Mother Jones - Comments for "Georgia and NATO"

Fostert said: "Can someone explain to me why they should be denied the right to self determination?"

Apparently not."

Last poll I saw (I'll try to dig up the link) said that the Georgian people did not support membership in NATO, presumably because they understand it might trigger a war with Russia.

Kevin, you say that Obama's position on NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine is identical to Palin's. But I just don't think that's true. Obama doesn't favor immediate membership but for NATO to invite those two countries into an interim membership application process, which is the common procedure now. It can take years for a country to move from that interim status to full-blown members. President Bush himself favors this method. Only Palin -- and maybe McCain, I'm not sure -- advocate immediate and full membership.

"Can someone explain to me why they should be denied the right to self determination?"

Apparently not.

Brian says: "Palin did not know what Gibson was specifically referring to with respect to the Bush Doctrine, which is a term that I doubt has been even used much during the campaign of the past year or so and really has not been part of the recent debate. I bet Obama would have clarified what was meant by that term as well."

OK, YOU doubt it has even been used much during the campaign, and you BET Obama would've clairified what was meant by that term as well.

Who are you that we should take your doubt or your bet more seriously than any other Palin-apologizer? I hardly follow anything Bush does anymore because it's so predictable, but even I know what the fucking Bush Doctrine is. It's the WHOLE FUCKING REASON WE STARTED A WAR WITH IRAQ you fucktard.

If Palin doesn't know this she is not qualified to be vice-president or president. It shows a complete lack of curiousity regarding foreign policy over the past 7+ years. But now since she didn't blink when asked to be VP nominee, a few cramming sessions and voila, she's ready to lead. She brings nothing substantive to the table, and much baggage besides. She answered the expected questions with Republican talking points. She couldn't answer the one question she wasn't expecting. Didn't ring one bell in her head.

"In what regard, Charlie?" Huh? WTF kind of response is that? I'll tell you, Brian. It's a response that says "I have no idea what you're talking about. I have no idea about the main reason we are at war in Iraq. I have no idea about the main reason my son just flew to Iraq. I am intellectually uncurious but I really really want to be vice-president"!

WINK!

Brian,

My response reflects the fact that never, ever, had I ever said anything at all about you, period.

I say my opinons, and that's it.

You, on the other, work differently.

So, please, clean up your mess and calm down. Then you can have a snack and a nap.

By the way, I did not yet see the video, but I think ABC also clipped those words out of the video. I may be wrong about that, but Gibson definitely cut out the words.

Lucy,

You need to be honest. He OBVIOUSLY cut out the words "I pray that" from the start of the sentence "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." It was outrageous and anyone with integrity, regardless of your partisan bias, would acknowledge it. She corrected him under pressure and it was an impressive answer.

So Gibson misquoting her and distorting what she said is okay with you folks?

Except he didn't, and abc ran the actual tape of her church appearance.

You've already chewed up a lot of real estate on this non-issue. Duh.

Joe Biden and Richard Lugar -- two veterans of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, much hailed for their foreign policy acumen -- had an op-ed in the Washington Times on April 27, 2008. In it, they urged NATO to move forward in bringing not just Georgia but also Ukraine into the alliance (http://biden.senate.gov/press/opeds/oped/?id=32de6895-94b4-47fb-b413-0f7...). They wrote:

Earlier this month at the NATO summit, the United States sought to win support for the extension of Membership Action Plans (MAPs) to Ukraine and the Republic of Georgia. These plans are the final preparatory step for states seeking to join the Alliance. Both Ukraine and Georgia have established themselves as Western-looking democracies and are worthy candidates for NATO membership

Unfortunately, some NATO members balked in the face of strong Russian opposition, and because NATO works by consensus, both countries' bids failed. While the United States failed to secure MAPs, the administration did succeed in securing a pledge in the final communique that in the future, Ukraine and Georgia "will become members of NATO" and that MAPs could be extended as early as December. This was a major success after a damaging setback. While MAP is a tangible step, it does not promise membership. The communique signed by NATO leaders did. ...

America and its allies must not fall into this trap. Georgia has done its part by refusing to overreact and continues to seek a diplomatic solution. The time has come for the trans-Atlantic community to show unity and commitment. The administration should seek and our NATO allies should provide commitments to offer MAPs to Georgia and Ukraine at the next NATO meeting in December.

So Gibson misquoting her and distorting what she said is okay with you folks?

Brian,

There is no plan other than to kill arabs to satisfy redneck bloodlust, keep americans afraid, and profit off the corpses of our soldiers and their civilians.

And no, God doesn't approve.

As for misquoting ... fuck her. The media has sucked republican cock so long, it's time they bit down. Expose her for the christian taliban she is.

Obama's campaign heard us. He is rolling out a tougher campaign tomorrow. Woo hoo.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/us/politics/12obama.html?_r=1&hp&oref=...

Socrates,

You're probably a fine guy and I don't want to make this personal. But your response (which I assume in your world constitues humor) provides no defense whatsoever on the merits or lack of merit in my point about Palin "chilling" statement actually parroted the democrat view that the use of force requires an imminent threat. Oh well, I guess you don't worry about the details, you just want to come up with an attack on Palin.

ps -- Apparently ABC is so embarassed about Gibson misquoting Palin that they are editing it out of later versions. Great journalism.

It's time to change your diaper, Brian.

You folks, like Socrates with his "chilling" comment about Palin's answer on the "Bush Doctrine," are amazing in your hostility and partisan bias. Palin did not know what Gibson was specifically referring to with respect to the Bush Doctrine, which is a term that I doubt has been even used much during the campaign of the past year or so and really has not been part of the recent debate. I bet Obama would have clarified what was meant by that term as well. She answered about wiping out Islamic terrorism, which of course is part of the Bush Doctrine, to the extent there is a doctrine. Gibson then explained that he wanted to focus on preemptive strikes against threats.

If you actually listen to her answer to Gibson's clarification, it is the democratic answer that there has to be an "imminent" threat, not the Bush position that you don't wait for an attack to be imminent.

So Socrates is "chilled" by what his democratic pals have been saying for the past six years. So many folks see things entirely through their own biased filter. In the case of Socrates, he is chilled with fear by an answer that he likely would regard as wisdom coming out of the mouth of Obama.