Palin, Iraq and 9/11

By Colin Kahl

Yesterday, on the seventh anniversary of Sept. 11, Alaska Gov. and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin gave a speech to an Alaska brigade that includes her son and is about to head off to Iraq. Palin told the troops they were going to "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."

A story in The Post this morning declares: "Palin Links Iraq to Sept. 11 in Talk to Troops in Alaska." The blurb on the homepage reads: "GOP's VP nominee expresses a view now discarded by White House."

But did she? Linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Sept. 11 is a view discarded by Bush. But Palin didn't do that (at least not explicitly).

Bill Kristol over at the Weekly Standard has pounced on The Post's interpretation as profoundly unfair, arguing, "Palin is evidently saying that American soldiers are going to Iraq to defend innocent Iraqis from al Qaeda in Iraq, a group that is related to al Qaeda, which did plan and carry out the Sept. 11 attacks." Well, that too is not what Palin said. She was not evoking the transitive property of responsibility for 9/11. She said the troops were going off to fight "the enemies who planned and carried out" the attacks, not "enemies with links to the group that planned and carried out" the attacks.

Whatever al-Qaeda in Iraq's current links to al-Qaeda Central, they were not the ones who carried out the Sept. 11 attacks. Al-Qaeda in Iraq did not exist on Sept. 11, 2001. The group formed in 2004 after the United States invaded Iraq. Indeed, in 2001, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the group's founder, was more a rival to Osama Bin Laden than an ally. In the aftermath of the U.S. invasion, however, Zarqawi opportunistically established an al-Qaeda franchise in Iraq to increase the profile of his terrorist organization. But it is beyond dispute that no members of al-Qaeda in Iraq "planned or carried out" the Sept. 11 attacks. Those guys resided in Afghanistan and now camp out along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. Moreover, over the past year, al-Qaeda in Iraq has been degraded to the point where it is probably "strategically defeated." As a result, al-Qaeda Central is devoting more and more of its energy to Afghanistan/Pakistan. Taken together, these facts make it difficult to sustain the claim that Iraq was, or is, the central front in the war on terrorism.

So, besides being literally and factually incorrect, Palin's comment belies a deeper analytical misunderstanding that she shares with President Bush and her running mate: a conflation of Iraq and Sept. 11 used to justify a continued strategic over-commitment in Iraq and a diversion of resources away from fighting the folks who actually carried out the Sept. 11 attacks. Continuing to send U.S. troops to Iraq might be important for other reasons -- humanitarian concerns or Iraq's pivotal geopolitical position in the Middle East, for example -- but the war can not, and should not, be justified on the grounds that it is necessary to go after the people who attacked us seven years ago.

By |  September 12, 2008; 10:14 AM ET
Previous: The Seventh Eulogy | Next: Facts for Chuck Norris


Please email us to report offensive comments.

Gibson showed that he, a newscaster, knew volumes more about foreign policy and the world than Sarah Palin. Especially chilling was her repeated insistance about "Not Blinking" which is George W. Bush's hubris to a "t".

And by the way, if no one had "blinked" during the confrontation between Khrushchev and Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis, we wouldn't be here today, which is pretty much the dead-end agenda of Apocalyptic Christians, who make up part of Palin biggest fan club.

Posted by: braultrl | September 12, 2008 11:43 AM

Thank you for trying to set the record straight and telling the truth. However, I am afraid that you are wasting your time on this site. For the past month, I have been reading the article and blogs on this site. I had never looked at bl0g sites before on the Washington Post. The best you can hope for is that the progressives(radical leftists) and liberals are a. Nuts; b. Looking for affirmation for being nuts; c. Refuse to seek mental and psychological therapy; d. Just hateful and delusional for unknown reasons. e. All of the above.

It is no wonder that the country is divided with all this outpouring of hate and blatant lies. The Washington Post and its ilk are determined to take this country to the far left and the truth be darned.

Posted by: rljmsilver | September 12, 2008 12:04 PM

Pure money Colin. I hope all of you "guest" bloggers stick around when Phil gets back.

Posted by: Jack | September 12, 2008 12:07 PM

I do not understand rljmsilver's comment. The Washington Post taking the country to the left? He has to be kidding! But he starts by saying thanks for telling the truth....the truth told in this article is that Palin has no concept of foreign policy or diplomacy or even common sense... If this article tells the truth, is it taking the country to the left? I have no idea what he ( or maybe she) is talking about! The Post is bending over backwards to be "fair and balanced" so it doesn't come right out and say McCain/Palin lie whenever they open their mouths.

Posted by: Joan | September 12, 2008 12:13 PM

I certainly agree with Jack who posted before I managed to finish mine ( and spellcheck it).

Posted by: Joan | September 12, 2008 12:14 PM

I think you are slicing the truth a little thin. al-Qaeda Is the brand, al-Qaeda planned and executed the 9-11 attacks, and we are fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq. It's a speech, not a history lesson.

Posted by: Dan | September 12, 2008 12:39 PM


You couldn't be so wrong. The Al Queda in Iraq had nothing to do with Bin Laden. And Iraq had NOTHING to do with September 11th. There were 19 hijackers, 13 of them as well as Bin Laden and his number 2 are from Saudi Arabia. Some of the hijackers received funding from the Saudi govt not Iraq. Lets all get our facts straight here. Thats why our country is screwed up, we think a 30 second sound bite is gospel because we are to lazy to investigate it ourselves...

Posted by: American First | September 12, 2008 1:00 PM

I think some people are determined to "misunderstand" what happened in Iraq in order to defend the president they voted for twice. To say that Bush was not being honest is to admit to being duped. In order to preserve their pride they must pretend to "know" that the attack was planned and carried out from Iraq. Pride goes before a fall they say.

Posted by: mike | September 12, 2008 1:03 PM

no, you're wrong. Getting our attackers WRONG is trivial only to an idiot.

Posted by: mike | September 12, 2008 1:07 PM

There are going to be some mighty sad people here, at the NYTimes, and on dailyKos/ after McSame/Failin' wins on Nov. 4...

Posted by: Rob Iola | September 12, 2008 1:20 PM

Kristol is a idiot, why bother listening to him? You end up like Dan.

Posted by: Boston | September 12, 2008 1:41 PM

Baracky Hussein Obama has an extremely liberal Senate voting record - he cannot run and hide from that fact.

Democrats for John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008

Posted by: Helen | September 12, 2008 1:43 PM

al Qaeda did exist in Iraq in 2001. The Afghan Arabs, according to the Kurds BACK THEN were arriving on behalf of bin Laden. Nice partisan lie though. for more

Posted by: no | September 12, 2008 1:53 PM

Sarah Palin should ask Geraldine Ferraro how being a gimmick VP pick for a doomed campaign worked out for her career.

Posted by: joebewildered | September 12, 2008 1:59 PM

I think Palin was merely referring to the fact that fanatical Islamic terrorists were the cause of 9/11 and much of the trouble in Iraq following Saddam's fall.

Bush never discarded that view. Nobody, save the far left, ever did.

Anne Kornblut deliberately drew an inflammatory inference from Palin's speech - that two vague references to terrorists implied close working relations between them - and the Left sure ate it up. She's normally a good straight-news journalist, it was disappointing to see her sink that low to goose up readership.

Posted by: The Angry One | September 12, 2008 2:18 PM

McCain-Palin 08'

Two Pigs in a Poke

Posted by: Hockeyman1 | September 12, 2008 2:23 PM

Oh for God's sake!!! Would you "hubristic" journalists get a grip? You are just sooooo.... predictable, as was evidenced by this article and your leaps to misconstrue what Sarah Palin was saying!!

I am a reformed Democrat. By that I mean that until the horrors of 9/11 I was a registered Democrat who even voted for Al Gore in 2000 (though that now makes me shudder). 9/11 shocked me awake and I have since became very emotionally and intellectually engaged in following world events. It didn't take me long to notice the blatant bias of the media, and it's obvious manipulation of the viewing masses. It outrages me to see it. I don't appreciate being manipulated by the selective presentation of "THE NEWS" as done so by the major networks and newspapers. I no longer watch TV because of it, nor do I read newspapers. I seek information through multiple sources on the Internet, by listening to differing views on talk radio and by reading books to learn about subjects in depth. I have been disgusted and angered these past 7 years at the treatment given President Bush by those on the left and it's media, as well as the anti-American rhetoric that has come from many Democrat politicians. It seems to me that the political left (of which I was a member for the first 46 years of my life) is intellectually asleep in a pre-9/11 dreamworld and that they tune in like robots to NPR and other biased sources of news and commentary to be programmed. I hear no individualistic or creative thinking from today's left. It's the same jargon, almost word for word, like..."Bush lied, people died, there were no WMD's...blah,blah,blah..". When I have asked people who say they hate President Bush why, they respond with that answer every time. They are angry about the Iraq war. It seems there is a very short memory or attention span going on here. I seem to recall the multiple UN Resolutions directed at Saddam demanding he allow the weapons inspectors access and his continued game playing and denying this access, which had been a condition of the treaty he signed after the first Gulf War. I recall President Bush's deadline to Saddam, and Saddam ignoring it. THAT is why we went to war there. The results: Our heroic troops rid the world of a tyrant and his sadistic sons, giving the Iraqi people a democracy for the first time in their history. It is a huge achievement and has made the Middle East, and thereby the WORLD, a safer place because of their sacrifice. I thank them with all my heart. Shame on the media and the Democrat politicians these past years in their biased and selective presentation of events there and in their preaching of defeatism. Shock of shocks!!! The surge worked!!!! Not many stories about that in the media, are there? Oh, my! More hubris upon hubris, mountains of it in the media in evidence!

It is time to wake up for those who are still asleep. I truly wish we could return to the pre-9/11 world. But we cannot. We are living in violent and dangerous times. Passionate, indoctrinated homicidal fanatics are giving their all to destroy us so they can form their Islamic Caliphate. Alas, this IS the reality of what we face, along with other huge issues and problems. These are the most dangerous times we have ever faced. Does the media cover this in depth? Not even a little. It's not PC. Celebrity news and Bush-bashing (now McCain/Palin-bashing) are ever so much more important. HUBRIS (as Charlie so smugly tossed at Sarah Palin)is everywhere with you media demagogues. Have you gotten it that I am sick of it? Have you gotten it that you helped me wake up and that I am now a staunch Republican after 46 years of being a Democrat, in large part thanks to you all? Think maybe there may be more like me out here? Count on it!

It is vital that we have a leader of strength and character in these dangerous times. John McCain is that man. He has proven his strength and character in his long and courageous service to us all. You in the media ADORE Obama! After all, he even made some people faint and cry!!! WOW!!! I agree, he is a very handsome and charismatic man, but qualified to lead us? Where on his resume does it show us that he is? I ask people to think about the realities of the world and to do some individualistic thinking, not to swallow the spoon-feedings of a very blatantly biased pro-Obama media who are shaking with wrath that their darling may actually not be a shoe-in in November because of this uppity woman from Alaska and the war hero and proven reformer John McCain. I ask you to ignore these pundits and media demagogues and to stop tuning in to the evening news for your programming over dinner. Think on your own, investigate on your own. The Internet has opened the world to us all, we no longer have to depend on the evening anchors to tell us what is happening. Don't be a programmed robot. I have.

This is not a time for egos and rigid thinking. This is a time to put our Country First. I believe with all my heart that John McCain and Sarah Palin are the leaders we need in these dangerous times!!!!!

Posted by: reformed Democrat | September 12, 2008 2:55 PM

"reformed Democrat,"

Just for the record, I'm not a journalist . . . and this IS the internet.

Next time you cut and paste a generic unresponsive response to a post, you may want to make a few modifications to make it at least appear relevant.


Posted by: Colin Kahl | September 12, 2008 3:23 PM

The people in this country are crazy. SO many of you don't know anything about Gov. Palin. She been on the campaign trail for all of a few weeks, flew her daughter's baby daddy to the RNC, did one interview and now is the greatest thing since Obama.

How many of you are waiting to hear this woman speak more than the prepared speech given to her. This is the same crowd that always talk about people using talking points.

If you are a serious person and concern about Country First, you need to look at these candidates with an unbiase eye.

Wake up people!!!

Posted by: perry | September 12, 2008 3:59 PM

Dear Colin,
I was responding to what I read at the Washington post site which IS a journalistic company. What I read above is more of the same ilk I have been reading everywhere . What I have written is MY truth, spoken from MY heart with frustration and anger- not at you personally, but at the media in general. Sorry if it seemed to all land on you. I am tired of not speaking out and will continue to do so. You may see my story, and it IS MY STORY, at other sites because I am going to take it there. I want to communicate with others and appeal to people to truly THINK! We are all busy, it's easy to get off work, pop up the feet and "tune in/tune out" and get the news in sound-bytes that are very slanted on the evening news, or read a biased headline on the front page of a newspaper and take it as fact. My anger and frustration has been cumulative since 9/11. The power of propaganda has been demonstrated time and time again across the globe in history, the worst example, of course, being Goebbels. I'm not saying our media is at THAT level, we are after all not run by a fascist dictator, but it IS present in our country when all the major networks and newspapers have the same vantage point in their presentation and in their selection of what information they chose to disperse. The "news" in the mainstream media IS manipulation and propaganda, in my opinion, in many, many cases and many, many people swallow it whole as "fact". I used to, that's for sure. I am TIRED of it. It frightens me with the stakes in the world being what they are. I have been angered at all the slanted takes on Sarah Palin that have flooded the media everywhere, and how she was treated like a student in an interview with a stern, disapproving, all-knowing, smug and arrogant teacher in Charlie Gibson's interview and has since had each and every word and nuance picked apart and criticized. It showed an absolute lack of respect towards her by him and ABC. I have not seen him use that affect with Obama or Hillary or Biden, or anyone else on the political left, for that matter, nor have their words been so closely scrutinized and dissected as have hers. "Their" politicians pretty much get a pass in the mainstream media. It stinks. I think there are a lot of people who feel exactly as I do- as can be noted in the huge drop in viewership and ratings of the evening news programs and in the many journalists who have been laid off recently because of the dramatic drop in readership and advertising dollars in the newspaper industry. Anyway, I wish you a good day, Colin.

Posted by: Reformed Democrat response to Colin | September 12, 2008 4:17 PM

Dear Reformed Democrat:
The Mainstream Media (MSM) in the US is controlled I believe by only 6 (mega)corporations. So, at the most, we are getting only 6 points of view, and what the advertisers and CEOs want us to hear to sell their products (ideas). The media (reporters, news anchors) are just doing the jobs that their bosses order them to do. Also, many people believe that what is said by the moderators of talk radio, is the gospel truth, which is scary too! So, a person must really search through many avenues to find some semblance of truth, which I fear doesn't happen with alot of people nowadays who have busy lives. So, remember that the MSM (corporations/advertisers) have found that soundbytes work, truth or not. I hope that voters in this election decide on a candidate that is intelligent, and has both good judgement and character. That's why I am voting for Obama. McCain has not shown that to me in the years that he has served in government at all.

Posted by: Hana | September 12, 2008 5:39 PM

rljsilver, Did you even read the article???

Posted by: Guy From LA | September 12, 2008 6:03 PM

rljsilver, Did you even read the article???

Posted by: Guy From LA | September 12, 2008 6:03 PM

reformed democrat,

You should look into your claims more. When the U.N. inspectors went back to Iraq in late 2002 they went to every single site listed in the U.S.'s White Paper against Iraq and found no WMD nor a nuclear program. By early 2003 Iraq had also agreed to all of the U.N.'s demands on inspections and were not being their usual intransigent selves. There were at least 2 full reports to the security council where the U.N. inspectors and the International Atomic Energy Agency said that they had found no active WMD programs and no active nuclear program. What was under dispute was what Iraq did with a stockpile of Iran-Iraq war era WMD that they claimed they had destroyed in the 1990s, but did not have paperwork for. Iraq's head of WMD Gen. Hussein Kamal defected in the 1990s and told the U.N. that they had actually destroyed this stockpile but covered it up because they didn't want the U.N. to know the extent of their WMD program. After the war, it turned out that the U.N. inspectors were right, and Iraq had indeed destroyed this dispute amount of WMD.

Now the REAL reason why the U.S. and the U.K. pushed for U.N. inspections was because they were looking for an excuse to start a war that they had previously decided upon in late 2002. They hoped that Iraq's usually stonewalling or the finding of some banned WMD would give then the show they wanted for the world and their domestic publics to justify the invasion.

And if you want to even go deeper into why the Bush administration decided to go to war with Iraq after 9/11 see: Mazarr, Michael, “The Iraq War and Agenda Setting,” Foreign Policy Analysis, January 2007. Mazarr is a national security professor at the U.S. Naval War College in D.C. He tried to analyze the decision making process within the administration, and came to these conclusions:

1) Neoconservatives had been advocating for the overthrow of Saddam and a more forceful American foreign policy to maintain America’s position in the world since the 1990s. Many of these advocates were given employment in the Bush administration. President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney shared many of the same opinions before they got elected.

2) Before 9/11 there was discussion about getting tougher with Iraq within the Bush White House, but because of differences between the State and Defense Departments, little was done because of bureaucratic deadlock.

3) When 9/11 happened the policy makers and President Bush relied on their preconceived priority, getting rid of Saddam, rather than dealing with the immediate issue, terrorism. They fell back on what they knew, Iraq, rather than what they didn’t, Al Qaeda.

4) Relying on preconceived ideas was due to the White House suffering from group think. Group think is when decision makers are all of like mind, removed from others, rely on informal decision making rather than the existing channels, and believe that maintaining their group is of utmost importance. This leads to the shutting out of criticism, self-reinforcement, and belief in the superiority of the group’s ideas over all others. The group therefore, becomes the most important thing to decision makers.

5) Group think led President Bush to never ask any of his advisors whether invading Iraq was right or not, to ignore the fact that Iraq was not connected to 9/11, and to the administration not properly preparing for the aftermath of the war because they relied on a best case scenario where all the U.S. had to do was use military force and then everything else would take care of itself.

For more, check:

Posted by: motown67 | September 12, 2008 8:44 PM

reformed democrat:
911 happened on the Republican's watch. Remember? George Bush, republican house and senate? It probably still could have happened with Al Gore, but I seriously doubt our country would be in Iraq right now, and bin Laden would have been captured by our CIA and military.

Posted by: James4Hope | September 12, 2008 11:42 PM

Reformed Democrat's posting is standard scripted misinformation of the extreme right. Whereas Motown 67 is well informed and gives us a balanced view based on the facts.

Alexey Braguine is the author of KINGMAKER, a geopilitical thriller.

Posted by: Braguine | September 13, 2008 7:36 AM

Reformed Democrat:
"John McCain is that man. He has proven his strength and character in his long and courageous service to us all."

Honestly," Reformed Democrat," you sound like a frightened child. Strength and character? McCain has flip flopped on immigration, torture, tax cuts and a whole host of other issues. He left his broken and bruised wife for his new trophy, Cindy-with whom he was having an affair before he was divorced.
He was directly involved in the S&L scandal. Remember the Keating 5? He's one of 'em. Now he pulls an unknown lightweight with a pretty face out of his hat and cries "Country First!. Then he uses Karl Rove's goons to spread disgusting lies about Obama. Give me a break. If there's any character left in this guy, it's buried where nobody can see it. He's a 72 yr old bitter man who quite frankly scares the sh*t out of me with what he might do. This is exactly what our country does NOT need right now. If you can't figure it out, I feel sorry for you and your ilk.

Posted by: jmsent | September 13, 2008 8:18 AM

Enough about Iraq. I appreciate the service men that are serving and yes, we have to defend the country. We need to worry on our security on home soil. Iraq isn't the only political issue to consider. I am more interested in how my family, friends will be able to live and survive in this fine country. All families and social class. These are the issues that are should be important to the USA voters. People worry about the rights of countries we defend but forget our rights and freedoms. When a women can't make her own decision on her body, towns not paying for rapes kits of victums, medical field turning people US citzens away, the picture needs to change. If the presidential candiates are willing to look at the big picture for US citzens and make changes, they will have my vote.

Posted by: new jersey lady | September 13, 2008 9:39 AM

If the republicans say it enough times whether its a lie or distortion irregardless of the fact that it has been proven to be a lie they're hoping it will stick. case in point "thanks but not thanks for the bridge to nowhere".There are videos showing that she supported it and that she's lying yet people seem not to care and she still is given a pass to say ita over and over in her speeches.

Posted by: jayel | September 13, 2008 10:14 AM

Its NOT a misunderstanding. Its a lie
that MUST be perpetuated to help the right
maintain power in this country.

Posted by: jay | September 13, 2008 10:50 AM

I agree with you, Jay. Palin was seriously prepped for this speech and I am sure every word was intentional. The branch of the Republican party that McCain has tied his wagon to is all about propaganda and lies. It was a 100% intentional statement that is not based on fact, e.g. "a lie."

The whole administration is propped up by lies and propaganda and this is just another example. What most Americans do not realize is that Rupert Murdoch controls 40% of the country's media and presents and supports these lies to foster an environment where he can make even more money. Far-right conservative government provides exactly the economic environment that allows him to thrive.America = Murdoch's bee-yatch.

Posted by: JustAThought | September 13, 2008 11:10 AM

Kristol, Krauthhammer, Bush, McCain, Palin were and are egregiously wrong about Iraq. The justifications slip and slide so they can cover for poor decision making. I am not sure why people still give any credibility to neocons on any issues of military policy.

This administration bases everything it does on lies and misinformation. McCain is showing that he will run an administration in a similar way with his lying and deceitful campaign.

Posted by: birdman | September 13, 2008 11:26 AM

The comment by brautrl, about the apocolyptic christian left, is something that everyone should be looking at very carefully. It wasn't Islam who invaded christian europe during the crusades, and who committed incredible crimes. It was fanatic christians who invaded islam, who had been living peacefully side by side with christians in islamic lands. The idea of a "god spoken christian fanatic" getting his/her hands on a nuclear weapon and using it really is probably more likely than the muslim fanatics doing so. Think about it!!!

Posted by: Grandma Barb | September 13, 2008 11:52 AM

Ms. Palin speech at her son sending off, clearly shows the correlation of McCain, Bush and Palin, one in the same, on their views on foreign relations and war. Each may have a distinct intrepretation, but at the end of the day, they speak some of the same idealogy on foreign policy and homeland security. There have been woman at the top of ticket and in high cabinet offices. The McCain camp has potrayed Ms. Palin as a reformer, a maverick, more qualifed then Obama or Biden, and lately all of this, has been disproven.

Posted by: Annette | September 13, 2008 12:13 PM

Sen. John McCain has proved himself to be unqualified and incapable of effectively leading the United States of America into the future by, among other things, his reckless, irresponsible, impulsive, and dangerous judgment in picking Sarah Palin as his running mate. Sarah Palin is a minor distraction not even worthy of discussion. However, Sen. John McCain has shown his contempt for the intelligence of the American people by making this unequivocally cynical decision to use an unknown, untested, and corrupt, serial liar like Sarah Palin to deceive voters into believing he stands for change. Sen. John McCain also disgraced himself by demonstrating a lack of courage in his choice of Sarah Palin at the last moment over much more qualified Republican men and women simply because she appeals to the base of the Republican Party, a group of voters he was going to lose. What Sen. John McCain doesn't understand is that by appeasing the extreme right wing of the Republican Party, he is going to lose the voters that really count, i.e., moderate and independent voters, and, in doing so, certainly lose the election. Obama/Biden 2008!!!

According to the Pentagon, we are losing Afghanistan.

"No victory in Iraq, says Petraeus"

Posted by: caliguy55 | September 13, 2008 2:57 PM

Sen. John McCain has proved himself to be unqualified and incapable of effectively leading the United States of America into the future by, among other things, his reckless, irresponsible, impulsive, and dangerous judgment in picking Sarah Palin as his running mate. Sarah Palin is a minor distraction not even worthy of discussion. However, Sen. John McCain has shown his contempt for the intelligence of the American people by making this unequivocally cynical decision to use an unknown, untested, and corrupt, serial liar like Sarah Palin to deceive voters into believing he stands for change. Sen. John McCain also disgraced himself by demonstrating a lack of courage in his choice of Sarah Palin at the last moment over much more qualified Republican men and women simply because she appeals to the base of the Republican Party, a group of voters he was going to lose. What Sen. John McCain doesn't understand is that by appeasing the extreme right wing of the Republican Party, he is going to lose the voters that really count, i.e., moderate and independent voters, and, in doing so, certainly lose the election. Obama/Biden 2008!!!

According to the Pentagon, we are losing Afghanistan.

"No victory in Iraq, says Petraeus"

Posted by: caliguy55 | September 13, 2008 2:58 PM

Chuck Norris!!??? What the??? Uhhh, uhhh, uhhh, your a liberal... you liberal....
Ok so this is what the Repub's have to put on TV, that was great, he is second rate actor and a moron.

Posted by: TigerLily | September 13, 2008 3:35 PM

I encourage you Palin supporters to read the article this link and decide if this is what you want running our country. I certainly don't. In fact, I understand now why some cultures executed liars.

Posted by: madisonhack | September 13, 2008 5:49 PM

New Jersy Lady, I agree that we need to focus on how we are to live and survive in this country. However, part of that means we must consider the strategy our CIA trained OBL to use against Russia during the Cold War- guerilla warfare until their economy is bled dry and the country implodes. Al Qaida's not stupid; they have never hoped for a military victory against us. Their only goal is to tank our economy by antagonizing us into spending all our money fighting them, which we're doing. I want a president who's smarter than Al Qaida- and won't continue throwing our economy and military down the toilet for the sake of a big PR stunt, which is what the "War on Terror" effectively amounts to (far more Americans die in auto accidents than terror attacks, but where's the indignation and call to arms??). Al Qaida LOOVES McCain for his dedication to the "War on Terror". Sure he may kill a few of their boys in the process, but he'll complete the destruction of our entire infrastructure, which began under Bush's Scared America.

Posted by: Terrorfied | September 13, 2008 7:33 PM

Bush did not go to Iraq because Al Qaeda or VMD, not even oil. He went there to assure his reelection. "Mission accomplished".

Palin does not know what she is talking about. I used to be an ardent McCain fan, but it is CRIMINAL to trust on Palin the fate of the USA and the world.

Posted by: fhunter | September 13, 2008 9:13 PM

What a lot of people miss is the fact the "Reformed Democrat" is actually a White Racist Former Democrat, and maybe a White Female Sexist Racist Former Democrat. They love to use all the same standard phrases and terms that she does. Helps them look themselves in the mirror, I suppose, but it's like the guy with the toupee--fools no one but himself.

Posted by: Rick H | September 13, 2008 11:18 PM

I wrote in McCain in 2000 because I couldn't vote for goofy Gore or dimwit AWOL Bush.

But McCain is not the same man. He is beholdin to too many special interests now. He has flipflopped on so many issues that he can't be trusted anymore. And he has shown really poor judgment in picking Palin. She is so shallow and such a lightweight that they couldn't even let her take real questions. Kinda like Swartzenegger, who wouldn't debate in California unless he had the questions ahead of time.

To think that this woman could be a heartbeat away from the presidency of a 72 year old man is scary indeed. America has lowered its standards over the last 10 years. Because of Bill Clinton's personal life, the GOP lowered its standards to take anyone and look who we got. George Bush can't even complete a sentence in English and isn't capable of an original thought. The biggest problem with America is that we don't critically think and look beneath the surface of what these dimwits tell us. I ask the Bush supporters to name one thing that he has accomplished and I always get this response: SILENCE

The other major problem is that we put party before the individual. Just because they have a D or R after their name doesn't mean that they have my vote. They must EARN my vote. If you only vote because of the party, then you are turning over your freedom to an idiot. We might as well have a dictatorship if you don't hold them accountable with your vote.

Posted by: Moderateman | September 13, 2008 11:46 PM

There may be a perceived threat after 9/11, but not an imminent strike—an imminent strike against us was not established, therefore, a strike and invasion by the US military violates international law. Imminent means "definitely, without question". This was not pre-emptive, this was preventive, therefore, violating international law.

Gov. Palin’s statement “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.”

Her statement does nothing to defend or justify the Bush doctrine. In fact, this statement is anti-Bush doctrine. An imminent strike was not established against American people, therefore, the war violates international law.

We went to Iraq to seek revenge AFTER an attack, not for an imminent attack in the future.

Under no circumstances should the United States, with the strongest military in the history of world, go on the offensive. We cannot make a strike against another country because a country MIGHT strike us.

We must be on the defensive—we must establish an imminent attack first and then proceed with military action. It’s a shame so many Iraqi civilians, as well as troops, have lost their lives.

If an imminent attack can be established, then there is pre-emptive military action. If an imminent attack cannot be established, then it is preventive military action. Depend on our intelligence and establish an imminent attack. Remember, before an attack against us, there is planning of the attack and intelligence can be used to gather information while the attack is in the planning and preparation stages.

The war in Iraq and the Bush doctrine may prove to be an effective strategy in fighting the war on terror, HOWEVER, this strategy cannot be justified because it involves preventive military action, thus violating international law. Remember, going to war is very risky—what goes on in Iraq is unpredictable. Future terrorist attacks are unknown at the time we go to war and going to war does not guarantee that there will be no future terrorist attacks.

I also think the media and the Republican party are making excuses for her. No double standards in this position! She should have well thought out responses to these questions, whether she has any foreign policy experience or not.

Posted by: SuzanneVesely | September 14, 2008 6:57 PM

Talk about splitting hairs. Without going as far as the Post or Bill Kristol, a reasonable interpretation is that Palin believes in the broader approach to the war on terror in that Islamic extremists planned and plotted the 9/11 attacks and Islamic extremists are currently plotting and attacking in Iraq.

Posted by: Matt | September 17, 2008 12:39 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company