One thing I learned tonight is that neither Charlie Gibson nor anyone on his staff reads the Volokh Conspiracy (or Hot Air for that matter).
Outrageously, in his interview Gibson claimed that Sarah Palin had called the Iraq War “a task . . . from God.”
No she didn’t. She prayed that it was a task from God. As I said a few days ago:
Is praying for peace throughout the world the same as saying that there is peace throughout the world?I find it hard to believe that Anderson Cooper [and now, Charlie Gibson] does not understand the difference between praying for something you hope is true and stating that it is true.
If I had prayed for the press to be fair to Sarah Palin that would not be the same as stating that the press is being fair to Sarah Palin.
Here was the exchange between Palin and Gibson tonight:
No, Charlie, she prayed that that was true.GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war?
PALIN: You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.
GIBSON: Exact words.
PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words.
But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.
That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie. . . .
GIBSON: But you went on and said, “There is a plan and it is God’s plan.”
The more I look at this, the more it looks intentional. How could Gibson and the staff have blown both quotes (not just one as Anderson Cooper did on CNN)?
Clearly, not enough is being done to debunk the myths that the press is spreading, and these debunkings are not being spread widely enough if the staff of ABC hasn’t learned that what they are saying is not true.
Again, rather than relying on competence and fairness to solve the problem, newsrooms need to be integrated politically.
Political segregation and lack of ideological diversity just doesn’t work, no matter how careful or how fair a newsroom tries to be. And this time, I am struggling to believe ABC was even trying to be fair.
Here was most of my earlier post, which includes a transcript of Palin's actual remarks in her former church:
DID PALIN ACTUALLY SAY THAT IRAQ IS "A TASK . . . FROM GOD"?
While searching for CNN's story on Troopergate, I came across a surprising statement of Palin's quoted by Anderson Cooper: that the war in Iraq was "a task that is from God":
Wow! CNN caught Palin saying on tape that Iraq was a task from God. Ouch![Palin] also talked to church members about “being saved” at the Assembly of God and suggested to them that the war in Iraq is a mission from God. Palin said, “our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”
But then I listended to the clip. Palin actually said:
“Pray for our military. He's [Palin's son Trask] going to be deployed in September to Iraq. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do also what is right for this country – that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.” . . .
I'm an atheist, but I'm not so old or out of touch that I don't know that Palin was doing what Christians often do: praying that what the country was doing was God's will. It's not strange for a Christian to hope that what you want to do or think is right is indeed God's will. . . .
You are right about this, but it's a red herring. The real issue is how unprepared she is to discuss foreign policy.
Careful you're gonna get caught in your own spinning.
Kind of reminds me when Tim Russert went off on Obama for promising to accept public financing because he couldn't understand a contigent promise, which is what Obama offered.
Kind of reminds me when Tim Russert went off on Obama for promising to accept public financing because he couldn't understand a contigent promise, which is what Obama offered.
Good luck polishing that turd, Senator McCain. I think you're gonna have a hard time keeping it shiny between now and November.
I think people might not realize the media did do the exact same thing to Obama. the media repeated Obama said "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."
"His entire point of that riff was that the campaign IS NOT about him. The Post left out the important first half of the sentence, which was something along the lines of: 'It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign, that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It's about America. I have just become a symbol ... ."
Here is a collection of clips
Palin didn't get the God comment blown out of proportion this badly.
Cheney is probably one of the most knowledgeable people in terms of foreign policy and intel experience in any recent administration. I once spoke with an old briefer of Cheney's--a veteran of many years himself--who said he was constantly in awe of Cheney's knowledge and ability to remember details from a briefing 15 years ago, etc. Note, I'm not making any calls on his policy positions and decisions, just knowledge. I would also wager that most of the people that are criticizing Palin would also criticize Cheney. ~shrug~
The ability to manage is IMHO far more important.
I was thinking the same thing. Wonder if they think bashing Palin on here gets Obama some votes in the election?
Either you're trolling by double posting, which you always seem to do, or you're incompetent.
Tell us, Nate, which is it?
I have had the same thought for a while now. Why bother with VC? Do they think any minds get changed here? The percentage of of who come to a site like this because we think we iz smart an knows a hole lot awready must be purdy hi.
Not many undecideds. Except for some hew faces who were "going to vote for McCain until they saw this one incredibly awful interview performcance." I mean, those guys seem to have been swayed. (Yet, once again, not by any of *us*.)
Hah, that is something that should be addressed, clearly she was picked because she is a woman, but I haven't really heard any conservative commentator acknowledge this, much less address why it is appropriate in this case.
Palin: let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side.
As for the choice of Gibson, I suspect they wanted tough but not out of control (like O'Reilly), and not yet too deep (Charlie Rose). They would want maximum exposure starting out, and that still means ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, or Fox. But look for a Charlie Rose interview to explore the kind of depth this forum is likely looking for.
Why doesn't it ever happen to me then? I suspect someone is LYING about an itchy "Post Comment" finger...
Charlie Gibson was dishonest about "The Bush Doctrine." See here
So I guess I am not the only one. Palin's prayer still has me a bit confused. I am guessing that it did not come exactly as she wanted it to. Even though her later clarification may seem convenient, we should still take some comfort from the fact that she refused to call the invasion of Iraq some sort of divine project.
/ad hominem attack mode
Ok, I've watched this video three times now, and again, she's dodging big time. She really is trying to give quote-worthy answers that don't even address the question. It reminds me of that one forum where some guy was saying how Chamberlain was an appeaser, repeatedly, but upon direct questioning, could not answer what exactly Chamberlain had done. Was it Chris Matthews? I can't remember. Anyways, her responses were echoed closely to what that dude was saying in avoiding the question.
What I find disturbing is that it sounds like Sarah Palin doesn't read the Volokh Conspiracy either. She'd better start.
Nice straw man.
It's Wikipedia - did you even read my comment?...
Charlie Gibson was dishonest about the Bush Doctrine.
That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie.
Now, maybe someone can correct me, but even with my half-semester of formal Logic I can see that this is a distinction without a difference. They are equal. Praying that your side and God's side are equal. It is only semantics to say that if they turn out to be unequal that you were only praying for it to be equal in one direction. It doesn't work that way, either you're praying that you're on the same side or you aren't.
Palin is a Christian and expresses a fundamental Christian idea: we hope to be following God's plan. This is a concept expressed by pretty much every President, including Kennedy and FDR. Is it wrong to be a Christian in the US now?
Yes, but 15 years ago was around the same time that Cheney gave a succinct and insightful opinion on why the U.S. should not bring down the Iraqi government. (Check out the YouTube video, if you haven't.) He predicted all the problems we've experienced since the invasion of Irag. Too bad he couldn't remember his own statements from 15 years ago.
It reminds me of that one forum where some guy was saying how Chamberlain was an appeaser, repeatedly, but upon direct questioning, could not answer what exactly Chamberlain had done. Was it Chris Matthews? I can't remember. Anyways, her responses were echoed closely to what that dude was saying in avoiding the question.
Right-wing talkshow host Kevin James.
Ridiculing people for praying is significantly different from wondering what exactly a politician meant when she was giving a public prayer.
Yes, it's true, believe it or not, far-fetched as that interpretation was. Senator Obama had not referred to Governor Palin that whole time.
Is it wrong to be a Christian in the US now?
Of course not. Likewise, I don't think being a Christian is a good excuse for being dumb.
EIDE_Interface: Did I touch a nerve?
Seriously, I'm curious whether there's a flaw in my logic that praying that you and God are on the same side is the same as praying that God is not on their side. That's the way it seems to me, and if all anybody has to rebut is that I'm a kookoo bananas Obamabot about ready to get all James Charles Kopp on Hockey Moms, I'll assume that my assertion stands. I think I've put up enough in support of my point.
That's a good point, and well put, but it still seems a bit icky to be praying, and generally getting God involved, in relation to strategic military goals.
I wonder if VC commentators would be as charitable with a prayer by an Islamic leader that Allah is guiding there military missions?
The interview also was focused on irrelevant "gotcha" questions. Gibson tried to catch her in not knowing some discrete fact: what, specifically, the "Bush Doctrine" is. Frankly, I don't think the Bush Doctrine can be boiled down to "preemptive war." Why didn't he say, "What do you think of preemptive war?"
therehisI was raised a fundie, but am now a liberal atheist, and this prayer did not bother me in the slightest. Seemed standard Christian fare, like asking God to "bless the food".
I guess asking her about it and giving her a chance to answer on national television is not enough. This is all I have ever wanted of Palin from the start. Here, we have a reasonable question and a reasonable answer. Palin explains what she meant, and we are all left more informed. Why do we get wrapped up so much in the idea that these interviews are some type of competition between the journalist and the politician? Really, I only wish Gibson had more time, and had gone more into Palin's record. McCain has already answered the foreign policy questions for her.
All of this turns on faith itself. Faith, and even 'instinct', are not substitutes for rational judgment based upon facts view objectively.
Also, to add to the above post of mine: I think one of McCain's stronger points is his secularism, but I'm beginning to find that his 'instinct' has not been calibrated in a while; thus, why I included it in the above post.
This year's crop of candidates are pretty disappointing, but not too much worse than 2000, and 2004. I guess we are witness to the disintegration of the American republic.
But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.
That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie.
Now, maybe someone can correct me, but even with my half-semester of formal Logic I can see that this is a distinction without a difference. They are equal. Praying that your side and God's side are equal. It is only semantics to say that if they turn out to be unequal that you were only praying for it to be equal in one direction. It doesn't work that way, either you're praying that you're on the same side or you aren't.}
I don't want to sound "snarky." ("For the snark WAS a Boojum, you see.") But you are asking about something that one encounters if one has ever read Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address. Palin is on firm ground here, and it was impressive to me that she knew to refer Gibson back to Lincoln. If Gibson doesn't know anything about Lincoln, he really should not be interviewing VP candidates.
Palin re-stated Bush policy and McCain policy. We want Georgia and Ukraine in NATO. And, once they're in NATO, an attack on them will be deemed an attack on all of NATO.
Unfortunately, we get the government we deserve.
Be of good cheer. We have a war hero and a corruption-fighting Governor of Alaska. I think we've done pretty good with our candidates.
Obama to McCain today at ground zero: This year's crop of voters are pretty disappointing, but not too much worse than 2000 and 2004. I guess we are witnessing the disintegration of the American republic.
You think it's irrelevant that she's apparently never heard of the Bush doctrine?
We just covered this, sheez...
Charlie Gibson was dishonest about the Bush Doctrine.
But now that she was given a chance on national television to say that she meant what you say she meant -- and she didn't do it -- why should we credit your construction over her elaboration?
* * *
The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, enunciated in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan.[1] Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a supposed threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq), a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism, and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.[2][3][4] Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002.[5]
* * *
So Charlie Gibson, in asking Governor Palin about "The Bush Doctrine" without clarifying his specific meaning was being misleading at best - dishonest at worst.
Obama to God: "...make me an instrument of your will."
Would you elaborate on how he was dishonest. He didn't give the broadest definition (and maybe the breadth of the question shows that it was a poor attempt at playing "gotcha" and he should have just asked about preemptive war), but the article you sited says amongst its broader definition that:
Gibson said:
Yes, it demonstrates a poor question. But I don't get the dishonest or misleading part. If anything, I think it gave her the opportunity to shine, and she could have called Gibson on the poor question. She basically had her choice of which prong to go after.
Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do also what is right for this country – that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God.
If the clause that begins with 'that' came immediately after pray, it'd be clear that she's praying that the task is from God, not stating that such is the case. But she ungrammatically sticks this whole other clause in between the pray and that, and if you're listening to the video, it's not clear that the second clause is introduced by 'pray.'
Gibson probably thought it was a well-scripted question until he asked it. By asking her about the "Bush Doctrine," he gives Palin the ability to answer whatever question she wished Gibson had asked. Its pretty soft, but still substantive. Gibson wins left-wing kudos by getting Palin to acknowledge the President's existence.
As it turned out, it looked like a gotcha.
EIDE_Interface was pithier along the same lines:
Do you see what's fallacious here? If not, stop a moment and think.
NoAcct and EIDE_Interface are confusing necessity with sufficiency. A person who thinks that substantial foreign policy experience is necessary but not sufficient to be an effective Commander in Chief can easily think Palin an unqualified VP candidate, and (old policy hand) Cheney a foreign policy disaster, without contradiction. Me, for instance.
What I'm wondering is - why was it necessary for me to point this out?
Semantics is critical to determine how to translate natural-language statements into formal statements in the predicate calculus. To pray is to request an action, and to pray that God be on our side means to request God take an action He would otherwise not take. On the other hand, to pray that we are on God's side it to request guidance to discover what is God's will, that is, to do what is right. It is not about "being" but "becoming", a process not a static condition.
I speak here as a professional mathematican and computer scientist who has written programs to prove theorems and verify proofs. (And, no, the practices of the IRS are not constitutional or legal, with many breaks in what should be an unbroken logical chain of derivation.)
Logically, they are equivalent statements.
Logic isn't everything.
Historically, praying that God is on your side has meant praying for victory. Praying that you are on God's side has meant praying that what you are doing is a good and righteous action. That's what Lincoln meant when he made that distinction - pray not that we will win, but that we are doing right. Even a little-a atheist like me can understand that prayer.
Palin's comments are in the same line. She's simply praying "that there is a plan, and that it is God's plan." That's even more blatant in that even logically speaking it's obviously not "pray that our soldiers are successful in carrying out God's plan."
I disagree. All four are acceptable, with some potential for outstanding. Certainly all are preferable as people to the disastrous Kerry/Edwards ticket.
Given the relative approval rates of our elected representatives v. military and police, libertarians may need to reconsider our knee-jerk treatment of politicians. Considering history, the alternative to our current republic is less likely to be an Elysian anarchy and more likely to be something more repressive than any of us might want.
But her elaboration and Jim's construction are almost identical. She elaborated by comparing her quote to Lincoln's, which is pretty clearly a prayer that "we are doing the right thing," basically. And that's what Jim has been saying she said the whole time.
Be glad to supplement that class called "formal Logic". LOL.
One is praying (asking for help) to do what is right, instead of claiming that whatever we are doing IS right. Huge difference.
EH: "I'm curious whether there's a flaw in my logic that praying that you and God are on the same side is the same as praying that God is not on their side."
Yes. Note that Palin never claimed, asked, or prayed for a "side"; the word "side" was not used at all.
So yes, making crap up out of thin air is often called a 'flaw in your logic'.
You seriously watched that interview and *that's* what you found significant in it?
As for your comment: she was asked directly about it. She had a chance to clarify or defend herself. She presumably has had ample time and resources to prepare, and hand-picked her interviewer. If she can't do better than that under those circumstances, how will she possibly function as President?
Gibson was misleading at best, dishonest at worst (in asking about "The Bush Doctrine") as follows:
Gibson implied that there is one, and only one, "Bush Doctrine." As noted here .... "the Bush Doctrine" refers to at least two separate concepts (three, if you include the codification).
So if Gibson had wanted to ask a question to actually learn an answer he would have identified which Bush Doctrine he was referring to.
But, what Gibson wanted to do is play "gotcha." So he asked about the Bush Doctrine without indicating which one he was referring to. So in asking the question as though there is only one "Bush Doctrine," Gibson was being dishonest: the term "the Bush Doctrine" can apply to at least two - and probably three - different concepts. Again, see here.
If there was anything wrong with Gov. Palin's original prayer - or her answer to Gibson - it's only in the sense that some think it's wrong in the modern U.S. to be a Christian.
Gov. Palin described perfectly the unremarkable outlook of a Christian who hopes her country is following God's will. Such a wish has been expressed by all Presidents, including Kennedy and FDR.
If you find Gov. Palin's comments objectionable, you find Christianity objectionable. That's your choice, but that says more about you than it does about Gov. Palin.
What? I assume your scholarship is at a higher level than your blog comments.
Palin tonight:
Lindgren on Monday:
That seems like a pretty good match to me. Maybe Lindgren was coaching Palin in his Monday post, but if that was the case she seems pretty coachable.
One way to interpret Palin's original statement would be that she was praying that Bush knew what he was doing. You aren't going to criticize her for that are you?
I think you are superficially correct, but I think you are intentionally not looking deeper into her statement. Yes, she framed her statement that the war was a task from God as a "prayer," but it doesn't seem like she is actually asking God anything. That is, she is not open to the war NOT being from God. She is saying: I hope this war is a task from God, but if it's not, well, then what?
This is common fallacy. She is praying her will onto God. She is asking God to confirm what she wants to be true. She is not going to get confirmation from God one way or the other. It is not as if God will respond: "This is not my will" and then she'll say the war is wrong.
Do you REALLY not see the nuance? Or is your unfettered support for Palin blinding you?
We have heard from the speaker of the House that Obama is the "one God has blessed us with at this time."
We have heard from a democratic congressman that "Jesus was a community organizer" just like Obama.
We have been assured by the media that Obama is a "light worker" whose transcendent presence projects a mysterious halo that few can see in person, but routinely materializes in magazine and newspaper pictures.
We have heard form Obama himself that his election will be "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."
We have also heard Obama promise to do the "Lord's work" and boast of that promise in campaign literature:
"My faith teaches me that I can sit in church and pray all I want, but I won't be fulfilling the God's will unless I go out and do the Lord's work."
But when Palin prays that our country's leaders follow God's will, that's where liberals draw the line? ROFLMAO.
If that is true its is pretty clear admission by ABC News that they need to start reading Lindgren's posts.
"I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that."
"My faith teaches me that I can sit in church and pray all I want, but I won't be fulfilling God's will unless I go out and do the Lord's work."
So, EH, this breaks down quite simply: "God should play for our team," or "we should play for God's team." Those are very different statements. Do you not see the difference?
For starters one could easily read Palin's speech as a humble way of suggesting that our soldiers were doing God's work. However, the real issue is that there isn't any difference between what Palin said and saying our soldiers are doing god's work because there isn't any difference between thinking this and being a christian who supports the war.
If you support the war surely then you think it is (currently) doing good rather than evil and given that christians believe that god is good (and wants humans to do good) then surely it follows that our soldiers are doing God's work. The whole idea that one can be sincerely religious and yet not feel that everything occurring in the world isn't intimately bound up with God's plan is what is absurd here.
The only real issue here is about the wisdom of rhetorically linking religious belief with the Iraq war. Even though it may be logically follow from support for the war for a christian it would demonstrate bad judgement if a canidate said that we should stay in Iraq to do the work of Christ as it risks inflaming the region. Thus the issue shouldn't really be whether Palin's claims technically said it was god's work or not but whether her association of god with the war was evidence of poor judgement.
I really dislike Palin but this isn't one of the reasons. Now if she made a habit of rhetorically linking god and the war that would be a different matter. Understood this way the reporter's confusion is somewhat more understandable.
------
Speaking as a liberal atheist I have to say I find the discomfort of religious liberals (and a fair number of conservatives) with a prominent role for religion in policy considerations and personal life to be really annoying. If you really believe in your religion it's pretty much the only important thing and how your actions measure up to your religious faith is the only yardstick that matters. If you can't accept the idea that considerations of human life and health are insignificant next to the salvation of souls then why say you believe? Either follow out the consequences of your faith or (even better) become an atheist.
Re Palin: Asking for guidance is not the same as claiming that we are on the right path.
Whether they are equivalent statements or not depends on how we interpret them in what sort of system. In particular are we interested in what they indicate about Palin's beliefs, what Palin is requesting god to do, or something else
Now of course trivially the prayer, e.g., the exact words of the request to god, are different between all the possible interpretations. But if we want to interpret the content of the request being made to god that's a more complex matter.
Now as subpatre said it is true that one construction asks god to help our side prevail the other asks to be on the side that god favors. While this seems straightforward it is still ambiguous between whether Lincoln's prayer is asking that God view his side as being morally justified or that God desires that his side win the war. After all there is no guarantee that god's plan might require that the just side lose. In the later case it really is just a fancy way of asking that your side be victorious while in the former way it is presumably a request for wisdom to know if the fighting should be continued.
However, is what matters what Palin was asking god for on that particular occasion? I mean everyone presumably desires to both be on the correct side of the morally correct side of the war as well as to win it. Since Palin supports the war she surely does in fact believe it is correct and she also surely believes we ought to win this war. In fact it would be downright disturbing if she thought prayer made a difference and then didn't pray for victory, the only real issue here is whether it is wise to connect up god and victory in Iraq in a fashion that might (unjustifiably) create resentment.
This really isn't a very subtle point. It should be pretty easy to grasp for people who pride themselves on "Nuance".
I know but she has made other public statements explicitly supporting McCain's position of staying the course. So, assuming she is not lying in those statements, it's safe to assume she believes continuing the war is good and hence what god would have us do.
...that being so...Palin still isn't the person to be anywhere near the captain's bridge on this.
That this is even an issue in dispute demonstrates a profound cultural disconnect between the media and 2/3s of the country.
Either one believes that what was being prayed for was essentially "Since the U.S. is doing stuff in Iraq, we hope it's the right thing to do morally and ethically" or not. Based on all the intercessionary prayers I've heard and what little theology I know, that is the most reasonable interpretation.
I also think, the implied subtext to a prayer like this is is "help enlighten me if I'm mistaken". Just as if I pray "I hope that cutting the red wire on the bomb is the right thing to do", even without explicitly asking for it, I would definitely welcome any divine intervention to correct me if, in fact, I should be cutting the blue wire instead!
Hoping to be on God's side is all fine and good if there is actual doubt and humility. That's unclear to me so far.
The idea that everything is unfolding according to a divine plan scares the crap out of me seeing as it can be used to justify Machiavellian morality.
Moreover, praying is harmless but certainly not sufficient. We cannot rely on God telling our national leaders that they are doing the right thing. We need national leaders that are willing to use the power of their reason to come to good judgments. God's plan didn't involve, I am quite sure, trumping up flimsy evidence and representing one source ("Curveball") as sufficient reason to put thousands of human lives at stake. Mistaking your gut instinct for divine guidance is an unacceptable trait in a President, whether George W. Bush or Sarah Palin. So, pray your head off, be my guest. And then do your homework, ask the tough questions, be skeptical, and carefully weigh all the options. Palin's tendency to prayer is not what is being questioned here so much as whether she has an inquisitive disposition in her secular analysis of complex policy choices.
On another subject,
I asked a high school student of mine, admittedly a brainy political junkie, about the Bush doctrine. He was unaware of the Gibson interview, as he was working towards a newspaper deadline. First word: "preemption."
Spin, spin, spin. Palin is an idiot. Lather, rinse, repeat.
I guarantee that every single member of the history department at my school could have answered that question better than Palin did. We have a pretty strong team, but we aren't talking about graduate level work in IR. We are talking about the basic premises of Bush's foreign policy and what differentiates it from other foreign policy doctrines and she whiffed the question. She's lucky he didn't ask her about the Monroe Doctrine or the Truman Doctrine so everyone with a decent year of US history would realize what a blathering fool McCain picked, for political reasons, to be next in line to a 72 year old President.
Of course it also conflicts with all the Wiki links that other Obama supporters have already posted. The hive needs to cooperate better; maybe try memorizing your lines, or arriving at a consensus of what the Bush Doctrine actually is if it exists.
Originality is not his strong suit, and Bush certainly did not originate preemption. As Roland posted earlier, preemption is a law of nations well over 350 years old; established, tried and true ... and not the 'Bush Doctrine'.
Actually, as the US learned post-9/11, the other members of NATO think that an attack on a member of NATO gives the other members of NATO veto over any response by said member.
Yes it is. So is telling people who disagree with you to shut up.
Better McCain-Palin on Georgia rather than Obama-Biden.
With Obama-Biden in the White House, they'll jawbone while Putin devours Georgia, Ukraine and the Baltic states.
With McCain-Palin in the White House, the U.S. will respond with the only answer Putin will understand: a credible threat of force.
Khruschev backed away from putting missles in Cuba because of Kennedy's credible threat of force.
Putin wants vassal states on Russia's border - but will not want an open war with NATO to gain this minor tactical advantage.
Neither McCain nor Palin will back down to the bully of the Caucuses - Putin. But Obama and Biden will give grand speeches - and leave the people of the Caucuses to the brutal will of ex-KGB aparatchik, Putin.
I agree, except for the "impressive" part. If she wasn't prep'd on how to handle something that was already a controversy, it would be pretty disturbing.
I'm for Obama, I see the nuance, and I disagree. As you've framed it, there are only two options: Praying her will onto God, or God's will onto her. The latter, praying for God to be on her side is fatalistic. If one is indeed convinced God is on their side, they're relieved of the need to do anything properly on this end. "It's all in God's hands, and it'll come out however he wants it to, whatever you do," would be the thinking. This is what George W. Bush has sometimes been accused of, and if it's true, it should be unacceptable to any sane person.
On the other hand, Palin "praying her will onto God" absolves her of no responsibility for diligently doing her job. On the contrary, it's a prayer that her policies will meet with God's approval, which presumably they wouldn't if Palin was less than careful and thorough in arriving at them. So unless you're arguing that political leaders shouldn't pray at all about their public duties -- if that's your view, good luck getting much support for it in this country -- I'd rather they take Palin's approach than the alternative. I found hardly anything to compliment about during performance in this interview, but the one thing I certainly wouldn't fault her for is getting on Lincoln's side of this question.
duringPalin's performance in this interview..."you miss a vital distinction. Gibson did not say "You've been quoted as saying blah, blah, blah..." He insisted that the completely out of context quotes were "her words" -- as if he was repeating an entire sentence rather than a dependent clause.
The Palin Derangement Syndrome is really getting pathetic. I disagree with just about everything that Palin said in terms of foreign policy/national security, but thought she did a very good job of representing McCain's approach to those questions -- and that is what a VP candidate is supposed to do.
Its possible to say "I disagree" without the kind of brain-dead viciousness being engaged in by Obama's supporters here. And its also possible to be critical of the media's treatment of a candidate without agreeing with that candidate. (I was appalled when Clinton supporters praised Gibson and Stephanopolis' performance at the final Clinton/Obama debate --- despite my schadenfreude based on Obama finally getting the same kind of treatment that the media had subjected Clinton to for over a year, I recognized that Charlie and George were simply horrible that night.)
This was a 'gotcha' interview -- questions about national security and foreign policy should be based on fundamental (albeit, fungible) principles, not hypothetical 'worst case scenarios'. Questions like "should we send troops to defend Georgia?" cannot be answered, because the answer to that question is based on conditions at the time of the attack.
Palin did a good job of explaining McCain's approach to Russia (jawbone about letting Georgia join NATO to signal that the US will take steps to answer unrestrained Russian agression, knowing full well that the rest of NATO isn't going to accept Georgia as a member anytime soon.) Georgia is a very difficult topic because Bush made implied commitments to Georgia that he never should have -- and extricating the US from those commitments will take time. In the interim, the US cannot appear to be abandoning an 'ally' -- McCain knows this, and Palins answers reflect that knowledge.
The distinction is the difference between presumption and humility.
You seriously watched that interview and *that's* what you found significant in it?
As for your comment: she was asked directly about it. She had a chance to clarify or defend herself. She presumably has had ample time and resources to prepare, and hand-picked her interviewer. If she can't do better than that under those circumstances, how will she possibly function as President?
It appears Jim must always find something positive to say about Palin and given the unmitigated disaster of her foreign policy answers, this was all he had.
And yet Jimmy Carter still managed to get Malcolm Fraser's name wrong.
Why don't you guys criticize them for the same thing? No indignation towards our enemies?
Option three, praying that we will discover what His will is and that we will follow it. It is a prayer for enlightenment, a prayer for wisdom, a prayer for strength.
Option three is what Lincoln prayed for, what people who believe in free will must pray for, what Palin claims to have prayed for, and what practicing Christians --dozens already posted here days ago-- understood her to have prayed for.
Did you pass that half-semester, or were you just "present"?
They are very different.
One is hoping that you're doing the right thing. The other is claiming that God is on you're side because you know you're doing the right thing.
Even if you can't see the difference, I hope most Americans can.
Please post a link to a formal government document with the title "Bush Doctrine". Please provide a quote from President Bush where he says 'this is my doctrine'.
You can't. Because this is lefty code-phrase for several strategies that President Bush announced after we lost 3000 of our fellow citizens seven years and one day ago. And frankly, the thrashing about that President Bush is doing to work with the Palestinians shows that he doesn't understand "his" doctrine himself.
Because this is largely undefined lefty-speak Palin was spot on for asking for a definition.
And put me in the column that says that Christians recognize that they cannot know God's will but pray for Him to give them wisdom so that they can grow to understand it. It reveals quite shallow thought processes to equate this with "your side and God's side are equal".
With less than 60 days left before the election, are we going to find out who Sarah Palin is and whether she is qualified (by experience, temperament, background, and knowledge) to be president, or are we going to find out who asks the best questions on a TV interview? We are attacking the messenger (Gibson) and pretending we can't see the message (Palin for vice president). We still know next to nothing about this woman who says she is ready on day one to be president, and with time rapidly running out we don't seem to care about finding out. It is troubling.
Question: the "Bush Doctrine" -- whichever of the three versions you pick -- seems to be a pretty important issue of policy.
Had anyone ever asked Barack Obama whether he agrees with the "Bush Doctrine" -- or any of the three variations thereof?
Did Gibson ask Obama that when he was interviewing him? Why not?
Now, taking Gibson's own definition -- preemptive self-defense -- does he really believe that anyone actually rejects that idea? (As pointed out in the other thread, it goes back at least 400 years in Western legal thought.)
The Left Stream Media continue to spread the myths.
Certainly not. It might well be stupid. I hope you know the difference.
If you pray for world peace, you pray that there will be world peace in the (not too distant) future.
If you pray that the war is a task from God, you are hoping that the was IS a task from God (now). You concede that you are not 100% sure whether it is or not, but you pray to God that it IS.
IMO, saying you pray that the war is a task from God is the closest thing to saying the war IS a task from God. In my view the reservation is there only to avoid giving the impression that you know as much as God does. It is a necessary humility.
no, it wouldn't be evil, wrong, but not evil.
I mean, who wants to spend four years being attacked as a racist by these people anytime you criticize The One?
I'm becoming more and more willing to actually vote for McCain, because despite my disagreements with his policies, I think he'll do a good job as President -- and that he will 'reach across the aisle' to arrive at consensus policies. I can't make a 'positive' argument for Obama, while I can make one for McCain....
And the behavior of the Oborg makes it far more likely that I'll vote based on the availability of the positive argument. In other words, while a vote for McCain would probably be motivated in large part by my antipathy toward the DNC and Obama supporters, it would be based on the fact that I think McCain would be at least adequate in the Oval Office.
Gibson's direct question to Palin was "are we are fighting a holy war?" That would have seemed an easy thing to say "no" to.
She didn't.
A few years before Lincoln spoke about a war between southern and northern American Christians, another leader prayed as follows: A prayer that these soldiers "deploy" with God's guidance? Yes, it was that. But it was much more; it was the rousing conclusion of Pope Urban II's 1095 speech at the Council of Clermont, which launched the First Crusade.
In the context of the international politics of war and faith, Palin's prayer from her Wasilla pulpit resonated as much with Pope Urban II's speech as with Abraham Lincoln's. To (some) American ears, Palin was recalling Lincoln. To many ears elsewhere (and certainly to the ears of some in America, including mine), she was recalling Pope Urban II.
Even if you believe that in her heart of hearts Palin was all about Lincoln, it seems to me that you have to concede the risks -- maybe even the recklessness -- of an evangelical Christian candidate's persistence in mixing God with war and in not finding the simple word "no" when directly asked whether our Iraq venture is a holy war.
I wonder if she even knows what habeas corpus is?
I really am beginning to feel bad for McCain. His legacy is now turning on this woman...after all the good things he's done, this will hurt him even if he's elected...
I just love this. Really, I do.
Do you really believe Obama could honestly, not just say "premption" answer what the Bush doctrine is, in 10 seconds?
Do you really believe that Obama, who clearly said he would meet the leaders of Iran without preconditions, then waffled, and now believes God knows what about that, has solid foreign policy views?
Do you really believe Obama, who was spectacularly wrong on the biggest foreign policy issue of this decade (Biden changed his mind and had a silly divide Iraq into 3 states position), has sound foreign policy judgement?
Because Obama is at the top of the ticket and Palin is not.
Again, when in modern political history has the top of one ticket spent so much time attacking the bottom of the other?
Laugh out loud funny considering she never said any such thing.
Go ahead and post her comments saying so. You know, the ones she doesn't say that but you are spinning into saying she did.
Again, you can no longer parody the left.
Who cares? The voters don't know or care what hc is.
Assuming she is being interviewed for the back-up to the pres, I as a voter want to know:
1. Freak or not?
2. Higher taxes or lower?
3. Strong defense or weak?
4. Good highways?
5. If America is attacked do we respond with force or kissing EU butt?
Her answers to some of the easiest questions were the kind you'd get from a freshman in high school asked to think about issues: total bluffing.
I like the Volokh conspiracy a lot, but this is getting ridiculous.
Big Media is being destroyed from within.
Palin Links Iraq to Sept. 11 In Talk to Troops in Alaska
By Anne E. Kornblut
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 12, 2008; A01
FORT WAINWRIGHT, Alaska, Sept. 11 -- Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."
I'm a veterinarian. When I want information about my patients, I use blood work, radiographs, etc. Obviously, I want to know that the lab that is conducting the tests is using standard protocols and using properly calibrated equipment, because otherwise the information they provide to me is worse than garbage- bad information is more likely to lead to a mistaken diagnosis than no information.
When I need to assess candidates for political office, I base my decision on the candidate's statements and their record in office. The news media is essentially the laboratory that I depend upon to provide good information. If it is abundantly clear that the media is using bad quotes (miscalibrated machines) and is biased in their approach (not following standard protocols), then I have every reason to ignore the information they provide and rely on my own observations, and to encourage others to do likewise.
Pointing out that MSM coverage is unreliable is not a diversion, but an advisory notice to those who want reliable information to look elsewhere.
GIBSON: And let me start with you, Senator Obama, because it was you who said in your foreign policy speech that you would go into western Pakistan if you had actionable intelligence to go after it, whether or not the Pakistani government agreed. Do you stand by that?
OBAMA: I absolutely do stand by it, Charlie. What I said was that we should do everything in our power to push and cooperate with the Pakistani government in taking on Al Qaida, which is now based in northwest Pakistan. And what we know from our national intelligence estimates is that Al Qaida is stronger now than at any time since 2001.
OBAMA: And so, back in August, I said we should work with the Pakistani government, first of all to encourage democracy in Pakistan so you've got a legitimate government that we're working with, and secondly that we have to press them to do more to take on Al Qaida in their territory.
What I said was, if they could not or would not do so, and we had actionable intelligence, then I would strike.
And I should add that Lee Hamilton and Tom Kean, the heads of the 9/11 Commission, a few months later wrote an editorial saying the exact same thing.
I think it's indisputable that that should be our course.
Let me just add one thing, though. On the broader issue of nuclear proliferation, this is something that I've worked on since I've been in the Senate. I worked with Richard Lugar, then the Republican head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to pass the next stage of what was Nunn-Lugar so that we would have improved interdiction of potentially nuclear materials.
OBAMA: And it is important for us to rebuild a nuclear nonproliferation strategy, something that this administration, frankly, has ignored, and has made us less safe as a consequence.
It would not cost us that much, for example, and would take about four years for us to lock down the loose nuclear weapons that are still floating out there, and we have not done the job.
GIBSON: I'm going to go the others in a moment, but what you just outlined is essentially the Bush doctrine. We can attack if we want to, no matter the sovereignty of the Pakistanis.
OBAMA: No, that is not the same thing, because here we have a situation where Al Qaida, a sworn enemy of the United States, that killed 3,000 Americans and is currently plotting to do the same, is in the territory of Pakistan. We know that.
And this is not speculation. This is not a situation where we anticipate a possible threat in the future.
And my job as commander in chief will be to make sure that we strike anybody who would do America harm when we have actionable intelligence do to that.
Compare:
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.
GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?
PALIN: Now, as for our right to invade, we’re going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be, a military strike, a last option.
GIBSON: But, Governor, I’m asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.
PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.
GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?
PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.
Obama does not equivocate at all about going into Pakistan. He understands the key difference about the Bush Doctrine, is that allows attacking a country even when the threat is not imminent. This was how the invasion of Iraq was justified. But compare the two answers. Policy-wise they are quite similar. The principal difference is the difference between knowing and understanding. Palin may have sputtered out the correct policy, Obama understands the concepts he is talking about.
And this:
Don't worry, that war had a plan!
Ah...no.
These guys make their living with words. They knew exactly what they were doing when they trimmed off the first part of the quote, and what they were doing was inverting the meaning of what Palin said. It's like a pitcher in the major leagues winding up, then whirling around and deliberately flinging the ball into center field.
Palin Links Iraq to Sept. 11 In Talk to Troops in Alaska
Go ahead and post her comments saying so. You know, the ones she doesn't say that but you are spinning into saying she did.
A claim in a headline is not fact. I realize you have received your talking point for the day, but that still does not make it true.
It's pretty clear:
1. Gibson doesn't actually know what the Bush Doctrine is.
2. Preemptive strike has *always* been implicit in self-defense and isn't a part of the Bush Doctrine because it's unnecessary.
3. Gibson has completely beclowned himself.
4. ABC has been busy editing out some sections to reduce the negative impact of Gibson acting like an ass. Good luck with that one.
5. He was condescending and that is not going over well with the women I know.
That whole looking-at-her-over-the-glasses-and-down-the-nose schtick REALLY did not go over well. Gibson is going to regret doing that for some time to come.
Er, we are in Iraq because 9-11 happened.
You do realize that, right?
You are capable of understanding that doesn't mean she believe Iraq attacked us, correct?
You do understand Tom Daschle, Senate Majority Leader and Democrat "rushed" this throught the Senate:
Right?
You know Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Harry Reid, and Joe Biden all voted for that, right?
Palin Links Iraq to Sept. 11 In Talk to Troops in Alaska
On the question of:
All of these folks agree:
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
So tell us, why are all those Democrats linking Iraq to
9-11?
They link the Iraqi regime to the 9/11 attacks in ways we haven't heard even Dick Cheney do in years.
Consider:
@ 3:50 of the speech: The Alaskan soldiers lost in Iraq are soldiers who were lost "in the broad conflict that began seven years ago today."
@ 4:40 (approx.): "You'll be there in service to the same cause of freedom from tyranny and from violence [as the Alaskan soldiers who've been lost]. You'll be there to defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans. You'll be there because America can never go back to that false sense of security that came before September 11, 2001."
When is the last time anyone asked him to clarify his out &out fabrication ("he is some guy who lives in my neighborhood") about Bill Ayers?
When is the last time someone asked him about the Chicago Annenberg Challenge?
By the way, the idea that Biden knows anything about foreign policy is obscene.
Can you then tell us if you think the founders of the United States were "scary" or "nuts" because they actually believed they were being guided by God?
I bet you don't believe they actually thought that or something...
To pray we are doing G*d's work in taking action X means that we're asking G*d to change his mind and support us if he was against X when we started. He need do nothing if he was for X when we started and the prayer is mere self-affirmation.
Lincoln said "I hope WE'RE on G*d's side"
Palin said "I hope G*d gets on OUR side (if he isn't already)"
Palin Links Iraq to Sept. 11 In Talk to Troops in Alaska
Your timing is impeccable!
Again, it is no longer possible to parody you folks.
[Which again, in not even an authentically "Christian" belief given the side against which we fought -- Great Britain -- was just as much a "Christian" Nation in a demographic sense. And ideas of rebellion and political liberty have nothing to do with the Bible or Christian religion. Or if anything the Tories had the more traditional biblical argument based on Romans 13].
Do you think we should ask Obama the same question?
Because he apparently wants them in NATO:
So would Obama go to war over Georgia?
Those gaffes in the article 1) are relatively innocent. I am sure that there were no hard feelings for not realizing someone was handicapped (assuming he couldn't see). I would imagine the state senator was pleased to be praised by a potential vice president. also with HRC, given Palin its amusing to hear her opponent about what might have been. 2) they don't implicate anything about foreign policy, and 3) they are immaterial to any other policy position.
I agree that we might question Biden's views on foreign policy given some of his opinions on Iraq, and some of his domestic policy views given his vote for the 2005 bankruptcy reform. Nevertheless, at least at a time of crisis he was thinking out of the box.
If Biden doesn't know anything about foreign policy, who does? Obama. In my opinion, anyone who supported Iraq should not be at the top of the ticket.
Lastly, regarding this god thing. Why would anyone pray to god to have an oil pipeline built. Maybe Iraq given the implications, but a pipeline? Give me a break!
Um, no. The Bush doctrine, among other things, is really about preventative war. Often times they'll spin that as in response to an imminent threat (e.g. Iraq is about to get WMD!) which is what the idea of preemption is. (Actually, the beginning of the 6 day war is really the best example of preemption, which is entirely different and more reasonable than prevention). They've intentionally blurred the distinction. The Bush doctrine also includes the entirely reasonable notion that non-state actors can't be allowed safe havens, and thus, states that don't take proactive action to root out terrorists will be considered to be accomplices. "You are either with us, or against us" has been demagouged by people on the left, but when it came to state to state relations it needed to be said, and, if you read Obama's statement in the NH debate posted above, is not terribly controversial as a partisan issue. The Bush doctrine, as doctrine, could be the basis for decent policy, but the Bush doctrine as applied (in Iraq) and its misunderstanding about the limits of American power has not worked out. The doctrine may be sound, but it still requires leaders who can use their judgment.
Said student got a Congressional internship the summer after 9th grade with Tom Lantos and has actually read the 2002 NSS. He's a pretty hawkish Democrat when you get down to it. Whether he misspoke or was being generous to the Bush Doctrine is immaterial, the point is that our VP ought to know as much about foreign policy as a gifted HS student.
Because our government lied and misrepresented the intelligence data, and because the Democrats were too lazy to ask enough questions to get to the bottom of it. They trusted in the basic integrity of our national leaders, and were too chicken to take a stand with midterm elections approaching. A sorry state of affairs.
There are at least 4 types of people: truly smart (rare), smart, stupid, and then those that are so stupid that they don't even realize that they are stupid. Defending Palin's foreign policy answers yesterday falls into that last category.
http://www.weeklystandard.com
See the Kristol blog
So when Palin tells those troops that they are defending us against Al Qaeda, (a) how is she linking Iraq to 9/11 and (b) why is she wrong?
It's fun to watch some of you contort yourself. Just own up to the fact that the Post screwed up and has already started its own damage control by editing its original story even if it leaves in the first paragraph (which makes no sense given the new second paragraph).
“The hand of Providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations….”
Though Washington had an interesting definition of "infidelity": You had to believe God was on the side of the Americans. In Founding era parlance, "infidelity" usually meant someone to one's religious left. To Franklin and Washington, atheists and strict Deists were "infidels." But to the orthodox, Franklin and Washington (because they didn't believe in Trinitarian Christology) were "infidels." Hence the need for "infidels" like the first 4 Presidents to keep their mouths shut about their religious specifics and not publicly "rock the boat" so to speak.
Paine did a lot of boat rocking and was publicly ruined for it.
SP: Never heard of it
CG: Seriously. Waddya think?
SP: Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about.
CG: It was in the papers.
SP: It's something about killing muslims but not doing it very well. Oh, and there's an election coming up, so it's all cool.
CG: Sorry but that is not correct. Thank you for being a contestant.
Something you have no proof of. For example, if Iraq had no connections to international terrorism, why did AQ flock there?
Otherwise, I did enjoy this:
They trusted in the basic integrity of our national leaders
If Tom Daschle was not a "national leader" who, pray tell, was?
So does typing silly, deranged lies about "the government."
You state: I think you are superficially correct, but I think you are intentionally not looking deeper into her statement. Yes, she framed her statement that the war was a task from God as a "prayer," but it doesn't seem like she is actually asking God anything. That is, she is not open to the war NOT being from God. She is saying: I hope this war is a task from God, but if it's not, well, then what?
This is common fallacy. She is praying her will onto God. She is asking God to confirm what she wants to be true. She is not going to get confirmation from God one way or the other. It is not as if God will respond: "This is not my will" and then she'll say the war is wrong.
Do you REALLY not see the nuance? Or is your unfettered support for Palin blinding you?
KWC:
You have to be kidding? I as a Christian, not fundamentalist in the least, I pray that I am doing God's will. I pray that our leaders are doing God's will. BUT, I do not know what His will is and I also honest don't go to the point of saying if not, what then? I am hoping that I receive guidance from God and if His guidance says I am wrong then I must change my actions to conform to His.
I am no way presumptuous enough to believe that I should be telling God to change and I doubt Sarah Palin is either. Besides, when people look for nuance they usually find it.
The idea that someone, (Worried) is scared because he thinks Palin hopes it was a task from God is telling us more about Worried than Sarah Palin. We who pray, always hope that what we do, the task, is God's will. We are trying to do what is right and so just like Palin we hope that what ever the task is it is God's will. And it is a bit different from the terrorists, we do not believe it is God's will to just go and kill people but God does allow us to defend ourselves which may entail people being killed.
Rich
Being an athiest doesn't diminish one's ability to analyze and understand other viewpoints. Many Christians believe god does have a plan for humanity. They believe some hman actions are in accord with that plan, and some are not. They pray that their own actions are congruent with that plan, and ask their god to lead them in the direction of his plan.
While I don't subscribe to their ideas, they are not difficult to undestand.
The two are not even remotely "pretty much the same question," although they do cover the same subject matter. Obama was asked about a specific part of the world and specific policy he would apply there. Palin was asked about the "Bush Doctrine" which seems to have at least three working definitions (and Gibson's own definition is one that has been accepted in Western International law for 400 years.)
I don't know about Obama and Palin, but personally I would have a much easier time answer a focused, specific question like Obama got than a broad, vague question like Palin got. The latter seems more like a gotcha question than a serious attempt to discuss policy.
I don't think it was laziness on the part of Congressional Democrats. They had every reason to believe the assertions made by the Clinton administration regarding Saddam's weapons programs, particularly given the fact that the Clinton administration's assertions were consistent with the underlying intelligence data that they also had access to.
Dick Lugar.
Who always looks pained at SFRC hearings when the cameras are on for Biden's "questions".
Can you then tell us if you think the founders of the United States were "scary" or "nuts" because they actually believed they were being guided by God?
Although the Founders did often refer to God in speech and writing, they were "scared" enough by the potential abuses of religion that they made sure that there was a separation between church and state in the operations of the U.S. government. Setting personal religious beliefs aside, they were smart enough to realize that making every law or government action into a "mission from God" was a recipe for failure.
A lot of intellectual dishonesty this morning. Can't wait for the election to be over so that people will stop rationalizing these things. Is Palin a foreign policy expert? Not by a long shot. She should have been less dogmatic about Georgia (if they are in NATO, yes, we will defend them — that's kind of the point). We should talk about "serious consideration" for Georgia's NATO membership, because allowing them in is a big step that will require defense in the case of an attack, which is why we shouldn't be so ready to commit to it (though hinting is part of the diplomatic game).
But is it fair to ask what someone means by "the Bush Doctrine?" Absolutely. And if you are being honest, rather than a partisan looking for blood, you'd acknowledge as much.
Uh, because we were there?
This isn't that hard of a concept, and this is coming from someone who supported the war from the beginning, but for somewhat different reasons than were publically bandied about.
I was pretty skeptical of the WMD claims, and the 9/11 inferences drawn were pretty thin. If you want to talk about "evil dictators" that's fine, but that's clearly not the sole justification. However, I saw a general connection between Iraq and the war in terror in that it's generally countries that are most disconnected from Globalization are those that tend to produce the most terrorists. If we could successfully foster a more pro-western state in Iraq, it's influence would be important in opening the rest of the region. For more on this chain of thinking google "the pentagon's new map by Thomas Barnett.
But, that aside, trying to Link Al-Queda to the start of the war in Iraq is simply barking up the wrong tree. Al-Queda came to Iraq to attack the US forces there. The only real exception was Ansar-Al-Islam which was in a part of the country not substantially controlled by Saddam. Al-Queda in Iraq didn't exist until 2004, and it's predecessor JTJ (or TWJ, it was Zarqawi's group prior to becoming AQI) formed at some point in the beginning of 2003
I tend to agree about the link between Hussein and the 9/11 attcks, but it's ultimately irrelevant as Palin wasn't making that link. She was simply telling those troops that they were defending us against the people who attacked us, which is an absolutely correct statement of the facts given the presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq since at least 2004.
Do you want to take a guess as to why you didn't answer thw question posed?
Further, you do realize you're the only one accusing Palin of making "every" government action a mission from God, right?
Fair enough. But nobody can dispute that is what Palin believes, as Bush believes this too, so I think we can conclude she is of the same mindset.
I do think that really depends on how you interpret her comments.
Lindgren's posts aside, they are open to interpretation.
It's certainly plausible to interpret her comments to be asking people to pray the Iraq war is "the right thing to do."
But I think any objective viewing of what she said also admits the plausibility that her statement implies something else. It's not necessarily that Iraq "is" a task from god as the news have reported it, but it is talking in the express context of Iraq being part of "gods plan" or "god having a plan" for Iraq that is hopefully being enacted by our leaders.
wuzzagrunt- Why? Because Bush was so much better of a choice in '04? Conservatives are in denial that the last eight years have been a miserable failure for the United States, both domestically and internationally. I don't care about Palin's "qualifications." I care about how she and McCain will continue to let this country fall into an abyss.
But she does have some record of competency and even expertise in energy policy. I'd argue energy policy is the most important single issue facing the country at this point - foreign policy, economic conditions, and climate change all revolve around it. And she does have a (limited) record of fiscally responsible governance.
And she's not running against the platonic ideal of a VP. She and McCain are running against Obama/Biden. That's a pretty low bar. What are their qualifications again - besides not being George Bush, that is?
And this is an honest answer. All of those candidates campaigned in the primaries. They gave speeches, took policy positions, and answered questions. They ran campaign organizations, sought contributions, and took their chances with voters. Their weaknesses were pointed out by their primary opponents. Not one of them was plucked from national obscurity into the number two spot. Palin was, and we now have less than 60 days to find out who she is and why she thinks she is qualified to be president (as she gold Gibson we is). I think we have a lot of learning to do in a short time. I frankly don't want the US to go to war with Russia over Georgia, and I want to know if Palin thinks we should.
I am not a Sarah Palin fanboy, and not a fan of many of Lindgren's purely political topics and his faux objectivity. But in this case, Palin simply did not say that the Iraq War was a mission from God, and you don't need to be a Clintonian word parser to see that.
Reasonable people ought to realize that the statement may be controversial on other grounds. But the level of the debate apparently won't allow for that discussion, just as the nonsense about Palin's "listing" vs. "sale" of the state airplane on eBay obfuscates the real issue about whether eBay would ever be an appropriate venue for maximizing the value of an asset such as that.
Ummm, how about finding out whether McCAIN or OBAMA thinks we should? Because it seems from what I have read, the answer is YES.
It's not immediately obvious, however, that expertise on energy policy as it pertains to Alaska is applicable nationally. Is it?
Um, all of those candidates were running for President.
Look, get a clue, wouldja? If you pray for rain, it doesn't mean that it's already raining.
The original question just asked for her opinion on it. If Palin knew what she was talking about, she could have given an answer to it. I think this was a "Jeopardy" type of question. If she partly knew what it was (like Gibson), she could have commented on the part that she knew about. If she were more experienced in answering questions, even when she doesn't know the answer, she could have said, "Which aspect of that doctrine did you want me to talk about?" That would have given the impression she knew what she was talking about, but elicited a clarification from Gibson that may have given her enough information to answer his question.
The way she did answer the question betrayed her lack of knowledge on the subject AND therefore, her inexperience in answering questions.
This is similar to the questions about Georgia and NATO. She could have said that the McCain policy is that NATO membership should be extended to include Georgia and the Ukraine. When Gibson said, won't that mean war with Russia, she could have declined to answer hypotheticals (the Hillary tactic) or she could have said that, under NATO's rules, the nations that are a member of NATO decide how to respond when one of them is attacked. Or she could have said that the point of NATO membership would be to deter any attack, from any country, on its members (a non-answer, but one Condi Rice might give, e.g.). Again, Palin answered the question directly, which is refreshing but shows a lack of sophistication. But, she plainly is smart, so perhaps she will learn from this encounter and do better next time.
I notice that Prof Lindgren, while obsessed with what he believes are misinterpretations of Palin's "God's will" remarks (which I find more ambiguous), is completely silent on her obvious misrepresentations of her record regarding earmarks --e.g. "I said to Congress, "thanks but no thanks" on the Bridge to Nowhere." That is why he is showing a partisan bias, for me, in all of his posts on Palin. What he chooses to emphasize is either a defense against any attacks on Palin or negative posts about Obama. I can only conclude that he, like many it seems, is smitten with her.
I for one think she and Obama should play a quick game of basketball, one-on-one (maybe Horse). It would show the public that fierce competitors can put politics aside and have fun. But, that is just wishful thinking.
Palin's thoughts are similar to Lincoln's thoughts in the way hubris is similar to humility.
You bet; in fact, as a logician/computer scientist who also did philosophy as an undergrad, I'll be happy to.
First of all, with a half-semester of formal logic, you won't have been exposed to most all of the logic that you need to interpret the statement logically at all, because you need a stronger system than first order logic. But you'd be better off looking at it as syllogistic logic of rhetoric anyway.
The main point is, as I noted above, that "pray" doesn't assert a statement of fact: I pray for X doesn't translate to a predicate "X holds". It is, instead, supplication: is makes a statement out the internal state of the speaker, that (s)he here, speaking to another conscious and rational entity, hopes that what (s)he is doing is indeed what that other entity wants. It's logically more like saying "I didn't know what you wanted, so I brought you a Coke."
At least,g iven the number of other people who don't seem to understand the word "pray", I suppose it becomes easier to believe.
What does that mean? When you as Governor say that the citizens of your state, who presumably are free to have the wide range of religious views that they do, need to have their hearts right with God before your work as Governor can do any good, what does that mean? What it says to me is very simple: this person is an extremist who will let her religious views influence her political decisions.
And regardless of whether Gibson was lying, misinterpreting her remark, or getting it right, his interview showed very plainly that this woman has no business being the VP. She is uninformed and downright reckless in answering these questions. She thinks the view of Russia from Alaska gives her special insight into Russia's actions. The continued breathless defense of her on this blog is an embarrassment.
I find both equally offensive... to presume god is on your "side" or to presume you are on god's "side" ... quite frankly I don't see much of a difference, they both require knowledge of the political mindset of the creator of the universe, which is simply an asinine thing to claim. Everyone thinks they are fighting for good. Nobody, not even the Nazis, believed their actions were evil. Everyone thinks they're on "god's side."
If it comes down to whose believe in god is stronger, then the islamic terrorists certainly have us beat. I don't see any Sunday Christians undertaking suicide missions for god. As an atheist, I say that's a good thing. The less acting on religion, the better. If war is necessary, does it really matter what god thinks? We went into Iraq for bad if nebulous reasons, none of which were "god wanted it" (at least not publicly).
Maybe god wants america to be destroyed. Surely that's a possibility. If you disagree, how do you know what god thinks? Don't presume god is your god, as god is equally as likely to be the "god" of another religion.
At the risk of angering people, I think that's a part and parcel of the evolution of the "southern strategy." The Political Conservative/Traditional groups also tend to be disproportionately religious.
by tying their political fate to the conservative reaction against the Liberal movements of the 70's, (Nixon's South, Reagan Democrats) Conservatives have fundamentally tied themselves to the religious beliefs of those same cohorts.
That's why running on a republican ticket is such a Tightrope for people like McCain who do not make their religious faith a part of their political standpoint. he was in major danger of alienating that part of his Base. From his perspective, Palin was an absolutely perfect pick to get them on his side. Not only that she's a "big personality" taht brings things to the ticket that he lacks.
Yes and we should worry about all the candidates attitudes towards Georgia. Are you folks really prepared to fight a war over Georgia, or even over Ukraine?
According to Wikipedia, Georgia suffered a piecemeal absorption into the Russian Empire in the 19th Century, enjoyed a few years of independence after the Russian Revolution, and then got reabsorbed after a naked act of aggression when the Red Army invaded in 1922. Then Georgia regained independence in 1991. Since Georgia has belonged to Russia in whole or in part for almost 200 years, it's natural for them to want it back. Given Georgia's desirable geography and history, it seems reasonable to suppose that Russia would regard Georgia as a vital interest and might be willing to fight the US over it. A US weakened by a severe financial crisis, two wars, more than 30 years of incompetent government, disunity, politicians bickering over trivialities, and strained energy resources because a pack of loony environmentalist have crippled exploration and development. Does anyone think Russia worries about carbon emissions?
"YOu might as well say that "I eat what I like" is the same as "I like what I eat"
Or that "I mean what I say' is the same as 'I say what I mean'
Or that "I work for my boss' is the same as 'my boss works for me.
THe differenc ebetween "I pray god is on our side' and 'I pray tat we are on God's side' is in who is the subject and who is the object. Who is the leader and who is the follower, its plain as day and no amount of snarky semantic language parsing makes it otherwise.
What I think is going on has several aspects. First, there is an attempt to tar Gov. Palin as a fundamentalist, etc., and tie her to what we see so often on TV, with people praying for a new car, etc. Also, I suspect that a lot of those condemning her, probably not here, but in the media, are not overly devout, if Christian at all, didn't understand the careful distinction she made, and read their biases onto what she said.
On the 'distinction without a difference', saying 'I don't know what x is, but I hope it is y', is not the same as saying 'I know x is an example of y'.
If what you claim to be the true interpretation of her words were actually the true interpretation, you'd think she would have said so. It's clear she didn't think that. Instead, she resorted to a prepared answer, given to her by someone (obviously) that what she was saying was like something Abe Lincoln said (she even has the audacity to imply that she was actually echoing Lincoln in her speech, as if she had thought of it at the time, which is HIGHLY suspect).
Sigh. Whatever. Volokh.com is now McCain-Palin campaign central.
I didn't say, nor do I believe that there are only two options. I said, "As [KWC] framed it, there are only two options". [emphasis mine]
Isn't it ironic you'd do that in a thread about misquoting people to change their meaning? And where I was actually defending your candidate, but apparently not in precisely the way you'd like?
Should we all just accept whatever the MSM says? Should we accept the fact that there is a uniform definition of the "Bush Doctrine" even though ABC News and Charlie Gibson himself have expressed that "doctrine" in different and distinct forms at various points?
Should we just accept that Palin linked Iraq to the 9/11 attack themself rather than note that what she actually said was that our troops are defending us against Al Qaeda in Iraq, which is an unquestionably true statement? Is it reckless to point out that a MSM source bungled that so badly that they've already changed their story (if not the erroneous headline accompanying the story)?
Should we accept that when Charlie Gibson was saying that Palin's "exact words" were the ones he quoted, that the words only included a part of a larger sentence? If so, should we take out "not" and repeat the rest of someone's sentence and say they support a particular policy -- after all, those would be the exact words used by the person even if the omission of another portion categorically changes the meaning.
There is a place for reasoned debate about whether Palin is qualified to be VP, just as there are ample grounds to debate Obama's qualifications. I don't think a position for or against either candidate is unreasonable on that front. But get off the high horse and stop acting like it's unreasonable for people to defend against baseless attacks. If you had an OUNCE of intellectual honesty, you'd concede that a number of the claims being made against Palin are baseless. That doesn't leave you without arguments. But it does make your task more difficult, and perhaps that is why you argue your point at such a high level of generality rather than getting into the specific points being made.
Nope. She said "I brought you a Coke, tell me that's what you wanted."
Really?
Because that is not what you said...
Have you heard of "Curveball?" That one, extremely conflicted covert source's information was summarized in a way that obscured the fact that we had one covert source with a conflict of interest. Our lack of actual inside intelligence is a matter of public record at this point.
They said there were mobile weapons labs. There weren't.
They said Iraq was trying to buy nuke parts in Africa and from German companies. Dubious. They squashed information to the contrary by leaking the name of a covert asset.
They leaked things to the NYT which they splashed repeatedly on the front page that claimed "senior government officials" were very confident about the intelligence. Shortly thereafter, Cheney appears on Sunday morning shows and cites the NYT article as evidence of their reasonableness. Turns out Cheney was the senior government official.
Ambiguity was edited out of CIA briefings as they went up the ladder.
The Downing Street Memo.
The UN teams found nothing.
And I'm sorry that your political vocabulary is ignorant of the usage of the word "government" for "executive branch." Actually I'm not sorry for that, you lack of knowledge is something for you to be sorry about.
Yes, the Clinton administration was wrong, too, and Hussein was acting guilty. I thought so at the time, and supported the war on that basis. But we were all working on assumptions, and as you should know, to assume is to make an ass out of u and me.
Really?
I think it is clear she did think that.
You mean the one that was destroyed and retyped by a journalist?
Or do you mean the one that outlines the parties being fearful of Iraq using their WMD's?
And I'm sorry that your political vocabulary is ignorant of the usage of the word "government" for "executive branch." Actually I'm not sorry for that, you lack of knowledge is something for you to be sorry about.
Hilarious.
Um, I was working in the Senate when you were in grade school, you clown. "The government" is not just the "executive branch."
They said there were mobile weapons labs. There weren't.
Um, that is not proof of any "lie" or "misrepresentation"
They squashed information to the contrary by leaking the name of a covert asset.
Your ignornace is astounding.
You, nor anyone reading, can explain how "outing" a CIA agent would "squash" any silly claim.
Come back when you have the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
Because, after all, it's not what she said, and not what she restated. How could it be any clearer?
Something you have no proof of.
the Clinton administration was wrong,
Wrong?
WRONG?
Why didn't they lie too?!
Good grief, you people really can't be parodied.
So why does it still rankle? Lincoln could say that because he lived in a time when most everyone was indeed religious, and God was used to explain most everything that happened. Your child just died? It's God's will.
Today, though, we know that some children get illnesses like leukemia, or are infected with germs, which cause the death. Perhaps its still God's will, but we are less likely to attribute bad things to him. Usually, we sue the doctors, not God.
But even more so, Lincoln never proposed to use God or religion to dictate how or what we are taught in schools, regulate our bodies, condemn gay people, or otherwise be the morality police of the world. Palin, on the other hand, is part of that whole business.
So when she invokes God, there is a perception altoghether different than when Lincoln invokes God. With Lincoln, I get all goose pimply; with people like Palin, I shudder and run for my life.
Which, of course, is probably what she wants me to do....
Christopher Cooke: If she were more experienced in answering questions, even when she doesn't know the answer, she could have said, "Which aspect of that doctrine did you want me to talk about?"
Er, that's almost exactly what she did say:
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
Gibson to Palin:
GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?
Gibson to Obama:
GIBSON: Senator Obama, because it was you who said in your foreign policy speech that you would go into western Pakistan if you had actionable intelligence to go after it, whether or not the Pakistani government agreed. Do you stand by that?
Later Gibson suggests that Obama's policy is the equivalent of the Bush doctrine, "clarifying" by saying "We can attack if we want to, no matter the sovereignty of the Pakistanis."
Obama indicates that Gibson has mischaracterized the Bush Doctrine, saying that it doesn't apply in this instance because al Qaeda has already attacked the United States, that it is not as Obama said, an anticipated threat in the future.
In Palin's interview, Gibson also misstates the Bush Doctrine, as "the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us." Palin shows that she doesn't understand the implications of the Bush Doctrine, because she accepts this premise and says that she would act if we had intelligence that a threat was imminent. But the policy as stated by Gibson and Palin here is not novel, it's standard international law.
Obama shows that he understands the key change in the Bush Doctrine, that the use of military force is justifiable before threats are imminent.
As articulated by President Bush in the State of Union Address:
" Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."
Or the National Security Strategy 2002:
The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction— and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack.
Palin's call for "intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people" is a departure from the Bush Doctrine. If she knew that, she would have corrected Charlie as to his characterization of the Bush Doctrine, highlighted the difference between her and the Bush Administration.
Gibson said: "The Bush Doctrine as I understand it is.... Do you agree with that?" (emphasis mine) The key is this portion: "as I understand it". Here is the exchange in context:
Gibson's "as I understand it" indicates several things. First, that he acknowledges that there is more than one definition of the Bush Doctrine. Second, that Palin's previous answer, while not defining the Doctrine, indicated an understanding of the meaning of the Doctrine, and thus Gibson felt the need to qualify his statement with "as I understand it". Third, it tends to negate claims that he was intentionally asking a "gotcha question", as he appears to acknowledge the amorphous nature of the Doctrine.
My argument is, of course, damaged by the fact that Gibson rejected Palin's initial answer (Palin: "[Bush's] world view") and insinuated that there is an objective definition to the Doctrine (Gibson: "No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war."). However, there are several responses to this counter-argument. First, it is clear that the Bush Doctrine isn't, and nor could it be, a broad and unknowable concept such as "[Bush's] world view," as Palin suggested. Thus, Gibson properly responded with a rejection of the answer. Second, Gibson's subjectifying (not a word, I know) the Doctrine by qualifying his definition with "as I understand it" negates the suggestion that he was asking a gotcha question or that he was proffering his definition as objectively the only proper definition of the Doctrine.
This comment should rightly be attacked as parsing words in the extreme. However, such parsing seems to be the trend of the day.
That's far from "clear." What she should have said was "I wasn't saying that the Iraq War was God's will, I was simply praying that I hope that it is God's will." Plain and simple.
Of course, this type of "prayer" makes no sense. What I think many of you are missing is that the object of the prayer is God and the subject is God's will.
Palin was asking God to make the Iraq War God's will. The reason is this so odd is because the Iraq War should have nothing to do with God. She's necessarily saying that the War is either God's will or not, but that she wants it to be God's will, so that's what she's asking.
It's perverse for someone to ask God to adopt human decisions as His will. It's perverse for her to say, 'we've decided to do this (i.e., have a war) and now we're asking you to make that part of your plan.' What if God says "no"? Her "prayer" doesn't account for that possibility, so she is after all saying that she thinks that the war is (or at the very least should be) God's will.
Whadonna More's Coke analogy is perfectly apt.
If that's not it, then pray tell (pun intended), what is she doing?
Ben P replies: "Uh, because we were there?"
No, we are still here, just like before. America didn't pick up and move.
It's true, the Left cannot be parodied.
Exactly how much time has Obama spent attacking Palin?
Now, if you want to assume that almost anything and everything Obama says is some sort of code for attacking Palin (O: "Look, I don't want to skirt this issue. . . "; Ace: "See, he's denigrating Palin for not wearing pants!")then I guess you have a point.
Ace, maybe in your old Senate wisdom you can read "we're praying [] that there is a plan" to mean something sensible.
I don't think she's really suggesting to pray to the US government to have a plan, nor to G*d to make sure the government has a plan. I take it as a normal flub of extemporaneous speech.
Given that portion is a nullity, she says "pray [] that [our] plan is God’s plan" - the same as "ask G*d to approve the plan we've undertaken". For purposes of the discussion, that IS what I said in the Coke statement.
"But Palin never punted. She tried to bluff her way through, pretending to know what she obviously did not know. It's an understandable impulse, and in the context of a single interview, not so very terrible. But is it an impulse that she'd lay aside once in office? Or is it a deeper habit? A lot may turn on the answer to that question."
I've noticed this in other Palin interviews. On the other hand, when she does know what she's talking about, which is quite often, she demonstrates a stronger grasp of detail - with the ability to connect her positions to the things her constituents actually care about - than the vast majority of politicians. Maybe that makes her cocky on the other questions.
Another strange thing was that her answers read fine and sound fine on radio, but on this video, she comes across a little bit like Edwards in drag. Considering that she didn't make her fame and fortune raping and pillaging Ob/Gyns by perverting the justice system through junk science, this might not be the worst thing in the world, but they better study up for the debate or she'll make Biden look like Cheney. In a good way. For Biden.
As opposed to abandoning them to a murderous death cult that wants to take them back to an 11th century caliphate?
There may be a legitimate debate on whether we should have invaded Iraq in the first place, but I happen to agree with George Bush, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Harry Reid, and Jay Rockefeller on that question; where there can be no debate is whether we should have cut and run leaving the Iraqi people to the mercy of a Al-Qaeda manufactured civil war that we had the power, along with the Iraqi people, to prevent.
The important distinction is between a prayer (i.e. a request) and a statement (what Gibson quoted by omitting the introductory clause).
This relevant in two ways:
1. A prayer/request is part of a conversation with God. The supplicant may hear God saying tomorrow "Sorry, I'm not into Abu Ghraibs, prayer denied". This is in fact what happened in moderate churches across the land in the 2002-2005 period. A statement is an assertion and thus the end of the conversation. See: Al-Qaeda.
2. A prayer is also explicitly or implicitly an opportunity for contemplation. As sometimes when we hear ourselves advance arguments that don't sound so good coming out of our mouths as they did floating around in our minds, so saying the prayer can often lead people to reconsider their beliefs, to ask themselves - is this God's will as I understand it? A prayer/request is, after all, a question.
The rest of my comment refers to Palin's claim that the hearts of the people of Alaska need to be right with God. I find that disturbing. I did not make any of the other charges against her that your comment presumably attempts to rebut, so who is the intellectually dishonest one here?
"She thinks the view of Russia from Alaska gives her special insight into Russia's actions. The continued breathless defense of her on this blog is an embarrassment."
First, she didn't say that by viewing Alaska, she had a "special" insight. She noted that the country is in close proximity, with the eyesight comment only illustrating that. Now, if you'd take off your Kosmonaut blinders, you'd probably agree that people who live closer to a particular area tend to have familiarity with the issues there. You probably know more, for instance, about New Jersey (or maybe Illionois or the Northeast) than many on this blog do. But someone in South Dakota probably has some familiarity with the issues that take place in Wyoming. If you read any more into it than that, that's on you. But if you read her remarks, she wasn't claiming a special insight, only familiarity. I know you're looking for things to pick on her about, and while there are some things to pick apart, how about picking on the ones that matter and that are actually true (i.e., is she wrong on drilling in Alaska, is she wrong that we should defend NATO allies that are attacked?). Pointing out that you are familiar with a place and that the place in question is close to where you have lived most of your life is not "reckless." Your claim to the contrary is ridiculous. If that's reckless, let's start picking apart the foreign policy experience of your candidate, who is still in his first term as a U.S. Senator and started running the Presidency before the paint in his congressional office had time to try.
And then to your last point, which was the really egregious one, which is that the "continued, breathless defense" of Palin is an embarassment. That is such an utterly ridiculous statement. I didn't address your issue about Palin's comments about prayer because I actually don't think that's an over-the-top criticism. I cringe when people invoke religion in such instances. That's why I didn't address it. Should I do as you seem to do, and find fault where it doesn't exist? I'm perfectly willing to give you a check mark there. But there is nothing "embarassing" about defending Palin against many of the other bogus charges, and your silly -- and I do mean silly -- statement at the end of your post that it's embarassing for people to defend Palin is what is embarassing.
While there may be particular defenses that are bogus, many are not. And there is nothing in the world wrong with people defending her against these baseless charges. Your intellectual dishonesty lies in the fact that you can't contemplate reasons why people would defend Palin even though there are charges that have been many charges leveled against her that have been shown to be utterly baseless. If you want a debate on the merits, let's have it. But don't try to shut it off in your high-handed fashion because in your hubris, you think everyone should just accept your world view that she's reckless and unqualified.
Unlike CG, Sarah Palin was correct in her reply, "Charlie, if there is LEGITIMATE and enough INTELLIGENCE that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend."
Do you want to take a guess as to why you didn't answer thw question posed?
Further, you do realize you're the only one accusing Palin of making "every" government action a mission from God, right?
Do you want to take a guess as to why commenters choose not to respond to every silly exaggeration you produce?
And really, Ace, you can't actually believe that I said that Palin was guilty of making every government action a mission from God. Maybe she does believe in that, but I sure don't know if she does. What I do know is that you're pretty defensive about this issue.
Glad you think Governor Palin is right on this one. Because what she said is closer to the position of Senators Obama and Biden than President Bush or John McCain.
Or, he could just be someone wearing reading glasses. Looking over them is pretty much what you have to do to talk to someone.