Palin can't describe the Bush doctrine (aka the pre-emption doctrine)

The Bush Doctrine is a 2 part doctrine that says:
1) we have the right to attack/invade any country that harbors or aids terrorists (therefore, we can invade Afghanistan), and
2) we have the right to pre-emptively attack any country that may, at some point in the future, pose a threat to the security of the US.

This is not hard. Palin could have found this out on Wikipedia if she was just too busy to watch the news in 2001, 2002, and 2003, when this doctrine was being discussed by the Bush Administration in preparation for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I mean....I was watching the news then. I know...I know....I've never been mayor of a small town. Or on the PTA. Or a hockey mom. Or shot a moose. Or in a beauty pagent. But I can describe the Bush doctrine.

Which, frankly, from a national security aspect, makes me more qualified than Sarah Palin.

When asked about the Bush doctrine by Charlie Gibson of ABC, she first needed Gibson to explain what it was to her. Gibson said "The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a pre-emptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?"

Palin responded "Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us 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."

Now....that sounds fairly reasonable, right? Here's the trouble....the Bush doctrine does not require that the strike to be pre-empted is imminent. What Palin is describing and/or endorsing is the doctrine of self-defense.

Bush, in an attempt to justify his doctrine of unchecked military aggression (which, yes, is MY name for it) said in a speech at West Point in 2002:

"We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign non-proliferation treaties, and then systemically break them. If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long."

In order for a threat to be imminent, it must be fully materialized. Sarah Palin doesn't even understand the Bush doctrine, which is the justification for the wars her Presidential candidate insists we must continue until we "win with honor" or "obtain victory" or something nice and vague and undefined like that. If she cannot even explain the justification for the original invasion (whether or not she agrees with it) she isn't even nearly qualified to run the country.