McCain picks woman for VP slot

[Sulaco]

I didn't call her inexperienced. I said I know nothing more about her stand now than I did before the question was asked. And I don't. But no, they aren't the same question. One is merely a judgment of Israel's actions, the other is the American position regarding Israel's reactions; ie: 'What would you do if that were to happen?'

Again. There is a huge difference from having a position on it and passing judgment on it.

If you can't understand that, perhaps it'll be clearer to you once you reach the sixth grade.

Umm no. You misunderstand.

The word "justified" has a meaning in international relations. Hillary was not asked how she would personally "feel" about such an attack. It wasn't an Oprah interview. She was asked whether Israel would be justified in the context of international relations - and that would colour the US position on any such attack.

Again, it was the same question.

[Oleg Bach]

Do you mean Don Regan or Ronald Reagan? C'mon....you can't be smugly superior with flubs like that. I know you can do better!

Greetings DC - don't nit pick on the reaganism as compared to the reganisms - it's just not very regal of you..As for the woman for the VP spot - very clever to blind side and seduce the American public so late in the game - much like a billards player who plays stupid and near the end cleans your clock...McCain need a charismatic because he has none himself - and this woman can wipe Obama off the map like a bad memory or what use to be refered to as a flash in the pan - This woman will be like Nancey Regan ...another female president who has a male as a front - this could be the next leader of the free world - Just hope she stops the damn pandering if elected - her pandership is disgraceful but neccesary at this point - I suppose.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Again. There is a huge difference from having a position on it and passing judgment on it.

There is?

Ok. Let's assume your Bill Clinton imitation (ie. "it depends on what you mean by the word 'the' ") is accurate.

Can you, for the rest of us 5th graders, please explain the precise difference between the administration passing judgement on and Israeli attack against Iran, and the administration having a position on an Israeli attack against Iran ?

Can you pass judgement without having a position? Can you have a position without passing judgement? Can you judge positions without passing gas? Can you position your judgement without having a passing?

Please enlighten us all.

[Oleg Bach]

Greetings DC - don't nit pick on the reaganism as compared to the reganisms - it's just not very regal of you..As for the woman for the VP spot - very clever to blind side and seduce the American public so late in the game - much like a billards player who plays stupid and near the end cleans your clock...McCain need a charismatic because he has none himself - and this woman can wipe Obama off the map like a bad memory or what use to be refered to as a flash in the pan - This woman will be like Nancey Regan ...another female president who has a male as a front - this could be the next leader of the free world - Just hope she stops the damn pandering if elected - her pandership is disgraceful but neccesary at this point - I suppose.

CORRECTION - Not "DC" - But BC....one must be accurate..

[Guest American Woman]

Umm no. You misunderstand.

The word "justified" has a meaning in international relations. Hillary was not asked how she would personally "feel" about such an attack. It wasn't an Oprah interview. She was asked whether Israel would be justified in the context of international relations - and that would colour the US position on any such attack.

Again, it was the same question.

Ummmm. No. It's you who misunderstands. It's you who's putting a twist on the question. The question was quite clear: would Israel be justified. Whether the answer would have been yes or no wouldn't have given a clue as to what "position" she would take in response.

So keep repeating that it's the same question as many times as you feel the need, but it won't change anything-- and I won't be repeating myself every time you do as I don't feel the need.

[Guest American Woman]

There is?

Ok. Let's assume your Bill Clinton imitation (ie. "it depends on what you mean by the word 'the' ") is accurate.

Can you, for the rest of us 5th graders..........

Read that far and decided reading the rest would be a waste of time ..........

[Sulaco]

Ummmm. No. It's you who misunderstands. It's you who's putting a twist on the question. The question was quite clear: would Israel be justified. Whether the answer would have been yes or no wouldn't have given a clue as to what "position" she would take in response.

So keep repeating that it's the same question as many times as you feel the need, but it won't change anything-- and I won't be repeating myself every time you do as I don't feel the need.

There is no twist on the question. You really believe that Hillary was being asked how in her heart of hearts, as a woman and a mother, she feels about such an attack? No. She was asked about her judgment as to whether such an attack would be justified in the context of international relations, in which she would be engaged, as a president.

Oy vey.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Ummmm. No. It's you who misunderstands. It's you who's putting a twist on the question. The question was quite clear: would Israel be justified. Whether the answer would have been yes or no wouldn't have given a clue as to what "position" she would take in response.

So keep repeating that it's the same question as many times as you feel the need, but it won't change anything-- and I won't be repeating myself every time you do as I don't feel the need.

Well, please correct me wherever the logic fails, but wouldn't the logical choice of answers to "what position would you take" be:

1. We would support Israel (in varying degrees) because they would be justified in such an attack.

or

2. We would condemn / not support Israel because they would not be justified in such an attack.

???

[Oleg Bach]

Well, please correct me wherever the logic fails, but wouldn't the logical choice of answers to "what position would you take" be:

1. We would support Israel (in varying degrees) because they would be justified in such an attack.

or

2. We would condemn / not support Israel because they would not be justified in such an attack.

???

Sorry to interject - but there are none with out sin or sinisterism in this picture - Iranian leadership is just as nasty as Israeli - I suggest they both behave themselves and stop postering and sucking the rest of the truely civilized world into a conflict..You do not attack unless you are 100% threatened (which is silly seeing you do not warn an advesary in a bar fight or polically) - and you do not attack unless attacked - prime example - weapons of mass distruction...which translated means lucrative military contracts - at the price of 500 thousand dead people - not nice - and not civil....Iran or (Persia) could be a friend of the USA just like Saudi black mailing Arabia....better to make friends with the infidels - after all the west suffers from great infidelity - may as well admit that Iran is a brother in arms....kissy kissy - why not just be sweat to the lunitics.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Sorry to interject - but there are none with out sin or sinisterism in this picture - Iranian leadership is just as nasty as Israeli - I suggest they both behave themselves and stop postering and sucking the rest of the truely civilized world into a conflict..You do not attack unless you are 100% threatened (which is silly seeing you do not warn an advesary in a bar fight or polically) - and you do not attack unless attacked - prime example - weapons of mass distruction...which translated means lucrative military contracts - at the price of 500 thousand dead people - not nice - and not civil....Iran or (Persia) could be a friend of the USA just like Saudi black mailing Arabia....better to make friends with the infidels - after all the west suffers from great infidelity - may as well admit that Iran is a brother in arms....kissy kissy - why not just be sweat to the lunitics.

Well, seeing as Israel is attacked by rockets pretty much every other day, I suppose it would be completely within your support to see them strike back then....right?

[Stephen Best]

Definitive post on the "Bush Doctrine gotcha"

http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OD...GQzZjg0MzYyZjk=

Useful link, Sulaco. But it doesn't change the facts on the ground. Palin didn't know what Gibson was talking about, any aspect of what he was talking about. It's one thing for Gibson's interpretation to be hazy on the evolution of the Bush Doctrine, but not Palin's. She could be President. Gibson won't be President.

As you can see

, Sarah Palin does not understand a key aspect of the Bush Doctrine which is "the controversial policy of preventive war, which holds that the United States government should depose foreign regimes that represent a threat to the security of the United States, even if such threats are not immediate and no attack is imminent." It's not about a strike on the US being imminent as Palin believes; that's the issue. Palin didn't understand that and that is what the controversy over the Bush Doctrine is about.

[Guest American Woman]

Well, please correct me wherever the logic fails, but wouldn't the logical choice of answers to "what position would you take" be:

1. We would support Israel (in varying degrees) because they would be justified in such an attack.

or

2. We would condemn / not support Israel because they would not be justified in such an attack.

???

No, that wouldn't be the logical answers. The logical answers would be "Yes, Israel was justified" or "No, Israel was not justified." Neither of those answers tells anything about what our position would be. You even highlighted that very fact yourself with your "in varying degrees" qualifier. WHAT degrees? ie: what would the administration's position be?

I'd really like to know. I'd like to know what my nation's position would be if that were to happen. It's a question that should have been answered, especially since we know nothing about Palin in that regard and can't even begin to second guess what her position would be, which I'm guessing is why it was asked three times.

Edited September 12, 2008 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

CORRECTION - Not "DC" - But BC....one must be accurate..

Of course, but you easily get a pass for not being so damn smug about any assumed (and false) superiority.

[Oleg Bach]

No, that wouldn't be the logical answers. The logical answers would be "Yes, Israel was justified" or "No, Israel was not justified." Neither of those answers tells anything about what our position would be. You even highlighted that very fact yourself with your "in varying degrees" qualifier. WHAT degrees? ie: what would the administration's position be?

I'd really like to know. I'd like to know what my nation's position would be if that were to happen. It's a question that should have been answered, especially since we know nothing about Palin in that regard and can't even begin to second guess what her position would be, which I'm guessing is why it was asked three times.

Your nation suffers great dellusion and immatury..after 911 - they should have sealed the boarders and threatened to nuke any forces with the inclination to attack the second time - and they should have over thrown the house of Saud - that made the attack possible though funding - but Nooooo - off you go to Iraq and Afghanistan and confuse the real issue and continue to make dupe your average citizen - and that woman from Alaska - let her be boss - Hillary was already president for a while - so was Nancey - besides - she is nice to look at - and the fact that she did not persecute her own daughter for doing the most blessed thing in the world (give birth) puts her in my good books.

[Black Dog]

Palin's responses in the interview weren't nearly as interesting as her delivery of them, which has been best described as "deer in headlights". She's been briefed to say nothing alright, but you could smell the fear through the TV screen. It reminded me a bit of Dubya when he gets it a tight spot and has to scramble to remember his bullet points. But that's not really all that telling.

Edited September 12, 2008 by Black Dog

[JerrySeinfeld]

No, that wouldn't be the logical answers. The logical answers would be "Yes, Israel was justified" or "No, Israel was not justified." Neither of those answers tells anything about what our position would be. You even highlighted that very fact yourself with your "in varying degrees" qualifier. WHAT degrees? ie: what would the administration's position be?

I'd really like to know. I'd like to know what my nation's position would be if that were to happen. It's a question that should have been answered, especially since we know nothing about Palin in that regard and can't even begin to second guess what her position would be, which I'm guessing is why it was asked three times.

How can you have a position on an Israeli act of war without answering whether or not that act was justified?

[bush_cheney2004]

....but Nooooo - off you go to Iraq and Afghanistan and confuse the real issue and continue to make dupe your average citizen...

Well, it must have worked, because Canada is in Afghanistan slaying vampires with the rest of us.

[Guest American Woman]

How can you have a position on an Israeli act of war without answering whether or not that act was justified?

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Hillary was asked if the act was justified, not what her position would be. As I've pointed out time and time again, whether she answered yes or whether she answered no, it wouldn't tell us what her position would be. It would simply tell us if she thought they were justified.

But to answer you question, Palin was asked what her position would be. If it first requires her to have an opinion as to whether or not Israel was justified, so be it. But the only question she had to answer was 'what would her position be.'

But here's the thing. Someone could think Israel was justified, but that doesn't mean they'd get involved. Someone could think Israel wasn't justified, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't get involved. Being such strong allies, maybe this someone would get involved anyway, same as we get involved in family matters that we don't necessarily "approve of" or find "justified." We do it because that's what family does. It could also be what strong allies do. Perhaps this someone wouldn't sit idly by and leave Israel on it's own even if they felt Israel wasn't justified. By the same token, even if they felt it was justified, they might say 'you made your bed so you lie in it.' Which family also sometimes does.

So for that last time. They are two different questions, and I think an answer to "what would your position be" should have been forthcoming. It wasn't strictly a hypothetical by any means; it's an actual possibility. We deserve to know what our country's position would be would such a thing happen. Palin's answer tells me that she doesn't know what her position would be.

Edited September 12, 2008 by American Woman

[Oleg Bach]

Well, it must have worked, because Canada is in Afghanistan slaying vampires with the rest of us.

YEP - the vampires here are eating the vampires there - if they keep it up all the vamps will be gone and the living will inherit the earth and enjoy it - keep it up girl - nothing better than watching the globalists peak and then turn on each other - there is hope

[JerrySeinfeld]

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Hillary was asked if the act was justified, not what her position would be. As I've pointed out time and time again, whether she answered yes or whether she answered no, it wouldn't tell us what her position would be. It would simply tell us if she thought they were justified.

But to answer you question, Palin was asked what her position would be. If it first requires her to have an opinion as to whether or not Israel was justified, so be it. But the only question she had to answer was 'what would her position be.'

But here's the thing. Someone could think Israel was justified, but that doesn't mean they'd get involved. Someone could think Israel wasn't justified, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't get involved. Being such strong allies, maybe this someone would get involved anyway, same as we get involved in family matters that we don't necessarily "approve of" or find "justified." We do it because that's what family does. It could also be what strong allies do. Perhaps this someone wouldn't sit idly by and leave Israel on it's own even if they felt Israel wasn't justified. By the same token, even if they felt it was justified, they might say 'you made your bed so you lie in it.' Which family also sometimes does.

So for that last time. They are two different questions, and I think an answer to "what would your position be" should have been forthcoming. It wasn't strictly a hypothetical by any means; it's an actual possibility. We deserve to know what our country's position would be would such a thing happen. Palin's answer tells me that she doesn't know what her position would be.

You know, you inadvertantly pointed out the obvious: the "justified" question is a weaker question. It's not asking what Hillary would do, it's just asking if she thinks it's justified. And yet she still refused to answer the question.

Hillary was merely asked "what would you think", whereas Palin was asked "would would your administration do" - a much more direct question.

So in this particular comparison between Hillary and Palin, Palin answered more directly than did Hillary; Hillary refused to answer at all, while Palin indeed did provide some insight into her thinking.

So to summarize:

Hillary refused to answer a less direct question.

Palin tactfully answered a more direct question.

Palin 1

Hillary 0

Edited September 12, 2008 by JerrySeinfeld

[Guest American Woman]

Palin's responses in the interview weren't nearly as interesting as her delivery of them, which has been best described as "deer in headlights". She's been briefed to say nothing alright, but you could smell the fear through the TV screen. It reminded me a bit of Dubya when he gets it a tight spot and has to scramble to remember his bullet points. But that's not really all that telling.

That does seem to be the consensus of a lot of the media too, although one described her as a "moose in headlights." Another described the interview as 'tense' and 'uncomfortable.' As I said last night, I was at least expecting more than what she gave. Watching it, seeing her delivery, really does tell a lot. I know I'll get slammed for this, but she really did remind me of a beauty contestant trying to wing her way through that all important question at the end of the pageant. She sure didn't strike me as "ready to lead."

[bush_cheney2004]

.... I know I'll get slammed for this, but she really did remind me of a beauty contestant trying to wing her way through that all important question at the end of the pageant. She sure didn't strike me as "ready to lead."

No different from the stammering and delays we see from Senator Obama when he is off script. Parroting back a Martin Luther King cadence will only get you so far.

[JerrySeinfeld]

That does seem to be the consensus of a lot of the media too, although one described her as a "moose in headlights." Another described the interview as 'tense' and 'uncomfortable.' As I said last night, I was at least expecting more than what she gave. Watching it, seeing her delivery, really does tell a lot. I know I'll get slammed for this, but she really did remind me of a beauty contestant trying to wing her way through that all important question at the end of the pageant. She sure didn't strike me as "ready to lead."

Bush never comes off well but he's been a fantastic president. It was her first national interview. I think she'll get better exponentially as she does more of these. Frankly Charlie Gibson sat there like a beauty contest judge, looking down his nose at her, unlike the gushing east coast media cush given to The Annointed One (Obama), even though he's never led anything in his life.

At least Palin has been a governor. What has Barack ever led?

Edited September 12, 2008 by JerrySeinfeld

[Guest American Woman]

You know, you inadvertantly pointed out the obvious: the "justified" question is a weaker question. It's not asking what Hillary would do, it's just asking if she thinks it's justified. And yet she still refused to answer the question.

Hillary was merely asked "what would you think", whereas Palin was asked "would would your administration do" - a much more direct question.

So in this particular comparison between Hillary and Palin, Palin answered more directly than did Hillary; Hillary refused to answer at all, while Palin indeed did provide some insight into her thinking.

You honestly think her answer took insight? She gave an answer, but she didn't answer the question.

So to summarize:

Hillary refused to answer a less direct question.

Palin tactfully answered a more direct question.

"Tactfully" is evidently in the eye of the beholder, but the fact remains that Palin didn't answer the actual question. And again, this time really for the last time, we don't need to know if she thought it was justified, we do need to know what her position would be. Also, as I already pointed out, we know nothing about Palin. This is supposed to be our chance to get to know her before the election in less than a month. She claims she's ready to lead, so she owes it to us to not only prove it, but let us know what stands, what positions, we would be voting for. So this isn't about Hillary. It's about Palin. It's about our very limited chance to find out what she's about. Hillary has been on the scene, answering questions explaining her stands, for a long time; Palin for a couple of weeks tops. Yet come election day, Hillary's name won't be on any ballot, but Palin's will. So forgive me if I bring this back to Palin and leave Hillary out of it from here on in.

[bush_cheney2004]

YEP - the vampires here are eating the vampires there - if they keep it up all the vamps will be gone and the living will inherit the earth and enjoy it - keep it up girl - nothing better than watching the globalists peak and then turn on each other - there is hope

Nah..."Hope" is for suckers!