reply to post by Dronetek
The interview was not about Biden, Bush, McCain, or Obama. The interview was of Sarah Palin.
Sarah Palin should have to endure an inquisition. Previous to Gibson's interview, who knew anything about her other than what she revealed at the
RNC?
Palin is only in the running for the backup position of Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the United States. Knowing whether she has
imperialist beliefs is important. Does the U.S. have the right to invade another country without its permission? Do other countries such as Israel
have the right to invade other countries? Questions such as these are not a trap for someone whose qualifications for VP are not well known.
Sarah Palin would have done well to explain her own world view than attempt to suss the successes and failures of President Bush's. Does she have a
world view that is compatible with the U.S.'s best interests? That's a serious question. At the moment it is hard to tell. It might not be of
significance to rural U.S. citizens, but the U.S. economy and its domestic policy operates on a global scale with regards to the urban transnational
corporations that are generating capital and jobs for all sectors of the U.S. Thoughts on foreign relations and current global conflicts should be
asked of Palin, and well thought out answers are expected of her.
If Palin knew anything about the Bush Doctrine, it wouldn't be an issue. If she had straight answers for whether the U.S. or other countries have
the right to imperialist action, it wouldn't be an issue. Instead Palin reverted to rhetoric responses over and over again.
Gibson's mannerisms may not have been the best, but then he didn't receive any straight answers to the questions he asked during the two segments
focused on national security. And the questions that he did ask were meaningful enough.
Instead of putting up with Gibson's questions, Palin could have done what most other politicians have done. When asked a question about national
security, she could have used the opportunity to state her position on some specifics of national security. It was her answers that led her into a
tight space. After all, when Gibson first asked about the Bush Doctrine, he gave Palin the chance to provide an answer based on her own
interpretation. Instead of doing that, Palin chose to explain what President Bush has tried to do. That was just a rhetorical deflection that
didn't speak to the original question at all. Gibson knew enough about the Bush Doctrine to know that the answer Palin gave was neither a good or
straight answer.
The questions were not difficult because Gibson asked them, they were only difficult based on Palin's ability to handle them. There wouldn't have
been any bad light or peception of bad light shed on her if she had been straightforward and honest.
To the questions focused on Israel, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran there would have been nothing wrong with Sarah Palin responding, "Those are
questions that my running partner, John McCain, would be better qualified to answer. He is, after all, running for the office of President of the
United States, and the position of Commander in Chief." What would have been wrong with the hockey mom saying that she was determined and willing to
learn on the job?
Palin instead chose to try to make the impression that she would be able to be President and Commander in Chief if she were called upon to do it
yesterday -- or at least, "in the blink of an eye." In my opinion, she did not succeed in this.
