In Palin's interview with Katie Couric, the following exchange occured about Israel, and 2nd guessing what their efforts:
Couric: You recently said three times that you would never, quote, "second guess" Israel if that country decided to attack Iran. Why not?
Palin: We shouldn't second guess Israel's security efforts because we cannot ever afford to send a message that we would allow a second Holocaust, for one. Israel has got to have the opportunity and the ability to protect itself. They are our closest ally in the Mideast. We need them. They need us. And we shouldn't second guess their efforts.
Couric: You don't think the United States is within its rights to express its position to Israel? And if that means second-guessing or discussing an option?
Palin: No, abso ... we need to express our rights and our concerns and ...
Couric: But you said never second guess them.
Palin: We don't have to second-guess what their efforts would be if they believe ... that it is in their country and their allies, including us, all of our best interests to fight against a regime, especially Iran, who would seek to wipe them off the face of the earth. It is obvious to me who the good guys are in this one and who the bad guys are. The bad guys are the ones who say Israel is a stinking corpse and should be wiped off the face of the earth. That's not a good guy who is saying that. Now, one who would seek to protect the good guys in this, the leaders of Israel and her friends, her allies, including the United States, in my world, those are the good guys.
Palin veers off at the end, and she contradicts herself in her responses when Couric asks the follow-up (and leading) question.
But, this is the money quote:
We shouldn't second guess Israel's security efforts
OK, now keep that in mind, and look at one of today's headline from the Guardian:
Israel asked US for green light to bomb nuclear sites in Iran
Israel gave serious thought this spring to launching a military strike on Iran's nuclear sites but was told by President George W Bush that he would not support it and did not expect to revise that view for the rest of his presidency, senior European diplomatic sources have told the Guardian.
The then prime minister, Ehud Olmert, used the occasion of Bush's trip to Israel for the 60th anniversary of the state's founding to raise the issue in a one-on-one meeting on May 14, the sources said. "He took it [the refusal of a US green light] as where they were at the moment, and that the US position was unlikely to change as long as Bush was in office", they added.
It is somewhat shocking to agree with Bush, but this could have started WWIII.
Now, how would have a President Palin have acted? When the phone rings at 3 AM, would she say "Sure, go ahead. Do whatever you think is best."?