Mike the Usurper wrote:

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

Oh THAT Bush Doctrine! Except Charlie, that's not the Bush Doctrine. Pre-emption has been considered acceptable. It's PREVENTATIVE that you want. Asking the question when she has no idea what the hell Charlie is talking about is amusing (and quite frightening) but when Charlie, asking the question, gets wrong what it is as well, that's really scary and explains why I consider Charlie Gibson a tool.

Does she look this stupid in all of the interview? Even republicans are expressing alarm.