, but I could relate to the idea that, to me (and apparently to her), the Bush Doctrine is not all that well defined. In fact, if she had improbably said, "Chuck, I believe the Bush Doctrine is still evolving. Surely, we have the right as a sovereign nation to preemptively strike an adversary that we know harbors ill intentions toward us and is poised to strike us. But does that mean we should willy-nilly reject the advice of the UN? Does that mean the President can decide by him or herself which countries pose such a dire threat that preemptive measures are warranted, with justifications to come after the fact? The Bush Doctrine springs from the horror of 9/11 as a justification for two wars our President felt must be fought for American security. I think the Bush Doctrine is something that we should think about very seriously, because if we don't, it can be abused as a license to attack anybody we don't like with political impunity."
Yes, yes, I know, the odds of her saying that were infinitesimally small, and instead we got her staring blankly as we all counted the seconds until her brain finally worked out its fight or flight negotiations, but it should be noted that no one since that tragic interview has gone back to explore the so-called "Bush Doctrine."
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Jeb Bush signed the Stand Your Ground law into effect in FL. And their father, the former President Bush, once ran the CI-freakin'-A. I'm not begging for recs, but I would like to read what others thought of these interesting (to me) ideas.