I have a slightly different perspective on Palin’s response to Gibson’s “Bush Doctrine” question: that response, itself, was carefully coached. The sophistication of this morning’s crosstalk here makes me think this may be right.

The idea that the “Bush Doctrine” may not be so clearly defined [as of this moment in time, and only because that provides a momentarily expedient excuse for the neocon right], and the observation that it was and is certainly clear how the “Bush Doctrine” was characterized by the neocon right back in the day, suggests less that there ever really was any lack of clarity than that the neocon right now wants to sell it as if there has been such lack of clarity. Why would they want to do that now?

The answer to “what’s in it for them” resides at The Hague, I think. The fact of the matter is, the “Bush Doctrine” of a (broadly stated) unilateral right of the US to initiate attacks upon foreign states is a flagrant violation of international law in the form of war of aggression. For such a doctrine to permit any exculpatory justification, it is necessary to engage in precisely the distinction between “pre-emptive” and “preventive” which the neocons found so “unnecessary” when formulating and championing “whatever Bush wants to do is right, 9/11, 9/11” back in the 2002 timeframe to which Glenn alludes. The neocons wasted no breath on such “fine distinctions” when cheerleading over Iraq. But you could well attribute those “mushroom cloud” references of 2002 and 2003 to being relevant to precisely this distinction under international law.

Now, it’s 2008. It is arguably plain that the attack on Iraq cannot be justified by any reality that would excuse that invasion as “pre-emptive” in any realistic sense, and that any such argument made at the time was utterly false. It looks very much like a war of aggression and is now an occupation best characterized as imperialism in the name of oil [oh, yeah, and that’s now looking more and more like “failed” oil imperialism (at a national, not corporate profit, level), given the recent Iraqi rejection of our no-bid contracts in favor of a deal with the Chinese, right?]. The possibility that somebody might look around to allocate responsibility for all of this is the reality the neocons ought to be starting to worry about.

So which seems more likely: that it never occurred to the neocon handlers tasked with prepping Palin whether the Bush Doctrine might come up in this election, or that they thought it would come up but they wanted to figure out a way to do damage control when it did? They’re evil, but they’re not stupid. If Palin is prepped to respond “what do you mean by Bush Doctrine”, the stage is set for arguing that it’s never really been clear what was meant by the term, and that it’s just a shorthand reference for all the mixture of how “9/11 changed everything” and isn’t it great that Bush’s diligence and dedication has prevented another attack on US soil since then?

Of course Glenn is correct: what the neocons said about “the Bush Doctrine” was perfectly clear at the time. And in combination with the equally, if not more, important evil of the heinous atrocity of the neocon articulation of their construct of “unitary executive theory”, Bush and those who aided him in attacking Iraq should all rot. But what they’re trying to do is muddy the waters: Palin appears not to understand the question, and the neocons jump to her defense as if the concept is subject to nuance and debate.

Palin’s answer wasn’t just that she didn’t understand the question. She then blasely went on to say that “blunders” had been made – which, for my money, was the follow-up question opportunity that was missed. Get the Republicans to itemize their concept of the blunders in Iraq and they are doomed by admission and doomed by omission; McCain himself will be found to have been squarely behind anything called a “blunder” today, and the blunders that are omitted in the candidate’s answer can be revisited as well, and McCain’s role in those revisited, too.

I’m sure I give Palin much more credit than she is due, but we all know she spent days and days cloistered with Rovian minions before this interview. I have trouble assuming nobody had thought through this issue. Assuming they did, I believe the answer Palin gave is even more illuminating than merely demonstrating her personal lack of preparedness for the job she is seeking.

Let's get out the good silver, and invite Brian Ross, too. And when Brian Ross gets here, we open the good sherry, get him good and loose, and ask him who told him there was bentonite in the anthrax that meant Iraq was the source.

Gotta be deferential, maybe, but you can at least have a plan.

Tiberius agrees with somebody here. Shooter says he's voting for Obama.

What's third in this triad? Oliver Stone's "W" will be worth paying to see?

Let's go for a real shocker: Brian Ross is going to tell America who falsely told him there was bentonite in the anthrax, suggesting Iraqi origin.