I found out a couple of hours ago how Sarah Palin did on her first televised interview on the national stage since becoming the GOP VP contender. I loved the news. Loved it. I waited for the rush transcript before posting about it. You can find my comments, for whatever they are worth, after the flip.
Gibson started the interview, basically, by asking Governor Palin about her qualifications to be the Vice President. I was impressed with his line of questioning. Instead of asking her about her very colorful and scandal plagued past he asked her only about the future. I almost expected it to be an interview that pandered to the Republican party, but it was on the level. Here's where I got interested:
GIBSON: ... "Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I -- will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?"
PALIN: I didn't hesitate, no.
GIBSON: Didn't that take some hubris?
PALIN: I -- I answered him 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.
So I didn't blink then even when asked to run as his running mate.
GIBSON: But this is not just reforming a government. This is also running a government on the huge international stage in a very dangerous world. When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?
PALIN: But it is about reform of government and it's about putting government back on the side of the people, and that has much to do with foreign policy and national security issues Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States.
GIBSON: I know. I'm just saying that national security is a whole lot more than energy.
Please don't give her any hints, Mr. Gibson. She needs to answer the questions on her own. Oh, she already did, and blew that one. Here's the next flub:
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 attempts to conjure Abraham Lincoln to defend her answer, which in itself was gobbledygook. I won't put that here <span style="text-decoration: underline;">(</span>full transcript here). I want to supply the real meat and potatoes of her lame preentiousness to be qualified to lead this nation. After the failed deflection with the Abraham Lincoln quote, the interview went here:
GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln's words, but you went on and said, "There is a plan and it is God's plan."
PALIN: I believe that there is a plan for this world and that plan for this world is for good. I believe that there is great hope and great potential for every country to be able to live and be protected with inalienable rights that I believe are God-given, Charlie, and I believe that those are the rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That, in my world view, is a grand -- the grand plan.
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. What I know is that my son has made a decision. I am so proud of his independent and strong decision he has made, what he decided to do and serving for the right reasons and serving something greater than himself and not choosing a real easy path where he could be more comfortable and certainly safer.
The woman is clueless. She should be one of the people who knows the details and intricacies of our wars inside and out. Having realized that she screwed the pooch on the idea of a new Christian Crusade in the Middle East, she resorted to vague references to the American dream for every nation. Other nations certainly don't know how to lead themselves, and they need to recognize the rights defined under the U.S. Constitution. That's what her words imply.
I included the finale of the line of questioning because Palin probably is a good mother in her own way, and you can tell from that last answer she is very proud of her son. She's not all bad. I think she's probably more than qualified to lead a state of 300,000 people, because that's the same size as many United States metropolitan areas. She's certainly capable of being a Mayor, or a governor of a sparsely populated state, even if she is a nutcase in many respects.
From there the next interesting part of the interview deals with Russia, Georgia and the Bush Doctrine. The wolves on the left (yeah, we aren't all pacifists) are going to rip her to shreds on this one, and it has already begun this evening. The questions and answers:
GIBSON: Let's start, because we are near Russia, let's start with Russia and Georgia.
The administration has said we've got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?
PALIN: First off, we're going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain's running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep...
GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.
PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals.That's why we have to keep an eye on Russia.
And, Charlie, you're in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They're very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.
I just have to say, I wonder how many times Alaska has dropped by Russia to ask for a cup of sugar. Sarah Palin seems to think that neighboring international countries are the same thing as Bubba and Red living next door to each other. Her mind is in the clouds, poor lass, but I jumped the gun on going for the neighbor comment.
The more important interchange here dealt with her blatant ignorance on the invasion of Georgia provoked by the invasion of South Ossetia. If it's okay for Kosovo to break away from Serbia, and the United States supports that, then how is it not okay for South Ossetia to breakaway from Georgia? The real answer lies in the fact that South Ossetia has always been full of Russians, and Republicans still cling to the idea that Russia needs to be watched. They cling to the idea that Russia must adopt to our way of life, rather than just have their own way of life.
The next exchange shows exactly how dangerous Sarah Palin's ignorance and lack of qualifications really is. Gibson asks her about admitting Georgia and Ukraine into NATO:
GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?
PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.
GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.
PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.
Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but...
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.
But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to -- especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.
We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.
GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.
PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries...
If this is what she really believes, then this is a very large problem. Her condescending treatment of the superpower that is Russia betrays a naivete of foreign affairs that will probably be a joke for years to come, unless insanity prevails and McCain gets elected. If that happens there are no guarantees for the future.
Imagine if John McCain died next February after being elected, and Palin became President. Russia can't help but see how drastically the United States has been weakened on the international level. How would Russia treat our nation if it were led by a woman with no credentials? An even bigger question would be, who would really be controlling our nation at that point? Would there be a splinter within our federal government of different entities seeking to control power through Sarah Palin, or would there be just one puppet master? Would she even allow herself to be led, or would she just cast us into an apocalyptic nuclear war, secure in the knowledge that it's God's will? [Crazy Bitch]
Gibson moved on to Iran. That should be fun to take a look at. It's always fun to observe the loon in it's unnatural habitat. The interview:
GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?
PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.
GIBSON: But, Governor, we've threatened greater sanctions against Iran for a long time. It hasn't done any good. It hasn't stemmed their nuclear program.
PALIN: We need to pursue those and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they're going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that.
GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?
PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don't think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.
Here's what I got out of that. Palin, "If Iran was all, like, you know, trying to get nuclear weapons, then that would be bad. We're Americans. I mean Americans, totally, and we don't have to take that. And plus, we're friends with Israel, and Israel could, like, kick their asses. We're totally friends with Israel. Besides, I know about energy. I mean, I KNOW, about energy."
Oh, no, Charlie, don't ask her about the... oh, snap, he asked her about the Bush doctrine. Daaaamn. Gibson was just turning the screws at this point. I could almost hear him thinking, "You're a complete idiot, aren't you? Aren't you? That's a good girl, yes, roll over and show me your underbelly." The painful finale of Palin's self humiliation:
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.
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. Do you agree with that?
That was the epic fail from the GOP VP contender. It was all just denouement from there. That was the most fun I had in a while. I only do this for fun. If I ever upset anyone, well, try not to take it all so seriously. I am cynical enough to believe she and McCain can still win, so shoot me.
Peace, DK.