Anchorage to Vladivostok is about 3,310 air miles.
I’d like to flip the assertion that Palin’s proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience around.
Would we be equally likely to say that the mayor of Magadan, Siberia has foreign policy experience because he’s closest to Alaska?
Would the average American agree that someone living in Yakutsk (the nearest major city to Magadan) must know a lot about America? Yakutsk is still 1,200 miles from Magadan, and 2,511 miles from Anchorage.
Were we to want to find a partner with whom we could negotiate regarding America’s relationship with Russia, would we want to seek that person out in Siberia?
Eastern Russia is a vast expanse of terrain where there are at best perhaps 6 people per square mile in “populated” areas. Perhaps if you grew up playing Risk, you might think that Yakutsk or Irkutsk’s proximity to Alaska would be relevant to geopolitics. Otherwise, it’s a ludicrous proposition that seems clear when you speculate about the flip-side assertion.
Alaska is essential to our defense. I mean, what if the guy who’s been quietly building up down in Australia decides to make a run up the coast and nail us from Kamchatka? I don’t care how many armies the next set of cards is worth; it wouldn’t be enough to get North America back.
from the days when russia claimed alaska, there was a saying, (paraphrasing from russian)
in alaska things are good. god is very close, the tsar is very far.
the russian goverment is very far from alaska. you can not see the kremlin from alaska. and i don’t remember a high goverment official visiting the far coast in quite some time. the last high ranking individual visiting the far coast or alaska might be the patriarch of moscow and all russia, but he isn’t goverment.
back in the good ole days it would take quite a bit of time for a smitting from the tsar. smitting from god in the form of an act of god or nature can occur very fast.
now a days, smitting from the kremlin (via a launch) could be nearly as fast as god.
How about her answer when Gibson asked “Why do you think think the hijackers attacked us?”
Palin: “…they do not believe in American ideals.”
Actually, no, that’s NOT the reason.
It occurs to me, though, that her mindless, hackneyed pagent answers will probably appeal perfectly to her base. They don’t want nuance or information. They just want to be reassured that America is pure good, and that we’re fighting pure evil, and that it’s just that simple. They probably think the Bush Doctrine question was unfair and tricksy and that Gibson is a meanie for asking her something so haaaard.
Nobody ever lost conservative votes by being too stupid.
True enough. I was the facilities manager for the Alaska radar defense network, which is the latest version of the old White Alice network and DEW line. These facilities are located all along Alaska’s coastline and provide coverage that links up with the Canadian equivalent system.
By the way, you don’t have to go to Diomede Island (Palin’s reference) to see Russia. On a clear day, you can see it from Tin City’s radar dome. Palin’s comment about us being “next door neighbors” was complete nonsense, however. I can stand at the Canadian border station at Poker Creek and see a large amount of Canadian territory, but it tells me squat about their government or anything else. Palin is a lightweight on a par with Dan Quayle.
It’s apparent to me from this exchange that she doesn’t even know what the word “doctrine” means in a foreign policy context. It doesn’t mean a “world view.” Was the Monroe doctrine Monroe’s “world view”? Of course not. She doesn’t even know the language of foreign policy, let alone the facts.
Confession of bone-deep ignorance about the basis of current American foreign policy, ladies and gentlemen. Link & Cite when asked why you treat SA’s “arguments” on the subject as irrelevant background noise.
Well, then, if she can’t handle all that stuff and still learn the basics of foriegn policy, then she obviously shouldn’t be interviewing for a job setting foreign policy.
In other words, she was given the first level of testing to see if she can handle the job, and flunked.
Holy shit, I just realized that’s exactly what Sam Stone was saying in his thread about how Democrats can win elections. Just tell the sheeple everything is great, victory is at hand, and good will always triumph over evil, and Democrats can win elections again.
That’s why “I feel your pain” failed to resonate well with anyone. Clinton should have said, “I feel the joy you are feeling! The economy is dazzling, stupid!”
That’s why GHW Bush ran that ad that said “Willie Horton is a tragic anomaly!”
Is it true that ABC deleted the “exact quote” exchange in the airing? If that’s true (and all I’ve heard are assertions, not proof), whoa boy.
I don’t understand why asking for clarification on the Bush Doctrine is an issue. It’s huge - it covers a number of aspects. It’s like asking her what she thinks about Bush’s Foreign Policy decisions. “Which ones?” is a perfectly cromulent question to ask.
“She answered in sound bites! GET HER!”
“She didn’t answer in sound bites! GET HER!”
These are trap questions, and posters here should know it. Let’s take the first question: They want a direct answer, but what if she says:
We will support Israel to the end. or
We would denounce Israel.
First, you can’t answer a hypothetical like that directly. There will be other things going on at the time. Was an attack imminent? Was Israel 100% sure? Did Iran confirm or deny? What did our allies think? How much diplomacy was tried.
But leaving all of that aside, when she answers #1, she is a Zionist who probably is siding with Israel because she believes in the literal interpretation of the Book of Revelation and wants the U.S. on God’s side! Scary!
If she answers #2, then she is on the side of terrorists and can’t be trusted to lead in this “post-9/11” world.
Yes, the question about Israel was a trick question. After all, Charles Gibson forced her to answer “yes” or “no” and, in fact, had placed electrodes on her to shock her into silence if she attempted to clarify beyond “yes” or “no.” I saw the electrodes myself. They were in the eyeglass frames.
That Charles Gibson is one mean mofo.
The Israel and Georgia answers were a little eyebrow raising. The Bush Doctrine answer was grotesque. I have little problem if a candidate were to say, “I don’t know exactly what you mean by that phrase. Can you clarify?” Yes, it shows ignorance, but ignorance is better than bluff and bluster and bullshit.