- Jul 31, 2004
- 717
- 0
- 0
Here's an article about Sarah Palin's lack of knowledge on National Security and Foreign Policy. Basically, the author analyzed her interview with Gibson and found some pretty alarming stuff for a soon-to-be-VP-and-a-heartbeat-away-from-being-POTUS.
It spawns this question: Is knowledge on National Security and Foreign Policy THAT important for a Presidential/Vice-Presidential candidate? Is it a must or just "a plus"? Are American people really interested in national security/foreign policy (when 90% of them don't even know where Europe is on a map) to care about whether their President is knowledgeable or not!?
Text
It spawns this question: Is knowledge on National Security and Foreign Policy THAT important for a Presidential/Vice-Presidential candidate? Is it a must or just "a plus"? Are American people really interested in national security/foreign policy (when 90% of them don't even know where Europe is on a map) to care about whether their President is knowledgeable or not!?
Text
Gov. Palin was obviously briefed by Sen. John McCain's advisers, and briefed fairly well. She recited what were plainly the main points of these tutorials with an assertive confidence familiar to those who engaged in high-school debate competitions.
But it was painfully obvious?from the rote nature of her responses, the repetitions of hammered-home phrases, and the non sequiturs that leapt up when she found herself led around an unfamiliar bend?that there is not a millimeter of depth undergirding those recitations, that she had never given a moment's thought to these matters before two weeks ago.
When Palin brought up her proximity to Russia ("They're our next-door neighbor," she proclaimed), Gibson asked what insights she derived from this fact. She replied:
Well, I'm giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relations with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relations with our allies, pressuring also, helping us to remind Russia that it is their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.
What does this mean? I have no idea, and I doubt that she does, either. It doesn't help her argument of wisdom-through-osmosis that she has never been to Russia?or, shockingly really, any country outside North America, until last year, when she visited the troops in Kuwait and Germany. (Her P.S. after admitting she's never met a foreign head of state?that probably a lot of other vice presidents hadn't, either, before taking office?turns out to be untrue. ABC reported Friday morning that every VP since Spiro Agnew had taken such a meeting before getting tapped to be a running mate.)
Gibson asked her if Georgia should be admitted to NATO? She replied, "Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia." He then asked if this would require us to go to war in response to Russia's invasion. "Perhaps so," she replied, correctly noting that this is what NATO membership entails.
Left unasked was whether, say, if Georgia were admitted right now, NATO would be obliged to go kick the Russians out of those areas that they currently occupy. In fact, it would. Is Palin saying she would go to war, under current conditions, if only there were a legal framework to allow it? It seems so.
Fortunately, the whole issue is a nonstarter because, under NATO's charter, a nation must have firm and recognized borders in order for membership to be so much as considered. Georgia does not have such borders. (The status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia has long been in dispute.)
Palin also, in passing, described Russia's invasion of Georgia as "unprovoked." Gibson interrupted her: "You believe unprovoked?" She affirmed, "I do believe unprovoked." This was an eyebrow-raiser. Almost everyone, even Russia's harshest critics, acknowledges that Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili did, in fact, provoke Putin?even if Putin might have been hoping for a provocation?by attacking South Ossetia first.
Then there was the moment that has caused many jaws to gape?when Gibson asked what she thought of "the Bush Doctrine" and she clearly didn't know what he was talking about. I must confess, this didn't bother me much. Her initial response?"In what respect, Charlie?"?was a fair point. So many Bush doctrines have been promulgated, proved wrong, and abandoned without comment.
What did bother me was that, after Gibson outlined the doctrine's meaning (the right to attack a nation in anticipation of a threat), she didn't answer the question. She said, "If there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend the country." This is true to the point of banality; no one would dispute it. The question is whether it's proper to take armed action not if a strike seems imminent but if preparations seem to be in the works for a possible strike sometime in the future.