Georgia and NATO
| Thu Sep. 11, 2008 3:48 PM PDT
GEORGIA AND NATO....From Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin:
The governor advocated for the admittance of Georgia and Ukraine into NATO.
When Gibson said if under the NATO treaty, the United States would have to go to war if Russia again invaded Georgia, Palin responded: "Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help."
This is not a gaffe of any kind. Nor is it something that Palin blurted out due to inexperience. John McCain's official position on NATO expansion is that we should include Georgia and Ukraine posthaste. This means that if either of those countries gets into a border skirmish — or worse — with Russia, the United States may be obligated to go to war on their behalf.
However, unless I'm mistaken, this is also Barack Obama's official position. So I wouldn't expect a whole lot of pushback on this from his camp. Which is too bad, since the American public really ought to think long and seriously about whether we should be reponsible for defending distant countries that have long histories of ethnic strife and unstable borders. Maybe we should. Maybe they really are that important. But it would be nice to give it a good, hard think before we dive in.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
I realize that there are a lot of people here very hostile to Palin, but I think we could agree that it was outrageous (whether intentional or negligent) for Gibson to misquote what she actually said about U.S. soldiers and a task from God. Transript below:
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?
PALIN: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote.
GIBSON: Exact words.
PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln's words when he said ? first, he suggested never presume to know what God's will is, and I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words.
But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side.
That's what that comment was all about, Charlie.
GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln's words, but you went on and said, "There is a plan and it is God's plan."
What she actually said:
"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."
I realize that there are a lot of people here very hostile to Palin, but I think we could agree that it was outrageous (whether intentional or negligent) for Gibson to misquote what she actually said about U.S. soldiers and a task from God. Transript below:
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?
PALIN: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote.
GIBSON: Exact words.
PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln's words when he said ? first, he suggested never presume to know what God's will is, and I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words.
But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side.
That's what that comment was all about, Charlie.
GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln's words, but you went on and said, "There is a plan and it is God's plan."
What she actually said:
"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."
Did you notice another exchange? Gibson asks Palin if she reflected on the grave responsibility of accepting McCain's proposal to be the Republican nominee for US VP, and she states, "I didn't blink then even when asked to run as his running mate."
Honestly, is there a rational person that would not have taken a little time to think, evaluate, consider the burdens of the office, and have a talk with family members?
Lincoln Chafee called her a "cocky whacko." He is right.
____________________________________________
Submitted by Brian (not verified) on Thu Sep. 11, 2008 4:00 PM PDT.
Even the way things seem over there now, I'd rather extend NATO membership (fwiw) to Georgia than Ukraine. Too many Russians in Ukraine.
Thinking long and hard about NATO expansion would be good. Unfortunately, the campaign season isn't exactly the time and place for that. What would be interesting to know is what is involved in NATO expansion? Can the president do it unilaterally? Can the other NATO members admit a member if the U.S. disagrees? Etc.
Georgia and Ukraine should not be added to NATO under current circumstances. Adding the Ukraine would be even worse than adding Georgia, since the people of Ukraine itself are bitterly divided between pro-Russian and pro-Western camps. The US cannot unilaterally add a country to NATO; the other NATO members all have to agree.
This needs to be one of the first questions in the debates. It'll be interesting to see how the Obama camp plays it.
There is at least one clear gaffe in the posted excerpts: Palin clearly had no idea what the Bush Doctrine was or whether she liked it. She wound up saying something rather more sensible than the Bush Doctrine, but nevertheless, this is a classic gotcha.
Aris, but Palin is "wired" differently from rational people so she can short circuit the thinking process. Did she even pray on it or does she have a short circuit on that pathway also? I guess this means that she thinks we should short circuit the process of electing her and McCain too.
One thing that's been lost in this mess is the concerns of the people of South Ossetia. Can someone explain to me why they should be denied the right to self determination? That appears to be everyone's line these days, and it will cause problems for us down the road. We opposed self determination in Vietnam, and how did that work out? Recent news has it that South Ossetia wants to be part of Russia. Who are we to tell them they can't do it? And what's so great about Georgia that they should be allowed to forcibly control a culture against their will?
Well Kevin, congratulations on for once not succumbing to the storm of stupidity which has overtaken Josh Masrhall and the infinitely lazy Duncan Black.
Yes, it is Obama's position also:
"I have consistently called for deepening relations between Georgia and transatlantic institutions, including a Membership Action Plan for NATO, and we must continue to press for that deeper relationship." - 8/11/08
and Palin was merely spelling out the consequences of that policy.
Obama's official position doesn't matter here. What matters is that Palin will now be thought of in terms of the weighty matter of nuclear annihilation. Do you want Palin making those sorts of calls? I'm thinking most people, even those who like Palin for softer, more emotional reasons, don't want her making those kinds of decisions.
That is not Obama's position. He is in favor of a diplomatic process which involves the NATO countries reviewing what sort of relationship they should have with Georgia. That review would never result in Georgia's admittance, but it was something that sounded good and could be offered up in good faith during the frenzy at the time.
Wrong.
Obama's position relates to NATO members, not NATO allies. Palin used the word "ally." Given all her foreign policy knowledge, she must have purposely used that word instead of "member." After all, a person of her intellectual caliber would not be so casual when speaking of foreign affairs, would she?
Kudos to Palin/McCain. I can't believe I am saying this, but they managed to go from very little two weeks ago to inch ahead of Obama/Biden in the polls. I know, I know, they are slimebags using lies and scare tactics. But we already knew this. Yet, Obama is letting them control the agenda. Biden already appears to be getting used to the secret den Cheney uses when he wants to get out of public focus. Bush handed us a great opportunity and we f*ing can't take it to the bank. The repubs sure know how to win an election and that is what matters before you get a chance to govern.
Obama had ten days since news about Palin's record started trickling out, yet Palin/McCain are left unchallenged and allowed to gain ground. My only hope now is that in the next two weeks Palin loses her novelty and people see her for what she is. But, that is just hope. The way the repubs are running their campaign they seem to know how to keep their ratings up.
Sad.
I don't think Obama's said anything about granting NATO membership to the Ukraine.
I thought the bigger gaffe came when she just kept repeating, at least three times in a row, that we can't second guess Israel if they decided to invade Iran. Gibson was pressing her to give something of an opinion, and what she offered was basically a robotic trance.
Submitted by Chris Andersen (not verified) on Thu Sep. 11, 2008 4:57 PM PDT.
I disagree about this being a gaffe.
World leaders, especially world leaders with nuclear weapons, should not talk so casually about war with anyone, let alone another nuclear power.
Her mistake was not in the technical merits of her comment but in the cavalier way she talked about war with Russia.
We've already had eight years of cowboy diplomacy. Do we want four more?
Submitted by Dennis (not verified) on Thu Sep. 11, 2008 5:17 PM PDT.
Georgia is not a member of NATO, but is treated like one because of the NATO Freedom Consolidation Act of 2007 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070410.html (found via http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/18/2337/96853/939/569608).
So Governor Palin's statement regarding Georgia was not technically accurate, but practically correct.
Submitted by Jassalasca Jape (not verified) on Thu Sep. 11, 2008 5:24 PM PDT.
When Palin was selected, my first thought was that the debate would be telling, but I've seen a few clips of the soft-focus interview, and I'm ready to declare "enough". As the phrase goes, there's no there there. She certainly works hard at being strident, but it's an intensity drawn from daytime TV. Content aside, it's painfully obvious how conscious she is of her own ignorance, she can't maintain presence even when she's the only one talking. I know it's a hair-splittingly close race and all, but if America votes in a ticket with this as VP, then straight truth, no hysteria, the people have no judgement and the electoral process has no meaning. Even I don't believe people can be that foolish. And that's saying something.
There are likely two types of folks who are currently planning to vote for McCain/Palin:
1) those who realize Palin has no business being the VP, but are voting for the ticket anyway
2) those who honestly think she's qualified
She could give train-wreck after train-wreck of interviews over the next couple of weeks, and it would be unlikely to move people from either of the above groups.
So we're left with the undecideds, or people at the margins. That's where the election will be won or lost.
Obama supports Georgia membership in NATO if it meets the criteria for membership, which includes uncontested and stable international borders, i.e. conditions Georgia can not meet now and will not meet any time in the foreseeable future.
Ukraine could, but the country itself is deeply divided over NATO membership.
Submitted by antiquelt (not verified) on Thu Sep. 11, 2008 6:14 PM PDT.
Me thinks palin is "wired" for the questions and answers, just like junior during the debates.
Holy shit! Are you insane?
This isn't some theoretical question! We would be at war with Russia over a pissant country that provoked the Russians by killing their soldiers RIGHT NOW. We would be at war with Russia RIGHT FUCKING NOW in their own back yard.
In this era of insane war in Iraq based on lies told by people who have demonstrated over and over again that they have no fucking idea what they are talking about, it may seem reasonable to talk about whether we shoud be at war with Russia RIGHT NOW.
But it is NOT reasonable. It is insane. And it puts our national security -- and even more importantly -- our national wellbeing in jeopardy.
This is insane. We cannot tolerate hockey moms from Alaska who want to get elected on a platform of World War III.
This is not a fucking reality show. This is reality. Fucking up in Iraq is survivable. Fucking up with Russia is The Apocalypse.
And I'm not talking about any hokey ass looney tunes stories from some Old Book. I'm talking thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at our major cities. They make a terrorist with a suitcase into pure amateur hour.
Kevin continues to be an honest and intelligent guy. If this is the most that folks can criticize, it is not much. Kevin could have included the next sentence - anyone diagree with it?
"And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable,"
lampwick: There are at least 150 million American women more qualified to be president than Sarah Palin.
Typical Lefty nonsense. Read the Constitution! You have to be at least 35 to be president. That puts the number at 75 million, tops.
I realize that there are a lot of people here very hostile to Palin, but I think we could agree that it was outrageous (whether intentional or negligent) for Gibson to misquote what she actually said about U.S. soldiers and a task from God. Transript below:
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?
PALIN: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote.
GIBSON: Exact words.
PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln's words when he said first, he suggested never presume to know what God's will is, and I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words.
But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side.
That's what that comment was all about, Charlie.
GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln's words, but you went on and said, "There is a plan and it is God's plan."
What she actually said:
"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."
I don't know if anyone's seen any of the video, but a few clips are here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/11/palins-abc-interview-stum_n_125...
It's easy to see that this is WORSE than we thought.
I think the most interesting thing to come is, will the wingers at places like The Corner be able to keep up their dishonesty about Palin?
That will be fun.
Watch the video - it's pretty chilling stuff.
If you think about it for a minute, this is a DEFINING MOMENT for the Right.
In light of this interview, and more to come (please, more, please!), who will have the courage to stand up and say "I was wrong, she is not ready to be President"?
Come to Jesus Moment for the wingers.
Hooray!
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.
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.
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=...
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.
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.
