September 11, 2008

oy

I'm sorry everyone, I know it's very repetitive, but I have to do it. I just have to get it out of my system.
Will people really buy this BS that Palin has national security credentials because, as she explains in her interview today, she can sometimes see Russia from Alaska? really? like, roughly what percentage of the voting populace thinks that's legit? I really want to know so I can move forward on this "whether to light myself on fire or not" thing.
(based on the comment boards on huffpost, cnn and abc there is a staunch percentage of whackos who don't care if the VP and potential prez has no grasp of foreign policy whatsoever (there is absolutely no mention of, or link to her interview on FOX. what? not awesome enough for you guys? just pretend it didn't happen?). They also want to make Charlie Gibson the first old white man to be lynched because he didn't ask Palin to e-mail him her Caribou stew recipe and pics of her adorable kids-at least not while the cameras were rolling-).

I would like to contrast a particular aspect of Palin's interview with a parallel scenario that occurred when Obama was interviewed by O'Reilly last week (an interview I really enjoyed, by the way. Every once in a while O'Reilly does a pretty good job for a complete d-bag. but, full disclosure, I have an irrational tribal fondness for the Irish, yes, including Bill O'Reilly. It's like he's my d-bag uncle or something).
O'Reilly asked Obama if, as president he would prepare for military action against Iran, even while pursuing high-level diplomacy. Obama replied that while as commander-in-chief he would never take military options off the table, he would make them his last resort, and further, that IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR A CANDIDATE FOR THE PRESIDENCY (or I would add, vice-presidency), to casually tip his or her hand in regards to future actions towards a major adversary on the world stage. Which, I would note, is not shucking and jiving, and Obama didn't mean it to be. It is simply the truth.

contrast this with Palin, when asked if she believes we should pursue military action against Russia were they to renew aggression towards Georgia (also like to mention here, that South Ossetia, which is what Russia actually occupied, is an autonomous region that both Russia and Georgia would like to control because it's incredibly rich in natural gas. this is not a "Newsies" scenario or something. Tyranny is never quite what you hear about it, unless you're watching Newsies in which case, yeah, it's totally what it looks like). Palin was visibly scared, but when pressed she basically said "Yes, I think we should invade Russia (in this scenario)" (with what troops, ps? is she going to keep making thousands of babies and enlist them all in the army like "Truck" (as the BBC hilariously misspelled her son's name) as soon as they can walk?). I'll briefly mention here also that she also basically said "yes, we should seriously consider ignoring the territorial and political sovreignity of Pakistan"- the nuclear state which is most unstable and hostile towards us, by crossing their borders without their permission to intitiate whatever military actions we want, without their permission or cooperation". Oh no, that wouldn't, y'know, PISS PAKISTAN (and the Tribal warlords, and Al Quaeda, and the Taliban) OFF or anything like that. And yes, they would find out. Hey Sarah, how'd you like it if Putin sent a few Russian combat brigades into Alaska to start shooting all the Eskimos including your husband because he decided they looked like Georgians? he's got to protect the motherland at all costs, and by the way, he's an expert on Alaska by virtue of geographical proximity, and he knows exactly what your fucking Alaskan Eskimo mongol-looking pseudo georgian snowmobile buffalo soldiers are up to.

yes, there is a concept called "territorial sovreignity". It's one of those kind of important international law things. Ignoring it starts the kinds of big, bloody wars we really don't need (and can't supply troops or money to fight) any more of right now. Sarah, please look it up before the debate, for your own sake. Or ask McCain- Even he understands it.

To wrap this up. A question, if I may, to Ms. Palin, who I know reads this blog religiously because she is a fan of nonsense-doggerel-poetry and shape-note singing:
Do you really think Putin and Zardari are not going to have some level of awareness of everything you said in your ABC interview by the end of the weekend?
Has the thought crossed your mind that global political leaders everywhere are, or will be laughing their asses off at you? you look like a chicken nugget to them.

4 comments:

Brains said...

I wish it were a Newsies scenario, then I would know all the words.

Brains said...

Allow me to gripe on an annoying instance of erroneous word borrowing across languages (whatever the linguistic term for that is). English speakers think "mano a mano" means man-to-man, so in this oped today about Palin & Gibson (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601088&sid=aQZCcugKlf5k&refer=home) the author writes, "mano a womano."

Grrr. La mano is Spanish for hand. El hombre is Spanish for man, in case anyone was wondering.

ß. Andrigon said...

So what does "womano" mean? Is that like a mixed-gender hand-job?

Gob said...

Well, sounds like Hermano is about to get his ass kicked.