In tonight’s portion of the his interview with Sarah Palin, Charlie Gibson asked two direct questions (among others) that Palin tried to evade. To his credit, Gibson persisted, rephrasing each question in a more direct fashion.
The second question regarded the use of American forces inside the borders of Pakistan:
One more notable exchange when Gibson asked what Palin thought about the Bush Doctrine, established in 2002.
Do the voters have the right to direct answers to these questions? Is the vice-president’s position on these topics relevant in deciding who to vote for in November?
The direct answer to the ‘Bush Doctorine’ question would be “I havent a clue what you’re talking about, Charlie. It’s probably something we don’t care about much in Alaska and my handlers didn’t prep me for it since then.”
HOnestly, her answers to the first two questions seem to be pretty clear to me:
She’ll back Israel no matter what;
We can do whatever the fuck we want, including invading Pakistan, to stop the terrorists.
Her third answer clearly shows she had no idea about what the Bush Doctrine was, which is as surprising as it is appalling. Charitably, maybe she’d had a brain fart and forgotten that whole “pre-emptive strike” bullshit.
As for #2, I agree that we oughtta be willing to do strikes in Pakistan, but not that anything oughtta be on the table.
She was very evasive in her first response, and clearly did not know what the “Bush doctrine” was in her third response, but I must say that I agree with her answers to questions 2 and 3. (Re: going into Pakistan and pre-emtively attacking if an attack on the US is imminent).
[FYI, I don’t like her (just in case someone thinks this is coming from someone who supports her)]
The first question was a trick question, trying to get her to say we’d back up Israel if they attacked Iran. No politician should say, one way or another, what we would do in that type of hypothetical situation.
Also, she blatantly lied through her teeth about her “task from God” quote.
How the fuck does her quote even slightly resemble the Lincoln quote? The two quotes don’t just have different words, they have totally opposite meanings. The only thing they have in common is the word “God.” Are we really expected to somehow swallow that what she said was a quote from Lincoln? HER quote is a direct assertion about the will of God and has no semantic equivalence whatsoever to what Lincoln said. It CONTRADICTS what Lincoln said. How stupid does she think people are? Does she really just think she can throw up another quote with the wiord “God” in it and nobody will notice it’s a totally different quote?
I predict that the media will accept her absurd explanation uncritically and never examine it at all.
Obama has been asked the exact same question. “Trick” my ass. And if your little beauty queen can’t handle a “trick” question from Charlie Gibson, what the hell is she doing auditioning to sit down with Putin?
In the time it took me to type my response, others came in discussing the same topic. Now I’m off to read what they wrote.
Is this what you are referring to? If it is, I would have to watch the entire interview to better formulate and opinion. Right at this moment, on the topic of “Palin: War with Russia”, this article quoting the interview is all I’m basing my following comments on:
I don’t think it’s fair to say “Palin wants a nuclear war with Russia”.
Asked about war with Russia (no mention of nukes) in the event that Russia were to invade Georgia as a NATO member, which at this point Georgia is not, her answer basically just spoke to the obligations NATO members have in alliance with one another.
She answered a hypothetical question with a generic response that a NATO alliance means members have each other’s backs. In fact, the reason the Russian invasion a month ago was so scary was that all informed parties understood that were Georgia to achieve NATO membership, if Russia were to try this again, with Georgia’s new status as a NATO member, the dominoes would automatically start falling leading to a much broader international conflict- specifically because of the hypothetical NATO connection.
Suggesting that NATO alliance commits nations to come to the aid of allies, is not the same as “wanting a nuclear war with Russia”.
Again, I’ve admitted to only reading the linked article and I am happy to read other sources if there is anything to support the suggestion that Palin wants nuclear war with Russia.
P.S. I don’t like Palin, I’m just looking for the facts.
Yes, you should know if a President supports Israel or is serious about terrorism. But as a matter of form the answers should not go beyond “we reserve the right” or “will work with Israel/Pakistan” level of ambiguity.
Ok, I get your point. It was just scary watching live to hear her say she’d go to war with Russia (which I think would have to go nuclear). I grew up under the Cold War. the idea of “War with Russia” used to be the scariest, most doomsday scenario anyone could think of.
If Georgia becomes a member of NATO. So what? What if Russia attacks Poland? They’re already a NATO member. Georgia won’t become a member unless they are voted in. I think reasonable people can disagree over what the best policy is here.
Oh, and can you quote the part about “nuclear war” and where she says she “wants” it?
Her answer wasn’t really ambiguous, though. She said “we can’t second guess Israel,” implying that Israel would get a free pass to do anything it wanted. Israel is not entitled to unconditional support for any and all actions. No country is.