Anyone interested in the newly "discovered" Sarah Palin will know that post her being embargoed from speaking to the media that she appeared in an interview on American ABC. She made a credible fist of it, even if she did not know what the Bush Doctrine was!
John Nichols, writing in The Nation, reveals what hasn't received much media coverage - and what Palin said ought to be of concern to anyone even contemplating this woman with a possible mere heartbeat away from the US presidency:
"When everyone's attention was focusing on Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's less-than-reassuring interview about foreign policy with ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson, the Republican nominee for vice president was off delivering a speech in which she suggested a dramatically greater ignorance of recent history and international affairs than was on display in the interview.
Speaking at Alaska's Fort Wainwright on Thursday, where she hailed the combat deployment of her son's Army unit to Iraq as a "righteous cause," Palin explicitly and repeatedly renewed the discredited claim that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was initiated as a necessary and credible response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
"You'll be there to defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the deaths of thousands of Americans," Palin told the departing soldiers.
Palin's assessment directly contradicts that of President Bush and key members of his national security team.
After his administration got called out for trying to suggest an Iraq-terrorism connection -- following an over-the-top appearance by conspiracy-theorist-in-chief Dick Cheney on NBC's "Meet the Press," in which the vice president made the false claim that Iraq had been the "geographic base" for the 9/11 attacks -- Bush acknowledged on September 17, 2003, that, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks."
Over at the NY Times, columnist Bob Herbert probably puts the whole Palin "thing" into some reasoned context:
"While watching the Sarah Palin interview with Charlie Gibson Thursday night, and the coverage of the Palin phenomenon in general, I’ve gotten the scary feeling, for the first time in my life, that dimwittedness is not just on the march in the U.S., but that it might actually prevail.
How is it that this woman could have been selected to be the vice presidential candidate on a major party ticket? How is it that so much of the mainstream media has dropped all pretense of seriousness to hop aboard the bandwagon and go along for the giddy ride?
For those who haven’t noticed, we’re electing a president and vice president, not selecting a winner on “American Idol.”
Ms. Palin may be a perfectly competent and reasonably intelligent woman (however troubling her views on evolution and global warming may be), but she is not ready to be vice president.
With most candidates for high public office, the question is whether one agrees with them on the major issues of the day. With Ms. Palin, it’s not about agreeing or disagreeing. She doesn’t appear to understand some of the most important issues."
John Nichols, writing in The Nation, reveals what hasn't received much media coverage - and what Palin said ought to be of concern to anyone even contemplating this woman with a possible mere heartbeat away from the US presidency:
"When everyone's attention was focusing on Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's less-than-reassuring interview about foreign policy with ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson, the Republican nominee for vice president was off delivering a speech in which she suggested a dramatically greater ignorance of recent history and international affairs than was on display in the interview.
Speaking at Alaska's Fort Wainwright on Thursday, where she hailed the combat deployment of her son's Army unit to Iraq as a "righteous cause," Palin explicitly and repeatedly renewed the discredited claim that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was initiated as a necessary and credible response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
"You'll be there to defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the deaths of thousands of Americans," Palin told the departing soldiers.
Palin's assessment directly contradicts that of President Bush and key members of his national security team.
After his administration got called out for trying to suggest an Iraq-terrorism connection -- following an over-the-top appearance by conspiracy-theorist-in-chief Dick Cheney on NBC's "Meet the Press," in which the vice president made the false claim that Iraq had been the "geographic base" for the 9/11 attacks -- Bush acknowledged on September 17, 2003, that, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks."
Over at the NY Times, columnist Bob Herbert probably puts the whole Palin "thing" into some reasoned context:
"While watching the Sarah Palin interview with Charlie Gibson Thursday night, and the coverage of the Palin phenomenon in general, I’ve gotten the scary feeling, for the first time in my life, that dimwittedness is not just on the march in the U.S., but that it might actually prevail.
How is it that this woman could have been selected to be the vice presidential candidate on a major party ticket? How is it that so much of the mainstream media has dropped all pretense of seriousness to hop aboard the bandwagon and go along for the giddy ride?
For those who haven’t noticed, we’re electing a president and vice president, not selecting a winner on “American Idol.”
Ms. Palin may be a perfectly competent and reasonably intelligent woman (however troubling her views on evolution and global warming may be), but she is not ready to be vice president.
With most candidates for high public office, the question is whether one agrees with them on the major issues of the day. With Ms. Palin, it’s not about agreeing or disagreeing. She doesn’t appear to understand some of the most important issues."
Comments