I know I said I need to stop talking about her, but Sarah Palin just makes it so easy. She had an interview with Katie Couric recently, and apparently stumbled over some questions and answers. Now, I know she was probably nervous. After all, she hasn’t had much experience dealing with the press on a national level, and I’m actually surprised she agreed/was allowed to do the interview at all considering the amount of shielding from the press the campaign has done for her. Still, she gave the interview which focused on foreign policy and relations.
She should have been prepared for the interview and its questions, especially after the confusion she showed when Charlie GIbson asked her to define the Bush Doctrine. She had difficulty doing that and was mocked by the media. McCain’s response to this mockery was that the media was being snobbish and sexist. I have to disagree with that assessment, though. I may not know how to define the Bush doctrine (but I think I do and it goes something like this: It is our duty as Americans, and a global powerhouse, to seek out terrorists, destroy them, and bring democracy to places that have been ruled by totalitarian regimes that do not share our love freedom). Okay, it may not be that exactly, but it’s something like that. Like I said, I’m not sure exactly what the Bush Doctrine is, but I have a good idea.
But for Sarah Palin, an candidate for Vice President, to not have a clear idea on the Bush Doctrine is inexcusable. Just as it would be if Barrack Obama, John McCain or Joe Biden could not clearly define the doctrine. These are people who will take over the country that has been run by Bush and his doctrine. They should at least know what it is they’re stepping into, even if their first act as president is to repeal it.
Couric did not ask about the Bush Doctrine, but she did ask governor Palin about how the proximity of Alaska to Russia gives her foreign policy experience.
This is the stumbling answer she gave:
“We have trade missions back and forth. We — we do — it’s very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the airspace of the United States of America, where — where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to — to our state.”
So once again Palin confirms the fact that Alaska and Russia are close geographically, but she offers no real explanation as to how that proximity adds to her foreign relations qualifications. This lack of qualifications was further enhanced when she slammed Obama’s position of sitting down to diplomatic talks with hostile leaders of such nations as Iran, Syria, and North Korea without pre-set conditions.
Is she so far gone that she does not realize we are in the mess in Iraq that we are in because our leaders set conditions for diplomacy? I mean come on. Get leaders to the table, get the talks started, then start putting some conditions down–if you feel the need for conditions at all. But don’t tell other world leaders (hostile and tyrannical as they may be) that they have to meet specific goals before you will talk to them. They’ll laugh and give you the finger because it is obvious that you are not serious about this so called diplomacy. Imposing conditions on talks before they begin is akin to the third grader who tells his friends that they can come to his party, but only if they promise to bring some cake, cookies, and soda. It’s childish, disrespectful, and ultimately detrimental to the relationships between the people involved.
I understand Palin/McCain are trying to show themselves as hard noses who are strong on national security issues, but when you end up looking like an irrational child, maybe it’s time to start rethinking your policies. I’m not saying go easy, but maybe go easier, or at least show a willingness to sit down and talk before making any demands.