Ok- so how exactly is she supposed to articulate her position on an imaginary doctrine with no readily discernable definition?
Whatever she said would have been proof of her inexperience. Since there are numerous definitions of what exactly the Bush Doctrine is then whatever she said would have been wrong.
Palin was smarter than people here realize in this interview. For example the Israel and Iran comment. She would have been screwed any way she would have answered it.
If she said: Yes, Israel should take out Iranian nuclear facilities, then the left would have said: "She's a war monger, no different then Bush, she's too inexperienced and dangerous to be President!"
If she said: No, Israel should not take out Iranian nuclear facilities, then the left would have called her a liar and criticized her lack of experience for ruling out support of a military option against a dangerous regime that is trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Later they would have a weapon to pound her for lying if later she wouldn't condemn Israel for taking out Iranian facilities.
So what she said is that " I don't think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation." This answer is brilliant, it is saying that she isn't going to let Gibson put words in her mouth, and she isn't going to give the left ammo to use against her later.
The NATO thing too is ridiculous. NATO is a military organization where members treat an attack on one member as an attack on all. Palin correctly identified the purpose of NATO and she's being criticized for it? The left is losing its mind over this woman.
