I’m reasonably sympathetic to the point made by Charles Krauthammer, Michael Abramowitz, and others that Sarah Palin might have good reason to have been confused about Charles Gibson’s question “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?” As they point out, the phrase “Bush doctrine” could reasonably be interpreted different ways.

But it’s completely absurd for Abramowitz to imply and for Krauthammer and others to claim that the ambiguity of the initial question somehow excuses Palin. After she gave a vague response about fighting Islamic terrorism, Gibson explained that he meant the doctrine enunciated before the war in Iraq. At this point, someone who was familiar with the different philosophies described as the Bush doctrine would realize which one Gibson was citing. But Palin still did not understand. Indeed, she defended the right to attack a country or group that poses an imminent threat, a point on which Democrats and Republicans agree. Bush’s position was that the US had the right to attack before Iraq became such a threat.

For those who haven’t seen it, here’s the transcript of the exchange in question:

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?

PALIN: I agree that a president’s job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.

I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.

GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that 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.

And here’s the video:

Someone who was minimally conversant with the debate over President Bush’s foreign policy would have recognized that Gibson was asking about preemptive attacks against countries that do not pose an imminent threat. Palin did not.