Palin's interviews thread.

[HashiriyaS14]

Senator Obama opposed the invasion of Iraq. He however is in favor of using force in Iran if they are believed to be building WMDs, which means going to war and having an Iraq II, which then contradicts his original position on Iraq.

Am I the only one not up in arms about the Iranian situation? I certainly don't want them to develop a nuclear arsenal, but if we weren't willing to go to war in the interest of nonproliferation in North Korea and Pakistan, then why would we be willing to do so in Iran?

I can't swallow the idea that Iran is developing nukes to give them to Hezbollah who will then use them on Israel. Iran does not want war with the United States and Israel, they've seen, up close and personal, where that avenue leads with their next door neighbor. They want deterrence against Israel, whom we have indirectly armed with nuclear weapons. In my opinion, we destabilized the region and created this arms race when we gave Israel nukes in the first place.

This is why the mutually-assured destruction present in the Cold War was, at times, a good thing. It kept the option of open conflict off the table at times when it probably wasn't appropriate. Since Iran poses no serious threat to us however, we are totally open to make the decision to go in there and wreck shop, and I think that the easier availability of that choice can make it seem improperly attractive at times.

I'm probably not articulating any of this quite right, but it seems to me that to go to war with Iran over the possibility of their developing nuclear arms seems incredibly misguided. I think that the proper route to take is to strip Israel of their own nuclear capabilities and begin to re-position ourselves as being less partial to Israel in their relations with the Arab world.

[audtatious]

The difference between Iran getting them and Israel having them is "night and day". Israel is not going out of their way to say they are going to radiate a country just because they don't like them. Iran wants to have them simply to nuke Israel. Plus you know those idiots will give them out to groups who will terror bomb most of their own countrymen too. Then you also have the potential of more threats against us as well.

[AZhitman]

some things kinda stood out to me.

2) We need to keep on eye on N. Korea (here we go again)

And, interestingly enough, NK has just reneged on its agreement to cease its nuclear program AFTER accepting financial good-faith compensation for terminating that program. Same thing they did to Clinton in the 90's.

NK needs a , soon, or they'll continue to behave the way thery do. The UN hasn't got a hair on its sack, and KJI is thumbing his nose at the rest of the world. Time to move some nukes into SK and call his damn bluff - Strength is the ONLY thing a coward like him will comprehend.

Or, you can send Obama over there to "negotiate" with him.

[S13_love]

Or, you can send Obama over there to "negotiate" with him.

Or we can just attack them and later on find (from our always trustworthy intelligence) that there were, in fact, no wmds'

Or we can say "F*** you UN" and instead worry on our problems here at the U.S. instead of the worlds' problems for a change

It seems like everytime there is a problem (or even a hint of one), the UN just turns to us like we are the f****** world police and we are the ones to deal with it

and yes, the UN needs to grow a set

[AZhitman]

NOW you're onto something.

I oppose our involvement in the UN wholeheartedly. We pay for most of its function, but only have a limited say in its execution.

It's a joke.

BTW, NK is NOT the same as Iraq. NK has definite nuke potential, a cowardly bully for a leader and seeks recognition on a global stage. NK represents a clear and present danger to stability in the region.

[audtatious]

Or we can just attack them and later on find (from our always trustworthy intelligence) that there were, in fact, no wmds'

WMD's were found, just not the quantities that the Gov (US, Russia, Britain, etc) thought they would find. We know he had them so the question still remains "what happened to them".

[S13_love]

WMD's were found, just not the quantities that the Gov (US, Russia, Britain, etc) thought they would find. We know he had them so the question still remains "what happened to them".

huh?...i never heard that happening....

proof?

[rn79870]

...a cowardly bully for a leader and seeks recognition on a global stage.

cowardly bully That's like saying honest Republican or intelligent neocon.

[audtatious]

huh?...i never heard that happening....

proof?

Here's one source (which does not include the tons of yellow cake)

http://www.foxnews.com/project...d.pdf

You can search google just as good as I can for other sources.

[AZhitman]

cowardly bully That's like saying honest Republican or intelligent neocon.

I'm guessing you avoided most schoolyard scraps and barroom altercations... I can respect that.

But the fact of the matter is, most bullies are cowardly when called on the carpet and confronted with accountability.

Cue video of Saddam crawling out of a rat hole, for starters.

Every "bully" I've ever encountered backs down when stood up to.

[S13_love]

Here's one source (which does not include the tons of yellow cake)

http://www.foxnews.com/project...d.pdf

You can search google just as good as I can for other sources.

Ah, I see, it wasn't weapons of mass destruction, just chemical munitions that they found

[audtatious]

Chemical weapons are WMD

[S13_love]

Wow , sorry there, i guess i had a brain fart or something...

[audtatious]

It's not mentioned much. We know roughly what he had and it seems a good percentage of it has not been found yet. No, I don't have a link and I'm too tired to research it tonight.

[HashiriyaS14]

It's not mentioned much. We know roughly what he had and it seems a good percentage of it has not been found yet. No, I don't have a link and I'm too tired to research it tonight.

YET? In FIVE YEARS?

He didn't have a damned thing, or at least not in any material amounts. The CIA told the White House that there wasn't anything there but Cheney and Wolfowitz (through the OSP) proceeded anyway.

Cheney was dead-set on regime change in Iraq since the mid-90's with the Project for a New American Century. He was going to find SOME reason to go there, and WMD's where the most credible reason, followed by the fictional link betwixt Saddam and Al Qaeda. It was all bull.

[audtatious]

I'll have to look up some of the old articles where the UN had lists of what, and how much, he had. Last I had seen a large portion of WMD has never turned up.

We should have kicked Saddam out way before 2003. Bush 1 should have finished the job back in '92 but the UN pretty much setup the limitations and no-fly zone areas instead. If we had taken care of business back then I doubt we would have had near the mess we have now.

[S13_love]

We should have kicked Saddam out way before 2003. Bush 1 should have finished the job back in '92 but the UN pretty much setup the limitations and no-fly zone areas instead. If we had taken care of business back then I doubt we would have had near the mess we have now.

I mixed opinions on this whole Iraq and Saddam thing, In all honestly, yes we should of done that back in 92, not in 2003.

Doing that in 2003 was a mistake, when saddam had power he kept things in control over there. There were no daily roadside bombings and all that, but the second he loses that, the country practically starts destroying itself, and look at the mess we are in today. Yes, it was good for the innocent people of Iraq, but with no government to keep things in order, the terrorists took advantage of that. Better actions should have taken place right after the removal of saddam.

[AZhitman]

Simple solution, and one that's looking more and more appropriate:

GTFO of the UN. Period.

We don't need to keep financing that bunch of namby-pamby hand-wringers.

[HashiriyaS14]

I'll have to look up some of the old articles where the UN had lists of what, and how much, he had. Last I had seen a large portion of WMD has never turned up.

We should have kicked Saddam out way before 2003. Bush 1 should have finished the job back in '92 but the UN pretty much setup the limitations and no-fly zone areas instead. If we had taken care of business back then I doubt we would have had near the mess we have now.

Bush 1 knew the perils of nation-building in Iraq and was thus smart enough to avoid attempting regime change. If I recall, he didn't really support his son trying it either.

The inspections just before the war, and the CIA analysis, concluded that Iraq did not have meaningful WMD stockpiles. The administration ignored this.

[AZhitman]

My only beef with that is "meaningful WMD stockpiles".

Ask the commuters on the Tokyo subway how much sarin gas constitutes a "meaningful stockpile".

Also, I've read the reports that were available at the time, and I don't thnik it's too much of a stretch to say I'd have been FOR action rather than AGAINST it.

Remember, lots of smart people had a chance to speak out at the time and didn't. For them to now critique the decision is pure armchair'ing.

[ishkabibble]

I was on the road all of last week and did not see the Couric interviews.

Little did I know that Tina Fey's SNL skit used one of Palin's responses word for word:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8__aXxXPVc

Holy crap. That was awful.

[HashiriyaS14]

In case anyone still wants to debate whether or not Palin is incompetent in interviews, here's an excerpt from the Couric interview:

Katie Couric: Why isn't it better, Gov. Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries; allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?

Gov. Sarah Palin: That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, we're ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the -- it's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.

Huh? Health-care reform? HUH? Wha?

Her response, quite plainly, makes NO SENSE. It is, in effect, gibberish, a hopelessly inept stringing-together of various catchphrases and talking points that in no way addresses or answers the question.

Additionally, unlike the "Bush Doctrine" question, this can in NO WAY be regarded as a "gotcha".

She does not understand complex foreign-policy and economic issues, period.

I'm not saying that this somehow means that McCain himself is unqualified, I am discussing ONLY the potential qualification of Sarah Palin to be President (an eventuality of which there is a 1-in-3 actuarial chance). Don't respond by telling me to focus on the top of the ticket, that's not what this thread is about.

[96Qowner]

I think the difference is what you're looking for in her answer. If you're looking for laughs, she sure provides them. If you're looking for reasons to believe she's an idiot, she sure provides them. Of course, while she makes it easy, it's only a little more difficult to look for ways to make any other candidate look stupid, ala Biden's FDR/Depression/TV gibberish.

Other the other hand, if you're looking for sense in her answer, you can sure find that, too. Providing every American with a $2500 credit to buy health insurance is a good way to put money and personal spending choices back in the pockets of individual Americans instead of having corporations make our health care choices for us. Couric DID ask about health care. One might wonder what Couric thinks health care has to do with the bailout, but of course no one ever asked that question.

One of the concerns about the financial instability crisis is the loss of jobs, and Palin points out that actually REDUCING spending and REDUCING taxes would enervate the employment sector, as well as promoting trade, since 1 in 5 jobs is related to trade, another concern of those who say we need to spend an additional $700 Billion.

One might also think about the way Palin speaks. Those who live in large cities are notorious for shoring up their own sense of superiority by belittling those who don't. Those who think of themselves as sophisticated enjoy drawing the contrast between themselves and those who don't adopt the airs required to be thought of as superior. I know many people who are well educated and have accomplished much more good in their lives, and who have no need to make sure everyone knows how superior they are. But then, I live in one of those unsophisticated cities that people like to belittle. We talk just like Sarah Palin.

So, yeah, she's a hoot. She's an easy target if that's what you're looking for. But then, I feel the same way about Barack Obama. It might be illuminating to take a good look at this thread again:

Ok, let's talk about Qualifications and Experience

Barack Obama is an excellent campaigner, simply excellent. Barack Obama has excellent political instincts. He knows when to stand aside, when to vote present. He has spent his entire career campaigning for the next political office. He knows how to lead a team of campaigners. I've yet to hear anyone make a rational case that he has any experience that would lead anyone to think he'd be qualified to be President.

Opinions vary, don't they? There's also this old thread:

Are Democrats just not funny?

[HashiriyaS14]

Other the other hand, if you're looking for sense in her answer, you can sure find that, too.

I disagree, I can't really find any. I should have to "look for" sense, answers should make sense. People running for high office should possess sufficient intellectual faculties to speak and write well. Coming off as a bumbling moron in an interview is either, at best, a demonstration that you don't care to keep yourself informed or, at worst, a demonstration of a second-rate intellect.

Providing every American with a $2500 credit to buy health insurance is a good way to put money and personal spending choices back in the pockets of individual Americans instead of having corporations make our health care choices for us. Couric DID ask about health care. One might wonder what Couric thinks health care has to do with the bailout, but of course no one ever asked that question.

One of the concerns about the financial instability crisis is the loss of jobs, and Palin points out that actually REDUCING spending and REDUCING taxes would enervate the employment sector, as well as promoting trade, since 1 in 5 jobs is related to trade, another concern of those who say we need to spend an additional $700 Billion.

One might also think about the way Palin speaks. Those who live in large cities are notorious for shoring up their own sense of superiority by belittling those who don't. Those who think of themselves as sophisticated enjoy drawing the contrast between themselves and those who don't adopt the airs required to be thought of as superior. I know many people who are well educated and have accomplished much more good in their lives, and who have no need to make sure everyone knows how superior they are. But then, I live in one of those unsophisticated cities that people like to belittle. We talk just like Sarah Palin.

Ok, well YOU just quite obviously answered that question a lot better than Sarah Palin did. Do you think that YOU are qualified to be, potentially, POTUS? If not, why is she, when she gave such an inferior answer?

Additionally, Couric did NOT ask about health-care in *that* question. The question was very straightforward, it asked why it doesn't make more sense to give this $700B back to the taxpayers rather than giving it to the financial institutions. Anyone with a passing familiarity with macroeconomics (something ALL potential POTUS and VPs need to have) would have been able to render an "agree or disagree" stance and then explain why they thought that way. Palin was, apparently, incapable of doing this.

She said: "what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy"

This does NOT make ANY SENSE. If you can explain to me how this sentence communicates anything of value, I will eat my socks.

[96Qowner]

Katie Couric: Why isn't it better, Gov. Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries; allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?

I agree that Palin looked like a total idiot. I also think Biden looked like a total idiot and that Obama looks like a total idiot. I thought Bush looked like a total idiot. I thought Reagan looked like a total idiot and Carter looked like a total idiot. I thought Chevy Chase's characature made Ford look like a total idiot. Nixon looked like a total idiot. Quayle looked like a total idiot and Algore looked like a total idiot. Kerry looked like a total idiot.

Am I making any sense?

Look, everyone gets all partisan at this time of year. I don't disagree with you AT ALL. She looked like a moron. But it's quite clear she isn't. She took out the elite of Alaskan politics, including two well-respected incumbents. Idiots can't do that.

[Jesda]

I disagree, I can't really find any. I should have to "look for" sense, answers should make sense. People running for high office should possess sufficient intellectual faculties to speak and write well. Coming off as a bumbling moron in an interview is either, at best, a demonstration that you don't care to keep yourself informed or, at worst, a demonstration of a second-rate intellect.

Her responses were nervous and poorly spoken, showing a lack of confidence. Then again, John Kerry made the same errors. I don't think John Kerry is unintelligent, just wrong... and a douche.

Sarah Palin needs to get used to high-pressure interviews if she wants to survive 4-8 years as president of the senate.

[audtatious]

Or even survive the next month before the elections....

[ishkabibble]

The more I see from her, the more I feel she is a faker that is in over her head. A compilation of her greatest misses:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrzXLYA_e6E

[skylndrftr]

I'm just trying to keep her and Tina Fey separate...especially troublesome now that they are giving the same speeches. I noticed though only one got laughs.

[skylndrftr]

so MSNBC (yea I know) just showed a clip of Palin from the Couric interview where she was completely unable to come up with a single other supreme court case besides Roe v Wade