Palin. Can't pronounce "nuclear," doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is, and would apparently go to war with Russia if it entered Georgia again and Georgia had joined NATO, as Georgia is expected to do. At first I thought of Palin as a joke, but now I'm getting scared. Here are some of the "highlights" from her recent interview with Charlie Gibson (the full interview can be found on numerous sites, Google it).
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.
On going to war with Russia:
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.
On the Bush Doctrine:
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie? (If you're watching the video, look at her face here. It cracks me up every time.)
GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view, you mean?
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.
On contradicting what McCain said about not entering Pakistan because it is a sovereign nation:
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.
On God and her previous stance on God/Iraq:
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: 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... (she goes on to talk more here, evading the question).
GIBSON: But you went on and said, “There is a plan and it is God’s plan.”
(She avoids the question some more, talking about inalienable rights)
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.
Now, if Obama or Biden had said any of this, what do you think would happen? How many dishonest attack ads would the McCain campaign come out with? How far down in the polls would Obama/Biden be?
But they didn't say it, Palin said it, and it has gotten very little coverage. Damn liberal media. There's a lot more I could talk about;
-Giving her husband a role in the executie decisions that she was supposed to make
-How she wants us to respect her daughter's CHOICE to keep her baby
-Her support of the Bridge to Nowhere, then her opposition to it once it became a national example of wasting money
-Alleging that climate change isn't man-made
-Attending church when David Brickner claimed that a Palestinian terrorist crushing Israelis with a bulldozer was "God's punishment" for Jews for not accepting Jesus as their savior (Wright, anyone?)
Anyways, I'm tired of writing. Have a good day.