Stupid Sarah Confronts Foriegn Policy Issues Head on!

[Drixxx]

No doubt about it. If we get into a nuclear showdown with Russia and Putin starts asking her current events questions, we're fucked.

Republicans continually lower the bar for compentence in postions of great importance in favor of self interest.

You all have done it so often it has now become routine. You don't even pretend that the position requires foriegn policy knowledge and experience.

Unbelievable!

 

[lavender]

Is this anything like a candidate for President calling for a UN resolution so Russia can sanction itself?

Sharon -- still tryin' to keep it real

Stop trying to be cute on foreign policy. You actually know more than Palin, which is scary, but you don't know that much. See below. It's common practice to push resolutions in the Security Council even if you know there will be a veto to press the issue, publicize the issue and shame the other country.

Of course you would have to understand historically how the United Nations Security Council works (and since you're just talking about a generic UN Resolution - I'm not sure you even realize the different between the bodies and how this issue would actually be unique to the Security Council).

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/612817d8-e377-44df-9ebe-aca0ea95e945.htm

"The United States and our allies should continue efforts to bring a resolution before the UN Security Council condemning Russian aggression, noting the withdrawal of Georgian troops from South Ossetia, and calling for an immediate ceasefire and the withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgian territory. We should move ahead with the resolution despite Russian veto threats, and submit Russia to the court of world public opinion."

 

[firespin]

We should move ahead with the resolution despite Russian veto threats, and submit Russia to the court of world public opinion.

And the evidence that Russia cares a whit about that would be what, exactly?

 

[lavender]

Republicans continually lower the bar for compentence in postions of great importance in favor of self interest.

You all have done it so often it has now become routine. You don't even pretend that the position requires foriegn policy knowledge and experience.

Unbelievable!

This is truly quotable!

Heck of a job Brownie, er Palin!

 

[Morcheeba]

That's not the issue. The issue is that McCain picked a woman who has obviously (and by her own admission with respect to Iraq) been too narrowly focused on Alaska to give national and foreign policy issues much attention.

That's fine for an Alaskan Governor. That is not fine for the Vice President of the United States.

The fact that she's had to be schooled in the ways of foreign policy is unprecedented. And she's not being just schooled on what McCain thinks - she's having to learn about everything regarding foreign policy because she doesn't know anything.

It's not that she's going to have to be asked questions by Putin, it's that (1) she's not going to be able to help McCain govern in any fashion on foreign policy; and (2) god forbid something happens to McCain - we have a person in office guiding our troops in Iraq who really doesn't know about the historical, political, security, and ethnic underpinnings that have made this war so difficult to win.

Look - Rumsfeld demonstrated a lack of "understanding" of Iraq early on in his policy. Bush - had no "knowledge" of foreign policy. Look where that has gotten us?

I'm not talking experience here - I'm talking "knowledge" and "understanding."

Do we really want someone in office who has as little intellectual curiosity as Bush directing our foreign policy? Have we not learned anything from the last 8 years? History repeating itself, anyone?

This McCain/Campaign is the antithesis of change - it's using the status quo and hyperinflating the flaws inherent in it.

As I told someone in private last week or so, I look forward to your comments in here, Lavender. I admire the time and effort you expend to relay your commentaries/political wisdom rather than hogging bandwidth with copy/pasted links and text most likely brainstormed by others.

I'm being honest here. You always give me food for thought.

 

[Drixxx]

Another Koolade drinker comes out of the woodwork.

Tell me all about the Bush doctrine, will ya?

Ask Stupid Sarah. She's your expert and the one that will be resposnible for enforcing it.

 

[lavender]

And the evidence that Russia cares a whit about that would be what, exactly?

My point is - that McCain said the exact same thing as Obama. It was NOT a gaffe to say that we should ask the Security Council for a resolution - that is typical despite the fact that a country would veto such a bill.

And Russia would veto it, clearly - everyone knew it.

 

[firespin]

My point is - that McCain said the exact same thing as Obama. It was NOT a gaffe to say that we should ask the Security Council for a resolution - that is typical despite the fact that a country would veto such a bill.

And Russia would veto it, clearly - everyone knew it.

That's fine as far as it goes.

As a complete plan, it's sorely lacking.

 

[Sharon_]

Stop trying to be cute on foreign policy.

<grin>
No. Now what?

You actually know more than Palin, which is scary,

Again with the omniscience....color me impressed.

I have no idea what she knows. She's done one interview.

but you don't know that much.

But then, t'was never *me* claiming to hold a specialty on that topic.

See below. It's common practice to push resolutions in the Security Council even if you know there will be a veto to press the issue, publicize the issue and shame the other country.

Common or not, it's bone stupid. Waste of time, waste of taxpayer money, pure stupidity.

Albeit very, very funny.

But that's just what a simple hillbilly bitterly clinging to her guns and religion thinks about it.


...and you could've spared your lecture and link on McCain. Had you read my post, you would've noted I carefully used the term 'presidential candidate'....I'm full aware Obama wasn't the only candidate bein' stupid.

If your point is that because McCain says something stupid that it's okay for Obama to say the same stupid thing (or vice versa, don't remember who was Stupid On First) that just fails on it's face...especially in light of condemning Palin for saying something stupid. Hers was a 'maybe stupid', theirs was 'no shadow of a doubt stupid'.

 

[lavender]

That's fine as far as it goes.

As a complete plan, it's sorely lacking.

He didn't make that quote as a complete plan - so you're phrase is really just an attempt to TRY and discredit him - i.e. looking for something, anything to throw his way when you've got NOTHING.

I am truly close to the point of calling it like I see it - anyone who votes for the McCain/Palin ticket is either: (1) devoid of reality; (2) Republican first - everything else second; or (3) a total blithering stupid fucking idiot.

It's not an area of gray to me anymore.

 

[airport]

Bush Doctrine

Written by sows with lipstick No hedges, bushes, shall be over two feet high.

Pigs with or without lipstick may walk all over the White House lawns but not piss on the bushes.

If I were Hussein Obama I would approve this message.

Obama's new book, "How to Organize a One Car Political Funeral " or dump Hillary

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

He didn't make that quote as a complete plan - so you're phrase is really just an attempt to TRY and discredit him - i.e. looking for something, anything to throw his way when you've got NOTHING.

I am truly close to the point of calling it like I see it - anyone who votes for the McCain/Palin ticket is either: (1) devoid of reality; (2) Republican first - everything else second; or (3) a total blithering stupid fucking idiot.

It's not an area of gray to me anymore.

It actually saddens me because I once admired John McCain. Back when he actually had principles and a mind of his own. Unfortunately that person was gone after the 2000 GOP Primaries, particularly after the smear campaign in South Carolina, and has since been replaced by just another typical GOP lackey. His positions have changed so often in the last seven years that I don't think he even knows where he stands on any of the issues anymore.

 

[firespin]

He didn't make that quote as a complete plan - so you're phrase is really just an attempt to TRY and discredit him - i.e. looking for something, anything to throw his way when you've got NOTHING.

I am truly close to the point of calling it like I see it - anyone who votes for the McCain/Palin ticket is either: (1) devoid of reality; (2) Republican first - everything else second; or (3) a total blithering stupid fucking idiot.

It's not an area of gray to me anymore.

Let's file this under the heading of things we already knew...that you consider half the country to be deluded or idiotic. Perhaps an example why it's hard for Democratic presidential candidates to get even 50% of the popular vote...half the country feels disrespected.

Meanwhile, , it's certainly fair to compare the approach of the candidates to a recent situation. If you look at the tape, you will see Obama moving towards McCain's approach just days after his initial, Rodney King-like "can't we all just get along" statements, which is the point I was capturing and that went over your head.

One writeup from a pretty mainstream source captured it like this:

Read about it here

 

[lavender]

<grin>
No. Now what?


Again with the omniscience....color me impressed.

I have no idea what she knows. She's done one interview.

That's not all she's done. She actually stated and was quoted as saying recently that she hasn't kept up with Iraq because she was too busy focusing on Alaskan policy. Further, she did not know much about the surge and actually said she hoped an exit strategy was in place (completely polar opposite to McCain)

You can say it's omniscience all you want or reading minds. But, just look at the interview. She parrotted the same thing about Israel three times: "I will not second guess Israel" - to three different questions. It's talking points - stick to the talking points - don't deviate from the talking points. This coupled with the rash statement about war with Russia - "perhaps so" (You just don't say that about a country with nuclear weapons. You just don't. No politician does and any politician with any foreign policy savy would say "We're not going to discuss hypotheticals on such a serious issue."). In addition, she clearly hadn't heard of the Bush Doctrine - if you want to think so fine. I disagree and I think anyone who's being honest about it would say so.

Common or not, it's bone stupid. Waste of time, waste of taxpayer money, pure stupidity.

Albeit very, very funny.

Last I checked the US Ambassador to the UN didn't bill by the hour. Don't really see how it's a "waste of taxpayer money." It's not like we would be funneling $3.2 million earmark (ala seal DNA in Alaska under Palin) into a resolution at th UN.

And, I disagree that it's stupid. It gives Russia and opportunity to see that every other member of the Security Council would be resolute with the United States. That is a big symbolic deal that could actually act in a way to deter future action. It's a huge deal - and DEFINITELY not a waste of any time or money considering the huge stakes with our relationship with Russia over the long run.

But that's just what a simple hillbilly bitterly clinging to her guns and religion thinks about it.

Karl Rovian deflection. Also, it fails to understand what Obama was trying to say in his San Francisco talk - which he said albeit in a very poor manner <--- see, those on the Left know how to actually be upset with their own politicians (i.e. my anger with the Left regarding drilling today)

As for the Security Council thing - it wasn't a gaffe, it wasn't stupid - it represented a knowledge of HOW foreign policy works on these issues.

That is completely and totally different than the parrotted talking points that demonstrated no understanding that we got from Palin in the Charlie Gibson interview.

And you're comment that it's "one interview" only proves how wrong the McCain/Palin strategy has been. In just a bit more than 50 days, we are making a decision about who will govern for the next 4 years. Just 14 days ago, this woman was presented to the country for the first time. She has only read from a telemprompter, refuses questions at rallies, refuses questions from the press, will only do 20/20 style narrative interviews (Gibson did throw some policy questions - admittedly), has a second interview with Sean Hannity....and no idea when she's actually going to take questions from the press or even people at campaign rallies.

You can't hide behind that she's just had one interview. That's all they are letting her do - they are not being fair to the voters. It's just ridiculous.

 

[lavender]

Let's file this under the heading of things we already knew...that you consider half the country to be deluded or idiotic. Perhaps an example why it's hard for Democratic presidential candidates to get even 50% of the popular vote...half the country feels disrespected.

I'm not the one disrespecting them - the Karl Rove campaign tactics of lying, saying its not about the issues - that's the disrespect their getting.

My disrespect is futuristic - if they allow themselves to buy this. Why can't people get that it's the political operatives that brought you Bush and now McCain/Palin that are laughing all the way to the bank that this bullshit is working? It's not the liberals - the liberals are outraged that Rove & Co have such contempt for Americans.

Rove & Co don't care about small towns, they don't give a shit about small town values. They care about winning elections - at ALL costs. They know pandering and spreading fear and lies works. So they do it. That's the ultimate disrespect - thinking the American people are so dumb they'll buy it.

Meanwhile, , it's certainly fair to compare the approach of the candidates to a recent situation. If you look at the tape, you will see Obama moving towards McCain's approach just days after his initial, Rodney King-like "can't we all just get along" statements, which is the point I was capturing and that went over your head.

One writeup from a pretty mainstream source captured it like this:

Read about it here

Don't think it went over my head. Just think even the article proves that is an inaccurate assessment. I stand by what Obama said and I believe that McCain was absolutely wrong on how he handled Georgia.

Just remember, one of McCain's senior advisors had Georgia as a client (he's a lobbyist).

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Republicans continually lower the bar for compentence in postions of great importance in favor of self interest.

You all have done it so often it has now become routine. You don't even pretend that the position requires foriegn policy knowledge and experience.

Unbelievable!

Lowering the bar? You guys nominate a freshman, single-term U. S. Senator with eight years in the Illinois State Legislature who last November described his own foreign policy experience thusly, ‘‘Probably the strongest experience I have in foreign relations is the fact I spent four years overseas when I was a child in Southeast Asia.’’ (http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/659550,obmock112007.article)
and you want to talk to me about lowering the bar?

For what it's worth, I was less than thrilled with Palin's selection as the vice presidential candidate. I certainly hope that she does not have to fill the office of President any time soon. But to entertain the fantasy that she is any less experienced or prepared than Obama is the nuttiest notion you could possibly put forward.

At least I am candid about the experiential short comings of the Republican Vice Presidential nominee. That's far more than can be said for you and your crew about the candidate at the top of your ticket.

But by all means, keep harping on the same tune. All it does is make Obama squint harder into that bright light shining into his eyes.

 

[lavender]

Lowering the bar? You guys nominate a freshman, single-term U. S. Senator with eight years in the Illinois State Legislature who last November described his own foreign policy experience thusly, ‘‘Probably the strongest experience I have in foreign relations is the fact I spent four years overseas when I was a child in Southeast Asia.’’ (http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/659550,obmock112007.article)
and you want to talk to me about lowering the bar?

For what it's worth, I was less than thrilled with Palin's selection as the vice presidential candidate. I certainly hope that she does not have to fill the office of President any time soon. But to entertain the fantasy that she is any less experienced or prepared than Obama is the nuttiest notion you could possibly put forward.

At least I am candid about the experiential short comings of the Republican Vice Presidential nominee. That's far more than can be said for you and your crew about the candidate at the top of your ticket.

But by all means, keep harping on the same tune. All it does is make Obama squint harder into that bright light shining into his eyes.

The issue is framed incorrectly. It's not "experience" it's qualifications - which as I have stated ad nauseum is a combination of so many factors beyond just tangible experience.


But, to think Palin has more qualifications than Obama on foreign policy is ludicrous in the extreme. But, I don't care about Palin in comparison to Obama. I care about McCain in comparison to Obama. McCain has just been flat wrong on foreign policy on so many occasions.

Look at how he trumpeted the Iraq war? He had to be reminded by Joe Lieberman about the distinctions of Sunni v. Shia in Iraq. A man who claims to be a hawk and be so knowledgeable about the Iraq war and Middle East policy doesn't get this little distinction that you learn in Foreign Policy 101 or Middle Eastern History 101.

McCain has been wrong on Afghanistan, Obama was right.

McCain doesn't have the temperament to lead our country.

 

[garbage can]

After reading some of these posts, I believe Michael Savage is correct...

"Liberalism is a Mental Disorder,"

 

[Colonel Hogan]

That's not the issue. The issue is that McCain picked a woman who has obviously (and by her own admission with respect to Iraq) been too narrowly focused on Alaska to give national and foreign policy issues much attention.

That's fine for an Alaskan Governor. That is not fine for the Vice President of the United States.

The fact that she's had to be schooled in the ways of foreign policy is unprecedented. And she's not being just schooled on what McCain thinks - she's having to learn about everything regarding foreign policy because she doesn't know anything.

It's not that she's going to have to be asked questions by Putin, it's that (1) she's not going to be able to help McCain govern in any fashion on foreign policy; and (2) god forbid something happens to McCain - we have a person in office guiding our troops in Iraq who really doesn't know about the historical, political, security, and ethnic underpinnings that have made this war so difficult to win.

Look - Rumsfeld demonstrated a lack of "understanding" of Iraq early on in his policy. Bush - had no "knowledge" of foreign policy. Look where that has gotten us?

I'm not talking experience here - I'm talking "knowledge" and "understanding."

Do we really want someone in office who has as little intellectual curiosity as Bush directing our foreign policy? Have we not learned anything from the last 8 years? History repeating itself, anyone?

This McCain/Campaign is the antithesis of change - it's using the status quo and hyperinflating the flaws inherent in it.

My apologies, Lavie. I should have responded to you instead of Drixx. You are actually bringing some intelligence to this discussion.

But my answer to your assertions would essentially be the same. Whatever lack of understanding you believe Gov. Palin to suffer from, why would you think for a moment that Sen. Obama has any less of the same deficiency? And it is HIS knowledge and understanding (or lack thereof) compared to MCCAIN's knowledge and understanding (or lack thereof) that should be the focus of this PRESIDENTIAL campaign.

Everybody is so shocked about the possibility and potential ramifications of a Palin presidency. But I guarantee you that of the four candidates in this election the odds of Barack Obama being sworn in as President next January are far, far greater than those of Sarah Palin.

I can certainly understand why you would rather run Obama against Palin, but in the end, I don't believe the voting public is going accept that as the judgment they are being asked to make.

 

[Drixxx]

Lowering the bar? You guys nominate a freshman, single-term U. S. Senator with eight years in the Illinois State Legislature who last November described his own foreign policy experience thusly, ‘‘Probably the strongest experience I have in foreign relations is the fact I spent four years overseas when I was a child in Southeast Asia.’’ (http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/659550,obmock112007.article)
and you want to talk to me about lowering the bar?

For what it's worth, I was less than thrilled with Palin's selection as the vice presidential candidate. I certainly hope that she does not have to fill the office of President any time soon. But to entertain the fantasy that she is any less experienced or prepared than Obama is the nuttiest notion you could possibly put forward.

At least I am candid about the experiential short comings of the Republican Vice Presidential nominee. That's far more than can be said for you and your crew about the candidate at the top of your ticket.

But by all means, keep harping on the same tune. All it does is make Obama squint harder into that bright light shining into his eyes.

That's it? Is that all you Republicans bring to the table is empty spin? Everyone knows Obama is a dazzling, intelligent, informed and knowledgable candidate who's been vetted in public for months.

Pretending he is some Bush-league typical Republican, idealogue based, incompetent appointment ala Mike Brown, Clarence Thomas, Stupid Sarah, Alan Keyes, etc. is just ludicrous.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

The issue is framed incorrectly. It's not "experience" it's qualifications - which as I have stated ad nauseum is a combination of so many factors beyond just tangible experience.


But, to think Palin has more qualifications than Obama on foreign policy is ludicrous in the extreme. But, I don't care about Palin in comparison to Obama. I care about McCain in comparison to Obama. McCain has just been flat wrong on foreign policy on so many occasions.

Look at how he trumpeted the Iraq war? He had to be reminded by Joe Lieberman about the distinctions of Sunni v. Shia in Iraq. A man who claims to be a hawk and be so knowledgeable about the Iraq war and Middle East policy doesn't get this little distinction that you learn in Foreign Policy 101 or Middle Eastern History 101.

McCain has been wrong on Afghanistan, Obama was right.

McCain doesn't have the temperament to lead our country.

Apologies again. My responses are running out of sequence. I'll just shut up since we've both made our points clear.

 

[Slowlane]

After reading some of these posts, I believe Michael Savage is correct...

"Liberalism is a Mental Disorder,"

In total agreement.

 

[zipman]

In total agreement.

So anyone who disagrees with you has a mental disorder?

Simply brilliant.

Although it is fun watching two morons prove how stupid they are.

 

[Slowlane]

So anyone who disagrees with you has a mental disorder?

Simply brilliant.

Although it is fun watching two morons prove how stupid they are.

Just liberals. Weren't you reading? It was short and all, just for you.

 

[lavender]

Apologies again. My responses are running out of sequence. I'll just shut up since we've both made our points clear.

No need to apologize to me. I've dealt with AJ, ISh and busybody for years. I think I can take anything at this place and don't need any apologies.

There's more to why I think Obama is more qualified to lead this country right now than John McCain and I'm gladly willing to discuss it in a very serious and coherent manner if someone would like to.

But, in so doing, it has to be sincere and based on facts on both sides. I gave up on doing that with Ish and AJ a long time ago. Read their posts - but rarely respond to them.