Well, you’ve misunderstood me, then. I’m not a member of the cult of Palin.
However, I don’t understand unreasonable criticism of her.
I don't think that well-found criticism of a politician's inadequate communication skills is "unreasonable criticism". The most important skill-set any president must have to be successful, is to be an able, effective and well-studied communicator. I don't think anyone looking objectively at Sarah Palin's press appearances the last several years, and especially as they relate to these latest events, can say that she's making an effective and informed case. She isn't.
Allow me to provide two examples. First, she said this on Greta in the interview I've posted on this thread...
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.
Looking past the unique grammatical sentence structure, It's pretty clear that she agreeing with the UN, and that she supports the "humanitarian effort".
Just last night, Palin said the following (offering criticism of Obama) in another interview with Greta...
"He did not make the case for this intervention. U.S. interests have got to be met if we are going to intervene. And U.S. interests can’t just mean validating some kind of post-American theory of intervention, wherein we wait for the Arab League and the United Nations to tell us ‘thumbs up America, you can go now, you can act’, and then we get in the back of the bus and we wait for NATO, we wait for the French to lead us. That’s not inspirational."
How does she square that, with what she has been saying for close to a month? I believe they call this, "talking out both side of your mouth".