@Foxfyre,
I guess the problem I see emerging with Palin's response, and the subsequent defenses of her response, is that there were several ways she could have responded if she hadn't heard of the Bush Doctrine, wasn't sure which point of the Doctrine Gibson was referring to etc.
The fact remains, the Bush Doctrine has some basic tenets, one or two of which Gibson pointed out, that Palin could have addressed.
Why is it that rather than standing up and saying, "you know what, Palin dropped the ball" the collective right seems fast to defend her by claiming that the Bush Doctrine is multifaceted, or confusing or that Gibson too got it wrong. Why is it that anecdotal evidence for it's obscurity is offered in the form of "no one i've talked to knows about it" when in fact A2K members have discussed the ideology practically since it's inception--when it was essentially or primarily about the act of unilateral preemption.
You guys defended Bush and his idiocy for nearly a decade, and now the defense for the same sort of unapologetic, uninformed idiocy continues with Palin.
She should, at minimum, have had a cogent response to one or more of the so-called facets of the Doctrine, asked for clarification as to which prong of the Doctrine he was referring, or she should have bucked up and said that she was not familiar with the ideology.
Instead, she gave an irrelevant and idiotic response, and the entire right wing machine covers up for her just as they have for Dubya for the last 7 odd years.
