FLASH! Charlie Gibson Interviews Palin

sink · 13-09-2008 5:17pm

I don't think he was uniformed I think he purposely tried to trip her up. She completely missed the opportunity to direct the conversation. She received an open question that could have been interpreted in so many ways and she let it slide back to Gibson who purposely interpreted it as something he knew she would have difficulty agreeing with.

I don't think it counts as foreign policy experience. Simply put Obama has no foreign policy experience, neither does Palin. What his travel experience tells us about his character is that he is genuinely interested in the greater world outside of America. Palin has shown no such interest. I don't think experience making decisions on specific issues is that important. What is important especially in foreign policy is to have an interest and a decent knowledge.

axer · 13-09-2008 5:31pm

He asked her what did she understand it to be. That left it open for any one the of the 7 interpretations. He then said this is what he understands it to be.

Permabear · 13-09-2008 5:32pm

This post has been deleted.

brianthebard · 13-09-2008 5:35pm

If your only argument for Palin is she's about as bad as Obama, then that's not really an argument at all. Why don't you try arguing for her, instead of always going "what about Obama?"

sink · 13-09-2008 6:00pm

Well you've pointed out the obvious there.

If you look at Biden who has extensive foreign policy experience you will see that he has shown consistently bad judgement first voting for the war and then voting against the surge, he doesn't seem to hold an overall strategy and goes with what ever is politically popular at time, 'foreign policy by populism' if you will.

In comparison to McCain who also has extensive foreign policy experience. His judgement has been more layered and he does not always go with the underlying current. He supported the war but made it quiet clear he felt the planning of the war was terrible even before it started and then he railed against the administrations handling directly after the invasion. I'm not sure why he supported the war in first place. It could have been he bought into the neo-cons false intelligence about Sadams WMD capabilities. Regardless of why he supported the war he has shown a clear understanding of what strategy he feels is needed to successfully conclude American involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama has also shown some good judgement although quiet different to McCain. Although he hasn't made any executive decisions his opinion on foreign policy is well known. He saw the dangers of getting involved in Iraq he recognised that it would take the focus off of Afghanistan where there was a real imperative to stabilise the country. He recognised that Iraq was completely unconnected to Afghanistan and 9/11 and also recognised that the post war situation would be incredibly volatile with the Shia, Sunni and Kurds all vying for power. Once the war got under way he should have put his misgivings aside and sought to ensure the best possible outcome for the US. He has constantly support withdrawing troops from Iraq. Pulling out at any stage over the last five years would have left a power vacuum and that would be disastrous for Western interests and would have destabilised the whole region. It's still a few years away before America can completely disengage from Iraq and I do not support his promise to withdraw in 18 months.

In short I like certain things about both candidates but not on everything. Obama had it right before the war McCain for whatever reason had it wrong. McCain had it right on strategy for the war and has a better plan for the future then Obama. Both recognise the importance of multi-literalism which is the main fault of the current administration and both will be far better at handling the future than the current administration.

Permabear · 13-09-2008 6:20pm

This post has been deleted.

Hobbes · 13-09-2008 6:27pm

Actually he was for it, then against it then for it again. In fact he wasn't just for it, he fully supported Bushes bills on it and said he would veto any democratic bill that would control spending, have a withdrawal plan.

Permabear · 13-09-2008 6:31pm

This post has been deleted.

sink · 13-09-2008 6:35pm

I would add a qualifier to that. The surge worked but it did not work in isolation, what I believe was far more important was the sudden shift of Sunnis away from Al Qaeda. This was not something the US could have instigated it had to come from the ground up and it was Al Qaeda themselves that turned out to be their own worst enemy.

I was a McCain supporter before he got the nomination and I have not liked the direction he has taken since then. I believe Palin was a very bad choice for VP. He is 72 and whether you want to admit it or not he has a higher risk of kicking the bucket. I don't like Palin's on position on anything. I think her portrayal of herself as a reformer is a misnomer. She is a dyed in the wool religious conservative republican who is amiable to all of the Bush administrations policies and she won't change a thing. She might stir up the old boys club a bit what exactly will she do to change it?

With her so close to the Presidency I can no-longer support the McCain - Palin ticket and I am sure there are a lot more out there like me. My ideal ticket would have been McCain - Lieberman.

Permabear · 13-09-2008 6:40pm

This post has been deleted.

sink · 13-09-2008 6:47pm

Pretty much so. Obama while I don't always agree with him, appears intelligent and reasonable, he has some positions I stand behind and others I don't. Same goes for McCain but in his case there is someone standing in line behind him that is almost the antipathy of what I believe in. Someone who I believe if ever in the ultimate position of power will do great damage to freedom and to Americas image in the wider world much like Bush has done. So while I marginally prefer McCain to Obama, I can't stand Palin. Not that it matters as I am not an American citizen.

brianthebard · 13-09-2008 6:47pm

I didn't ask what your point was, I asked why you have to argue against Obama, rather than for Palin, which you've done again above. fwiw I don't give a damn about either party or candidate, I just think your argument is terrible. If its the best that can be put forward by Republicans then Obama's already won.

Permabear · 13-09-2008 6:55pm

This post has been deleted.

brianthebard · 13-09-2008 6:57pm

I like to question people's arguments to see if they stand up to inspection. Yours doesn't.

Permabear · 13-09-2008 7:00pm

This post has been deleted.

The Raven. · 13-09-2008 7:18pm

I think it is ridiculous to suggest that comparison with Obama should be taboo in this thread. It is after all a race for the White House and Palin is not running alone against the wind. Since much of the argument stems from the Palin bashing by the Obama machine and supporters, excluding him from the debate would be denying very relevant core issues.

I'm very glad that this suggestion was ignored as I find Donegal's posts extremely interesting, well written and informative.

sink · 13-09-2008 7:21pm

I missed this comment before. I don't deny he had a crisis of conscience over the war but that was because he could see how inadequate the neo-cons war plans were. Cutting spending was not going to help the situation either and would instead have left troops on the ground vulnerable. If anything the Bush administration didn't spend enough on the war. They tried to fight it on the cheap and this was particularly down to Rumsfeld's refusal to commit more troops to the occupation in order to maintain some stability.

Hobbes · 13-09-2008 7:26pm

He is not saying that at all. What he is saying is people are incapable of defending Palin because it is not possible. At best you can do is attack.

It is like listening to the whines like "We aren't as bad as Iran" when mention the actions of the Bush administration. You compare yourself against the best, not the worst. Certainly not what you consider the worst.

Palin is not fit to run for VP, and the way she is advertised you would swear she was better then McCain.

brianthebard · 13-09-2008 7:35pm

Thank you, glad someone got it. This thread is about Palin, there are plenty about Obama. If you believe Palin is worth electing for VP/Pres, then argue that point by all means. But don't suggest that because the other candidate doesn't have experience either that makes her worthwhile. If you need to complain about how poor a candidate Obama is do it in a thread about Obama and about his policies.

Hobbes · 13-09-2008 7:35pm

Your reasoning doesn't tie up with the facts.

"no one has supported President Bush on Iraq more than I have. Let me emphasize that there are many national security issues that I have strongly supported the president and steadfastly so" - John McCain Apr 08.

Here is a 7 min vid of McCain speech on supporting a pre-emptive attack against Iraq in 2002. (It is like he is channeling Bush).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xg29mpi8K4A

Whatever McCain may of said in between, he has done nothing but support Bush on Iraq.

Permabear · 13-09-2008 7:45pm

This post has been deleted.

sink · 13-09-2008 7:52pm

Incorrect. He may have supported the war but he did not support the handling of the war. Here is an article from November 6th 2003 where McCain strongly criticises the handling of the war.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec03/mccain_11-06_a.html

I at the time also supported the war. I bought into the WMD myth and 'the ready to launch in 30 mins' charade. I also was not familiar with the political fault lines on the ground in Iraq. In hindsight I was wrong and so was McCain. The difference is I was 19 and he was 65 and had been deeply involved in foreign politics for 30 years. I don't know how he fell for the doctored faulty intelligence that led to the war and I question his judgement on that. But he was right on the conduct of the war and I believe is right that America needs to stay in Iraq until the job is done.

Permabear · 13-09-2008 7:58pm

This post has been deleted.

bobbyjoe · 13-09-2008 8:05pm

Is McCains VP not more important than unusual considering the chances of him kicking he bucket in the near future?

The Raven. · 13-09-2008 8:06pm

I would agree that there are aspects of Palin that are indefensible, but the same can be said about all of them. At this point in time, American voters are trying to make up their minds about who to vote for. A certain percentage of these decisions will be determined by who they would least like to have as President and Vice President. I think Pocono Joe has expressed this view in different words. Under these circumstances, I think it would be irrelevant at this stage to compare Sarah Palin to anybody other than Obama or Biden, as there are no other choices.

Permabear · 13-09-2008 8:09pm

This post has been deleted.

bobbyjoe · 13-09-2008 8:20pm

But do you not take this chance into account: you really want someone who doesn't even know basic current affairs in charge of the USA?

Permabear · 13-09-2008 8:26pm

This post has been deleted.

bobbyjoe · 13-09-2008 8:32pm

Good for you. If you think that is all he has done perhaps you should educate yourself some more.

Permabear · 13-09-2008 8:37pm

This post has been deleted.

FLASH! Charlie Gibson Interviews Palin

Comments