Just Shoot Me Now, Okay?
It was reassuring — in a Nightmare on Elm Street sort of way — that Sarah Palin, in what can be considered her first foreign-policy address, repeated the discredited Bush administration mantra that the war in Iraq is being fought in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Even the president himself has rejected his oft-repeated contention that the Al Qaeda hijackers came from Iraq, but this did not prevent John McCain’s running mate from trotting out the canard in a speech yesterday to an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that includes her son.
Although neocon pundits like William Kristol rushed to defend their new darling, Palin could not have been more unambiguous in declaring that the departing brigade will “defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.”
Palin further burnished her foreign-policy credentials in her much anticipated interview with ABC News‘s Charles Gibson.
Pressed about what insights into recent Russian actions she gleaned by living in Alaska, Palin answered:
“They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.”
Which prompted Krista, a commenter at Balloon Juice, to respond:
“And when I look out my window I can see the moon. Doesn’t make me a f—king astronaut now, does it?”
opinions powered by SendLove.to
27 Responses to “Just Shoot Me Now, Okay?”
Shaun – you are part and parcel of the twisting of Palin's words (notice I did not use the Left's favorite term for this, LIE).
She, clearly, was referring to our troops battling Al Qaeda in Iraq at this point in time, and Al Qaeda is in Iraq right now, trying to topple the existing Iraqi government.
Is it your position that that truth cannot be acknowledged? That no one can say we are fighting elements of Al Qaeda in Iraq without the shrill, unthinking reply 'they are saying iraq was behind 9-11?'
And even you have to admit Al Qaeda was behind the 9-11 attacks on us, unless you are now part of the completely deranged 'truthers'.
As always, if you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn’t embarrass yourself so much.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmFmMm…
Let’s see if you can backpeddle as fast as the Washington Post.
As always, if you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn’t embarrass yourself so much.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmFmMm…
Let’s see if you can backpeddle as fast as the Washington Post.
Shaun – you are part and parcel of the twisting of Palin's words (notice I did not use the Left's favorite term for this, LIE).
She, clearly, was referring to our troops battling Al Qaeda in Iraq at this point in time, and Al Qaeda is in Iraq right now, trying to topple the existing Iraqi government.
Is it your position that that truth cannot be acknowledged? That no one can say we are fighting elements of Al Qaeda in Iraq without the shrill, unthinking reply 'they are saying Iraq was behind 9-11?'
And even you have to admit Al Qaeda was behind the 9-11 attacks on us, unless you are now part of the completely deranged 'truthers'.
As always,
Your personal troll
Ok, even we accept the idea that Al Queda operates in Iraq today…they didn't before we broke the country. Endless occupation isn't going to fix that.
Advocating armed conflict in neighboring states won't fix that. Posturing for at best a Cold War if not a hot one with Russia won't fix that. Continuing to add cars to a foreign policy train that is already derailing isn't the right approach.
No matter how much one might love Palin or want to bed her ala Donnie Deutsch, it does not create any level of foreign policy understanding or acumen. One need only look to her lack of command during the planned to be friendly Charlie Gibson interview. Bush Doctrine? Hello.
No voter fantasy sexual or otherwise is going to turn Palin into the kind of person that should be President Pro Tem of the Senate or first understudy to the President. It's not an experience question. It's a fundamental knowledge question.
Moddoctor,
Just to illustrate the fairness issue, let’s jump into the WayBack machine and see how Charlie Gibson handled his first interview with Barack Obama.
http://patterico.com/2008/09/11/comparing-charl…
Austin Roth suggests to Shaun: “And even you have to admit Al Qaeda was behind the 9-11 attacks on us, unless you are now part of the completely deranged 'truthers'.”
I am not Shaun, but the fact that Al Qaeda, AFGHANISTAN, was responsible for 9-11 does not make Palin's ignorant statements right , nor Bush's assenine invasion of Iraq right–whether or not there are al Qaeda in Iraq NOW.
Again, you can put lipstick on a pig, but at the end of the day it is still a pig.
You can put lipstick on the war in Iraq, but at the end of the day that war is still an unmitigated, unforgivable disaster.
mod – but Shaun's post wasn't about the issues you raised, all of which are valid discussion points about the effect of our actions in Iraq.
He was specifically stating that Palin said something she did not, and inferred that meant something that was not inferred. That is the point you didn't bother to address, BTW.
And your 'voter sexual fantasy' comment is the type of mean-spirited, sexist remark that the left used to claim was the sole province of the Right. It also undercuts any credibility of your other remarks, which as I said, are at least reasonably debatable.
No jwest, that comparison is BS. Primary period interviews with large fields of candidates are rightly not the same as interviewing the appears from absolutely nowhere nominee. Let's remember that years of media scrutiny have been compressed to days with regards to Sarah Palin. She can't handle fairly obvious questions and that bodes ill for her ability to delivery the quality of service this country deserves from its elected officials.
It's fine not to agree with Obama on the issues but he's the quality of mind that America deserves. McCain is his prime as well. Biden certainly. Palin? Not at all.
This isn't to say she's stupid. She could over some period of time greater than the next 60 days become adept at a wide variety of topics and issues. She is at minimum not ready for the national stage and at worst a total disaster at all levels.
AR,
I know you're smarter than this. Al Qaeda in Iraq is not the same Al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11.
DE – to quote Andy Dufresne (Shawshank Redemption), are you being deliberately obtuse?
I, too, never made the point that it was Al Qaeda Iraq behind the 9-11 attacks. The same is true for Palin.
But is sure seems to me as time goes on, and the Left gets more and more unhinged at the thought that they may actually lose this Presidential election, that LIES are becoming your stock in trade.
Which, given the LOVE of the Left to claim that the Republicans are the party of LIES, and the Democrats the party of TRUTH, I find the irony amusing.
AR,
Now you're willfully ignoring what Palin said. From the WaPo article:
Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would “defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.“
Chriss – in the sense that they are different splinters, and that there is a lot of self-determinacy, self-management and independence for each group, that is a correct statement, and I would never claim they are one and the same.
But to claim they have no connection to each other, and that Al Qaeda Iraq has no ties to the main Al Qaeda is not defensible, either. Taking on Al Qaeda Malaysia is equally taking on the 'organization' behind 9-11.
But politics is all about advantages and perceptions, and as long as there is a thread of truth you can use in a statement by your opponent against them to create the perception you desire, well, that is the game unfortunately.
How much foreign policy experience did a former one-term governor from Plains, Georgia, have when he ran for President, the TOP SLOT on the Dem ticket, in 1976? Zero, nada, zilch. Gov. Palin will do much better in a few weeks in her face-off with Sen. Biden, count on it. Admittedly, her first interview was weak.
AR,
They have some tenuous ties, I'm not saying that. But it's 99% dishonest to say “Taking on Al Qaeda Mesopotamia is equally taking on the 'organization' behind 9-11.” Especially when its genesis was after we invaded Iraq.
Moddoctor,
You’re probably right.
If Charlie gets another crack at an interview, perhaps he will get to the bottom of another pressing question he left out of his initial questioning.
Will Barack Obama, as President, love puppies and kittens equally?
The world needs to know.
I read the quote. I still see it as 'protect the innocent' to mean the Iraqi people and 'from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans' to mean Al Qaeda in general, not that Al Qaeda Iraq was behind 9-11.
I can see how see the quote one way, and other a different way. We have had this discussion before – our political belief's color how we perceive the same words.
So, in that sense, I am not 'willfully ignoring' what she said; I am 'willfully interpreting' based on my worldview, as you are yours.
I think this thread is now 'tedious, my little Sprockets', as we are unlikely to change anyone's mind on how to interpret the statement, and will stop posting I think.
Manchester,
You're not concerned that she didn't even have any views on foreign policy before 2 weeks ago? Not having been around before Carter or Reagan were elected, I can't speak definitely about their campaigns, however I doubt their foreign policy views were merely regurgitations of memorized talking points.
Hmmm… so we have yet another justification for our occupation in Iraq. First it was WMD. Then it was to spread democracy. Then it was terrorism. Then it was Al Qaeda. Then it was oil. Then it was Iran. And now it's to protect the Iraqi people from Al Qaeda in Iraq, an organization that wasn't there before 2003…
Anyways, this is the same sort of Dick Cheney toubletalk that we're all used to. I'm sure the Neocons are happy their new Veep is mastering the dark side quickly.
I cannot help myself!
“Dick Cheney…t we're all used to. …their new Veep is mastering the dark side quickly.”
Well, she does hunt, too, but hasn't yet (as far as we know) shot someone while hunting. Give her time.
Even Komrad Larison scoffs at Palin foreign policy views.
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/09/11/reck…
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/09/11/miss…
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/09/11/no-b…
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/09/11/ther…
Enough of the NRO and WeaklyStandard cheerleading already…
And what about Bush
As everybody here knows, I'm a major Obama supporter. But I think this is not much of a story. At worst, she's using outdated talking points that stoke ignorance among those think Saddam really was behind 9/11, without actually saying that. But the quote we have doesn't go much further. It's fairly boilerplate neocon BS and nothing to get atwitter about.
Boilerplate neocon BS should be repudiated at every opportunity. Their philosophy can't be allowed to dominate our foreign policy any longer.
chris, the distinction you are attempting to make between al Qaeda in Afghanistan vs. al Qaeda in Iraq, along with the way you are interpreting Palin's statement about 'the enemies who attacked us' in the narrowest possible way, are absurd.
On the organizational ties, it's not as though a completely separate group set up shop in Iraq without having ideological ties to the main al Qaeda organization. You wouldn't say that the Republican party of a particular state doesn't have ties to the national Republican party, would you? Al Qaeda may be a more loosely affiliated than that, but the ideology is still the same.
And again, the part about your interpretation of her statement is ridiculous; obviously she wasn't talking about the specific men who piloted the planes on 9/11, and she doesn't have to be referring to the specific men who masterminded the plans for that attack either, to refer more broadly to the terrorist group that did so.
And we have Shaun's hit piece of the day. And in other news the sun rose yet again this morning.
” Al Qaeda in Iraq is not the same Al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11.”
The nazi army that we fought in France was not the same nazi army that the Russians were attacking in the USSR.
Those statements have about the same degree of truth.