"Palin's Foreign Policy Epiphany"
(sung by Robert Goulee)
On a clear day
Rise and look around you
And you'll see the Russian shore.
On a clear day
It will not astound you
That god has told you to start another war!
The rest of the world has got to be either snickering right now or scared to death.
War with Russia? Well Sarah, I think right after we win in Iraq, finish the job in Afganistan, bomb Iran, we should take the fight to Russia. Maybe we should throw in China too while we are at it. This Country has lost it's fucking mind.
Posted by Judith at September 12, 2008 03:29 AM
Well, I guess if you are appealing to the low information voter, or the ones with an IQ of 80, lying about 9/11 is a good strategy.
Posted by Judith at September 12, 2008 03:35 AMRemember, remember, the British headlines of November. (04')
"How can 59 million people be so STUPID???"
Posted by TIKI AL at September 12, 2008 04:16 AMIt really boggles my mind too, after watching those debates in '04 it was clear who the best guy for the job was, how stupid people can be to vote for that dumb ass again.
Posted by chompiz at September 12, 2008 05:20 AMI may have to watch Fox News today to see what distraction they'll put up for Ms. Palin now. We got any missing white folks out there?
"Fog in Alaska" Russia unseen, some blame Obama, details at 11 on Fox News.
"Winning is Kewl" Sarah Palin on war, tonight on MSNBC.
"Sadam did it!" Washington Times.
Well, I guess if you are appealing to the low information voter, or the ones with an IQ of 80, lying about 9/11 is a good strategy.
Of course it is. They don't care about specifics. It was the "towel-heads" that did 9/11. Just point 'em at the Middle East and they'll find somebody God wants them to shoot.
Posted by MaskedVigilante at September 12, 2008 05:38 AMI'm finally seeing my folks this afternoon. Hopefully they haven't been drinking the kool-aid.
Posted by idiosynchronic at September 12, 2008 06:14 AM9/11 - 3000 lives. Bush's Iraq War - over 4100 American lives attacking a country with no link to 9/11.
Posted by T2 at September 12, 2008 06:16 AMMost frustrating is that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, which is FACT, yet these 'evil' people keep trying to connect the two by looking straight into the camera and lying. It's like saying that John F. Kennedy wasn't really murdered, but died of natural causes. It is just about that ridiculous.
Posted by Judith at September 12, 2008 06:30 AMShe doesn't even know what the Bush Doctrine is for crissakes.
You know what - it might not just be the low-information voters out there - it might simply be people so delusional that they WANT TO BELIEVE the simple narrative - even if they don't REALLY believe it it comforts them that someone is saying these simple solutions to stop them having to worry about the real responsibilities and challenges to stop America from declining further.
Posted by John at September 12, 2008 07:35 AMit's clear why Rove doesn't want Palin dealing with the Press. She's a Soundbite Politician. She repeats what she's been told, but past that it gets ugly fast.
Posted by T2 at September 12, 2008 07:49 AMit might simply be people so delusional that they WANT TO BELIEVE the simple narrative - even if they don't REALLY believe it it comforts them that someone is saying these simple solutions to stop them having to worry about the real responsibilities and challenges
This, in a nutshell, explains the existence of religion.
95% of the world buys into this. According to peter, 83% of America does.
Why WOULDN'T the masses want the same suspension of disbelief when it comes to their politics?
Posted by MaskedVigilante at September 12, 2008 08:30 AMAll the GOP's hopes rest on a political moron. Gee, no news here...
Posted by iamcoyote at September 12, 2008 08:43 AMAll the GOP's hopes rest on a political moron. Gee, no news here...
It's been enough to do the trick before.
Man. I really don't know if I can live in a country led by President Palin.
Posted by MaskedVigilante at September 12, 2008 08:55 AMI really don't know if I can live in a country led by President Palin.
Don't you worry, the Death Squads for God will be out in a hurry to make sure that doesn't happen, I'm sure. Gilead, here we come!
Posted by iamcoyote at September 12, 2008 09:10 AMDidn't some actor say the some thing about a President Bush, MV? I noticed he still lives here and appears on "30 Rock".
Meanwhile, BTD at Talkleft says;
"Now even the normally level headed Greg Sargent has it:
Forget war with Russia. The real news from Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin is this stretch, where she is clearly clueless about what the Bush Doctrine is...
"In what respect, Charlie?"
This performance is the kind of thing that could have a serious impact on the race, unless everyone politely agrees to ignore it.
This is seriously nuts. Palin asked Gibson to define what HE meant by it. (NOTE: Stellaa points out that Gibson tried the same game with Obama and Media Matters ripped Gibson for it then. Guess Sargent is ok with it when it is done to a Republican.) Indeed, her eventual answer to the question is extremely sensible (unlike Bush and McCain's actual policies) and smart politics. She did not accept the premise of Gibson's question and then gave a sensible answer to the question. This type of stuff is what is killing the Left blogs right now. They look like fools when they act this way."
Now in the real world, Rasmussen now has McCain up by 3. Gallup has the generic Congressional vote down to three points!
"A potential shift in fortunes for the Republicans in Congress is seen in the latest USA Today/Gallup survey, with the Democrats now leading the Republicans by just 3 percentage points, 48% to 45%, in voters' "generic ballot" preferences for Congress. This is down from consistent double-digit Democratic leads seen on this measure over the past year."
The obvious question is, "How can this be?" Answer might be the 9% approval rating Congress has while being "lead" by Democrats. Or maybe it's the head of the ticket and his leadership?
Look at the latest Rasmussen poll for Washington State, the race is polling at Obama plus two! That's an astonishing number. Dino Rossi now is polling just a fraction ahead of Gregoire too. Down tickets are starting to be affected now.
I believe y'all and your press caused all this in building up the Palin pick. Y'alls attack that first weekend has now coated her with Teflon. Take John Roberts this morning:
John Roberts interviewing Paul Begala on CNN just now slipped and said "we" when asking how Democrats should respond to Republican attacks.
Gaffe? or just a slip of the tongue.
Posted by peter at September 12, 2008 09:26 AMYou folks are spitting and pissing on yourselves.
What a hoot!
And suddenly, the Congessional races are up for grabs and Dems are being told by advisors, "Best not use Obama's name, he's flaming"
What a wonderful world !
Posted by jj at September 12, 2008 09:33 AMHere we go again - McCain knows he can't win so he's going to try to cheat any way he can. That's the dishonorable GOP we know and hate!
About one-third of the absentee ballot applications received at the Hamilton County Board of Elections have been ruled invalid because Republican Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign printed a version of the form with an extra, unneeded box on it.
Hang on - why the hell is McCain's campaign printing voting forms? WTF?
Posted by iamcoyote at September 12, 2008 09:43 AM700,000 voter id purged by the Democratic Ohio SOS.
What the hell is the Obama campaign and ACORN printing voting forms? How many were found guilty around St Louis of voter fraud? How many ACORN members have been found guilty of voter fraud? Who does ACORN usually endorse?
Posted by peter at September 12, 2008 10:16 AMSo, dickweed John "I'm-a-baldfaced liar" McCain lied right into the camera yet again on the View about Palin's earmark lies . They don't even care anymore that they're being caught in one lie after another. And their moron supporters don't give a shit, either, cos, well, they're morons. You know it's bad when even the complicit media can't take the lying any more.
Posted by iamcoyote at September 12, 2008 10:38 AM"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." Barry Obama
"I would also argue that we have the right to take unilateral military action to eliminate an imminent threat to our security— so long as an imminent threat is understood to be a nation, group, or individual that is actively preparing to strike U.S. targets (or allies with which the United States has mutual defense agreements)..."
Sarah Palin
Peter,
Glad to see you admit the McCain/Palin have com around to Obama's Foreign policy. Guess he does know about FP. Thanks.
Posted by goose1 at September 12, 2008 11:43 AMDon't you worry, the Death Squads for God will be out in a hurry to make sure that doesn't happen, I'm sure. Gilead, here we come!
That inspires me. There's nothing I'd like better than to go out in a blaze of glory fighting off the Jesus Fish Zombie Uprising!
Let's get to the Winchester, Coyote. It's safe, familiar, and we can smoke there. We can have a nice cold pint and wait for all of this to blow over.
How's that for a slice of fried gold?
Posted by MaskedVigilante at September 12, 2008 11:58 AMI'll meet you at the pub, MV - bye, bye, bye! (sorry, Phil)
Posted by iamcoyote at September 12, 2008 12:12 PMAl Qaeda, the Taliban and Afghanistan were not the focus of Gibson's question about "The Bush Doctrine". Gibson specifically framed it in terms of the lead up to the Iraq invasion. The Bush Doctrine states that we can take preemptive action to avoid a potential future attack. The quote from Obama is specifically about Afghanistan and the hunt for those responsible for having already attacked us. The Palin quote speaks generally in support of Bush's belief that we can attack those who we simply fear will attack us at some future date.
Apples to oranges peter.
Posted by snark at September 12, 2008 12:17 PMApples to oranges peter.
Thanks, snark. I was thinking the same thing but didn't feel like explaining it to peter.
Posted by MaskedVigilante at September 12, 2008 12:29 PMHey, on a clear day I can see Cuba.
Posted by Judith at September 12, 2008 12:45 PMFrom St. Louis???
Posted by peter at September 12, 2008 12:48 PMOn a clear day, I can see Canada. That means I'm qualified to be president, cos I've had kids, and I got me some boobies! And I was a girl scout leader. I guess that would make me overqualified, eh? Woohoo!
Posted by iamcoyote at September 12, 2008 12:49 PMRun Iamcoyote Run!
From St. Louis???
Yep, and I can also see Mexico and Canada if I stand on a hilltop and it's a clear day.
Posted by Judith at September 12, 2008 12:59 PMChrist!
I can see a "nukular" power plant if I climb up on my roof.
Doesn't make me a God damn "nukular" physicist though.
Posted by snark at September 12, 2008 01:18 PMDon't worry gang, we'll welcome you in Canada...'cept you petey....you can man the 'nuclear' winter with muck, jj etc.
Posted by Goyo at September 12, 2008 01:23 PMTurkana;
Sarah is just following the Republican playbook. If you keep repeating lies and misinformation time and time again, people will believe it. At least that is what is shown in last 2 elections and if it is working with American voters, why not keep doing it.
Posted by suresh at September 12, 2008 02:40 PMThe Obama surrogates caught lying again. Palin said no such thing.
The more you lie about Palin, the more people leave to support the GOP ticket. Nice job.
Posted by Muck at September 12, 2008 04:05 PM"The Bush Doctrine states that we can take preemptive action to avoid a potential future attack....The Palin quote speaks generally in support of Bush's belief that we can attack those who we simply fear will attack us at some future date."
I REALLY wish people would stop using the term preemptive in connection with the "Bush Doctrine". Attacking a country (or any other individual or entity) in the absence of a demonstrably real, clearly imminent attack from that country is not preemption. In the context of the Bush Doctrine, it is best called "preventive". In reality it is an act of pure aggression, of course. Referring to it as preemption is legitimizing it far too much.
Posted by Shirin at September 12, 2008 04:51 PM"What the hell is the Obama campaign and ACORN printing voting forms? How many were found guilty around St Louis of voter fraud? How many ACORN members have been found guilty of voter fraud? Who does ACORN usually endorse?"
Peter, link please. Oh and don't forget East St. Louis is in Illinois, just across the river from St. Louis.
Posted by Judith at September 12, 2008 05:19 PMShirin,
I hate to be rude but go fuck yourself. I understand that your soul interest here is to comment on Middle East related issues but you come across as an insufferable jackass much of the time.
I was describing "The Bush Doctrine". The word that the Bushies use is "preemptive". Sarah Palin believes that we have the right to act "preemptively". I'm sorry if you can't appreciate the difference between condoning a theory and describing the terminology that the people espousing that theory use. But that's not my problem.
Posted by snark at September 12, 2008 06:16 PMHuh. I found myself agreeing with Shirin's semantics, and though you raise a good point, snark, I think the neocons try to change the meaning of what they're doing with the misleading use of the word "preemptive."
Posted by iamcoyote at September 12, 2008 06:31 PMHuh. I found myself agreeing with Shirin's semantics...
Semantics is what it is. My comment was not about my personal agreement with the Bush Doctrine. It was about the difference between Obama's and Palin's comments. The Bush Doctrine is couched in terms of "preemption". Not my doing. Just a fact. If people don't like the semantics that's too bad.
I think the neocons try to change the meaning of what they're doing with the misleading use of the word "preemptive."
That's true but it doesn't change the fact that they use the word "preemptive" for a very specific reason. And in the context of the given comments that were being critiqued the word "preemptive" is what was used. Quibbling about the semantic difference between "preemptive" and "preventive" and presenting it in a "why are you people so stupid" manner in this instance was just "dickish". Something I know you are keenly atuned to.
Posted by snark at September 12, 2008 06:57 PMpresenting it in a "why are you people so stupid" manner in this instance was just "dickish"
Well, yeah, there is that. Which is why I said you raised a good point. *wink*
Posted by iamcoyote at September 12, 2008 07:20 PMThey lie because they hope people are too busy trying to figure out how to pay the bills or find a job to look for the truth. Which is why the scum sucking punk ass lying back stabbing coward trolls around here are so extra pathetic, since everyone here worth breathing has already done so.
Posted by Duckman GR at September 12, 2008 10:49 PM"go fuck yourself."
Very persuasive argument, Snark. I really have no effective response to it.
"I understand that your soul interest here is to comment on Middle East related issues..."
You understand nothing about me, apparently.
"I was describing "The Bush Doctrine". The word that the Bushies use is "preemptive"."
And they use the word in a false way for propaganda purposes, and it distresses me to see intelligent people who oppose them adopting their misleading, inaccurate language. I believe in calling things what they are and not helping propagandists spin their P.R. by using their words to perpetuate their mischaracterization what they are doing. That is why I sometimes point these things out. If it bothers you, then I am sorry, but I am not here seeking love and approbation.
"Sarah Palin believes that we have the right to act "preemptively"."
Not exactly. She believes that the United States has the right to use military violence against any country or entity that its government claims might one day have the means and the will to harm the U.S. That is not preemption, it is a cover for aggression, and if Sarah Palin and others of her ilk use a misleading term that does not obligate us to use the same term.
"I'm sorry if you can't appreciate the difference between condoning a theory and describing the terminology that the people espousing that theory use."
I DO appreciate the difference, I never meant to suggest that by using their terminology you are condoning their ideas. I am sorry if I did not make that clear. I am sure there was a better way I could have made my case that would have made clear that I agree with you, and at the same time am bothered by the fact that even those who strongly oppose their ideas tend to adopt their dishonest language. To the extent that I failed to do that, I apologize.
Posted by Shirin at September 13, 2008 10:41 AM"I found myself agreeing with Shirin's semantics...I think the neocons try to change the meaning of what they're doing with the misleading use of the word "preemptive." "
Exactly, Coyote. And my point is that we should not aid and abet their efforts to mislead by adopting their language.
It is not mere semantics. Words have precise meanings, and to me it is very important to listen carefully to the way people use words to convey their messages in order to either enlighten, persuade, or subtly deceive. This kind of subtle deception is, in my thinking, the most dangerous because it can cause false ideas to creep into people's minds without their even realizing it.
In imparting our message it is really important, in my opinion, to be careful not to inadvertently embed any part of their message within our own. Therefore, I try to point out ways we are doing this without even realizing it.
Posted by Shirin at September 13, 2008 11:01 AM"Quibbling about the semantic difference between "preemptive" and "preventive""
It is not a mere semantic difference, Snark. The two words carry very different messages. If it were merely a semantic difference I would not be so concerned about it.
"presenting it in a "why are you people so stupid" manner"
I am sorry if that is how it came across. That was not my intention. It is easy to forget sometimes that this medium requires extra care to avoid giving the wrong impression, and it seems that I did not take that care.
I apologize for not taking more care in the way I delivered my message.
Posted by Shirin at September 13, 2008 11:20 AM