Palin threatens war with Russia over Georgia

Well I think we're seeing why they kept her under wraps.  ABC got the puff interview, but she said something that I hope won't play well:

The Governor advocated the accession of Georgia and Ukraine into NATO.

When asked by Gibson if under the NATO treaty, the U.S. would have to go to war if Russia again invaded Georgia, Palin responded: "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.

Does anyone think that a war with Russia over Georgia or Ukraine is in our interests?  This isn't Iraq here; we're talking about going to war with a country that has many nuclear weapons.  I hope at some point in that interview she said why this is so crucial.  How many Americans had even heard of the non-state Georgia 3 months ago?  I thought it was the Islamists who were our mortal enemy now.

Time to bring back the Daisy ad.  

Update: Some people in the comments suggested a line of reasoning where Palin didn't actually call for war per se. I can see the point, but: (1) If Palin actually were the VP now, making a comment like that actually would go a long way towards bringing us to war. (2) We just spent 48 hours addressing if, "Lipstick on a pig," was a veiled attack. I'm not seeing the need to go out of my way to pull Palin out of a hole she dug for herself, especially because I'm not convinced McCain isn't itching for a war.

Tags: millions dead for what reason?, russia, Sarah Palin (all tags)



Two things

first, she seems to think Georgia is in NATO.

Second, and not shown in that snippet, is that she called the Russian invasion "unprovoked".

"Disproportionate response" perhaps, but "unprovoked"?

by Neef 2008-09-11 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Two things

In her defense, she thinks that Georgia should be added to NATO, not that it already is in NATO.

...and that we should be willing to go to war to protect it because Georgia is so important.

by thezzyzx 2008-09-11 01:59PM | 0 recs
Good point

I missed the "entry into NATO part".

by Neef 2008-09-11 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Two things

Unfortunately, she got it spot on right . . . "that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally" .  

Under the NATO agreement you are obligated to come to the defense and aid of ANY other NATO country if it is attacked.

by wasanyonehurt 2008-09-11 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Two things

This may be true. But what the media will latch onto is that she said: we may have to go to war with Russia.

It will come across as a gaffe. :)

by jsfox 2008-09-11 02:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Two things

I wish it were a gaffe - I just watched her whole interview on ABC about Georgia, NATO & Russia in context - she got it right.

Unfortunately again, she showed that she's got a brain.  She slid his question when she wanted to even though he pressed her hard.

by wasanyonehurt 2008-09-11 02:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Two things

But Georgia wouldn't be accepted into NATO because of their aggression (fairly or otherwise) that started this conflict.  We can argue all day about whether Russia started it by placing citizens and troops in the disputed areas, but I don't believe those areas were considered official Georgian territory (correct me if I'm wrong).  Russia's response was over the top, obviously.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-09-11 03:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Two things

She should have said that NATO would be obligated to respond. Means the same thing, but we all know in the world of politics the difference in the way you phrase something can mean all the difference in the world.

by Mystylplx 2008-09-11 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Two things

It WAS a gaffe.
You NEVER comment on a hypothetical of possible nuclear confrontation. Ever. That's the kind of loose, crazy talk that starts wars, which is why it's never done.

Watch the world's response to this.

by Maori 2008-09-11 05:34PM | 0 recs
As a person who grew up in the Cold War,

you cannot imagine how chilling it is to hear her say that we would have to go to war with Russia in any circumstance. Whether or not she is technically correct, it is unspeakable and unthinkable, and her cavalier attitude toward this is astonishing.

by Beltway Dem 2008-09-11 03:36PM | 0 recs

"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," she told ABC News' Charles Gibson in an exclusive interview.

It was scary enough when McCain was meddling, now this?

by Neef 2008-09-11 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: This

I say don't take the bait on that one.  The campaign would come off as defending Russia.  Not terribly popular in these parts.  But what you can say is that for someone who supposedly hates war, she seems awfully eager to start another one.  Same for McWho.

by the mollusk 2008-09-11 02:10PM | 0 recs
I agree with you politically

but fighting Russia?

That scares me as an American, not a Democrat.

by Neef 2008-09-11 02:32PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree with you politically

agreed.  And I also think that Georgia was certainly not blameless in any of this and their behavior probably goes a long way toward explaining why they aren't in NATO right now.

by the mollusk 2008-09-11 02:36PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree with you politically

Neocons get off on it, though.  They love the idea of a Great Patriotic War.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-09-11 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: An honest answer

Yes, and anyone who makes that position has no home of ever becoming president (or vice president).

by kristoph 2008-09-11 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: This

Obama can have an awesome response to this, that does not have us siding with Russia. He needs to start talking about diplomacy and what the colossal f*ck up the bush/McCain strategy has and will lead us into.

by Hollede 2008-09-11 02:50PM | 0 recs
Re: This

Absolutely - it's not a gaffe but a revealing insight in the bellicose belligerence that will dominate US foreign policy if McCain gets in

by duende 2008-09-11 04:59PM | 0 recs
Re: This

McCain has caused me considerable concern over the past weeks with his response to Georgia and Russia. Palin seems more of the same.

Oh and let us not forget Iraq and Iran and... I really wish people would start connecting the dots.

by Hollede 2008-09-11 06:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin threatens war with Russia over Georgia

Ah the gift that will keeps on giving.

by jsfox 2008-09-11 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin threatens war with Russia over Georgia

After this, Palin is fair game.

Actually I thought is was best ignore her.
But now is the time.  Do it the right way:  Attack McCain's judgment in selecting her, not so much Palin directly.  It's got to be about McCain still.

by esconded 2008-09-11 01:58PM | 0 recs
Biden should go after her

on this.  Obama should stick to McCain.

by puma 2008-09-11 02:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Biden should go after her

So John McCain, is it your view that we should be going to war with Russia over Georgia or is your VP nominee speaking against your wishes when she said that would be a good idea?

I don't know what the good option is there for McCain.

by thezzyzx 2008-09-11 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Biden should go after her

Good one, but McCain won't answer it. He's a coward.

He'll smile and say, you know, I don't think, she, you know, my friends, come on, you know, war, there will be more wars, come on, don't be sexist.

by vadasz 2008-09-11 02:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Biden should go after her

This answer sounds quite similar to what McCain said about Georgia and NATO, although he might have nuanced it a bit better.

by Steve M 2008-09-11 02:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Biden should go after her

A sovereign nation with a democratically elected government wishes to join NATO.

Your suggesting that a candidate for president should argue against that for rear of antagonizing Russia?

Although that may be the diplomatic stance to take, Obama and Biden will agree with Palin. The alternative is have McCain brand them as cowards (on the eve of the 9/11 anniversary of all times).

I mean, honestly, do you really think you can explain nuanced diplomatic policy to the bulk of the electorate?

by kristoph 2008-09-11 02:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Biden should go after her

I don't know if we can explain nuance but I do know that the public isn't clamoring for a war with Russia over a place they've never heard of.

by thezzyzx 2008-09-11 02:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Biden should go after her

No, that is the argument. What we cannot afford is nuclear war. We are ready to war with Iran precisely because they might use nuclear weapons. Russia still has the ability to strike into the heart of America at a moment's notice, and China would rather back them up than risk attacks that could spread to their soil.

by vcalzone 2008-09-11 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Biden should go after her

So you want to let it be, 'peace in our time and all that', is that what your saying?

I am sure that will sell well in Ohio.

by kristoph 2008-09-11 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Biden should go after her

How about "No New Stupid Wars"?  I'm sure that will sell.  Seriously - our track record on defending democracy is pretty thin these days.

by NewOaklandDem 2008-09-11 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Biden should go after her

I don't mind drawing a line in the sand. I just don't think Georgia should be it.

by thezzyzx 2008-09-11 02:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Biden should go after her

Yeah, well, that's all well and good I guess. Unless your Check or Georgian.

by kristoph 2008-09-11 04:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Biden should go after her

I want it to be, "Unilateral nuclear war can and will destroy our nation".

by vcalzone 2008-09-11 02:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Biden should go after her

Expanding NATO to Georgia and the Ukraine is folly.  NATO on Russia's door step?  You're kidding, right?  Why not just add Kosovo while we're at it.  

And Georgia ain't exactly a great model for democracy - I'm sure you're aware of the origins of the current conflict.

by NewOaklandDem 2008-09-11 02:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Biden should go after her

Georgia had free and fair UN observed elections.

Cuba : on our doorstep, communist dictatorship, Offensive nuclear weapons.

Georgia : on Russia's doorstep, free democratic, seeks defensive alignment with NATO countries.

There is a big difference, Georgia is seeking a peaceful alliance to deter a bullying neighbor.

by wasanyonehurt 2008-09-11 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Biden should go after her

Cuba's not aligned with Russia anymore.  I wasn't away that Cuba had Nukes anymore.  I'm takling about South Osetia.  Geogia, somewhat unthoughtfully, moved its military into the breakaway region, and killed ethnic Russians in the process.  This provided Russia with the excuse it needed to invade.  Do you want ot be aligned with a country that would be willing to provoke a much larger country into war?

by NewOaklandDem 2008-09-11 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Biden should go after her

I believe in freedom of determination of a people seeking peace and the integrity of their SOVEREIGN territory, the recent skirmish was not unlike what Abraham Lincoln did to preserve our union.

Read uplink to rafter for the history.

by wasanyonehurt 2008-09-11 02:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Biden should go after her

Georgia's been sovereign for about 17 years.  The Union was Sovereign for 80 something.  THere's a big, big differnce along with that - Ossetia was populated by transplanted ethnic Russians, which is a big reason why they used Geogia's internal moves as an excuse for an invasion.

by NewOaklandDem 2008-09-11 03:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Biden should go after her

Please tell me that you aren't referring to the Soviet Union young grasshopper.

The union that was created by Russia after WWII at the point of a Russian tank.

Please tell me you are referring to some other union like the IEW or UAW.


by wasanyonehurt 2008-09-11 03:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Biden should go after her

I meant Union as in "Union vs. Confederacy", Old Grasshopper.  Four Score and all that.

by NewOaklandDem 2008-09-11 03:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Do you even know what's going on

South Ossetia is a confederate province within the borders of Georgia with a large ethnic russian population that wishes to secede from Georia.  Russia just took Ossetia over as a satellite state.  

Let me put it in terms you might understand South Ossetia is a renegade state like the south in our Civil War and Georgia only wishes to preserve its union like the North.

by wasanyonehurt 2008-09-11 02:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Do you even know what's going on

Southern states in the civil was did not have a fucking huge patron state with a nuclear arsenal.  It may be a renegade province, but it has a big friend.

by NewOaklandDem 2008-09-11 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Do you even know what's going on

Why don't we let this Nuclear equipped country to take over Uzbekhistan, Georgia, Ukraine, Latvia, Lith . . .  Khazak. . . you get the point. . .

. . . Hey Wait.  Wow.  The Soviet Union just reconstituted itself . . . thank god, the world order is back in place.

by wasanyonehurt 2008-09-11 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Do you even know what's going on

There are specific details in the relationship between Georgia and Russia that I'm sure you're aware of, that do not apply to the other nations that you've posted.  Understand that I am not advocating the Reconstitution of the USSR.

by NewOaklandDem 2008-09-11 03:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Are you shitting me?

So you must support those American Indian tribes that say the U.S. government stole their land and would secede from the USA and take their land with them and would have supported the 95% of southerners during the Civil War who wished to secede too?

by wasanyonehurt 2008-09-11 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Do you even know what's going on

That's beside the point. It's not our job to step into that kind of conflict at ALL. NOT AT ALL. We have no legal standing there, we have no ethical standing. This policy of "we have to fight for every cause in the world" is madness and will cause the destruction of this country. Not just militarily, economically as well. We've been borrowing money from Russia, for God's sake! What happens with that?

by vcalzone 2008-09-11 03:46PM | 0 recs
A few points to remember:

* IF Georgia were to become a member of NATO, we would then have an obligation to side with them.

* On what map does Georgia (not the one between the Carolinas and Florida) have a border on the NORTH ATLANTIC?

This was not a particularly bad answer by Palin. I agree that war is to be avoided at all costs, but the question was whether we would defend Georgia if they were a member of NATO. My question is (see above), why in the world would it be appropriate for Georgia to become a member of NATO?

by NJ Liberal 2008-09-11 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: A few points to remember:

Well since she was the one who said it would be a good idea a few minutes earlier...

by thezzyzx 2008-09-11 06:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Biden should go after her

Like this: We spent 40 years trying to avoid a nuclear war. We cannot allow Russian aggression to continue unchecked, but we also cannot afford another administration that will shoot first and ask questions later. Not when the shot fired back could destroy a major American city.

by vcalzone 2008-09-11 02:38PM | 0 recs

War with Russia, or even saber rattling at them, is completely unaccceptable to any American with a brain and a memory that goes back over 40 years.  

What next?  China?  

Economic sanctions?  Sure, that's palatable and even Saint Ronnie didn't need to threaten the Soviet Union to get the job done.  

Seriously, dude.  You think some draft age id or his parents in Anywhere, Ohio would be on-board with going military with RUSSIA?   Nope.  You're wrong.  

by GRO 2008-09-11 05:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin threatens war with Russia over Georgia

Yes, this is a major blunder.

by Bob H 2008-09-11 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin threatens war with Russia over Georgia
You think it is a major blunder that Palin thinks America should admit Georgia into NATO?
by kristoph 2008-09-11 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin threatens war with Russia over Georgia

You don't?

by NewOaklandDem 2008-09-11 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin threatens war with Russia over Georgia

I think it's a bad idea diplomatically.

I think it's a smart position politically. No one in the Obama camp will argue against this and it will make Palin seem tough.

by kristoph 2008-09-11 02:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin threatens war with Russia over Georgia

Well, I'll grant you that sabre rattling may get them a few votes here and there, but war is pretty unpopular right now.  The prospect of war with Russia scares a great deal of people, I'd bet.  Wonder if there's any polling on it.

by NewOaklandDem 2008-09-11 02:44PM | 0 recs
It would almost mandate

a draft. I don't see that playing well.

by Neef 2008-09-11 02:57PM | 0 recs
But it's inevitable enough

that any responsible anti-war argument would have to bring it up.

by Neef 2008-09-11 03:10PM | 0 recs
I wish I could disagree n/t

by Neef 2008-09-11 03:38PM | 0 recs
Re: I wish I could disagree n/t

Seriously, don't toke and write, folks.  This is RUSSIA you're debating at a time when our military is stretched to it's limit.  We have NEVER had the capacity to "win" against Russia. (essentially the old Soviet Union without the Alaskas) Thus, we have never gone to war with the Russians, even on our best day.  

Essentially, that's one big fat unwinnable war you're proposing there.  Hey, I think I'll go beat up a grizzly, oh wait, with one arm tied behind my back.  You don't "win" against them, you CONTAIN them.  IF you can.  WHEN you can.  (hint..that wouldn't be now)

by GRO 2008-09-11 05:42PM | 0 recs
So true

win an election, pick a city.

by Neef 2008-09-11 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin threatens war with Russia over Georgia

I agree that this was a dumb thing to say, but Hillary Clinton also said that she would "obliterate" Iran if they struck Israel.  True, Georgia is not Israel, Russia is not Iran, and Sarah Palin is not Hillary Clinton.  But it really cheesed me off when Clinton said that as well.

Just sayin'.

by the mollusk 2008-09-11 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin threatens war with Russia over Georgia

The difference being, Iran nuking Israel (not "striking," your euphemism, but "nuking" like it was in the actual question) is not a realistic scenario, and it's something that can be deterred in any event just as nuclear deterrence has always worked.  I don't see any advantage in leaving ambiguity about what would happen if Iran somehow nuked Israel.

On the other hand, Russia mixing it up with Georgia again is an entirely realistic scenario, and it's clear that they are willing to call our bluff if we start playing cowboy.  Perhaps we would commit our military to defend Georgia's very existence, but we're certainly not going to use our valuable resources to referee this ongoing border dispute over two small territories.

If Republicans really believe that all we have to do is admit Georgia into NATO, and hooray now no one will mess with them, then why don't we just admit the whole world into NATO?  Nyah nyah Russia, now you can't attack anyone!  Now there's a flawless plan.

The deeper issue here is that if John McCain says "my friends, we need to defend the wonderful Christian democracy in Georgia," there's at least a decent amount of the country that would go along with it, even though people are pretty much war-weary.  But I don't believe the American people trust Sarah Palin's judgment to the extent that they're willing to let her get us ensnared in a war.  So really, while she's just parroting the party line, she totally isn't their best spokesperson on this sort of issue.

by Steve M 2008-09-11 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin threatens war with Russia over Georgia

Those are all excellent points.  But I think some ambiguity goes a long way in how you answer those questions, whether you are Sarah Palin or Hillary Clinton.  The right answer for Hillary was "well, look, that's just not realistic at this point.  Our resources have to be placed into preventing that scenario, not trying to imagine how we would respond."  Or something like that.  The right answer for Palin was something like "We have to be on guard against Russian agression, if it should become an issue again.  We can do that with our allies in Europe. etc etc."  I think the point (which I didn't state) still stands that it isn't wise for Presidential candidates to advocate for war.

by the mollusk 2008-09-11 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin threatens war with Russia over Georgia

I understand where you're coming from.  All I'm saying is that there is sometimes a fine line between legitimate deterrence (which I accept as a good way to AVOID war) and cowboy-style proclamations of toughness.  We obviously don't need to relitigate what Hillary said.

I think what Palin said was more of a gaffe than anything.  You could answer the same line of questioning by saying something like "Well, Charlie, that's why I support NATO membership for Georgia, because I don't think Russia would be foolish enough to invade a NATO member."  And when he says "well, what if they do?" you say "Come on, Charlie, you might as well ask about them invading Canada or Belgium.  No one has ever invaded a NATO country and they're not going to start now."

But instead, she gave a truthful answer by addressing the hypothetical head-on, which wins her points for honesty but won't exactly charm the war-weary electorate.

by Steve M 2008-09-11 02:58PM | 0 recs
Re: I personally don't think

Does that mean we can just admit the whole world into NATO, and Russia will never attack anyone?

The problem is that the game of chicken works in both directions.  Russia will not attack any country we have a defensive pact with, but we will not make a defensive pact with any country that we're not actually prepared to defend.

by Steve M 2008-09-11 07:00PM | 0 recs

According to several participants on both sides, planners considered nuclear war to be a highly probably outcome if the United States rejected Khrushchev's offer early on to remove Soviet from missiles from Cuba if the US removed its missiles on the Iranian-Soviet border, that is, closer to the USSR than Cuba is to the US.

A few points.

First, Graham Allison in Essence of Decision, 1971, wrote that planners believed that should war ensue that around 100 million Americans and 100 million Soviets would die.  While this estimate was being bandied about on the US side, Pres. Kennedy himself put the chances of such a conflict at 33-50% if the US rejected Khrushchev's offer.

Second, the missiles in Turkey the Soviets wanted removed had been slated for removal six months earlier because missiles on the new Polaris submarines made them obsolete.  Before the Soviet offer, the US had already made plans to remove the missiles from Turkey, though the offer had not yet been carried out.

The US rejected the offer to simultaneously remove the missiles from Cuba and the obsolete missiles in Iran.

That means a part of the decision-making apparatus you applaud entailed accepting a risk the planners themselves believed carried a one in three to one it two probability of a war killing 200 million people.  That was their estimate of odds and carnage.

They did so to reject removing missiles from Iran they had already planned to remove.  That Khrushchev later backed down and the US later agreed to quietly remove the missiles in Iran the next year does not change the fact that US planners willingly and knowingly took a risk earlier in the crisis that they believed very well could culminate in the worst catastrophe in human history.

I have a very hard time accepting that as a glorious moment of US diplomacy.  This sets aside the fact that Kennedy ran to the right of Nixon on foreign policy in 1960 - running on the fraudulent missile gap at a time US planners believed the Soviet's had fewer than 10 nuclear bombs they could deliver to the US soil, more probably closer to four while the US had many hundreds that could reach every major Soviet city and military facility several times over.  

Let's not even talk about Kennedy's Bush-Reagan like trickle down tax cuts or Bobby's advice to MLK to step back on the non-violent protests.  Don't get me started on the Alliance for Progress that set the stage for the Latin American death squads in the 1970s and 1980s.

JFK's very real accomplishment's should not obscure his very large problems.  Mythologizing is not history.

by Trond Jacobsen 2008-09-11 02:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin threatens war with Russia over Georgia

Palin's right. We should go to war if Russia invades Georgia. Or South Carolina. Perhaps even Mississippi.

by vermontprog 2008-09-11 02:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin threatens war with Russia over Georgia


by NewOaklandDem 2008-09-11 02:54PM | 0 recs
by RonK Seattle 2008-09-11 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Time for an Obama version of the Daisy ad?

To be fair, that was prior to the current conflict, and prior to the Serbian partitian that helped give Russia an excuse to invade and protect its ethnic minorities.

by NewOaklandDem 2008-09-11 03:06PM | 0 recs
To be fair ...

... that was prior to the current conflict -- which is usually where the context of current conflicts come from.

Your mention of Serbian partitian (sic) in this context seems malformed and/or misinformed.

by RonK Seattle 2008-09-11 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: To be fair ...

The Serbian Partition that I reffer to is Kosovo independence recognized by the West but not by Russia.  As a response to indepence, Russia stated that they may have to recognize the independence of Georgia's rebel provinces (which the Duma recently did), so I feel that the issue is applicable to the current/recent situation in Geogia.

by NewOaklandDem 2008-09-12 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Palin threatens war with Russia over Georgia
The title of your diary is very misleading.  In fact, I find it lacking in veracity.  There are many reasons not to support McCain/Palin.  This misleading isn't one of them.
Let me explain to you that if Georgia was a part of NATO, Russia would understand that attacking a NATO country would be an act that would engage a reciprocation of all NATO countries.  
Once again, many reasons to argue against McCain/Palin.  Misleadings aren't the solution; at least not for those politically engaged.
by ChitownDenny 2008-09-11 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Not that I disagree with you

Understand, but, too many "high info" Dems on this site.  

by ChitownDenny 2008-09-11 03:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Of which I am one

I've only read a few comments in this diary.  Gawd.  Let's raise our game.

by ChitownDenny 2008-09-11 03:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin threatens war with Russia over Georgia

NATO is based on mutual protection. Georgia ain't got shit militarily (not then, and especially not now).  They bring nothing to the table.

<insert joke here>
Why does the new Georgian navy have glass-bottomed boats?
So they can see the OLD Georgian navy.

It is provocative and destabilizing to set up tripwires all over.  This type of foreign policy is designed to provoke conflict.

Democracy at ANY price?  Not when we are going to get stuck with the bill.

by mydailydrunk 2008-09-11 06:28PM | 0 recs
Ok, I'll say it

are we really back to the cold war?

I'm old enough to remember bomb shelter signs. I had hoped my daughter would only read about them.

by Neef 2008-09-11 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin threatens war with Russia over Georgia

Yayyyyy we can be afraid again, yayyyyy.  Those scary arabs are to easy to spot so the fear wasn't all pervasive.  With the russians, boy howdy they look jusat like us and they could be ANYWHERE!

IKt's all about the fear.  A scared populace is one that is easy to control. They want us in full on terror, protect me daddy mode.

by tired of dynasties 2008-09-11 04:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin threatens war with Russia over Georgia
Heres a fun link to her ..... answer, to some national security questions.  This woman is frightening. jU
by tired of dynasties 2008-09-11 04:19PM | 0 recs
Bush Doctrine question more troubling

In some ways her response re: Russia and NATO was a clarifying one. It spelled out the logical consequences of pushing for Georgia and Ukraine in NATO. While smarter politicians know how to evade this question, she fell for it and made Americans terrified of the prospect.

Look at the Washington Post header about the interview. Look everywhere: it's all about "Palin says war with Russia OK." That doesn't sit well with people, no matter the arcane rules of NATO.

But more telling was her flubbing of the Bush Doctrine question. She. Doesn't. Know. What. The. Bush. Doctrine. Is.

When pressed on Pakistan she gave an embarrassing response that evaded the question...and not in a "I won't give away secret information" kind of way. It was more of a "I don't know what you're talking about, Charlie, so I'll just BS about fighting Islamic extremists."

I don't think an undecided voter could watch this interview and feel confident in her - even if that voter was a real hawk.

by elrod 2008-09-11 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin threatens war with Russia over Georgia

That's the ONLY good thing I've heard about Palin so far.

"Does anyone think that a war with Russia over Georgia or Ukraine is in our interests?"

Just as much as war with Germany over Poland was.

Sorry, I have no tolerance with Russia-appeasing crap. If Georgia had entered NATO, the Russians would have thought twice before invading.

by Aris Katsaris2 2008-09-12 12:16AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads