I thought the Bush Doctrine was, "we will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts [September 11] and those who harbor them." Or am I wrong about that?

It seems the interviewer was not interested in her policy view in this case, but in whether she had memorized the establishment liberal media's terminology. He could easily have sketched the policy question to which he pretended to want an answer in English, but preferred to ask it in the equivalent form to "who is the deputy Minister of Agriculture of Kyrgyzstan?"

The question itself is important. Insisting on the memorization of the specific liberal media terminology is hopelessly self-centered.

As a Republican who would like the McCain ticket to win this election, I'm pleased. The liberal media's contemptuous insistence on their own importance extends to insisting that world affairs be discussed in their own terms of reference. Failure to do so is condign ignorance.

Thanks ABC. You have helped to energize the base.

in whether she had memorized the establishment liberal media's terminology

In what world is the BUSH doctrine liberal?

Archae86 means that the term "Bush doctrine" is just a liberal media invention, something Sarah Palin cannot be expected to know.

Speaking of inventions, "condign" is not a word.

Yes it is?

You're right, yes, condign is a word, but it's not the right word, which is condone.

Condign is a word in standard English. It is most commonly seen as an adjective with punishment. Here is an avowedly liberal site discussing use of the word within the last year: <link> Whether I used it well here is another matter, but it is indeed a word, and "condone" is not the word I meant, nor does it work in my sentence at all.

You're right. I apologize.