Bring It On!

Sarah Palin Speaks To The Press, And The Only Thing We Learn About Her Possible Policy Agenda Is That She’s Up For War Against Russia

September 11th, 2008 | by Windspike |

ABC has some excerpts from the televised interview that is slated for tonight. Of course, the whole thing has already been taped. We won’t get any live interaction, but the splices from here.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 8 Responses to “Sarah Palin Speaks To The Press, And The Only Thing We Learn About Her Possible Policy Agenda Is That She’s Up For War Against Russia”

  2. By Cranky Liberal on Sep 11, 2008 | Reply

    Amazing isn’t. We are supposed to get all warm and fuzzy that Charlie “why would you raise cap gains” Gibson is going to get an exlusive interview over a few days in Palins home. we are supposed to find that this interview is acredible way for us to become comfortable with Palin as a potential commander in chief. She won’t do a press conference, she won’t take questions from the press, but the Gibson interview is supposed to take the place of all that. This isn’t vetting this is a puff piece. When you use the media to present a scritpted, carefully cultivated view of your candidate it isn’t journalism it is propoganda.

    Get up in front of the media and answer questions Sarah, or aren’t you man enough???

  3. By steve on Sep 11, 2008 | Reply

    You guys worry so much about the little things…

    Sarah Palin becoming VP in January won’t change your lives one bit.

    Neither will it change if Obama becomes President. Get over yourselves… life is short… go plant a tree.

    PS: You guys catch Obama on OReilly?

  4. By Windspike on Sep 11, 2008 | Reply

    But Steve,

    given that both camps are running on change, don’t you think one has more of a credible argument to make that they actually do represent change?

    Of course, my point being, we have no clue what policies will change because the McSame campaign is making the race about slinging mud instead of talking about real issues.

    And if, as you say, neither will get change to happen, I’d take my chances with the one who looks least like the W, Rove and Co. That’d be Obama. We don’t want to take a 10% chance on change, now do we?

    Cranky, you are right. So far, it’s a puff piece designed to sling more propaganda for the GOP catapult that George built.

  5. By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 12, 2008 | Reply

    Actually, I think we learned a great deal from the interview, at least the parts that have been released in transcript.

    We learned that Sarah Palin can dance around questions she’s not perfectly clear on. Such as the question about the Bush Doctrine. It was clear that she wasn’t familiar with the phrase. On the other hand, it isn’t a phrase that has one clear definition and even the definition that Charles Gibson gave was only one part of the doctrine and he didn’t even give a very clear definition of that part of it.

    We learned that she has such confidence in herself that being called upon to be vice president did not give her even a moment’s pause about her own preparedness — or at least, we learned that she’s not willing to admit in public to having had a moment’s pause. I think she was lying here. I simply cannot believe that she did not even have to think about it or that she did not have a moment’s hesitation about her own qualifications for the task that includes possibly becoming the most powerful person in the free world at the head of the most powerful nation in the world making decisions that will effect the entire world.

    We learned that Charles Gibson feels entirely comfortable with truncating quotes by Sarah Palin delivered in Church, as though he were accurately quoting her.

    We learned not that Palin was “Up For War Against Russia” but, rather, that if Georgia and the Ukraine were to join NATO, then we, as a signatory to that treaty would be required, along with every other nation in NATO, to treat an attack upon any NATO nation as an attack upon the entire alliance and would have to respond by the requirements of the treaty. However, she made it clear that she was not talking about war necessarily. Indeed she made it pretty clear that there were many other options besides a military one. She seems to even wish to avoid a cold war with Russia, as she repeats several times in the interview. I don’t see how you can say “That She’s Up For War Against Russia.” That’s a total distortion of her answer on the question which was:

    GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the Untied States, Georgia is worth it to the Untied States to go to war if Russia were to invade.

    PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. W have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.

    And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. T support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.

    It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.

    His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that’s a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.

    A careful reader will notice that nowhere in any of that does Sarah Palin say, hint, or imply that she is up for war against Russia or even a Cold War with Russia. I’m not sure if the title of this blog was meant to be flip but it certainly is not accurate.

    We learned that she favors the entry of Georgia and the Ukraine into NATO.

    We learned that she thinks that Russia’s attack on Georgia was unprovoked. In that, she seems to be in line with the McCain line but I don’t think reality is quite in line with that.

    We learn that she prays in Church and encourages other Christians to pray that what our nation’s leaders do in the performance of their duties would be what God would want them to do. In this, I think she is much more in line with the average Christian than Reverend “God Damn America” Wright is. Obviously, to an atheist, it’s all drivel and hash but it’s hardly extreme right-wing theocracy.

    There’s much more that we learn from the interview so far but I’m not sure I’d describe it as a puff piece. I think he nailed her on her answer to her first question. Asking if it weren’t hubris for a one term governor not to wonder about her qualification for an office once removed from the highest office in the land. He challenged her to define the Bush Doctrine, a task she was not up to doing. He challenged her, when talking about Iran, when she was talking up diplomacy to prevent a nuclear Iran on the fact that all the diplomacy carried out so far by many nations from the US to the EU have been ineffective. He pushed her on whether we would support Israel if Israel attacked Iran to take out its nuclear sites. She just kept repeating that we must not second guess Israel on actions that Israel thinks necessary for her own survival as a nation but he didn’t just accept that answer but pushed her to answer the question he posed.

    Honestly, I don’t see how anyone could see this as a puff piece.

  6. By Cranky Liberal on Sep 12, 2008 | Reply

    Oh no, she’s not up for war with Russia - she just wants to let a country that Russia has invaded join Nato which triggers wars pretty much automatically. She’s not up for war with Russia, she just wants to impose economic sanctions on them doing little to the Russian economy, but shredding whatever is left of the relationship we have with Russia, putting Europe in a bind because they rely on Russia for energy and oh yeah driving our gas prices through the roof - not to mention putting us on a path for a further escalation of tension

    No your right she never says I WANT TO GO TO WAR but her statement shows a reckless disregard for foreign relations that makes the Bush administration look like Henry Kissenger.

    And Craig it is a puff piece. Until she is willing to stand in front of the press corp taking questions in a open format then its propaganda no matter how “tough’ it looks. All the other players in this charade have done so, but Ms. Palin is exempt?

    I want it live, uncensored and open. Then they can say she has nothing to hide. Until then pfffttt. Just more bullshit from the Palin\McCain ticket.

  7. By manapp99 on Sep 12, 2008 | Reply

    If Georgia were a member of NATO, it is much LESS likely that Russia would have invaded as the threat of retailiation by the forces of NATO would have given Russia more to contend with than the just small army of Georgia. The opposite of triggering a war automatically… having Georgia and the Ukraine in NATO would help to contain Russia and would likely save lives in those countries. This is smart foreign policy. Concise and firm, not all the nuance and wishy washyness we got from Obama.

    Remember that after the Russian invasion Obama started with one position and after three days came around to agreeing with McCain. He was much lambasted by the GOP for this.

  1. 2 Trackback(s)

  2. Sep 11, 2008: Open Thread: Sarah Palin Interview With Charlie Gibson..Reactions And Commentary Added | Right Voices
  3. Sep 11, 2008: Sarah Palin In ABC News Interview: It Might Just Be Time To Go Kick Some Russian BUTT! | THE GUN TOTING LIBERAL™

Post a Comment

Fish.Travel