This is the front page of the Huffington Post After Charlie Gibson’s Interview…. wait till you see what they wrote…
Let’s first examine the transcript:
Gibson: Do you favor the entry of Ukraine and Georgia into Nato?
SP: Ukraine definately, yes, yes and Georgia.
Gibson: Then under the NATO Treaty do we go to war if Russia went into Georgia?
SP: “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.
SP also said in the interview: 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.”
Here is what HuffPost has to say about this:
There are numerous problems with this statement. The most important element is that it sends a very dangerous and extreme signal to the world — especially other nuclear powers. This type of dangerous talk reinforces the militaristic saber-rattling of the McCain campaign. From joking about bombing Iran, to talking about invading Iraq, Iran and Syria weeks after 9/11 to the misguided “we are all Georgians now,” the McCain campaign is sending all kinds of horrifying signals to the world about the types of wars it would fight. Leaders in other capitals are paying attention and words matter.
Technically, if Georgia and Ukraine were to become part of NATO under Article Five, we would be obligated to protect them and even Obama-Biden support bringing them into NATO. But here’s the thing…
No sane American or European leader would ever ever ever give an answer like that. You do not get into hypotheticals about nuclear war. You just don’t.
First of all, Palin never mentioned nuclear war in the interview, she also never said that we should invade Russia. She did imply that if Georgia were a part of NATO than we would have to go help them as the NATO treaty says. For some reason the left can’t stop just making stuff up. In the weeks after 9/11 we talked about invading lots of places because we weren’t sure who all the culprits were.
Huffpost says that “no sane American or European leader would ever give an answer like that” …. ummm excuse me our government has been saying it, Sarkozy in France has demanded that Russia withdrawal their forces from Georgia. Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser Zebignew Brzezinski said this …. and this is what is so sweet…. he said it TO THE HUFFINGTON POST……
Here is what Brzezinski said about bringing Georgia into NATO:
Brzezinski: The West desisted from extending the NATO “membership action plan” to Georgia — a preparatory stage for becoming a member — out of deference to Russian objections. It is now clear that the deference shown to Putin, in the face of his obvious ambitions, has been counterproductive. In view of what has happened, NATO ought to extend the membership action plan to Georgia, therefore reinforcing the commitment NATO made in Bucharest last March to the effect that NATO intends, at some future point, to include Georgia.
In spite of Brzezinski’s disastrous middle east policy under Carter, Brzezinski is spot on here and knows that moving to bring Georgia into NATO means that the west will be treaty bound and obligated to help Georgia expel Russian forces from it’s territory, by sanction’s if possible, by force if sanctions fail.
Brzezinski said in the interview:
We can logically anticipate that Putin, if not resisted, will use the same tactics toward the Ukraine. Putin has already made public threats against Ukraine.
The Huffpost treats the NATO group defense pact as a “technicality” as if it is not meant to be deadly serious:
Technically, if Georgia and Ukraine were to become part of NATO under Article Five, we would be obligated to protect them and even Obama-Biden support bringing them into NATO.
The Huffpost, calls Palin’s support for the letter of the NATO treaty, “sabre rattling” and a “very dangerous signal” and goes on to say that “Leaders in other capitals are paying attention and words matter.”
Umm Huffpost I have news for you Article Five of the NATO treaty isn’t an empty threat and isn’t optional and isn’t a mere trivial technicality. It is legally binding, but more importantly, stating that the NATO treaty will be enforced has stopped wars, saved countless lives and that NATO mutual defense threat carries with it the diplomatic credibility of NATO. Brzezinski has made it clear and he is correct that we need to bring them into NATO and let Putin know that NATO is SERIOUS, because as he said, anything less will just encourage Putin (which would make war even more likely). So to stop a war NATO must show Putin that NATO is ready to wage one.
So when Huffpost says that “No sane national leader would give an answer like that” – they are wrong, every NATO leader should give an answer like that so the diplomatic credibility of NATO can keep Putin from invading Ukraine or someone else. This is exactly why Sarkozy, Bush, McCain, and Brzezinski have said what they did.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Obama and McCain are both on the record for supporting Georgia’s entry into NATO to help defend them. In fact, Obama and McCain co-sponsored a Senate Resolution (co-sponsors also included Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton – LINK) calling for Georgia’s admission into NATO. That resolution passed the Senate unanimously. Governor Palin has the same position on this issue as both presidential candidates and the entire US Senate, yet according to the Huffington Post it is she who is the warmonger….
Now let’s cover the other two issues they bring up, its 3:00 AM and I am beat so I will keep this short and sweet.
First – the accusation is that Palin did not know what the Bush doctrine is. Huffpost has this wrong and here is why. To Palin, the word “doctrine” has a special meaning, like a purpose or philosophy. As a very committed Christian it is a word that Palin has thought about many times and hears regularly in matters of faith. When you see her answer she starts explaining what Bush’s doctrine after 9/11 was, not the actual “Bush Doctrine” as a policy. When Gibson clarified that he was asking specifically about about the “Bush Doctrine” policy she gave the correct answer and the same one that McCain has given which is the position Obama spoke in agreement with later in the primary.
If Palin didn’t know what this policy was and what it meant, she would not have given such a specific and correct answer after Gibson clarified what he was asking. So what this adds up to is that Palin thought Gibson was asking her one thing when he was asking for another. There are six Bush Doctrine’s. Gibson named one and Governor Palin named another.
Second – Huffpost mocks Palin for saying that energy policy is a foundation for national security. The Democrats still don’t get this as they have opposed drilling, nuclear power and support high fuel taxes on diesel fuel which keeps many 60+ mpg diesel cars too expensive to drive and thus not sold in America. Ford makes such a vehicle but only sells it overseas. Palin is a guru on energy policy and that is one of the reasons she is so popular and the Republican brand owns the energy issue.
UPDATE – Allahpundit at Hotair.com means well but got it wrong. Dont get me wrong. The people at Hotair are VERY good at what they do to put it mildly. [Palin answered the Bush Doctrine question correctly. There are six Bush Doctrines, Gibson named one and Palin named another. See Hey Gibson! About that Bush Doctrine: There are SIX of them. Palin was right again. – Editor]
That said, it’s pretty clear she doesn’t know what he means by the Bush Doctrine and can’t answer the Pakistan question in anything but platitudes about stopping Islamic extremism.
Democrat Stratagist Kirsten Powers, who is a Democrat who makes an effort to be clear minded, got it right and oddly enough took almost the same take I did:
Her responses to Gibson’s cross-examining seemed canned and rehearsed, a little like the answers you might give in a tough college interview. But that may be a result of the ham-fisted editing – which seemed to cut her off mid-thought on many answers. ABC should release the entire, unedited interview, so that Americans can judge her more fairly.
The biggest concern is that she appeared to not know what the Bush Doctrine is. There are, in fact, different definitions of it – but all have had an impact on this nation.
The Australian Herald Sun also got this right on – I will have a full post on this piece later today:
Sarah Palin has given her first interview since being picked as the Republican’s vice-presidential candidate. The media has scrabbled for evidence of fumbles, and evidence that a shootin’, cussin’ redneck is about to plunge the world into war.
And away they go. From the Toronto Globe and Mail:
Shooting from the hip on foreign policy, Palin raises spectre of war with Russia
Indeed, 3AW’s Neil Mitchell this morning scoffed that a President Palin would have already started “four wars”, to judge by the interview.
Really? Let’s check.
The first war a President Palin would allegedly start was with Pakistan, by invading it in the hunt for terrorists, and perhaps from the transcript you might agree the words are indeed naive and alarming:
We should start with the premise that the United States, like all sovereign nations, has the unilateral right to defend itself against attack. As such, our campaign to take out Al Qaeda base camps and the Taliban regime that harbored them was entirely justified… (I)f we’ve got (Osama bin Laden) in our sites, we should ask for Pakistan’s cooperation, we should ask Pakistan to take him out. But if they don’t, we shouldn’t need permission to go after folks that killed 3,000 Americans.
Oops, sorry. That was actually Barack Obama. This is Palin:
ABC News Anchor Gibson also asked Palin several times whether or not U.S. forces have the right to make cross-border attacks into Pakistan with or without the approval of the Pakistani government…
“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…”