He is not alone, and he seems to have a good grasp of the language, you on the other hand see what you want.
I wish I saw what I wanted, because if that was true, I would have seen a paragraph that didn't appear to be spoken by a high school dropout. I'll repeat it, in case you've forgotten what she said...
" Well, the U.N. obviously wants this -- the role to be of our military just a humanitarian effort per the U.N. resolution that America has been a part of and that's why we are engaged in enacting the no-fly zone. However, again, with Qaddafi having the blood of innocent Americans on his hands -- and we have an opportunity to say, OK, finally, we have -- you're going to be held accountable. You're going to be gone."
That is a mess and is so personally constructed, it's virtually impossible to discern what she's saying. "...the role to be of our military just a humanitarian effort per the U.N. resolution that America", what language is that?
I guess you have a point. Maybe instead of calling for the ouster of of Gaddafi, Palin was saying something entirely different. Heck, she might have been ordering a pizza. You can hardly blame The Hill reporter for coming to the conclusion she did. It's frequently impossible to tell what Palin is saying, unless you have a translator handy.