Talk Elections

Story:



This is fun too:


Later in the interview, Palin was asked why exactly being the governor of Alaska made her an expert on Russia -- a claim that the McCain campaign has used to justify her national security bonafides. Her response was to cite geographic proximity, claiming that from some points in her home state, one could actually see the increasingly confrontational nation.


There were times during her appearance on ABC that Palin seemingly did not have a full grasp of McCain's own foreign policy positions. For example, when pressed by Gibson whether, in efforts to combat terrorism, the United States should target al Qaeda figures in Pakistan without that country's permission, Palin tried to circumvent the question. The ABC host attempted to pin her down with a yes or no answer, to which Palin seemed to suggest that it would be an American imperative to make such an un-sanctioned attack.

"In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America, and our allies, we must do whatever it takes, and we must not blink, Charlie. In making the tough decisions of where we go, and even who we target. she said.

The response, though hardly definitive, seemed to put her at odds with McCain, who has harshly criticized Obama for saying he would target terrorist leaders that are replenishing their ranks in northwest Pakistan.

That's not a flub, most Americans wouldn't be able to figure out what was wrong with what she said.

Exactly.  Voters don't care about the issues.

All she really had to do was sit down, look pretty, and sound halfway intelligent.  Palin could've pulled out a beer bong while dancing an Irish jig, and the polls would've given McCain a 30+ point swing.   

Why don't ultra-partisan posters provide links to the "articles" you post so that we can evaluate whether you're taking things out of context and how.  I doubt ANY MSM article would have a headline "Palin flubs".

It was an unnoticeable weak performance.  Joe Biden could score a few times on her if she doesn't read up by the VP debate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/11/palins-abc-interview-stum_n_125818.html

She's "stumped"...she flubbed. Whatever.

Huffington Post.  Now, there's an unbiased source.

Ah, actually the "Bush Doctrine" is that states that create a haven for terrorist activities are to regarded as complicit in the terrorist act.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

Preemption is only one part of it.

hot!

I thought her weakest answer was when she was asked if she had enough experience on national security, and she started talking about energy. Kinda weird, and it emphasized she doesn't have any. All in all, she's eager to do her best, trying to give the best answers possible the way she was taught in the last few days. But that doesn't make her ready. She just isn't, and this interview showed it.

Barack Obama:
Energy Security is National Security (http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060301-energy_security_1/)

Any questions?

Uh, You CAN see Russia from Alaska. There are two islands in the Bering Straight - Big Diomede and Little Diomede. The big island is Russian and the small one American. They are 1.5 miles from each other. Interestingly, the International Date Line separates the two, so there is a time difference of 23 hours between the two.

()

Alaska is in the foreground, Russia in the Background.

Heroic effort, ghostmonkey, but it doesn't change the absurdity of her answer.

Uh, the DUmmies and the Kos-Kiddies were claiming that it was impossible to see Russia from Alaska.

They failed geography.

And Palin's answer makes sense. Russia is an aggressive menace, that is less than 3 miles from the United States. Putin is a quasi-dictator who wants to return Russia to its heyday as the Soviet Union.

As Alaskan Governor, Palin is quite aware of the threat that an aggressive Russia would pose. If the Russians ever do decide to invade, Alaska is the first target.

Pointing out how close the nations actually are is quite important. It lays out to the American people that Russia isn't way over there in Europe.

Russian troops could be on American soil in minutes if Putin so desired.

ground invasion of the Bering Strait.  how very practical.

Mrs. Strangelove will ride the missiles in.

()

that's France, not Alaska.  close though.  now that I think of it sending hundreds of thousands of troops a thousand miles through the Yukon to reach the contigenous48 is a real possibility.  bravo Gov. Palin for preventing it.  if Knowles had won, who knows where we'd all be.  probably in some Russian POW camp living off illegally produced sausages or something.

Why are people now thinking a Russian invasion of the US or Europe is more likely now than during the Cold War?

we need something to be paranoid about or the whole system breaks down, BRTD.

1) The U.S. would know more than "minutes" in advance - it's not like they're amassed on some ice floes in the Bering Strait awaiting orders to invade.

2) This still does not qualify Palin.  Would any governor of Alaska be qualified to be president as a result of the state's location?  Why is she any different from Frank Murkowski in terms of her experience in this regard?  What has Palin done to prepare the state to defend against the Russian invasion?

France is further from England than Russia is from Alaska.

Proximity has consequences.

Hitler thought that way as well.


She was laying out that proximity has consequences.

Nutmeg made a good point....  I highly doubt any Russian troops are just sort of chillin in East Siberia ready to pounce on West Alaska.  it'd take weeks of preparation by the Russians to get the personnel in place in order to pull this off.  I'm not sure what they'd do once they got to W. Alaska, either, but perhaps you can answer that for me.

Or why they would try something the Soviet Union never did.

McCain and Co better coach ole gal up some more.

why are we arguing with this moron?

Good point. After all I chastised people for arguing with Hawkeye.

Because Putin is insane.

I really don't think hes that stupid enough to ignite a war with the United States.

What if Putin decided that he wanted Alaska back? What if Alaska was the goal rather than the lower 48? Are you suggesting that it would be impossible to pull off? That no invasion over the Bering Straight could possibly be successful?

Fact is, Russia could take Alaska relatively quickly.

Obama would quickly surrender the territory in pursuit of "peace at all costs." It would be Chamberlain appeasement all over again.

McCain would not surrender any part of our nation in such a scenario.

Obama wouldn't go to war. He's a peace at all costs kinda guy.

As opposed to McCain and Palin who wish for retaliations against countries like Iran and Russia? WWIII is awsome...right?

Not to mention, crazy guys do crazy things.

How quickly we all forget.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpwdcmjBgNA

So you are suggesting that we hand over Alaska to Putin if he wants it?

Obama wouldn't defend this country, McCain and Palin would.

In fact, McCain already has.

HAHA people really think there is a chance Russia invades the US. Seriously get off that acid.

So said the people who believed 9-11 couldn't happen here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU1bmFoYPPo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzfF6E-tx7o

An invasion is a little different from a terrorist attack innit? We have the best military intelligence on this earth and we could easily find out such plans weeks before the invasion. You don't just move hundreds of thousands of men and their equipment clandestinely. Anyways what motive would Russia have to invade the most powerful nation on earth? If they didn't do it during the cold war, I doubt they would do it now. Putin is a power hungry bitch but he also loves money. Invading the US is totally against all russian interests. 

I was confused by Gibson's characterization of the Bush Doctrine. I hadn't realized that it had morphed from its initial sense of "you are either with us or against us." That was used to define enemy countries in terms of their support for terrorists.

These reagan ads are pretty cute. Irrelevant but cute.

1. A President Obama would gut the military, destroy our intelligence networks, and leave us virtually defenseless against a host of enemies.

2. Hitler also believed that he would have known about any attempt at an invasion, long before it was set in motion.

He was wrong.

Putin is not dangerous because he's insane: he's dangerous because he's extremely intelligent and calculating.

The Russians would not invade Alaska: their long-term geopolitical goal is to expand to their four coasts: the Pacific (done), the Baltic (done, partially: St. Petersburg is vulnerable to being cut off), the Black Sea (done, partially, no good port in the territory they control: they'd want Crimea), and the Indian Ocean. Alaska does not fit into this goal, which I suspect is part of the reason they were willing to sell it in the first place. And unlike Americans, they think in the very, very long term.

Also, the logistics of invading Alaska are pretty mind-boggling. Petropalovsk, the main Russian base on Kamchakta, has to be resupplied by sea because the cost of sending goods over long, sparsely populated distances is too high. Not to mention the fact that if they were so crazy as to invade Alaska, they'd face a militia in every town they tried to occupy, and would constantly have to deal with the USN and USAF interdicting their supply lines.

Think about it.

Putin doesn't want Alaska...if he did it would have already been invaded. Quit being paranoid.

I believe personally both Obama and McCain are interested in keeping our country safe...and believing one wont while the other will is really retarded. Though im not surprised coming from someone like you so its fine.

He is insane, intelligent and calculating. Which is why we wouldn't want a President Obama facing him down.


There would be no military response from an Obama presidency.

There would be (justifiably) from a McCain presidency.

1. right, becuase he's a terrorist Muslim homosexual Manchurian candidate

2. Hitler's military genius is vastly overrated. The Civilized World owes a great degree of it's survival to the fact that he got along so poorly with Model, Mannstein, and Rommel, and so well with Goering.

We have already had one president that gutted the military, crippled our intelligence network, and made 9-11 possible.

His name was Clinton.

Obama would be worse.

No, he is a raving liberal. Liberals loath the military. That's what they do.

"Barack Obama: I’m the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning; and as President, I will end it. Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of Future Combat Systems. I will institute an independent Defense Priorities Board to ensure that the Quadrennial Review is not used to justify unnecessary defense spending. Third, I will set a goal for a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal: I will not develop nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal."


He still believed that he would know about an invasion beforehand. His generals believed so as well.

Translation = Surrender and beg your enemies not to hurt you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o84PE871BE


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpwdcmjBgNA

The derangement of some of the posters here in their massive misunderstanding of Putin, Russian military capabilities, and the very laws of physics is truly absurd.

Any US President would retaliate against a country that attacked US soil or face impeachment. In fact, not even that. They would be removed by their own Cabinet within minutes. Anyone who thinks Obama would not respond is so far out in right field that they are not worth engaging.

That said Russia has no interest in Alaska. It would be impossible to hold due to supply issues already mentioned made much worse by US air superiority, and it is not even an efficient source of energy. There is no good place to sell Alaska's oil except the US, Canada, and Japan, none of which would buy from the Russians assuming the pipeline was intact which it wouldn't be.

For the Russians, if they really wanted oil, it would make vastly more sense to invade Kazakhstan which would geographically make sense and face little resistance.

Anyway how would the Russians invade. By sea? Their Navy is rusting in port and would be taken out in hours. By air? We would have absolute air superiority and they would run out of supplies quick if they managed to get anyone down. This is an absurd hypothetical. Why don't we talk about a Martian invasion? Thats  a problem that is far more likely to afflict the next President.

Um, Hitler was aware of the invasion before hand -- all those troops being shipped to Britain were rather hard to miss. The Germans' problem was:

:The Navy and Luftwaffe were shattered, so Germany could not disrupt the buildup of Allied Forces nor prevent them from crossing the channel.

:The Germans defended the wrong part of France -- in fact, they concentrated troops in Calais assuming that the Allies would attack across the narrowest part of the Channel.

Even then, D-Day was a damn close-run thing.

Oh, and Obama's called for sending troops into Pakistan unilaterally. Stop being a moron, moron.

If you put an irresponsible neophyte in the Whitehouse, one who has said they would set about destroying our military, America WOULD be defenseless.

Clinton policies caused 9-11.

Obama policies could cause WWIII.

You made my point. Hitler thought that he knew where the invasion would took place, and that if wrong, he could move his forces to intercept at the first sign of a channel crossing.

The Normandy invasion was a complete surprise.


Grandstanding does not equal will.

In the words of Sir Winston Churchill in 1940 shortly before Operation Sea Lion "it took us four years of intense effort and experiment and immense material aid from the United States to provide such equipment on a scale equal to the Normandy landing".

This bad fear mongering argument that is constantly perpetuated and promulgated amongst the ignorant those of the Right-Wing such as you is really getting ing annoying.  Your constant driveling at how some of us in America are not willing to defend her is approaching such insanity and desperation.

In the words of Triumph the insult comic dog "your views swing more to the right than Ann Coulter's strap-on."

Somehow I don't think that Putin is worse than Stalin.

Quite frankly the most insane people in international relations are the Scheumans and Kagans who surround McCain. They know nothing of Putin, Russia, China, or of any other country's politics. They frankly don't care. Their sole knowledge base is military and it is based in the case of the Kagans on studying the Peloponnese wars and in Scheumann's case on the War of the Roses. In life, none of them have seen combat. All they know comes from reading the schematics of weapon systems and military strategy. As such, all they understand is military, and therefore all they suggest to deal with any problem is military. I had a conversation with Fred Kagan who is McCain's major military advisory. He had no clue who was running against Ahmadinejad next year, had no knowledge of recent events in Tehren, yet was advising McCain on Iran on the basis of simply studying their army. I have never seen a more poorly qualified group of advisers. At least Bush had competent people like Powell, Rice, and Hadley on a good day, around him. Rumsfeld was simply incompetent, not stupid or insane which are the two words to describe the bunch of testosterone-prone teenagers running his foreign policy shop.

In Obama's case his advisers favor diplomacy and have some knowledge about those they deal with. I think David Ross, his Middle East man is hopelessly naive about Iran but at least he knows something about the country. And Susan Rice handled Africa stuff under Clinton which is probably the most demanding portfolio in terms of the people you have to deal with, and it is a strong recommendation for her as National Security Adviser.

I fear for the survival of America as I have never feared before in the event of a McCain Presidency.  I was actually pleased with Palin's performance on some of the questions in her interview since it seems she is at least not listening to the idiots who McCain sent to lecture on this stuff and it now looks like Bush is flying in some of his people to keep her safe from their odious influence. The survival of our country may hinge on an early departure from the scene for McCain.

Don't feed the troll.

Hitler had surveillance satellites? ???

Because people are worried about the Alaskan Fifth Column that would welcome the Russians in, provided they promised to drill in ANWR.

Actually one of the reasons the Russians were willing to sell was that they were concerned that if they went to war with Britain again (as they had just a decade earlier) that the British might just take it without paying for it given how British North America was filling out and becoming a center of British interest again.  Anglo-Russian relations have seldom been warm and even then only because they had a common enemy at the time.

This thread is downright hilarious, and a good example of why Palin is now seen as a joke.

ghostmonkey=Epic Freedom Fighter.

I don't know which was stupider:

1-The idea that a Russian invasion of Alaska is even more remotely plausible or:
2-The idea that in the event of one Obama would surrender Alaska and not fight back.

Why did no one ever point out how:
1. The Bering Sea is far too cold and frozen over most of the year to be even remotely comparable to the English Channel? (He compared the idea of invading Alaska to D-Day)
2. Unlike the English Channel, virtually no one lives around the Bering Sea, so the prospect of getting a huge Russian army to the coast would be daunting, and once they got into Alaska, they'd have to trek hundreds of miles across frozen wasteland and mountains before they even got to something worth taking?  (All the while, being bombed mercilessly by the USAF)
3. Russia would have virtually no allies in this absurd war, while most of the world would rally around us.

That sort of stuff was hinted at without going into detail, probably because the entire premise was so ridiculous and stupid it didn't deserve a serious refutation. Same with Russia invading Germany (which some blue avatar was seriously talking about earlier.)