11 September 2008

In her first national television interview with...anybody, Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin may not have been quite as ready for prime time as we thought she would be.

For about a week, GOP supporters were convinced Palin is tough and ready to withstand the type of withering questioning every other presidential candidate has gone through in this campaign.

Based on her first interview, however, Palin is clearly not ready for prime time yet. Sitting down with ABC's Charles Gibson, Palin left open the possibility of war with Russia and didn't seem to know what the Bush Doctrine meant.

Palin cited the agreement for members of NATO when asked about a possible invasion of Russia and said, "Perhaps so," when asked specifically if the U.S. would have to invade. If Georgia joins NATO and Russia attacks it, as a member of NATO the U.S. would possibly have to go to War.

Palin told Gibson, "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." 

Apparently Palin knows no shades of gray and prefers the cold reading of obligations instead.

Palin went on to say a confrontation doesn't necessarily have to lead to war, however.

Unbelievably, Palin used Alaska's proximity to Russia as a means to tamp down questions about her understanding of US-Russia relations. Asked what insight into Russia one gets by being close to it, she didn't really answer the question based on excerpts released and posted at MSNBC.com:

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.

No, she wasn't kidding. Because she can see Russian land from an island in Alaska, it means she has special insight into the precarious relationship between the U.S. and Russia. This would be over-the-top ridiculous even for a Saturday Night Live skit.

Palin's 'deer in the headlights' moment came when asked by Gibson about her views on the Bush Doctrine. At first, Gibson didn't define what it was and simply asked her if she agreed with it.

See Video below:
Dim lights

The Bush Doctrine, for the record, relies on the ability to preemptively strike "rogue states" thought to be harboring terrorists and/or weapons of mass destruction. The doctrine essentially made it that much easier to justify war with Iraq.

Excerpts from the Palin interview:

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. 

Oops! She clearly didn't know what it was and assumed Gibson was talking about George Bush's personal view of the world.

After Palin went on to ramble a bit about Bush's attempt to "rid this world of Islamic extremism", Gibson expounded. More from the interview:

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.

Palin is also suggesting that America should not second guess Israel in any decision it makes, even if they bomb an Iranian nuclear facility. From the MSNBC excerpts:

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.

Any intelligent administration -- particularly after the way the Bush administration went into Iraq -- should second-, third-, and fourth-guess any decisions or information which could throw the U.S. into a war with another country; even if it means second-guessing actions taken by Israel.

It is unacceptable in the 21st Century to behave like a horse with blinders on. From Palin's view on not second-guessing Israel and her cold (not pun intended) reading of the NATO agreement with respect to Russia should be very concerning for the voting public.

Source Material:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iHy8LQGVtMEkpHeLCIh0iWjBJr4A
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/682913.html
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/11/1380668.aspx