The good news is Sarah Palin evidently isn't really willing to ban books.The bad news is Sarah Palin evidently thinks war with Russia is an option.
Honest.
Didn't make this up.
Didn't get it from an anonymous email thread.
Got it in an ABC News Alert which arrived in my inbox at 2:16PM entitled:
Breaking News from ABCNEWS.com:
EXCLUSIVE: GOV. SARAH PALIN WARNS WAR MAY BE NECESSARY
Thinking they must have got it wrong, I went to the ABC website and ... nope ... evidently that's what she says in her interview tonight with Charlie Gibson:
On the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history, Gov. Sarah Palin took a hard-line approach on national security and said that war with Russia may be necessary if Georgia were to join NATO and be invaded by Russia.
Wow! Remember when we were horrified by Cheney saber-rattling in the direction of Iran????
22 comments:
What a perfect answer by Palin. Remember that according to NATO agreement (the one the Senate ratified) - an attack on one member is an attack on all.
So, if Georgia becomes a NATO member and is attacked by Russia - a state of war will exist.
Look's like Governor Palin knows a bit about foriegn affairs.
So . . . if I understand your point, it is si,ply beyond the pale that Governor Palin would say we should honor treaty obligations (The question is specific about a fellow NATO member being attacked) but it is hunky dory that Senator Obama said he would attack on e of our allies, (Pakistan). Just making sure I understand you position.
Actually, she IS willing to ban books. It's just that the list that went out on those emails is a generic list of books that various right wingers find objectionable and didn't come from Palin herself. She actually fired the librarian over not being willing to remove books from the collection. The librarian was reinstated after a public uproar and then resigned two years later because she couldn't take working for Palin.
And, yes, the willingness to go to war with Russia proves, among other things, that the woman is bat-shit crazy.
Bat-shit-crazy????
ROTFLMAO!!!!!
Oh, make no doubt.
Sarah Palin is beyond bat-shit crazy.
Way, way beyond.
And, you can quote me on this.
Palin has NO clue on foreign affairs. WATCH it. She didn't even know what the Bush Doctrine was... talk about a deer in the headlights moment!
Further, it is clear she cannot answer the questions. Listen. You tell ME how many she answered... she avoided, avoided avoided... just as she was taught to do.
When Biden gets asked, gee, he knows the answers. Could that have something to do with experience? Nah.
Since the discussion has deteriorated to name calling, I might be wasting my pixels. For the library story from a main stream source see: http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/515512.html Not nearly as sinister - since Palin took the familar the "New Broom" technique.
She actually fired the librarian over not being willing to remove books from the collection.
Check the Wiki page. She fired an entire group of municipal employees (as was her perogative, apparently) because she came in as a reformer and felt that they did not support her agenda of reform. She then hired her back due to public outcry and because she decided that she would back her. There is no actual evidence or testimony that then-Mayor Palin actually ever asked her to remove any books, either hypothetically or specifically, from the library.
I haven't heard the interview yet. I'm sure she's not as experienced in foreign affairs as Sen. Biden is. But it won't be either her or Sen. Biden who'll be negotiating with Putin or the President of Iran. It'll be the person at the top of the ticket. President McCain will be able to hold his own with them. I personally think that President Obama will get buffaloed by them. When you're comparing the experience of one ticket's Vice President to the other ticket's President, there's a big problem with the other ticket's candidate.
Amazing on how the campaign is centering around Gov. Palin, and comparisons between her and Sen. Obama. The whole tenor of this campaign has changed. The McCain campaign has a huge amount of energy now and it's seen in the polls. Now, it's important to remember that there's still 7 weeks before the election. Things can change. It's also important to remember that people don't elect Presidents; States do. It doesn't matter if a candidate wins a given state by 10 votes or 10 million. But right now the campaign is a 2 on 1 game; Biden's on the sidelines. Right now (and yes, things can change), Sen. McCain's choice is looking inspired. Forget any idea she was picked to try to get disgruntled Hillary voters; she made McCain's ticket look like change too, and she's energized the large number of conservatives who didn't see McCain as a candidate to get excited about.
It's going to be interesting.
Please read carefully:
"war with Russia may be necessary if Georgia were to join NATO and be invaded by Russia."
The operative phrase is "if Georgia were to join NATO." This is not a capricious whim on Sarah Palin's part, it is an obligation. We signed a treaty, and she thinks we should stand by it. Sounds good to me.
Dear Rev. Russell:
I would point out (as a counterpoint) that Barack Obama (http://74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=Barack+Obama+and+NATO+and+Georgia&fr=yfp-t-501&u=obama.senate.gov/press/080128-obama_statement_118/&w=barack+obama+nato+georgia&d=M15IfvReRY_w&icp=1&.intl=us)has supported the entry of Georgia into NAT0.
With its entry we WILL be obligated under the articles of NATO to respond in defense of an ally in the event of an invasion.
Barack has even said so himself(I'll find the cite and send it to you). Hillary said pretty much the same thing. So let's be critical of all those who believe we should honor our treaties.
But the fact that she said she would HONOR a treaty, I don't see as a gaffe. With Barack urging the entry to NATO he is inviting the same thing.
Presumably, if Russia invades (AGAIN) a sovereign country, one that Barack believes we should have a treaty with, we will be obligated to respond.
Economic and UN Sanctions don't really work once a country has been invaded. The context of the question to her was if Russian invaded Georgia would we honor our treaties. I would assume that most people of honor would agree that we should honor our treaties.
A sinner saved by God's Grace
Jim of Michigan
So, let's assume Georgia is a member of NATO and gets invaded by Russia. As noted before, by operation of the treaty, that attack is an attack on all of NATO and obligates all NATO members to come to Georgia's defense. The way I get the liberal view then, is that we decide which NATO countries are worth us honoring our treaty obligations and which are not.
I wonder what the criteria will be? A points system, perhaps, but based on what? Shared language, shared culture, common history? 7 to 10 points (Britain, Germany, Holland, France-maybe): we're there for ya', buddy. 4 to 6 points (Norway and Denmark, Poland, Italy): let us think on it some more. 0 to 3 points (Bulgaria, Ukraine, Georgia): sorry guys, but do save us some Borscht and Stoli.
The answer Sarah Palin gave was the only answer she could have given. I wonder what Obama would have said and how it will make his fans in Europe feel when they realize they're on their own. More important is how bold it's going to make Putin. Watch out, Ukraine, you're next. After all, Sevastopol and the Crimea are really Russian, right?
Please, please, please folks, go read the article by Ilan Goldenberg. Here's an excerpt:
No sane American or European leader would ever ever ever give an answer like that. You do not get into hypotheticals about nuclear war. You just don't. Palin references the Cold War. The only reason the Cold War stayed cold is because our leaders understood the stakes of getting things wrong and saying things that could lead to catastrophic nuclear war. During the Cuban Missile Crisis every word, every public statement, and any message that the Kennedy administration sent to the Soviets was checked, double checked, and triple checked to make sure it was sending precisely the right signal. This is what you are forced to do when you have thousands of nuclear weapons and so does your opponent. The stakes are simply too high. And yet there is a nominee for the vice presidency of the United States who may one day have her hand on the button and she is casually talking about potential catastrophic nuclear war.
The woman is frighteningly ignorant. You do not want that finger on the button.
When you're comparing the experience of one ticket's Vice President to the other ticket's President, there's a big problem with the other ticket's candidate.
Um, no, Ron F. The problem is with the Republican candidate at the top of the ticket because of his age and health. The reason Palin is being compared to Obama is because she is almost certain to be president if McCain is elected.
You know, I've been executive director of a small non-profit organization for 12 years. If you go simply by years of executive experience, I'm certainly more qualified than the lot of them and I tell you most sincerely that that's ludicrous.
Do you realize that it took Palin six years and FIVE (unbelievable) schools (that nobody much had even heard of) to get merely an undergraduate degree? (And, of course, let's not forget McCain's class standing at the Naval Academy.)
Obama has degrees from Columbia and Harvard. Was president of Harvard Law Review. Doesn't education and intelligence count for anything any more? Or is it simply number of years in a jobs with certain titles? How unbelievably superficial!
Ellie --
I read the commentary (it is not an article) by Ilan Goldberg: interesting statement he makes right before the extensive section you quoted, Ellie:
"Technically, if Georgia and Ukraine were to become part of NATO under article five, we would be obligated to protect them and even Obama-Biden support bringing them into NATO."
Done a little grudgingly, perhaps, but done none-the-less.
And Sarah Palin attended four schools for her undergrad, not five. She won a scholarship to her first school, Hawai'i Pacific University. HPU is the largest private university in the central Pacific, with a student body of almost 9,000 students from over 100 countries.
Now I don't know about you, but if I were to graduate from a small school in the middle of Alaska, a free ride to a great private university in Hawai`i would look good to me!
After that, she did the majority of her hours at the University of Idaho; a school that most of us, I would wager, have heard of.
Plus, the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) claims that about 60 percent of students take more than four years to graduate from college, so that puts her well in the majority. Why would you hold that against her?
"And Sarah Palin attended four schools for her undergrad, not five."
Oh, my goodness. I DO stand corrected! (LMAO!)
Do you honestly mean to assert that this is something to be proud of? FOUR schools? FOUR???
Hey, if you want to defend this woman's credentials, go for it. Whatever floats your boat. I remain quite unimpressed.
(For God's sake, man. We're talking about someone who could be a 72 year old heatbeat away from the presidency of the United States of America!)
George W. Bush graduated from Yale, with a better GPA than John Kerry. Lots of things go into making a good president, and a degree isn't necessarily one of them.
Honestly, Ellie, the problem here is that women like Sarah Palin make the feminist establishment recoil in fear the same way the civil rights establishment reacts to the likes of Clarence Thomas. She is a strident, outspoken, self-made woman who stands for everything you're against and is against everything you're for, and you just can't stand it because she's a conservative and she's a woman.
I don't pretend to agree with Governor Palin about much, and would never want her to raise my two daughters(I count myself as a Friend of Susan, after all), but if the attacks on her aren't the politics of personal destruction at work, I don't know what is. Argue with her views and opinions, but don't pick on her because she likes to go hunting. She probably doesn't like wine and cheese parties and independent films, either, but that isn't what makes a good president. I'm more concerned about Sen. Obama's views, and who some of his friends are, like race-baiting preachers and unrepentant bomb throwing terrorists. I'd also like to know more about his work for ACORN, a group constantly in trouble for illegally registering voters. When the people who just hear "Change" figure out just how far to the left he really is, his support is going to sink like a rock.
For the record, the anecdotal evidence from this corner of Flyover Country (Pensacola), is that the women love her and every time the liberal media take a stab at her, the more popular she gets.
This really might be better than sex, or at least arguing about sex.
The McCain campaign has said explicitly they aren't interested in running on issues. (Hearkening back the the Bush administration's claim that they create their own reality). I find it interesting that Susan's post atracts all the concern trolls.
Can they really, objectively think that sarah Palin is qualified to be president of the US? Or is it just something convenient to throw against teh EEEEVIL Democrats? They really want to extend the 8 years of Republicanism that has left our reputation in tatters, left us embroiled in a desparate war, wiped the floor with our constitution and eviscerated our economy?
The point is, a thoughtful and experienced person does not state "we may go to war with Russia" in public. Not unless she wants to invoke Armegeddon...and maybe she does, given her religious views. But in that case, I don't want her driving the bus.
IT
One more thing.
Speaking as one who works in higher education, my experience is that students who move around a lot are generally weaker students who are struggling. Often our students who get bad grades with us will try to replace the grade by taking the same class at a JC or summer program in a minor school. Now, experience often makes up for education, but shat's really scary is that she did a degree in journalism with a minor in poli sci and seems not to have read a newspaper or learned anything about the world since. Heck, *I* know more about foreign affairs than Sarah Palin, I've certainly traveled more widely, and I've even met a few political figures in foreign countries.
I want my President and VP to be intelligent, thinking people more interested in ideas than cheap gimmicks for controlling the news cycle.
A woman who thinks that even asking a rhetorical question about banning books is OK, is not appopriate to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. A woman who has abused her power in naked partisanship, is not qualified. A woman who thinks that rape victim should pay for their own forensics.... who is for the bridge before she is against it.... who is one of the biggest nominees for pork that even McCAIN noticed it, in a state that pays its citizens oil money directly, is not appropriate to be president. she has a vested interest in the oil industry. She opposes science, opposes gays, and opposes funding for unmarried mothers. I wonder which of these account for her big appeal to our concern trolls.
IT
Okay, NOW this is the last thing:
i don't care if Palin is male or female, black, white, or polka-dotted. It's her lack qualifications that I oppose. I can't stand her because she is an anti-intellectual conservative; her gender has absolutely NOTHING to do with it. (I didn't approve of Dan Quayle either, but even his callowness shines in comparison!) It's a cheap trick of the Republicans to say any opposition to Palin is sexism.
It was also a cheap trick when Hillary tried the same argument, frankly. And I said so at the time.
In fact, if you notice most opposition of Palin from the left now is about (lack of) qualifications: not about her family, or their snowmobiling, or hunting, or anything else. In fact, after the first couple of days, even the snark about her family dropped off entirely. All I've seen lately is critical evaluation of her record and exposure of her lies. Claiming that is sexist or personal is, at best, misleading.
Read Roger Ebert's column for some additional thoughts.
IT
The problem is with the Republican candidate at the top of the ticket because of his age and health. The reason Palin is being compared to Obama is because she is almost certain to be president if McCain is elected.
His health? According to the Mayo Clinic "Sen. McCain enjoys excellent health". Bouts with skin cancer are pretty common and of no particular lasting concern. I'm not particularly worried about either his health or his age.
Do you realize that it took Palin six years and FIVE (unbelievable) schools (that nobody much had even heard of) to get merely an undergraduate degree?
It's been pointed out that you've got your facts wrong. And I've met plenty of people who moved from school to school before finishing their degrees and who are very successful people.
Obama has degrees from Columbia and Harvard.
I've got one from MIT. I've met plenty of people from Harvard. Big deal. There's a bunch of them that are insufferably full of themselves and that I wouldn't trust with organizing a family picnic.
Doesn't education and intelligence count for anything any more?
Yup. They are two of a number of factors. But going to multiple schools doesn't mean that someone is low in intelligence or has a bad education.
it said:
A woman who thinks that even asking a rhetorical question about banning books is OK, is not appopriate to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency.
She didn't ask about banning books - she asked what the librarian's reaction would be if she had requested some books be removed from the town library. In a day and age of bookstores, Amazon and the Internet you have to go to a lot more effort than that to actually ban a book.
it, What do you mean by "anti-intellectual"?
elizabeth kaeton said:
Bat-shit-crazy????
ROTFLMAO!!!!!
Oh, make no doubt.
Sarah Palin is beyond bat-shit crazy.
Glad to see you keeping the level of discourse high here, Elizabeth.
I have a direct question for you, though. Note that along with numerous European countries we are members of NATO. The treaty forming that organization says that we are to treat an invasion of one as an invasion of all and to come to their defense with force of arms if they are attacked. What, then, do you propose we do if Russia invades one of them?
The second paragraph of Article VI of the Constitution is pertinent to this:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
My emphasis.
"...you just can't stand it because she's a conservative and she's a woman."
Excuse me, Bruce, but you really don't know anything about what I can stand and what I can't. I'm probably a lot more conservative about a lot of things than you realize.
Just an aside here: Have you EVER heard the word "strident" used in reference to a man? (Just asking.)
I have every right to object to Palin's hunting habits (although I don't think I have mentioned that on this thread). I am a committed vegetarian as well as a supporter of animal welfare causes and the issue speaks to my values. Or do only right wingers have the right to be "values voters"?
I also completely abstain from alcohol so just drop the "wine and cheese" stereotype, okay?
IT says the following:
"Now, experience often makes up for education, but shat's really scary is that she did a degree in journalism with a minor in poli sci and seems not to have read a newspaper or learned anything about the world since. Heck, *I* know more about foreign affairs than Sarah Palin, I've certainly traveled more widely, and I've even met a few political figures in foreign countries."
I could say exactly the same thing.
Also, although I do not now work in higher education, I have in the past and I also grew up in academia. I know full well how legacy pressure works. I don't for a minute think that George W. Bush actually earned those "gentleman Cs" he brags about. Nobody could get through Yale on his own steam with the appalling lack of intellectual curiosity Bush displays.
But why bring up Bush and Kerry? This is not 2004.
And the idea that Obama is left wing is really laughable. He's very much a centrist and has actually moved to the right since he wrapped up the nomination. And since when does he have any friends who are "unrepentant bomb throwing terrorists". That's an outrageously slanderous thing to say. Shame on you.
Ellie,
What we see here is a classic example of IOKIYAR.
And you know, if I was facing cancer, I wouldn't care how unbearably arrogant my surgeon was, as long as he was the best qualified guy I could find. Conversely, just because I would really enjoy having a beer in the bar with the friendly guy with the half-assed MD, doesn't mean I want him operating on me or my family.
IT
(PS; Still reeling over the idea any ACTUAL conservative can think it is a good thing for an elected officer to enquire even "hypothetically" about "removing books from a library". but then what passes for "conservative" in the US now demonstrably no longer believe in the Constitution and is thus no longer "conservative".)
Post a Comment