I took this screencap on my iPhone earlier today from CNN.com’s mobile page. The non-mobile version is here: http://www.cnn.com/…index.html

In the article, CNN quotes Palin as saying:

If you read the report, you will see that there was nothing unlawful or unethical about replacing a cabinet member,

The very next paragraph in the CNN article explains:

Palin violated state ethics law by trying to get her former brother-in-law fired from the state police, a state investigator’s report for the bipartisan Legislative Council concluded Friday.

See the problem? Palin is denying something she’s not accused of. She says there was nothing wrong with firing a cabinet member. CNN says the Alaska state investigator’s report found that she tried to get her brother-in-law fired–he’s a state trooper, NOT a cabinet member.

Do I personally care about whether she pressured some people to get her BIL fired? It sounds like she’s violated a law, so I care. However, the bigger issue, to me, is how she is dealing with the findings of this report.

She’s using a straw man argument to distract from the reality that she may have broken the law.

A "straw man argument" is when you create an argument that is easy for you to win, rather than address the real argument that has been presented.

You accuse person A of committing a crime X and they immediately respond by saying "I didn’t commit crime Y! Only a horrible person would commit crime Y–I think you’re horribly mistaken!"

Person A then hops in her tour bus and zooms off.

Person A created a little man out of straw that they could easily blow down with a lung-full of air. The catch here is that she’s not addressing the much bigger man made of brick and mortar.

This is an incredibly common technique used by LOTS of Republicans–and politicians in general, really. Watch for it the next time a politician you like (or dislike) gets accused of something.

In the end, Palin’s reaction to the report’s findings is completely predictable. It also makes her a perfect fit for Republicans–and politics in general, too.

Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterli.  Replies.

OK, so there went the first and only vice presidential debate.

I’ve taken some time to try to mull things over and attempt to absorb things for a couple hours before really deciding on what to blog.

I definitely feel like Biden won the debate but only on points. Just like Obama did at the first presidential debate. Joe didn’t trounce her and Palin sure as hell didn’t pummel him.

Biden was as confident and casual as I’d expect a white man in a suit of his age and experience to be. As I mentioned earlier today, I was concerned he would put his foot in his mouth. Luckily, he did fine–better than expected even.

Likewise, Palin did better than expected, too. The frustrating thing is that she didn’t do that well–on numerous occasions she failed entirely to answer the moderator’s questions and often times twisted her “answer” around so that she could talk about something completely unrelated. I think a “storm of words” was how reporter Charlie Gibson described the tactic Palin used tonight during his interview with her. Also, and I’m admitting a personal bias here, she had this smile that came across as infinitely condescending.

And she smiled a lot–all debate long.

Why do I not like that she didn’t do well? Simple, because she still did way better than she’s done in the two lousy interviews she’s given in the last month. She basically tanked both of them so everyone was expecting her to bomb this one like Dresden, but she didn’t. So, now everyone will be claiming she’s the come-back kid on the news. Even the Dems will acquiesce and admit she did better than expected.

Ultimately, I doubt anyone will accurately gauge how poorly she did because she performed so much better than anyone thought. It’s another disturbing example of “sucking less” equating to being a good thing. Our culture is so very backward these days.

So, yeah, I think Biden did better and probably “won” on a technical level, but I’m an anti-McCain guy, so naturally, I’m going to probably be biased against Palin regardless of how un-mind-numbingly stupid she was.

One person I’m also biased against was the moderator. PBS’ Gwen Ifill actually had some respect from me before tonight and, to be sure, she still does. However, she lost some tonight. I found her questions to be a bit soft and really not that important.

She didn’t hold either candidate to the questions in almost all instances where either dodged said questions (yes, Biden did this a couple of times, though not as often as Palin). Sure, she was, in some ways, and improvement over her fellow PBS-er Jim Lehrer who, himself, was like a grampa trying to get his grand kids to play nice. However, Ifill felt like a baby sitter in the next room. I felt like her questions were almost as vague and non-specific as Palin’s answers were.

OK, that’s an exaggeration, but you get my point. I think there was one question where she actually called them both on an issue they had previously flipped flopped on. That was nice.

In conclusion? It’s not quite as big a “meh” as the first presidential debate, but it’s nothing to cheer for either. The debate format was incredibly breezy–it flew by so quickly, though I’m concerned that maybe it shouldn’t have–we want to better know these candidates, right? Shuffling them from topic-to-topic might not be the best way to allow us to do that.

It was kind of a relief to see them both not totally screw the pooch. I hate to feel like any candidate is completely incompetent. I’d like to be proud of all of our leaders.

Of course, these days, that bar is set pretty low, as well.

What are ya gonna do? Move to another country?

Don’t tempt me…

Oh, I’ll do it!

Special thanks to the folks at C-SPAN for doing a bang-up job!! Check out C-SPAN’s bitchingly unbiased coverage of the debates at debatehub.c-span.org or on Twitter at twitter.com/cspan

For other unbiased sources of debate coverage, check out factcheck.org/ and the political blogs over at NPR.org here: npr.org/blogs/politics/

If you found this post through a search or some other link, you can follow me at Twitter here: twitter.com/thepete and a few other socnets under the name “thepete”. Always look for the baby head. If you don’t see it try “thepetecom”.

Thanks for reading!!

We now join ABC News’ Charlie Gibson’s interview with Sarah Palin, accompanied by round 7 of my commentary (check out round 1, round 2, round 3, round 4, round 5 and round 6!), already in progress:

Sarah Palin on Economic Policy:

WOW! FINALLY TO THE ECONOMY! WAY TO GO CHARLIE GIBSON!

PUH-LEASE! What journalism school did you go to, Charlie?

Cracker Jack University?

Is your degree very small and does it transfer to your skin when you apply water to the back of it? :P

The economy is only the most important issue we face right now!

GIBSON: Governor, John McCain and you are now talking about the GOP as a party of change. We’ve got a very sick economy. Tell me the three principal things you would do to change the Bush economic policies.

PALIN: And you’re right, our economy is weak right now and we’ve got to strengthen it, and government can play an appropriate role in helping to strengthen the economy.

Wow, these two are the brightest bulbs on TV!

The economy IS weak right now! And the government CAN play a role in helping to strengthen it! WOW!!

I may vote Palin, after all!

***

PALIN: Our 6.1 percent unemployment rate is unacceptable, also, across our nation.

Can’t they just pull themselves up by their bootstraps? I don’t get it!

We need to put government back on the side of the people and make sure that it is not government solely looked at for all the solutions, for one.

Where else do solutions come from? Should we expect the Coca-Cola Company to rebuild our homes after a hurricane destroys them?

Or are we supposed to be SO self-reliant that we work extra hours at our jobs to pay for enough insurance to pay for our homes if/when they get destroyed in a natural disaster or fire or something?

Government has got to get out of the way, in some respects, of the private sector, being able to create the jobs that we need, jobs that are going to allow for the families to be able to afford health care, to be able to afford their mortgages, to be able to afford college tuition for their kids.

Yeah, because it’s government getting in the way that allowed Enron to fail. And Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Bear Sterns and so on and so on and so on all failed because of…

Come on you idiot! It’s a LACK of regulation that allowed banks to make bad loans and companies to make bad choices.

Once again, I think John Edwards was right–there are two Americas. Bizarro America and… and… well, that’s the only America I see–where Republicans say less regulation is needed to stop companies from breaking the law and screwing people out of billions.

That’s got to be the principal here, reform government, recognize that it’s not government to be looked at to solve all the problems.

Again, Bizarro-logic.

Taxes, of course, I think is one of the most important things that government can obviously control and to help with this issue.

Taxes? What do taxes have to do with the fact the dollar is worth crap and that another bank just went belly-up?

GIBSON: What you said to me at the beginning I don’t think anybody in the Bush administration would disagree with. What do you change in the Bush economic plans?

PALIN: We have got to make sure that we reform the oversight, also, of the agencies, including the quasi-government agencies, like Freddie and Fannie, those things that have created an atmosphere here in America where people are fearful of losing their homes.

Yeah, it’s much better to not let them have homes in the first place.

How about we work out why the dollar is worth a pittance and then fix that problem so we can all afford to buy houses and not even have to take loans out to buy ‘em?

People are looking at job loss. People are looking at unaffordable health care for their families. We have got to reform the oversight of these agencies that have such control over Americans’ pocketbooks.

Job loss has an agency?

Health care has an agency?

If so, what the hell do these agencies have to do with our pocketbooks?

How does a government agency control whether corporations create jobs or not? How does a government agency determine whether health insurance companies cover certain procedures and medicines or not?

YOU’RE TALKING NONSENSE AGAIN.

GIBSON: So let me summarize the three things that you’d change in the Bush economic plans. One, two, three.

PALIN: Reduce taxes, control spending, reform the oversight and the overseeing agencies and committees to make sure that America’s dollars and investments are protected.

Wow, sounds like the number one target for said reforms would be unnecessary military incursions and occupations in and of foreign countries. Hell, we spend more on “defense” than anything else. Curb your spending? Start with the military.

I’m all for defending our borders, but that’s not what we’re doing in the middle east.

As for the other two, seems like the agencies and committees are only an imagined problem (since there IS no oversight of ANYthing it would seem) and cutting back on defense spending just might invigorate the economy in that we’re not borrowing BILLIONS every month anymore to keep the wars going.

GIBSON: So let me break some of those down. You talk about spending. How much smaller would a McCain budget be? Where would you cut?

PALIN: We’re going to find efficiencies in every department.

Doesn’t she mean “inefficiencies”?

We have got to. There are some things that I think should be off the table. Veterans’ programs, off the table.

Yeah, we already spend too little on veterans, we shouldn’t cut their funding any more.

You know, we owe it to our veterans and that’s the greatest manifestation that we can show in terms of support for our military, those who are in public service fighting for America. …It’s to make sure that our veterans are taken care of and the promises that we’ve made to them are fulfilled.

So, no cutting VA bennies. How sweet.

GIBSON: So you’d take military off the table, the veterans’ benefits. That’s 20 percent of the budget. & Do you talk about entitlement reform? Is there money you can save in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?

Wait! Charlie, why did you take “military” off the table?? WTF! Dude, that’s what we spend too much on!!

PALIN: I am sure that there are efficiencies that are going to be found in all of these agencies. I’m confident in that.

I don’t know what she means–he keeps asking about what to cut and she’s talking about “efficiencies”. You cut “inefficiencies” not “efficiencies.” I thought efficiencies were good.

GIBSON: The agencies are not involved in entitlements. Basically, discretionary spending is 18 percent of the budget.

PALIN: We have certainly seen excess in agencies, though, and in — when bureaucrats, when bureaucracy just gets kind of comfortable, going with the status-quo and not being challenged to find efficiencies and spend other people’s money wisely … then that’s where we get into the situation that we are into today, and that is a tremendous growth of government, a huge debt, trillions of dollars of debt that we’re passing on to my kids and your kids and your grandkids … It’s unacceptable.

I’m down with that! The thing is, no politician is willing to say the military is what we overspend the most on.

And I’m definitely thinking I’m missing something on using the word “efficiencies” the way she is. Either that or she’s a moron.

Could go either way.

Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures

There you have it! WHEW! It’s been a long time coming, hasn’t it? Just wait until the debates. Actually, I think I’ll quip to them live. This took a long-ass time to finish…

We now join ABC News’ Charlie Gibson’s interview with Sarah Palin, accompanied by round 5 of my commentary (check out round 1, round 2, round 3 and round 4!), already in progress:

Sarah Palin on Hillary Clinton:

GIBSON: I saw you quoted somewhere as speaking rather admiringly of Mrs. Clinton, Senator Clinton, during the primary campaign. Do you think Obama should’ve picked her?

PALIN: I think he’s regretting not picking her now, I do. What, what determination, and grit, and even grace through some tough shots that were fired her way, she handled those well.

Wow, no talk of how thankful Sarah is to Hillary for blazing a path for her?

No follow up from Charlie on how Palin might feel about people who think that maybe if Hillary hadn’t run McCain would never have chosen her?

GOOD TV!

Sarah Palin on Abortion Rights:

GIBSON: In the time I have left, I want to talk about some social issues.

PALIN: OK.

PALIN: What, like MySpace, errr that Facebook? Errrr, the Twitter?

GIBSON: No, those are social networks, I’m going to ask you about social issues like whether or not you think a woman has the right to kill a creature living inside herself–a creature that gestates and eventually emerges, forcing vast amounts of blood and treasure to be spent on its behalf. You know, abortion.

GIBSON: Roe v. Wade, do you think it should be reversed?

PALIN: I think it should and I think that states should be able to decide that issue…

So, she’s anti-individual choice, but pro-state choice. Well, it could be worse.

I am pro-life. I do respect other people’s opinion on this, also, and I think that a culture of life is best for America…

PALIN: Which is why I believe that going over and killing Iraqis who don’t do as we say is part of God’s plan.

What I want to do, when elected vice president, with John McCain, hopefully,

Oh, snap, dude! McCain, man, your girl just said she’d be VP with someone else!! That’s so wrong, man!

Where’s the loyalty!

be able to reach out and work with those who are on the other side of this issue, because I know that we can all agree on the need for and the desire for fewer abortions in America and greater support for adoption, for other alternatives that women can and should be empowered to embrace, to allow that culture of life. That’s my personal opinion on this, Charlie.

So, she’s for expanding government programs that would give expectant mothers money and health insurance so that they can afford to blow nine months of their lives, popping out this child who will only get stuck in a system that is already crowded with kids that need parents?

I mean, how else could expectant mothers who didn’t plan on having a kid get the support (financial and otherwise) they need to be able to “embrace” alternatives to abortion?

Carrying a baby to term is a HUGE commitment and a HUGE sacrifice. Sure, Sarah, your kid is lucky because she was born to rich (and white) parents. What happens to women who can’t just run to their parents for financial and emotional support? What happens in cases where the woman simply can’t afford to get proper prenatal care? What about cases of rape or incest? That requires even more than just financial and emotional support.

Where does all of it come from for people who don’t already have it in their families?

GIBSON: John McCain would allow abortion in cases of rape and incest. Do you believe in it only in the case where the life of the mother is in danger?

PALIN: That is my personal opinion.

Well, at least she’s willing to let the mother live!

GIBSON: Would you change and accept it in rape and incest?

PALIN: My personal opinion is that abortion allowed if the life of the mother is endangered. Please understand me on this. I do understand McCain’s position on this. I do understand others who are very passionate about this issue who have a differing.

A differing WHAT? :P

So, Sarah Palin’s advice for women who have been raped is: “Suck it up! It’s only nine months!”

Sarah Palin on Social Issues:

Isn’t that what we’ve been talking about?

GIBSON: Embryonic stem cell research, John McCain has been supportive of it.

PALIN: You know, when you’re running for office, your life is an open book and you do owe it to Americans to talk about your personal opinion, which may end up being different than what the policy in an administration would be.

This is a good point. In fact, it’s a great point. If she votes with the Constitution and the will of the people, I’d be OK with that (I still wouldn’t be happy with her as VP, but I’d be glad she’d be using the USC as her guide and not, say, the Bible).

My personal opinion is we should not create human life, create an embryo and then destroy it for research, if there are other options out there… And thankfully, again, not only are there other options, but we’re getting closer and closer to finding a tremendous amount more of options, like, as I mentioned, the adult stem cell research.

Does she even understand this topic? It’s not like the cells are taken from some sort of human-like thing. This is a tiny, tiny, little blob, we’re talking about. Something that is so far off from knowing ANYthing that it really is quite impossible to call it a human life.

GIBSON: Homosexuality, genetic or learned?

PALIN: Oh, I don’t — I don’t know, but I’m not one to judge and, you know, I’m from a family and from a community with many, many members of many diverse backgrounds and I’m not going to judge someone on whether they believe that homosexuality is a choice or genetic. I’m not going to judge them.

GIBSON: All right, then judge gays. Destined for hell or heaven?

Come on, Charlie–always letting us down with the lack of follow-ups!

GIBSON: Guns, 70 percent of this country supports a ban on semiautomatic assault weapons. Do you?

PALIN: I do not and, you know, here again, life being an open book here, as a candidate, I’m a lifetime member of the NRA. I believe strongly in our Second Amendment rights. That’s kind of inherent in the people of my state who rely on guns for not just self-protection, but also for our hunting and for sports, also. It’s a part of a culture here in Alaska. I’ve just grown up with that.

I actually think this is a fair response. One of her only fair responses in this interview. I’m an independent so I have beliefs that fall toward both major parties. I’m for realistic gun laws that stop people with mental issues or certain types of criminal records from getting guns. Ultimately, I’m all for the right to bear arms. Even fully automatic weapons.

Of course, I’m also for mandatory training for all American citizens in the firing of guns. I think it should be federally mandated that every child know how a gun works, how to fire it and the kind of harm it can do. I think if we’re taught an early fear of the gun, we’ll be able to cut down on deaths by firearms.

Remember, the reason we have the right to bear arms is so we can defend ourselves against thieves and murderers and politicians.

I know, I know, it’s tough to tell all those guys apart sometimes. :) But seriously, the idea was that if Americans were armed, politicians would be less likely to screw around with laws.

GIBSON: Isn’t gun violence in America a health issue? We spend billions of dollars a year every year treating people who are victims of gun violence. Nothing we can do about that?

Well, I pretty much just said that it’s an education issue but this question was directed at Ms. Palin.

PALIN: Do I think that all of that gun violence, though, is caused by people pulling a trigger who would have followed any law anyway? No. You start banning guns and you start taking away guns from people who will use them responsibly and use them ethically.

You put more and more laws on guns and you start taking away a Second Amendment right, it’s going to be, Charlie, the bad guys who have the guns, not those who are law-abiding citizens.

If only she held the other amendments in as high esteem (I’m looking at you 1st amendment!).

Sarah Palin on Sexism:

GIBSON: Is it sexist for people to ask how can somebody manage a family of seven and the vice presidency? Is that a sexist question to ask?

PALIN: I don’t know. I’m lucky to have been brought up in a family where gender has never been an issue. I’m a product of Title 9, also, where we had equality in schools that was just being ushered in with sports and with equal opportunity for education, all of my life.

But not equal pay, though.

I’m part of that generation, where that question is kind of irrelevant, because it’s accepted. Of course you can be the vice president and you can raise a family.

DUDE, FIVE KIDS. Clearly, what with Bristol getting pregnant, you can’t handle the job while being governor. Come on. Let’s be adult and honest here.

This is a sexist issue, only in that it’s about being a mom. Sure, if the dad wants to quit his job and take over, that’s cool. But, as I mentioned, as a good Christian, you couldn’t even keep your own daughter from having sex, clearly you and your hubby were missing something.

I’m the governor and I’m raising a family. I’ve been a mayor and have raised a family. I’ve owned a business and we’ve raised a family.

Yeah and everything’s been FINE!

What people have asked me when I was — when I learned I was pregnant, “Gosh, how are you going to be the governor and have a baby in office, too,” and I replied back then, as I would today, “I’ll do it the same way the other governors have done it when they’ve either had baby in office or raised a family.” Granted, they’re men, but do it the same way that they do it.

Stick the babies with their spouses while they sleep around? :P

Nooo, of course, it’s possible to have a HUGE family and still be a politician. However, the other spouse has to want to take a very hands-on role in order to still be good parents. The myth that two income families turn out just fine is just that, a myth–at least for the first several years of childhood. Once they go to school, it’s easier, but not by much.

What happens if Palin has to cast a deciding vote on the senate floor and her husband is off field dressing a moose and one of her kids falls and cracks their skull open?

The kid bleeds by him/herself until she’s done with the work of the nation.

GIBSON: When we posted this question on the Internet, we had 15,000 replies within 48 hours and every woman with young children struggles with this question, should I, how can I, will I be able to. And I’m curious to hear you talk just about how you’ve internalized that.

PALIN: Sure. And I understand what that struggle is, what those internal questions are. I’ve gone through the same thing over these 19 years from having my first born to today having a newborn.

In these 19 years, a lot of circumstances have changed. I stayed home with my son until he was seven years old, had just worked part-time, until I got into full-time employment again when he was seven. I had that choice then and I’ve had choices, of course, along the way.

Must be nice having all of those choices, huh, Sarah?

I bet you’d really hate to lose any of those choices.

Would you say that your pro- choice, Sarah?

Sarah Palin on Banning Books:

We’ll save this for part 6! That’ll be posted tomorrow. Thanks for reading!

We now join ABC News’ Charlie Gibson’s interview with Sarah Palin, accompanied by round 3 of my commentary (check out round 1 and round 2!), already in progress:

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!