I've always liked Charles Krauthammer. His pieces are some of the most elegantly written articles out there, and always logical and to the point. Tomorrow's opinion piece he wrote for the Washington Post is no different.

The main focus on the article is Charlie Gibson question to Sarah Palin regarding the "Bush Doctrine" and if she agrees with it:

He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

Then with a stroke of genius, he made Charlie Gibson his you know what:

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Nothing like being told you've misinterpreted something from the person responsible for inventing it...