I just watched the first part of Charlie Gibson’s interview with Sarah Palin. More will be on Nightline tonight. Just now, the interview was about her views on foreign policy. Tomorrow, he will ask her about her record as mayor of Wasilla and governor of Alaska.
She’s not as articulate when she’s interviewed as when she’s giving her speeches, or at least she wasn’t in what I just saw. I’ve seen her on You-Tube interviews in which her words flow a lot better. On this one, she said “Charlie” too much.
But I also felt like I was watching a very edited version, since she’d be cut off right when it looked like she was expanding on a point.
A lot of what she said were things I could have told Charlie: we need to keep an eye on Russia, we shouldn’t let Iran have nuclear weapons, we should oppose terrorism, we should promote democracy in the Middle East, we need to build relationships with other countries, etc. Then she said that her being a reformer and her experience on energy can help her in the foreign policy arena. This is mostly cliche. But there were times when I was thinking about the ramifications of things she said:
1. She said Georgia and the Ukraine should be in NATO, which would obligate it to fight for them if they were invaded. Will we be able to fight Russia? Of course, I guess this was always an issue, since that was one of NATO’s premises in the first place: If Russia invaded a country in Western Europe, then all of the members of NATO would fight on that country’s behalf. And there never was a full-blown war with Russia. But would that work with Georgia and the Ukraine, countries Russia may feel a little more entitled to?
2. She seemed to say that we shouldn’t “second-guess” Israel if it decided to defend herself against Iran. I’d like to see the transcript, because I don’t recall right now if Charlie asked her at some point, “What if Israel decides to use nuclear weapons?” Should we allow Israel to do whatever she wants? What if Israel starts a nuclear war in that region? At the same time, allowing Israel to defend herself could deter Iran from getting too belligerent.
Her answer somewhat reminds me of Ron Paul and George W. Bush. Ron Paul’s Middle East policy is to let the Middle Eastern countries sort out their own affairs, which is why Paul actually supported the Israeli bombing of Iraq’s nuclear reactor in the 1980’s. And George W. Bush said Israel had a right to defend herself when she was striking back at Hezbollah. That brings grisly images to my mind, since Israel’s invasion killed and wounded innocent civilians–men, women, and children. Perhaps Israel was invading Lebanon to defend herself, plus she did warn the Lebanese that she was coming. But I have problems treating Arab lives as cheaper than Israeli lives. Maybe Palin doesn’t, which is why she wants to see democracy in the Middle East: it would hopefully help the Arabs.
She didn’t seem to know what the Bush doctrine is, but I wasn’t so sure about its definition myself when Charlie asked the question. She took it to mean the war on Islamic extremism, but Charlie applied it to preemptive attacks. She simply said that she wouldn’t take that option off the table. But she does want to build relationships with other countries so that war will be a last option.
Her response on whether the Iraq war is God’s will is more or less what I said in my post, Sarah Palin on Iraq: She was quoting Abraham Lincoln, who prayed that we might be on God’s side, not that he might be on ours.
She’s not exactly a Dick Cheney or a Condi Rice, who can display an incredible amount of knowledge and a deep understanding of nuances. But she gave me things to think about.
Dangerous for our future. She makes me shudder. She is like a child with a loaded gun.
It would have been funny if you said “dangerous for our future she is,” like Yoda.
That might make you laugh – but you think her sarcasm is funny. She’s a lunatic as Jim says.
Pingback: Seize the Moment 2 | James' Ramblings