The woman is dangerously insane.

okay this wman is a crazed FANATIC

I have to agree with Palin on this one. If Georgia is invaded, Alabama or Florida could be next.

Without a nuclear war, Palin can’t realize her dream for Alaska to be one of the refuge states. Apocalypse Now!

1,761 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…

Citizen Ian Welsh:

The fascists are outta the closet now, there is no real “conservative” middle in our politics anymore and the corporate media are servin’ as a petri dish to incubate the lethal bacteria of the “big lies” bein’ repeated over and over again because the talkin’ heads refuse to use what they call the “L-word”. Jesus H. ceeeRIST on a God damned crutch, the fascist political Svengalies have crowed since 2000 that they could get a turnip elected president with enough money…well looks like they’re right!

And where the fuck is Mrs. Clinton and why isn’t “Big Dog” spendin’ a few weeks in Florida?

KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITON, BUT HOLD YER FIRE UNTIL THEY STOP SHOOTIN’ EACH OTHER!!

time for the 527 commercials 3 am ,this soccermom is planning ARMEGEDDON

Duh can I pull the trigger yet?? I know how to shoot a Bar! Oh and those pesky Wolves I know I can chop off that right fore leg so’s I can get my bounty!! Bounty? Did someone say bounty? Do I get a bounty if I pull the trigger before those Ruskies DO??

Citizen Little Pig:

She’s insane but she represents the political idiology of the Republican Party now…remember fascism is a type of insanity!

Russia’s military doctrine calls for the use of tactical nukes if the US uses major airpower against Russia. Since US military doctrine against a major force is all about airpower that means a war with Russia will quickly escalate to use tac nukes. From there it isn’t far to the use of strategic nukes.

There is no such thing as a tactical nuke. All nukes are strategic. The idea of limited nuclear war was just a Cold War talking point. It doesn’t exist. It never existed.

It appears that Palin has all of the subtleness and tact of the proverbial bull in the china cabinet except for the lipstick of course

Wow, even softball interviewer Gibson wasn’t a safe enough choice for loose cannon Sarah’s first appearance script-less.

Hey, Ian. Here’s some more lies from Palin. I just put these two comments on Glenn Greenwald’s thread, but they fit here better, so apologies for being long-winded:

Thanks for the link to the ABC story, bamage. At that story, if you click on “excerpts” from the interview, you find this little gem. I don’t think Palin will get away with this twisting of her own words:

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.

When first confronted with her own words, she first denied that it was an exact quote. Charlie then disabused her of that, and then she lied through her teeth. Lincloln’s quote about praying that we are on God’s side is the absolute opposite of what she said at her church when she said “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” This one needs to go out on Youtube as soon as ABC releases the video. I think it is completely devastating. Nobody will believe her weaseling on this one.

I then found the transcript of Palin’s appearance at the church:

In my post above, I have Palin’s twisting of her own words to claim that she was paraphrasing Lincoln’s famous quote about praying we are on God’s side in a war. I found the transcript of her appearance at the church in June and here is the entire segment regarding the war. There is no mention of Lincoln. She is trying to claim the exact opposite of what she said, and Gibson did not take a portion of her words out of context:

I have a new little one but my oldest, my son Track, he’s a soldier in the United States Army now. He’s an infantryman, and, um, so Track also sends his love to his former nanny Christy. And Track — pray for our military. He’s going to be deployed in September to Iraq. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.

So bless them with your prayers; your prayers of protection over our soldiers.

Link:http://tinyurl.com/6qako8

Palin is speaking to her church as someone who knows God’s plan and knows that that plan is what our soldiers are doing in Iraq. That could not be farther from Lincoln’s sentiment.

Dangerous, delusional, devout…

Maybe Darth can beat her too it and save them the trouble.

Running out the door, unfortunately, so I won’t be able to sit comments on this one.

We need to stop treating Russia as if it’s a joke power, and the US needs to understand that just because it’s the most powerful nation in the world (for a while yet, but not forever) doesn’t mean it can have anything it wants. There seems to be this blanket assumption that the world really has no other actors or great powers.

Help me freep this pool…. it is on the right hand margin about half way down the web page with a box that says QUESTION:
Was Barack Obama alluding to Sarah Palin when he used the phrase “lipstick on a pig”?
Please this is Phoenix…… show them that this is a stupid question…. because if it is slanted to McCain it will be on the local news….

Bush is doing “Gods will” sounds like they got ‘em selves another true believer.

Say Hallelujah!

Pass the serpents there, brother!

Badwater and dosido -
got kicked off the damned internets – left you belated responses downstairs

What can I say when it has been said so much better before me:

General “Buck” Turgidson: Mr. President, I’m not saying we wouldn’t get our hair mussed, but I do say no more then ten to twenty million killed, tops. Depending on the breaks.

Watching Palin now. She says Russia’s incursion into Georgia was “unprovoked.”

OMG… Palin pronounces it “nuk-u-ler.”

Done.

Slim Palins: Yeeeeehawwwwwww!

1,671 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…

Citizen Ian Welsh and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:

I’m convinced that the fascist plan of an all out total political war of attrition is a “two-fer” for ‘em, that is , they really don’t care if McCrazy wins as long as he takes a chunk outta the people’s faith in free politics with ‘im…and if he DOES win they’ve got the total police state and total war and none of their cronies will need ta be pardoned by Democrats.

This is simply a tactic to keep pushin the prevailin’ narrative further and further into unreality so the next election won’t have even a lip-service liberal on the ballot.

KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITON, THEY WON’T GO AWAY UNLESS WE CARRY ‘EM OUT AND BURY ‘EM IN A TOXIC WASTE DUMP!

When Gibson asked her if she supported the Bush Doctrine, she didn’t know what he was talking about.

A lot of that going around. I’m going downstairs. hope to be back soon!

2 Palin pieces: She called Pastor Rick Warren for his guidance in dealing with all those mean attacks? How about stopping your own; maybe you get what you give.

And she does not look so good with Charlie: never hesitated to say yes when McC asked her; b/c wired to be in the mission to serve this country and committed. (I think Charlie asked her if that took huptza (sp.)

“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,” she said.

Aw shucks. She’s jest playin simple answers to simple question. Y’all need to get off her back. /s

The real question is where Palin came up with the Lincoln quote. It makes her appear more substantial and measured, instead of the nutcase she is.

It is really hard to respond to this post…… how can any thinking adult actually say something like this?

Maybe we need to put her in a theater line up all those terminator, mad max and end of the world due to nuclear war, the charlton heston ape movies, all those that are about the world after a nuclear winter…… lock her inside and keep showing the movies…..

Or have her see all the documentary films of Hiroshima & Nagasaki that were hidden from the American people…..

What candidate stated we would nuke Iran if necessary. Hint, it was in the primaries. Making fun of Palin makes it all the more dangerous because her gender based support of uneducated voters don’t get it anyway.

Gibson actually pushed Palin pretty hard on the subjects of preemptive war and whether we should be willing to launch strikes inside Pakistan. Never got a straight answer (surprise, surprise, surprise).

I won’t watch her interview because I can’t stand to listen to her or McFuddle, but I’m anxious to see how this line plays out with Mr. and Mrs. Average. Does middle America really not care whether their children are taken away to war? I know these people have no idea about all the other travesties, or they don’t care, but their children off to war should wake them up. But then again, we are living in the Twilight Zone, so who knows?

Citizen Hugh:

Remember, they had all the questions in advance…JEEZUS, with the fuckin questions in advance, she shouild look and sound like Abraham fuckin Lincoln!!

Can somebody photo shop her head on this…RIGHT NOW????????

http://theswca.com/images-art/…..gelove.jpg

wiki says that Georgia is not a member of NATO.

shhhhh – don’t tell Palin about wiki.

It might have been illuminating to ask Palin to locate Georgia on a map, either the country OR the state.

BTW here is a non-permalinked current photo of Ike. It looks like it’s about as big as the Gulf of Mexico stretching from the tip of Louisiana to the tip of the Yucatan.

THIS better?

http://eatourbrains.com/EoB/wp…..e-bomb.jpg

Citizen leftdcin 72:

Remember that “her gender based support of uneducated voters” are hers anyway…Obama was never gunna get these idiots, the best we could hope for is that they wouldn’t vote…I still think that’s possible.

She would have cathartic rapture

I suppose the link would help.

http://www.goes.noaa.gov/FULLDISK/GEIR.JPG

You mean “everything has to be on the table” isn’t straightforward enough? *g*

There is no such thing as a tactical nuke. All nukes are strategic. The idea of limited nuclear war was just a Cold War talking point. It doesn’t exist. It never existed.

the possibility exists with a non-nuclear state – see usa/japan ww2. not with russia though.

but i think the classification of tactical vs strategic nukes is to distinguish between the kind we dropped on japan and the big fusion bombs like Castle Bravo. personally, the differentiation i’d make is between WMD (fission) and genocidal (fusion) because the only use for a Castle Bravo sized bomb is to wipe out a major population center – it’s insanity that they haven’t all been dismantled.

so, yes i agree that any nuclear strike ought to be considered strategic. but even so, there are still big differences between the types of bombs.

i seriously can’t believe we are still having to have these discussions. can we please work on negotiating treaties to get rid of them?

Georgia is toast anyway. Now just a Russian buffer zone between Turkey and Ossetia

Pam aint nobodys fool

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..25777.html

The US wants Georgia to be made a member of NATO and Europe doesn’t

You must be kidding ;))

Why, Ian, I’m surprised that you didn’t mention that, to my knowledge anyway, we haven’t taken the first strike option off the table. Or have we?

Even I’m beginning to turn a tad optimistic about her. I’ve been warning on every appropriate thread that Palin’s a real threat to the Ds because they don’t understand her appeal and are hopeless in countering it. Thus the only posssible good outcome is if she blows herself up.

Now this going to war against Russia thing, if the ground had been properly prepared, would be a grand slam. Just listened to House of War by James Carroll which, among other topics, details the Cold War thru he frame of the nuclear bomb. It includes all the domestic scare mongering and provocation of the USSR that the US did to keep the thing going as long as possible, so the generals could buy all their big ticket military toys. They could rev the Cold War up again lickity spilt if they tried.

But Palin, out of the blue, with no ground preparation, comes out with war with Russia, I’d imagine there’d be some shock amonst the voters.

this reminds me of when clinton made some over the top claim about destroying iran (or something i think to that effect?). what is it with these people? driving a bmf suv isn’t good enough?

She didn’t though, vague responses only. As I mentioned upthread, when Gibson asked her if she supported the Bush Doctrine, she had NO idea what he was referring to. Seems like if they knew the questions in advance she’d have had that one down.

Could be that she really isn’t very smart and that no amount of tutoring will ever be sufficient send her out without a script. When you pour a gallon of knowledge into a thimble of a brain, something spills out. Think Harriet Miers.

ive heard her speak before,she has 10X the intellect of Gov Moosellini

Yeah, like anyone in NATO would support us anyway, after 8yrs of Shrub.

Citizen selise:

“…can we please work on treaties that will get rid of them?”

That’s what this balls out, scorched earth politics is all about now, to poison the well for the future…what do ya think it would take ta get Putin ta trust ANY American government to treaty on ANYthin’?…I’m thinkin’ it will be a hot time in a cold place before the Russians get close to reproachment again with the USA.

Even I’m beginning to turn a tad optimistic about her. I’ve been warning on every appropriate thread that Palin’s a real threat to the Ds because they don’t understand her appeal and are hopeless in countering it. Thus the only posssible good outcome is if she blows herself up
——————
are you old enuf to remember the daisy commercial?another Arizona senator

i’d go with the documentary films. and make all of our congress attend with her.

Again this is mostly theoretical. It is difficult if not impossible to imagine a scenario where nukes “tactical” or otherwise would be used against a non-nuclear power. As for use of fission weapons against a nuclear state like Russia, or by them against us, would escalate immediately. So again not a real world situation. If you are going to use one, then you need to use all and that means the decision to use any nuclear weapon in a US-Russia conflict would be a decision to authorize a first strike. This is the reason why neither we nor the Russians are going to go nuclear over Georgia or Ukraine. No matter what a nutcase like Palin suggests.

Yes, I remember it. Though I remember reading recently that it wasn’t shown very much at the time, but don’t hold be to that.

Ah, I see that now. I am reading, not watching, and the site I read started with the follow-up question. I won’t watch until later tonight, if I can stomach it.

yup. trashing the anti-ballistic missile treaty was, imo, a very, very provocative act.

Slightly OT:
Obama for months has been featuring the need for more troops in Afghanistan, and the Bush Regime has begun to sidle over in that direction.

I have been saying for weeks that Obama needs to take care here, and carefully define what our mission in Afghanistan is. We must remember that two of the 20th Century’s greatest empires (British and Soviet Russian) foundered while trying to pacify Afghanistan, so the question is far from trivial. Here’s what Glennzilla says, per Froomkin:

Independent of the Government lying and Fox News propaganda, the massacre of Azizabad civilians highlights the massive yet largely ignored questions about what we are doing in Afghanistan and whether — regardless of one’s views of the original invasion — we are achieving any good at all. As Floyd wrote yesterday:

The mass death visited upon the sleeping, defenseless citizens of Azizabad encapsulates many of the essential elements of this global campaign of “unipolar domination” and war profiteering: the callous application of high-tech weaponry against unarmed civilians; the witless attack that alienates local supporters and empowers an ever-more violent and radical insurgency; and perhaps the most quintessential element of all — the knowing lies and deliberate deceits that Washington employs to hide the obscene reality of its Terror War.

Over at Nieman Watchdog, The Washington Post’s Dan Froomkin interviewed experts in the region who cite numerous questions that ought to be asked about the wisdom of our continuing occupation of Afghanistan, including “Are we bombing our way to disaster in Afghanistan?” And as Froomkin himself put it yesterday in his Post chat:

Civilian deaths — which the civilians may well consider murder — tend to turn people against us.

I was kind of amazed that Bush raised the issue at all in yesterday’s speech, but he did. I was really amazed, however, at how cavalier he sounded: “Regrettably, there will be times when our pursuit of the enemy will result in accidental civilian deaths. This has been the case throughout the history of warfare. Our nation mourns the loss of every innocent life. Every grieving family has the sympathy of the American people.”

I mean, c’mon. It’s a bit hard to convince people that our nation mourns the loss of every innocent life when we don’t even acknowledge them.

So far, when Obama has spoken about the need for more troops in Afghanistan (I think he estimated a couple of brigades yesterday), I have never heard him mention what their mission would be.

Specifically, we need fewer bombs, and more money for legitimate schools and hospitals.

Bob in HI

Actually something I saw recently said Germany among others, says Georgia should be in NATO. Apparently the U.S. no longer has the market cornered on insane foreign policy.

She is awful…on the God’s plan. She cannot even clarify her statement; she talks in that fluffy, whispery, ERNEST voice that is manipulative and insincere. Help.

I believe it was officially shown only once but that was enough to get the buzz off of it.

They used to beong, at least in part, to the Clintons

If you are going to use one, then you need to use all and that means the decision to use any nuclear weapon in a US-Russia conflict would be a decision to authorize a first strike.

yes.

This is the reason why neither we nor the Russians are going to go nuclear over Georgia or Ukraine. No matter what a nutcase like Palin suggests.

i’m not so sure any more. not after reneging on the abm treaty. that’s what’s got me worried – that the nutcases are really more crazy than i have imagined. hope that’s not the case, but i’d feel better not having so many doubts.

Q )What’s the difference between Goldwater and Palin ?
A) Yup …lipstick

Eric Margolis said it most efficiently: The war in Afghanistan is a war against the Pashtuns (who everyone here knows are evenly split between Afghanistan & Pakistan, so a war against the Pastuns is also a war against Pakistan). In order to win that war, you’d have to kill every single one of them. It’s a insurgency to throw out the occupier. Sending a few thousands more troops and bombing civilians are going to make the war spread. (Perhaps that’s the objective.)
http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/…..rgolis-10/

I agree, as in Iraq there is no military solution. I’d like to hear what concrete steps are planned to enable Afghanistan’s government to defend itself. None of this vague “as the Afghans step up, we’ll step down” kind of crap like we’ve been hearing in regard to Iraq for the past five years.

Frankly, the headline nor the commentary within the post is not at all what she said. Gibson asked her if war would be an option if Russia invaded another former Bloc country that had joined NATO. I love hypothetical questions.

If Gibson asked Obama, “if Russia invaded Poland, would that justify an American intervention?” Has the same make up: Former bloc country. Hypothetical question. Probably won’t happen.

The answer would be exactly the same.

By the way, all this focus on Palin makes it look like she is running against Obama. That strategy never wins elections. And it’s exactly what the GOP is trying to do. From all the comments here, it’s a very effective strategy.

If I can play devil’s advocate for a moment, Goldwater was much more intelligent and more of an actual maverick than McCain or Palin.

Wouldn’t have gotten my vote, though.

amen bob.

obama is playing a very dangerous game with this. he is playing into the apparent crazy desire most politicians (and especially bush/cheney) to seem more bloodthirsty than everyone else.

obama advocates for any kind of escalation anywhere on the planet, – he’s just goading bush into doing it now.

stupid.

She reminds me of Eve Harrington in All About Eve.

Addison DeWitt: What do you take me for?
Eve Harrington: I don’t know that I’d take you for anything.
Addison DeWitt: Is it possible, even conceivable, that you’ve confused me with that gang of backward children you play tricks on, that you have the same contempt for me as you have for them?
Eve Harrington: I’m sure you mean something by that, Addison, but I don’t know what?
Addison DeWitt: Look closely, Eve. It’s time you did. I am Addison DeWitt. I am nobody’s fool, least of all yours.
Eve Harrington: I never intended you to be.
Addison DeWitt: Yes you did, and you still do.
Eve Harrington: I still don’t know what you’re getting at, but right now I want to take my nap. It’s important -
Addison DeWitt: It’s important right now that we talk, killer to killer

Our death-wish is taking over.

Frankly, the headline nor the commentary within the post is not at all what she said. Gibson asked her if war would be an option if Russia invaded another former Bloc country that had joined NATO.

i have not seen the interview, and your point is taken. i should do so before commenting on it.

By the way, all this focus on Palin makes it look like she is running against Obama. That strategy never wins elections. And it’s exactly what the GOP is trying to do. From all the comments here, it’s a very effective strategy.

WE are not running the campaign, we can direct our focus in any direction we choose. If Obama was spending every day focusing on Palin, you comment would be applicable.

While undeserved, McCain’s past service appears to render him immune to most criticism. The choice of Palin represents extremely poor judgment and a potential point of vulnerability for his campaign, hence the interest.

obama advocates for any kind of escalation anywhere on the planet, – he’s just goading bush into doing it now.

This is the problem with running on the platform of not quite as bad as Bush.

Although Obama has to tread lightly, Afghanistan has been the forgotten child. The Russians and the Taliban have destroyed the country and it deserves to rebuilt. Can Obama identify the enemy, I don’t know but I do know that McCain can’t.

I think Bush is planning to coast for the remainder of his term. I doubt if he will instigate any new military action unless it involves Iran, which would be a disaster. Keeping my fingers crossed that doesn’t happen.

No, aptly, that’s not at all how it is. Palin is running, or is being run, for President sooner or later, and so targeting the chick and the folks who surf on her sinister charms is just the way to go. Drown every one of them in Greek fire, say I.

And Charlie Gibson has credibility as…as…well as what, exactly? As an even-tempered, honest, thoughtful student of the scene?

Afghanistan has been the forgotten child. The Russians and the Taliban have destroyed the country

the Russians, the Taliban, the warlords (northern alliance) and us.

and it deserves to rebuilt.

yes, but not with clusterbombs and DU. we could, you know, just give them the $ and let them do the rebuilding in whatever way they choose?

Can Obama identify the enemy

what enemy? or do you think OBL et al are still in afghanistan?

I doubt if he will instigate any new military action

He just OK’ed American raids inside Pakistan without prior approval of the Pakistanis. So he already has.

707

There’s a problem with this line of argument, and that is that Barack Obama also says (wrongly in my view) that Georgia should join NATO. My only hope is that he thinks that he must say this for political reasons, and is hoping for France and Germany to veto a Georgian NATO membership.

The way NATO is structured, an attack on one is an attack on all. Neither Georgia nor Ukraine should be added to NATO under current circumstances. In Ukraine, the majority of the population opposes it, and the issue could cause a civil war between the pro-Western western Ukraine and the pro-Russian (not just pro-Russian, ethnic Russian) eastern Ukraine.

Given Obama’s position, the most his campaign can do is to explain the value of strategic ambiguity: try to discourage aggression by implication and suggestion, but don’t get pinned down on what the consequences will be.

I think what I just heard is that he did that a couple months ago, anyway it was pretty obvious from recent strikes inside Pakistan. Field commanders didn’t decide to do that without orders from above.

There are two options. Palin is dangerously ignorant of geopolitics and military realities or she knows better and is playing the jingo card—lying about what she would actually do in a crisis.

I vote for dangerously ignert for Palin. More jingoistic than ignert for McCain, but still far too ignernt to be in the WH.

that’s bothered me for a long time,. that “attack on one is an attack on all” bullshit. at least as nato is now and as it gets even bigger./ we’re supposed ton get drawn into a war on the side of Putzistan ’cause they have some megalomaniacal dictator who doesn’t give a shit what he does ’cause the good old USA will back him up, no matter what dumb ass war he starts? Not good.

Jeez. There’s gonna be so many countries in NATO, what happens when one declares war on another? whose side we on then?

This seems incredibly unlikely as it was Germany who previously most ardently apposed Georgian entry into NATO in the first place on grounds that they had an open border dispute with South Ossetia and Russia.

In response to JPL9 @ 78 (show text)

Afghanistan has been the forgotten child. The Russians and the Taliban have destroyed the country

the Russians, the Taliban, the warlords (northern alliance) and us.

and it deserves to rebuilt.

yes, but not with clusterbombs and DU. we could, you know, just give them the $ and let them do the rebuilding in whatever way they choose?

Can Obama identify the enemy

what enemy? or do you think OBL et al are still in afghanistan?

This is why I emphasize defining the mission. Bush has been absolutely lousy at defining the mission. It keeps changing every few months, after the previous “mission” has proven bankrupt. GWB has no clue about defining missions effectively. I don’t think he ever has– except maybe “win this election.”

First of all, “defining the mission” is not the same as “identifying the enemy.” In fact, identifying the enemy is exactly the wrong way to define the mission. If Obama does that, he risks taking sides in a civil war (Northern Alliance vs. Pashtun) that he cannot win. Someone should remind him that back when Russia controlled Kabul, the Taliban were considered “freedom fighters.”

Obama would do much better to define the mission in terms of strengthening the central government, and building schools and hospitals with local involvement. Afghanistan became a problem because it was essentially a failed state. Osama Bin Laden set up training camps, after creating an alliance with the Taliban, and the central Government was powerless to do anything about it. Remember that shortly after 9/11, and before our invasion, Bush demanded that Afghanistan turn over OBL and Mullah Omar (hey, remember him?), and the government convened a regional loya jirga, which of course was controlled by the Taliban, who then told the central government “Go Cheney yourself” or words to that effect.

So Obama better not think about Afghanistan solely or even primarily in military terms, or it will break him. That’s why it is so important for him to define the mission in terms of some objective that is achievable and affordable. And I’m not sure that can be done.

Bob in HI

Here’s another interesting point. For all the talk of ignorance and lack of geopolitical knowledge, she actually answered the question correctly. As quoted directly from the NATO treaty:

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm

Now, Georgia is not a member of NATO. However, they are considered a “Partner Country” as are other former Soviet bloc countries. And they are working to become members. The question Gibson posed is legitimate, considering Georgia’s association with NATO.

Obviously, I had to look this up – I didn’t know this was the policy of the United States – but it is. Most people probably don’t. Palin probably read this for the first time last week – so I am not giving her any room on her depth of knowledge on foreign affairs. But the spin placed on this story is not the answer to progress in our elections or our party.

Totally agree with this comment.

Palin also stated that if Israel decides to start a war with Iran, the U.S. should cooperate. So the right to declare war would rest with Israel, instead of Congress under a Palin administration? That is putting support of Israel ABOVE support of our country and our Constitution.

This woman was AWOL when it came to studying the Constitution, because that is blatantly unconstitutional. She must never be allowed to take the oath of office.

Palin first lies about her statement before her church (”Is that a direct quote?” implying it isn’t)…then she lies about what Lincoln said!

This woman (and her McCain-esque handlers) are dispicable.

Here is what Lincoln ACTUALLY said! It’s utterly the opposite from what Palin said.

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding.

Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes.

Palin: “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that IS FROM GOD.”

Lincoln saw that human miscalculations and the failure to undertake efforts on both sides to ameliorate the conditions that led to war…created a maelstrom of consequences that neither side expected. And yet here is Palin, actually working to create circumstances that will lead us inexorably toward a nuclear confrontation.

Problem is aptly…Poland and Georgia are utterly different. Poland doesn’t have large populations of Russian citizens within its borders. Poland has been an ethnically and historically distinct STATE for centuries. It was never part of the USSR nor Russia. Ossetia and Abkhazia…and Georgia itself have an entirely different historical attachment with Russia.

Poland hasn’t said it was going to “retake” an area that is “historically Polish” that is currently occupied by Russians. And Georgia is not part of NATO…and I suspect that any effort to extend NATO to include Georgia might lead to serious repercussions from the other members of the alliance. They don’t want to be dragged into war with Russia to satisfy Sarah Palin’s “manifest destiny” dreams.

I have been a progressive since I can remember, but this commentary is amazing. She made a statement that is exactly the position an Obama administration would take, and yet “she must never be allowed to take the oath of office”. You should take the time to read OBAMA’s position on Israel: http://www.barackobama.com/iss…..#onisrael. Because of their shared positions, does that mean HE should not be allowed to take the oath?

Furthermore:

In fact, The Washington correspondent of the Israeli daily Haaretz reported on June 15 that the new Winep task force initiative was supported by Tony Lake and Susan Rice of the Obama campaign, and Vin Weber and James Woolsey of the McCain camp. He summed it up as follows:

“If you want it in a journalistic headline format, here is one way to do it: Obama, McCain advisors agree: US-Israel should discuss preventive military action against Iran.”

Actually, we would all benefit by either McCain or Obama adopting the current US policy on Isreal over the summer – which is to deny them arms to use in an attack against Iran:

From Haaretz:

The security aid package the United States has refused to give Israel for the past few months out of concern that Israel would use it to attack nuclear facilities in Iran included a large number of “bunker-buster” bombs, permission to use an air corridor to Iran, an advanced technological system and refueling planes.

Officials from both countries have been discussing the Israeli requests over the past few months. Their rejection would make it very difficult for Israel to attack Iran, if such a decision is made.

About a month ago, Haaretz reported that the Bush administration had turned down an Israeli request for certain security items that could upgrade Israel’s capability to attack Iran. The U.S. administration reportedly saw the request as a sign preparations were moving ahead for an Israeli attack on Iran.

What she says at church has little to do with actual foreign policy decisions – it’s just as ridiculous as Obama being paralleled to his pastors fringe views.

She said:

1) she favors letting the Ukraine and Georgia into NATO
2) she would go to war with Russia if they were in NATO and were invaded.

This does not misrepresent what she said.

From there the rest of the sequence of events is pretty clear.

Now, if you think Poland is the same as Georgia, that’s a whole other matter, which shows a great deal of ignorance of both history and geography.

Since I explicitly make the point that the Ukraine and Georgia should not be allowed into NATO, what I’m saying is even clearer.

It takes a fair bit of work to misrepresent it.

The only correct response for a Palin apologist is to say “Biden and Obama want to let Georgia and the Ukraine is as well”, which is more or less true (they want an action plan, arguably they wouldn’t be let in under an action plan because they have territorial disputes outstanding.)

The only people who preface their comments with their progressive/liberal credentials generally aren’t.

“I answered [McCain]’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.” — Palin

Without a nuclear war, Palin can’t realize her dream for Alaska to be one of the refuge states. Apocalypse Now!

This is why I would want to ask her specifically what “war” she wants “victory in” and what “the mission that we’re on” might be. There’s no time for vagueness with someone like that.

Maybe we need to put her in a theater line up all those terminator, mad max and end of the world due to nuclear war

I can imagine her on a stage in a lineup with The Terminator and various other ugly mugs. See her over on the right waving and smiling. She doesn’t look dangerous at all. But but she’s got this little square box with a big red button on top. Don’t mess with sister Sarah. She’s one seriously whacked out ideological trip and she isn’t afraid of the Apocalypse.

I wonder if Palin’s readiness to go to war with Russia is related to her belief that we are ling in “the End Times”. Tired if waiting for the rapture? Just give Jesus a jump start by triggering Armageddon!