Robotic Palin to Gibson: Says America Can't "Second Guess" Israel Three Times!
Now we know why among the very first people Sarah Palin sat down with after being nominated was Joe Lieberman and the head of AIPAC.
She needed the latest talking points and, boy, did she learn her lines. Read this from the Gibson interview.
GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran.... : What if Israel decided it felt threatened and need to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?
PALIN: Well, first, we are friends of 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.
GIBSON: So if we didn't second guess it and if they decided they needed to do it, because Iran was an existential threat, we would be cooperative or agree with that?
PALIN: I don't think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.
GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right?
PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.
In other words, under the Palin administration, we won't second guess Israel. I think I've got it.
Palin sure has.













Pity he didn't brief her on the Bush doctrine.
And now we see why they made her first press interview to coincide with the 9/11 memorials so that her ignorance wouldn't get the publicity it needs.
September 11, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's a parrot. Nothing more. Maybe less.
September 11, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
TheraP,
at least she didn't give Answer# 9 to Question #4.
:-)
September 12, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're underestimating her. Not only will she not second guess... she won't even guess!
September 11, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
ha.
September 12, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
destor,
I'm surprised she didn't try to make her voice sound like Henry Kissinger's.
September 12, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Granted that I have only seen the Palin snippets regarding the Russian-Georgian conflict and the Bush doctrine response. The Israel responses will likely play well to her Conservative Christian base. Many others, me included, will sleep a little less easy tonight knowing that this woman is one of the two people who will be our next VP.
How will they cover up the fact that her view of the Georgian conflict and troop involvement differs from McCain's view? The McCain campaign will do what it always does, McCain and Palin will lie.
Sadly, Chris Mathews, Mike Barnacle, James Carville, et. al. will still regard McCain as honorable despite the lies.
I'll track down he entire interview as I was watching the Service Forum. for now, color me terrified.
September 11, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
My FIRST question would have been, Gov Palin, why do you lie so much, lying about everything and distorting not only Sen Obama's legislative record but your own as well.
It looks as though the R's have their own version of Celebrity (see the posting below from the NYT):
Who’s Your Messiah Now? (by ES)
Sarah Palin’s rapid elevation from small town mayor to candidate for national office to revered deity, has got me asking if conservatives aren’t taking a bit too much of the savior in mass (or smoking crack). The hyperbole exceeds satire.
She is the true Paris Hilton of politicians. She’s famous for being famous. Especially among conservatives. But the inside-the-beltway hysteria of GOP coastal elites and wealthy Christian Conservatives - as expressed by the staffs of the Weekly Standard, National Review, and Fox News (in New York!), among others - is a soirée in a samovar.
Outside of their gay and prosperous precincts, Americans are still wondering who the hell this woman is. The GOP is gravely misreading the national mood and the general appeal of their VP candidate. No one who wasn’t already going to vote for her will now do so because she eats mooseburger and gives a snarky speech. Better enjoy that celebration because prognostications aside - she’s the 2012 nominee (they assume either a loss or McCain’s death, whichever comes first), she’s the future of the party, she’s come to save us from imminent defeat - Sarah Palin has a long, tough, and I’m guessing, scandal-filled road ahead of her.
Who’s your messiah now? Sarah Palin. And you better pray she’s studying hard and paying off the townies back home, or she just might be a false prophet.
http://nahnopenotquite.com/2008/09/04/wheres-your-messiah-now/
September 11, 2008 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
This interview has probably ended any chance for Georgia or the Ukraine to gain Nato membership. Palin seems committed to go to war over any territory disputes between those states and Russia. It simply does not seem reasonable that either Germany or France would be willing to go to war over that. Britain does not count since it is now no more than an echo chamber for any US foreign policy initiative. But Germany and France must now realize that their future could very well be tied to the American wingnut party. In fact, this could very well lead to the end of Nato itself.
September 11, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please, don't raise my hopes up that way unless you can deliver. Of course we should drop NATO as fast as possible. NATO was formed to stop a Soviet invasion of Europe. There is no Soviet Union now, and very little chance that there ever will be again. Furthermore, there isn't the slightest reason to think the Putin has any interest in trying to invade Europe - why should he, when he is making a fortune off of Europe now?
By any means possible lets kill NATO before McCain can kill all of us with his warmongering.
September 12, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps it is wishfull thinking on my part. But Palin has put the price of Nato in very stark terms for Germany and France. They must realize that McC and Palin may very well win and they must be calculating what that means to them. I cannot believe that Germany has forgotten what happened the last time they attempted to fight in the Cacuses. I believe the fates of Army groups A and B in 1942 do not elicit any fond memories.
September 12, 2008 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is this like her trying to say, especially to Florida voters, "I used to be a friend of Pat Buchanan, but no more."? This talking point was easy for her to remember in the schooling process. I am mot saying she is dumb, she just doesn't know what she doesn't know. She definitely knows about divinely inspired oil pipelines, guns, moose, earmarks, guns, how to abuse power, how to say 'no thanks' and still keep the money, that Russia is geographically near Alaska and guns.
September 12, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Second guess". Sounds like a poll-tested, Frank Luntz line to me.
September 12, 2008 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is an oversimplification to say that "NATO was created to forestall a Soviet invasion of Europe". I think it is more correct to say that it was created to keep the United States engaged militarily and politically in Europe because after the First World War they pulled out leaving a partial vacuum that Britain and France were not strong enough to fill. You may be right that Putin has no interest in invading Europe but neither you nor I now what the future brings and with what looks the final demise of democracy in Russia, we don't know what sort of crazed dictator might arise there in the future and we can't be sure whether future Russian leaders will use their energy sources supplied to Europe in order to blackmail them. NATO is a good insurance against such a possibility, and I am sure that Obama agrees with me (whether or not it is wise to include former Soviet states like the Baltic states or the Ukraine or Georgia is another matter-after all the US has the Monroe Doctrine, so it is understandable to some extent that the Russians would not want NATO in their former turf, as long as they guarantee the independence of those states).
September 12, 2008 2:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
YBD,
F.Y.I.,
--Barack Obama, Aug. 11, 2008 Statement on Georgia
@
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/obamas_statement_on_georgia.html
--Senator Obama March 3, 2008 Statement on NATO Summit in Romania
@
http://obama.senate.gov/press/080303-obama_statement_128/
September 12, 2008 3:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. He does sound like McCain and Palin.
La commedia is never finita!
September 12, 2008 3:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh my God, Ellen is speaking in tongues!
September 12, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
speaking in tongues!
I love it when she talks dirty in Italian...
September 12, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lamont,
YBD said:
Exactly, Obama does agree that NATO is a good insurance policy.
YBD then continues:
YBD is unsure of giving any support of Obama's position here for reasons stated.
September 12, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
When heard that Gov. Palin's first interview would be with Charles Gibson my first reaction was "of course", given his previous debate performance. It then crossed my mind that he took such a drubing over his handling of that previous debate that he just might want to not have that happen again. From what I have heard and read of the Palin interview thus far, might be.
September 12, 2008 4:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought Sarah learned her lines well for the interview. I was reminded of a fourth grader who studied all night and when the teacher asked questions, she didn't even have to give them any thought. "I know this one - as President Lincoln said" "I know this one - we won't second guess Israel" She could have just said "yes" and been done with it, but that isn't what she memorized. She needs to pretend to think a little and look like she is making careful consideration before she answers. The best thing the democrats could do it totally ignore her. Her 15 minutes is just about up. Get back to Barack in front of crowds and make it McCain/Bush vs. Obama.
Another war now screwed up. A bigger deficit. MOre home foreclsures. Lehman brothers going under. fannie mae and freddie Mac in bailout mode. I thought Republicans were the business and security party. No that was last week before Sarah Palin. Now they are the change party.
Geez!
September 12, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ's headline;
Did she close her eyes and click her Ruby Slippers 3 times when she said this?
September 12, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
The question was a bit too easy.
What if Israel bombs targets within Iran and Iran closes Strait of Hormuz, claiming it will shoot at any passing ship until it will get guarantee that it will never happen again?
And Russians, freshly peeved by admitting Georgia to NATO, help them by supplying missiles that make it possible?
Guessing or second guessing is one thing, living with consequences, another.
For this reason, Israeli politicians back-pedal from the threats of bombing.
September 12, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was like that scene in the Terminator when Arnold is repairing his shattered eyeball and the flophouse manager walks by his room and from the hallway shouts out, 'What stinks in there?'
In the Terminator's field of vision we see a list of possible responses drop down and one of them begins to flash on and off: 'Fuck you asshole!" he manages to produce.
That is what Sarah Palin looked like. Like a bad Turing Device.
September 12, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
She reminded me of Liza, the artificial intelligence project from back in the 1980s I believe. The computer program would scan for keywords and rephrase the questions it was asked to appear as though it was intelligent and caring. When it couldn't detect the keywords it had been programmed for it asked an innocuous sounding question such as "Could you say more?", etc. A lot like the "In what respect, Charlie?" that we got to the Bush Doctrine question. Clearly she hadn't been programmed to elicit a response to the words "Bush" and "Doctrine". Really quite feeble.
September 12, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
She reminded me of Liza, the artificial intelligence project from back in the 1980s I believe. The computer program would scan for keywords and rephrase the questions it was asked to appear as though it was intelligent and caring. When it couldn't detect the keywords it had been programmed for it asked an innocuous sounding question such as "Could you say more?", etc. A lot like the "In what respect, Charlie?" that we got to the Bush Doctrine question. Clearly she hadn't been programmed to elicit a response to the words "Bush" and "Doctrine". Really quite feeble.
September 12, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for the double post. I got some kind of error when I first posted my comment and attempts to reload this page apparently resulted in two comments being posted.
September 12, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
She reminded me of Liza, the artificial intelligence project from back in the 1980s I believe. The computer program would scan for keywords and rephrase the questions it was asked to appear as though it was intelligent and caring. When it couldn't detect the keywords it had been programmed for it asked an innocuous sounding question such as "Could you say more?", etc. A lot like the "In what respect, Charlie?" that we got to the Bush Doctrine question. Clearly she hadn't been programmed to elicit a response to the words "Bush" and "Doctrine". Really quite feeble.
September 12, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is extremely craven for anyone to run for national office without a fundamental understanding of International Relations. It's like driving without a license or flying without having read the manual... you're going to crash and potentially take down many people with you.
September 12, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Putin Asserts Election of Sarah Palin Would Justify Russia’s Implementation of the Bush Doctrine
In a remarkable example of a foreign politician inserting himself into another nation’s election, Vladimir Putin today shot a warning across the bow of the American electorate by claiming the mere victory of the McCain-Palin ticket would justify a Russian preventive strike against America.
“I’ve heard her words, watched her on the teevee, and I’ve looked into her soul – she’s dangerous. What’s more, any man willing to put her so close to power is frighteningly disconnected from the rational world,” Putin said during an interview with the Russian news agency Tass. The Russian leader’s harsh assessment came on the heels of an interview Palin gave to Charlie Gibson of ABC News where when pressed if the US would go to war with Russia to protect Georgia were that country part of NATO, Palin replied, “Perhaps.”
“Her ignorance in any position of power constitutes a weapon of mass destruction,” Putin surmised. “With the United States so close to reaching that fusion of power and stupidity, Russia would have no choice but to intervene as a matter of self-defense.”
September 12, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink