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.

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.

In this case, McCain is right and Palin is clueless.

And what about Bush

But overall, she looked so rehearsed and scripted, and just kept repeating catch phrases without displaying any depth of understanding about the complexity of the national security issues being discussed. She came off very nervous, like a student who had crammed for an exam and was speaking in generalities becuase she doesn’t have an understanding of the specifics [bold mine-DL].

In other words, she did just about as well as McCain usually does.

P.S. Palin also thinks we “must not blink” when it comes to sending forces into Pakistan without Islamabad’s permission. In other words, she thinks Obama’s position on launching raids into Pakistan without their government’s permission is acceptable, while McCain thinks it is reckless and dangerous. In this case, McCain is right and Palin is clueless.

Enough of the NRO and WeaklyStandard cheerleading already…

“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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

AR,
I know you're smarter than this. Al Qaeda in Iraq is not the same Al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11.

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.

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.