Palin bombs interview

[SeattleUte]

See "Bush Doctrine" is just silly pundit speak:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

Somebody prove me wrong.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I agree with the first part of what you said but this is not something obscure. This is the doctrine that governed our decision to invade and was the primary lesson that the Bush administration gleaned from 9/11. Not only is that not an unfair obscure question, it is a question that every candidate should have to answer. Did you take the same lessons from 9/11, if not how would you modify that doctrine. This is one of the key issues of our time. Again, I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt and I want to know more too, but I'm trying to resist what I perceive to be the reflex "eh no big deal" reaction of some.

I absolutely agree that I want to know her opinion of preemptive strikes. I couldn't care less if she knows that some people may call this the Bush Doctrine. I don't consider myself (or SU, it turns out) terribly uninformed and I literally have never heard this term applied. Even if you feel like this term is less obscure than I do, can you admit this was a total trap of a question? He didn't care at all what she thought of the policy, he wanted to test her knowledge of the term. Teddy Roosevelt would have missed this type of question. Abe Lincoln would have missed this type of question. It was ridiculous.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

How is foreign policy not substance? Did you listen to her answers? This is the cheap soundbite but the entire dialogue was a failure, with some answers that truly should, as UD put it, bring pause to any honest, rational voter.

Then let's talk about those issues. Not her ignorance of a particular label. Feel free--let's discuss.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Then let's talk about those issues. Not her ignorance of a particular label. Feel free--let's discuss.

Sure, we can change the subject. Discuss the issues. We won't agree on anything, I'd wager.

I thought we were discussing substance as it relates to a particular woman's fitness for office. I'm still waiting for you to answer my question. What will it take for you to determine her fitness - since, as you've indicated, you're withholding judgment for the time being?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

See "Bush Doctrine" is just silly pundit speak:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

Somebody prove me wrong.

Did you miss the part about where it was codified into an NSC document? Obviously you don't appreciate the significance of that. This is what our government does when it sets out its policies. Often they are not made public for many many years and they never apply their own gloss. Truman didn't come up with "Truman Doctrine."

If you didn't ever take a US foreign policy class in college I can understand not knowing all this. But for people setting policy this is elementary stuff. I would suggest this book (you can skim it) to get the broad strokes of our doctrines over time:

http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Globalism.../dp/0140268316

You may just be toying with me here. Otherwise you are being Waters-esc in over confidently wading into a subject you obviously know very little about. There must be someone else in the room with poli-sci degree who will come to my aid here. This is basic stuff.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

I absolutely agree that I want to know her opinion of preemptive strikes. I couldn't care less if she knows that some people may call this the Bush Doctrine. I don't consider myself (or SU, it turns out) terribly uninformed and I literally have never heard this term applied. Even if you feel like this term is less obscure than I do, can you admit this was a total trap of a question? He didn't care at all what she thought of the policy, he wanted to test her knowledge of the term. Teddy Roosevelt would have missed this type of question. Abe Lincoln would have missed this type of question. It was ridiculous.

We just have different perspectives. As one who got a degree in this, mainly focusing on this area, and nearly took the civil service exam before going to law school, I am of the opinion that this ought to be basic stuff for someone who could hold the levers of power for our foreign policy. I don't expect the governor of Alaska to know it, which is why I think it is fair for a reporter to test her in these areas. Perhaps she will come up to speed, no doubt she will. As of today there is evidence that there is a lack of depth on this issue. I view it as basic enough that I think it is fair, but maybe I overestimate what our leaders know about these things. That they know less than I is a troubling thought.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Sure, we can change the subject. Discuss the issues. We won't agree on anything, I'd wager.

I thought we were discussing substance as it relates to a particular woman's fitness for office. I'm still waiting for you to answer my question. What will it take for you to determine her fitness - since, as you've indicated, you're withholding judgment for the time being?

I think you think that I'm much further to the right than I am. I did vote for Bush in 2000 and 2004, although I've deeply regretted both votes ever since. I am really struck by Obama's apparent intelligence, I like some of his policies, and I relish the thought of an articulate president. There are some serious reservations I have about him, but I suspect we would agree on more than you think.

But back to the subject...how do I determine her fitness for VP (and potentially President)? Well first, she's hot. Second, and I think I already said this, I'm interested in her ability to gather information and use it to make and intelligent and ethical decision. I don't like the banning books history item, although it seems that's been a little overblown. There's been talk of corruption, and if that turns out to represent something, that would turn me off of her. I just don't think we know enough, and the next two months will be very informative. I didn't see the whole interview, so I really am curious to hear your concerns, as I may very well agree with them.

If she knows what the term "Bush Doctrine" means? I honestly don't care.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

We just have different perspectives. As one who got a degree in this, mainly focusing on this area, and nearly took the civil service exam before going to law school, I am of the opinion that this ought to be basic stuff for someone who could hold the levers of power for our foreign policy. I don't expect the governor of Alaska to know it, which is why I think it is fair for a reporter to test her in these areas. Perhaps she will come up to speed, no doubt she will. As of today there is evidence that there is a lack of depth on this issue. I view it as basic enough that I think it is fair, but maybe I overestimate what our leaders know about these things. That they know less than I is a troubling thought.

Ok...I can accept that. In fairness, I'm not running for VP, so I'm not a good measuring stick of what knowledge is requisite. I'm not sure I agree that you have to be a poly sci major to be president, but it's a fair concern, I guess. I still think the fairer question would be "What do you think of preemptive strikes?" but I see where you're coming from.

[BarbaraGordon]

here's the full transcript and video

GIBSON: Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked John McCain about you, and it is really the central question. Can you look the country in the eye and say "I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?"
PALIN: I do, Charlie, and on January 20, when John McCain and I are sworn in, if we are so privileged to be elected to serve this country, we'll be ready. I'm ready.
GIBSON: And you didn't say to yourself, "Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I -- will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?"
PALIN: I didn't hesitate, no.
GIBSON: Didn't that take some hubris?
PALIN: I -- I answered him yes because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can't blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we're on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can't blink. So I didn't blink then even when asked to run as his running mate.
****************************
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?
PALIN: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote.
GIBSON: Exact words.
PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln's words when he said -- first, he suggested never presume to know what God's will is, and I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words. But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side. That's what that comment was all about, Charlie.
GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln's words, but you went on and said, "There is a plan and it is God's plan."
PALIN: I believe that there is a plan for this world and that plan for this world is for good. I believe that there is great hope and great potential for every country to be able to live and be protected with inalienable rights that I believe are God-given, Charlie, and I believe that those are the rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That, in my world view, is a grand -- the grand plan.
GIBSON: But then are you sending your son on a task that is from God?
PALIN: I don't know if the task is from God, Charlie. What I know is that my son has made a decision. I am so proud of his independent and strong decision he has made, what he decided to do and serving for the right reasons and serving something greater than himself and not choosing a real easy path where he could be more comfortable and certainly safer.
****************************
GIBSON: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.
PALIN: Sure.
GIBSON: Let's start, because we are near Russia, let's start with Russia and Georgia.
The administration has said we've got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?
PALIN: First off, we're going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain's running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep... GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.
PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there.
GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska. We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We've learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.
We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it's in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.
GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?
PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.
GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.
PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.
Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but...
GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?
PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.
But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to -- especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.
We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.
GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United 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. We 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. The 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.
*************************
GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel?
PALIN: I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes.
GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran?
PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them.So we have got to put the pressure on Iran.
GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?
PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don't think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.
GIBSON: So if we wouldn't second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.
PALIN: I don't think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.
GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.
PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.
********************************
GIBSON: We talk on the anniversary of 9/11. Why do you think those hijackers attacked? Why did they want to hurt us?
PALIN: You know, there is a very small percentage of Islamic believers who are extreme and they are violent and they do not believe in American ideals, and they attacked us and now we are at a point here seven years later, on the anniversary, in this post-9/11 world, where we're able to commit to never again. They see that the only option for them is to become a suicide bomber, to get caught up in this evil, in this terror. They need to be provided the hope that all Americans have instilled in us, because we're a democratic, we are a free, and we are a free-thinking society.
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.
GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?
PALIN: Now, as for our right to invade, we're going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be, a military strike, a last option.
GIBSON: But, Governor, I'm asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.
PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.
GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?
PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

If she knows what the term "Bush Doctrine" means? I honestly don't care.

Governor Palin do you agree that countries that harbor terrorists should be treated as terrorists themselves, and if you were president, would you authorize the invasion, for example, of Iran if it were harboring terrorists who had just attacked the United States? What about Russia? What do you view as being the limits of that doctrine? Do you agree with the assessment of the Bush administration that it was necessary to preemptively remove a regime from power on the basis of its belief that it might one day give WMD to terrorists? If not, how would you modify that view?

That is the long hand version of the same question. Whether people know the terms or not, I think the above are fair questions. Agree?