Sarah Palin on Iran and Israel:
GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel?
PALIN: I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes.
That's funny since Ahmadinejad isn't the top leader in Iran. Listening to him is like listening to Condoleeza Rice. There's a supreme leader in Iran that no one every talks about or to who is really in charge.
And hey, why are Iranian nukes bad and American nukes AOK? Is it because we're Christian and they're Muslim? Or is it that they're crazy and we're sane?
I have yet to hear one reasonable argument for why Iranian nukes are worse than US nukes.
And can someone please explain to me why Iran would use nukes on anyone? The minute they do, we nuke them out of existence.
Besides that, Iran sells its oil to the world (including the US), why would they nuke us or our allies? They'd be killing off their customers. It makes no sense at all.
This is the same bullshit they tried to pull with Iraq and I felt the same way back then--why would Saddam bomb his number one customer? Answer: he wouldn't.
GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran? John McCain said the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear Iran. John Abizaid said we may have to live with a nuclear Iran. Who's right?
PALIN: No, no. I agree with John McCain that nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would seek to destroy our allies, in this case, we're talking about Israel, we're talking about Ahmadinejad's comment about Israel being the "stinking corpse, should be wiped off the face of the earth," that's atrocious. That's unacceptable.
Yes, anyone who disagrees with US sentiment toward Israel is just WRONG!
GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?
Yeah, REALLY, Sarah, get to the man's question! Seems like your dodging again!
WHO'S MY WITTLE QUESTION DODGER!
sigh...
PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.
So, lets follow this logic. Ahmadinejad gets nuke weapons and sells them to Al Qaeda, knowing that AQ will use them to harm westerners, his prime customers for oil.
Logic = none.
GIBSON: But, Governor, we've threatened greater sanctions against Iran for a long time. It hasn't done any good. It hasn't stemmed their nuclear program.
PALIN: We need to pursue those and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they're going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that.
Whaaaa? Was that an actual attempt at communication? Let me see if I can unpack that...
We don't have to stand for Iranian nukes so we need to push for harder sanctions.
I think that's what she's saying. But she's still not explaining why we shouldn't have to stand for it.
GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?
PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with 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.
Is that part of God's plan? ;)
Seriously, we are WAY more than just friends with Israel. We are their patrons. We give them buckets of money just so they can "defend" themselves against desperate Palestinians with penchants for blowing up pizza parlors.
Sorry, if the country is going to crumble under the weight of a lack of pizza places I'm thinking the country deserves to go away.
Sure, people die in those pizza place bombings, but Israel is also occupying Palestine. Shit or get off the pot, guys. Make it one nation and give Palestinians rights like Israelis or de-occupy the place and leave them alone.
Hey, why ARE we friends with Israel, anyway?
It's the whole Christian, second coming thing, isn't it?
The Jews have been returned to Israel for more than a few years now--I'm pretty sure if Jesus was going to return he would have done so by now.
Maybe he did and got aborted by some white trash mom. :P
Sorry, I digress--Palin was responding to what would happen if Israel decided to bomb Iran. Charlie, got a follow up?
GIBSON: So if we wouldn't second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.
PALIN: I don't think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.
Considering how much of that security the US is paying for, I'd say we DO have a say.
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.
Oh, no! She's vapor-locked!! This happens on my Macbook all the time. You just have to do a force-quit. Charlie, press command, option, escape, then shut her down and restart her. She should be fine after that.
But seriously, she's saying Israel can do what ever they want to Iran and that's cool.
What's that? That is scary.
Sarah Palin on 'the Bush Doctrine':
GIBSON: We talk on the anniversary of 9/11. Why do you think those hijackers attacked? Why did they want to hurt us?
PALIN: You know, there is a very small percentage of Islamic believers who are extreme and they are violent and they do not believe in American ideals, and they attacked us and now we are at a point here seven years later, on the anniversary, in this post-9/11 world, where we're able to commit to never again.
Whaaaaaa?
What fresh gibberish is this??
Yes, there are a small number of extremist Muslims who don't like America and they have attacked us and Sarah is right to say that it has been seven years later!
All of those things are statements of obvious facts.
Then she says: "where we're able to commit to never again."
She means "when" we're able to commit and the ABC guys should have put quotes around "never again" since that's clearly what she means. Still, she could have made it a bit easier for all of us by, you know, being remotely concise in what the hell she was talking about.
So, all of these things happened and we're finally (?) ready to commit to saying "never again" in regards to allowing 911 to happen. That's a little odd. I thought we've felt "never again" since 911 happened.
They see that the only option for them is to become a suicide bomber, to get caught up in this evil, in this terror. They need to be provided the hope that all Americans have instilled in us, because we're a democratic, we are a free, and we are a free-thinking society.
I'm actually with Sarah on most of this stuff. Terrorists do need to be presented with hope before they become terrorists. We aren't all that democratic (our election system is in shambles) we are less free now than we have been and I think it's quite dubious for Palin to call us a free-thinking society when dissent is squashed at her party's convention by people yelling U!S!A! U!S!A!
Also, isn't she against Roe v. Wade? So much for free and free-thinking.
A woman should have the right to think what she wants and do what she wants with her body. Not having those freedoms means not being entirely free.
I mean, duh.
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
Tee-hee, I did hear about this part.
I hope she asks Charlie to define the meaning of "is."
GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
PALIN: Oh, THAT! I thought you were asking how he felt about Girl Scout Cookies! Oh, sure! I can tell you buckets about that!
:)
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation.
But haven't an ice-cubes chance with 72 virgins of actually managing to destroy our nation, I'd say...
There have been blunders along the way, though.
Blunders?
Leave it to a politician to call hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, hundreds of billions of dollars spent and thousands of our GIs dead with almost nothing to show for it "blunders."
There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
Right, so, "new leadership" means hiring one of Bush's biggest supporters and that guy's soul mate?
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
Ahhh, staying on-topic, Charlie, good deal. I got so distracted with her bullshit I forgot what the question was.
PALIN: I agree that a president's job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.
Isn't their top priority to uphold the Constitution?
I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.
WHAT??
Wow... these hockey moms are some loopy pit bulls!! Maybe the lipstick fumes make them high?
Do I even need to break that sentence down for anyone to see how nonsensical it is?
Sarah, come on--either get on or off your meds!
I mean, I get your sentiments, but can you put them in the form of a sentence?
GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?
PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.
Right, but who decides what "legitimate" means? Bush made that call before and so did the House and the Senate. They ALL GOT IT WRONG.
How can we trust the government with the authority to move only based on intelligence?
GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?
PALIN: Now, as for our right to invade, we're going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be, a military strike, a last option.
Wow, sounds like she doesn't like Bush--she seems to think that war is the first option, currently. Funny how Bush and Co. have been going on and on for years that Bush had given diplomacy a chance.
Go fig.
GIBSON: But, Governor, I'm asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.
PALIN: 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 those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.
So... yes, then.
Sorry, that's the wrong answer, Palin. According to the UN Charter no country can be invaded militarily until that country has used military force against us. We signed the UN Charter, we helped write it, so until we withdraw from the UN, we're bound to obey the UN Charter. Don't like the UN? Tough. We should pull out then.
GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes?
Yes, Charlie, come on. You can just state it.
That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?
PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.
Morals be damned! Other nation's sovereignty be damned!
Oh yeah and: Reality be damned!
All this talk of terrorists destroying America and our allies makes it sound like we're up against The Legion of Doom or perhaps, an actual threat. I mean, if a few thousand pissed off extremists could destroy America, that'd mean America was a pretty weak-ass country.
How weak does Palin think America is?
We "won the Cold War" with the Soviets who had a nuclear arsenal capable of wiping out the planet, but somehow some guys with turbans will get lucky, score a single nuke or two and some how destroy America?
This is just fear mongering at its least interesting.
The following excerpts are from ABC News' second of three exclusive interviews with Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, conducted by "World News" anchor Charlie Gibson on September 11, 2008, along the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, outside of Fairbanks.Ooo, ON LOCATION is SEXY.
Sarah Palin on Climate Change:
We'll save this for part 4! That'll be posted tomorrow. Thanks for reading!
Orignal From: ThePete VS. PALIN VS. GIBSON: FIGHT! (Round 3)
No comments:
Post a Comment